Quote Originally Posted by Ski View Post
The problem I have it's that we are trying to focus on everything - and the CMETL/DMETL switch does not take into account the most important factor IMO - training time.

Case in point - units create the DMETL's off the FORSCOM SWA Guidance, Army Warrior Tasks, and the DMD/MEEL's they are given. Taking a FA BN who is training on a CMETL mission and then making them a DETOPS BN - has anyone done the troops to task list on the differences in tasks and then the time associated with the new tasks. Obviously there is some crossover between the CMETL and DMETL task list - but would be interested to see a no-bullcrap training time difference between the two.
Fire for effect!

Training time is the proverbial elephant in the unit leadership meeting. Personally, I've yet to see ARFORGEN executed in anything other than a hurry-up-and-(re)deploy mode, with two big side helpings of "here's your new mission set" and "reclass a chunk of your MOS make-up." Think flash-to-bang times of less than 12 months, and outside of units' official ARFORGEN windows. You can make an arty guy into a provisional MP in that timeframe, but can you make him a good one?

Adding to the frustration, DMD/MEEL are not available from theater in a timely manner, and commanders are busy juggling the problem of how to train/test 100-percent Warrior Task and weapons qualifications prior to M-day.

So, while I like the concept of the CMETL/DMETL, in that it puts some names and documents to how we're already doing business, I'm not sure the overall concept itself does much to solve the training-time problem. Wasn't the old rule-of-thumb something like, "Use 20 percent of the available time for leaders to plan, 80 percent for troops to prepare for mission execution?"