PDA

View Full Version : Units and METL Training



Uboat509
05-18-2008, 03:55 AM
Someone asked why units are not training on their METL tasks when they are back in the states. I think that the answer is simple, really. Once every couple of months an article will appear somewhere in the MSM about how PFC Snuffy was killed in Iraq/Afghanistan and how it was because PFC Snuffy's unit was rushed into the fight had to skimp on this training or that training and that is why PFC Snuffy is dead, because he missed an NTC rotation. While there may be some truth to it, it is generally way overstated. Unfortunately, overstated or not, that is the impression that John Q Public gets and when John Q. Public gets worked up then the politicians have to appear to get worked up too and they are all looking for scapegoats, for instance a commander who decided to train METL tasks instead of just doing PMT for the next rotation. Nobody wants to be that guy. It's micromanagement from the top (civilian) level that just oozes downward and inevitably leads the resurgence of the zero defect Army of the '60s. In that kind of enviroment commanders can't afford to train for a war they are not fighting, even if it means letting METL atrophy.

SFC W

ODB
05-18-2008, 05:18 AM
I had to bring METL tasks to the table so to speak. Understanding a conventional units "lifecycle".

Return from deployment (based on averages):
1 month for equipment to return and accountability.
1 month leave
2 months maintainence (getting everything operational)


Deployment outload (based on averages)
1-2 months prior to deployment date everything is starting to be packed and shipped. Additionally 1 month of leave during this time frame.

Based on these numbers a unit has 6-12 months to train between rotations. In many cases more than enough time to train METL tasks and to conduct PMT. Unfortunately (Ken will love me for this) the Army's ability to manage personnel is horrible. Many of these conventional soldiers PCS from a returning unit to a deploying unit. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul. I understand the difficulties involved in maintaining a trained and intergrated unit, but also fully believed it can be done. I am probably wrong but come from the school of thought that everyone is a trigger puller first and foremost. In discussing this with some friends I heard some promising news. Many units here are starting to get back to training these tasks prior to conducting PMTs, which is good. In the case of artillery and ADA, I still have to ask why are we not pushing gunnery skills first?

A good friend of mine recently took command of a Division Special Troops Battalion. He has been tasked to create a QRF Company and a PSD out of cooks, mechanics, MPs, etc... I have to truely question the really high decision makers. Are we so undermanned as an Army that we have resulted in misusing forces to make up for it? IMO there are many threads on here that when combined start getting to the real issues. Uboat you hit on one of the biggest ones POLITICIANS. I believe they decide when and where we fight, not how we fight.

The public, I wonder how many feel the way the news media wants you to think the public feels. Is the public majority in an outrage or are the select few getting all the attention and therefore it looks that way?

Ken White
05-18-2008, 05:48 PM
and life was good... :D

Seriously, I am not a METL fan (heavy or otherwise...). The intent was to design a training process that was not subjective (BWahahahahahahahaaaa) and the eliminated the 'valleys' in the training cycle (equally hilarious; most of the valleys are personnel system or major training event induced). The process did eliminate some valleys -- it also eliminated most all the peaks, like any process designed to eliminate highs and lows, it simply bred mediocrity.

Having said that, I agree with both of you on the problem but do think that training distractors make it difficult and if one adds in a DMETL to the METL, it can easily get in the too hard box.

You'd think all those civilians and iron Majors developing MTOE could quickly adapt to -- and the Personnel system would support -- modifying the TOEs to provide QRFs and PSDs since everyone in both theaters has had them for what, six years now? Guess that's in the too hard box also...

My suspicion is that about a third of the public doesn't know but is pretty well convinced the Armed Forces can do nothing right; another third believe they do nothing wrong and the middle third makes up its mind slowly on what is reported in the media. Most of those media folks are totally clueless but they do eventually get a lot of it right so it generally works out okay.

Back to the METL -- consider the fact that units do not do tasks; they perform missions and those missions can require the completion of hundreds, even thousands of disparate tasks by a lot people and organic and other units. The METL process was an attempt to simplify the training effort. It overdid that simplification bit and developed a rote, by the book mentality, it dumbed us down...

