PDA

View Full Version : Blasphemy: Article advocates afternoon PT



Cavguy
10-12-2009, 03:12 PM
Good article in this month's Military Review (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20091031_art012.pdf):




Afternoon PT: Key for an Army Flextime Battle Rhythm
Captain Mark Van Horn, U.S. Army

With great stress, commanders are seeking better ways to help. They
encourage Soldiers to spend time with their loved ones, but they must bal-
ance the requirements of reintegration with compressed pre-deployment
training. This is a notoriously tight rope to walk. Morning physical training
(PT) determines when Soldiers report for work. Close of business comes
when—as a member of a team, squad, or platoon—all the work is finished.
There is a more productive way to approach this routine and preserve the
cohesion of the unit: make PT an afternoon ritual. If commanders simply
shift the physical training time from morning to afternoon and empower
company-grade leaders to send Soldiers home when the work is done, the
Army will have a flextime schedule that works with regimentation. Soldiers
will get the opportunity to spend more time with their families, pursue
personal interests, and generally improve their quality of life, with reduced
stress, less commute times, and better health.
.....

Convincing case.

I don't see the current crop of CSM's ever allowing it - it just isn't done that way!

Schmedlap
10-12-2009, 03:32 PM
I pushed for this when I was a platoon leader and one of my commanders did, as well. It was partly for reasons cited in the article and also due to the fact that the division was way overstrength after our first deployment, due to stop-loss and stop-move. Gates to get on post were backed up for miles from about 0500 to 0600 and then the entire post was gridlocked immediately after PT. We wanted to save our Soldiers hours of time in the morning and then spend only an hour or so in the afternoon instead. The consensus view against us was...
1) the chain of command feared that if we broke from our routine then units would find excuses to let Soldiers go home early without doing PT; if not all units do PT at the same time, then how would leaders check up to make sure it was happening? (You can't make that up).
2) running would be "unsafe" because roads would not be closed off (as they are in the morning) and other units are racing home at that time
3) having some units do first formation at 0600 and others at 0900 would complicate accountability (I guess accountability of personnel is handled at division???)
4) We would lose out on the sense of espirit de corps that we apparently get by having everyone do PT at the same time (I never really felt any sense of espirit de corps when my platoon would run through the CSS area and pass by couples who spent their PT hours walking around and holding hands or sitting in their cars and listening to the radio).

Ken White
10-12-2009, 03:58 PM
Not to defend them, many are guilty of a terrifying lack of imagination among other things but they are not alone in that. I recall reading in the International Edition of Newsweek in the mid-70s when the "Pro-Life" 2d Inf Div would have been unable to fight its way out of a paper bag but was an unusual sociological experiment the comment that if "...the North Koreans are smart, they'll attack the South at 0600 when the entire US 2d Division is out in shorts and T-Shirts running four miles on the road every morning."

Not to mention that said running did NOT equip the troops to climb those Korean hills with 90 pounds on their backs...

That said, there was a time before the Army developed its misplaced and not terribly productive PT and running fetish when units did PT before lunch, in the afternoons and even in the cool of the evening. It was a unit choice and there were frequent variations, even some days when there was no PT! -- that was back in the day when a Company could write its own training schedule and not be dictated to by an overranked Bn S3. The S3s are overranked to support OPM, not for any valid military reason and PT is vastly overrated as a conditioner and for development of the strengths, muscles and endurance required for combat. ;)

I've heard all the objections Schmedlap raised and more -- all are specious. Particularly the closing of roads, totally unnecessary unless you put everyone on the roads at the same time on some (not all) posts. Why not run cross country in boots and toughen the ankles. Or a fifteen mile cross country ruck and vest march. Better yet, why not an Obstacle or Confidence Course.. :D

If the Army really wants to develop flexibility, they'll return to that model. They might also consider going to a nine day on four / five day off (varying between the two in no set pattern) work period and occasionally combining two nine day 'on' periods for a more lengthy and realistic field exercise. That breaks up troops flooding town on weekends off, gets rid of the five day week syndrome and has several other benefits, not least scheduling ranges and training areas. It also mentally conditions the troops -- and their leaders -- for a war where there are no slack days or cycling to a FOB or the rear. Yeah, I know. But it also spreads out use of the Post Golf course...:D

Soldiering is an outdoor sport and it is not an eight to five plus structured early morning PT five day week sort of job. Too easy to forget that if one is not careful. Habits and mental conditioning can be dangerous... :o

MikeF
10-12-2009, 06:11 PM
Why not run cross country in boots and toughen the ankles. Or a fifteen mile cross country ruck and vest march. Better yet, why not an Obstacle or Confidence Course.. :D

Soldiering is an outdoor sport and it is not an eight to five plus structured early morning PT five day week sort of job. Too easy to forget that if one is not careful. Habits and mental conditioning can be dangerous... :o

We started doing combat-focused PT like this back in 2005 at the suggestion of a very smart infantry major. All running was done in the training area, and we would mix in jumping over connexes and fences to condition the boys for clearing gates and other urban structures. Almost all PT was squad/section level minus the mandatory unit "fun" runs. Once a week, combatives replaced the run. Squadron Runs typically ended after running through a training area and an obstacle course.

Additionally, officer PT consisted of 3 mile release runs tranisitioning into group competitions of an additional three miles of litter carry (after inserting an IV), LMTV tire push, Buddy Carries, until we reached the gym and maxed out repititions on the bench and hit the ropes to climb.

It was different: mentally and physically challenging. Moreover, it was fun. It worked.

Over the last two years, some SF'ers and Seals introduced me to yoga, Cross-Fit, and kettle bells as additional workouts to help repair the lower back after long tours of wearing the body armor.

The days of 8-10 mile runs are over even if we haven't realized it yet.

Plus, all that training was a good way to avoid the "thought police" (the Div CSM's minions that run around Ardennes looking for uniform violations!!!!).

v/r

Mike

Ken White
10-12-2009, 08:49 PM
Over the last two years, some SF'ers and Seals introduced me to yoga, Cross-Fit, and kettle bells as additional workouts to help repair the lower back after long tours of wearing the body armor.Yes. I'm waiting for my son to drop one his several Kettlebells on his head... :D
The days of 8-10 mile runs are over even if we haven't realized it yet.Long overdue, that.
Plus, all that training was a good way to avoid the "thought police" (the Div CSM's minions that run around Ardennes looking for uniform violations!!!!).Minions? Tommy doesn't need minions. Though I can understand why some of his predecessors did... ;)

Rifleman
10-12-2009, 11:36 PM
Glad to see more units doing combat focused PT.

But there is one good thing about early morning cardio, especially when done in a fasted state: it seems to work better for taking off weight. The theories behind this are not universally accepted but if you google "morning cardio" or "AM cardio" you should find articles that go into it. Fight trainers have known this for decades and continue with "morning roadwork" for fighters, especially those who have to make weight.

Just something to keep in mind if you have any porkys in your unit on a remedial program. Even if the rest of the unit does PT in the evening you might want to have porky come in early and knock out the miles.

Schmedlap
10-13-2009, 06:05 AM
Added benefit: sick call is in the morning. PT is in the afternoon. No more missing PT due to sick call.

