Does it seem to you the Army constantly attempts to reinvent itself, while other branches take pride in their traditions?

2016-05-20T18:36:35-04:00

From uniforms to doctrine, the Army always seems to be enfatuated with the next best thing. My last assignment before leaving the Army was in a tri-service command and I learned many things about our sister branches in that time. The Navy and Marine Corps are steeped in tradition and seem to take the upmost pride in honoring and upholding the standards that have made them what they are today, but big Army was always mixing things up and changing the plan on the direction we as soldiers were heading. Is this just my misguided perception or does this ring true for some of you?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 20 at 2016 7:24 PM

2016-05-20T19:24:39-04:00

No the constant change is not unique to the Army. Navy Uniforms comes to mind real quick. When I joined the dress uniform for all was a Suit Coat with Tie. The less official uniform was the Salt and Pepper with Combination Cover loving referred to as the Good Humor Man Uniform (Part of the Zumwalt Technical Navy) We bitched and moaned until the Crackerjacks came back. Now take the Cammies that sailors are wearing in Place of the Dungarees from my time. Or the Whatever Letter Uniform that Marines used to wear as a less formal, formal shirt and pants rather bland in color that Marines and Sailors are wearing now.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made May 20 at 2016 9:53 PM

2016-05-20T21:53:27-04:00

Unfortunately, yes, I feel that we stop reinvent ourselves. We should also learn from the past. I would love to see the Army go back to the OD dress uniform, the Ike Jacket and the Khakis for class B's. I like dress blues, but that white shirt with jump boots, we look like something other than Soldiers...Guess I am just not used to it.

Response by SN Greg Wright made May 21 at 2016 12:41 AM

2016-05-21T00:41:16-04:00

I can't speak to what the Army does or doesn't do. But I can tell you: every Sailor and Marine who ever set foot on a ship absolutely cherishes those traditions. They makes us what we are, they connect us with those who have gone before. If the Army doesn't do something similar, I'm not interested.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2016 1:20 AM

2016-05-21T01:20:51-04:00

The uniform changes are a freakin' ridiculous waste of money ... except the ACU ... that HAD to go. Change in doctrine ... no. If Doctrine were constant we'd still be lining up in the open with M4's instead of muskets and the Cav would be charging the enemy on horseback. Doctrine should change and adapt to the threats that our country faces.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made May 21 at 2016 10:33 AM

2016-05-21T10:33:26-04:00

I believe the "reinvent", odd way of saying it, has much to do with the shifting mission requirements, and in some cases, searching for a mission. It's been going on for decades wherein the old style mass confrontation has been replaced by everything else under the sun. The Navy and AF mission set hasn't be torn asunder like the Army's has been.

Another problem is how do you do a mission with all the constraints? We're going into Iraq to kick someone out but you can't occupy. You couldn't anyways because we don't have specialized Occupation Battalions anymore. So now that all the end states have gone to mush, what do you really gear up for? BTW, as a culture, when an organization is in search mode, segments decide they'll be useful by jacking their organization around internally. COCOMs do that when there is no war going on. Symptoms are the ever growing "Regulate by Administrivia Minutia", "Patch and Badgemania", and other aspects of the Army culture that are irrelevant to the other services.

For the most part, I'm gratified that the Army has been able to do as well as it does with all the ill defined and supported mush out there. I don't see the forecast improving any time soon.

Response by SPC Donn Sinclair made May 24 at 2016 7:03 AM

2016-05-24T07:03:02-04:00

I thought the return to a blue dress uniform had everything to do with tradition? Because it's so big, requiring diverse talents, many in command feel the Army should be more malleable than the other branches to hold on to said talent. Also, many feel enlistment must be made more attractive, unlike the Marines, who don't sugar coat joining the Corps. Is this the way to go? I don't think so. That said, the sound you hear is my phone not ringing, the DOA doesn't care what I think. For the record, while I've been out a long time, my son's been in for 13 years, so I've got skin in the game.

Response by SSG Michael Scott made May 24 at 2016 8:34 AM

2016-05-24T08:34:53-04:00

Yes, An elite soldier or government would say, it is not working harder, but smarter. There are 3 things to Be Honest, Keeping It Real, and Keep It Simple. Currently I would have to say, there is a high risk of not being able to keep it simple, concluding with the Risk Assessment.

