Your Brain In Combat

[bumperplate]

For Ken White's comments...brings more perspective than I can. I'm often too idealistic to see the real-world constraints. I believe in what I wrote, but I understand there are constraints that will always be there.

For ganulv...my 'once over the world' on Ranger School is that it has a lot to offer, graduates should be proud of finishing the course, but it is in no way an assurance, on any level, of providing excellent leaders to the Force. The left shoulder check needs to disappear. The entire 82nd is one giant "left shoulder check" organization. The fascination with schools, tabs, and qualifications probably started out with good intentions. It has become a check the box venture where people focus on getting the requisite uniform bling, and many just rest on their laurels after that. I've seen tabbed guys with some of the poorest leadership skills, tactical incompetence, and little to no work ethic. I've also seen some that are straight warriors. From my position it's a scatterplot. I'm not a "schools guy". But, I've seen a more positive correlation between Sapper School and overall performance than with Ranger School. In theater I've worked with 1ID, 2ID, 3ID, 10th MTN, 82nd ABN, 101st, and various support and SOF elements. Good leadership was never predicted or predicated on a tab. If all the tabs had been taken off uniforms I would have never predicted who went where and graduated from what. I don't see this as a failing of any school. It's a failing in the institution.

[bumperplate]

For JMA....downloaded your link, will read that with interest.

I echo and agree with your comments about PSGs - to a point. They are human like the rest of us. One problem is the rushed promotions. That is another topic. But there are PSGs that are not ready or that responsibility. RGR...check. As for their training responsibilities, there is a breaking point. Certainly being the Platoon Daddy brings some roles & responsibilities. However, all platoon members must hit the force with a certain level of training and competence. I think we are close to or may have reached the threshold where that level is too low. We in the Army seem to be turning over more and more training responsibility to FORSCOM. That's a big burden and there's only so much time for a PSG to train his plt. Challenges are good, but they must be realistic. As an officer I take issue with the officer side of it, naturally. I think it's outright negligence to send officers that PSGs must babysit. Our NCO Corps will train those Soldiers. Asking (demanding) they pick up our slack in training the officers doesn't sit well with me.

I may have read your comments wrong on training...but from my perspective our training gets better in wartime. We have/develop a sense of urgency in wartime. As our uniformed instructors disappear for deployment responsibilities, contractors (often retirees) are hired. They are gold for instruction and legacy knowledge. As for the needed instructors - well, it's time to purge our supply rooms, stop putting color printers in every office, implement some effective ways of increasing efficiency and stop wasting money - that will go a long way toward paying the salary/benefits etc for added instructors. Instead of issuing smartphones and spending millions to develop gaming technology, we need to invest in people and expertise.

Great points on selection. I consider selection part of training - in my mind it would be part of the same pipeline. That may be too simple though. What you state and post in this regard will get no argument from me. I think the British system is more comprehensive than ours. Some quick points though...I would like to see officer education/selection taken to a new level. I'd like to see us withhold that commission until training is complete and they are ready to step in front of a platoon/section/shop, whatever. Give some incentive. As it is, once commissioned, incentive drops for many - they know they'll be pushed through. Huge problem in my opinion. You mention where people get 30 months as a platoon commander. Wow...not sure I've known anyone that got past 24 months, and the overwhelming majority got less than 18 months. Another problem in my opinion.

All in all, looking at the direction this thread has gone, I think we have some obstacles getting in the way of developing our 'brains in combat'. Namely, the pers system and selection/training. They are providing significant barriers to a cohesive and comprehensive force generation process. It's hard to refine a product when your means of producing it are inefficient.

[JMA]

For JMA....downloaded your link, will read that with interest.

I echo and agree with your comments about PSGs - to a point. They are human like the rest of us. One problem is the rushed promotions. That is another topic. But there are PSGs that are not ready or that responsibility. RGR...check. As for their training responsibilities, there is a breaking point. Certainly being the Platoon Daddy brings some roles & responsibilities. However, all platoon members must hit the force with a certain level of training and competence. I think we are close to or may have reached the threshold where that level is too low. We in the Army seem to be turning over more and more training responsibility to FORSCOM. That's a big burden and there's only so much time for a PSG to train his plt. Challenges are good, but they must be realistic. As an officer I take issue with the officer side of it, naturally. I think it's outright negligence to send officers that PSGs must babysit. Our NCO Corps will train those Soldiers. Asking (demanding) they pick up our slack in training the officers doesn't sit well with me.