Good point by Rifleman in regard to Porky, though I would favor his morning PT beginning at 0830 so that his team leader isn't punished for inheriting a fat-bodied troop. Most team leaders, from what I observed, inherited their disgusting fat bodies. They were not responsible for creating them. That was particularly the case upon redeployment when rear-detachment Soldiers were reintegrated into the unit. Some of them were clearly attempting to eat their way to freedom while the adult supervision was away. For a team/section leader fresh off of a deployment to inherit one of those train wrecks was just (bad) luck of the draw.

Ski
10-14-2009, 02:34 AM
I did PT in the afternoon when I was stationed in the Beltway, and have continued this "new" found process here at Leavenweorth for the last two years.

Usually go from 1600-1700, maybe a little later or even after dinner. Depends on the reading/writing schedule.

I'd much rather do it later in the day.

jkm_101_fso
10-14-2009, 02:41 AM
Apparently, Fort Riley experimented with this concept a few years back...morning "work" formation at 0700 and PT from 1500-1600. It went on for a while, but as soon as the new command group came in, it went back ot 0630.

slapout9
10-14-2009, 03:09 AM
kettle bells as additional workouts to help repair the lower back after long tours of wearing the body armor.

Mike

I don't think we have kettle bells in Alabama......are they like dumb bells or something??

Ben_0802
10-14-2009, 03:23 AM
We started doing combat-focused PT like this back in 2005 at the suggestion of a very smart infantry major. All running was done in the training area, and we would mix in jumping over connexes and fences to condition the boys for clearing gates and other urban structures. Almost all PT was squad/section level minus the mandatory unit "fun" runs. Once a week, combatives replaced the run. Squadron Runs typically ended after running through a training area and an obstacle course.


Love the combat focused PT! This is coming from a Marine on an Army base, but I almost never see units here conducting anything outside of runs, pu's and su's.

I am trying to expose my Lt's, both Army and Marine to different types of PT, and show them that there ways beyond running to get outstanding workouts in.

We need to train for the rigors of combat, not the 30 min it takes to run a PFT.

S/F
Ben

Schmedlap
10-14-2009, 04:11 AM
I did PT in the afternoon when I was stationed in the Beltway, and have continued this "new" found process here at Leavenweorth for the last two years.

I hated doing PT in the mornings when I was in a maneuver unit. But when I moved to the beltway, I started voluntarily waking up even earlier to hit the gym as soon as it opened. Maybe it's because I was doing a workout that made sense for me (someone who is naturally thin) rather than a workout designed to ensure that Soldiers don't get fat.

In the beltway, I hated being in a unit where the lowest ranking guy was an E6... except when it came to PT, because it was big boy rules. The downside was that some of the kids couldn't play by the big boy rules. I was embarrassed on behalf of the Army when our unit took an APFT. Commissioned officers failing the run, doing the minimum number of pushups/situps. During one APFT, I was the only person who did a full two-minutes of each, without quitting. Unbelievable. A Major actually asked me, "why did you do the full two minutes?" I was tactful.

Those cases aside, I think there is also a lot to be said for having greater control over one's workout. Much of our PT regimen in the maneuver world was dictated by higher (division mandated combatives on Thu; Div, Bde, or Bn held group runs on Fridays; other random stuff - my personal favorite was scheduling the obstacle course for my platoon and then being locked down in the company area for a surprise urinalysis and having someone call the unit to chew out my commander because my platoon was a no-show).

Regarding other comments about combat-focused PT...

One of the obstacles to not doing more combat-focused PT is that the chain of command gets too deep into the weeds, planning much of it for you; or you plan something and then the training calender gets turned upside down. For example, I was never a fan of doing combatives for PT, but it was dictated. Combatives requires a lot of practice. I think we sacrificed developing skills by using it for PT rather than looking at it in the way that we look at marksmanship. Would you do stress shoots as a form of PT before you teach your Soldiers the fundamentals of marksmanship? That is essentially what we were doing with combatives.

Ken White
10-14-2009, 04:46 AM
I don't think we have kettle bells in Alabama......are they like dumb bells or something??at the bottom of this LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettlebell).Yet another thing we copied from the Russians. The Spetsnaz used them. Some guys have three or four different sizes / weights.I'd be surprised if some of the APs at Maxwell weren't into 'em...

They've got a lot of benefits: LINK (http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/equipment/qt/Kettlebells.htm).

AlifBaa
10-24-2009, 05:38 AM
Commissioned officers failing the run, doing the minimum number of pushups/situps. During one APFT, I was the only person who did a full two-minutes of each, without quitting. Unbelievable. A Major actually asked me, "why did you do the full two minutes?" I was tactful.


This is the ugly side of the Army's cultural emphasis on "standards," and the reason I refuse to let my guys talk about minimums. Instead, I make them keep track of their personal bests, and egg them on to shave off a few seconds or get one more rep. Like riding a motorcycle, you'll end up where your eyeballs are focused.

I don't see a reason to draw a distinction between combatives and PT. What good is a skilled fighter without conditioning? As a MCMAP instructor, I consider conditioning an integral part of martial arts training. That doesn't mean my guys are in PT uniforms chanting jodies; you'll find them doing pugil stick fights while winded from the o-course, or ground fighting between rounds of calisthenics. They get way more cardio from exercise combined with the adrenaline of competition and violence...and it's not bad for developing aggression, either.

Schmedlap
10-24-2009, 03:38 PM
I don't see a reason to draw a distinction between combatives and PT.
"PT" is a misnomer. It is more appropriately called physical conditioning. Combatives is training on a set of skills.

I've got no problem with a bunch of jui-jitsu blackbelts using a combatives session as their day of "PT." I do have a problem with Soldiers who are not proficient in combatives spending an hour grappling, with the focus on a cardio workout, rather than focusing on technique. When you practice the wrong technique - which is more likely to occur when you first practice it while exhausted - then you develop motor memory of the wrong technique. Learn the technique, get it right (in other words, train). Then, when you're proficient, you can do it while exhausted for your day of conditioning.

We don't do stress shoots before basic rifle marksmanship. Likewise, I see no logic in learning combatives during hours of "PT."

Ken White
10-24-2009, 04:35 PM
kids today can reach age 18 without ever having been struck or striking anyone else. Combatives are mostly a way to let people hit others and get hit and learn that the world doesn't come to an end.

Various forms of combatives are used by various units and forces but few are really combat skills. The reason for that is the true infantry hand to hand combat skills are -- or certainly should be -- deadly. Literally. Few forces today are willing to impart such knowledge to average troops due to fear of misuse.

Schmedlap is totally correct:
"...When you practice the wrong technique - which is more likely to occur when you first practice it while exhausted - then you develop motor memory of the wrong technique. Learn the technique, get it right (in other words, train). Then, when you're proficient, you can do it while exhausted for your day of conditioning.That's important...

However, I think on this:
We don't do stress shoots before basic rifle marksmanship."We need to do the same thing -- get the basics thoroughly embedded using enhancements to this methodology (LINK) (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/05/army_marksmanship_050408w/) then go to stress shoots. Combat is a stress shoot..;)

slapout9
10-24-2009, 04:39 PM
kids today can reach age 18 without ever having been struck or striking anyone else. Combatives are mostly a way to let people hit others and get hit and learn that the world doesn't come to an end.

Various forms of combatives are used by various units and forces but few are really combat skills. The reason for that is the true infantry hand to hand combat skills are -- or certainly should be -- deadly. Literally. Few forces today are willing to impart such knowledge to average troops due to fear of misuse.



Thats a big 10-4 on that. Real street fighting ain't like combatives.....it has only one rule the first person to cheat is probably going to win;)

Schmedlap
12-04-2009, 09:18 PM
Whatever we decide, let's not copy the physical conditioning program that the Iranians are using...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SIoTwAKu_e4/SxCT8Obe8fI/AAAAAAAAAvc/8z_dlJ5sDM0/s1600/firuz01.jpg

However, the Taliban might be on to something (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/12/revealed-taliban-workout-video/)...

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/12/elliptical01.jpg

Where is Tony Little (http://thedailyelephant.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/tony-little-gazelle.jpg)? Doesn't he recognize a new market opening up here?

Cavguy
12-04-2009, 09:34 PM
Is the top guy Tom Odom??!?! :D:eek::wry:

(I'm in trouble now!)

Entropy
12-05-2009, 01:35 AM
Wow, I thought the Air Force uniforms were bad. And you'd think the Iranian President, with the billions put into the nuclear program, would be able to afford a decent tailor.

Tom Odom
12-05-2009, 05:38 AM
Is the top guy Tom Odom??!?! :D:eek::wry:

(I'm in trouble now!)

Oh man....Rodney Dangerfield had it right

Infanteer
12-25-2009, 03:22 PM
Wow - maybe it's a good thing we don't have such thing as Div up here! PT in our Army, at least in the infantry, is largely a Company Commander's affair. Coy Comds will, depending on their preference, hand PT off to the Platoon Comds or run it themselves. Either way, max flex is the key. I've done all sorts of PT at various times of the day - anything to keep it interesting (thankfully, the "ruck, run, ruck, run" mentality is dying quickly). I tell my soldiers that Army PT isn't designed to make you superfit, it's designed to maintain a level of effective battlefitness.

infntryldr
12-30-2009, 02:17 PM
If they moved to afternoon PT then you wouldnt be able to hang out in PT gear all day.:)

Serisoulsy, PT should be in the AM just because at least you know it gets done. In my units we tried doing PT in the afternoon, but with things getting thrown at you last minute, it made it more difficult to have a PT session with everyone involved. Also, I am more tired and less motivated at the end of the day then at the beginning. Just my two cents.

Ken White
12-30-2009, 03:40 PM
"...Serisoulsy, PT should be in the AM just because at least you know it gets done..."The secret to PT 'getting done' is to hold people responsible for their fitness. The NCOs know who's fit and who isn't... :wry:

Having to do anything via a formation is an individual or a leadership failure; usually both. Treat 'em like children and they'll act like children. Treat 'em like adults and most will act like adults -- the few that do not are easily corrected or tossed. ;)

An even better reason for morning PT is that it gets the metabolism flowing. A good reason for occasional after lunch or late afternoon PT is that it varies the routine and provides a change of pace, particularly if it's a ruck road march or a cross country run -- or, even better an obstacle or confidence course with weapons.

infntryldr
12-30-2009, 04:27 PM
The secret to PT 'getting done' is to hold people responsible for their fitness. The NCOs know who's fit and who isn't... :wry:


Unfortunality some 18-19 year olds are not responsible. :)



Having to do anything via a formation is an individual or a leadership failure; usually both. Treat 'em like children and they'll act like children. Treat 'em like adults and most will act like adults -- the few that do not are easily corrected or tossed. ;)

Are you serious, so all those formations I ran in boot camp where failures by my Drill Instructors. Actuall formation runs build camraderie and unit cohesion. I cannot disagree with you more.


the few that do not are easily corrected or tossed. ;)

They are corrected by making them PT with you after working hours. The way you fix that is making sure they PT, and you do that by getting them in formation and running the dog **** out of them. Getting tossed? If you mean seperated from the service or the unit, good luck.


An even better reason for morning PT is that it gets the metabolism flowing. A good reason for occasional after lunch or late afternoon PT is that it varies the routine and provides a change of pace, particularly if it's a ruck road march or a cross country run -- or, even better an obstacle or confidence course with weapons.

Couldnt agree with you more.

Ken White
12-30-2009, 04:58 PM
Unfortunality some 18-19 year olds are not responsible. :)forty and fifty year olds who lack the self confidence to trust or use their subordinates... ;)
Are you serious, so all those formations I ran in boot camp where failures by my Drill Instructors.I should have clearly stated in units, I didn't realize you'd just left Boot Camp. ;)That's a learning and conditioning experience, service in a unit is operating experience -- or is supposed to be, anyway. Different realities -- though I admit a lot of loud folks try to keep the Boot Camp or Basic/AIT mentality going. Quite wrongly in my view.
Actuall formation runs build camraderie and unit cohesion. I cannot disagree with you more.we can disagree. My experience is that only combat or really intensive field training build unit cohesion. All garrison stuff is superficial. To see the difference, watch who your troops in garrison hang with versus who they hang with in the field.
They are corrected by making them PT with you after working hours. The way you fix that is making sure they PT, and you do that by getting them in formation and running the dog **** out of them.We can also disagree strongly on that. If they're failing to do what they should, that's the first line leaders fault -- if you don't hold him or her responsible, you end up doing the fixing yourself. That, to me is micromangament, not leading. YMMV. On that line, I've yet to see a pushup or a long hard run clean a weapon, clean a head/latrine or instill a desire to excel in a Snuffy.
Getting tossed? If you mean seperated from the service or the unit, good luck.Why do I need good luck. Old age and treachery will trump youth and skill. :D I can recall people getting tossed out of the Corps -- that was during Korea, not peacetime -- and the Army -- VN, not peace.

Not hard, just takes a little effort and having your act together. It does get difficult if the chain of command screws up...

IntelTrooper
12-30-2009, 05:30 PM
Different realities -- though I admit a lot of loud folks try to keep the Boot Camp or Basic/AIT mentality going. Quite wrongly in my view.we can disagree. We can also disagree strongly on that. If they're failing to do what they should, that's the first line leaders fault -- if you don't hold him or her responsible, you end up doing the fixing yourself. That, to me is micromangament, not leading.

In Afghanistan, my team did PT separately. There was an expectation that everyone needed to be doing it 4 or 5 days a week, and the rest was up to the individual. Everyone, including our young, "not responsible" soldier, significantly improved their fitness because we were holding each other accountable and given the opportunity to challenge ourselves beyond what could be accomplished in a PT formation (my PT scores were always lowest in basic/AIT). Incidentally, that's basically how the whole FOB conducted PT, including a GPF company, and they all improved their fitness over the course of the year.

I think the key is to realize that if individual physical fitness is the goal, then PT formations are not the way to accomplish that goal. I don't see Olympic athletes or body builders standing in PT formations every morning. If the goal is something else, like someone's idea of what unit cohesion should look and smell like, well, I guess there's no arguing with that.

MikeF
12-30-2009, 05:58 PM
My experience is that only combat or really intensive field training build unit cohesion. All garrison stuff is superficial. To see the difference, watch who your troops in garrison hang with versus who they hang with in the field.

Ken,

One minor point of disagreement. I liked Friday Company PT b/c it was one of the few times during the week that I could get everyone together. A tough run coupled with some mud and an obstacle course did a good bit to build company morale. Plus, sometimes I even got to call cadence:D.

Mike

Ken White
12-30-2009, 06:49 PM
I think the key is to realize that if individual physical fitness is the goal, then PT formations are not the way to accomplish that goal.I could even make the point that the way most units do it, it's counterproductive...
If the goal is something else, like someone's idea of what unit cohesion should look and smell like, well, I guess there's no arguing with that.Heh. I've long believed that unit cohesion lies in the rank of the beholder. PSGs have a different view than even their Sqd Ldrs, Co cdrs and 1SGs have a different outlook, the folks at Bn/Sqn even more different. All that is aimed at mot units, there are a few exceptions but they're rare.

The senior leadership believes they're fostering unit cohesion by rotating units instead of individuals -- and that is an order of magnitude improvement; it's just a shame the Personnel system hasn't kept up -- they still try to do their things by, with and to individuals...:mad:

Mike F: All the foregoing not to disagree with your contention, I'm sure it's correct. My point was that it is very difficult to do stressful things in garrison and shared real stress, not hassles or formations, builds cohesion.

Umm, yes, that does mean that I believe PT as it is generally today construed and conducted is more hassle than benefit. ;)

infntryldr
12-30-2009, 07:12 PM
forty and fifty year olds who lack the self confidence to trust or use their subordinates... ;)

I dont think it has anything to do with trusting your subordinates. I trusted my NCO's to run squad PT. I know its hard to believe but there are individuals out there who would when individual PT was given would be off slacking somewhere. Now when the leader, who is responsible for everything that unit does or fails to do, collides with the human instinct to take the course of least resistance, then I think the leader trumps all to insure mission success and a certain level of physical fitness among his men. Now I am not saying that every PT session needs to be a platoon or company formation run, what I am saying is giving NCO's the responsibility to led their squads and fire teams on a daily basis builds leadership among those NCO's and insures a level of fitness among the troops.



I should have clearly stated in units, I didn't realize you'd just left Boot Camp. ;)

I just retired from the Marine Corps.



My experience is that only combat or really intensive field training build unit cohesion. All garrison stuff is superficial.

My experience tells me that its a combination of both. Field training no doubt builds unit cohesion, but the whole garrison experience builds it as well. And since you do not unfortunately spend your entire time in the field, you must find ways of building in it in the rear.


If they're failing to do what they should, that's the first line leaders fault -- if you don't hold him or her responsible, you end up doing the fixing yourself. That, to me is micromangament, not leading.

Agreed, there should be no room for micromanagement in a combat unit, but supervision from a distance is another story. Mentor, teach, and instruct.



I think the key is to realize that if individual physical fitness is the goal, then PT formations are not the way to accomplish that goal. I don't see Olympic athletes or body builders standing in PT formations every morning. If the goal is something else, like someone's idea of what unit cohesion should look and smell like, well, I guess there's no arguing with that.

If all we are going for is Olympic level athletes in the military, then we need to change our recruiting methods. The point being is that this is not what we are trying to create. What we are trying to create is an individual who has a certain level of combat fitness. Which you can accomplish by organized PT sessions.

Hey I liked individual PT just like everybody else, but I do not think that letting individuals go out and do it themselves is the answer. Nor do I think it is the units respoinsibility to get you in shape. This is why you see the gyms on base flocked with individuals working out and such. But to just discard organized PT as some dinosaur because someone believes it micromananing, in my opinion is not the case.

Entropy
12-30-2009, 07:45 PM
Interesting comments.

As an AF/NAVY fobbit kind of guy, the model I've seen work best is a kind of hybrid - on PT days (which were 3 days a week), the unit would muster in the morning at the Gym. Everyone would sign in for accountability purposes and then individuals would PT on their own. Once every two weeks, usually a Friday, we do some kind of group PT, usually a run or a mock PT test. Anyone who failed the yearly PT test got supervised PT every morning and then retested in a month. I thought that system worked pretty well and provided a decent balance.

IntelTrooper
12-30-2009, 07:46 PM
I know its hard to believe but there are individuals out there who would when individual PT was given would be off slacking somewhere.

There's an organizational reason that happens, and it would go away when the expectations and measurements are made clear. How do Marine Corps Reservists pass their PT tests without daily PT formations? It's baffling.



If all we are going for is Olympic level athletes in the military, then we need to change our recruiting methods. The point being is that this is not what we are trying to create.

Obviously, that wasn't my point. My point was that a physical fitness regimen tailored to the individual, along with clear expectations and measurements, can accomplish the same thing without tying up an entire installation for hours on end.



Hey I liked individual PT just like everybody else, but I do not think that letting individuals go out and do it themselves is the answer. Nor do I think it is the units respoinsibility to get you in shape. This is why you see the gyms on base flocked with individuals working out and such. But to just discard organized PT as some dinosaur because someone believes it micromananing, in my opinion is not the case.

I don't understand what you're getting at. PT isn't for getting people in shape? Then what is it for?

infntryldr
12-30-2009, 08:09 PM
There's an organizational reason that happens, and it would go away when the expectations and measurements are made clear. How do Marine Corps Reservists pass their PT tests without daily PT formations? It's baffling.

Organizational reasons? Go away? No, there are just people who will slake when given the opportunity to slake not matter how much cajoling you do.

Actually Marine reservist do fail there PFT's on a greater scale then active duty. And when they do drill, they do have unit cohension building events, and sometimes PT, especially if its annual training. Of course expectations are made clear to the Marine that he needs to stay in shape. But just because there is an expectation does not make it reality.

Like I stated earlier, unit PT is not just about getting in shape, it has other benifits to it as well. And in a infantry unit, those benifits are direclty related to unit success.



Obviously, that wasn't my point. My point was that a physical fitness regimen tailored to the individual, along with clear expectations and measurements, can accomplish the same thing without tying up an entire installation for hours on end.

IMO I believe that a physical fitness regimen has to be tailored to the mission, not the individual. A scout swimmer has a different physical expecation then a artilleryman.




I don't understand what you're getting at. PT isn't for getting people in shape? Then what is it for?

PT has a dual purpose of getting peole in shape, and building unit cohesion.

Kiwigrunt
12-30-2009, 08:49 PM
Reading these last few posts I wonder if we can compare it with doing homework for school. It is the student’s responsibility to do the homework required to pass the test/exam. I do of course realise that fitness for an active duty unit is at a different scale of importance, and effects the unit much more than a school situation where every one is an individual. But I think that conceptually the underlying philosophy with regards to instilling a sense of responsibility is what Ken and IntelTrooper are perhaps alluding to:


My point was that a physical fitness regimen tailored to the individual, along with clear expectations and measurements, can accomplish the same thing without tying up an entire installation for hours on end.

Maybe Entropy has the right idea with a mixed balance, where the occasional organised PT could be structured towards instilling that sense of responsibility and understanding of purpose.
Hmmm, as usual, no silver bullets…

infntryldr
12-30-2009, 09:00 PM
But I think that conceptually the underlying philosophy with regards to instilling a sense of responsibility is what Ken and IntelTrooper are perhaps alluding to


I completely agree that there should be an instilling of responsibility in the young lads, but I just think you do that by putting them in charge of running the PT:)

Also, when I am talking about PT, I am not limiting myself to just running shoes and shorts, and going on a nice little jog. I am talking more in line with combat fitness. Hikes, obstacle courses, combatives, grass drills and guerilla type exercises. The things you cant do on your own.

Schmedlap
12-30-2009, 09:01 PM
NCOs are responsible for the physical fitness of their Soldiers. That is such a basic and widely understood fact of military life that it was asked at no fewer than half a dozen E-5 promotion boards when I was at the company level. Officers leading PT, imo, makes about as much sense as Officers teaching basic rifle marksmanship or how to do the "extend to the left" drill. Spot-checking, occasional testing, and other "boss's footsteps" measures are fine. But let the NCOs do their jobs. The old rule about treating people like children applies to NCOs as well as lower enlisted. Treat them like kids and many will get frustrated and start playing the role.

We trusted our team leaders to lead 72-hour, 3- to 4-man missions in an AO where enemy contact was a daily occurrence and to do so with little more than the weapons that are organic to an infantry fire team, an MBITR radio, and a basic load of class I and up to double-basic of class V. An NCO who cannot be trusted to ensure that their Soldiers are meeting their physical readiness potential in garrison cannot be trusted to lead them during far more important and dangerous missions when deployed. This was but one of many litmus tests applied for who would be a team leader and who would be one of the Headquarters minions pulling duty as the CO/XO/1SG driver or gunner, TOC rat, etc.

The issue here seems to be not so much how to get Soldiers in shape - that's easy: put a good NCO in charge of them. The issue is how to get the good NCOs in charge of the Soldiers. That's an easy fix. Moving an NCO from one duty position to another is not nearly as difficult as reducing him or discharging him. Crappy team leader? Welcome to headquarters. Still crappy? Have fun on BN staff, where you will get far more personal attention from disgruntled senior NCOs who are angry that they are on staff. Good performer? Here's your fire team.

infntryldr
12-30-2009, 09:17 PM
NCOs are responsible for the physical fitness of their Soldiers.

I concur completely. Pretty much anything over squad level PT is for motivational purposes only.


An NCO who cannot be trusted to ensure that their Soldiers are meeting their physical readiness potential in garrison cannot be trusted to lead them during far more important and dangerous missions when deployed.

Spot on.


This was but one of many litmus tests applied for who would be a team leader and who would be one of the Headquarters minions pulling duty as the CO/XO/1SG driver or gunner, TOC rat, etc.

The dreaded police sgt, training clerk, and weapons custodian.


The issue here seems to be not so much how to get Soldiers in shape - that's easy: put a good NCO in charge of them.

Absolutely, putting NCO's in charge of anything allows you to develop him and provides a means to measure his ability as a leader.

Any NCO that lets his men go off and PT on there own IMO is not worth his salt as a leader, and would be a red flag that he doesnt want to led.

Cavguy
12-30-2009, 09:41 PM
This was but one of many litmus tests applied for who would be a team leader and who would be one of the Headquarters minions pulling duty as the CO/XO/1SG driver or gunner, TOC rat, etc.

...

Moving an NCO from one duty position to another is not nearly as difficult as reducing him or discharging him. Crappy team leader? Welcome to headquarters. Still crappy? Have fun on BN staff, where you will get far more personal attention from disgruntled senior NCOs who are angry that they are on staff. Good performer? Here's your fire team.

Schmed,

Was with you until this part. Can't disagree enough.

I've worked in two kinds of philosophies regarding HQ/HHC duty.

The first is that it's a dumping ground for NCOs and enlisted who can't cut it on the line. The second is that only the highest caliber NCOs and enlisted are selected for staff positions.

Without exception, the best battalions I have been in have worked on the latter rule. I say this as someone who was a company commander who sometimes lost his best soldiers to HHC. The reasons are several:

1) A screwed up HQs makes every subordinate unit miserable. From messed up support to messed up orders, it makes everyone work twice as hard.

2) If NCO/soldier snuffy isn't making grade, the answer isn't transferring him to someone else's problem. The answer is doing the right thing yourself - reduce him (I have reduced NCOs), counsel him, flag him, chapter him, etc. Not shift him to HQ.

3) What happens in HQ? There is less NCO and officer mentorship. Too busy. They neither have the time or ability to "reform" your problem child. So they get worse. And they make your life on the line miserable.

4) You solve the motivation problem by strictly time-limiting HQ time for NCOs and officers. No more than two years for NCOs, for enlisted, one year. This prevents the case (I received several) of a new PVT going to the S-3 shop and staying there an entire tour, making NCO grade. He then PCSs to his next unit, where he is your team or squad leader, and has no skills relevant to the job. I had an E-6 that spent his enlisted time in S3, went to recruiting, and came to me as a section leader who had never seen a tank. Smart guy set up to fail as a leader by us.

5) Your HQ officers perform better if they aren't having to babysit unsat NCOs dumped to them by the line. They need good people to do officer business.

6) Keeping a poor soldier in the line provides a lot more mentorship and supervision. An infantry platoon has how many NCOs? Compare that to the S4 shop, or S1. And again, if he can't be fixed, do the right thing and get rid of him.

Show me a unit where HQ contains the trash and I'll almost invariably show you a battalion with low morale and screwed up systems.

selil
12-30-2009, 10:39 PM
I is a fat guy...

When I was in the Marines I did PT morning, noon, and night. Not kidding. Three mile run with the platoon in the morning, couple miles at lunch (instead of eating), and usually weights in the afternoon. Then I'd go home (was still married) and do some more. All of my last quals on the rifle range were done after five mile runs (punishment for being rotund). I got dunked so many times in the Marines you'd thought I was a duck. Now I run in the mornings (10K this morning). Lots of exercise theory says people have difference fitness levels throughout the day and mixing it up is the best for long term. If I start swimming again (fat floats) it will always be early mornings as that is when the pool is open. Riding the bike is going to be relegated to late mornings (if I commute it is 50 miles round trip) the principle being to mix up time of day.

As to the management issues. Where there is no creativity and abandonment of status quo there is no movement towards the future.

Schmedlap
12-31-2009, 12:55 AM
Geez, I didn't intend to type this much....

Niel,

In general, I think your points are sound. But given the nature of operations over the past ten years of every unit that I've been in (aside from Mar/Apr 2003), we operate as small units. Most patrols are squad or platoon sized. Company level missions are the exception, not the norm. When operating in that manner, it is more important to stack the team and squad leader positions with your studs and headquarters can take the poor performers. Now if we were about to invade another country and doing Bn/Bde combined arms ops, then I'm in 100% agreement with you.


1) A screwed up HQs makes every subordinate unit miserable. From messed up support to messed up orders, it makes everyone work twice as hard.

2) If NCO/soldier snuffy isn't making grade, the answer isn't transferring him to someone else's problem. The answer is doing the right thing yourself - reduce him (I have reduced NCOs), counsel him, flag him, chapter him, etc. Not shift him to HQ.

3) What happens in HQ? There is less NCO and officer mentorship. Too busy. They neither have the time or ability to "reform" your problem child. So they get worse. And they make your life on the line miserable.

In reverse order...

3) The XO is more experienced than the PLs and generally the MG, acting as "HQ PSG" (at least in units that was in / observed) is an E-6(P) or E-7 getting ready to take a PSG slot and responsible for about one-third of the personnel of a line PLT. There is no reason that they cannot perform with the guys RFS'd from the PLTs. Also, the move is not about “reforming.” They're in HQ to perform in positions where they supervise fewer Soldiers. This seems entirely appropriate to me, given that they have demonstrated less potential. If they fail to live up to that lower standard, then here's your counseling statement. Done it. Out of my HQ section, one NCO was relieved, one reduced, two passed over for promotion. Two others got glowing NCOERs. I don't see this as a leadership burden. Not everyone gets to be CSM. The individuals who were not top performers were “good enough” to pull radio watch, to drive and maintain a vehicle, and do detail work to free up platoon personnel.

2) Speaking from my perspective I was not shifting them to someone else. I was taking them into my HQ. In theory I understand that this should make the HQ less effective. I can email you my Rater/Senior Rater comments from my XO OERs. If HQ had been less effective, it would have been my fault. A HQ does not have infinite potential. There is an optimum level of performance that it should be able to achieve, whether it is stacked with Audie Murphy’s or with the other type of Murphy’s. Although I never shifted anyone to BN, I know of other companies that did and I saw no problem with it. Our BN Staff NCOs had the same attitude that I did - that it was their job to make life easier for the subordinate units, even if this meant taking in their problem children.

1) I agree that a screwed up HQ makes life more painful for all. The blame for a screwed up HQ rests upon the XO. He can't pass the buck and complain that he got a stacked deck.

Regarding (4), I Agree 100%. I would take that even a step further and try to eliminate staff time altogether for anyone E-4 or below. It is poisonous.


5) Your HQ officers perform better if they aren't having to babysit unsat NCOs dumped to them by the line. They need good people to do officer business.

Absolutely! But when 95% of your missions are platoon or below, I say it is far more critical to put the studs in the SL and TL slots.


6) Keeping a poor soldier in the line provides a lot more mentorship and supervision. An infantry platoon has how many NCOs? Compare that to the S4 shop, or S1. And again, if he can't be fixed, do the right thing and get rid of him.

A full-up PLT has 15 NCOs and 23 E's. That's about a 2:3 ratio. Is that significantly different from a CO HQ or Staff Section? It's also worth noting that the FSE often augments the HQ. MG was the equivalent of a HQ PSG. The CO's gunner was responsible for three HQ drivers/gunners and the FSNCO was responsible for the other three. NBC NCO supervised our E-4 Commo guy. That's 5 NCOs to 7 (Es / transferred NCOs). Supply and Armorer reported directly to me. (Include them and you've got 6 NCOs to 7 E's - plus a 1LT FSO). As for BN Staff, I thankfully did no time in S-1 or S-4, so I'm not sure of the numbers, but I do know that our S-4 shop was a home for wayward officers to help out with battle damage FLIPLs. Most problem children were sent to S-3 where they were more than capable of manning a radio under the supervision of an O-3 and E-7 for one shift per day and then pulling KP in the evening. I don't see this as a problem.

One other thing worth noting is that we're not talking just irresponsibility, but substandard leadership in general. I've known a lot of NCOs who were not good leaders. But, as my favorite BN Ops SGM explained to me, "some NCOs can't lead a fire team to latrine, but they can staff their asses off." None of the platoons wanted my Redneck driver or Pill-popping gunner so they joined the ranks of my HQ. They were not team leader material, but they were great crew members. Kind of like my Armorer. He was not a leader, but he could fix anything in about 15 seconds - often pointing out, "sir, this is (30/40 level), but I can fix it if you don't want to send it to Anaconda." Maybe we should bring back the SPC-5 pay grade?

Ken White
12-31-2009, 01:49 AM
I know its hard to believe but there are individuals out there who would when individual PT was given would be off slacking somewhere.Well of course there are -- the same guys will also sluff on keeping their uniform and equipment squared away and anything else their NCOs will let them get away with. So it all boils down to that first line leader.
Now when the leader, who is responsible for everything that unit does or fails to do, collides with the human instinct to take the course of least resistance, then I think the leader trumps all to insure mission success and a certain level of physical fitness among his men.Yep. Question is what leader are you speaking of. Tm ldr? Sqd Ldr? Platoon Sgt / Pl or PC? Co 1SG or Cdr?
Now I am not saying that every PT session needs to be a platoon or company formation run, what I am saying is giving NCO's the responsibility to led their squads and fire teams on a daily basis builds leadership among those NCO's and insures a level of fitness among the troops.Ah. Slight change. I can almost agree with that -- except the level of physical fitness HAS to be an individual responsibility. Even as long ago as I retired, smoking troopies for fun and profit was illegal...
I just retired from the Marine Corps.I know, I read your Intro post -- but that was too good a target to pass up... :D
My experience tells me that its a combination of both. Field training no doubt builds unit cohesion, but the whole garrison experience builds it as well.True but the Garrison cohesion is largely a different animal and not conducive to combat cohesion -- that's why I said watch who the Troops run around with in Garrison. In most units, only after extensive field work will they run around with sqd and platoon mates instead of others they have something else in common with.
Agreed, there should be no room for micromanagement in a combat unit, but supervision from a distance is another story. Mentor, teach, and instruct. I agree with the theory; I suspect we'd disagree on the distance.
Hey I liked individual PT just like everybody else, but I do not think that letting individuals go out and do it themselves is the answer. Nor do I think it is the units respoinsibility to get you in shape. This is why you see the gyms on base flocked with individuals working out and such. But to just discard organized PT as some dinosaur because someone believes it micromananing, in my opinion is not the case.We can disagree on that, specifically on whether PT as most in the Army and Marines conduct it today is a combat fitness builder or a cohesion builder of any real significance.

wm
12-31-2009, 03:20 AM
I think good leaders recognize what talent they have assigned (and every member of every unit has some kind of talent), then they groom and use that talent to the unit's (and the soldier's) best advantage.


One other thing worth noting is that we're not talking just irresponsibility, but substandard leadership in general. I've known a lot of NCOs who were not good leaders. But, as my favorite BN Ops SGM explained to me, "some NCOs can't lead a fire team to latrine, but they can staff their asses off." None of the platoons wanted my Redneck driver or Pill-popping gunner so they joined the ranks of my HQ. They were not team leader material, but they were great crew members. Kind of like my Armorer. He was not a leader, but he could fix anything in about 15 seconds - often pointing out, "sir, this is (30/40 level), but I can fix it if you don't want to send it to Anaconda." Maybe we should bring back the SPC-5 pay grade?


Caution Hoary War Stories follow:
Long ago in the "dark days" of the late 70s, shortly after the implementation of VOLAR and in the post VN draw down when the Army was probably at its nadir in terms of the quality of serving soldiers.

When I was a Plt Ldr, we got rid of Spec 5, 6, and 7 ranks--I had a number of good troops, who were not leaders but had great technical skills (BIG DISCLAIMER: this was a unit with a very complex strategic intelligence collection mission), all of a sudden become buck and staff sergeants. Fortunately, my PSG and I got to choose which of my E-4s got to be 2-stripers and which stayed as Speedy 4s. My E-5s and -6s were not so lucky--they all converted to SGT/SSG. The bad news was that I had to give many of them leadership roles for which they were not currently qualified and, in many cases, would never be qualified to perform. The doubly bad news was that I could not in good conscience recommend many of them for promotion. A poor buck sergeant (who had a been a great Spec 5) would make an even poorer SSG (even though his technical skills were more than good enough to get E6 pay as a Spec 6) and similarly with many of my SSGs becoming SFCs.
Nonetheless my original cadre of SSG and SFCs made it work--we actually whipped some of those converts into NCOs and continued to get our mission done with an average assigned strength of about 45 (versus an authorized strength of over 80)--most I ever had assigned was 62 or 63.

As Ken would say, that conversion was dumb with 2 B's.

I also agree about the Company XO and his "staff" of NCOs doing the heavy lifting with problem children. I XO'd a service company for an MI Bde--my 106 folks did much of what a BSB does in a BCT (although we were a fixed site, non-tactical operation). The company had 3 officers authorized: CO, XO, MP Security Force platoon leader--the last vacant for about half my tenure as XO. My company was the dumping ground for poor performers and clowns who lost their security clearances. My nucleus of strong NCOs, who were strong leaders because I let/made them do what they were trained to do as small unit leaders, made things work. They OJT'd reassigned intel MOS slackers to become wrenches, spoons, and drivers (63B, 94B, 64H) as well as various admin MOSC like 71L. My cooks, with the help of some of those cast off "misfits" from other units, won the Connelly Award for best food service operation in the Army.

Ken White
12-31-2009, 03:30 AM
good units -- and don't have bad NCOs or troops. Well, not unbearably bad, anyway...:D

slapout9
12-31-2009, 05:29 AM
The greatest and most scientific study that was ever done was done at West Point in 1975 by Arthur Jones. Which completely disproved all known theories of physical conditioning. The whole thing was actually filmed and not just documented. Since then the Army has done about everything possible to disregard the facts of conditioning that it learned in the study. As Ken said the best way in a pinch is to run an obstacle/fitness course, otherwise lift weights in a circuit fashion with no rests between stations. Link to short paper on the study below.




http://baye.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/totalconditioning.pdf

Uboat509
12-31-2009, 07:47 AM
The first is that it's a dumping ground for NCOs and enlisted who can't cut it on the line. The second is that only the highest caliber NCOs and enlisted are selected for staff positions.

I have never understood the concept of putting the highest caliber NCOs in staff jobs. What NCO staff job is there that requires the "highest caliber"? I have done my Bteam time. It was long tedious hours and it was as thankless a job as I have ever had but it wasn't especially demanding, not when compared to my job on the team.


Without exception, the best battalions I have been in have worked on the latter rule. I say this as someone who was a company commander who sometimes lost his best soldiers to HHC. The reasons are several:

1) A screwed up HQs makes every subordinate unit miserable. From messed up support to messed up orders, it makes everyone work twice as hard.

That may be true but lower performers in staff jobs cause headaches, whereas lower performers in line jobs cause casualties.


2) If NCO/soldier snuffy isn't making grade, the answer isn't transferring him to someone else's problem. The answer is doing the right thing yourself - reduce him (I have reduced NCOs), counsel him, flag him, chapter him, etc. Not shift him to HQ.

In most of the units that I have been in, when we talked about sending problem children someplace else, ie staff it wasn't usually our lowest perfomers, DUIs, spouse abuse, drugs etc. It was usually one of three catagories, 1) long term injuries, 2) family problems like divorce, ill spouse, deployed spouse, etc and 3) guys who weren't cutting it in their jobs but weren't necessarily dirtbags. Some guys make terrible squad leaders but good staff guys.


3) What happens in HQ? There is less NCO and officer mentorship. Too busy. They neither have the time or ability to "reform" your problem child. So they get worse. And they make your life on the line miserable.


4) You solve the motivation problem by strictly time-limiting HQ time for NCOs and officers. No more than two years for NCOs, for enlisted, one year. This prevents the case (I received several) of a new PVT going to the S-3 shop and staying there an entire tour, making NCO grade. He then PCSs to his next unit, where he is your team or squad leader, and has no skills relevant to the job. I had an E-6 that spent his enlisted time in S3, went to recruiting, and came to me as a section leader who had never seen a tank. Smart guy set up to fail as a leader by us.

I have yet to see anyone do that much time in staff without making a concerted effort to do so.




5) Your HQ officers perform better if they aren't having to babysit unsat NCOs dumped to them by the line. They need good people to do officer business.

You can say the exact same thing on the line. A few problem children in a line unit can be like cancer. They eat up a diproportionate amount of leadership time, often for little return. They often drag morale down and they can be murder on cohesion.


6) Keeping a poor soldier in the line provides a lot more mentorship and supervision. An infantry platoon has how many NCOs? Compare that to the S4 shop, or S1. And again, if he can't be fixed, do the right thing and get rid of him.

You make it sound easy, sir. When I was in Hawaii we had one soldier that woudl go to check himself into mental health every time we went to the field but his platoon (not mine thank goodness) could not get rid of him. Even when he finally drove his car through the front doors of enlisted club on post it took weeks to get rid of him, during much of which time the NCOs in the company had to take shifts guarding him. Since about '98 or '99 the Army, or at least the units I was in, started a program "rehabilitative transfers" in lieu of chapters for all but the most serious problem children. The theory was it would give Joe a new start with a different chain of command to give him the chance to be a better performer. In practice, it turned into a game of musical problem children. If we thought somebody was not necessarily a dirt bag but just wasn't cut out for the line we tried to get them a staff job. Otherwise, we did out best to deal with the problems.


SFC W

Stan
12-31-2009, 07:49 AM
Hey Wayne,


They OJT'd reassigned intel MOS slackers to become wrenches, spoons, and drivers (63B, 94B, 64H) as well as various admin MOSC like 71L.

Also from those dark 70s - but I was fortunate enough to have completed an education (affording me an apprenticeship and high tech MOS) - our 1SG and CO were constantly dumping the SP4s and E-5s into that pool of admin weenies, drivers and wrenches. Only much later would I realize what a mess that OJT system created for the remainder of the Army. I can't decades later emphasize how pissed off I was with those admin/finance clerks incorrectly filing my TDY vouchers and dorking up my pay :mad:, the CO's driver running into trees :D, and the HHQ company experts that couldn't change a spark plug without the dash 10 manual :rolleyes:

I like the idea of bringing back SP4, 5 and 6; not everybody can lead and there's a genuine need for good technical personnel. Instead of wasting slots at NCO leadership courses, send those folks off to learn a trade.

Ken White
12-31-2009, 04:12 PM
I like the idea of bringing back SP4, 5 and 6; not everybody can lead and there's a genuine need for good technical personnel. Instead of wasting slots at NCO leadership courses, send those folks off to learn a trade.Great idea. Really need a way to pay and / or otherwise reward people without necessarily giving them more rank -- the Peter Principle is real. I've never seen a Motor Sergeant who wasn't a truly great mechanic; I've met very, very few who were good Platoon Sergeants or even wanted the job...

We should also consider a Specialist track system for Officers -- perhaps at least to the extent of a Command track and a Staff track above Captain. ;)

I've met a lot of people who (shudder!!) enjoyed staff work and thought command was something to be endured for advancement. The Personnel system should consider this (LINK) (http://reymendoza.blogspot.com/2007/06/intelligent-and-lazy.html) variously attributed to Von Manstein and CvC among others. Congress will object, slightly, but that really should be manageable if it's handled correctly -- realizing there will be those in power who will not want it handled correctly... :rolleyes:

Schmedlap
12-31-2009, 04:43 PM
We should also consider a Specialist track system for Officers -- perhaps at least to the extent of a Command track and a Staff track above Captain. ;)

I've met a lot of people who (shudder!!) enjoyed staff work and thought command was something to be endured for advancement.

That would not be a "Staff track." That would be a Masochism Track, with Sadist branch managers.

Ken White
12-31-2009, 04:55 PM
...Sadist branch managers.Seems like one... :D

wm
12-31-2009, 05:08 PM
I've never seen a Motor Sergeant who wasn't a truly great mechanic; I've met very, very few who were good Platoon Sergeants or even wanted the job... If you are lucky enough to find one who can do both (I was), it's probably worth making a pact with the devil to keep him or her (fortunately I didn't have too).:D


We should also consider a Specialist track system for Officers -- perhaps at least to the extent of a Command track and a Staff track above Captain. ;)

Isn't the Navy's LDO (limited duty officer) program pretty much just that? I believe that is also largely the case wrt to each service's use of JAGs, sky pilots and medical officers.



Sadist branch managersOxymoron?
I think sadistic branch managers is a redundancy rather than an oxymoron. Once upon a time (about when my assignment was changed from Fort Carson to Fort Polk), I looked up "sadist" in the dictionary and found a picture of my Captains assignment officer. ;)

Uboat509
12-31-2009, 06:01 PM
Isn't the Navy's LDO (limited duty officer) program pretty much just that? I believe that is also largely the case wrt to each service's use of JAGs, sky pilots and medical officers.

I have met a number of SEAL LDOs. They can command platoons but are told that they will never command a vessal. Oddly, they never seem to feet cheated by that.:)



I think sadistic branch managers is a redundancy rather than an oxymoron. Once upon a time (about when my assignment was changed from Fort Carson to Fort Polk), I looked up "sadist" in the dictionary and found a picture of my Captains assignment officer. ;)

That hurts my feelings just reading it. I have considerable experience stationed both places. I don't wish Polk on people that I don't even like, unless they really, really, really, really like bass fishing.

SFC W

Uboat509
12-31-2009, 06:09 PM
I have also often wondered if it might not be a good idea to bring back the old specialist ranks. That system was already gone when I came on active duty in '91 but we did still refer to Specialists as Spec 4s and a lot of the NCOs still remembered the old system. The argument that I have always heard against bringing it back goes something like "Everybody needs to be a leader at that point in their careers." Apparently the idea is that we pretend that everybody who makes SGT and above is cut out to be a leader and everything will be OK.

SFC W

Schmedlap
12-31-2009, 06:32 PM
If you are lucky enough to find one who can do both (I was), it's probably worth making a pact with the devil to keep him or her (fortunately I didn't have too).:D

My team chief was swapped out halfway through a deployment and his replacement was a guy who was a great mechanic and a great leader. It made my life so much easier.

PS - I can't read the tiny writing on the "Appearances" post so I looked for it online. In doing so, I stumbed upon this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsq8ol9XJPY Those guys can have that job.

Uboat509
12-31-2009, 06:40 PM
This reminds me of a quote by a German officer by the name of Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord).


I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together. The officers who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Those who are stupid and lazy make up around 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used for routine work. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately.

The last line in particular is as true now as it was when he said it.

SFC W

82redleg
01-01-2010, 12:28 AM
I like the idea of specialist ranks, but I don't think we need ranks- just move the RCP for SPC (E4) to 20 years, increase E4 pay for longevity (to match E5 pay at 10-12 years, E6 pay at 14-16 years and E7 pay at 18-20 years), and make retention of E4s past a certain point contingent upon their PSG, 1SG and CO CDR's evaluation every 2 years. It eliminates the need for "promotions" that would cause contention between SP5/6/7 and SGT/SSG, but pays their abilities.

Stan
01-01-2010, 01:11 PM
Don't the Canadians have something like a Corporal Sergeant Major ?

Same deal, pay increases, greater retention and skills without the hassles of leadership and promotion.

The only problem I experienced with the parallel Specialist and Hard Stripes ranks was the SP6 ended up being an SFC with no clue what was in store for him at the company level. That individual could have been a God sent at at the motor pool or depot.

The AF takes all their E9s and turns them into some wizbang staff NCO. Fact is, they had little business doing a job sans prior experience (leadership). Most of them I worked with in DIA were former aircraft mechanics who were probably very good at what they did. They certainly didn't belong in leadership !

sandbag
01-04-2010, 07:46 PM
Maybe we should bring back the SPC-5 pay grade?

I thought this was virtually done already. I would welcome the return of the extended Specialist grades.

slapout9
01-04-2010, 09:28 PM
Don't the Canadians have something like a Corporal Sergeant Major ?

Same deal, pay increases, greater retention and skills without the hassles of leadership and promotion.

The only problem I experienced with the parallel Specialist and Hard Stripes ranks was the SP6 ended up being an SFC with no clue what was in store for him at the company level. That individual could have been a God sent at at the motor pool or depot.

The AF takes all their E9s and turns them into some wizbang staff NCO. Fact is, they had little business doing a job sans prior experience (leadership). Most of them I worked with in DIA were former aircraft mechanics who were probably very good at what they did. They certainly didn't belong in leadership !


How about bringing back Tech Sergeants like in WW2, same idea as specialists but sounds more Army like.

Schmedlap
01-05-2010, 12:01 AM
I thought this was virtually done already. I would welcome the return of the extended Specialist grades.

Really? You mean officially? I didn't realize that. Unofficially, I know it has been around, depending on the command climate. For example, one of my micromanaging CO's, when I was PL, seemed to think that he had direct control over every squad and fire team and that his LTs were SPC-5's who only existed to relay instructions or to just sit back and observe as he attended to every minor detail with whatever goat-screw he was determined to perpetrate. But, officially, I didn't realize it was re-instituted.

82redleg
01-05-2010, 12:06 PM
Really? ... But, officially, I didn't realize it was re-instituted.

It hasn't been reinstituted officially. I think that Sandbag was referring to the speed with which we promote Soldiers to SGT these days. Because of the lock in for deployment, I returned from OEF with at least 3 SGTs in each howitzer section (authorization is 1 SSG, 2 x SGTs, 4 x EM)- one section had 1 SSG, 5 SGTs and a PFC.

Rifleman
01-06-2010, 10:32 PM
How about bringing back Tech Sergeants like in WW2, same idea as specialists but sounds more Army like.

And the insignia looks better too! :wry:

http://www.packrat-toyz.com/Re-enactor%20Supplies/American%20Insignia/Tech-Sergeant-Chevrons.jpg

Surferbeetle
01-06-2010, 11:05 PM
Technical Sergeant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant) from Wikipedia


Technical Sergeant, or Tech Sergeant, is the sixth enlisted rank (E-6) in the U.S. Air Force, just above Staff Sergeant and below Master Sergeant. A technical sergeant is a non-commissioned officer and abbreviated as TSgt. Official terms of address are "Technical Sergeant" or "Sergeant", although many use "Tech Sergeant".

Stan
01-07-2010, 07:35 AM
Wrong Army :D


Technical Sergeant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant) from Wikipedia

Schmedlap
01-07-2010, 08:48 PM
...one section had 1 SSG, 5 SGTs and a PFC.

I bet that PFC's deployment sucked.

82redleg
01-07-2010, 10:31 PM
I bet that PFC's deployment sucked.

That was by the end of the deployment- he joined during the deployment, and 4 SGTs were promoted during the deployment, so it wasn't sooo bad.

My point was that, due to stabilizing units during the deployment, we effectively employed those SGTs as SP5s until we returned, reset and reorganized.

Schmedlap
01-08-2010, 02:00 AM
My point was that, due to stabilizing units during the deployment, we effectively employed those SGTs as SP5s until we returned, reset and reorganized.

I get where you're going. A similar dynamic emerged in my headquarters "platoon" when I was an XO on a deployment. At one point, we were 95% Chiefs and 5% Indians. We had to hammer home the point that duties were doled out on the basis of duty position, rather than rank. Otherwise, one PFC would have been doing PMCS on every vehicle. This also helped to clarify to them why I did not become a co-commander after being promoted to CPT - a concept that seemed to mystify them.