Posted on Mar 13, 2015
What is the state of NCO training in today's Army?
4.09K
7
7
1
1
0
I recently happened across while looking to see how many other "Shake 'n' Bake" E-5s and E-6s there were back in my era. I found it a fascinating narrative of the history of the "Skill Development Base" programs.
The version of Skill Development Base I experienced at Ft Gordon in early 1969 was phenomenal.
In theory, they weren't training "combat-ready NCOs" but rather SP5s who could hit the ground running in a Signal unit. So we got the NASA soldering course, intensive instruction in the relevant bits of electronics, the standard Technical Instructor school and how to master The Army Equipment Records System (TAERS) amongst others. There was also what I call the "How to design, implement, lead and manage a high-performance organization delivering critical technical services in an extremely hostile environment" Course.
We also got a bunch of seemingly extraneous stuff like Forward Observer training, the practicalities of land mines, how to call in air strikes, small unit combat leadership and tactics, and the "Leadership Reaction Course" swiped from the Signal Officer Basic Course. It turned out that much of that was really handy in a later assignment.
One of the things they prepared us for was the "It doesn't matter what's on your sleeve, it's where you are on the duty roster" approach to whether SP5s were actually NCOs. We may not have been, but we got all the same assignments as the hard-stripers and had to be fully prepared.
There was a time when I said "I made E-5 in eleven months." I have reconsidered that and now say "The Army made me an E-5 in eleven months."
In both of my subsequent assignments, I found that I was well equipped for the job -- often better, in fact, than others who had several years time in grade and really didn't care for these "Instant E-5s" that were infesting the sleepy units in USAREUR.
I came back from RVN with a Bronze Star (no V) and a wealth of experience. I have been selling those nuggets of training and experience, often with great success and benefit to the business world, ever since my return to civilian life.
I imagine that the "Uncle Sam is quickly running out of E-5s in Viet-Nam" pretext they gave for announcing to us that we had volunteered for this course may not be anywhere near the current situation.
What's the modern equivalent for arming you for general service anywhere in the Complex?
The version of Skill Development Base I experienced at Ft Gordon in early 1969 was phenomenal.
In theory, they weren't training "combat-ready NCOs" but rather SP5s who could hit the ground running in a Signal unit. So we got the NASA soldering course, intensive instruction in the relevant bits of electronics, the standard Technical Instructor school and how to master The Army Equipment Records System (TAERS) amongst others. There was also what I call the "How to design, implement, lead and manage a high-performance organization delivering critical technical services in an extremely hostile environment" Course.
We also got a bunch of seemingly extraneous stuff like Forward Observer training, the practicalities of land mines, how to call in air strikes, small unit combat leadership and tactics, and the "Leadership Reaction Course" swiped from the Signal Officer Basic Course. It turned out that much of that was really handy in a later assignment.
One of the things they prepared us for was the "It doesn't matter what's on your sleeve, it's where you are on the duty roster" approach to whether SP5s were actually NCOs. We may not have been, but we got all the same assignments as the hard-stripers and had to be fully prepared.
There was a time when I said "I made E-5 in eleven months." I have reconsidered that and now say "The Army made me an E-5 in eleven months."
In both of my subsequent assignments, I found that I was well equipped for the job -- often better, in fact, than others who had several years time in grade and really didn't care for these "Instant E-5s" that were infesting the sleepy units in USAREUR.
I came back from RVN with a Bronze Star (no V) and a wealth of experience. I have been selling those nuggets of training and experience, often with great success and benefit to the business world, ever since my return to civilian life.
I imagine that the "Uncle Sam is quickly running out of E-5s in Viet-Nam" pretext they gave for announcing to us that we had volunteered for this course may not be anywhere near the current situation.
What's the modern equivalent for arming you for general service anywhere in the Complex?
Posted in these groups: 
Leadership
Training
Leadership Training
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 2
3
3
0
Howdy Michael, since we exchanged emails about this subject I am going to guess your reference was my monograph on the history of SDB and the NCO Candidate Course. If you don't mind I added the link to the article so if others may want to know more about this important milestone. SDB/NCOC were truly foundational planks for the modern noncommissioned officer professional development system (NCOPDS). http://www.ncohistory.com/shake-and-bake.html
Shake n Bake NCO | The NCO Historical Society | NCOHistory.com
NCOHistory.com is an online, central repository for access to information about the US Army Noncommissioned Officer Corps.