Response by MAJ Thomas Person made May 24 at 2016 9:00 AM

2016-05-24T09:00:46-04:00

Good point son. Read "This Kind of War" by T.R Feurenbach COL USA RET. It is based on the Korean War; however, it was required reading in the 25th ID for O's. Senior NONCOMS maybe. But that is what head injuries do to you. :-). Anyway you are living in dangerous times where most leaders in civilian clothes are groveling at the feet of a socopath

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2016 9:13 AM

2016-05-24T09:13:11-04:00

Let's knock those "top two" down a few pegs first. The Navy has a very specific mission. It is GENERALLY unchanging. The ability for them to "hold onto tradition" is simpler. Their stratification of rank is necessary due to being locked onto a floating piece of metal that requires specific actions of individuals without question in order to survive. Even then, I have to tell you, the grass is greener through your eyes. They have changed...and significantly so. Their traditions (misogynistic and brutal in days of old) have been watered down for the times. The Marine Corps is small. Really small. Being small allows them to hold higher standards, which often is equated to tradition, but it more about their selection standards. If you can turn away 1/2 of those applying, you end up with a better end product. The Army must change. We are too large to stay stagnant. Staying in the past is not a place to be when the rest of the world is continuing to progress. Now, we cannot lose tradition. As a Cavalry Officer and former Squadron Commander, this was and is very important to me. In the Army, everything that you see is unit specific. The Commander of your unit sets the priorities and if one of those is not instilling the Army Values and holding tradition in a place of honor, then you will not see it. It doesn't exist unless leaders make it so. The Army is too large.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 24 at 2016 9:40 AM

2016-05-24T09:40:31-04:00

The USMC is CONSTANTLY evolving. It's CONSTANTLY changing.

It changed while I was in. It changed while folks like 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member was in. It's changing now.

The "Spirit" and "Philosophy" of the Marines doesn't really change though, but the Plan, Direction, and Heading.... that changes all the time. The trick is figuring out what parts are important, and what parts aren't. We (USMC) are pretty good about defining our Important aspects, and what parts we just don't care about.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2016 10:01 AM

2016-05-24T10:01:51-04:00

There's "tradition", and then there's policy...sometimes, they serve one another, and sometimes, they get in each others way. The Army is "probably" the largest individual service...so it has a much more expansive mission and more complex requirements.That "likely" results in a great deal of "change". The Navy and Air Force are largely technical services, so that "change" is-again-more likely influenced by changes in technology...which ironically seem to come slower. I'd suggest the Marine Corps is the most resistant to "change" because they are smaller, have a mission profile that is designed to get the most out of that smaller coefficient, and all of that requires significant reliability without much redundancy...I think that equates to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2016 12:16 PM

2016-05-24T12:16:56-04:00

No, it's you. All of the Services change things (there was an article last week about the Navy changing its duty uniform again), and the Army most certainly has traditions it upholds. NCO induction and retirement ceremonies, Division songs, Right Arm night. We each have our own things. I assure you, everybody is constantly looking at how to improve their doctrine, not just the Army.

Response by SPC Jeffrey Frusha made May 24 at 2016 5:07 PM

2016-05-24T17:07:54-04:00

Modern warfare needs personnel and equipment capable of fighting the ever changing threats. While you talk about other branches traditions, they take the same advantages of every technological advance and generally have the same routines they had 30 years ago. How well would the USMC do in M151A1s, vs MRAPs they now have? Imagine the Air Force using Mustangs and P-40s, or the Navy in the same vessels used in WW I.

As for Army traditions, get involved. There are plenty of traditions, but most guys don't want the hassle and expense of getting and maintaining a set of Dress Blues, and fail to participate in the events that require them. On a different level, the Army even maintains a horse-cavalry unit. Doesn't get much more traditional than that, or the Old Guard.

