Posted on 08/07/2008 12:31:31 PM PDT by jmpmstr4u2
“Hooah”, and “Semper Fi”
L
Not trying to be difficult, but I still don't quite follow you. You can't take a Bradley battalion into the field for more than a day without taking your CSS assets with you, and they typically do their actual MOS tasks every single day, unlike combat arms guys.
Now, if you're saying that CS and CSS types need more training in light infantry tactics and in basic battle drills, I agree wholeheartedly. I was the BMO for a mech infantry battalion when I got out. You shoulda heard the maintenance section b*tch when I told them we were going to do 'react to ambush' and 'react to contact' battle drills, as well as weapons familiarization with soviet-bloc weapons. Then the Jessica Lynch thing happened, and they were a whole lot more interested.
*ping*
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.
Yes we are. However, our current training is several years old. The doctrine that is currently being used and taught is for the most part 5+ years old. I have direct involvement with the current pre-tain up for the deploying soldiers here at Ft. Bliss. They are still being taught to stop at all trash piles and Cordon due to IED’s. We need to take all key leaders immediately after their re-deployment, run them through a de-briefing, then take that info and change the Doctrine based upon the experiences that they encountered. By time the red tape gets lifted and it gets into the manual, it will be only 1 year old and not 5-7 years old. I keep seeing the same Pepsi Can loaded with C-4 on the handouts that I had in 04-05. I am not saying that the system is broken, but that it needs to be current. Also, you will never hear me say that “Simulation Training” is not a good thing, but it must be done along with actual “Boots on Ground” training. Imagine you only going through the EST2000, never stepped foot in a Stryker and going to war, then being issued your Stryker. This is simular to what the CSS Units are doing with their soldiers. They are even qualifying on the Weaponeer prior to rolling out. This is just wrong.
“Now, if you’re saying that CS and CSS types need more training in light infantry tactics and in basic battle drills, I agree wholeheartedly. I was the BMO for a mech infantry battalion when I got out. You shoulda heard the maintenance section b*tch when I told them we were going to do ‘react to ambush’ and ‘react to contact’ battle drills, as well as weapons familiarization with soviet-bloc weapons. Then the Jessica Lynch thing happened, and they were a whole lot more interested.”
That is exactly what I am saying. Everyone is now a Grunt, and doing Combat Patrols regardless of MOS. They must get in the field (”hands on, boots on ground” to learn combat techniques for survivability while at home.
My Personnel changes (Just some ideas I have):
• Don’t fixate on end strength. Recruit only the best. Become more selective but also better for the recruit, placing the right type of recruit in the right job.
• Expand basic and make what we call infantry training common across all MOS’s.
• Increase basic training length and allow this to be more of a weed out point, don’t make units have to deal with trash everyone knows won’t “hack it.”
• Roll back some of the social experiments and social engineering efforts within the DoD.
• Longer service contracts for officers and enlisted going into 6 or 8 years active, which allows for a much greater investment in the soldier and increases the average experience level.
• All combat arms officers do 3 years enlisted time in the MOS they will lead in on an accelerated promotion system to learn the jobs and gain the experience of a team/squad leader.
• Invest more in training the “individual” not just collective training with multi-million dollar contraptions. This may include foreign languages but also includes in house schools that have established programs, like sniper, airborne, ranger etc.
• Allow people to homestead, it saves money and allows specialization on top of making life semi normal for families.
• Phase in skills testing for enlisted (like in the USAF) E1-E7.
• Kill the officer evaluation system which breeds “kiss asses.” Make the officer evaluation system more objective and quantifiable like the enlisted system.
• Slow down officer rotations through PLT, CO, BN, and BDE command. By the time they figure out what the hell to do they are on their way out replaced by someone else who needs to punch a ticket as having been “in command.”
• Drastically reduce the officer corps size. Less people stepping on each others toes, less made up jobs while in holding patterns for commands etc. The few that remain stay in command longer, get repeat commands, and are more selectively chosen in the first place and better trained.
