Project often? I don't buy much of that, 120mm.
I've seen all that happen but I've far more often seen it not happen. I've seen and been in recon units and sniper crews populated only with 'selected' volunteers and been in others populated with whatever the pipeline fed in the way of replacements - to include 'school trained snipers' who couldn't use a mil formula or calculate windage.
Very little difference in performance. In fact, the 'selected' crews tend to be mediocre in performance and showboat prima donnas if you don't watch 'em. What you postulate is true a few places in peacetime, in a busy war no Army could afford that mentality. No decent Commander would tolerate it. Yes, I know all commanders aren't decent -- but most are.
Any good Cav NCO can train 80% of the average grunts to be decent scouts; he can train about 20% of them to be superb scouts -- and those same percentage are about the number that will be decent and super Infantrymen, just different skillsets and yes, the Scout does have to know and do more, a bunch more -- most of these kids can do far more than too many officers and NCOs are willing to let them do.
A decent sniper can train any guy who has a flair for shooting and the patience for the job to be a sniper. How good he will be is a matter of time and experience.
The above comes from about 11 years, four in combat in two different wars, of recon from FMF and Corps to Infantry Battalion level, Cav and Infantry, Mech and Airborne. You show me a unit that acts as you say -- and, as I said, I've seen and been in a few, I know they exist -- and I'll show you a sorry unit (They were and to make your day one of 'em was Airborne :D ). Good units don't have those problems. I've also not seen the shun idea -- in most units I was in or familiar with, there were people in the rifle companies who wanted to be Scouts or Snipers and had to wait for a vacancy to move...
Video feed as alternative to Recon
Enlarging the argument on Generalisation of Recon job vs Specialisation, here's a news feed. This may give some ideas on things for the future.
"Now, a communications system that two Fort Lewis Stryker brigades are fielding in Iraq aims to provide leaders with more real-time information – and a better chance of tracking insurgents.The Tacticomp system can link soldiers on the ground with commanders back at the operations center, using troops’ geographical coordinates and live video from cameras soldiers carry or from drone aircraft circling overhead.The information streams back to computers inside the Stryker vehicle and to the unit’s tactical operations center.Soldiers carrying the device can send texts to each other or broadcast a message in an ad-hoc chat room. And the ability to send video or still photos to the operations center can be used to verify identities of targets.
Fort Lewis’ 3rd and 4th Stryker Brigades – both part of 2nd Infantry Division – are fielding the equipment in Iraq. The 3rd Brigade left earlier this summer for Diyala province; the 4th Brigade leaves in the coming weeks for Baghdad. Between them, they have nearly 8,000 soldiers.
Soldiers from 4th Brigade tested the equipment two weeks ago, with mixed feelings. Many liked the idea of live video – especially with the ability to tap into the data stream from unmanned aerial vehicles overhead – but some believe carrying the extra gear will make them stand out.“The video feed is a really good concept,” said Spc. Anthony Morris, an infantryman preparing for his second deployment. “I like the ability to see what guys are talking about. But the extra equipment makes you a big target.”
Each kit weighs about 8 pounds and includes a handheld controller with a video screen and a camera that can attach to the helmet or body armor. Battalions will decide which soldiers field the equipment, but previous units that have deployed to Iraq with the system have distributed them to platoon leaders and higher."
Comments.
Projection, heck! I'm saying it up front! ;^)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I've seen all that happen but I've far more often seen it not happen. I've seen and been in recon units and sniper crews populated only with 'selected' volunteers and been in others populated with whatever the pipeline fed in the way of replacements - to include 'school trained snipers' who couldn't use a mil formula or calculate windage.
This isn't what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is people who's avocation happens to be the job. In other words, they are suited by personality and aptitude.
Quote:
Very little difference in performance. In fact, the 'selected' crews tend to be mediocre in performance and showboat prima donnas if you don't watch 'em. What you postulate is true a few places in peacetime, in a busy war no Army could afford that mentality. No decent Commander would tolerate it. Yes, I know all commanders aren't decent -- but most are.
Actually, wartime is where the avocational scout or sniper is a) allowed to do the job regardless of MOS and b) really shines at it. I think we are in complete agreement about any selection "non-process" the Army likes to use to award MOSs.
Quote:
Any good Cav NCO can train 80% of the average grunts to be decent scouts; he can train about 20% of them to be superb scouts -- and those same percentage are about the number that will be decent and super Infantrymen, just different skillsets and yes, the Scout does have to know and do more, a bunch more -- most of these kids can do far more than too many officers and NCOs are willing to let them do.
Which takes serious time. Not something you can just say "you, you and you are now scouts or snipers - now go do that recon/occupy a hide site, in enemy territory, accomplish your mission and survive". Which is precisely what WILF appears to be proposing. Or not, depending on which post it is.
Quote:
A decent sniper can train any guy who has a flair for shooting and the patience for the job to be a sniper. How good he will be is a matter of time and experience.
As an aside, here is what is currently happening: Sniper comes trained in BASICS (note the use of all-caps) from the school, is neglected, failed to allow to train and/or abused for a few years by his parent unit, then some crusty NCO/Officer sees him in his decrepit state and then judges snipers by that example. This is a pretty universal complaint, btw, and isn't the result of a few "bad" commanders.
Quote:
The above comes from about 11 years, four in combat in two different wars, of recon from FMF and Corps to Infantry Battalion level, Cav and Infantry, Mech and Airborne. You show me a unit that acts as you say -- and, as I said, I've seen and been in a few, I know they exist -- and I'll show you a sorry unit (They were and to make your day one of 'em was Airborne :D ). Good units don't have those problems. I've also not seen the shun idea -- in most units I was in or familiar with, there were people in the rifle companies who wanted to be Scouts or Snipers and had to wait for a vacancy to move...
I'd say then, that you are pretty enculturated as an Infantry guy and are blind to the problem. It's kind of like racism, and unless you are part of the minority, it is very difficult to "get" the problem. (which makes me wonder why I'm wrestling the pig) The problem is also that to an enculturated guy, the phoney-baloney prima donnas, wannabes and posers are hard to distinguish from the "real deal" guys who just act weird, look different and play with unusual toys, from an institutional standpoint.
There are all sorts of insiduous ways that the kind of guy who'd make an exceptional (not a plodder, just doing the job, school or no) recon guy or sniper is treated differently from his peers. Primarily because he may not be that good at being "hoo-ah air-bone infantaree!" (sorry, I couldn't help myself) or not care for the culture it's wrapped up in. Of course, there's all sorts of decent specialty guys who don't have that problem, and I do not speak to them, lest they descend on this post in droves. :)
Disregarding all the psychobabble
Quote:
Originally Posted by
120mm
This isn't what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is people who's avocation happens to be the job. In other words, they are suited by personality and aptitude.
but acknowledging this aspect is valid -- anyone with a personality and aptitude is going to do any job better than one lacking the traits -- most of the rest is opinion and, like this one:
Quote:
Actually, wartime is where the avocational scout or sniper is a) allowed to do the job regardless of MOS and b) really shines at it.
is partly true. This one is that due to the fact in wartime the rules structure dissipates. You did note I didn't deny that the structure and attitudes you cited existed -- I simply said they were not in my experience as pervasive as you seemed to say. I'll also note that those attitudes are more prevalent in peacetime and tend to disappear or at least diminish significantly in wartime.
Quote:
Which takes serious time. Not something you can just say "you, you and you are now scouts or snipers - now go do that recon/occupy a hide site, in enemy territory, accomplish your mission and survive".
Depends on what you mean by serious time. In Viet Nam I got new kids (i.e. Basic and AIT completions w/about 6 months in the Army and newly arrived in country) up to speed in a couple of weeks to do all that -- those coming in from the Rifle Companies with three or more months in country took slightly less time (mostly due to having to break bad habits). That's for Scouts doing sneak and peek stuff; snipers do take more time.
Quote:
...This is a pretty universal complaint, btw, and isn't the result of a few "bad" commanders.
I can believe that and will grant that lack of professional knowledge due to inadequate training and education -- and pursuit of knowledge by individuals creates an Army wide problem and leads to the syndrome you cited; I also contend that good Commanders can and do turn that stuff around.
Recall that I don't dispute the problem exists, I said that it did -- I also said it was in my experience the exception rather than the rule. Maybe the problem is that today's Commanders do things differently than in my day. We are, after all talking about the Army I was in in the 50s to 70s versus the one you're more familiar with currently, in the 90-10 period. It does seem to me that the Army is more hidebound than it used to be and it is absolutely more bureaucratic than it was. Bureaucracy can lead to a 'it's not being done our way' syndrome...
Quote:
I'd say then, that you are pretty enculturated as an Infantry guy and are blind to the problem.
Gee, project much? 18Fs and 19Ds are Infantry? Who knew? :D
Of course, it could also be that I don't see it as an all pervading problem because I've been lucky enough to have been in more good units that bad ones. Sorry your experience differed.
Quote:
(which makes me wonder why I'm wrestling the pig)
The anger thing, perhaps? You seem to enjoy wrestling a lot. ;)
Quote:
The problem is also that to an enculturated guy, the phoney-baloney prima donnas, wannabes and posers are hard to distinguish from the "real deal" guys who just act weird, look different and play with unusual toys, from an institutional standpoint.
Nope. Posers and wannabes always give themselves away by talking trash and not producing. Prima donnas look great but don't perform well.
Quote:
There are all sorts of insiduous ways that the kind of guy who'd make an exceptional (not a plodder, just doing the job, school or no) recon guy or sniper is treated differently from his peers.
In other words, they aren't doing it your way? Yeah, I've seen a lot of that. Again, I don't deny that happens -- I just don't think it is the rule; you do. Your prerogative and we can disagree on that. We don't need to be disagreeable in that disagreement. I'm just trying to sort out the 'why...'
Quote:
Primarily because he may not be that good at being "hoo-ah air-bone infantaree!" (sorry, I couldn't help myself)
I know you can't and I'm used to that from earthlings ;) -- but IMO you're still not right in your assessment that only the eccentric can do the job. That's really what the issue is IMO, all the bit about treatment of eccentrics is a small part of the problem -- which is who can do it in combat (peacetime doesn't count for much).
Quote:
or not care for the culture it's wrapped up in.
Then why would they stick around a culture they don't like, respect or agree with? No one today is drafted. Makes no sense to me that folks come in the Army, decide they hate it for this or that reason and stay. Why would one do that...
Quote:
Of course, there's all sorts of decent specialty guys who don't have that problem, and I do not speak to them, lest they descend on this post in droves.
Yes, there are -- and while there are Infantry (and other branch) guys who are way too doctrinaire, there are also all sorts of guys in the Army who don't have the problem you attempt to tack onto them -- unless the Army has changed a whole lot more than it seems to have from my day...