When in doubt return to the doctrine. In this case THE ARMY NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER GUIDE - FM 7-22.7. What does it take to make platoon sergeant? 10 years?

The split between officer and NCO in terms of training is the officers deal with the collective training while the platoon sergeant (specifically) deals with the individual training within his platoon. To assist him he should have corporals (or whoever the next level down is). If at company level all the training is carefully coordinated where the burden is spread then no one should become over-extended.

What a hard time young officers of the army would
sometimes have but for the old sergeants! I have pitied
from the bottom of my heart volunteer officers whom I
have seen starting out, even in the midst of war, with
perfectly raw regiments, and not even one old sergeant to
teach them anything. No country ought to be so cruel to
its soldiers as that. -LTG John M. Schofield, 1897,
Forty-Six Years in the Army, p. 18

If they tire then post them away for awhile and then bring them back once they have recharged their batteries.

[bumperplate]

When in doubt return to the doctrine. In this case THE ARMY NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER GUIDE - FM 7-22.7. What does it take to make platoon sergeant? 10 years?

The split between officer and NCO in terms of training is the officers deal with the collective training while the platoon sergeant (specifically) deals with the individual training within his platoon. To assist him he should have corporals (or whoever the next level down is). If at company level all the training is carefully coordinated where the burden is spread then no one should become over-extended.



If they tire then post them away for awhile and then bring them back once they have recharged their batteries.

I agree. I guess my breaking point in the argument is that when an officer arrives and is not ready to handle individual or collective training, there's a problem.

As an example...I did "OK" as a PL. Was surrounded by some outstanding NCOs. Another PL arrived and for whatever reason he was not as well prepared as I was. Not only was collective training beyond the furthest reaches of his mental grasps, but he was in dire need of judgement, and individual training. I struggled to park tracked vehicles with millimeter precision in the motor pool as my NCOs could do - but I could get them parked easily. This guy would pivot steer vehicles that were six inches apart, thus crashing them. I'm just not sure how that PSG attacks that situation, with an officer that arrives with such poor training, judgement, and so forth - then he has to train his platoon. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say that PSGs are human and there has to be a point where we say enough is enough and don't allow ourselves to send officers to the Force that are so ill-prepared. I feel it irresponsible for us to do so - and it jeopardizes the credibility of the officer corps.

[JMA]

I may have read your comments wrong on training...but from my perspective our training gets better in wartime. We have/develop a sense of urgency in wartime. As our uniformed instructors disappear for deployment responsibilities, contractors (often retirees) are hired. They are gold for instruction and legacy knowledge. As for the needed instructors - well, it's time to purge our supply rooms, stop putting color printers in every office, implement some effective ways of increasing efficiency and stop wasting money - that will go a long way toward paying the salary/benefits etc for added instructors. Instead of issuing smartphones and spending millions to develop gaming technology, we need to invest in people and expertise.

What I am saying is that the US has had a few shots at wartime mobilization of troops. I am assuming there is a plan for this somewhere which gets updated annually (or whatever). The scale of this type of activity is beyond my imagination but obviously a nation will need the skeleton staff now on which to build the larger army. My point simply is that if there are significant problems being experienced with training resources and instructors with the current (say) million man military how does the military cope when the immediate need becomes to treble, quadruple or more the current strength? Where do you find the quality NCOs? Where do you find the quality officers? Where will you find the sergeant instructors of quality to take raw recruits and turn them into capable trained soldiers in say 90 days or whatever? I suggest that unless there is a clear staffing plan to cater for such a mobilization eventuality which is adhered to you immediately start watering down your instruction and command quality.

Yes one can retread (as in a worn out tire) retirees who at one time or other showed some instructional ability and reintroduce them back into the system. What would you rate the efficiency of these retreads as compared with your current crop of instructors? 50%? 60%? More? Less?

