A step forward in Army recruit training

Status
Not open for further replies.

Preacherman

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
13,306
Location
Louisiana, USA
From The State, SC (http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/11776292.htm):

Posted on Tue, May. 31, 2005

Army wants soldiers to get used to guns

Fort Jackson recruits now are given guns much earlier in basic training and carry them almost 24/7

By CHUCK CRUMBO

Staff Writer

On his third day of basic training at Fort Jackson, Pvt. William Banks got his gun — an M16A2 rifle.

Less than an hour later, the 23-year-old soldier from Colorado Springs, Colo., already had taken the gun apart, cleaned it and put it back together.

Then, Banks and other soldiers in Company D, 1st Battalion, 34th Infantry Regiment slung the weapons over their shoulders and marched off to chow.

Giving recruits a gun so early in boot camp and expecting them to carry it almost 24 hours a day, seven days a week marks a radical change in how the Army trains its soldiers.

The training program is called “weapons immersion,” and its aim is twofold, Army leaders said.

First, the Army wants to instill discipline and the “warrior ethos” in troops. Soldiers in Iraq must have their weapons handy 24/7, so recruits should get used to that.

“I think it definitely adds a little more realism to it,” Banks said. “Now you’re responsible for an issued weapon.”

Second, increased familiarity with their weapons should help recruits become more safety conscious, preventing accidents.

“They learn real quick to respect their weapon and understand what it can do,” said Lt. Col. Mel Hull, who is credited with implementing the weapons program at Fort Jackson.

Since Oct. 1, 2002, 24 soldiers, including 16 in combat zones, have been killed by accidental discharges, according to the Army Safety Center.

The Naval Safety Center reported four Marine deaths during the same period resulting from negligent discharges.

‘SECOND NATURE’

It used to be that recruits did not get their weapons until they went to the firing range, which came almost halfway into their nine-week basic training course.

At the time, Army regulations allowed guns to be issued to recruits for only short periods of time. That’s because commanders feared the weapons, which cost about $600 apiece, could be lost or stolen.

Lt. Col. Hull said the new program was launched after veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars returned to Fort Jackson to help train soldiers.

In a combat zone, soldiers live with their weapons all the time, said Hull, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment. “What better way to help prepare them for their units than to start doing that here at basic training.”

About half of the drill sergeants and training officers at Fort Jackson are Iraq or Afghanistan veterans, officials said. Those veterans include Delta Company commander Capt. Tony Brown, who was with the 14th Engineer Battalion near Tikrit, Iraq, from April 2003 to April 2004.

Learning the correct way to handle a weapon — checking the safety and keeping your finger off the trigger unless you’re ready to fire — should become so ingrained during training that soldiers will do it the right way despite fatigue or complacency, Brown said. “Second nature will make you do it the right way.”

Fort Jackson tested a pilot program in August and launched the new policy in February, Hull said. The training program also has been adopted at the Army’s four other basic training sites — Fort Knox, Ky.; Fort Sill, Okla.; Fort Leonard Wood, Mo.; and Fort Benning, Ga.

Saying the troops carry their weapons 24/7 is only a slight exaggeration. At night, the guns are locked in a rack at the front of a barracks’ sleeping bays. Otherwise, the recruits carry their guns everywhere except to church.

To add even more realism to the training, by the fifth week of training — after recruits have passed qualification tests with their weapons — the new soldiers carry rifles loaded with blanks.

When they leave the barracks, the soldiers load a blank into the firing chamber as if they were going to patrol off base in Iraq. When they return to the barracks, the recruits take the rifle’s magazines out, clear the blank from the rifle’s firing chamber, then point the muzzle into a sand-filled barrel and pull the trigger, ensuring the weapon is not loaded. It is the same procedure the soldiers would follow when returning to a base in Iraq, Brown said.

SEEING IMPROVEMENTS

The new policy seems to be improving soldiers’ proficiency on the firing range, as well as safety, commanders said.

Only about 60 percent of recruits initially qualified as proficient in firing their weapons the first time that Lt. Col. Michael Ryan’s training battalion went through the pilot program. That was much lower that the usual 70 percent to 75 percent.

Ryan, who commands the 1st Battalion, 34th Infantry Regiment, attributed the lower first-time qualification rate to new requirements that the recruits wear body armor and shoot from a kneeling position. Once the soldiers became more comfortable with the gear, scores went up, he said.

“What we consider most important is that, at the end of the day, 100 percent of the soldiers had qualified,” Ryan said.

Sgt. 1st Class Edward Anderson, one of Delta Company’s drill sergeants, also said he has seen improvement in safety.

“The last (training) cycle, we didn’t have any (accidental) discharges,” Anderson said. “We usually have two or three, but two or three is still not acceptable.”
 
Ryan, who commands the 1st Battalion, 34th Infantry Regiment, attributed the lower first-time qualification rate to new requirements that the recruits wear body armor and shoot from a kneeling position. Once the soldiers became more comfortable with the gear, scores went up, he said.