(3)
(0)
CSM William DeWolf
Excellent and well-written/researched article. Thanks for sharing! I experienced having a "Shake n Bake" during Advanced Infantry Training at Ft. Polk in '69. He was terrible and at the end of our cycle tried to reclassify as an MP to get out of going to Viet Nam!
(2)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
Thanks for the encouragement William, I am actually expanding my research on this topic. You may have noted that after their NCOC training Shake and Bakes went on to be assistant dill sergeants as a second phase for their training, it was a way that they gained experience leading squad formations. Rgds.
(0)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
CSM William DeWolf - From experience I can state that just about everyone who started our class in '69 but didn't want to go to RVN was washed out within the first two weeks. The few remaining washed out in the LRC segment. From talking to a couple of them, they got orders for Viet-Nam anyhow, but went over as E3s. Probably the best for all concerned.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
That was a fast track to E-5, SP5 Michael Rathbun, but it seemed to work, and not just for you apparently. You were trained, and probably trained pretty well, for a specific situation. That was the beauty of the Specialist ranks in my opinion. They were something like enlisted Warrant Officers: specialists in their fields, not necessarily called on to lead in a tactical situation, but extremely proficient technically. (I worked with a Spec 6 who went on to be a CSM, so it's unfair to say that Specialists were not leaders. This guy stayed in the Army as the higher Specialist ranks were phased out, so he transitioned to the NCO ranks.)
Nowadays, Warrants are expected to be "tactical" leaders as well as technical specialists, and NCOs are expected to lead as well as be technically proficient at their job.
I don't think anybody would (or even could) make E-5 in 11 months today. That's probably a good thing. The extra time required allows the Soldier to mature and to learn, before being thrust into a position they might not be able to handle. But you were in a different time and situation, when the Army needed you to be up to speed and ready to do the technical job very quickly.
I think that's the difference. And I would ask you if you were a typical SP5 during the Vietnam era. Or were there a lot of folks who "washed out" when pushed like that -- to perform at that level in a very short period of time?
Nowadays, Warrants are expected to be "tactical" leaders as well as technical specialists, and NCOs are expected to lead as well as be technically proficient at their job.
I don't think anybody would (or even could) make E-5 in 11 months today. That's probably a good thing. The extra time required allows the Soldier to mature and to learn, before being thrust into a position they might not be able to handle. But you were in a different time and situation, when the Army needed you to be up to speed and ready to do the technical job very quickly.
I think that's the difference. And I would ask you if you were a typical SP5 during the Vietnam era. Or were there a lot of folks who "washed out" when pushed like that -- to perform at that level in a very short period of time?
(0)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
Typical. Hmm... Probably not. I was this somewhat autistic geeky kid who knew a lot about electronics and radio communications when I went into the course. I was a fully capable junior NCO when I came out, who in his first assignment was placed in charge of a small field maintenance unit and wound up with commendation letters from various levels of the CoC after a field exercise in USAREUR.
If they could do that to me, I imagine that a lot of others fared much better. We definitely did not finish the SDB cycle with anywhere near the number of persons that we started with. To my extremes surprise, the paperwork I got at the end of the school designated me as an "Honor Graduate". I thought I was just barely above mediocre, but the cadre were very skilled in keeping our self-assessments from ballooning out. In fact, the cadre were very skilled at just about everything.
After graduation we were all scattered to the four winds, so I don't have first-hand knowledge of how anybody else performed.
If they could do that to me, I imagine that a lot of others fared much better. We definitely did not finish the SDB cycle with anywhere near the number of persons that we started with. To my extremes surprise, the paperwork I got at the end of the school designated me as an "Honor Graduate". I thought I was just barely above mediocre, but the cadre were very skilled in keeping our self-assessments from ballooning out. In fact, the cadre were very skilled at just about everything.
After graduation we were all scattered to the four winds, so I don't have first-hand knowledge of how anybody else performed.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google