Once general mobilization begins quality of instruction starts to diminish. I have no idea whether the line on the training efficiency graph keeps heading downwards or does it bottom out after time and start to rise again. I would be interested if anyone has experience of this.

I suggest that one relies on the fact the enemy are having similar problems and strives to keep one step ahead of them.

[bumperplate]

What I am saying is that the US has had a few shots at wartime mobilization of troops. I am assuming there is a plan for this somewhere which gets updated annually (or whatever). The scale of this type of activity is beyond my imagination but obviously a nation will need the skeleton staff now on which to build the larger army. My point simply is that if there are significant problems being experienced with training resources and instructors with the current (say) million man military how does the military cope when the immediate need becomes to treble, quadruple or more the current strength? Where do you find the quality NCOs? Where do you find the quality officers? Where will you find the sergeant instructors of quality to take raw recruits and turn them into capable trained soldiers in say 90 days or whatever? I suggest that unless there is a clear staffing plan to cater for such a mobilization eventuality which is adhered to you immediately start watering down your instruction and command quality.

Yes one can retread (as in a worn out tire) retirees who at one time or other showed some instructional ability and reintroduce them back into the system. What would you rate the efficiency of these retreads as compared with your current crop of instructors? 50%? 60%? More? Less?

Once general mobilization begins quality of instruction starts to diminish. I have no idea whether the line on the training efficiency graph keeps heading downwards or does it bottom out after time and start to rise again. I would be interested if anyone has experience of this.

I suggest that one relies on the fact the enemy are having similar problems and strives to keep one step ahead of them.

As far as I can tell, there is no "plan", there is only hope.

As for the retirees, I have to say they are awesome. They provide so much in the way of legacy knowledge. Also, it is very, very rare that we see a retiree instructor who's last day of duty occurred before 9/11/01, now that we are ten years past the event. So, they are pretty current. Also, because they are enduring elements in the schoolhouse, they are generally more polished as instructors. I have no problem with our retirees, especially in more cerebral disciplines. I had them as enlisted and officer. Great stuff each time.

[JMA]

Great points on selection. I consider selection part of training - in my mind it would be part of the same pipeline. That may be too simple though. What you state and post in this regard will get no argument from me. I think the British system is more comprehensive than ours. Some quick points though...I would like to see officer education/selection taken to a new level. I'd like to see us withhold that commission until training is complete and they are ready to step in front of a platoon/section/shop, whatever. Give some incentive. As it is, once commissioned, incentive drops for many - they know they'll be pushed through. Huge problem in my opinion. You mention where people get 30 months as a platoon commander. Wow...not sure I've known anyone that got past 24 months, and the overwhelming majority got less than 18 months. Another problem in my opinion.

I don't know what the US system is.

I suggest that the time spent in officer selection is wisely invested.

The better the selection the lower the drop out rate and the more optimal use of instructor time and resources. I would be interested to look beyond mere training statistics (like how many start the course and how many get commissioned) to longer term results like how many make it to major (in the A-stream) and then beyond. This will help to ensure selection and focus is in the correct areas.

I agree too that receiving a commission means you can be trusted to be placed in command of a platoon. If there is any doubt the person should not be commissioned. I Brit idea to send newly commissioned officers on a Platoon Commanders Course for 8 weeks is getting the sequence wrong IMHO. I believe the brief to Sandhurst must be that they must produce an officer ready to command a platoon in battle and not some "thing" that needs 8 weeks of tactical and leadership training after being commissioned. Whose responsibility is it for what the final product is? Sandhurst or the Battle School?

How long should a platoon commander command a platoon? Unless he gets fired it should be the standard Brit 30 months. This also takes some of the pressure you talk of off the platoon sergeants. With the right mentoring and guidance you can produce an efficient youngster who can lead his platoon to close with and kill the enemy within a year of platoon commanding. If he can't then I suggest he should be thanked for his contribution and sent on his way.

All in all, looking at the direction this thread has gone, I think we have some obstacles getting in the way of developing our 'brains in combat'. Namely, the pers system and selection/training. They are providing significant barriers to a cohesive and comprehensive force generation process. It's hard to refine a product when your means of producing it are inefficient.

