2
2
0
I admit I've been in for four years and was taught about training through the "Crawl, Walk, Run" mentality.
Since I've been in, I've only seen a unit get to the "Walk" phase of training only to have to start back at Crawl due to: Too long since last exercise, people changing out, new leadership....etc.
Real life training example:
Our BN / Company will conduct live fire exercises for convoy operations at the single vehicle level, this is the epitome of training. We have never conducted training as a full convoy, recovery operations in an ambush (during live) and so forth.
Is this Army wide? Is this just a failure in leadership? Am I missing something here?
Please Discuss.
Since I've been in, I've only seen a unit get to the "Walk" phase of training only to have to start back at Crawl due to: Too long since last exercise, people changing out, new leadership....etc.
Real life training example:
Our BN / Company will conduct live fire exercises for convoy operations at the single vehicle level, this is the epitome of training. We have never conducted training as a full convoy, recovery operations in an ambush (during live) and so forth.
Is this Army wide? Is this just a failure in leadership? Am I missing something here?
Please Discuss.
Training
Planning
Leadership
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
0
0
0
CPT (Join to see) Sir,
Yes, it is a common training problem with all units across the Army. However, the smaller your element, the easier it is to reach that "run" phase associated with being a "T" on a specific task. In my opinion, it boils down to Division and Brigade Command Training Guidance and when it is issued.
When Command Training Guidance isn't issued until SEP for the next Fiscal Year (starting in OCT), it affects all the lower echelons training guidance and planning, which in turn affects training time, land, ammunition, etc. So it sometimes happens that a lower echelon may not even start real training until JAN. Then when normal unit turnover takes place, historically happening at throughout the 3rd QTR, a unit has that much less time to recover and get everybody to at least a "P" by the end of the FY.
A fix would be for Command Training Guidance to be issued to the lowest METL holding element (Company or ODA) NLT the end of the 3rd quarter (JUN), allowing those subordinate commands 4th quarter to resource and plan for the next FY, and start training towards that plan in OCT, not DEC. This will allow them to plan for normal personnel attrition, and for the train-up of new personnel to the unit, bringing everybody to the same level. Since unit METLs don't change (drastically) too often, it would likely take 1-2 years to get a unit as a whole to a "T" level, and then only be working on maintaining that level through proper planning.
Yes, it is a common training problem with all units across the Army. However, the smaller your element, the easier it is to reach that "run" phase associated with being a "T" on a specific task. In my opinion, it boils down to Division and Brigade Command Training Guidance and when it is issued.
When Command Training Guidance isn't issued until SEP for the next Fiscal Year (starting in OCT), it affects all the lower echelons training guidance and planning, which in turn affects training time, land, ammunition, etc. So it sometimes happens that a lower echelon may not even start real training until JAN. Then when normal unit turnover takes place, historically happening at throughout the 3rd QTR, a unit has that much less time to recover and get everybody to at least a "P" by the end of the FY.
A fix would be for Command Training Guidance to be issued to the lowest METL holding element (Company or ODA) NLT the end of the 3rd quarter (JUN), allowing those subordinate commands 4th quarter to resource and plan for the next FY, and start training towards that plan in OCT, not DEC. This will allow them to plan for normal personnel attrition, and for the train-up of new personnel to the unit, bringing everybody to the same level. Since unit METLs don't change (drastically) too often, it would likely take 1-2 years to get a unit as a whole to a "T" level, and then only be working on maintaining that level through proper planning.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
A very well thought out and written response! The next question is how to get this to the proper people such as perhaps GEN Stanley McChrystal in order to enhance a unit's ability to become trained!
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I'm not sure that is the right place/person to start getting the problem fixed, although there is definite influence there. I think it is more likely to be fixed at the CGSC and ILE level, who can then influence the MAJs and LTCs who actually run the army. Another way would be getting one Division Commander to buy into this, instill the train of thought into his Brigade Commanders, who in turn instill it at the BN CMD level. Either way, it is going to take a culture/ thought process change, and those take time.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I cant answer you as I am retired. However, if a unit is not doing collective training then they are sadly mistaking training objectives.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I agree, the issue I see is that BN CDRs / CO CDRs switch out before having to answer for not actually completing their objectives. It seems as long as the CO CDR accepts responsibility for calling them "trained", no one takes a hard look.
The last thing I want to see on the news is a platoon sized element getting obliterated through training failure or another POW situation.
Thanks for the input!
The last thing I want to see on the news is a platoon sized element getting obliterated through training failure or another POW situation.
Thanks for the input!
(0)
(0)
I have seen this a bit. It takes a let of work just plan let along train for a platoon life fire. A lot of leaders have to balance a lot of tasks. Doing a platoon live fire may not be the most important task that needs to happen. This is why I don't buy "we are all infantry." Infantry units do this often. It is their job to do this. If you are a Quarter Master your unit has a mission. It most likely more focused on their mission set or METL. I wouldn't compare them to an infantry unit as it would be fair. If they want to do one that is great but at times it would be extremely challenging. You would have to have a command that is willing to do such a task. Keep in mind. You are in a support unit. They really don't focus on combat operations as much. They are support. If you want to do that stuff you may want to rebranch. They should focus on still being combat effective but to be as effective as an infantry company isn't something particle to have when you have a support mission.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
You are 100% accurate that as a Quartermaster Officer, closing with and destroying the enemy is not my job. However, Conduct a Convoy, and defending the convoy is in our METL task and a real threat. I would argue that Logistics Branch units (If they conduct convoys like my units does while deployed) need to conduct realistic, tough combat training to at least disengage with the enemy and know what to do if they become pinned down.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) Sir, conducting Convey Operations is likely a METL task for his unit, so he absolutely should be conducting this training. I agree with you, not everyone is Infantry. But a lot of METL tasks of CS and CSS units share sub-tasks with Infantry METL tasks.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) You are right. I would really look at the METL in the unit see the support task list. Maybe they don't have Convey Live Fires on it. I don't know why it wouldn't be. I think that would be a good place to look. If it is on there I would seek the training room and see if they could plan something to support training on the at task.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google