Response by SGT Mike Alsop made May 24 at 2016 8:15 PM

2016-05-24T20:15:13-04:00

The Army is ever changing it's regulations. some stability would be nice. Grunts take pride in Grunt stuff, not Grunt Units per se. (That being said, I have my unit Crest from OEF V tattooed on my shoulder) I was always a 'field Grunt' and a sh*t 'garrison Grunt'. I took pride in my uniform, like starching my BDU's and polishing my boots, back when we had em. But aside from that.., I just wanted back in the field or back in the fight. Sure, going to some of the schools between deployments were okay, but I swore an oath to be "the heart of the fight - wherever, whenever". OEF '04-'05 OIF '06-'07- until medivaced out. Down range is where guys like me belong. There's pride in that. In that, "always I fight on - through the foe, to the objective, to triumph over all. If necessary, I fight to my death". Death ain't pretty. Especially when it's battle buddies. But that's what we do. We fight, we kill, and we die sometimes. We (Grunts in general) take pride knowing that we are doing a job not that others couldn't, but a job that others wouldn't. Now.., the Marine Corps., being that every marine is a rifleman first I think plays a roll in mentality. I once heard a Grunt who reclassed after first enlisting as a Cav. Scout say "We (Cav. Scouts) tell ourselves that we're 'basically Infantry', but I knew on day one of Infantry Basic, we were wrong." He told me that every aspect of being a soldier was harder as a Grunt. "Not shiny enough." "Do more push-ups." "Run harder." "Eat faster." "Get off your A$$." "Stir those sh*t cans." Corners! Corners! Corners!" "Low crawl! Get your face in the dirt!" "Shoot back!" Now, that last one, I actually had to say to a young PVT in Iraq who didn't grasp the concept immediately. Oh, and do all of that stuff while the enemy tries to kill you, and in the pitch dark with one fuzzy NOD on. I can't believe we didn't have more injuries sustained while doing counter-recon's in the mountains of Afghanistan. That's why PT is important. Fall down a shale cliff and hopefully muscle takes the brunt, instead of bones. As a combat Grunt I loved very few things. I loved my brothers. My weapon. My medic. Navy Apache Pilots, and Dustoff medics and pilots. Hell, let's just put all air support in there... My M240 gunners. And coming back inside the wire as a unit. That's about it. Quick shout out to Navy EOD as well. So, to wrap up my rant that was miserably taken off topic, (gonna blame the TBI here) the Army doesn't take pride in itself. It's up to individuals and individual units. "Army Strong"? STFU Having been pushed to breaking points without breaking is what gives me pride. Tradition? I was the guidon bearer in garrison. I suppose that sense of tradition, and leading the unit with all the battle ribbons, gave me a sense of pride and honor. Mostly though, I'm just glad I didn't have to fight in the Fking jungle... Scouts Out!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2016 7:51 AM

2016-05-25T07:51:51-04:00

It's not just you. Even Ike saw it coming.
That mythical monster of a "military-industrial complex" one hears about serves one primary purpose: to sell shiny things to J4 at the Pentagon. Sometimes an order comes in saying "we need a better _________," but I rather suspect that even the armaments are sold-up to the buying agents by the manufacturors rather than shopped-down based on existing or anticipated needs of the Army much of the time.

Response by COL Dave Sims made May 25 at 2016 8:22 AM

2016-05-25T08:22:18-04:00

This is a very interesting question. Doctrine certainly must evolve and will. Let me focus on the tradition part...uniforms, branches, medals. Years ago I worked for LTG Harold Hardin. He was the prototype logistician.... service to the line on the line. He used to say that there are always folks in any organization who are pissants come to ruin your picnic.
Nowadays we seem to have a lot of them in my Army . There was really no need to change from the Army green uniform to the current John Wayne cavalry outfit. We have the SMA worrying about what color of socks to wear with the PT "uniform". The combat service support branches have been effectively eliminated.... replaced by the Logistics Corps . Perhaps the next step should be eliminating the Infantry, Armor, Special Ops and Artillery - and rename them as the Combat Arms with a new insignia.
Finally on the proliferation of medals - where the hell did they all come from ? Take a look at photos of George Marshall, Eisenhower, Audie Murphy and others in uniform showing their decorations... Most senior officers, especially general officers, they have six or seven rows. Incredible !
Time I think to return to higher standards and more conservative values in these areas.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2016 8:39 AM

2016-05-25T08:39:35-04:00

I had a DS who constantly told us "the standard doesn't change, you do! ". It does feel like standards are more fluid and it's a bit of a disappointment.

Response by 1LT Tom Welch made May 25 at 2016 8:45 AM

2016-05-25T08:45:46-04:00

this is especially true of the dress uniforms, its quite wasteful and the traditions, esprit de corps, and attitudes of soldiers is adversely affected by these useless and trivial changes.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2016 9:25 AM

2016-05-25T09:25:41-04:00

"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."
-Churchill

Response by CW3 Susan Burkholder made May 25 at 2016 10:20 AM

2016-05-25T10:20:24-04:00

The grass IS always greener on the other side! But besides that, none of the other branches are as heavily scrutinized as the Army. Tradition is good. It is necessary. But tradition is also precarious and even dangerous when we allow it to become calcified, rigid, and ignorant as in "but we've always done it that way." Traditions lose their meaning when this happens and therefore should be re-evaluated constantly and discarded if necessary. If this means "reinventing" then so be it. I'd rather have traditions that change over time than rigidly holding on to them for the sake of tradition! Clubs, organizations and institutions usually do not thrive when they fail to update their traditions! I suspect if you look around you, you will discover a lot of Army traditions that are good ones.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2016 10:24 AM

2016-05-25T10:24:28-04:00

Having first served in the Marine Corps before switching to the Army, I immediately saw the lack of tradition. Examples of late, the beret and especially the Class A uniform.

