Army Changes Basic Training To Include More Firearms Instruction !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

David

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
804
Location
USA
This sounds like a REALLY GOOD idea to me!

From nytimes.com:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/p...83200&en=5bac4c1cc0eff897&ei=5059&partner=AOL

Army Pushes a Sweeping Overhaul of Basic Training

By THOM SHANKER

Published: August 4, 2004

ASHINGTON, Aug. 3 - The United States Army is pressing into place sweeping changes in its basic training program, introducing rigorous new drills and intensive work on combat skills to prepare recruits for immediate missions to Iraq and Afghanistan.

In what officers describe as the most striking changes to basic training since the Vietnam era, soldiers whose specialties traditionally kept them far from the front - clerks, cooks, truck drivers and communications technicians - will undergo far more stressful training. The new training regimen includes additional time dodging real bullets, more opportunities to fire weapons, including heavy machine guns, and increasing the time spent practicing urban combat and hiking and sleeping in the field during the nine-week courses.

Before Iraq, freshly minted soldiers could expect months, if not years, of additional training in their assigned units before seeing combat.

But with the Army stretched today by long-term deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, a growing percentage of new soldiers are in combat zones within 30 days of being assigned to a unit, Army officials say. Even those whose specialties are not combat arms often face situations where the traditional distinction between hazardous front lines and secure rear areas has vanished.

"Historically, combat support specialists had been in the rear of the battlefield, far from direct contact with the enemy," said Col. Bill Gallagher, commander of the basic combat training brigade at Fort Benning, Ga. "The emphasis in their training was more on the technical side of their specialties, not on the combat side."

But in the missions soldiers face today, "there is no front, there is no rear," he said. "Soldiers of all specialties will face direct contact with an adversary. They all have to have a common set of combat skills. A sense of urgency dictated that we analyze what skills are required of them in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, and how to update the nine-week program back in the States."

The changes were endorsed at a meeting of the Army's training brigade commanders in June, and were promptly put into effect on an official, if still interim, basis at all five installations where the Army conducts its basic training.

The Army's senior leadership must approve the plan for it to become a formal part of the service's training, and additional financing must be secured for the changes to become permanent, as more realistic live-fire training and longer field maneuvers are more expensive. The changes grew out of various studies dating to last summer of lessons learned in both Afghanistan and Iraq, when senior officials realized it was time to update the tasks and drills in basic training, with an emphasis on combat skills for all those in uniform.

"This is the new mentality that says, 'Everybody is going to be a warrior first,' everybody is going to have the ability to defend themselves and survive in combat," said William F. Briscoe, director of the directorate for training plans and capabilities review at the Army's Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va.

In discussing the changes to basic training, Army officers do not specifically acknowledge how deeply the military was stung by some high-profile combat failings, including the attack on an Army support convoy near Nasiriya, Iraq, early in the war. During that firefight, troops of the 507th Maintenance Company were outmaneuvered and then outgunned by Iraqi irregulars.

Previous Army training programs for these noncombat specialties required less than one week of field training. Under the interim training program, they will spend up to 16 days in the field. And that time out in the woods has been consciously designed to be more stressful, requiring soldiers in training to carry heavier loads of water and ammunition, and allowing less time for them to sleep and eat.

Support soldiers are also receiving added training for military operations in urban areas, which includes drills in how to enter a building held by hostile forces and to run convoys through contested territory. They will receive additional practice in how to manage prisoners of war and how to maneuver and fight when civilians are in the line of fire.

"We are teaching quick-fire techniques, moving in an urban environment - things that have not been done in basic training for combat support and combat service support before," said Lt. Col. Fred W. Johnson, commander of a basic training battalion at Fort Jackson, S.C., where the Army conducts its mixed-sex training.

"And we are introducing an emerging leadership program," Colonel Johnson said. "We don't expect to create junior officers, but we are teaching basic leadership techniques: accountability, precombat inspections, how to motivate a small element to accomplish a mission."

The changes in basic training will be seen mostly in the initial nine-week course given recruits whose tasks will be combat support or combat service support - two categories of Army duty that include engineering, personnel, transportation, maintenance and logistics - rather than for those in the combat arms specialties of infantry, armor, artillery and aviation. After basic training, the support troops receive focused training in their specialties before assignments to units.

While previous generations may recall basic training being the same for all recruits, the modern Army allows many new soldiers to choose their specialties when they sign up, and basic training is divided between those who go into combat arms and those who go into support jobs.
******
:D :uhoh: :D
 
Almost three years after entering Afghanistan.
Almost eighteen months after (re-)entering Iraq.

Damned near RECORD reaction time for such a huge bureacracy.
/snark
 
"This is the new mentality that says, 'Everybody is going to be a warrior first,' everybody is going to have the ability to defend themselves and survive in combat,"

Uh, much as I hate to admit it (being an ex-Army career NCO), that mindset has existed for a long, long time.

It's summed up in four words: United States Marine Corps.

I predict that there are going to be a lot of younger soldiers who did NOT join with any intention of seeing combat, who will now find out exactly where the bear poops in the buckwheat.
 
*tips hat to Powderman*

But in the missions soldiers face today, "there is no front, there is no rear," he said. "Soldiers of all specialties will face direct contact with an adversary.

A positive step. But today? I seemed to recall something along the lines of "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." I think that may apply here.

Good decision, just 30 years slow in coming.

IMHO, every soldier, every Marine, in basic should get about five days bullseye rifle, five days combat rifle, and more than a quick familiarization fire with a pistol.
 
This is really no such thing as the rear in any war to begin with. The rear can always be overruned. We knew this in WWII, that's why the M1 Carbine was issued to support troops.