It needs to go and to be replaced by outcome based training.

Uboat509
05-18-2008, 07:25 PM
Can't say I disagree about outcome based training. Since I have been in SF it has been my experience that we will create some nice pretty slides about which METL tasks we are training and then go do outcome based training. Often we would skip the slides if we knew that no one would check. I am at the school house now reclassing to medic and the slide show for every class has an "action, condition and standard" at the beginning of it. Most instructors skip right over it to get to the actual training. Others may pause briefly and say something like "Here is the action, condition and standard, in case you were curious." No attempt is ever made to teach it that way. Oddly, I don't feel cheated by that.

SFC W

Ken White
05-18-2008, 08:14 PM
To simplify training and make it easy on the training cadre / instructors too many 'conditions' are cookie cutter, easy approaches to the problem at hand. Problem in the real world is that conditions can vary so widely as to make much training meaningless. Clearing a roadblock at Hood and clearing one in Afghanistan will differ in multiple ways.

Simple example is climatology based. Performing a task on a pleasant and balmy June day at Bragg and the same task in January at Carson -- much less further north or up -- is a different thing entirely. A task tested at night with a full moon is likely to result differently if the same unit were tested on a night with no moon.

Another simple example is use of the Map *. Last time I looked, there were 21 map 'tasks.' Those aren't tasks, they're enabling skills and there are other skills the system doesn't recognize. There are really only two map tasks -- Using a map, (1) Plot or locate own, friendly, enemy and other locations; (2) Conduct a map reconnaissance to select masks, clearances, routes and positions. Yet, we waste time teaching some or all those 21 'tasks' over and over at every level from BCT to the OACs...

* GPS is great. Love it. Use it -- but if it goes out I won't be in trouble or lost. Not sure everyone can say that -- but they should be able to, even Joe. Especially Joe...

Training is not easy, it's difficult and it needs to be done well and it must be integrated and aimed at producing the desired performance that is most likely to offer success regardless of conditions.

Ski
05-19-2008, 12:23 PM
A topic close to my heart.

Right now the Army is trying to train on everything, and manages to train on a few things. The introduction of DMETL's, DMD's and MEELS has forced units to reinvent themselves from their Core METL and MTOE, often in the middle of an ARFORGEN cycle/

It's maddening, frustrating and completely driven by theater.

Nothing is synchronized either - the personnel system is still broke (ask one of the AC guys here when they receive the last batch of replacements before deployment), the equipment pipeline is not synchronized at all (one of the few places within the military where synchronization is critical), and training falters because you don't have enough people, the mission shifts, or you are getting new equipment at the wrong time.

*sigh*

120mm
05-19-2008, 01:34 PM
From the Reservists' standpoint;

Frankly, we get 3 or 4 mandatory, get it done now, now, now!!! CYA "lesbian green-eyed people born during the blue moon - awareness" training requirements a month. When you combine it with the heightened firearms training requirements, (the bright point in the entire b.s. constellation)combined with the CYA pre-,pre-,pre-,pre QTB meetings, which run at least a full day, as well as mandatory "count everyone, because we don't know where our reservists are", as well as E-1 to O-235 TA-50 layout, we don't even have time to do PT tests during drill.

True fact: It is now the Reservist's responsibility to take a PT test outside of drill time, and the unit will provide that opportunity before or after drill if you so choose.

METL training? Heck, "training?" what the hell is that?

selil
05-19-2008, 02:01 PM
METL training? Heck, "training?" what the hell is that?

I was told by CENSORED a reserve commander that his troops were required to do some kind of online training outside of drill time and that it could easily reach 30 or 40 hours a month worth of training. We were talking about better online training versus education so I didn't follow the thread of out of drill training time (and no he wasn't complaining either).

Ski
05-19-2008, 05:02 PM
Distance learning training can be a good method for getting the mandatory stuff out of the way - such as EEO, Sexual Harassment, etc...