Response by CPT Kurk Harris made May 25 at 2016 11:03 AM

2016-05-25T11:03:20-04:00

Great question. I think there are a number of generally unrelated forces at work here. We have an ever changing mission that requires fluidity. We have political pressure to adopt things new. We have an evaluation system that requires everyone to make a measurable contribution, or die on the vine. We also have some senior people who desire a legacy.
This fluidity is both on the battleground, Iraq VS Afghanistan VS Europe VS Africa, etc... and I think in the public's perception of the Army (think product marketing) Different terrains and environments require different camo patterns (uniform changes), or different approaches to operations (doctrinal changes). The public's perception is important for recruiting. When I recruited we began the switch to the dress blue uniform. Part of that was that new recruits felt the polyester green uniform was just ugly, so the change of dress uniform. We also rolled out a new slogan and marketing campaign. Who remembers Be All That You Can Be turning into An Army Of One. That was hard to sell, so it kinda changed again.
There is a constant push to adopt new equipment from our civilian leadership. Unless we continue with R&D, the industrial side of the military industrial complex threatens to change their manufacturing capabilities away for go to war equipment to other product lines. The argument goes something like what will we do if there is a war? It will take about 2 years to revert to go to war production, so adopt new equipment or lose our suppliers.
Evaluations rule the day as officers and senior NCOs progress. Everyone needs the bullets on their evals to set them apart from their peers. These bullets reach us as revised doctrine and regulation, or new uniforms, or a new pistol. Someone had to be in charge of those changes, and they built their OER/NCOER on getting those changes move to the line.
Desire for legacy? I have to go no further than to mention berets and Gen Shinsecki.
These are all changes, but they don't necessarily mean the end of tradition. If you want tradition, the Army carries a great deal of its tradition at the unit level. We do this through slogans, greeting of the day, like All The Way!, First Team!, Rangers Lead The Way!, etc... If you want to be hard core, get assigned to an Airborne unit, go to Ranger Battalion, get an assignment to the Rakkasans. You want ceremony? Go to the Old Guard, try out for your Division Honor Guard, audition for the Horse Cavalry Detachment in the Cav. There is tradition, but you have to be a part of it. Like everything else in the Army, you create your career and your experience. If you don't know how to do it where you are at, ask your CSM. Tell him you want to experience that, and if you are willing to jump through the right hoops, most will work to get you what you want. Be a part of continuing traditions and they will not die. Hooah?!?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2016 11:20 AM

2016-05-25T11:20:33-04:00

As the largest and most visible branch of the U.S. military the Army is in the constant spotlight. For better or worse, as public opinion and policy shifts change, it affects the Army most prominently to start. Also, especially with today's operating environments, the Army's mission has been so variable as compared to the other branches. That makes keeping traditions difficult, when one part of the Army is doing one thing, while the others something else.

Response by CPT David Landrum made May 25 at 2016 11:30 AM

2016-05-25T11:30:24-04:00

I think your question has multiple parts. If soldiers don't know or understand Army traditions, it is because they don't care. It is there. Uniforms are tricky because what is "traditional"? WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam ??? I went to basic training wearing the OD greens, and transitioned to BDUs while in AIT. I wore that same uniform for 23 years. Now I am retired and can't keep up with all the new uniform changes. Not that I think the field uniform is a big deal, it is meant to be practical not stylish. Doctrine is a whole different matter. If we were still using doctrine from the 1980s, we would be ready to fight the commies in tanks. Doctrine must evolve or you are prepared for the wrong fight.

Response by SFC Kevin Barlow made May 25 at 2016 12:25 PM

2016-05-25T12:25:49-04:00

Quite a bit of it has to do with being Politically Correct. I knew we were through when that Stress card crap came to be. We used to be an Army of straight MIGHT but now we're more of a digital Corps with the Generation X Soldiers that complain causing the Powers that Be to make those changes to keep their jobs and the press limited.

