Battle Drill

[tankersteve]

Ken,

I agree with pretty much everything you said, which you stated rather more eloquently than I did.

And yes, I did confuse objectively and subjectively - thanks for correcting that. I still feel my branch, Armor, added much to the problem. If you can so easily quantify the best tank crews by comparing their speed and accuracy in killing targets (forgetting all about the maneuver side), then why can't you do it with a 'mere' squad of dismounted Soldiers? Don't even get me started on the focus on precision gunnery with the Bradley.

As for the Army loving TCS, what I meant is the greater institution of the Army still thinks that TCS is a sound formula for training. I absolutely agree that Soldiers see the foolishness in it but this is an arguement that has not reached the levels (or noise level) that it needs to within regular Army discussions. I hope to still be serving when we move to results or effects-oriented training.

My biggest beef is the Army likes to spend big money on big training, but isn't willing to put much of any money toward the lower end. Therefore, we end up with lousy training on the big end because we still don't do the lower-level stuff very well. And you can definitely link this problem to the idea that you can use battle drills as simply plays to be called and executed by the team. Again, no real thought process. We want to treat our Soldiers like pro football players with a very thin playbook, but we are playing something more akin to rugby, constantly moving and flowing and requiring direction changes on the fly.

Tankersteve

[Ken White]

My biggest beef is the Army likes to spend big money on big training, but isn't willing to put much of any money toward the lower end. Therefore, we end up with lousy training on the big end because we still don't do the lower-level stuff very well.

and I suspect that many -- most -- will agree.

Train the basics well and the high end takes care of itself -- and that doesn't address the fact that much high end training is wasted because by the time people reach that plateau, their ideas are formed and they resist change...

On the vehicle gunnery, true; that and the maintenance picture give good 'metrics' for rating folks. As you say, rifle companies can't compete on that basis. As I'm very fond (too fond, many say ) of telling Armor officers "I've seen a lot of US tanks destroyed by poor tactics on our part; far, far fewer by better enemy gunnery."

[Cavguy]

As I'm very fond (too fond, many say ) of telling Armor officers "I've seen a lot of US tanks destroyed by poor tactics on our part; far, far fewer by better enemy gunnery."

You're on a roll tonight. Might have to borrow that too ...

[tankersteve]

Ken, too true about the maintenance statistics. I definitely understand what you are alluding to about tactics, not gunnery, being deficient. With our expensive digital trainers/simulators, hopefully even in a limited budget environment, we can train junior leaders to effectively employ their Soldiers.

Even as we have created battle drills (really many are just TTPs), we have had to modify them and specifically mention altering them so they were not patternable. Things like where to stop for an IED - troops are told to vary the distance, etc. Unfortunately, battle drill is synonymous with a rote executed play. Like running a route in football, you are supposed to execute it exactly the same, without thinking. What this creates is the greater likelihood that Soldiers will not be thinking as they go through the motions of what they have been told to do.

So my question to the smarter people here is, where was battle drill before 1975? I understand it was dumbed down, but what was it like when it was really good and how did you teach it? How did you move beyond it? If I missed this in an earlier bit, let me know and I'll go read again.

Tankersteve

[Ken White]

and noticed that on the first couple of pages, there are a slew of links on the topic. You can also got to your local library and ask them to obtain on an inter-Library loan, copies of FM 17-1 Aug 1957, Armor Operations, Small Units. Or/ and ask for FM 17-15 (1958 I think???), Tank Units, Platoon, company and Battalion. The Knox Library probably has both. If it's still there...
Basically there were no set drills; each unit made up their own and emphasized what they thought was important (horrors!!! No standardization??? ). Since essentially, one can only do so much with a piece of terrain and since initial entry training, Officer and Enlisted was better -- it was an inch wide and a mile deep instead of the reverse as it is now -- everyone was on pretty much the same sheet of music anyway.

The most common favorites were meeting engagements and reaction to ambush because, particularly if you gave the OpFor carte blanche or used opposing force (i.e today 1st plat moves, 2d defends/ambushes (OpFor whatever), 3d spts the tng or does something on their own if no spt needed. Tomorrow, it's 2,3 and 1; then the next day 3,1 and 2.) you could get some really interesting situations. Others were Relief in contact -- always hairy -- and Combat outpost, delaying actions, infiltrating attacks, counter guerrilla hammer and anvil and the ever popular airborne special, breakout from an encirclement.

You told your folks what you thought they needed to know. For example, as a Cav and recon PSG, my law was the lead vehicle taken under fire did not do what the 'doctrine' said; return the fire and develop the situation. His orders were to take retrograde if possible, take cover if not and the next guy was directed to get him extracted while the following squad took the responsibility for developing the situation. Occasionally, someone would see us doing that and ask why we weren't doing it by the book; we'd tell them (including a couple of Division Cdrs) and it was never directed that we change. My sensing is that might not have been true post-1975...

Limited only by the commanders or Platoon Leaders imagination. In good units, anyway. The others did only the stuff in the Army Subject Schedule; sort of an ARTEP precursor which contained the simple stuff I named but not the Relief in contact or infiltrating attacks or anything exotic.

[tankersteve]

I had the opportunity to do somewhat similar training as a platoon leader where our company actually had some white space (amazing, in retrospect, considering I was at Ft Hood) and did our own training in the local area. We maneuvered platoons against the HQ element, including 2 tanks and 2 PCs. Not much of it resembled good Ft. Knox battle drill, such as React to Contact/Action on Contact because we actually had rolling terrain and trees, not a golf course to move on.

The other thing we did, which really increased my appreciation for terrain, was to demarcate a 'kill box' on our maps. This was usually about a 4-5 km square, with a platoon on either side. The objective was to maneuver to kill the other platoon, using the ground however you could. You had to understand whether the ground supported an offensive or defensive set, and sometimes you had to be fairly audacious, using speed and surprise to maneuver out of a difficult piece of ground. MILES and the FBCB2 (or IVIS as we had back then), made this a pretty good fight. The best fight I ever had was with a single tank in overwatch with the loader well forward in the bushes, acting as a FO, guiding the rest of us onto my 'enemy'. Really drove the point home of 'not a step without recce'.

While MILES isn't perfect, ready access to it does wonders for making training more realistic in the eyes of the troops. Some Rangers pointed out to me how they use Sims for MOUT training and it caused them to reevaluate many of their urban TTPs. Sims hurt so there is no denying if something is working or not. Sims is just that much harder to get ahold of.

I understand the frustration in using MILES with no blank ammo. Luckily, at NTC, if the S4 is doing his job, units end up with nearly a basic load. However, I have seen units get a mag per man. That is truly frustrating.

Ken, I'll have to check out the old AR you mentioned. We want to be so multi-anything capable nowadays, that being an inch wide and a mile deep is not a good idea, but I would like to get deep on at least a few basics (isn't that what METL-focused training was supposed to be about?).

Tankersteve