FM 3-27.75 The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills

[Jones_RE]

Ken,

Would it help to raise standards of physical fitness, marksmanship, etc? How about rotating transport and maintenance personnel, etc through combat arms?

It seems like people don't join the army just to learn to turn a wrench or file paperwork. They could do that at home, after all. But what putting everybody in the front lines go too far?

[Ken White]

My ideal Army for the US today would be about 350-400K (while doubling the current size of the ARNG). Tooth : tail ratio would be 1:1 instead of the current 1:3 in favor of the tail and equipment would be designed to be rationalized to a minimum number of parts and pieces that can be assembled to make the requisite toy -- sort of like we ended WW II with three sizes of tracks and roadwheels, five hull types and four powerpacks for every tracked vehicle -- ultra reliable and low maintenance instead of to do everything for everybody. We can keep all the electronics, most of that uses LRU anyway.

Everyone would enlist for three or four years in the combat arms and after one hitch could reenlist for a CS/CSS job. Probationary hitch there and then they could reenlist for a career where ever they wished if there was a space. PCS's in CONUS would be cut by 2/3 saving big bucks. Homesteading would be tolerated. No 'up or out' but a definite out for non-performance. Most Training, MAAGs and ROTC Dets would use a Junior ROTC-like contract for Retired folks (language required for the MAAG jobs, all other Active duty standard met including height and weight) on five year contracts, renewable one time, periodic re-greening required.

Congress would never buy it -- neither would most of the Generals.

To realistically answer your question, some do join to learn a skill or trade. Most of the farm kids and suburban dwellers opt for the combat arms for fun and frolic and many plan on one tour and out. A few do go for the technical stuff but the majority who enlist for that do it to get a later leg up in civilian life. The reenlistment rates in those skills vary from time to time and MOS to MOS but are rarely as good as the Army would like -- those skills are in some cases, very expensively acquired. I don't think requiring some combat arms time of everyone is going too far (even though I know it would impact recruiting a bit) but I think most might disagree with me.

[Surferbeetle]

Some of the European countries require/required mandatory service from all male inhabitants as a way to provide for social/national cohesion and of course provide for the country's defense. I have also observed that field time often helps up the common sense quotient. Both have their advocates.

In terms of the wise use of resources I would agree that spending a few years in a position is more conducive to throughly understanding the requirements of a job (and incurs less in PCS costs) than spending 12-18 months before moving on to another job combined with spending only 36 months before moving on to a new geographical location.

This would however require a major paradigm shift and inertia is a...

[Norfolk]

Everyone would enlist for three or four years in the combat arms and after one hitch could reenlist for a CS/CSS job. Probationary hitch there and then they could reenlist for a career where ever they wished if there was a space. PCS's in CONUS would be cut by 2/3 saving big bucks. Homesteading would be tolerated. No 'up or out' but a definite out for non-performance. Most Training, MAAGs and ROTC Dets would use a Junior ROTC-like contract for Retired folks (language required for the MAAG jobs, all other Active duty standard met including height and weight) on five year contracts, renewable one time, periodic re-greening required.

Congress would never buy it -- neither would most of the Generals.

To realistically answer your question, some do join to learn a skill or trade. Most of the farm kids and suburban dwellers opt for the combat arms for fun and frolic and many plan on one tour and out. A few do go for the technical stuff but the majority who enlist for that do it to get a later leg up in civilian life. The reenlistment rates in those skills vary from time to time and MOS to MOS but are rarely as good as the Army would like -- those skills are in some cases, very expensively acquired. I don't think requiring some combat arms time of everyone is going too far (even though I know it would impact recruiting a bit) but I think most might disagree with me.

Huh, now there's something that I had never considered. I've strongly tended to perceive an almost impassable barrier between the combat arms and the administration and logistics types, especially in so far as the latter didn't have time on a three or four-year contract to do both a full-length, half-year infantry syllabus, plus their own specialized training, which in some cases can be very specialized. Not to mention that the CSS sort would not have the time to maintain even basic levels of proficiency in infantry skills.

So it comes as a bit of a (pleasant) surprise to see Ken proposing that everyone spend their initial three or four year contract in the combat arms, and then go on to CSS assignements after that. Great idea , and a lot less time arguing with some supply "tech" over trying to get basic clothing and equipment replaced when it really does need it, because he's already been there himself and knows how it goes.

Jones_RE makes a strong point about not only the need for superior physical fitness and weapons handling skills, but also how that in and of itself provides the motivation for people to really stay in the military; if they find it challenging and rewarding (in a moral, not monetary, sense), they will tend to stay. The Canadian Army used to maintain very high individual standards in the Infantry - and they could afford 2/3 rds attrition rates just on the Infantry Course itself, because people wanted to join, and if they were among the 1/3 rd or less who passed the Infantry Course (on a few courses, every single candidate failed), they wanted to stay, because they had found what they were looking for.

Right into the 1990's, infantry battalions enforced the 2x10, which was a 10 mile battle march in full kit performed within 2 hours on the first day, and then repeated on the following day (in order to test stamina and recovery); after each of the two 10-mile battle marches, the troops would immediately, without rest, undergo a 300-400 metre assault course on one day, and a live shoot starting at not less than 300 metres on the next day, and having to achieve not less than marksman doing so. Non-hackers were gotten rid of administratively.

That changed during the 1990's as a result of PC political pressures and especially the Human Rights Commission, which simply decreed that the military had to allow practically anyone who didn't need a wheelchair or strong eyeglasses to go into the infantry. Until then, the infantry had been male-only, and no one over the age of 26 could attend the infantry course. In the 90's that changed, the 2x10 and markmanship standards (amongst others) were scrapped and replaced by a lame shooting standard and a lame "forced march" of 8 miles with full kit in 2 hours, 26 minutes - the British Army, by contrast, still enforces an 8 mile battle march with full kit within 1 hour, 50 minutes, and an 8.7 mile battle march in full kit within 2 hours, followed immediately by a live shoot starting from 300 metres.

Needless to say, while Canadian infantry battalions were suffering up to 50% annual attrition rates of new infantry recruits after the collapse of the standards, the Brits held on rather better until the Iraq and Afghan Wars mud-sucked the vitality out of the British Army. In any case, both the Canadians and the Brits have had to lower recruiting standards to get fresh bodies, and in the Canadian case, that has meant that the standards have in effect, almost collapsed entirely - there is, for example, no longer any physical fitness requirement upon enlistement. Infantry battalions have "unofficially" had to resort to enforcing Cooper's Test in order to mitigate the worst PT problems, and I was told by a friend of mine who was still in last year that a version of the 10-miler (in just FFO - boots, webbing,helmet, rifle, but no ruck) has been brought back.

Jones_RE is right: no high soldier standards set and maintained, no reason for the squaddies to stay.

[Ken White]

The lowering of standards here has been mostly in response to Congressional pressure, (perceived) public clamor for 'equality' or due to stupidity (low graduation rates cost $$ and harm reputations). The facts that all people are not equal and that the combat arms demand * great physical conditioning and superior cognitive skill are diligently ignored.

Back in my misspent youth, when the 101st was a real Airborne Division, the 101st MP company would not accept anyone who had not served at least a year in a Rifle Company and who was not 5'11" or taller. Given some thought, both requirements make a great deal of sense. That was brought to an abrupt halt in 1958 when two short graduates of the MP School reported in and were told to go serve in a Rifle Company and gain a few inches of height. Congress got involved. A great MP Company became another mediocre MP Company...

Round pegs fit in all holes -- just not well.

In the past, that slack training was a peacetime norm because the Mothers of America did not like their children getting hurt or killed in training. In WW II, we threw that concern out the window and trained harder -- in our wars since then we have not done so. We have improved training, no question but we've also made it easier. It no longer weeds out the inept.

* Like many demands, that one can be ignored -- and is -- but, as always, there's a cost. In this case missions not well performed and higher own casualties than necessary.

[Jones_RE]

Dean Langdell of the Harvard Law School converted legal education from a bachelor's degree (the LL.B.) to a three year graduate degree (the J.D.) in the 19th century in order to raise the level of legal education in the United States. By making it very difficult to get a degree, the value of the degree and the holder increased tremendously. Other top schools rapidly followed suit. Modern lawyers, even the lousy ones, are very well educated and command high pay and a variety of perks in almost every market.

I also think it's noteworthy that virtually all police departments start their new hires in patrol work. You don't go straight to detective work or into forensic work, you start out dealing with traffic tickets, domestic calls and whatever else is out there. Their specialized jobs call for a lot of technical training, so they only give that training to people who've already demonstrated their commitment to the work. It would be interesting to compare and contrast the attrition rates in large police departments with those of the military.

The Army's current recruiting slogan says in effect "Join the Army and we'll make you strong." That'll get a lot of warm bodies to sign up. A better one might be "Join the Army - if you're strong enough." That'll get the *right* people to sign up. The Marines have a poster with a tagline that says "We don't accept applications, only commitments." That's definitely moving in the right direction.

In order to get high caliber recruits and retain them the armed forces has to become an elite profession. Military experience should be a coveted asset.