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made May 25 at 2016 2:58 PM

2016-05-25T14:58:41-04:00

I don't get all these dress code changes and demands or why the latter are even addressed. Stay uniform. If you're out in the field with an altered uniform from the rest of your company I'd think you would be more apt to come under friendly fire than those who are wearing standard issue. I also dislike intensely the allowance of garb to reflect one's religion or culture. I'm not a big fan of the facial hair changes either.

Response by SSG Toure Clark made May 25 at 2016 7:41 PM

2016-05-25T19:41:58-04:00

As a Ret.Vet that served in the U.S ARMY 1978-2011 and Marine Corps 1984-92,I have had the great Honor of being apart of many U.S ARMY and Marine Corps Traditional Ceremony in my Career. Both have excellent History and the time it takes to make sure there are NO MISTAKES is worth doing the long practice for the Public and the Military Community. Ret.Vet Toure"Uncle Jamm"Clark/2009 U.S ARMY Soldier Show/Performer/Skater.

Response by SSG Brett Jones made May 25 at 2016 7:56 PM

2016-05-25T19:56:49-04:00

I agree with you. I feel that the Army will justify their constant change on the need for recruits. It is my opinion that the disregard of branch history, traditions and special distinctions has a negative impact on the moral of that branches members.

Response by SGM Monte Pursifull made May 25 at 2016 9:16 PM

2016-05-25T21:16:30-04:00

This retired 30-year sergeant major spent 12 of those 30 years on a Navy base. Yes, the Navy and Marine Corps do seem somewhat more entrenched in tradition than does the Army. As wiith any issue, there seems to be a sweet spot, a balance between recognizing both the value of tradition and the need to change to meet modern realities. While the Army (larger than ALL the other services COMBINED) has long been the leader of change -- first to respond to the changing threat -- I do hope it can better embrace more of its heritage as well.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made May 25 at 2016 10:46 PM

2016-05-25T22:46:13-04:00

Sp4 Byron Skinner..Two events in Army history Triangulation of the Division 1938 and CARS 1957. I was fortunate that I served in a Regiment during my service in the Army. The Vietnam Veterans have yearly reunions. This year in San Antonio we already have booked three hotels. Every Year I can still get together with my Platoon leader of 50 years ago…Yes the Army has lost something for the sake of flexibility, its soul.

Response by SFC Derrick Graves made May 26 at 2016 4:37 AM

2016-05-26T04:37:25-04:00

I think it's part of your perception that the other services don't undergo the same changes but at a smaller scale of visibility because with the Army being the largest branch in the DoD any changes that are made will be on a large scale of visibility to the general public. Another point you have to take into consideration is the Army's current mission has it as the premier ground force situated around the world fighting two conflicts; conducting peacekeeping/humanitarian operations that require a constant change in equipment/resources to accomplish said mission. I would suggest when you have the opportunity to take some leave you should go check out the tour of the Old Guatd at Arlington Cementary to watch a tradition that is 24/7 365 days a year and hasn't changed in over 60 years which will give you a better perspective on the topic-:)

Response by 1LT Tom Wilson made May 26 at 2016 7:21 AM

2016-05-26T07:21:22-04:00

Yes. you are exactla y correct.

Let me put this into a little different context for you, From my perspective, Vietnam was a battle in the larger cold war and came down to a contest between Marxism and the Harvard Business model. Marxism won, fair and square. As a direct result, the US Army began, in 1970 or so, a deliberate and profound review of its policies in the conduct of the war and a highly innovative program of reform and refitting, part of which a renewal of the TRADITION of reform begun by George C. Marshall in 1942.

In contrast, the Harvard Business School has proceeded to march as if nothing had changed along a performance arc that was state of the art in 1907. One result is that the operational performance model of the Harvard Business School is 70 years behind what you, as a soldier, implement as SOP.

I can go on at some length on this theme, but suffice to say that I have submitted a proposal to the people at Rally Point to introduce a community transformation program that emerges from exactly the same thread of inquiry that brought you the "Be All You Can Be" recruiting slogan and development aspiration of the US Army; and will recreate the national mobilization which occurred after Pearl Harbor.

The other services, especially the Air Force, have been slow to adopt a similar forward leaning capacity. Their reliance upon "tradition" is essentially a rear-guard effort to maintain the status quo. The V-22 Osprey is probably the most important innovation brought forward by those services that actually advances their operational capabilities to match the Army's evolving doctrine.

