Posted on Jul 19, 2018
‘Make our Army better’: How TRADOC’s outgoing senior NCO helped change enlisted soldiers' careers...
4.23K
10
10
5
5
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
Make our Army better... there are a lot of things that could be done better and the number one thing I would suggest, look to our Allies. Few would argue the British Army is more professional than ours. Their two phased system is almost 6 months long before a troop goes off to their regiment. Their Phase 1 is longer than most soldiers Basic and AIT, that is where the first level of problems begin, if we train soldiers to a certain level in a given field for 4-8 weeks and expect them to become better when they "get to home station," we have in truth created a ticking time bomb of failure. Next suggestion, do away with automatic promotions, they are a joke at best, the saying the "the cream rises to the top," doesn't apply in the US Army. Not with Officers and Enlisted soldiers all getting a one degree or another degree of automatic promotions. Retire the concept of up or out, allow officers to choose if they want to stay at company level or not. Many prefer it, but are forced to compete for a shrinking pool of positions as they move up.
Schools, tie those schools where possible to civilian certifications, this gives a soldier a civilian certification for them when they get out, and lets them know they are meeting a given standard.
Training & Safety. Nothing has ever dismayed me more than having these two words in the same sentence of anything to do with the Army. If we applied all the fracking PC rules, safety czars applications, filled out a damn Risk Assessment before every engagement. Washington would of never crossed the Delaware, Eisenhower would still be England waiting for the perfect condition. Accept the fact people do fracking incredibly stupid things and no amount of risk assessment is going stop Snuffy from picking up some unexploded ordnance, drive the truck into a ditch, or go off and drink beer and fornicate with the local Mayor's daughter or son.
You want a safe Army? Then train people at the entrance doorway. No soldier in any field should ever leave AIT not knowing how to or being licensed for the standard equipment in their career field. Dumping drivers training on units is dangerous, unproductive, and ultimately cost lives. Why do I say that? How many NG and USAR units have 40 hours to teach someone how to drive a HUMVEE? Or worse a larger truck? Why do we let units have the authority to license people who prior to coming to their unit never drove anything? Incredulous that we still do this, why, because big Army is cheap, and dare I say lazy. The mentality that it has worked for years gets soldiers killed.
Split the Army Safety Center in half, keep the aviation side at Rucker and move the Ground portion to the base primarily deals with ground transportation to a base like Fort Lee or to the Army's CDL program at Fort Knox.
Those are a few of my suggestions that I think would improve the Army.
Schools, tie those schools where possible to civilian certifications, this gives a soldier a civilian certification for them when they get out, and lets them know they are meeting a given standard.
Training & Safety. Nothing has ever dismayed me more than having these two words in the same sentence of anything to do with the Army. If we applied all the fracking PC rules, safety czars applications, filled out a damn Risk Assessment before every engagement. Washington would of never crossed the Delaware, Eisenhower would still be England waiting for the perfect condition. Accept the fact people do fracking incredibly stupid things and no amount of risk assessment is going stop Snuffy from picking up some unexploded ordnance, drive the truck into a ditch, or go off and drink beer and fornicate with the local Mayor's daughter or son.
You want a safe Army? Then train people at the entrance doorway. No soldier in any field should ever leave AIT not knowing how to or being licensed for the standard equipment in their career field. Dumping drivers training on units is dangerous, unproductive, and ultimately cost lives. Why do I say that? How many NG and USAR units have 40 hours to teach someone how to drive a HUMVEE? Or worse a larger truck? Why do we let units have the authority to license people who prior to coming to their unit never drove anything? Incredulous that we still do this, why, because big Army is cheap, and dare I say lazy. The mentality that it has worked for years gets soldiers killed.
Split the Army Safety Center in half, keep the aviation side at Rucker and move the Ground portion to the base primarily deals with ground transportation to a base like Fort Lee or to the Army's CDL program at Fort Knox.
Those are a few of my suggestions that I think would improve the Army.
(3)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
The difference was, back then when I was enlisted, I was impressed by how the Brits conducted themselves. When I worked with them was in the 1980's not now. But I have seen their artillery drone operators at Camp Roberts and they wee nothing but professional, btw they were all lower enlisted and NCO's. yes the Article is about how someone at TRADOC thinks the school system they are using is going to make the Army better. After 34 years I can't tell you haw many senior officers and NCO's spewed that same garbage. If we are always getting better, and were the "best, most lethal Army that ever was," why do we need so many improvements?
(0)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
SFC Christopher Learned - As you decided to go away from what the conversation is about, you left the door open. This is the only "Purple Dragon" I am aware of. I worked with the Brits in the 1980's, I am thinking you may have been in diapers then.
The conversation is dealing with the training, and what I have observed working with our allies for 10 years. I know you stateside "Barney's" don't have a real mission other than to train, but when you work with tactical nukes you have a real world mission 365 days a year. Those days are past now, as the Army no longer has those weapon systems.
