I wonder when we are going to modernize the training
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RTK
...
"Daddy, you should take all your lieutenants and make them do this too."
If I only could, Audrey. If I only could. This week, though, I'll be happy if they get down the 5 paragraph OPORD format to standard.
process. METL, ArTEP, Tasks, conditions and standards were adopted after a lengthy gestation process in the late 60s-early 70s to train to minimal competence a large Draftee Army (even as the Draft ceased before the system got truly embedded in the Army..).
For that, they worked fairly well. I was never an ArTEP fan; the process did get rid of the valleys in unit training but it also chopped off the peaks. We paid and pay lip service to the process but when doo doo occurs when we tend to go into a specific trainup for deployment -- as we should -- to peak the unit for its impending missions.
The Army as a result of the old hard core WW II Commanders reducing NCOs and firing nice guys of all ranks for failing Army Training Tests in the 50s and 60s moved away from performance testing into the gray area of ArTEP / ORT etc. completion with no penalty for bad failures. That was absolute reality when I hung up my war suit in 1977. The NTC and JRTC modified that a bit but there still is no hard benchmark -- or, more correctly, there was not when I last retired in 1995. Maybe there is now, I hope so.
Hopefully things have changed and we're willing now to test people and units and react harshly to real failures (as opposed to over reacting to minor nits; a practice at which we excel...). I've never understood that objection to testing -- other than the political correctness angle, of course. Can't make the Personnel management system look bad. :wry:
Same problem occurs with the Standards routine in individual education and training, it gets everyone up to a minimally acceptable baseline but it stifles the sharp guys. Having taught a slew of AOB students over several years in another lifetime, I witnessed first hand the undesirable side effects, the stultifying results on the really good in order to allow the not so good to survive (a caveat on that, 2LTs need to be given a break, a lot of folks don't get into their groove for a couple of years, saw a number of marginal Gold bars come back to Knox later with two silver bars and they were totally different people by thatb time. Some didn't change much, of course :o).
I also watched a number of tasks which had low 'Go' rates farmed out for unit as opposed to institutional training in order to make the rates look good. Not to mention modifying the standards to do the same thing on occasion. Or the games with Instructor Contact Hours...
I'm not at all sure that we truly realize we really do have a professional Army nowadays and that these kids are capable of doing a whole lot more than we tend to let them do...
Not really criticizing anything or anybody; just random thoughts from a long time doer and observer.
A more current perspective...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
The NTC and JRTC modified that a bit but there still is no hard benchmark -- or, more correctly, there was not when I last retired in 1995. Maybe there is now, I hope so.
Ken,
As a fellow no slacker, I wanted to give a first person perspective that is a little more current. When I went to ANCOC in 2004, a significant portion of our POI was dedicated to some newer technologies like the MCS-Light. However, we also still covered some cold war techniques, the one that sticks out in my mind was our two days at the demo range. Believe me I understand that as an 11B you should be a jack of all trades. However, in my 15 years I have never been given any form of demo in training or in combat, to include blasting caps, C4, det cord, or flex charges without a current and qualified Army Engineer or EOD tech by my side. It just doesn’t happen. Two days wasted. Now without putting a stick in anyone’s eye let me tell you why I think it was a waste of time.
Most of us agree with the concept of the strategic corporal, his powerful impact in COIN, as he/she interacts positively with the populace. By default where is the strategic Squad Leader/ Platoon Sergeant? The COIN center of excellence and other organizations put together great briefs on planning and implementation. However, there is a problem, the venue for these briefs are usually BDE and BN Commanders. I feel privileged to be in an Army with great leadership and I could not do it better. However, from a first person perspective what commanders learn in these seminars is not trickling down below the Company Commanders. To my knowledge, and I have checked within the last few months there is no COIN classes or briefs placed in the NCOES from WLC (a.k.a PLDC) through ANCOC. Our course here at Polk has a great STX with a MRE feel, But a lot of flag officers agree that the strategic corporal is the answer. My BDE Commander obviously circulates in a higher sphere of influence…(Mayors, Provincial, Governors) He is just one man. How many specialists are in a BDE, how many people do they interact with in one tour? Ok what are we doing to train him from a school house perspective on COIN? ….Nothing.:(
In order, thanks to all for thoughtful comments:
Hi Rob. Good points all, paricularly agree with your first paragraph. I remember reading years ago a comment from an ergonomics guy that he was constantly amazes at how little though most people put into the best way to arrive at the goal they wanted to achieve..
Both you and Anthony make a valid case on the things that stay in the POI seemingly in defiance of logic. Sometimes its there, logic I mean, but is obscured by other things. Take his Demo classes. He makes a valid point about an Engineer being around for anything stronger than an M80 -- but is that due to military necessity or a protective action on the part of the system to make sure one of us dumb grunts doesn't blow up the TOC? I submit the latter. That from the perspective of one who used a fair amount of demo in Korea and a little bit in Viet Nam (in 66, by 68 an engineer was required...:( ). I also suggest the some of the protectionism is not safety or the rep of the institution driven but parochial. Back in the day, the Signal Corps fought the AN/PRC series radios tooth and nail as they could see jobs and spaces melting away...
Having spent some time in TRADOC before I manged to escape, I'm familiar with the time problem. And the money problem. The mantra was then and is now that we cannot afford to train a guy for other than his next job. I fought that tooth and nail (lost) on the basis that, due to someone's death being the kicker, we could not afford to fail to train a guy for a job two levels above his next job. My favortie question of every AOAC was ""How many of you have already commanded a Company or Troop?" followed by "How many of you have been at the Deputy Dog level on a Brigade staff?"
We do have a training fund allotment problem and I contend it is largely Congressionally driven, that and the institutional protection syndrome / budget dollar battle. Congress is willing to spend megabucks on big ticket hardware produced with sub-contractors in multiple districts, the more the better. they are not willing to spend money on training from which they derive little benefit. The services all acquiesce on that.
Agree on the good instructors except I don't think they're all that rare; my guess would be about a third are willing to cheat, lie and steal to properly train their charges, that so many do is a tribute to them and is proved by the fact that the system works as well as it does and almost in spite of itself.
On the bigger ruck bit, when my kid first described the Molle sack some years ago and its size; all I said was "that's really dumb, we're gonna trade a fifty buck little ALICE ruck for a big whomping internal frame that cost $200 plus and that you can't carry a water can on; one that will rapidly get filled to over 100 pounds? Neat." and lo... :)
Hi WM: Thanks. My experience was that most members of the Armed forces spent a fair amount of their own time training on their own dime. That was certainly true in most units I was in. YMMV.
Not sniping at you, you were simply citing a principle, I realize -- but I'm unsure that the Defense Acquisition Community is a model for much other than how not to do things.
I agree that you probably didn't hear of a soldier getting the boot for not passing a SQT (not that those tests were all that swift) but I suggest that with a properly designed and administered test, we probably should see some departures for failure. At all levels.
I also think I am expressly pointing at an elitist selection process; like the drug war, the current egalitarian system isn't doing all it should do for the money spent on it...
Hi Anthony; Thanks for the update. Heh. Hear you on the Demo; been to four courses where rappelling was part of the course; made over 200 combat or recon patrols and have never had to rappell. See my Demo comment to Rob, above.
I totally agree with you on the Strategic Sqd Ldr and Plat Daddy. Had they started out as strategic Corporals, it would've been okay. They didn't and it isn't okay. Major failure on the part of TRADOC and the branch schools -- and the Sergeant Majors who are supposed to keep an eye on stuff like that...
The Bn and Bde Cdrs should also be plunking for that and I'm sure some are but the majority are too busy fighting bureaucratic Alligators to even see much less drain the swamp. That, by the way is not a lick on those commanders. It is, however, one on their bosses bosses...
Thanks.
Sorry about the Acquisition bit, my wife says my
humor needs work. Our snotty, sorry kids agree with her...
That may have given the impression I disagreed with your comment, I do not. I agree on the continuing education. The services of course do that to an extent. You don't get promoted unless you go to the requisite schools for each step and it's a rare Field Grade Officer that isn't working on or does not have an advanced degree. As I also said above, most folks, even the NCOs do devote some to much of their own time -- and money, in many cases -- to education and training. In any event there's room for improvement and a method of rotating out to the world or sabbatical -- long term adventure training on the British model -- lot of things could be done to improve the process which is today to heirarchial and check-the-box. not to mention that the quality of some instruction is cast about two or three levels below the capability of most students.
You're absolutely right on failure without consequences; that has been an annoyance to me for many years. In the pre-dawn of the late fifties with a lot of old hard core WW II folks around if you failed you got tossed (conversely, fairly minor disciplinary stuff was overlooked. Fortunately for me :) ). By the mid 80s, one could fail without fear of failure (except for minor disciplinary stuff that got people thrown out of the service) and that is absolutely the wrong message. That too may have improved since '95 but it was still the case then. Thus my "elitist' schtick; what's wrong with being elite? Mediocrity in military performance will get people killed, yet we tolerate it. Doesn't make sense.
Also agree that up or out is problematic -- in fact, I think its counter productive. That process is really going to need a relook -- particularly as the high reenlistment rates today in the combat arms are going to create a massive surplus of SGT/SSG pretty soon. Of course, the Army can do what it's done in the past; forcibly reclassify them to odd job MOSC (and cause them to get out). My all time pet was the chopper pilots in Viet Nam. They commissioned the top 30% of the Warrant Officers, the best there were and those guys got up to CPT and then they threw most of 'em out of the Army. Not back to Warrant or even back to an old enlisted grade; out. There were a few exceptions but not many. Terminally dumbbb. And the Personnel community has not burnished their image since...
Move the school to the people
Instead of always uprooting people to go to schools why not move the schools to the people. By that I mean the Instructors,guest speakers,etc. should go to the location where the people need them instead of the other way around. This is not a total cure as in some case you would have to go to a particular spot (staff Ride,etc.) but may be that could be handled by a field trip:) Seems a lot easier to have the instructors mobile than having to keep thousands of students always on the move.
Well said in both the above.
DL has good points but is no substitute for the interaction. I've learned as much in bars all over the world as I ever learned in classrooms... :D
The cramming of 8 weeks into 16 is older than I am (Yes, that is possible... :p ) and it needed to be stopped long ago; a great deal of that is related to the rather stupid bureaucratic way we 'justify' the staffing of instructors and cadre.
People is / are what it's all about. Most will try to do the right thing most of the time -- we all have bad days -- and most are capable of far more than we ask of them. We see that every day in the Army, people performing way above their 'potential' or nominally expected capability but we don't take advantage of it. We should.
We need to look at the upcoming SGT/SSG bubble and at long term retention. These guys are staying in because of the challenge; they and the LTs and CPTs that are sticking it out in spite of family concerns are going to require some thought to retain when things settle down and the challenge departs.
We ought to be able to pay or otherwise reward people for doing a really good job without necessarily promoting them in rank. While I firmly believe most people are capable of doing far more than we generally ask of them, I'm also firmly convinced the Peter Principle is valid. :wry:
Kudos, by the way, to Cody for asking those Captains what they though about their generals -- and listening to them.
Yes, he is. We ought to do that and I suspect
the answers will be as vague as all those in all the surveys that ask "Why did you enlist." I also suspect that the real answer is "Because I'm doing something that's a challenge, I'm making a difference and I'm doing something a lot of people won't or can't do and I'm working with some of the best people I've ever known."
And having cool toys doesn't hurt... ;)
However, we still ought to ask -- and we ought to pay attention to what we hear.
Having the best of both worlds
Rather than cramming 8 weeks of training into 16 (or in the case of my advanced course, cramming one month of training into 6), we could do something really creative--do a DL component followed up by an in-resident component, which would give one the best of both worlds.
Back in the day, I was an early attendee (known today in the software world as Beta testers) of the Combined Arms and Services Staff School (CAS-cubed). Before we went to the in-resident phase at Leavenworth (short course, not wearing brown-dyed fatigues with a P on the back), we had to do a bunch of reading and take a pretest on that reading. Then we got to go to interact with folks from across the Army in our various staff groups. That CAS3 was the best training experience of my career--most of the value I received from the peer interaction was learning how not to do things.
I reached MEL4 via correspondence course while still a very junior O-3. I found that my ability to operate on a Division staff was just as good as that of my peers who did the resident version in Kansas (of course that may have more to do with the people involved and less to do with the training venues.)
BTW, I was told that the reason the advanced/career course lasted 6 months was based on a funding issue--it was cheaper to PCS us than to pay us per diem. So, the course had to be for longer than the 179 day max TDY period. Ain't it great when beancounting RM folks force your decisions?
