Posted on 08/07/2008 12:31:31 PM PDT by jmpmstr4u2
SFC Greg
PING 2 U.
I would not underestimate the value of simulator training in the high tech world of aviation. It can save many hours in learning emergency procedures, normal procedures and limitations. I was in the first test class to receive the complete syllabus of CH-47 transition training in the first CH-47 simulator. All training was done in the simulator. My first "hands on" on the real aircraft was a checkride which was exactly the same as the rides given to a control group who flew nothing but the real aircraft. I passed the ride easily and was amazed at my own proficiency in the aircraft. So the simulator can save a good deal of money and even equipment in training up flight crews. Money that can be better spent in other areas such as R&D and procurement.
That isn’t the point. Simulation Training is excellent, but without “hands on” with the real thing, you cannot expect to be considered fluent without actually flying the real thing and then prior to flying on an actual combat mission.
I’ll be interested in the opinions of people who are currently serving, or have recently served.
But one thing that is different now is that almost all of our soldiers are getting hands-on experience. This is not a peace-time military anymore.
And I see units being sent to places like Mauretania for joint ops with the local gendarmes. This has to be excellent training for the real thing, since the possibility exists on these exercises that they may turn into the real thing.
That is true whether you get simulator training or not. But the difference is the aviator with only simulator training can wind up at the same starting point for tactical training as the hands on guy. The difference is he can generally get to that starting point much quicker and be just as proficient without ever pushing a real start button and putting wear and tear on the equipment.
I am currently serving, and have been for 24 years. I am a MEDEVAC Patient currently getting fixed at Ft. Bliss, TX and have written of my experiences in Iraq during OIF3. The Army in particular is focused to a large degree in simulation training with the exception of those who are in current and immediate “train up” just prior to deploying.
“...every Marine a rifleman...”
The Marine Corps has been in the process of adjusting training to a more realistic process. Known Distance (KD) marksmanship ranges are being suplimented with more realistic scenario based training. Don’t know what the Army ground pounders are up to, but one can hope that it is moving in a similar direction.
High tech simulators are great as a supplement to hard-nosed, in the dirt training, not as a replacement. Nothing beats accurate rifle fire, delivered by disciplined men, over the effective range of the rifle.
Semper Fidelis,
Top sends,
(leg)
God’s speed JmpMstr!
I agree. Thank you for the response
The Marines have actually adopted the Army “knock down” target ranges during the past five years. Knock down ranges are the Army standard for anything longer than the 25m “zero” ranges.
Both services have invested heavily in MOUT/Urban training centers.
Then you're the guy I'm interested in. I'm not a vet, so your opinion is important to me.
with the exception of those who are in current and immediate “train up” just prior to deploying.
I take it you don't think this is sufficient. I was imagining that this is where all of the basic training comes together. Then once deployed, some relatively safe ops for tune up before going where the trouble is. It would scare me to think guys were sent into a hot zone without a chance to ease into it a bit.
My remark about Mauritania and places like it may have more to do with reservists or guardsmen (my son was both), but I've often thought these kinds of exercises to be excellent preparation for a unit that may subsequently be sent into Iraq or Afghanistan. They are chasing bandits with local troops, so the possibility exists that they may actually find some, which helps to keep it real.
I'll have a go at it. Some things he says are good points, others...well...
There has been an overwhelming concern from keys leaders in the field, many of whom feel that in order to fight this non-conventional war in both Afghanistan and Iraq; the cold war doctrine and theories need to be revamped and restructured in order to fit the ever changing face of battle.
If he had written this in 2003 or 2004 it would make sense, but we have done exactly this. I know the Army in particular has changed drastically from what it was when I first joined in 1998. The Stryker Brigades in particular are incredibly flexible to meet almost any threat (though I'd be reluctant to take 'em into a tank battle!).
They are relying on instinct and a cross between old doctrine and new technological training in order to combat the unknown enemy, an enemy that has been fighting for thousands of years in an irregular manner and one who has achieved great success with their tried and proven style.
What's your point? The doctrine we developed in WWII and in Vietnam came from our failures in combat. We're fighting a different enemy, we're learning what we need to do and what doesn't work. With far fewer lives lost than in previous wars, I might add.
It is my observation, that the implementation of modern computer technology in the form of simulation(s) has been used to take the place of what was once known as “real boots on ground training”.
Possibly unit-dependent, but in the Strykers we utilized he EST2000 (one of the simulators he's referring to) as early, pre-range training. It's much cheaper and easier to coordinate time and equipment on a simulator than it is to navigate the bureaucracy of the AHA for ammo draw and Range Control. The simulators help the Squad Leader to identify his weaker Soldiers and decide which basics he needs to focus on for which Soldier so when the range time comes he can maximize his use of it. I think they're a great asset.
