Blasphemy: Article advocates afternoon PT

[Tom Odom]

Is the top guy Tom Odom??!?!

(I'm in trouble now!)

Oh man....Rodney Dangerfield had it right

[Infanteer]

Wow - maybe it's a good thing we don't have such thing as Div up here! PT in our Army, at least in the infantry, is largely a Company Commander's affair. Coy Comds will, depending on their preference, hand PT off to the Platoon Comds or run it themselves. Either way, max flex is the key. I've done all sorts of PT at various times of the day - anything to keep it interesting (thankfully, the "ruck, run, ruck, run" mentality is dying quickly). I tell my soldiers that Army PT isn't designed to make you superfit, it's designed to maintain a level of effective battlefitness.

[infntryldr]

If they moved to afternoon PT then you wouldnt be able to hang out in PT gear all day.

Serisoulsy, PT should be in the AM just because at least you know it gets done. In my units we tried doing PT in the afternoon, but with things getting thrown at you last minute, it made it more difficult to have a PT session with everyone involved. Also, I am more tired and less motivated at the end of the day then at the beginning. Just my two cents.

[Ken White]

"...Serisoulsy, PT should be in the AM just because at least you know it gets done..."

The secret to PT 'getting done' is to hold people responsible for their fitness. The NCOs know who's fit and who isn't...

Having to do anything via a formation is an individual or a leadership failure; usually both. Treat 'em like children and they'll act like children. Treat 'em like adults and most will act like adults -- the few that do not are easily corrected or tossed.

An even better reason for morning PT is that it gets the metabolism flowing. A good reason for occasional after lunch or late afternoon PT is that it varies the routine and provides a change of pace, particularly if it's a ruck road march or a cross country run -- or, even better an obstacle or confidence course with weapons.

[infntryldr]

The secret to PT 'getting done' is to hold people responsible for their fitness. The NCOs know who's fit and who isn't...

Unfortunality some 18-19 year olds are not responsible.

Having to do anything via a formation is an individual or a leadership failure; usually both. Treat 'em like children and they'll act like children. Treat 'em like adults and most will act like adults -- the few that do not are easily corrected or tossed.

Are you serious, so all those formations I ran in boot camp where failures by my Drill Instructors. Actuall formation runs build camraderie and unit cohesion. I cannot disagree with you more.

the few that do not are easily corrected or tossed.

They are corrected by making them PT with you after working hours. The way you fix that is making sure they PT, and you do that by getting them in formation and running the dog **** out of them. Getting tossed? If you mean seperated from the service or the unit, good luck.

An even better reason for morning PT is that it gets the metabolism flowing. A good reason for occasional after lunch or late afternoon PT is that it varies the routine and provides a change of pace, particularly if it's a ruck road march or a cross country run -- or, even better an obstacle or confidence course with weapons.

Couldnt agree with you more.

[Ken White]

Unfortunality some 18-19 year olds are not responsible.

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

Are you serious, so all those formations I ran in boot camp where failures by my Drill Instructors.

I should have clearly stated in units, I didn't realize you'd just left Boot Camp. That's a learning and conditioning experience, service in a unit is operating experience -- or is supposed to be, anyway. Different realities -- though I admit a lot of loud folks try to keep the Boot Camp or Basic/AIT mentality going. Quite wrongly in my view.

Actuall formation runs build camraderie and unit cohesion. I cannot disagree with you more.

we can disagree. My experience is that only combat or really intensive field training build unit cohesion. All garrison stuff is superficial. To see the difference, watch who your troops in garrison hang with versus who they hang with in the field.

They are corrected by making them PT with you after working hours. The way you fix that is making sure they PT, and you do that by getting them in formation and running the dog **** out of them.

We can also disagree strongly on that. 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. YMMV. On that line, I've yet to see a pushup or a long hard run clean a weapon, clean a head/latrine or instill a desire to excel in a Snuffy.

Getting tossed? If you mean seperated from the service or the unit, good luck.

Why do I need good luck. Old age and treachery will trump youth and skill. I can recall people getting tossed out of the Corps -- that was during Korea, not peacetime -- and the Army -- VN, not peace.

Not hard, just takes a little effort and having your act together. It does get difficult if the chain of command screws up...

[IntelTrooper]

Different realities -- though I admit a lot of loud folks try to keep the Boot Camp or Basic/AIT mentality going. Quite wrongly in my view.we can disagree. We can also disagree strongly on that. 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.

In Afghanistan, my team did PT separately. There was an expectation that everyone needed to be doing it 4 or 5 days a week, and the rest was up to the individual. Everyone, including our young, "not responsible" soldier, significantly improved their fitness because we were holding each other accountable and given the opportunity to challenge ourselves beyond what could be accomplished in a PT formation (my PT scores were always lowest in basic/AIT). Incidentally, that's basically how the whole FOB conducted PT, including a GPF company, and they all improved their fitness over the course of the year.

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.

[MikeF]

My experience is that only combat or really intensive field training build unit cohesion. All garrison stuff is superficial. To see the difference, watch who your troops in garrison hang with versus who they hang with in the field.