You are living and working in a task environment far beyond the leading edge of Silicon Valley by several degrees of magnitude. My proposal to Rally Point is to Make America Great Again by bringing these performance technologies to the civilian community through the Army Community Services and people qualified to deliver Army Family Team Building as a community force multiplier.

Response by SSG John Jensen made May 26 at 2016 1:17 PM

2016-05-26T13:17:32-04:00

every time the army changes something, they back date the change so that the earlier version never happened - once upon a time we had running cadences that were sexist, racist, x-rated, and really derogatory to every one else; but, boy they were FUN, oh and alcoholic. Then one day on a run the CO screams "you can't sing that", so cadence caller switched songs and the CO screamed "you can't sing that" and we ended up with something really tame, later I saw in Army Times someone's letter complaining about not being able to sing the good songs, and the army's response was not that we don't do those songs anymore, but that those songs NEVER EXISTED.

Wearing my steel pot in the 82d, the only time my chin strap was fastened was when I was on a jump. Then the Kevlars came along and the Army back dated the wearing of chin straps, and say anything about not fastening chin straps on steel pots, and the response is "you're smoking crack, soldiers always wore their chinstraps fastened!"

And somebodies issue with wearing seatbelts in Iraq, never mind that if my HET was hit while wearing seatbelts over LBE and armor, I would have died in there. Tell somebody that nobody wore seatbelts in deuces before the '90s because deuces and jeeps didn't have seatbelts, and the response was "you're smoking crack, soldiers always wore their seatbelts!", then add nobody wore seatbelts before 1955, what happened in 1955?? that's when seatbelts were invented! "you're smoking crack, soldiers always wore seatbelts!"

And this Army song thing - the song and music was written by John Phillip Sousa, it was the Caisson Song " for it's hi hi hee, we're the FIELD ARTILLERY, shout out your number loud and strong" I refused to sing it, though I imagine that if the FIELD ARTILLERY let the army take it , then the field artillery deserved to lose it.

Response by LTC Mark Beattie made May 27 at 2016 11:34 AM

2016-05-27T11:34:02-04:00

I think your perception is accurate, and after serving for over 28 years in the Army I understand your frustration. However, while the Army's near continuous change is frustrating, it's also an important component of the Department of Defense. My comments are not meant to disparage the other services, but in large part the Army's continuous reinvention of itself keeps our military on the leading edge of technology, doctrine, and supporting tactics, techniques, and procedures. With some exceptions, the Army leads in doctrine writing, including joint doctrine which incorporates the employment of all services, and its allies. If you look at Marine Corps doctrine for ground operations, I think you'll find it looks a lot like Army doctrine.....and the Army does not ook to the Marine Corps to write it's doctrine for ground operations. Bottom line, change in the U.S. Army may be the only thing that you can expect not to change. But be proud of it's contribution to the finest, smartest, most agile fighting force on the face of the earth ever!!

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2016 1:50 PM

2016-08-05T13:50:12-04:00

Doctrine aside, I spent my first four years (and OEF and OIF deployments), in the Navy and I can still tell you about Davey Jones, how the Navy was founded, the meaning of things around the ship, the frame where my shop was, my Shellback initiation, and various other customs and traditions that are still vivid in my mind.

Fast forward to when I "lost my mind" and spent over 10 years in the Army (with two deployments to OEF with the 82nd no less) and I can't tell you very much about Army history, my units history, customs, traditions, etc. All I remember were the miserable days spent in formation in NC heat, so we could have the pleasure of listening to the 82nd song and parade around for a general.

Lineage, history, traditions, and customs were replaced with Division runs, ruck marches, weekly conex lay outs, and how well you did PT. (don't get me started on that! It was so bad I saw guys get busted cheating on their wives and get a slap on the hand, put fail a PT test, game over pal!). Heck, after all that time, I don't even know why we did pay day activities! We just did all of it "because that is how it has always been".

Not saying the grass is greener, but on my VA Healthcare card I have "Navy Veteran" on it.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Aug 5 at 2016 2:40 PM

2016-08-05T14:40:39-04:00

I think part of the issue is where traditions are maintained. For the Marines, it's at the branch level. And that is great for them. For the Army, it's at the unit level...and that is because we use the Regimental system. But because it's at the unit level, there is a wide variance between units on the degree of "traditionalism". When I was with 3ACR, I will tell you that unit pride, history, lore and tradition ran just as deep as anything you would see in the Marines (and the Marines thought our Stetson and Spurs were kind of cool when they RIP'd with us in Anbar in '04).