Realistic training is imperative to combat readiness
Indisputably true. As long as you phase your training events properly, with increasing realism, complexity, and difficulty, then they'll be good to go. We had some great ranges that, at the time, I felt seemed fairly scripted, but when I got to Iraq I realized just how well they had prepared me for it all.
Generals are always fighting the last war, or they're preparing to fight the war they want to fight.
Counterinsurgency is a really tough nut to crack. Viet Nam showed us that.
IMO we ought to be bringing back some of the Non-Comms from that era and paying them to pass along their experiences in this area. I'd personally pay particular attention to finding veterans of Hue and the like.
On top of that, I'd really stress live-fire drills at unknown ranges. The formal range stuff at known distances is great for teaching the basics, but I think some "3 gun match" style training would be a good thing to give every swingin' grunt on the way to the Big Sandy.
Now this part would be expensive and time-consuming, but I think at least one person, preferably two, in every rifle squad should get DLI Language training in Arabic or Pashtun or whatever language is used in the expected AO.
We also ought to bring back (it may be in use, but I haven't heard much about it) the Nam era "Kit Carson" concept. A 'native' Iraqi or Afghan soldier would be given a DLI type course in English and then assigned to each rifle squad.
Organic language skills would be a great help, but having a 'native' embedded with the squad 24-7 would be a real 'force multiplier' IMO. Our guys may be able to speak the language, but they don't know the culture, accents, or idioms in use by the locals so they wouldn't as readily be able to identify a foreign enemy fighter.
This would have an added benefit of, and I'm loathe to use the term, 'cross-cultural bonding'. They'd see we aren't all heartless infidels and we'd learn that they aren't all islamofascist nutjobs.
All of this would increase training time and wouldn't be cheap, but I think the benefits would manifest themselves pretty quickly.
Or....
We could just nuke the entire region and be done with it...
L
I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make.
Are you saying simulators are bad? I was a Mech infantryman for 8 years, but I’ve been out for five years now. The Bradley gunnery simulators were excellent to sharpen your skills before you went to the live-fire gunnery range. The multiple simulators (SIMNET) was a great way to practice command and control, fire control, issuing platoon and company fire commands, etc., SIMNET had the HUGE added bonus that if you screwed up, you could tell the computer guys to reset the simulation to just prior to where you screwed up.
We still went to the field PLENTY. Sure, there was an intensive pre-deployment trainup, but you can’t maintain that level of intensity for an extended period of time anyway.
As far as the Army adapting its doctrine, the current doctrine is changing as fast as they can print out new stuff. General Petraeus wrote a new manual on counterinsurgency. The Army has different doctrine for high intensity conflict (fighting another country’s army like we did in the invasion of Iraq) and low intensity conflict (what we’ve been doing since then).
Thank you very much for the feedback. I agree 100% with your views as they are mine. I was on one of the first MiTT and SPTT test Teams for the Military. I lived and fought with the Iraqi Commandos with my 10 man team. Outside of interpreters, there was no verbal communication. But, we fought and overcame the deficiencies through trial and error. Save the parkinglot concept for Iran...lol
Can't speak for Iraq / Afghanistan, but in Bosnia, EVERY single patrol that went out had a native Bosnian interpreter. I had 14 interpreters assigned to my company, IIRC.
Huge +1 to what you said. Say hi to Mrs. FSE for me, too!
This is what I was talking about. There should be at least one and preferably two 'native' speakers in every rifle squad. Having an IC embedded is great, but if you can't communicate in the heat of a battle, then he could end up being a liability, or worse a casualty, when the feces hits the fan.
The IC should also receive an intensive immersion style language program before being embedded. The three rules of battle are "Shoot. Move. COMMUNICATE." This communication should be as clear, succinct, and precise as possible.
Having 2 or 3 guys who can cross communicate would bring a lot of benefits IMO. Would it be pricey and time-consuming? Yep. Would it save some lives? I believe completely that it would.
Glad you found my meager contribution useful. Please allow me to wish you a speedy recovery and give you my most profound thanks for your service.
I know you're Army, but in this case I think a hearty virtual "Semper Fi" is completely appropriate.
Regards,
L
As in the piece... Simulations are a great thing. However, in my opinion as a 19D (Recon Scout) and 11B (Infantry) for those that don’t know) Commanders of Combat Service Support (CSS) units and Non-Combat Arms MOS’s are relying to much on simulation training due to the ease and availability, and are not getting their troops out in the field. If you read the piece, it says in conjunction with, not soley. In Theater, there is no distinguishing of MOS’s anymore. Support Personnel are conduction Combat Patrols and are under trained. Historically, that has been the Grunts job based off of the MOS. Not anymore. Everyone is now a Grunt, regardless of MOS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.