Army learns which end is dangerous?

Status
Not open for further replies.

hillbilly

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
3,165
Location
Iowa
I copied and pasted the following off another site which did not have the URL.

The article comes from the Oct. 20 issue of "The Army Times" according to the poster.

I'll work on getting you a URL later.

This article, if genuine, confirms some suspicions I've had for a few years now. I have never been in the military. However, based on discussions I've had with several active duty friends and acquaintances, I suspected that the Army was full of people who really didn't know which end of a rifle was dangerous.

Time after time, I would ask Army personnel about their weapons, and they would either look at me and snort and say, "Hey, man, I'm a __________ and that means I don't shoot guns a lot," or the soldier would begin telling me about the whiz-bang big electronic vehicle that shot lots of big rockets at the push of a button.

It struck me as odd that I personally knew many many civilians who could probably literally shoot the pants off what seemed to me thousands of Army personnel.

Marines, on the other hand.......Marines are something different. Hell, it was old Marines who taught me how to shoot.

Looks like the Army is finally going to start taking some hints from the Marines......

hillbilly



Chief Of Staff To Soldiers: You're A Rifleman First
The Army Times | Oct 20, 03 | Sean D. Naylor

Posted on 10/15/2003 4:35 AM PDT by SLB

The Army’s new chief of staff is tearing a page from the Marine Corps playbook and insisting that every soldier consider himself “a rifleman first.â€

“Everybody in the United States Army’s gotta be a soldier first,†Gen. Peter Schoomaker told reporters during an Oct. 7 roundtable meeting with reporters in Washington.

The specialization of jobs in the Army pulled the service away from the notion that every soldier must be grounded in basic combat skills, he said. But Iraq has demonstrated that no matter what a soldier’s military occupational specialty is, he must be able to conduct basic combat tasks in order to defend himself and his unit.

“We’ve dismounted artillerymen in Iraq, and we’ve got them performing ground functions — infantry functions, MP functions,†Schoomaker said. “Everybody’s got to be able to do that … Everybody’s a rifleman first.â€

That phrase echoes a Marine motto that has been around since at least World War I — “Every Marine a rifleman.â€

Schoomaker’s emphasis on individual combat skills is part of a larger program to infuse the entire Army with a “warrior ethos.†Senior Army leaders are convinced that the focus on technical skills, particularly in the noncombat arms branches, has resulted in a neglect of basic combat skills.

“In our well-intentioned direction of trying to develop very technically competent soldiers in branches of the service, perhaps we lost some of the edge associated with being a soldier,†Lt. Gen. William Wallace, commander of the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., told reporters Oct. 6.

Service leaders are looking to change the Army’s training and education systems, which have “reinforced the culture where you’re a technician first and a soldier second,†Gen. Kevin Byrnes, head of Army Training and Doctrine Command, told an audience at the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting in Washington on Oct. 7.

“We’re removing those impediments,†in order to reverse that mindset, he added.

“To be a warrior,†Wallace said, “you’ve got to be able to use your individual weapon. You’ve got to be able to operate in small, lethal teams if called upon to do so. You’ve got to have that mental and physical capability to deal with the enemy regardless of whether you’re a frontline soldier or you’re someone fixing helicopters for a living, because you are a soldier first and a mechanic second.â€

Back to basic soldier skills

Leaders are pushing forward with combat-skills training that will be mandatory for all officers and enlisted troops:

*Every soldier will be required to qualify on his or her individual weapon twice a year, Byrnes said. The current Army standard requires soldiers to qualify only once a year, although some commanders have their troops qualify more frequently.

*New recruits will qualify on their individual weapons in basic training and then again in advanced individual training, Byrnes added. Until now, qualification in basic training only was the standard.

*Every soldier, regardless of MOS and unit, will conduct at least one live-fire combat drill a year. For higher headquarters rear-echelon units, it might include reacting to an ambush, Byrnes said.

Top gear, real-world training

The Army embarked on the “warrior ethos†program shortly before Schoomaker became chief Aug. 1, but he has folded it into a larger effort aimed at ensuring “the soldier†takes priority over any other program in the Army. “Humans are more important than hardware,†he said in his Oct. 7 keynote speech at the AUSA meeting.

“The Soldier†is the name given to what Schoomaker said is the most important of the 15 “focus areas†within the Army that he has targeted for immediate action. Putting the soldier first also means making sure no soldier deploys to a combat zone with anything less than the best gear available.

Schoomaker is determined to do away with the practice that sees later-deploying units into a combat theater fielded with gear that’s different — and usually less modern — than what’s issued to the Army’s “first-to-fight†combat units.

Another “focus area†aimed in part at getting all personnel to think of themselves as warriors deals with the Army’s combat training center program.