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2016 3:11 PM

2016-08-06T15:11:15-04:00

The only constant in the Army is change. Of ALL branches, the Army should be the most adaptable, and the only close second is the Air Force and a very close third, if not second is NAVY. The Army is the first, the front, and the fighters. We'll be in the enemy's backyard longer, we'll need the intel, and we'll need the adaptability. As the largest branch, we need to know how to train and maintain our new generation of troops, because we have more of them, and we need them as much as they need us. It would be idiotic of the Army, as the most important branch, as the most representative of the country, to not adapt to our new troops as we adapt them to us and war.

Response by 1LT Tom Wilson made Aug 11 at 2016 9:02 PM

2016-08-11T21:02:27-04:00

The US Army has been in a constant state of reform since Gen. George C Marshall put it into motion in 1942. The US Army Ranger School is a direct result of a change in Army doctrine from lessons learned from the Wehrmacht and captured in Gen. S.L.A. Marshall's Men Against Fire: the basic unit of the Army organization was changed in 1947 from the private (individual) soldier to the squad and the Ranger School was created to transform the Army's small unit leadership to reflect this change. The result is to create a leadership standard which is 70 years in advance of the leadership model of the Harvard Business School.

Virtually everyone currently serving is part of an Army that didn't exist before the All Volunteer Military was adopted in the 70's and much of the on-going operational paradigm was developed as a result of the Task Force Delta leadership program and it's director, Ltc Frank "Be All You Can Be" Burns. Frank was the Army Organization Effectiveness guru and there isn't anything you are doing that his group hasn't affected.

Take counsel in MSG Michael Davis. The traditions of the Navy, Marines and Air Force are substitutes for a creative impulse, the Marines V-22 Osprey being a notable exception.

Response by MSG David Gagnon made Aug 16 at 2016 9:53 AM

2016-08-16T09:53:48-04:00

Yes, I've been saying that for years. The Army is more concerned with not being racist, homophobic, anti this or that they left behind tradition and history, we are in big trouble if the Army continues to be political correct and rejects the majority of its members.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2016 10:53 AM

2016-08-16T10:53:37-04:00

You're on to something. Some of the issue falls within the Constitution itself. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11 and 12 make the distinction. It would take a while to explain it all, but basically, the idea is that a standing Army under the wrong leadership would be able to overthrow the government. By constantly changing the Army's identity, the Army changes with the needs of the country instead of staying focused on itself and prevents it from becoming the tool of a warmonger.

Response by CSM Steve Suchocki made Aug 16 at 2016 12:10 PM

2016-08-16T12:10:00-04:00

If the Army would stop being the politically correct service and do the job it was created to do In force our countries will on others by force We would keep our traditions

Response by SGT Matthew Schenkenfelder made Aug 16 at 2016 8:19 PM

2016-08-16T20:19:16-04:00

I did my first enlistment in the Marines from 2002-2006. I spent a year drilling in the Navy reserve and 3 years in the Marine reserve. I started a 5 year enliwith the army in 2011, and let me tell you what! Compared to Marines and sailors there is a definite lack of motivation and discipline in the army. New soldiers dont learn about the battle history of the US Army. The Marines make it a vital part of the mission of recruit training that every young Marine will be well hearsed in everything about the Corps from inception to uniform and battle history. Ask any soldier what the army birthday is and only the senior NCOs and officers will know that it was founded on 14 June 1775. Every single Marine in the Corps and all Marine veterans will tell you that the corps was founded on 10 November 1775 in Tun tavern in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Cpt Robert Mullan was the first Marine recruiter. How many brand new soldiers know that much about the army?

Response by SFC Edwin Watson made Aug 16 at 2016 8:51 PM

2016-08-16T20:51:33-04:00

I think we can adapt to the changing world without dismantling the traditions that have built cohesion over two centuries. What has happened is many of the units that were steeped in traditions have been deactivated, and their history lost as well. For example, there were commands on Ft Knox that had been there for several decades, and over the last 5-6 years have been dismantled, and almost all of the active duty units there are now gone. No Cav or Armor units left anymore, and the Armor schools are no longer there. No more Ordnance schools either. I got griped at by the post CSM for wearing my spurs while I was going to ACAP, because he said it was no longer a CAV post, even though I had gotten my spurs on Ft Knox. (After we got through a long conversation at the food court, he told me to put them back on for the rest of my outprocessing. Seems he had a soft spot for traditions)

Response by SGT William Romeo made Aug 16 at 2016 9:19 PM

2016-08-16T21:19:53-04:00

Always trying to please the current social fad. Should've kept the WW2 era dress and kaki's. We're not business attire soldiers !!!

