Should Maneuver Company Grade Officers attend Master Gunner School?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:41:41 -0500

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2015/JUL_SEP/3Cooper15.pdf

Great Article in ARMOR Magazine about the history and possible future of Master Gunner School . It got me thinking on a question I've always wondered about why officers cannot attend this course. Curious to here response. After BOLC many officers attend some form of additional schooling prior to their first duty assignment so why not make Master Gunner school an option on the list?

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Dec 31 at 2015 1:54 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:54:36 -0500

It is a technical mastery that is wasted on the professional officer who trains and learns to trust his NCO's
While all knowledge is good, and an Armor officer who had the knowledge you have to have to get in to MG school, and the knowledge you leave with would not be bad.. It would be wasted. a better question is, what is that company grade officer doing to fix his unit, that is so broken, he is being distracted from his duties to those assigned and tasked to his NCO's?
Thus feeling the need get the required prereq experience to attend MG school, and the knowledge gained from it? Additionally, who is doing that company grade officers job while he is playing NCO?

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Dec 31 at 2015 2:05 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:05:38 -0500

Your job is to be the leader, not the best gunner. Further, if the course is filled with officers that only have the command for a limited time, you are taking away from the N.C.O.s that could and would benefit from it.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 3:02 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:02:54 -0500

Good question Sir. I've had this conversation with my CDR before. I explained to him that we are the SME for him based off of years of experience along with school house instruction. Now will he have the same level of experience with a 2LT that graduates BOLC then hops over to Gun School then goes to a unit? Self explanatory isn't it? Same could be asked with even a Sr 1LT and CPT.
IMO Officers give me "distance and direction" as far as intent for Gunnery. I get the plan put together brief it to him, and adjust accordingly off of his guidance and my reccomendations.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 5:34 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:34:58 -0500

This is a slippery slope. It would be awesome if every officer attended every single course that their enlisted soldiers needed. Except it is impractical. It is also unnecessary. An officer's career path should veer far from the technical expertise of their NCOs and Warrants.

Response by SFC Rollie Hubbard made Dec 31 at 2015 6:30 PM

SFC Rollie Hubbard — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:30:33 -0500

No it is a waste of time and money.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Dec 31 at 2015 10:45 PM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 22:45:44 -0500

While an interesting idea, most Armor Officers simply do not have the years of training or skill to go into MG school. It is the interim to go from a 30 to a 40 skill level. Most officers rank about a moderate (10) level at best , and perhaps not that even that. 20 is about where just new gunners are.

I hope they still use the 10-40 skill levels or I prolly look real old right about now.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 7:01 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 19:01:40 -0500

Sir I may be wrong in saying this. Though it seems a lot of officers view gun school as an accolade, rather than a technical training for a required position in an armor company.

Response by MSG Michael Caldwell made Jan 3 at 2016 11:22 PM

MSG Michael Caldwell — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 23:22:43 -0500

No, this is just another way to say that you don't trust your NCO's. This is a position that is given to a trusted NCO that has met all his required task and has proven his ability to handle the position. With that said, would you like for NCO's attending your required courses?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 10:27 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 10:27:48 -0500

I'm with the general consensus of the NCOs below, it's nice, but in the net effect unnecessary and of little value. As a PL, my ability to maneuver and train my tank platoon did not involve any indepth mastery of gunnery. My PSG and the BN master gunner, the masters of the tanking tradecraft, were the people to turn to. I needed a firm grasp of the tradecraft, but my end was in employing the tradesmen, not becoming one. I've since come to believe that a line officer must balance between a firm grasp of the trades that make up his branch and the branches that directly support it. His real value is the skill of orchestrating those trades to meeting mission. Obsessive skill schooling for officers is generally a waste, and I would argue is part of the culture that let us down 2003-2007, when an entire generation of generals and colonels spent their formative peace years accumulating badges and patches.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 1:14 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:14:51 -0500

Simply stated, it's NCO business. I think there is a big problem when officers don't let NCOs do their job then wonder why they don't have competent NCOs. As someone else stated Master Gunner school has a pre-requisite of significant experience with the weapons system, Bradley or M1. I feel it is more important for Armor and Cavalry officers to attend Scout Platoon leader's course (if it still exists) and/or Ranger school. I was fortunate to attend both and I feel it made me a better PL. I relied on my NCOs to be the SMEs in gunnery. One thing to add is the Armor lieutenant does command his tank and must be proficient in gunnery but it's also important to have a highly competent gunner on the vehicle to supervise the crew.