I personally feel their is a serious problem with the way the Army conducts training in the school setting. I feel it needs radical changes to be more effective. So would you rather have a soldier who gets 12-15 weeks of training in Combat arms and can't drive a vehicle and is otherwise clueless, or would you rather have a soldier who spent a minimum of 6 months in school arrives with a CDL for the vehicles that would be common to their MOS/type of unit they would go too, is far more proficient in their field (combat arms, combat support or combat service support it doesn't matter). If you want a system where we have a pyramid promotion system for officers that eats it young or one that allows those officers who choose to, stay at lower grades to develop a far more effective officer corp. For NCO schools, maybe you like the concept of relearning everything every 3-5 years, I know I made it to ANCOC , and it was a repeat of BNCOC, which was a repeat of PLDC. Granted those schools have new names and new curriculum, but from the soldiers who went prior to retiring, they said it wasn't that different (their words, not mine). Your choice, if your happy with the status quo, then we have nothing else to say on the matter as we have a difference in opinions.
The conversation is dealing with the training, and what I have observed working with our allies for 10 years. I know you stateside "Barney's" don't have a real mission other than to train, but when you work with tactical nukes you have a real world mission 365 days a year. Those days are past now, as the Army no longer has those weapon systems.
I personally feel their is a serious problem with the way the Army conducts training in the school setting. I feel it needs radical changes to be more effective. So would you rather have a soldier who gets 12-15 weeks of training in Combat arms and can't drive a vehicle and is otherwise clueless, or would you rather have a soldier who spent a minimum of 6 months in school arrives with a CDL for the vehicles that would be common to their MOS/type of unit they would go too, is far more proficient in their field (combat arms, combat support or combat service support it doesn't matter). If you want a system where we have a pyramid promotion system for officers that eats it young or one that allows those officers who choose to, stay at lower grades to develop a far more effective officer corp. For NCO schools, maybe you like the concept of relearning everything every 3-5 years, I know I made it to ANCOC , and it was a repeat of BNCOC, which was a repeat of PLDC. Granted those schools have new names and new curriculum, but from the soldiers who went prior to retiring, they said it wasn't that different (their words, not mine). Your choice, if your happy with the status quo, then we have nothing else to say on the matter as we have a difference in opinions.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
SFC Christopher Learned - I saw your conversation with Major Ball and SPC Hurdle. Now you want to throw insults at me. God forbid anyone have a difference of opinion from you. If you want to disagree with my comments, no issues there. We are all entitled to our own opinions and thoughts. I like to see someone throw an engaging conversation my way, I liked to think you can do better than that.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
"don't ever try me" SFC Learned, you started this off with your first comment, now you may hate the Brits, you hate the Guard. That is your prerogative, but if you start off taking jabs, don't be surprised if you it comes back. That is the nature of being in the service, and I doubt you have worked with a meek Warrant who never said anything to anyone, have you?
(0)
(0)
CSM William DeWolf The Army as a whole needs to change the way we do business. I think having commands like TRADOC, INSCOM, FORSCOM, FUTURES Command, etc (all of which have four-star general commands) is a good and bad thing. The issue I have is that none of them seem to talk and none of them get along. I will use a simple thing like rolling sleeves. Why is it that the top officer in the Army makes the decision to roll sleeves and then when it gets down to the lowest levels, it's oh we don't do that here. It drives me crazy that these organizations write their own rules and can tell the Army Chief of Staff nope, we're not doing this. You want to look at an organization that has it's crap together - look at how Marines do business. Emulate that model because it works!
One other thing that needs to change is how leadership schools are ran. I went through ALC in 2014 and I was begging for leadership training but there was none. I asked the Commandant why they don't have leadership instruction and he flat out told me that PRT and D&C was leadership. There was no mentorship, guidance, or any discussions on how to effectively run a section in terms of counselings, coaching, etc. Again, look to the Marines and how they conduct their leadership development schools. As a prior service Marine, I went through Cpl's and Sgt's courses and learned more about how to conduct myself as a leader than any of the many leadership courses I've taken in the Army combined.
One other thing that needs to change is how leadership schools are ran. I went through ALC in 2014 and I was begging for leadership training but there was none. I asked the Commandant why they don't have leadership instruction and he flat out told me that PRT and D&C was leadership. There was no mentorship, guidance, or any discussions on how to effectively run a section in terms of counselings, coaching, etc. Again, look to the Marines and how they conduct their leadership development schools. As a prior service Marine, I went through Cpl's and Sgt's courses and learned more about how to conduct myself as a leader than any of the many leadership courses I've taken in the Army combined.
(1)
(0)
Interesting idea. I honestly have my doubts as to its effectiveness, but it is also not often that the Army gets things right the first time. That being said, this also comes from the Army Times, which is WELL KNOWN for falsifying, making up, or simply being very far behind on information. So... I guess we'll see.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next