Blurred lines of Military Occupational Specialties in Combat

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 00:34:31 -0500

I came into the Army before the Global War on Terror started. I recall a different Army. That army is gone. We have moved to the Brigade Combat Teams and the disappearance of the Forward Line of Troops.This has brought many changes with it as we have had to adapt.<div><br></div><div>First, we now have the formal merger of Infantry and Armor with the Combined Arms Battalions in the Armored BCTs. When I was deployed last there was no difference of our missions. The notion of they were tankers and we are infantry simply vanished as missions progressed during our time in the sandbox. 2LT Patelis accurately hit on this topic already.</div><div><br></div><div>Another, is the use of our equipment. For example the Bradley. Engineers have the EFV, Cav have the CFV, and infantry have the IFV. It is the same vehicle that can basically perform the same function but manned by different types of soldiers.</div><div><br></div><div>Yet again we are seeing various officer fields unified by a common theme. For the combat arms side of the house we now have Maneuver Officers. Same as Senior Enlisted. Armor and infantry officers now attend the Maneuver Captains Career Course. With the Combat Service Support side we now have Logistic Officers. Three fields merge into this once they become Captain. We have learned with the multi echelon nature of formations and battlefield logistics will make or brake you. We need those mechanics fixing vehicles, MPs dealing with my detainees, MI exploiting sites, and Cooks serving up some delicious chow. </div><div><br></div><div>This is not always the case as some specialties have branched off into it's own MOS or branch. Electronic Warfare Branch and the Acquisition Corps are two that pop into my mind. </div><div><br></div><div>How do you think this will affect you or your unit as we move forward into a possible conflict.</div><div><br></div><div>(Disclaimer: Be respectful with posts. Keep in mind that we all have various experiences that may not mirror yours or even contradict what you may have seen done at a unit. Also, within the rank structure the Enlisted and Officer roles inside each branch are distinctive from another. What you may have seen as an SGT may not be the case when dealing with it as a Company Commander.)</div>

Response by CSM Stuart C. O'Black made Dec 12 at 2013 10:34 PM

CSM Stuart C. O'Black — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:34:44 -0500

Sir,

Very complicated questions to answer. I think you have to understand new and current military doctrine. However, with cross FLOT operations happening again at our National Training Centers I think you will see a lot of that coming back. When talking to a lot of the O/Cs out there they recommend a few doctrinal publications in order to better understand where we are headed. I think if we can afford it specialization is not always a bad thing but the purpose of the BCTs was to bring those different specialties together under the same formation. Not have different specialized units that only worked together once they were mobilized for deployment. (hope my ramblings make sense)

Doctrinal References:

ADP 3-0: Unified Land Operations ADP 5-0: The Operations Process ADP 6-0: Mission Command (Incl C1)ADRP 6-0: Mission Command (Incl C1)ADP 6-22: Army Leadership (Incl C1)

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 12 at 2013 10:43 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:43:07 -0500

I am doing a historical research on Weather Units and now they are even in Combat situations, embedded with the fighting troops. I actually liked doing the weather by the seat of the pants and using field techniques like sling psychrometers, manual plots of upper air soundings, upper air analysis and so forth.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2014 5:31 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:31:35 -0400

I think part of the blending of armor and infantry is that the GWOT has largely required tankers to take a doctrinal step or 2 backwards. More often than not since 9-11, US tanks and armored combat vehicles like the Abrams are employed not as the ultimate anti-tank weapons or for massive armor assaults, but as assault guns providing direct fire support of the infantry, along the lines of a Soviet ISU-152 or a German STUG III in WW2.

Response by SPC Matt Johnson made Dec 26 at 2014 6:50 PM

SPC Matt Johnson — Fri, 26 Dec 2014 18:50:04 -0500

not sure if it applies but I was a 77/92F petro specialists that was put into a parachute infantry regiment. They needed me on paper but in actuality had no use for me. So they cross trained me on everything. I became a jack of all trades but a master at none. From working with generator and truck mechanic to motor pool, to mortar teams, to training with the infantry guys in combatives, clearing buildings and doing walking patrols, to truck driver, detainee guard, court martial prisoner escort, to Environmental Compliance officer. I wore so many hats in my first 4 years I didn't know how to classify myself. never once doing my MOS. All the while getting flak for not being infantry even though I did combat missions with them.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2014 7:34 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:34:06 -0500

Sir,

Thank you this post. I've learn so much just by reading it.

This is why i like RP so much

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2019 9:24 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Jan 2019 21:24:37 -0500

Try this as a support mos. In Iraq our cooks weren't needed so they were in gunners turrets. The competent females were sought after by gate security and gun truck platoons for the purpose of searching females. Mos really didn't matter.