But soldiers should be reimbursed for their time - and I know HQDA has been working on some kind of payment program for this stuff.

It really goes to the heart of the matter - there is way too much training that is considered "vital" when it is of questionable importance.

Randy Brown
05-19-2008, 05:32 PM
Just wanted to offer a few notes from an Army National Guard (ARNG) perspective. My state-directorate-level (think "division-level"?) lessons-learned integration (L2I) cell works alongside our state's Pre-mobilization Training Assistance Element (PTAE).

As of TY2007, each state and territory has a PTAE, which is a five-soldier command-and-control cell tasked with coordinating the efforts of unit Training Assistors (TA). Training Assistors are M-day soldiers brought onto federal active-duty in a unit's year three or four of the ARFORGEN model, or upon alert. They "assist the commander to plan, resource, execute, document, and assess training." They're funded at a ratio of 1 TA per 60 authorized soldiers; funding state-by-state obviously varies considerably year-to-year.

Training Assistors are analogous to Unit Mobilization Assistors (UMA), the active-duty First U.S. Army representatives who shepherd a mobilizing national guard unit through a mobiliziation station. The stated Army objective is to have a mobilizing company spend only 30 days at mobilization station; 45 days for a battalion; 60 days for a brigade.

Every state has their own take and flavor on how to best use/organize/locate Training Assistors (TA). In my state, they're currently located at the unit level, and serve as a readiness and/or training NCO augmentee. They're also qualified as instructors and observer-controllers/trainers, so that they can be surged to support a given unit's pre-mobilization Home Station Activity Plans (HSAP).

Individual Warrior Tasks and weapons qualifications are now tested and validated prior to Mobilization-Day (M-day), the day on which a unit is placed on federal active duty. Because of this, Uncle Sam has thrown additional money toward more Unit Training Assemblies (UTA) in year three and four of the ARFORGEN. That means citizen-soldiers who are ramping up to ARFORGEN year five are definitely drilling more than one weekend a month, two weeks a year.

In my opinion, the additional drills are something of a blessing and curse. On the plus side, citizen-soldiers are being paid and resourced for more training; and they don't have to unnecessarily "train, test and validate" for up to six months at mobiliziation station. On the other hand, there are lots of training requirements that are being pushed to the state- rather than the federal-duty side of the equation, just so Uncle Sam can meet the objective of "only 12 months on federal active-duty."

Finally, some commanders lament the constant focus on individual-task training in this pre-mobilization philosophy. When does the collective-task METL-training occur, they ask, so that--for example--your wrenches know how to fix Good-Guy stuff, in addition to how to shoot Bad-Guy stuff?

I hope this helps clarify the situation originally described by Uboat509, as it pertains to the Army National Guard; or, at least, that it doesn't add its own clutter. Please apply all usual caveats on the ARNG being (organizationally? philosophically?) different than USAR, as well as Big Army; and each of the colonies has it's own way of doing things, too. Remember the ARNG Golden Rule: Don't tread on us, or each other.

Thanks for your attention. Have an Army day!

ODB
05-20-2008, 01:42 AM
There are two primary inputs to METL development: war plans and external directives.

War Plans. The most critical inputs to METL development are the organization's wartime operations and contingency plans. The missions and related information provided in these plans are key to determining essential training tasks.

External Directives. External directives are additional sources of training tasks that relate to an organization's wartime mission.

I don't believe a unit's METL drives how they train, but what they are to be currently trained to do. If my memory serves me correctly a unit's METL is approved at the next higher echolon. (Co approved by BN, BN approved by BDe, etc...) IMO this was designed to give commanders a focus base for what they needed their units to be proficient in. Additionally if I remember correctly a unit's METL should be ever changing to a degree but their are some never changing core tasks as well.

I brought this up in another thread in reference to the status of artillery and ADA units today. When one looks at the fact that a unit's METL is to based off of their wartime mission then I can see where some of their tasks will have changed, but cannot see the employment of their gun systems completely being off their METL. Talking today about this specific subject I do not see how they are failing at this. I understand many of these units are currently conducting more of an infantry type role (FOB security, convoys, patrols, etc...) but don't they already do this as a unit. Do they not secure their own perimeter? Provide their own escorts? I hope I am wrong and misreading/understanding the problem, but a lot of it seems simply IMO a knee jerk reaction vs not having the opportunity to stay proficient.

patmc
05-20-2008, 05:14 PM
For OIF IV, our batteries were tasked to provide convoy security, and my BC rewrote our METL to conduct convoy security. Provide FA Fires went away. There was not enough time to train both missions to the standard needed for combat. Upon return, our BN has spent a year relearning FA and is finally a T. Our current METL is FA centric, with movement and security as tasks, but without Gun Trucks and the manpower, it is still an either or situation.

In theory, we would provide our own security in HIC, but the reality now is FA units are on a FOB, or on Fire Base with infantry force protection. FA batteries do not have the manpower and equipment to provide gun truck security, perimeter security, and fires at the same time. Can a 13B dig a fighting position or man a crew-served weapon? Of course, but if he is, he is not on the cannon making the big boom. In LIC this may be ok due to other priorities, but if you call for fire for a battalion mission, and expect 18 tubes to fire, the 13B's and D's better be near the cannons.

Sargent
05-21-2008, 01:05 PM
In that kind of enviroment commanders can't afford to train for a war they are not fighting, even if it means letting METL atrophy.

Pardon me for straying into military bureaucratic heresy, but what is the point of METLs that are irrelevant to the war at hand?

I know it would be great to be able to maintain conventional warfare capabilities at the highest levels while simultaneously deploying to and fighting in conflicts that require other skills and tasks, but absent a large influx of people and funds or a fundamental change in the basic properties of physics regarding time and space this can't happen. Something will have to give. It seems reasonable that commanders should ditch those requirements that do not serve current needs given the realities of resources and constraints. It seems strange to expect otherwise.

Thus far, I haven't read anything here that explains why METL training is essential, except that it's been the norm up until now, and nobody wants to change the status quo. I understand the fear of being caught unprepared for an HIC, but then some change must be made. If the HIC requirements are the most important, are untouchables, then Iraq is untenable. There's just no way around this.

Tom Odom
05-21-2008, 01:53 PM
Pardon me for straying into military bureaucratic heresy, but what is the point of METLs that are irrelevant to the war at hand?

I know it would be great to be able to maintain conventional warfare capabilities at the highest levels while simultaneously deploying to and fighting in conflicts that require other skills and tasks, but absent a large influx of people and funds or a fundamental change in the basic properties of physics regarding time and space this can't happen. Something will have to give. It seems reasonable that commanders should ditch those requirements that do not serve current needs given the realities of resources and constraints. It seems strange to expect otherwise.

Thus far, I haven't read anything here that explains why METL training is essential, except that it's been the norm up until now, and nobody wants to change the status quo. I understand the fear of being caught unprepared for an HIC, but then some change must be made. If the HIC requirements are the most important, are untouchables, then Iraq is untenable. There's just no way around this.

METL=Mission Essential Task List

If they are doing it right, a METL for COIN differs from a METL for a conventional fight in a matter of degrees. That said basic METL like "react to contact", "search and attack" as modified into cordon and search/knock, etc etc still play a very large role in how we set up our training. Look on METL as a focusing mechanism for trainers and leaders.

Tom

Sargent
05-21-2008, 02:23 PM
METL=Mission Essential Task List

If they are doing it right, a METL for COIN differs from a METL for a conventional fight in a matter of degrees. That said basic METL like "react to contact", "search and attack" as modified into cordon and search/knock, etc etc still play a very large role in how we set up our training. Look on METL as a focusing mechanism for trainers and leaders.

I understand the acronym.

I'm not making an argument that the training for COIN and LIC cannot have value to conventional warfare/HIC. Rather, I am challenging the assumptions made in this thread, namely that the failure of units to train to the pre-existing METLs is, on its own, a problem.

There is no doubt that units such as those in the field artillery are not able to maintain the same degree of competency as they did in pre-OIF days. Even those that are deploying in an artillery capacity are not operating as they have traditionally trained to - eg, they emplace on a FOB, they don't practice moving around, they are there as independent batteries, etc. Furthermore, the battalion and regimental echelon headquarters elements are not deploying, and therefore are neither training much nor gaining operational experience -- not to mention the fact that most don't have anywhere near the full complement of staff officers. Add in personnel flux -- standard rotations, individual augments to deployments, etc. There are arty captains who, because they came into Marine Corps at the start of OIF, have never done any artillery work in the fleet. It will be interesting to see what will be done with them after OIF. Will they be retrained in artillery? And how will they make up for missing the lieutenant level work experience? An arty lt. will work in a number of areas in the battery to learn all of the parts of the job -- FO, FDO, LNO, etc. This is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but even infantry units will see some degradation in their relevant HIC skills.

I joke with my husband that, due to his deployment and combat experience, he may be the first arty officer ever able to lat. move INTO the infantry. (Back in the 90s -- and probably previously -- many combat arms officers had to move into other MOS's like logistics in order to stay in the Marine Corps, because there were not enough jobs for them to stay on in their combat arms specialty.) On the other hand, if they are going to rebuild the arty, they'll need all the officers who are competent to stick around.

To reiterate, my point is that I don't buy the knee-jerk "We're not training to METLs and this is a tragedy" line that doesn't acknowledge the realities of the current operational situation. If the pre-existing METLs need to be the priority, then the current operational requirements must be changed. If they are not, then we must simply be prepared to let them go and retrain to them when things change. To argue that we can do both simultaneously is not supported by reality.

Cheers,
Jill

Ken White
05-21-2008, 02:45 PM
current mission, it's not totally static. Plus, they also have a DMETL, a Deployment METL with theater and gaining command directed specific to the theater tasks.

Having said that, I'm not a METL fan, it's probably going to leave the system soon and be replaced by an outcome based effort.


...To reiterate, my point is that I don't buy the knee-jerk "We're not training to METLs and this is a tragedy" line that doesn't acknowledge the realities of the current operational situation. If the pre-existing METLs need to be the priority, then the current operational requirements must be changed. If they are not, then we must simply be prepared to let them go and retrain to them when things change. To argue that we can do both simultaneously is not supported by reality.

Cheers,
JillI totally agree and most of the Army seems to as well. We probably should not tell Gian... :D

Cavguy
05-21-2008, 03:24 PM
To reiterate, my point is that I don't buy the knee-jerk "We're not training to METLs and this is a tragedy" line that doesn't acknowledge the realities of the current operational situation. If the pre-existing METLs need to be the priority, then the current operational requirements must be changed. If they are not, then we must simply be prepared to let them go and retrain to them when things change. To argue that we can do both simultaneously is not supported by reality.

Cheers,
Jill

The Army is headed down this path. I'm involved in staffing some documents related to it.

Units will have a core METL, or CMETL, which is their default training tasks. When identified for potential deployment or given the international security situation, it will transition to a Deployment METL, or DMETL, which may or may not be similar to the CMETL.

So BDE X trains its CMETL in absence of guidance. The Army/Joint Staff identifieds a potential need for a X number of BCTs to deploy and conduct COIN within the next 12 months. Those units are issued a DMETL and given specific training resources to meet the DMETL standards. The DMETL may not be related at all to the CMETL.

So BDE X, a HBCT, trains its CMETL, comes on orders (actual or warning), gets a DMETL to train for. That could be COIN, FID, SSO, etc.

Or, the chief of staff orders x percent of the army to train a HIC DMETL, x percent a COIN DMETL, and x percent a stability DMETL, which shift based off of the likely operating environments. As units "lifecycle", the army maintains a balanced percentage of forces ready for anticipated commitments. A BCT could transition entirely to an advisory force for its lifecycle, for example.

It does presuppose a certian amount of knowledge of likely future commitments.

Ron Humphrey
05-21-2008, 06:07 PM
The Army is headed down this path. I'm involved in staffing some documents related to it.

Units will have a core METL, or CMETL, which is their default training tasks. When identified for potential deployment or given the international security situation, it will transition to a Deployment METL, or DMETL, which may or may not be similar to the CMETL.

So BDE X trains its CMETL in absence of guidance. The Army/Joint Staff identifieds a potential need for a X number of BCTs to deploy and conduct COIN within the next 12 months. Those units are issued a DMETL and given specific training resources to meet the DMETL standards. The DMETL may not be related at all to the CMETL.

So BDE X, a HBCT, trains its CMETL, comes on orders (actual or warning), gets a DMETL to train for. That could be COIN, FID, SSO, etc.

Or, the chief of staff orders x percent of the army to train a HIC DMETL, x percent a COIN DMETL, and x percent a stability DMETL, which shift based off of the likely operating environments. As units "lifecycle", the army maintains a balanced percentage of forces ready for anticipated commitments. A BCT could transition entirely to an advisory force for its lifecycle, for example.

It does presuppose a certian amount of knowledge of likely future commitments.

that from the sound of it it looks to be provisional for those commitments we may not be aware of as well. That IMO is a good thing.

Sargent
05-21-2008, 06:26 PM
Or, the chief of staff orders x percent of the army to train a HIC DMETL, x percent a COIN DMETL, and x percent a stability DMETL, which shift based off of the likely operating environments. As units "lifecycle", the army maintains a balanced percentage of forces ready for anticipated commitments. A BCT could transition entirely to an advisory force for its lifecycle, for example.

I was wondering about such a scenario, where you'd keep a core cadre of personnel/units trained in those areas not needed in a current conflict but which might be required in near to medium term conflicts. It seems the most rational approach to the current situation, as you don't expect all units to be Jacks of All Trades -- thereby incurring the associated downside.

The only negative to such a plan that I can see is that you end up with units that aren't deploying to the current conflict. Despite the griping, my experience is that most folks in the combat arms don't want to be left out of the fight -- not for glory reasons, but for feeling like they are letting down their comrades. I know that this was the sentiment for a lot of the Marines stranded in Okinawa at the start of OIF.

Structurally, I can imagine that there might simply not be enough personnel to implement such a plan.

So I'm curious, what other negatives/downsides are there?

Cheers,
Jill

Ski
05-21-2008, 07:01 PM
I'm also involved with what Cavguy is doing but from another 3 Star Command.

The problem I have it's that we are trying to focus on everything - and the CMETL/DMETL switch does not take into account the most important factor IMO - training time.

Case in point - units create the DMETL's off the FORSCOM SWA Guidance, Army Warrior Tasks, and the DMD/MEEL's they are given. Taking a FA BN who is training on a CMETL mission and then making them a DETOPS BN - has anyone done the troops to task list on the differences in tasks and then the time associated with the new tasks. Obviously there is some crossover between the CMETL and DMETL task list - but would be interested to see a no-bullcrap training time difference between the two.

Randy Brown
05-21-2008, 09:56 PM
The problem I have it's that we are trying to focus on everything - and the CMETL/DMETL switch does not take into account the most important factor IMO - training time.

Case in point - units create the DMETL's off the FORSCOM SWA Guidance, Army Warrior Tasks, and the DMD/MEEL's they are given. Taking a FA BN who is training on a CMETL mission and then making them a DETOPS BN - has anyone done the troops to task list on the differences in tasks and then the time associated with the new tasks. Obviously there is some crossover between the CMETL and DMETL task list - but would be interested to see a no-bullcrap training time difference between the two.

Fire for effect!

Training time is the proverbial elephant in the unit leadership meeting. Personally, I've yet to see ARFORGEN executed in anything other than a hurry-up-and-(re)deploy mode, with two big side helpings of "here's your new mission set" and "reclass a chunk of your MOS make-up." Think flash-to-bang times of less than 12 months, and outside of units' official ARFORGEN windows. You can make an arty guy into a provisional MP in that timeframe, but can you make him a good one?

Adding to the frustration, DMD/MEEL are not available from theater in a timely manner, and commanders are busy juggling the problem of how to train/test 100-percent Warrior Task and weapons qualifications prior to M-day.

So, while I like the concept of the CMETL/DMETL, in that it puts some names and documents to how we're already doing business, I'm not sure the overall concept itself does much to solve the training-time problem. Wasn't the old rule-of-thumb something like, "Use 20 percent of the available time for leaders to plan, 80 percent for troops to prepare for mission execution?"

ODB
05-22-2008, 05:08 AM
Many of the recent posts are hitting on what I was trying to get at when I posted about a units METL. I was looking at it in the sense that no matter what fight we are in there are certain basic/core tasks that units must maintain proficientcy in. I used FA and ADA as examples, but it is the same across the board. IMO an example of this with an Infantry unit would be this: currently they don't need to be able to conduct large scale movement to contact but must be able to react to contact. Which is one of their basic/core tasks. I understand it may be easier for an Infantry unit to maintain their proficientcy in this than say and FA Battalion to maintain proficientcy in gunnery skills, but again IMO this is one of their basic/core tasks that should be maintained.

patmc was glad to read your unit was getting back to gunnery skills. But wonder if now you'd have the time to maintain proficientcy in both? Or will it start all over again because 180-120 days from deployment someone will finally let the secret out of their pocket what you'll be tasked to do. We are just as bad if not worst with letting folks know what they will be doing in time for them to train for it as we are with managing personnel.

Ski
05-22-2008, 12:15 PM
The good news with all of this is that HQDA and FORSCOM are starting to wake and smell the chai - I suspect some major changes are coming down the pike in the next few months with regards to the entire "D" process (DMETL/DMD/MEEL).

patmc
05-22-2008, 02:07 PM
ODB, I agree with you that if we received an infantry type mission, we probably could not maintain METL for both.

My BDE Commander was able to maintain both while deployed as a BN Commander bc his BN was tasked as 1 FA BTRY and several IN companies, so they rotated duties to keep people trained. They lucked out with that configuration.

My deployment, we deployed for convoy escort, but were later tasked to provide 2 howitzer sections, and had to rob from 2 batteries to fill them. Those on the guns did nothing besides FA. When they came back, we had to retrain them for convoy escort.

The best a unit can hope for now is early WARNO for their deployment mission so they can adequately train up.



patmc was glad to read your unit was getting back to gunnery skills. But wonder if now you'd have the time to maintain proficientcy in both? Or will it start all over again because 180-120 days from deployment someone will finally let the secret out of their pocket what you'll be tasked to do. We are just as bad if not worst with letting folks know what they will be doing in time for them to train for it as we are with managing personnel.

Randy Brown
05-22-2008, 02:46 PM
I've recently been engaged in some conversations--both on-line and around the water cooler--regarding optimal brigade-level task organization and equipment for COIN missions. I wanted to take the opportunity to say that this thread--with its concurrent discussion of METL, past and future--has really helped me round out my thinking on the training side of the house.

Andrew Povard's recent SWJ article on Force Structure for Small Wars (http://smallwarsjournal.com/mag/2008/05/force-structure-for-small-wars.php) was what got the conversational ball rolling around the hallways here. There's also a related SWJ discussion (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5395"), if you're interested.

Also, I thought I'd mention a METL-related question (if not exactly related answers) regarding "Brigade-level COIN METL tasks" (https://forums.bcks.army.mil/secure/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=566831) has been recently posted to the Battle Command Knowledge System's (BCKS) COIN forum. AKO log-in required. I think it's fair to say that the discussion there is gravitating more toward supporting tasks than actual BCT METL, but it's all good.