Response by COL James Greer made Jan 7 at 2016 6:46 AM

COL James Greer — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 06:46:25 -0500

As a lieutenant I attended Master Gunner school because I was going to lead a MTT to Egypt to train Egyptians on our tanks. Later I commanded both an armor company and a cavalry troop and being a Master Gunner was invaluable. First, it enabled me to understand better the integration of the gunnery training with all our other training. second, it enabled me personally to train my platoon leaders in gunnery, turret maintenance and training management far better than I could have otherwise. Third, I was able to impact our maintenance better than had I not had that education in the way the various systems within the tank worked and worked together. Lastly, it gave me great "street cred" with the NCOs, and that always is important for a young captain. I have always been an advocate for officers attending MG. Jim Greer

Response by SPC Douglas Hemmingway made May 31 at 2016 8:44 PM

SPC Douglas Hemmingway — Tue, 31 May 2016 20:44:15 -0400

As an old 19E I can't see where an Officer level Tanker can go wrong unless it is limited to enlisted and NCO grades. I think we had some of my old units' gunners go through it. I don't know about any of our O-2s, our O-3 or our O-4 though.

Response by 1SG Donald Melendy made Jul 7 at 2016 10:52 PM

1SG Donald Melendy — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 22:52:48 -0400

An officer bounces between line assignments and staff assignments. The majority of his time is spent away from tank gunnery operations and the day to day, and years the MG devotes to his craft. Why not expand the program, like the USMC, to the warrant officer field? IMO a much wiser and more cost effective endeavor.

Response by SFC William Linnell made Jun 23 at 2024 11:09 AM

SFC William Linnell — Sun, 23 Jun 2024 11:09:16 -0400

Easy NO. It would be a waste of time for a LT to go to MG school. That young LT needs all the time he can get as a Tank Platoon Leader before getting assigned to a desk job. What happens to them after their PL time? Somewhere else in the BN doing logistic work, or assigned to the Support Platoon, lead the Scouts. Or as a Co XO. They don't see a tank again until they become a Co CMDR. MHO, it seemed that the Officer Corps were always trying to take away the NCOs job, not utilizing the experience of the NCO.

It reminds me of the old Hierarchy that came with old thinking from the British Army, where Officers did everything and the enlisted were just simply minions and seen as uneducated tools. At times thru my career in Armor, the Officer Corps would try to micromanage everything and the mentality of Superiority. Then other times they stepped back and let the NCO do their job, training Soldiers and the other skill levels so when they went to the field the LT could run his platoon with efficiency. Also still letting the NCO handle the maintenance, taking care of Soldier, have his platoon in good operational standards.

Its a job that should continue to be NCO organized, the responsibility for making gunnery smooth as possible. Correcting a tank crew who can't zero their tank or other freak happenings (gremlins) with the tank. The MG should also be an experienced TC and as a MG, that should be their sole purpose, not over task them to have a tank crew and NCOIC of the company HQ platoon. Especially since the MG gets little to no sleep during gunnery. Their job is constantly focused on all the training before gunnery, UCOFT, TCSG, etc and after gunnery has ended.

Just an observation. I am retired and forgotten about in the grand scheme of things Army tanker related. I still feel that MG should be authorized to wear the MG badge on the Class A no different than DS or recruiting. Also fought for years to have the TCE, TCCTII as a program that would be on par as the EIB.