Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Military Training; Is it killing our Troops?
SFC Greg Parkinson

Posted on 08/07/2008 12:31:31 PM PDT by jmpmstr4u2

Training: Is It Killing Our Troops? Written by; SFC Gregory Parkinson

Our enemies are many and with their presence ever looming, war will always be in the forefront of our great leaders minds, but as the faces of war change and new advancements in training through technology are made, the questions then become; will they be enough to combat the “War on Terror” or will the reliance of technological advancements take away from the institutional thought of “Train as We Fight”?

"We are committed to defending the nation. Yet wars are not won on the defensive. The best way to keep America safe from terrorism is to go after terrorists where they plan and hide”. (1) President George W. Bush November 16, 2002

The institution of war has evolved ten-fold since the indoctrination was written on how to combat the enemies of the cold war; why is it still in use today? The United States (U.S.) is known for its renowned fire power superiority; and although there have been major technological advancements in training and equipment, we as a country have yet to figure out how to combat the War on Terror, both at home and abroad; moreover, the enemy itself.

It is no secret, the enemies of the United States want to see us dead and they will stop at nothing to ensure their mission is complete. To combat the War on Terror is a necessary concept in order to protect our freedoms and the American way of life, this much is understood.

What is not clear, is the process by which both are achieved. The difficulty comes in understanding what type(s) of training are needed for Soldiers to successfully deploy, engage and destroy our enemies both foreign and domestic; even if they are one in the same.

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.

The War on Terror is a simultaneous multi-phase application, whereas Soldiers must deal with a multitude of war fighting layers; again with training taught from outdated doctrine. (2)

Soldiers are fighting in a war that has no clear cut battle lines, there is no front and no rear. 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.

If we as the “super power” do not change our training style and thought process on how this type of war should be fought and won, then it will become inevitable that history will repeat itself. (2) (3) This statement is based upon a known historical perspective, in 1980, during the cold war, Russia invaded a poor non-threatening country, with limited military resources, by the name of Afghanistan.

Russia went into Afghanistan with the idea of achieving a quick and decisive victory, however; eight years later using their same “Cold War” doctrine which was developed to combat the U.S., slowly proved to be ineffective against a non-superior fighting force which used an irregular and unknown style of warfare. (4)

This ultimately led to the near destruction of the Russian military war machine and this is identical to the same unconventional type of warfare which the Soldiers of today’s Army are combating. (4) That being said, with all of the advancements in technology, are today’s Soldiers being given the necessary training and proper tools to successfully accomplish their mission?

Could it be that we leaving them to their own demise when left to face the enemy in real life and not through that of a computer screen? 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”.

The thought that a Soldier can become a proficient warrior through the use of a simulated video game is unrealistic. Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect as there is no replacement for actual sweat and tears.

A comparison could be an Air Force pilot learning how to fly through use of a flight simulator without ever actually flying the plane. Yet be expected to know its limitations and capabilities when used to conduct a real world mission.

The enemies of today do not rely upon superior hi-tech advancements to eliminate their targets; they have simple ideals in association with simplistic means. As each day passes, they continue to accomplish their mission with great success. On the other hand, the U.S. is viewed by many as the world’s foremost “super power” with astounding equipment and resources. Unfortunately; with all of our advancements, this seems to have detracted or limited the Soldier’s ability to conquer the enemy.“The military was so convinced that technology would enhance its training methods that more than 45 million dollars would be spent on the projects between the years 2000-2005”. (5) Modern tools have enabled the U.S. armed forces to take a more lackadaisical approach to training.

What ever happened to the resonant phrase “Train as You Fight”? This has been the concept of military operations since the beginning of time. With this in mind one must argue, is this approach still pertinent in today’s Army? The answer should be a resounding YES; unfortunately, this can’t be farther from the truth.

The Department of Defense has over 25 million acres of land in its inventory set aside by Congress for maneuver and live-impact areas or buffer zones. Unfortunately, with the build-up of surrounding communities the undeveloped lands have become a nesting ground for those endangered wildlife and flora. (6) This has now left the land a protected environmental nightmare leaving most combat arms units unable to use the land for training purposes.

Realistic training is imperative to combat readiness, but more importantly to lives of those Soldiers who continue to fight for the American way of life and for the freedoms of others.

Is there a way to train modern technology and engage the “Train as You Fight” thought process in order to blend the two together for the advancement of battlefield success? The answer is yes; it will inevitably be a two-fold process to merge the old with the new.

It is imperative that senior military leaders listen to their Soldiers based on their current knowledge and combat experience as seen through their own eyes. This would enable military leaders to ensure that training standards remain current and viable. It would also allow the much needed doctrinal changes to be made. This will enhance the survivability and mortality rate of the Warfighter on the modern battlefield and will continue to combat the ever changing faces of war, which will increase and enhance our overall combat effectiveness.

Through it all the actions of 9-1-1 has ultimately awakened the “sleeping giant” (the American people). It has given the common citizen a broader perspective on what Israel has been faced with for years. It wasn’t until terrorists struck here on American soil and were successful did the public become full of rage; all but a select few of our government stood up and demanded retribution. Thus, the “War on Terror” began and it caught us unprepared. Our training from then to now has improved significantly but it is still a work in progress and it must progress. Train as You Fight, Fight as You Train.

Reference;

1. Office of Management and Budget, The Executive Office of the President, Winning the War on Terrorism, Retrieved, 16 April 2008, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/winning.html 2. U.S. Department of Defense, American Forces Press Service News Articles, Terror War Demonstrates Need to Update Doctrine, by Donna Miles, Retrieved 15 April 2008, http://www.defense.mil/news/newarticle.aspx?id=26837 3. About.com, US Military, War Changes the Way the Army Trains, Rifleman First, Specialist Second, June 5 2004, Retrieved, 14 April 2008 http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armytrng/a/artraining.htm


TOPICS: Education; Military/Veterans; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: military; training; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last
I would appreciate any and all input prior to sending this forward. Please give me your thoughts.

SFC Greg

1 posted on 08/07/2008 12:31:31 PM PDT by jmpmstr4u2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RedRover

PING 2 U.


2 posted on 08/07/2008 12:38:08 PM PDT by lilycicero (www.gi-bracelet.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmpmstr4u2
A comparison could be an Air Force pilot learning how to fly through use of a flight simulator without ever actually flying the plane. Yet be expected to know its limitations and capabilities when used to conduct a real world mission.

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.

3 posted on 08/07/2008 12:45:38 PM PDT by ladtx ( "Never miss a good chance to shut up." - - Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladtx

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.


4 posted on 08/07/2008 12:51:42 PM PDT by jmpmstr4u2 (CEO; 72 Virgin dating service, (We'll set you up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jmpmstr4u2

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.


5 posted on 08/07/2008 12:55:56 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmpmstr4u2

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.


6 posted on 08/07/2008 12:59:24 PM PDT by ladtx ( "Never miss a good chance to shut up." - - Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marron

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.


7 posted on 08/07/2008 1:01:01 PM PDT by jmpmstr4u2 (CEO; 72 Virgin dating service, (We'll set you up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jmpmstr4u2

“...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)


8 posted on 08/07/2008 1:01:30 PM PDT by petro45acp (NO good endeavor survives an excess of "adult supervision" (read bureaucracy)!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmpmstr4u2

God’s speed JmpMstr!


9 posted on 08/07/2008 1:03:04 PM PDT by petro45acp (NO good endeavor survives an excess of "adult supervision" (read bureaucracy)!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: petro45acp

I agree. Thank you for the response


10 posted on 08/07/2008 1:03:35 PM PDT by jmpmstr4u2 (CEO; 72 Virgin dating service, (We'll set you up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: petro45acp

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.


11 posted on 08/07/2008 1:08:03 PM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jmpmstr4u2
I am currently serving, and have been for 24 years.

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.

12 posted on 08/07/2008 1:11:21 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marron
I’ll be interested in the opinions of people who are currently serving, or have recently served.

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.

13 posted on 08/07/2008 1:12:23 PM PDT by Future Snake Eater (How 'bout a magic trick? I'm gonna make this pencil disappear...Ta-dah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jmpmstr4u2
As a former Marine rifleman who had the 'cold war' training and then a bungled deployment on a 'peacekeeping' mission back in the 80's, I find a lot to agree with in your piece.

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

14 posted on 08/07/2008 1:18:45 PM PDT by Lurker (Islam is an insane death cult. Any other aspects are PR to get them within throat-cutting range.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jmpmstr4u2

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).


15 posted on 08/07/2008 1:28:23 PM PDT by Terabitten (Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets - E-Frat '94. Unity and Pride!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

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


16 posted on 08/07/2008 1:30:23 PM PDT by jmpmstr4u2 (CEO; 72 Virgin dating service, (We'll set you up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
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.

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.

17 posted on 08/07/2008 1:31:59 PM PDT by Terabitten (Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets - E-Frat '94. Unity and Pride!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

Huge +1 to what you said. Say hi to Mrs. FSE for me, too!


18 posted on 08/07/2008 1:32:32 PM PDT by Terabitten (Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets - E-Frat '94. Unity and Pride!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jmpmstr4u2
I lived and fought with the Iraqi Commandos with my 10 man team. Outside of interpreters, there was no verbal communication.

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

19 posted on 08/07/2008 1:37:27 PM PDT by Lurker (Islam is an insane death cult. Any other aspects are PR to get them within throat-cutting range.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

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.


20 posted on 08/07/2008 1:38:27 PM PDT by jmpmstr4u2 (CEO; 72 Virgin dating service, (We'll set you up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson