Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 52 of 52

Thread: Personal Security Teams for BN COs

  1. #41
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Update for CavGuy.

    Kid is on a short deployment and I haven't had a chance to hit the book store to check out the "We can get back to real soldiering" quote. Did go to dinner a couple of nights ago with an old - old friend who recalled the quote and said he was pretty sure it was alleged to have been said by this guy:

    LINK.

    Will keep looking.

  2. #42
    Council Member SGTMILLS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    33

    Default Senior O & E "Fobbits"

    I can only speak from the two tours I have done in Iraq, so here it goes...
    1. Our BDE CSM is an OUTSTANDING leader. Like I said in an earlier post, he was constantly on missions.
    2. Our CO went on missions a bunch of times, but only at his convenience. (rightfully so)
    3. Our First SGT went on a total of 3 missions, but everyone knew he wasn't up for the task, he was just doing his time. The reality of this is that we knew that going in. Our PLT SGTs made up for it. The lower ranks caught on about half way through the last tour. We explained it away and kept the lowers off the subject.
    Our CO did NOT have a PSD, but our mission was not heavily laden with tasks requiring him to be on the forefront. The only reason the CSM had one is because he had troops in 3-4 different AO's.
    To sum up my explination...i can see how some first timers, or newbies can get fed up with poor leaders, but the "poor leaders" are few and far between. The fix? Strive to be a better soldier than those leaders. Hell, strive to be a better leader than the good ones. Every soldier can take notes from good leaders on how to, and from poor leaders on how NOT to.

  3. #43
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    I am confused. What were your 1SG and CSM doing on missions? I could see if it was a company mission having the 1SG but other than that he should not be there. 1SG and CSM are administrative positions. THe PSGs shouldn't be making up for the 1SG. It is their job to lead their platoons, not the 1SG. Personally we can't stand it when the company SGM or BN CSM come on missions with us. They are a distractor. For that matter the Company Commander should be staying out it unless it is a company mission. If it is a platoon mission, the platoon already has a leader, one who does not need his boss standing over his shoulder. I can understand going out once in a while just to check on things but more than that and they are in the way. Look at it this way. When the company commander goes out with a platoon he no longer can focus as effectively on the company mission, he is focused on the platoon he is with and a commander's job is to be where he can have the greatest effect on his entire AO.

    SFC W

  4. #44
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default The Big Army is trying to change that

    1SGs don't have nearly as much admin stuff to do as they used to and they are, in theory, the most experienced NCOs in the Battery, Company or Troop.

    Somebody had the bright idea that that talent and slack time could be put to good use if the 1SG became the senior trainer for the unit. It's taking hold slowly, I think. Thus, for the 1SG to wander about during operations makes sense. All will not do that job well but most will. Same applies to an extent to the CSM position; a lot of practical and tactical knowledge there (or should be...), shame to not put it to use now and then. Like anything else, a little common sense must be exercised -- and a lot of non-interference with others jobs is required.

    Other'n that, I agree with your comment

  5. #45
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    These days things are very distributed - you might have a platoon out to a COP for a few days on QRF, or partnered up with ISF doing 24-72 hour of continuous operations. Companies occupy some pretty large AOs - same with BNs/TFs and BCTs. Some companies have been tagged as permanent augmentees to TTs, some just flat made into TTs. The 1SG and CSM are the eyes of experience - as such they provide many things including balance to a command team. Where a CDR may only do one tour with the unit, the 1SG may well have been within the BN or BCT for the last tour - he knows the unit and the personalities in ways the officer might never know. Since the battlespace is so big and the tasks on the CMD team so many, the CDR and his senior SNCO might be tag teaming to keep up and check on things.

    While you can get info via FM, email and BFT, sometimes the only way to really communicate and understand something is to go look - plus it gets you back to the reality of what is going on. Its another one of those things that have to be balanced - the trick is to be available without being a burden - as you said, you are getting paid to do your job, not those of your subordinates.

    Best Regards, Rob

  6. #46
    Council Member SGTMILLS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    33

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    I am confused. What were your 1SG and CSM doing on missions? I could see if it was a company mission having the 1SG but other than that he should not be there. 1SG and CSM are administrative positions. THe PSGs shouldn't be making up for the 1SG. It is their job to lead their platoons, not the 1SG. Personally we can't stand it when the company SGM or BN CSM come on missions with us. They are a distractor. For that matter the Company Commander should be staying out it unless it is a company mission. If it is a platoon mission, the platoon already has a leader, one who does not need his boss standing over his shoulder. I can understand going out once in a while just to check on things but more than that and they are in the way. Look at it this way. When the company commander goes out with a platoon he no longer can focus as effectively on the company mission, he is focused on the platoon he is with and a commander's job is to be where he can have the greatest effect on his entire AO.

    SFC W
    Ok, well, i guess i didn't explain it correctly. Yes, the CSM went out on missions, but i can only assume it was to evaluate how each patrol was handling themselves, then to take the best TTP's from each patrol and impliment them as SOP for the BN. still, the 1SGT was a poor leader, in that, his information was either a falsehood, or completely contradicted what he had said the previous day. I was only comparing him to the CSM, whom we saw almost every week.
    I agree that the CO didn't need to be out there, and we didn't like any of the higher ups on our patrol, but it happened.
    The lower enlisted had noticed the lack of ability and the inconsistencies in the 1SGT, so my point is that our PSGT's then had to explain the 1SGTs actions. The point i was trying to make must have gotten lost in the translation, so here it is...Poor leaders (no matter where they are in the chain) can make for a poor example for younger troops. That lack of ability translates into a less-effective unit, unless the rest of the leadership can make up for it.
    I have gotten waaayyy off topic here, so i will stop, now. THANKS!!

  7. #47
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Hey Sergeant Mills !

    Quote Originally Posted by SGTMILLS View Post
    The lower enlisted had noticed the lack of ability and the inconsistencies in the 1SGT, so my point is that our PSGT's then had to explain the 1SGTs actions. The point i was trying to make must have gotten lost in the translation, so here it is...Poor leaders (no matter where they are in the chain) can make for a poor example for younger troops. That lack of ability translates into a less-effective unit, unless the rest of the leadership can make up for it.
    I have gotten waaayyy off topic here, so i will stop, now. THANKS!!
    Since we're slightly off topic, a final comment if you will.
    You folks should have never permitted your 1SG (that used to be the correct abbreviation for a First Sergeant in my days) to drag his Alpha. That equates to a total collapse of the NCO system that the US Army and her Officers and Enlisted depend on. By permitting Top to coast into retirement while on active duty (assuming that's what you're saying) literally translates to the 'lower ranks' that the other NCOs are not only aware of the situation, but worse, condone said.

    In my days, Top was out and about kickin' Alphas and foremost, our mentor.

    Lastly, if your SGM or CSM was at all physically present, he would have noticed your 1SG's inactivity and/or inaction. I won't pretend to comprehend why and E-9 would watch and permit a 1SG loaf in a war zone.

    Regards, Stan

  8. #48
    Council Member SGTMILLS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    33

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Hey Sergeant Mills !



    Since we're slightly off topic, a final comment if you will.
    You folks should have never permitted your 1SG (that used to be the correct abbreviation for a First Sergeant in my days) to drag his Alpha. That equates to a total collapse of the NCO system that the US Army and her Officers and Enlisted depend on. By permitting Top to coast into retirement while on active duty (assuming that's what you're saying) literally translates to the 'lower ranks' that the other NCOs are not only aware of the situation, but worse, condone said.

    In my days, Top was out and about kickin' Alphas and foremost, our mentor.

    Lastly, if your SGM or CSM was at all physically present, he would have noticed your 1SG's inactivity and/or inaction. I won't pretend to comprehend why and E-9 would watch and permit a 1SG loaf in a war zone.

    Regards, Stan
    Stan...
    Your guess was as good as mine as far as our first shirt dragging "alpha" all i know (being a lowly E-5) was that i was not going to let his actions (or lack thereof) affect how my team reacted to myself, or our squad leader, or Plt. SGT. As far as our CSM, his efforts and concerns were about the soldiers, not the leaders. I can't speak for him as to why he let Top act the way he did. We came back w/ 100% and i do not attribute any of that to 1SGT. Our TTP's and BOG thinking got us all home safe. All is in the past, and we are getting an outstanding 1SGT very soon. Essayons.
    SGT Mills

  9. #49
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SGTMILLS View Post
    Stan...
    Your guess was as good as mine as far as our first shirt dragging "alpha" all i know (being a lowly E-5) was that i was not going to let his actions (or lack thereof) affect how my team reacted to myself, or our squad leader, or Plt. SGT. As far as our CSM, his efforts and concerns were about the soldiers, not the leaders. I can't speak for him as to why he let Top act the way he did. We came back w/ 100% and i do not attribute any of that to 1SGT. Our TTP's and BOG thinking got us all home safe. All is in the past, and we are getting an outstanding 1SGT very soon. Essayons.
    SGT Mills
    Glad to hear the you and your team picked up the slack !
    I enjoyed the video you sent, Thanks !
    Regards, Stan

  10. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2

    Default Benefits of a PSD

    Hello all, first post here, great forum by the way. I fully believe that maneuver BDE/BN/CO commanders not only need a PSD, but it is also irresponsible to not have a dedicated one. I would not confuse a PSD with bodyguards. A PSD is the entire combat patrol that gets the CDR from the FOB/COP to the place he has to go. Most meetings that he attends will only involve him a a few selected individuals (CA/S2/FSO etc., and 1-2 close in security personnel). The remainder of the PSD has to be able to secure the vehicles and perform local security.

    Any commander worth his weight will spend a lot of time outside the wire, that leaves three options; (1) use one of the BNs platoons for the mission, (2) create an adhoc patrol every time, or (3) have a dedicated PSD.

    (1) Using one of the BN's platoons reduces the available combat power in sector for the duration of the mission. Even if the mission is scheduled/planned you have just reduced maneuver forces in sector by one. Or even worse you are using a platoon that is supposed to be refitting which is not fair to the soldiers. Add to that, is trying to figure out how the CDR and his crew fits into the platoon and its SOPs, the CDR is not organic to that unit and attachments can throw off well understood reactions and drills and endager soldiers.

    (2) Creating an ad-hoc organization is an even worse option. This option results in patrols that do hot have set SOPs and is collective training event for every mission. This presents the most danger to the CDR and the soldiers on the patrol. I would never recommend this option unless there wasn't any other choice.

    (3) A dedicated PSD creates an integrated combat patrol that has set SOPs and understands their roles and missions. A PSD can be generated with HQ (PLT/CO/Staff) assets for the most part. Using command crews, HQ/Staff personnel (or hijacking a few specialty platoon personnel) alllows a CDR to have a reliable PSD that knows how to maneuver, react to contact, provide local security, etc.. As it is a dedicated organization the soldiers know what is expected of them and who is supposed to be doing what in any given situation. As with any normal platoon, their practiced and well rehearsed SOPs are what matter most during contact.

    KH

  11. #51
    Council Member SGTMILLS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Glad to hear the you and your team picked up the slack !
    I enjoyed the video you sent, Thanks !
    Regards, Stan
    It was our whole company. I give it up to each and every NCO for not letting a weak link get in the way of us all coming home.
    I have seen fantastic NCO's and i have seen subpar NCO's. We just gain what we can from both, and drive on!

  12. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kwajalein, Marshall Islands
    Posts
    3

    Default Psd

    Excellent board, gentlemen. I was looking for something like this to dovetail with my self-education in history and military affairs. Until I happened upon this, I was despairing of ever finding reasoned, rational, civil and informed discourse on the subject matter.

    It seems that the young originator of this topic is dealing with perhaps at least two realities: (1) he cannot see the big picture relative to his commanding officer's responsibilities that would require a PSD and is resentful; (2) he is assigned to a unit in which the command element unnecessarily or without authorization uses a PSD as a status symbol. A first sergeant or battalion S-1A who doesn't want to ride with a convoy to pick up the mail, for example, but rather mounts his own vehicle element with attached PSD to perform that task.

    As to the role and quality of personnel assigned to PSD, I can only add that in my experience, limited as it is, such people were also expected to properly plan and brief the mission to the PL/OIC, gather information during their mission, execute the mission, perform a competent post-mission briefback, and examine lessons learned for application to the next mission. This goes for grunts and tankers as well as NSW, reconnaissance, and SF types. Especially in this type of conflict, everyone is an intelligence-gatherer and everyone needs to be on board.

    A bunch of surly, skeptical, and cynical admin, supply or motor T types who were disengaged from their cots, daydreams, or regular duties by the company gunny or unit senior chief for a poorly planned mission would have been unacceptable. The poster's unit leadership is clearly at fault if, as he says, personnel with no clear understanding of or appreciation for the mission were utilized.

    In LIC/COIN, everybody makes a difference and as near complete as possible an understanding of the mission is essential. This is not Willy's and Joe's war.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •