Blasphemy: Article advocates afternoon PT

[infntryldr]

forty and fifty year olds who lack the self confidence to trust or use their subordinates...

I dont think it has anything to do with trusting your subordinates. I trusted my NCO's to run squad PT. I know its hard to believe but there are individuals out there who would when individual PT was given would be off slacking somewhere. Now when the leader, who is responsible for everything that unit does or fails to do, collides with the human instinct to take the course of least resistance, then I think the leader trumps all to insure mission success and a certain level of physical fitness among his men. Now I am not saying that every PT session needs to be a platoon or company formation run, what I am saying is giving NCO's the responsibility to led their squads and fire teams on a daily basis builds leadership among those NCO's and insures a level of fitness among the troops.

I should have clearly stated in units, I didn't realize you'd just left Boot Camp.

I just retired from the Marine Corps.

My experience is that only combat or really intensive field training build unit cohesion. All garrison stuff is superficial.

My experience tells me that its a combination of both. Field training no doubt builds unit cohesion, but the whole garrison experience builds it as well. And since you do not unfortunately spend your entire time in the field, you must find ways of building in it in the rear.

If they're failing to do what they should, that's the first line leaders fault -- if you don't hold him or her responsible, you end up doing the fixing yourself. That, to me is micromangament, not leading.

Agreed, there should be no room for micromanagement in a combat unit, but supervision from a distance is another story. Mentor, teach, and instruct.

I think the key is to realize that if individual physical fitness is the goal, then PT formations are not the way to accomplish that goal. I don't see Olympic athletes or body builders standing in PT formations every morning. If the goal is something else, like someone's idea of what unit cohesion should look and smell like, well, I guess there's no arguing with that.

If all we are going for is Olympic level athletes in the military, then we need to change our recruiting methods. The point being is that this is not what we are trying to create. What we are trying to create is an individual who has a certain level of combat fitness. Which you can accomplish by organized PT sessions.

Hey I liked individual PT just like everybody else, but I do not think that letting individuals go out and do it themselves is the answer. Nor do I think it is the units respoinsibility to get you in shape. This is why you see the gyms on base flocked with individuals working out and such. But to just discard organized PT as some dinosaur because someone believes it micromananing, in my opinion is not the case.

[Entropy]

Interesting comments.

As an AF/NAVY fobbit kind of guy, the model I've seen work best is a kind of hybrid - on PT days (which were 3 days a week), the unit would muster in the morning at the Gym. Everyone would sign in for accountability purposes and then individuals would PT on their own. Once every two weeks, usually a Friday, we do some kind of group PT, usually a run or a mock PT test. Anyone who failed the yearly PT test got supervised PT every morning and then retested in a month. I thought that system worked pretty well and provided a decent balance.

[IntelTrooper]

I know its hard to believe but there are individuals out there who would when individual PT was given would be off slacking somewhere.

There's an organizational reason that happens, and it would go away when the expectations and measurements are made clear. How do Marine Corps Reservists pass their PT tests without daily PT formations? It's baffling.

If all we are going for is Olympic level athletes in the military, then we need to change our recruiting methods. The point being is that this is not what we are trying to create.

Obviously, that wasn't my point. My point was that a physical fitness regimen tailored to the individual, along with clear expectations and measurements, can accomplish the same thing without tying up an entire installation for hours on end.

Hey I liked individual PT just like everybody else, but I do not think that letting individuals go out and do it themselves is the answer. Nor do I think it is the units respoinsibility to get you in shape. This is why you see the gyms on base flocked with individuals working out and such. But to just discard organized PT as some dinosaur because someone believes it micromananing, in my opinion is not the case.

I don't understand what you're getting at. PT isn't for getting people in shape? Then what is it for?

[infntryldr]

There's an organizational reason that happens, and it would go away when the expectations and measurements are made clear. How do Marine Corps Reservists pass their PT tests without daily PT formations? It's baffling.

Organizational reasons? Go away? No, there are just people who will slake when given the opportunity to slake not matter how much cajoling you do.

Actually Marine reservist do fail there PFT's on a greater scale then active duty. And when they do drill, they do have unit cohension building events, and sometimes PT, especially if its annual training. Of course expectations are made clear to the Marine that he needs to stay in shape. But just because there is an expectation does not make it reality.

Like I stated earlier, unit PT is not just about getting in shape, it has other benifits to it as well. And in a infantry unit, those benifits are direclty related to unit success.

Obviously, that wasn't my point. My point was that a physical fitness regimen tailored to the individual, along with clear expectations and measurements, can accomplish the same thing without tying up an entire installation for hours on end.

IMO I believe that a physical fitness regimen has to be tailored to the mission, not the individual. A scout swimmer has a different physical expecation then a artilleryman.

I don't understand what you're getting at. PT isn't for getting people in shape? Then what is it for?

PT has a dual purpose of getting peole in shape, and building unit cohesion.

[Kiwigrunt]

Reading these last few posts I wonder if we can compare it with doing homework for school. It is the student’s responsibility to do the homework required to pass the test/exam. I do of course realise that fitness for an active duty unit is at a different scale of importance, and effects the unit much more than a school situation where every one is an individual. But I think that conceptually the underlying philosophy with regards to instilling a sense of responsibility is what Ken and IntelTrooper are perhaps alluding to:

My point was that a physical fitness regimen tailored to the individual, along with clear expectations and measurements, can accomplish the same thing without tying up an entire installation for hours on end.

Maybe Entropy has the right idea with a mixed balance, where the occasional organised PT could be structured towards instilling that sense of responsibility and understanding of purpose.
Hmmm, as usual, no silver bullets…

[infntryldr]

But I think that conceptually the underlying philosophy with regards to instilling a sense of responsibility is what Ken and IntelTrooper are perhaps alluding to

I completely agree that there should be an instilling of responsibility in the young lads, but I just think you do that by putting them in charge of running the PT

Also, when I am talking about PT, I am not limiting myself to just running shoes and shorts, and going on a nice little jog. I am talking more in line with combat fitness. Hikes, obstacle courses, combatives, grass drills and guerilla type exercises. The things you cant do on your own.

[Schmedlap]

NCOs are responsible for the physical fitness of their Soldiers. That is such a basic and widely understood fact of military life that it was asked at no fewer than half a dozen E-5 promotion boards when I was at the company level. Officers leading PT, imo, makes about as much sense as Officers teaching basic rifle marksmanship or how to do the "extend to the left" drill. Spot-checking, occasional testing, and other "boss's footsteps" measures are fine. But let the NCOs do their jobs. The old rule about treating people like children applies to NCOs as well as lower enlisted. Treat them like kids and many will get frustrated and start playing the role.

We trusted our team leaders to lead 72-hour, 3- to 4-man missions in an AO where enemy contact was a daily occurrence and to do so with little more than the weapons that are organic to an infantry fire team, an MBITR radio, and a basic load of class I and up to double-basic of class V. An NCO who cannot be trusted to ensure that their Soldiers are meeting their physical readiness potential in garrison cannot be trusted to lead them during far more important and dangerous missions when deployed. This was but one of many litmus tests applied for who would be a team leader and who would be one of the Headquarters minions pulling duty as the CO/XO/1SG driver or gunner, TOC rat, etc.

The issue here seems to be not so much how to get Soldiers in shape - that's easy: put a good NCO in charge of them. The issue is how to get the good NCOs in charge of the Soldiers. That's an easy fix. Moving an NCO from one duty position to another is not nearly as difficult as reducing him or discharging him. Crappy team leader? Welcome to headquarters. Still crappy? Have fun on BN staff, where you will get far more personal attention from disgruntled senior NCOs who are angry that they are on staff. Good performer? Here's your fire team.

[infntryldr]

NCOs are responsible for the physical fitness of their Soldiers.

I concur completely. Pretty much anything over squad level PT is for motivational purposes only.

An NCO who cannot be trusted to ensure that their Soldiers are meeting their physical readiness potential in garrison cannot be trusted to lead them during far more important and dangerous missions when deployed.

Spot on.

This was but one of many litmus tests applied for who would be a team leader and who would be one of the Headquarters minions pulling duty as the CO/XO/1SG driver or gunner, TOC rat, etc.

The dreaded police sgt, training clerk, and weapons custodian.

The issue here seems to be not so much how to get Soldiers in shape - that's easy: put a good NCO in charge of them.

Absolutely, putting NCO's in charge of anything allows you to develop him and provides a means to measure his ability as a leader.

Any NCO that lets his men go off and PT on there own IMO is not worth his salt as a leader, and would be a red flag that he doesnt want to led.

