The current US military is not a good analogy - it is based on extensively and continuing training (troops on peace-keeping deployments suffer declining readiness). The better analogy goes back to World Wars I and II, which involved mass mobilizations. Various military historians ascribe German successes in the early period of these wars to the substantial superiority of their field manuals. These reference books provided "good enough" solutions to a wide range of key problems in a compact, usable format. Paraphrasing one of those historians (Keegan?), they kept enough of the quickly trained soldiers and junior officers alive long enough to acquire the experience and judgment to make more sophisticated decisions.
Training for disasters is an extreme version of this. Because disasters occur so infrequently, you need to assume that few people will have any training before the incident. During disaster response, some people will be able to engage in on-the-spot "book learning," but that most will learn indirectly.
It is critical to have "cheat sheets" for people to take with them: Trainees are not going to be able to get enough repetitions to accurately remember the lessons, especially since they are likely to be in a psychological state not conducive to retention of detail. Additional, well-structured notes will help them convey their new knowledge to additional people.
The requirements for most training is