I wonder if they first learn BRM wearing all that extra stuff. I agree that learning how to shoot wearing vest and equipment is important. But initially, during the walk stage, I hope not. Concentration should be on learning how the rifle works, how to properly fire it, safety, etc.
 
As a Marine vet, I was always amazed at how hesitent the military is to trust it's men with weapons. In '83 when I went to Lebanon, one of the hardest tasks in getting a unit ready to deploy was developing good weapon handling habits. The idea of making your troops draw and carry their weapons all day was unheard of. My CO looked at me as if I had just landed from Mars when I mentioned the idea. I guess I was ahead of my time.
 
I'd heard somewhere that those guns cost less than $100 each

maybe the $600 is what they get on the black market for "lost" ones
 
Now I'm just drawing on silly movie plots, but back in the day didn't they do pretty much the same thing, ie WWII etc? Doesn't sound like anything new to me... :confused:
 
I wonder if they first learn BRM wearing all that extra stuff. I agree that learning how to shoot wearing vest and equipment is important. But initially, during the walk stage, I hope not. Concentration should be on learning how the rifle works, how to properly fire it, safety, etc.

Unfortunately, they do learn Basic Rifle Marksmanship while wearing the full "Battle rattle," including armor. I recently read a blog by a current officer at Fort Jackson where he specifically mentions the difficultcy training troops in basic marksmanship when they are wearing armor.

The problem is that the army really isn't able to add any extra time to the training cycle and there is only so much time that can be used for marksmanship training. Right now the only way they can train in armor is if it's incorporated into the basic marksmanship training cycle. The only other way to do it would be if they did basic without armor and saved shooting in armor for AIT later, but that causes other problems.
 
The only other way to do it would be if they did basic without armor and saved shooting in armor for AIT later, but that causes other problems.
Mainly the problem that most AIT courses do not have marksmanship involved. I went to Arabic school, interrogation school, and airborne school for over two years and only handled the M16 during funeral detail for two months the entire time. Shooting blanks at a set angle without using the sights does nothing for marksmanship.

Wait, almost forgot. Had a one-day training exercise with blanks during language school. Didn't see much improvement after that, either.
 
My weapon experience was pretty much like IZint's when I was in the Army. Ironically, once I got smart and joined the Air Force, life has improved. Here at the base, I have a key to the safe where we keep an 870 to remove geese, deer, turkeys and assorted other pests from the runway areas (yes, I'm authorized to "hunt" year round). When we went to the desert for OIF, I was assigned as an "armed escort" when we had to travel from one base to the other. It would take several hours to get the proper paperwork to get a vehicle, gas, and an off base pass. To get a weapon, all I had to do was sign for whatever I took, I was trusted to be honest and return what I took.
 
They are also doing this here at Fort Sill. I have seen all the soldiers in basic and AIT carrying their weapons. Being in the Marine Detachment here I dont know if they have changed any of the shooting/marksmanship training, but I have noticed that alot of them are not taking it serious.
 
I'm not sure if I'm the Fort Jackson officer who's blog Trebor's been reading or not. I did post some stuff on this recently. The link to my blog's in my signature area.

Anywhoo, my beef is that inital BRM training does basically teach to the test. Getting the soldiers to hit 23 out of 40 targets is more important that really teaching them to shoot. We do teach them the 4 Fundamentals (Steady Position, Sight Picture, Breathing, Trigger Squeeze) and if they pay attention and do what they're taught, they generally do better, but the training is more geared toward getting them to pass than making them actually good shots.

And AIT, at least for those AITs that are longer than 5 weeks, does now include having to qualify again on the M16. New addition there as well.

And my property book lists the value of an M16A2 rifle at $471.
 
Wow.

When I did my service, we got our rifles the first day. "Here's your rifle. Memorize the serial number. If you loose it, you're in trouble." We signed for it. Then we were shown how to clear it, more instruction followed later. Since a rifle is a personal weapon, we looked after it as a personal weapon. If we didn't carry it, it would be left with a buddy to look after, or locked up - in each soldier's (airman actually, in my case) personal locker. Your rifle, your responsibility. When leaving basic training, we turned in our rifles (and got a receipt), then got new personal weapons first thing when reporting to a new posting.

Of course, I'm a bleeping foreign socialist, so what do I know...
 
M67, apparently you know a lot more than the entire U.S. military. :D
Nope. But as an armchair corporal I know more than the flag rank geezers of any military, US included. :D
 
Unfortunately, they do learn Basic Rifle Marksmanship while wearing the full "Battle rattle," including armor. I recently read a blog by a current officer at Fort Jackson where he specifically mentions the difficultcy training troops in basic marksmanship when they are wearing armor.

I went through six years ago. We wore k-pot and LBE. I can sorta understand the k-pot, and the LBE isn't that bulky. Don't blame them, getting used to firing from the prone while wearing armor isn't fun at first. Not sure why, but it messed up my stance at first. It does add "realism", but at the expense of the learning the fundimentals.


The problem is that the army really isn't able to add any extra time to the training cycle and there is only so much time that can be used for marksmanship training. Right now the only way they can train in armor is if it's incorporated into the basic marksmanship training cycle. The only other way to do it would be if they did basic without armor and saved shooting in armor for AIT later, but that causes other problems.

Yea, I remember very clearly spending five times the amount of time for BRM cleaning floors, polishing the plumbing fixtures in the latrine, doing police calls of the battalion area, etc etc. It's a matter of priorities. BRM doesn't have a high enough priority in my opinion.

I agree with Langenator. The point is to get soldiers to pass qualification, not actually teaching how to properly shoot. We barely covered ballistics. I'm not talking advanced ballistic calculations, I'm talking simple factors like wind or distance. Proper maintaince of the M16 would have been nice too. I managed to talk my DI out of an M16A2 manual. I think every soldier should be issued one. (Uhm, I could be wrong, but I think they're supposed to.)
 
I'm not sure if I'm the Fort Jackson officer who's blog Trebor's been reading or not. I did post some stuff on this recently. The link to my blog's in my signature area.

Yeah, it was your blog. I couldn't remember where I saw it or I would have posted the link.

I'm gonna send you a PM later. I have a couple questions for you.
 
For all the assorted ripping I've done on the Army's "Technician First; Warrior Second" mentality in the past, I never realized that it went that far.

When I went to Parris Island in 1998, we were issued our rifles within about 10 days of being on the island - and half that time doesn't really count since you're not formed as a platoon yet for the first few days, but just in a 'holding' barracks waiting for the rest of your platoon to ship in.

I find it utterly astonishing that one could be sent to a course of which the ultimate intent is the instruction of the killing of the enemy and yet the main device with which you are supposed to kill him is withheld from you until you are halfway trained... :banghead:

Aside from personal affirmation that I did choose the right branch of the military, I'll leave further comments on the Army aside as they've proven to be inflamatory in the past. I am only grateful that senior leadership at any level (in any branch) has finally made a wise and practical decision to make more effective warriors out of any citizen they're going to send into harm's way.

-Teuf
 
I managed to talk my DI out of an M16A2 manual. I think every soldier should be issued one. (Uhm, I could be wrong, but I think they're supposed to.)
They are issued one per rifle. They are usually in the arms room so they don't walk, since they are BII and must be signed for by the unit commander during change-of-command inspections. If you need one, you have to ask the armorer, who will probably :cuss: if the arms room isn't already open when you ask.
 
Ever since my return from Kosovo in 2000, I've been a proponent of ALL field training being conducted in body armor. Afterall, when you go on a real-world deployment, that's what you'll be wearing. It's better to get used to it before you're on the two-way live fire, rather than once you're there. When I was a young Private, first off the plane in Germany, we wore our old-school flak jackets every time we went to the field. (Mine was truly old-school. It was the pre-Vietnam style and was issued to me in '90.) I hated it then, but it was good training.

And, it's about dang time the Army finally realized that soldiers need to handle their rifles ASAP and as OFTEN as possible. Maybe the newest batch of soldiers won't be as negligent with their weapons. It's amazing how long it takes common-sense to sink in with the Army.
 
Unfortunately, we can't (yet) do all training in IBA; there simply aren't enough to go around. Right now each battalion has 400 sets. EAch battalion also has 5 companies that can fill with up to 240 trainees, for a max of 1200 trainees per battalion at any one time. So we make do by subsituting the old flak vests, which we have plenty of.

I pick up a new load (which will be my last-I won't be here to see them graduate) a week from today. Pick them up Thursday, they'll have their rifles on Saturday, and keep them until after the final inspection 2 days before graduation.
 
But but but but if the soliders have the guns with them all the time, there will be more accidents! Loaded guns kill! They should be locked up safely until needed in combat! For the children! :D
 
But but but but if the soliders have the guns with them all the time, there will be more accidents! Loaded guns kill! They should be locked up safely until needed in combat! For the children!

I know you're joking. However, others were not in Beirut. They made similiar arguments, and won apparently. The guards during the Marine Barracks bombing have no ammo.

Instead of looking up who made the ammo decision, and burning him at the stake, they went after some junior officer on the scene to blame. Not sure who got fried and for what. Lost track over the years.

Hasn't changed all that much. Look at photos of NG guys guarding power plants, airports, etc. Often times, they don't have ammo, ammo is locked up somewhere else, or only one person has control of ammo.
 
outstanding! the army has forgotten some of the lessons it has learned over two centuries and seems that sometimes we have to get back to basics. i hoped the privates get smoked if a drill sergeant catches them covering someone with the muzzle or finger on the trigger. i agree that rifle training should be conducted in battle rattle. with any luck troops will start getting more than basic rifle marksmanship and we'll start seeing introduction of more advanced tactics like short range marksmanship, instruction in what areas to aim for (cns, heart/lung, pelvis), unconventional shooting positions and weapon handling when in close quarters with other troops. i know that time is limited but there is quite a bit of unused time in bct and maybe in the down time they could get more weapons training from roving instructors.
That is how much my non-Colt semi auto rifle cost
most of the m-16s i've seen are fn, the only colts i've seen were really old - many of them were converted lowers that used to be a1s as far as i could see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top