[Cavguy]

This was but one of many litmus tests applied for who would be a team leader and who would be one of the Headquarters minions pulling duty as the CO/XO/1SG driver or gunner, TOC rat, etc.

...

Moving an NCO from one duty position to another is not nearly as difficult as reducing him or discharging him. Crappy team leader? Welcome to headquarters. Still crappy? Have fun on BN staff, where you will get far more personal attention from disgruntled senior NCOs who are angry that they are on staff. Good performer? Here's your fire team.

Schmed,

Was with you until this part. Can't disagree enough.

I've worked in two kinds of philosophies regarding HQ/HHC duty.

The first is that it's a dumping ground for NCOs and enlisted who can't cut it on the line. The second is that only the highest caliber NCOs and enlisted are selected for staff positions.

Without exception, the best battalions I have been in have worked on the latter rule. I say this as someone who was a company commander who sometimes lost his best soldiers to HHC. The reasons are several:

1) A screwed up HQs makes every subordinate unit miserable. From messed up support to messed up orders, it makes everyone work twice as hard.

2) If NCO/soldier snuffy isn't making grade, the answer isn't transferring him to someone else's problem. The answer is doing the right thing yourself - reduce him (I have reduced NCOs), counsel him, flag him, chapter him, etc. Not shift him to HQ.

3) What happens in HQ? There is less NCO and officer mentorship. Too busy. They neither have the time or ability to "reform" your problem child. So they get worse. And they make your life on the line miserable.

4) You solve the motivation problem by strictly time-limiting HQ time for NCOs and officers. No more than two years for NCOs, for enlisted, one year. This prevents the case (I received several) of a new PVT going to the S-3 shop and staying there an entire tour, making NCO grade. He then PCSs to his next unit, where he is your team or squad leader, and has no skills relevant to the job. I had an E-6 that spent his enlisted time in S3, went to recruiting, and came to me as a section leader who had never seen a tank. Smart guy set up to fail as a leader by us.

5) Your HQ officers perform better if they aren't having to babysit unsat NCOs dumped to them by the line. They need good people to do officer business.

6) Keeping a poor soldier in the line provides a lot more mentorship and supervision. An infantry platoon has how many NCOs? Compare that to the S4 shop, or S1. And again, if he can't be fixed, do the right thing and get rid of him.

Show me a unit where HQ contains the trash and I'll almost invariably show you a battalion with low morale and screwed up systems.

[selil]

I is a fat guy...

When I was in the Marines I did PT morning, noon, and night. Not kidding. Three mile run with the platoon in the morning, couple miles at lunch (instead of eating), and usually weights in the afternoon. Then I'd go home (was still married) and do some more. All of my last quals on the rifle range were done after five mile runs (punishment for being rotund). I got dunked so many times in the Marines you'd thought I was a duck. Now I run in the mornings (10K this morning). Lots of exercise theory says people have difference fitness levels throughout the day and mixing it up is the best for long term. If I start swimming again (fat floats) it will always be early mornings as that is when the pool is open. Riding the bike is going to be relegated to late mornings (if I commute it is 50 miles round trip) the principle being to mix up time of day.

As to the management issues. Where there is no creativity and abandonment of status quo there is no movement towards the future.

[Uboat509]

The first is that it's a dumping ground for NCOs and enlisted who can't cut it on the line. The second is that only the highest caliber NCOs and enlisted are selected for staff positions.

I have never understood the concept of putting the highest caliber NCOs in staff jobs. What NCO staff job is there that requires the "highest caliber"? I have done my Bteam time. It was long tedious hours and it was as thankless a job as I have ever had but it wasn't especially demanding, not when compared to my job on the team.

Without exception, the best battalions I have been in have worked on the latter rule. I say this as someone who was a company commander who sometimes lost his best soldiers to HHC. The reasons are several:

1) A screwed up HQs makes every subordinate unit miserable. From messed up support to messed up orders, it makes everyone work twice as hard.

That may be true but lower performers in staff jobs cause headaches, whereas lower performers in line jobs cause casualties.

2) If NCO/soldier snuffy isn't making grade, the answer isn't transferring him to someone else's problem. The answer is doing the right thing yourself - reduce him (I have reduced NCOs), counsel him, flag him, chapter him, etc. Not shift him to HQ.

