From Boot camp to the battlefield

[AJFFM]

Simple question.

How long did it take on average to train fresh recruits during the war by nation and/period?

Also what type of unit training did they get? Where they trained to fight in companies, battalions or squads? Did higher formations above battalion have enough time to train together as one fighting unit?

[AJFFM]

No reply yet?

[Delta Tank]

AJFFM,

Search for: "Biennial Reports of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army to the Secretary of War 1 July 1939-30 June 1945."

Under Taining, the recruit in the U.S. Army received 572 hours. Under the appendix entitled "Building An Infantry Division", Basic and Individual Traing 13 weeks. I believe this refers to basic combat training, MOS (Military Occupational Speciality) Training would follow this initial 13 weeks.

Mike

[AJFFM]

Thanks.

How about other militaries? I am particularly interested in the Soviet training of infantrymen.

[Stephan]

Thanks.

How about other militaries? I am particularly interested in the Soviet training of infantrymen.

Yeah. Its true the scenes from Enemy at the Gate, where there is really not any traing at all? They just gets uniforms, but no weapons. And were transported by train to the front. Immediately before the assault they get some rifles - one rifle + 5-10 patrons on every two soldiers, keep in pairs, when one falls, the other keeps the rifle. Forward attack, dont even think on returning if you arent succesfull!
I have seen such a scenario mentioned in some thriller book too...

Im sure if this happened, it was some few desperate occasions... But DID it happened?
And what was the usual, as TS asks?

[AJFFM]

Enemy at the Gate was nonsense. In that time the Red army was well armed when it came to small arms. Only DNO divisions (People's militias) suffered from a lack of small arms and that was temporary.

My question revolves on how the Red Army managed to raise 8 million men in 1941 and roughly 40 million throughout the duration of the war. That is an amazing feat by any measure and maintaining quality is virtually impossible especially with the loss of most of the professional Officer/NCOs in the first 6 months of the war. I know from reading various books that the process was chaotic and went through various modifications even to the end of the war (when casualties began to take their toll on the quality of conscripts).

[Stephan]

Enemy at the Gate was nonsense. In that time the Red army was well armed when it came to small arms. Only DNO divisions (People's militias) suffered from a lack of small arms and that was temporary.

Yes sure. Yet I have seen such a story in at least yet another fictional thriller book. The same story told from two different sources, or the same story retold twice??
Anyway, that story / myths apparently exists, however it started. It would be nice to know from where it did come. Could it even be thruth, at least in some occasion??