The service’s so-called “dirt†combat training centers include the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif., the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, La., and the Combat Maneuver Training Center, Hohenfels, Germany. The CTC program also includes the Battle Command Training Program, which puts division and corps headquarters through rigorous simulation exercises called “Warfighters.â€

The CTC program has received much of the credit for the Army’s successful performances in the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003 and Afghanistan in 2002. But it originally was designed to train units how to fight the Soviet-style armies. Now, Schoomaker and other senior leaders say, the CTCs must change faster than usual to prepare soldiers for the operations they likely are to face in the near future.

“These combat training centers are the main cultural drivers in the Army,†Schoomaker told the AUSA audience. “How we train there dictates how people think when they get on the real battlefield,†he later told reporters.

Schoomaker noted that at the NTC in particular, the Opposing Force was designed to replicate a regimented, easy-to-predict Soviet-style threat. “Today, we are fighting a different kind of enemy, and we’ve got to be prepared to fight and win in different kind of terrain, under different conditions than we have in the past,†he said.

Units now arrive at the training centers under relatively benign conditions and are given time to prepare for their “battles†against the opposing force before moving into the maneuver “box†where the real force-on-force fighting occurs.

“We now have to look at perhaps having to fight our way into the training centers and fight our way out,†Schoomaker told the reporters.

Schoomaker and other senior Army leaders also are keen to increase the participation of the other services at the combat training centers. “They must be more joint,†the chief said.

Mix-’n’-match units

The new chief also wants an Army that is more “modular,†meaning one composed of units that can be mixed and matched without tearing apart other units, as occurs now. He explained the concept using an analogy.

“If you only got paid in $100 bills, and you want to go buy a can of snuff down at the Quik-Stop, and it costs you $3.75 … what do you get back? A big old pocketful of change.

“Then you go to the supermarket and now you’re going to buy your groceries.†But the groceries cost more than the change you have in your pocket. “So what do you do? You spend another $100 bill. And what do you get back? More change.

“And you do this until you spend all your hundreds, and then you’ve got a bunch of change. And now you try to aggregate this change into something that’s meaningful, and it doesn’t work. And that’s quite frankly a little bit of the condition that we’re in.â€

The point Schoomaker was making is that every time the Army deploys a brigade combat team of armor or infantry, it must augment it with pieces of other units — MPs, aviation and artillery, for instance. Eventually, the service finds it has deployed all of its brigades, but still has lots of pieces of units left over, sitting all but useless at home station.

Schoomaker thinks the Army can get more out of its current force by redesigning it. Most divisions have three ground maneuver brigades. But Schoomaker wants to create five maneuver brigades within each division, without increasing the number of soldiers in the division. The first two divisions to return from Iraq, 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) and the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), will be the guinea pigs in this experiment, with their division commanders leading the redesign.

“I asked them, ‘Could you make yourself into five maneuver brigades, out of the three that you’ve got, and could you make each of those five at least as capable as each of the original three?’†Schoomaker told reporters.

“ ‘And if we gave you the right technologies, could you become one-and-a-half times more capable?’â€

The chief said that the Army is not prejudging the issues. “These are just questions,†he said. But, “I believe in my heart that each of those five brigades can be as effective as the current one,†if equipped with the right technologies.

Staying together in the fight

Schoomaker also said he was trying to change the Army’s policy relating to battalion and brigade-level changes of command in combat theaters. Until now, the Army has insisted on enforcing the two-year command tours, with no accommodation made for the fact that a unit might be in combat. Thus, a battalion commander might leave his unit halfway through its one-year tour in Iraq because his two-year command is up and the Army wants him to attend the War College in Carlisle, Pa.

This policy has infuriated many in the Army, especially the outgoing commanders, who feel it forces them to abandon theirtroops just when their soldiers need them most.

Schoomaker is sympathetic to those who feel the policy should be changed, and has told the units preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan that he does not want midtour changes of command. Staying with a unit until it redeploys is “a fundamental role of leadership,†he told reporters.

Staff writer Matthew Cox contributed to this report.
 
Lotsa good features. The deal about the Command Tour is particularly important...It was a major flaw in Vietnam; seems to me it's about time somebody in the Pentagon figured out the problem.

Art
 
It'll be interesting to see if they actually do begin to train every soldier as a rifleman first, or continue to pay lip-service to the idea, like they have been doing for years. The Army has long recognized that every soldier has the potential to in effect become a grunt, and has standards in place to train all soldiers in the most basic of combat skills. There are things like the Soldiers Manual of Common Tasks, CTT (Common Task Training) testing, and Sergeant's Time. All of these are supposed to be training times or aids, to assist the NCO's to train their soldiers in basic soldier skills.

However, the training calendar very rarely reflects what really happens. Invariably, the S-3 shop will schedule a training event and a tasking order at the same time. Or, in units with real-world, day-to-day garrison missions, those missions will take priority over training. Another common event is the First Sergeant will take half a squad and put them on some kind of "Hey you" detail when they should be doing weapons maintainence or training. Also, soldiers have other personal needs. Doctors appointments, counselling, college classes, all of these things routinely take soldiers away from training they should be conducting.

It's great for the Chief of Staff to admit that there is a problem, but it's an entirely different thing for the problem to actually get fixed.

Frank
 
Marines, on the other hand.......Marines are something different.

In so many ways... :D

I'll try to do this without being offensive. If I rub anyone the wrong way, forgive me, but there's only so much a Marine can exculpate Army behavior. ;)

I had a conversation once with some Army NCO's (E-5/E-6) where they found the idea that the Marine Corps was developing and teaching everyone in the Corps from grunts to admin a new hand to hand combat system rediculous. Both that the Corps was spending money and time on this project and that they were teaching it to MOS's across the board were idiotic to them.

This, I think, is indicative of a mindset. Like the article said, some soldiers have gotten caught up in being technicians before they're soldiers, and some of the events in Gulf War II have proven it. You have to instill a warrior's mindset at the individual level to truly build an effective force. If you've got people on patrol with the thought running through their head that they're cannon-cockers or mechs and not grunts, they're distracted from the task at hand and probably quite truthfully believe that their training is not up to par. Anyone wearing the tree suit has to be able to operate as a basic rifleman, if for no other reason than their own safety.

Like OEFVet said though, day to day life and what I'll call 'societal inertia' (The Army's always done it this way, so we'll keep doing it this way mindset) get in the way. What will also be an obstacle is the Army's outlook on recruiting. Look at their commercials; they give just as much time to leisure activities as they do to combat activities to show how a soldier's life isn't all about war, you can have fun too! Sure, you'll have time off, but you're trying to recruit soldiers not golfers, so emphasize the real reason your're swearing that oath.


-Teuf
 
Good for the Army. While I wasn't around for Vietnam, I've done some reading about the war and the "officers leaving their units" issue was a terrible problem. Glad to see it finally being addressed. I'm still glad I enlisted in the Marine Corps, tho';)
 
So much military work is so technical these days. With limited training time it's tempting to concentrate only on MOS skills at the expense of CTT. Teaching more regular soldier skills, and especially marksmanship, could also be a good recruiting and retention tool. I mean, who joins the military for a 9 to 5? Everyone's secondary MOS should be 11B.
 
You know, it's really nice that the Army is going to implement this policy. It's certainly more viable than the previous concept of "We all get a beret so that we can feel elite." However, this isn't going to do any good at all in reducing casualties unless the Army starts allowing troops to keep their weapons loaded in the combat zone.
 
I noticed this when I was in the Army during the early 80's. I was in a combat MOS(19E) but others in support MOS's acted as if they were civilian employees. They never trained in the field and I don't think many had touched a weapon since Basic. Like our old Top used to say "Your a soldier not a serviceman."
 
Anybody else see a potential catch here? They want Army servicement to be soldiers first and technicians/engineers/pilots/medics/whatever second- and then they ask if the redesigned units can be more efficient if they give them more technology .

Now when I hear about adding more and newer technology... perhaps in an ideal world that would mean more time for combat training and less need for techs, but it seems to me things tend to work the other way around.
 
I got out of the Army in '84 and from day one it was pounded into our heads "You came into the Army as infantry and when the need arises you will return to infantry"

I had to qualify at least twice a year with my 16, and once with shotgun.

Don't know how many times a year we had MOPP3 training which usually included forced marches. Just know it was too many. To this day if I heard Gas Gas Gas I'd reach for my hip and panic cause ther was no pouch there

We regularly trained with 82nd. Don't remember how many times we showed up for work to find 2 armed guards at the door and the payphones padlocked. EDREs were a constant part of my life. During the Granada invasion they loaded us on a plane and flew around for awhile and landed on the other side of the airbase, "Just to keep us on our toes"

AND WE WERE TUGBOAT MECHANICS FOR GOD SAKE !!!.

I thought this was just the Army way But then Top was from 101rst and The Old Man was infantry. Their motto was "Welcome back to the U.S. Army". Didn't know what they meant till now.
 
Back in 1985 my Navy A7E squadron, VA-192, was tasked to deploy to MCAS Iwakuni, Japan to augment the Marine Air Group there. My grin went ear to ear when the skipper announced that every officer and sailor would be trained and qualified with the M-16 rifle and the M-9 pistol.

I left the squadron before the training started. I would have loved to have gone through it and deployed with them.

Pilgrim
 
Good for the Army, too bad the AF doesn't feel that way. At our last enlisted call the CCM (that's a CSM to you Army folks) was taking gripes, one person actually complained about the ice cream in the chow hall being too soft!
 
It's about time.

I just don't see how todays Army can put up with specialized REMFs when there aren't any front lines any more.

In the last 5 or 6 conflicts that the U.S has played a part in, the enemy could be anywhere. It doesn't matter if you are in a foxhole, a computer van or a PX, you are a target to the guys with AKs and satchel charges.


I also think that all soldiers should be trained to carry sidearms and be required to carry them at all times in theatre.
 
This policy is nothing new for line units. Im in a combat engineer unit now, and while were basiclly infantry with a lot of explosives, non infantry based line units we work with still train on basic soldier tasks. They may not be as good at it as us :) but at least they are training and have the fundamentals down. FOr example, I spent some time with a field artillery unit when I first joined up, and they spent a lot of time practicing defending the guns from assaults and raids, and qualified at least once a year(national guard). While active qualifies twice a year(even better). On the other hand, our hq elements, and other rear echelon units, its an embarrasament to see them with weapons in thier hands. LAst year on the qualification range, after I qualifed I was drafted as a range nco/safety officer. I saw numerous people with no idea how to clear a weapons malfunction(very bad) and even a few who had no idea how to chamber that initial round(utterly terrifiying.). Its two different worlds to see when you look at line unit like ours going through with first time qualifications with high twenties being our lowest score(out of forty), and most of us shooting mid to upper thirties. Then you look at the hq unit which goes out with enough ammo to run the qual course twice(since they all will fail atleast once) and seeing them shoot low teens and occasionaly even worse. Army standards is a minium of 23 out of 40. Personally, anyone who can only hit 23 out of forty is not welcome in my foxhole.
Sorry for the long post, this thread hit a sensitive nerve with me. I hate it when I see newspaper articles like this and realize the entire army has been lumped in with our hq elements. Those guys need all the help they can get, but those of us who actually train to fight have our acts together.
 
"Doing more with less."

We want warriors not technicians

Can you do more with less if you have the right technology?

Military equivalent of corporate restructuing.

So you want the bipeds to be more like warriors so you give them more technology which will take away from being warriors and make them more like technicians.

There is an insanity afoot in the world today. That is any organization can do more with less on a constant basis. All you gotta do is apply technology and proper management and voila, more with less is successful.

In the old days we call it "hollowing out" of {insert noun of your choice}.

Perhaps the proper term is "auto-cannabilism."
 
That was one of my major problems in the 80s. First, they give you a mattel toy to shoot. Qualify in basic. Off to your other training, which was all language. Then to the Unit. Qualified one time in 2 years. No money for ammo. Simulate firing. Did fire the M60 once.

Then came SF. No shortage of practice there! We rolled out all the toys, all the time. Hooah.
 
Q?

I've never been in the military, but have always been curious.

Do they allow you to shoot your weapons at the range any time you want to? I understand that freetime is limited if nonexistant, but what if you had a day off and wanted to spend it at the firing range shooting stuff with your m-16 or machine gun, would they let you?
 
You must be kidding, right? In the regular army you never see your weapon unless you are cleaning it for inspection or for a filed exercise (war games). Other than that, it is locked up tight in an armory. No bounce no play.

When I was in, you were not allowed to bring firearms of any kind onto the post. FUnny, right?
 
MarineTech: what is the Corps' policy about this? I know (in the past anyway) that embassy guards often weren't allowed to carry loaded, even when in a hostile environment.

Balog, according to a Lance Corporal that I spoke to here in Maine that was home on emergency leave from serving with 5th Marines in Iraq, his unit SOP is as follows.

Loaded magazine inserted in weapon, round chambered, and weapon on safe whenever they are providing security at check points, on patrol, travelling in convoys, or any situations that take them outside their established battalion area. When inside the battalion perimeter, weapons are to be unchambered, but magazines are expected to be in the magazine well or at least on the Marine's person except when standing watch in which case the above rules apply. Also, movement is always performed with a minimum of 2 vehicles that can support each other and when on foot, a minimum of 2 fireteams are required and normally a full squad is utilized.
 
You must be kidding, right? In the regular army you never see your weapon unless you are cleaning it for inspection or for a filed exercise (war games). Other than that, it is locked up tight in an armory. No bounce no play.

we could draw our M16 or our personal firearms (which were kept in the armory) any time we wanted. To go to the range, plus the fact that we pulled guard duty twice a month. Me and Purdy spent way to much time together.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top