In most of the units that I have been in, when we talked about sending problem children someplace else, ie staff it wasn't usually our lowest perfomers, DUIs, spouse abuse, drugs etc. It was usually one of three catagories, 1) long term injuries, 2) family problems like divorce, ill spouse, deployed spouse, etc and 3) guys who weren't cutting it in their jobs but weren't necessarily dirtbags. Some guys make terrible squad leaders but good staff guys.

3) What happens in HQ? There is less NCO and officer mentorship. Too busy. They neither have the time or ability to "reform" your problem child. So they get worse. And they make your life on the line miserable.


4) You solve the motivation problem by strictly time-limiting HQ time for NCOs and officers. No more than two years for NCOs, for enlisted, one year. This prevents the case (I received several) of a new PVT going to the S-3 shop and staying there an entire tour, making NCO grade. He then PCSs to his next unit, where he is your team or squad leader, and has no skills relevant to the job. I had an E-6 that spent his enlisted time in S3, went to recruiting, and came to me as a section leader who had never seen a tank. Smart guy set up to fail as a leader by us.

I have yet to see anyone do that much time in staff without making a concerted effort to do so.

5) Your HQ officers perform better if they aren't having to babysit unsat NCOs dumped to them by the line. They need good people to do officer business.

You can say the exact same thing on the line. A few problem children in a line unit can be like cancer. They eat up a diproportionate amount of leadership time, often for little return. They often drag morale down and they can be murder on cohesion.

6) Keeping a poor soldier in the line provides a lot more mentorship and supervision. An infantry platoon has how many NCOs? Compare that to the S4 shop, or S1. And again, if he can't be fixed, do the right thing and get rid of him.

You make it sound easy, sir. When I was in Hawaii we had one soldier that woudl go to check himself into mental health every time we went to the field but his platoon (not mine thank goodness) could not get rid of him. Even when he finally drove his car through the front doors of enlisted club on post it took weeks to get rid of him, during much of which time the NCOs in the company had to take shifts guarding him. Since about '98 or '99 the Army, or at least the units I was in, started a program "rehabilitative transfers" in lieu of chapters for all but the most serious problem children. The theory was it would give Joe a new start with a different chain of command to give him the chance to be a better performer. In practice, it turned into a game of musical problem children. If we thought somebody was not necessarily a dirt bag but just wasn't cut out for the line we tried to get them a staff job. Otherwise, we did out best to deal with the problems.


SFC W

[Ken White]

I know its hard to believe but there are individuals out there who would when individual PT was given would be off slacking somewhere.

Well of course there are -- the same guys will also sluff on keeping their uniform and equipment squared away and anything else their NCOs will let them get away with. So it all boils down to that first line leader.

Now when the leader, who is responsible for everything that unit does or fails to do, collides with the human instinct to take the course of least resistance, then I think the leader trumps all to insure mission success and a certain level of physical fitness among his men.

Yep. Question is what leader are you speaking of. Tm ldr? Sqd Ldr? Platoon Sgt / Pl or PC? Co 1SG or Cdr?

Now I am not saying that every PT session needs to be a platoon or company formation run, what I am saying is giving NCO's the responsibility to led their squads and fire teams on a daily basis builds leadership among those NCO's and insures a level of fitness among the troops.

Ah. Slight change. I can almost agree with that -- except the level of physical fitness HAS to be an individual responsibility. Even as long ago as I retired, smoking troopies for fun and profit was illegal...

I just retired from the Marine Corps.

I know, I read your Intro post -- but that was too good a target to pass up...

My experience tells me that its a combination of both. Field training no doubt builds unit cohesion, but the whole garrison experience builds it as well.

True but the Garrison cohesion is largely a different animal and not conducive to combat cohesion -- that's why I said watch who the Troops run around with in Garrison. In most units, only after extensive field work will they run around with sqd and platoon mates instead of others they have something else in common with.

Agreed, there should be no room for micromanagement in a combat unit, but supervision from a distance is another story. Mentor, teach, and instruct.

I agree with the theory; I suspect we'd disagree on the distance.

Hey I liked individual PT just like everybody else, but I do not think that letting individuals go out and do it themselves is the answer. Nor do I think it is the units respoinsibility to get you in shape. This is why you see the gyms on base flocked with individuals working out and such. But to just discard organized PT as some dinosaur because someone believes it micromananing, in my opinion is not the case.

We can disagree on that, specifically on whether PT as most in the Army and Marines conduct it today is a combat fitness builder or a cohesion builder of any real significance.