OK... now I see the issue. "Doctrine" is different from "Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures." Doctrine is how we *as an Army* fight in the big picture, and TTP is how individual soldiers and small units (brigade and below) actually execute doctrine. IOW, doctrine might be " paint the house" and the TTP is "start from the top and work your way down from left to right, using red paint."
What you're really saying is that the Army needs a better way to disseminate current TTPs from the combat theater into the training plans for deploying units, especially for CS / CSS units. That's very different from saying the Army is still using outdated doctrine, because they're not. The doctrine (big picture stuff, remember) SHOULDN'T be changed every time the wind blows, whereas TTP are constantly being modified to meet the most current threats.
If you were writing in 2002, you would have a point.
Our current Army knows more about counterinsurgency than any Army ever has before. Down to the lowest levels, they have expertise the likes of which would be anyone else’s wet dream.
My qualifications for writing this include a tour with them in Afghanistan last year. By 2007, the Army had become extremely good at counterinsurgency.
That isn't true of the training I got at Ft Sill in 2006.
When I was training, most of our trainers had returned within the last year.
Unfortunately, they are required to teach Doctrine and TTP’s that they are given to teach. Myself, I do that and then Stamp my foot on the ground and tell what really needs to be told. Stopping at trash piles is still supposed to be taught. I know, cause I have direct involvement with training up under 1st Army for the deploying National Guard and Reservists that come through. Just prior to that, I was OT/C for Deploying BDE Staff when I first returned from Theater. Thsi is not just something that I am making up, and that is what caused me to write this paper. Sometimes I get so frustrated with the red tape. I do appreciate your comment. Thank you.
That's the same "training" I got from those retards in Kuwait. The reality of how you deal with an IED threat doesn't brief well, so I doubt it'll ever change. That's not even an issue with training, that an issue with how the upper echelons of the Army work.
They are even qualifying on the Weaponeer prior to rolling out. This is just wrong.
That is very, very wrong. I have no doubt that some units finger-drill the basic Soldier tasks, and I have no doubt that CS/CSS units are at the top of the list. Given what I saw of a particular Cav BCT in Mosul (from Fort Bliss, btw) I have no doubt that some combat units do it, too. This is inexcusable, and their chain of command should be relieved. Of course, I know how the Army works, as I'm sure you do, too, and what needs to happen to such people will not happen.
Thank you for sharing it, and thank you for your service.
L
I was in the .mil when a sea-change happened with respect to military reservations and the endangered species, OSHA, EPA, and that kind of thing was applied to the military.
In my job I noticed that certain solvents, in this case electrical contact cleaners and various chemicals used to treat aviation components were delisted and reformulated. The replacements were yet even more expensive and did not work, or not very well.
Now I was just a helicopter crew-chief but my theory illustrates the crap that’s going on. Remember the explosion of the space shuttle? NASA, even Feinman blamed the O-rings and cold weather on the solid rocket booster failure.
O-rings are called “packings” in the vernacular. Made of rubber, while they seal pretty good they aren’t going to take direct heat from any kind of propellent. That isn’t their function. What really sealed off the boosters was asbestos putty, not a rubber o-ring! Could be totally wrong on this, but it makes more sense than the official line?
Asbestos products were apparently, outlawed at some point. At least iirc the government contractor was enjoined from making it, or probably they voluntarily stopped because of impending litigation. I think by that point there may have only been one company left that actually made it. So, something INFERIOR was swapped in as ersatz.
Nobody is making the claim other than you. As stated by Ladtx: the simulator can save a good deal of money and even equipment in training up flight crews
In other words, the simulator is nothing more than a training aid leading up to the actual cockpit training which you are obviously ignoring.
To support your argument, why don't you provide evidence showing that our military fighter pilots are entering the air in combat missions without extensive fighter training or just plain flight training in general which you are alluding to..........?
I'm a (very new) 27A, so the odds of me ever using infantry techniques is slim - but, as PFC Lynch demonstrated, if it ever hits the fan, that's what I need to know the most.
PING-A-LING!
It has been a long time between Pings to the Greg Ping list... but He’s back and writing again.
BTTT
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.