A lot of how a young officer performs in combat will depend on how he was selected and the quality of the training received. I suggest that when the initial selection is poor we start to hear things like "leaders can be created" and "courage can be developed". Really one needs the basic ingredients from the get go which can be honed and polished and whatever.

The source document to this thread suggests that officers and sergeants should receive special training on how to command during combat by reporting, issuing orders, calling in fire support and those good things while the soldiers to his left and right are returning fire. Well I suggest that should assessed and that ability proven before the person is commissioned or long before the person makes sergeant. The ability to be able to think and act under fire is IMHO a non-negotiable precondition of any infantry officer or NCO. Outside wartime to test this one needs to create conditions in training to test this ability. Not foolproof but the better armies get it right.

[bumperplate]

A lot of how a young officer performs in combat will depend on how he was selected and the quality of the training received. I suggest that when the initial selection is poor we start to hear things like "leaders can be created" and "courage can be developed". Really one needs the basic ingredients from the get go which can be honed and polished and whatever.

The source document to this thread suggests that officers and sergeants should receive special training on how to command during combat by reporting, issuing orders, calling in fire support and those good things while the soldiers to his left and right are returning fire. Well I suggest that should assessed and that ability proven before the person is commissioned or long before the person makes sergeant. The ability to be able to think and act under fire is IMHO a non-negotiable precondition of any infantry officer or NCO. Outside wartime to test this one needs to create conditions in training to test this ability. Not foolproof but the better armies get it right.

Are leaders born or made? Great question and impossible to answer in my opinion. I think it's both. Some innate qualities are essential. Some need to be developed or brought to the surface.

I believe the US Army (and USMC) have done decent at developing/screening for the tasks you mention above - within the NCO Corps. At times each service has resorted more to having officers plan and manage training, and neglecting the participating bit. This hurts us.

I think the US Army has brought better training to the forefront during the GWOT, out of necessity. On the flip side. personnel strength considerations have caused us to bring people along that are not well suited for the tasks of leadership.

In the future, with likely budget issues, this is going to become problematic and that's putting it lightly.

Finally, your comments about the comments we are likely to see, such as "courage can be developed" are resonating with me. I'm beginning to see a shift to that mentality. Not that I find it impossible. Truthfully I don't know. However, it's troublesome when we speak like that with constant doctrinal revisions, new initiatives, and so forth that attempt to reinvent the military. All that tells me is that something is broke and that it was broke before the current wars. If that is indeed the case, why should we believe it won't go back to being broke once we return to a peacetime footing?

[Stan]

...my 'once over the world' on Ranger School is that it has a lot to offer, graduates should be proud of finishing the course, but it is in no way an assurance, on any level, of providing excellent leaders to the Force. The left shoulder check needs to disappear. The entire 82nd is one giant "left shoulder check" organization. The fascination with schools, tabs, and qualifications probably started out with good intentions.

Probably fair to say that the Ranger course is not a dedicated leadership course. I do however agree with you regarding tabs but that's life at Bragg and Benning. Most of the folks we work with have no uniform and they are generally not brought in for leadership skills

I don't think the "institution" failed our young officers with lack of training because leadership is an individual trait and some just can't cut it. Where the institution and senior officers failed was weeding out those that will never become leaders. Without NCOs even the finest of young leaders are doomed.

[bumperplate]

Probably fair to say that the Ranger course is not a dedicated leadership course. I do however agree with you regarding tabs but that's life at Bragg and Benning. Most of the folks we work with have no uniform and they are generally not brought in for leadership skills

I don't think the "institution" failed our young officers with lack of training because leadership is an individual trait and some just can't cut it. Where the institution and senior officers failed was weeding out those that will never become leaders. Without NCOs even the finest of young leaders are doomed.

It's funny...the leadership issue is what I hear Rangers say the most in defense of the course. And, I'd say that the tab checks are more a part of Bragg culture than Benning. I give Benning and many of the Infantry guys there a pat on the back: they are proud of their institution and proud of their schools, but they often will no hesitate to simply go with what works and not what looks prettiest or what's put forth by the guy with the most bling.

I think you hit my point regarding weeding out those that will not become leaders. As a military we need to stop selling the GI Bill and sell the nobility of service. We need to stop pushing people through commissioning sources and OBCs and thoroughly screen them or at least make them prove themselves rather than worrying about graduating them before their allotment of TDY days has expired.