Ken,

One minor point of disagreement. I liked Friday Company PT b/c it was one of the few times during the week that I could get everyone together. A tough run coupled with some mud and an obstacle course did a good bit to build company morale. Plus, sometimes I even got to call cadence.

Mike

[Ken White]

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 could even make the point that the way most units do it, it's counterproductive...

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.

Heh. I've long believed that unit cohesion lies in the rank of the beholder. PSGs have a different view than even their Sqd Ldrs, Co cdrs and 1SGs have a different outlook, the folks at Bn/Sqn even more different. All that is aimed at mot units, there are a few exceptions but they're rare.

The senior leadership believes they're fostering unit cohesion by rotating units instead of individuals -- and that is an order of magnitude improvement; it's just a shame the Personnel system hasn't kept up -- they still try to do their things by, with and to individuals...

Mike F: All the foregoing not to disagree with your contention, I'm sure it's correct. My point was that it is very difficult to do stressful things in garrison and shared real stress, not hassles or formations, builds cohesion.

Umm, yes, that does mean that I believe PT as it is generally today construed and conducted is more hassle than benefit.

[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.

[Schmedlap]

Geez, I didn't intend to type this much....

Niel,

In general, I think your points are sound. But given the nature of operations over the past ten years of every unit that I've been in (aside from Mar/Apr 2003), we operate as small units. Most patrols are squad or platoon sized. Company level missions are the exception, not the norm. When operating in that manner, it is more important to stack the team and squad leader positions with your studs and headquarters can take the poor performers. Now if we were about to invade another country and doing Bn/Bde combined arms ops, then I'm in 100% agreement with you.

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.

In reverse order...

3) The XO is more experienced than the PLs and generally the MG, acting as "HQ PSG" (at least in units that was in / observed) is an E-6(P) or E-7 getting ready to take a PSG slot and responsible for about one-third of the personnel of a line PLT. There is no reason that they cannot perform with the guys RFS'd from the PLTs. Also, the move is not about “reforming.” They're in HQ to perform in positions where they supervise fewer Soldiers. This seems entirely appropriate to me, given that they have demonstrated less potential. If they fail to live up to that lower standard, then here's your counseling statement. Done it. Out of my HQ section, one NCO was relieved, one reduced, two passed over for promotion. Two others got glowing NCOERs. I don't see this as a leadership burden. Not everyone gets to be CSM. The individuals who were not top performers were “good enough” to pull radio watch, to drive and maintain a vehicle, and do detail work to free up platoon personnel.

2) Speaking from my perspective I was not shifting them to someone else. I was taking them into my HQ. In theory I understand that this should make the HQ less effective. I can email you my Rater/Senior Rater comments from my XO OERs. If HQ had been less effective, it would have been my fault. A HQ does not have infinite potential. There is an optimum level of performance that it should be able to achieve, whether it is stacked with Audie Murphy’s or with the other type of Murphy’s. Although I never shifted anyone to BN, I know of other companies that did and I saw no problem with it. Our BN Staff NCOs had the same attitude that I did - that it was their job to make life easier for the subordinate units, even if this meant taking in their problem children.

1) I agree that a screwed up HQ makes life more painful for all. The blame for a screwed up HQ rests upon the XO. He can't pass the buck and complain that he got a stacked deck.

Regarding (4), I Agree 100%. I would take that even a step further and try to eliminate staff time altogether for anyone E-4 or below. It is poisonous.

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.

Absolutely! But when 95% of your missions are platoon or below, I say it is far more critical to put the studs in the SL and TL slots.

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.

A full-up PLT has 15 NCOs and 23 E's. That's about a 2:3 ratio. Is that significantly different from a CO HQ or Staff Section? It's also worth noting that the FSE often augments the HQ. MG was the equivalent of a HQ PSG. The CO's gunner was responsible for three HQ drivers/gunners and the FSNCO was responsible for the other three. NBC NCO supervised our E-4 Commo guy. That's 5 NCOs to 7 (Es / transferred NCOs). Supply and Armorer reported directly to me. (Include them and you've got 6 NCOs to 7 E's - plus a 1LT FSO). As for BN Staff, I thankfully did no time in S-1 or S-4, so I'm not sure of the numbers, but I do know that our S-4 shop was a home for wayward officers to help out with battle damage FLIPLs. Most problem children were sent to S-3 where they were more than capable of manning a radio under the supervision of an O-3 and E-7 for one shift per day and then pulling KP in the evening. I don't see this as a problem.

One other thing worth noting is that we're not talking just irresponsibility, but substandard leadership in general. I've known a lot of NCOs who were not good leaders. But, as my favorite BN Ops SGM explained to me, "some NCOs can't lead a fire team to latrine, but they can staff their asses off." None of the platoons wanted my Redneck driver or Pill-popping gunner so they joined the ranks of my HQ. They were not team leader material, but they were great crew members. Kind of like my Armorer. He was not a leader, but he could fix anything in about 15 seconds - often pointing out, "sir, this is (30/40 level), but I can fix it if you don't want to send it to Anaconda." Maybe we should bring back the SPC-5 pay grade?