Response by SGT William Romeo made Aug 16 at 2016 9:19 PM

2016-08-16T21:19:53-04:00

Always trying to please the current social fad. Should've kept the WW2 era dress and kaki's. We're not business attire soldiers !!!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2016 9:17 AM

2016-08-17T09:17:17-04:00

The uniform changes are due to some decision-maker's brother-in-law having a side business to make military uniforms and offering said decision-maker a cut of the profits :D

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2016 1:24 PM

2016-08-17T13:24:29-04:00

If the "next best thing" makes us more lethal, adaptive, effective, and efficient... I am all for it.
If it involves correcting a previous GO's mistakes (ACUs), I am all for it.
If it is social experimentation that has the opposite effect... our leaders need to resist it.

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Aug 17 at 2016 1:47 PM

2016-08-17T13:47:49-04:00

I was in through '03 to '09. BCT at Ft. Benning and AIT at Fort Sam Houston (Combat Medic/68W). I didn't like getting yelled at and how 'tough' the Army seemed to be; in fact I'm glad it was back then. The Army is protecting our entire country and things have dropped drastically in the recent years.
People get disqualified for serving for various good reasons. The safety of all soldiers far surpasses the 'feelings' and 'special snowflake needs' of a single soldier. I heard the rumor the 'Stress Card' but never saw one. As for women doing combat roles, I'm all for it. As long as the requirements are NOT changed. The job is the same. Now we have this crew of TQA and 'self identifying' as anything under the sun.
This will never be normal. I would NEVER trust orders from any HeShe or SheHe that doesn't know what sex they are. I won't get into a discussion about that. That mental instability can break down OPSEC, troop safety, and overall trust in the rest of the soldiers. The Army is for defending the legal citizens of this country. Not everyone can join nor can they stay should something happen. Now every fruit cake who 'thinks' they are something else can get a waiver for it. I'm SO glad I'm not in with those people.
Respect is earned; by one person to another through actions and trust over time. Those people pose a high risk b/c I've seen many of them whining about pronouns and being treated as something they'll never be. Other countries laugh at our military b/c 'we' have allowed people like that in.

Response by SPC Jeffrey Frusha made Aug 25 at 2016 5:55 PM

2016-08-25T17:55:57-04:00

One problem I see with the overly adapting military, not just the Army, is the adaptation to the current mode of warfare, to the exclusion of all else.

I see comments regarding horse-cavalry... I assume those people are totally unaware that there are places and situations in CURRENT operations, where horses and camels have helped carry service-members and gear to remote AOs, otherwise inaccessible. That takes familiarization. Fortunately, in America, we have people that still know how to ride.

If the balloon was to go up for a conflict with a major power, I do NOT think we currently have the capability to switch modes back to the type of conventional warfare we faced in Europe, in WW-I and WW-II.

DigiCam had to go, simply because it wasn't working well as camouflage. Materials and methods changes I don't completely agree with. Velcro may be quick and easy, but it's noisy as Hell. SOME synthetics are better at moisture-wicking, but plastics melt and burn, sticking to flesh. Back in the day, we wore the BDU and it was a great year-round durable uniform. The switch to Rip-stop was a magnificent failure, in many situations. Great for Summer, it sucked in Winter.

IMHO, crowd-sourcing certain aspects of vehicle design has shown promise and that modifying and up-armoring already heavy vehicles has failed, leaving our service-members targets in lumbering behemoths, rather than the highly mobile capacity we had with the now outdated M151s.

There are MANY lessons to learn. Modern politics has failed to learn from the past, such as staying OUT of A'stan, and the Middle East, which has proven to be a continuing boondoggle.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2019 8:01 AM

2019-01-21T08:01:43-05:00

4 changes to the Army uniform and from: "Be all that you can be, to An Army of 1, and Army Strong. All within mine and many others time in service. It certainly appears so.

Response by SFC Mike Wilkins made Aug 31 at 2021 12:17 PM

2021-08-31T12:17:53-04:00

To stay the same is to stagnate. Time requires change because the world does not stay the same. Think of it this way if you go into the desert in green camouflage uniforms it would stick out like a sore thumb. So a uniform change was needed. Do we still ride horses into battles. So change has always occurred.