[Stan]

It's funny...the leadership issue is what I hear Rangers say the most in defense of the course. And, I'd say that the tab checks are more a part of Bragg culture than Benning. I give Benning and many of the Infantry guys there a pat on the back: they are proud of their institution and proud of their schools, but they often will no hesitate to simply go with what works and not what looks prettiest or what's put forth by the guy with the most bling.

Hmmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but the leadership portion of the Ranger course is but part of the 21 days at Benning. Correct ? This is why I think most of the young troops at both Bragg and Benning are so worked up about those tabs you spoke of. Benning is the start and stop for more than 50% of Ranger and SOF (at least for me it was way back when). I was once of the opinion that wearing any tab or CIB was something to be proud of (not bling... We didn't have bling back in the 70s )

I think you hit my point regarding weeding out those that will not become leaders. As a military we need to stop selling the GI Bill and sell the nobility of service. We need to stop pushing people through commissioning sources and OBCs and thoroughly screen them or at least make them prove themselves rather than worrying about graduating them before their allotment of TDY days has expired.

You got me on this one. Since I'm part of the GI Bill era and constantly hear about me getting a free education for my 23 years of service (as if I wouldn't have joined without some financial Bennie), I have to wonder what would entice a future leader with an education and ability to endure and lead in combat ? Hell, I can barely sell my sister on the fact that being military is noble.

[KenWats]

On Ranger School:
For me, as a brand new Engineer 2LT, Ranger School was a good leadership exercise (my Ranger School time dates back to '97, so ymmv). I saw what worked and what didn't work and had to do all the troop leading procedures under the most stress I faced in my relatively short military career. I got to see how different folks reacted differently to stress and learned a little about how much nudging folks needed. I saw firsthand one of the most physically tough and intelligent officers from my OBC class fall apart under the strain. I fell apart under the strain a little myself.

While the troop leading procedure training and giving an operations order Ranger School style was all done in the Benning phase, there were tests of your ability to lead, plan, organize, and control under stress throughout the school.

Was Ranger school a necessary or sufficient check for "good leaders"? No. I saw some idiots with the Ranger tab. One of my best ROTC cadre was an infantry captain who didn't make it, and he's a man I learned much from and a big reason why I developed into (I think) a fairly decent Platoon Leader.

As an Engineer, who had to work with Infantry companies that rotated leaders fairly frequently, showing up with the Tab I think at least showed that I had a shared experience with the Infantry folks. There was some value in that. I think the NCOs who got stuck with me at least respected that I had tried to take every opportunity to make myself a better leader before I showed up at the Platoon.

As far as folks joining ROTC for the scholarship money, I think that can end up working in a couple ways. Some folks show up for the scholarship money and find comraderie and a sense of service and dive in. Other folks just do the minimum to get the scholarship money. So, I think an incentive to "try it" may not be out of line. But somehow you need to weed out the folks who are only there for the incentive.

All of this is just from my own (limited and out of date) experience. One data point does not a trend make.

[JMA]

On Ranger School:
For me, as a brand new Engineer 2LT, Ranger School was a good leadership exercise (my Ranger School time dates back to '97, so ymmv). I saw what worked and what didn't work and had to do all the troop leading procedures under the most stress I faced in my relatively short military career. I got to see how different folks reacted differently to stress and learned a little about how much nudging folks needed. I saw firsthand one of the most physically tough and intelligent officers from my OBC class fall apart under the strain. I fell apart under the strain a little myself.

While the troop leading procedure training and giving an operations order Ranger School style was all done in the Benning phase, there were tests of your ability to lead, plan, organize, and control under stress throughout the school.

Was Ranger school a necessary or sufficient check for "good leaders"? No. I saw some idiots with the Ranger tab. One of my best ROTC cadre was an infantry captain who didn't make it, and he's a man I learned much from and a big reason why I developed into (I think) a fairly decent Platoon Leader.

As an Engineer, who had to work with Infantry companies that rotated leaders fairly frequently, showing up with the Tab I think at least showed that I had a shared experience with the Infantry folks. There was some value in that. I think the NCOs who got stuck with me at least respected that I had tried to take every opportunity to make myself a better leader before I showed up at the Platoon.