-Bill
 
True story!
My cousin was at camp with us to hunt deer.He'd been in the Air force for about 5 years.Well on Sat. afternoon I got out my Kimber 45 to do some plinking(deer season didn't start till monday) and just to have fun with the family. Well I emptied a couple clips and tossed them to him and said to fill'em up if he wanted to shoot.I see him over there fart'n around with the clips and asked him what was taking so long.He said he couldn't get the shells into the clip.I walked over to see what the problem was and started laughing cause he was trying to put them in backwards.I said don't they teach this stuff in the airforce?to which he replied" We don't shoot pistols,We drop BOMBS" i STILL LAUGH ABOUT IT CAUSE THIS GUYS TRAINED TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY AND HIMSELF AND CAN'T LOAD A PISTOL CLIP.He said they received limited time with a handgun and it was a couple years back.Well I spent the rest of the weekend showing him the ins and outs of a 1911 style handgun.HE now owns 2 pistols of his own.
 
He said they received limited time with a handgun and it was a couple years back.

When I was in the Air Force us noncombatant types trained with the .38 service revolver and m16. Base security guys used billy sticks, .38s, m16s and m60s. I never touched a 1911 until I'd been out of the military a half dozen years.
 
Every soldier a rifleman.....the Marines have understood it for decades. I was already a good marksman when I went into the Army in '81 and I was surprised at how little range time we got. Little more than familiarization. Happy trails.
 
Interesting report. Gotta kid down at Ft Stewart with the 3rd ID (Broken television!), and their weapons training has been less than extensive. He is a combat medic-91 W, and the battalion commander ordered all of the angel tracks to permanently remove the M-2 HB's off the vehicles. Geneva convention stuff.

Dad is not happy with that, considering the attacks on rear area troops.

What makes me most unhappy is their total lack of firearms training. After being assigned with them for 6 months now, including a month down range at NTC, he finally got the chance to shoot his M-9 for a whole 30 rounds yesterday at qualification. Made expert:D

I don't see this as being much of an improvement. Uncle Sams Misguided Children has the right idea-every serving individual is a rifleman first. My kid does not even have access to a rifle due to his MOS, let alone anything remotely resembling some really effective firepower.
 
I don't see this as being much of an improvement. Uncle Sams Misguided Children has the right idea-every serving individual is a rifleman first. My kid does not even have access to a rifle due to his MOS, let alone anything remotely resembling some really effective firepower.

I agree with the USMC. Every if someone is noncombat it doesn't mean that he will never be in combat.

-Bill
 
Nice to see they're adopting the MEU (see "Stryker Brigade") and digital cammies also.

But then they've always been the "follow on" force. :D

Just kidding all you Army dogs.
 
Correct notion, but no doubt a long way to go. Especially if a lot of this training is on simulators.

I was a shooter when I went into the USAF to fight Godless communism. Did less shooting while in than any other part of my life. As for equipment, I am usually better armed going out for coffee or for a plinking session these days than when I was pulling security on nuclear weapons almost 40 years ago.

Don't have anything around the place that chambers .30 carbine or 5.56, either.

A warrior ethic sure would be nice to see down the line.
 
The same things were said in Korea over 50 years ago, particularly after observing the results of sending clerks and bakers in as reinforcements. It usually takes a year or two of war before folks start getting the proper mindset. Usually takes a couple of months after the war for most to lose that mindset.
 
"This is the new mentality that says, 'Everybody is going to be a warrior first,'
Powderman beat me to it....
:neener:
The Marines have always had this mindset. The Marines have always been the most lethal fighting force in the world. Hell, even in a full on retreat on the Frozen Chosin the Marines fought like hell, from grunts to truck drivers.
 
Classic, classic American discussion. Only Americans are so hurried to forget the past and get on with the future. We always view the current and future battlefield as a straight line for the past.

We also tend to forget bloody lessons for political expediency. Korea and WW II demonstrated the need to have support personnel be able to shoot and scoot. We forgot it.

We know something about rebuilding societies we just blew up. Yet we forgot everything we learned in Chermany and Japan when we rolled into Baghdad.

We know how vulnerable convoys are, yet we left the freakin' MP's in the US when we went into Baghdad.

The fact that we are now marveling at the idea of every soldier a shoot and scooter is perfectly consistent.
 
Current BRM Program of Instruction (POI) has 7 range days where soldiers actually fire, plus 1 more day with a simulator. Overall, a soldier in training (SIT) probably fires fewer rounds in basic than I do in a good day at the range.

Ft Jackson has added without official budget authorization (squeezing the bullets from I dont know where) a more day of quickfire training (20 rounds in 4 mags at 15m & 25m targets) to include rapid mag change.

We also do familiarization training with the M249 SAW, AT-4, and M203 grenade launcher.

Training on the M240B, M2, and MK-19 is in the works. M240B will probably have to wait, because the Army doesn't have enough to replace all their M-60s in units going to Iraq just yet, but there's plenty of M2s and MK-19s around.

We've also added (again, without adding to the length of training or much in the way of additional funds) rudimentary convoy training, checkpoint training, and call for MEDEVAC. My company will start rudimentary MOUT in September.

CPT Langenator
Commander, C/1-61 IN (BCT) Ft Jackson SC
 
just for the sake of discussion

Training budgets and time limits being what they are, is it better to give everyone a minimal level of firearms training, or enhance the training for the front line types and pulling it from those with less need?

If someone does their hitch in a computer room at a base in CONUS, why not give their allotment to some combat arms type overseas who arguably needs it more?
 
I've been wondering lately if the guy in the computer room in CONUS needs to be in uniform at all? Maybe not a private contractor, but that's a pay/benefits/retirement slot that could be filled with a shooter in an infantry battalion, which we need more of.

At what point is a specialist so far removed from the combat arms side of things (and sufficiently domestic) that they no longer need to be "military" per se?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top