As far as folks joining ROTC for the scholarship money, I think that can end up working in a couple ways. Some folks show up for the scholarship money and find comraderie and a sense of service and dive in. Other folks just do the minimum to get the scholarship money. So, I think an incentive to "try it" may not be out of line. But somehow you need to weed out the folks who are only there for the incentive.

All of this is just from my own (limited and out of date) experience. One data point does not a trend make.

Ken, I believe your experience confirms Bumperplate's concerns about officer training (in the US). If you needed the Ranger course to "find yourself" what do you suggest was wrong with your officer training course in that it failed to apply the necessary "stress tests"?

[bumperplate]

Hmmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but the leadership portion of the Ranger course is but part of the 21 days at Benning. Correct ? This is why I think most of the young troops at both Bragg and Benning are so worked up about those tabs you spoke of. Benning is the start and stop for more than 50% of Ranger and SOF (at least for me it was way back when). I was once of the opinion that wearing any tab or CIB was something to be proud of (not bling... We didn't have bling back in the 70s )



You got me on this one. Since I'm part of the GI Bill era and constantly hear about me getting a free education for my 23 years of service (as if I wouldn't have joined without some financial Bennie), I have to wonder what would entice a future leader with an education and ability to endure and lead in combat ? Hell, I can barely sell my sister on the fact that being military is noble.

As to your first comment...I'm talking about the culture within the operational Army. I say Benning but it could apply to Riley, Campbell and some other posts - but in my experience - not to Bragg. To simplify (too much perhaps): when my buddy tells me about his time with 3/82, it's about schools, tabs, and checking the block in order to "earn" credibility to be placed in a leadership position. When I speak to my buddies and evaluate my experiences at other places, it's more focused on the performance and not the uniform attachments. I do think people should be proud of their accomplishments. However, that is too often supplanted by pride with what they wear. Too very different things. What you accomplished yesterday does not provide a strong correlation with your performance tomorrow. In an ideal world, yes it does. However, we have placed so much importance on that, that it's the school and the tab that have become important - not the accomplishments, lessons learned, and capabilities developed.


Not sure what you're getting at with the second comment, although I'm guessing that you want to know what our sales pitch should be. Well....it needs to be related to service and not to the benefits granted. Will people take the benefits into consideration? Yes, naturally. But we need to appeal to those people, with those characteristics of leaders. Nowhere in SLA Marshall's writings, for instance, does it say that a good leader seeks personal benefits, or selects jobs because of the GI Bill, SRB, etc.

If that's the message we send: come to us and we'll give you things for showing up, how can we be surprised at the caliber of people entering the service. Many of our newest Soldiers want likership and not leadership.

[Stan]

However, that is too often supplanted by pride with what they wear. Too very different things. What you accomplished yesterday does not provide a strong correlation with your performance tomorrow. In an ideal world, yes it does. However, we have placed so much importance on that, that it's the school and the tab that have become important - not the accomplishments, lessons learned, and capabilities developed.

I would tend to agree with you even as far back as 1974. Everything was about schooling and the uniform accoutrements you wore. Perhaps not lessons learned, but certainly personal accomplishments. However, had little to do with leadership potential !

Not sure what you're getting at with the second comment, although I'm guessing that you want to know what our sales pitch should be. Well....it needs to be related to service and not to the benefits granted. Will people take the benefits into consideration? Yes, naturally. But we need to appeal to those people, with those characteristics of leaders. Nowhere in SLA Marshall's writings, for instance, does it say that a good leader seeks personal benefits, or selects jobs because of the GI Bill, SRB, etc.

Yep, our sales pitch to potential leaders. I'm sure there are some just in it to serve our country but I sadly doubt that without some benefits attached many potential leaders would join out of simple patriotism today.

I left Bliss in 75 and wished I had the chance to meet Marshall as I had read about his research and opinions. But much later I would also read about what the CGSC and others had to say about the General's findings. Back when Marshall was writing the benefits as a soldier were fairly miniscule and/or the soldiers conscripts. That doesn't say much for his theories IMO.