Some of these comments started out good, but as I believe was pointed out before by another poster, have been gradually trailing off into a rant...

Increasing the amount of time that new Soldiers and officers spend in TRADOC- as students-not LTs and junior platoon leaders, would be less than ideal, in my opinion. Maybe we could spend that time in multi-echelon bayonet training..? Perhaps it might be better to not send to units those that are unable to meet the standard rather than recycle them until they pass. I would rather not have to personnally cull substandard soldiers and LTs in combat.

BTW, Fort Hood reinstituted Retreat over 2 years ago, as does Fort Belvoir.

Stupid things about the glories of the bayonet in both training and combat have been written, by my historical analysis, since around 1914. I would suggest any and all read C.J. Chivers on the lunacy of WWI-era bayonet training in pp. 123-125 of The Gun, because the rationale behind such training mirrors the language of the author above. Against all evidence, Chivers informs us, "the romance with cold steel endured. Traditions -- and bad ideas -- die more slowly than men."

Why limit firing heavy weapon systems? Training rounds are cheap. Simulation is cool and all, but nothing replaces the real thing. Tank units use the simulators for the "crawl" phase of crew qualificatiion. When did units stop using "crawl, walk, run"? Guess I've been out of the line too long.

"Staff College" sounds much better than "ILE". I'm surprised they didn't call it "WARRIOR" ILE.

What happened to the bayonets? I deployed with mine in 2003 and 2005. As a tanker, no less. Is this some kind of newfangled thing?

Get rid of roadmarching, but restore soldier traditions? Huh?

We already have a "skill at arms" course - its called Master Gunner. Armor branch does that particularly well, if I do say so myself. I agree that MG School should open up to LTs. It would be a good thing for PLs and COs to have MG-level knowledge of their weapon systems. I understand that FA branch does that better than anyone. But the unit MG should remain an NCO - its an NCO job and they do it well. But having officers that are MG-trained gets to that "understanding what NCO's are supposed to do" stuff.

DTMS is light-years better than its predecessor. Guess I never found it that hard to use.

Weapons simulators can provide good training and some cost savings but are best as a supplement to rather than replacement for live fire ranges. I've had the opportunity to use, and have my Soldiers use, some individual and crew-served weapons simulators. It was a major component of the train up for a deployment to Iraq. Logisticians don't get a lot of ammo or priority on ranges and the simulators seemed like a great alternative. I am convinced that they helped, but there were definitely limits. I don't think that once a month (or even more often) in the simulator and once a year on the range will produce good gunners. Simulators can help refine a lot of skills, but they don't replace firing real bullets from the real weapon.

Part of the problem is the limitation of the simulators. The M4 simulator does a decent job with recoil, but the crew served weapons all seemed to get it wrong. Noise, heat, and lethality were also missing. I think the negligent discharge problem that has been so frequently discussed here could only grow worse if Soldiers spend less time handling loaded weapons.

I also wonder how much money could be saved by replacing a range with a day at the simulator. I think for small arms the savings couldn't be that much. Most installations don't have enough ranges to begin with, so I doubt many would be closed down. Maintenance costs would decrease if use decreased, but they wouldn't go away entirely. Ammunition consumption would be reduced and would provide a cost reduction. Simulator use would be up and might require the purchase of additional equipment. All of the simulators I used were run by contractors who were better compensated than the crusty retired NCOs working at range control. More hours of simulator time likely mean higher labor costs. I would like to see a cost comparison, but I think that move to simulators that generated a meaningful cost reduction would also amount to a meaningful reduction in training value.

What Army does this guy live in?

You don't have to go to WLC/PLDC to know what a squad leader's job is.

First, any commissioning source is going to give a cadet some experience in first line leadership -- mentored by NCOs (at least in the ROTC or OCS world).

Second, LTs still do everything their platoons do -- at least in every tactical unit I have been in from 1991-2010. Formation, PT, maintenance, ranges, training -- even SGT's Time back when we still did it.

No, they don't go to BNCOC/ANCOC, or whatever they are calling it now (not MANCOC) -- but the POI is not secret, nor is it different that what LTs observe and supervise on a daily basis.

Bayonets? Really?

I get the sentiment on simulators, as I have been through the periods of austerity where mortar rounds were hard to come by, and failure to employ those systems reduces understanding of how to employ them, and how effective they can be.

Simulators are OK for the smaller caliber weapons. They just don't work very well for larger caliber systems. But I'm not against the idea so long as it's constructred in such a way that it makes live fire training more productive.

Road marching is what we should do more of - crawl, walk, run. Start with your plate carrier and move up from there to full kit. The human body will adapt to that much more readily than to long runs. Running is far worse. The problem with road marching is that we do too much of it on the road. Need to get off road, up the inclines, in the woods, and so forth.

"Train the officer corps to know what their enlisted Soldiers and NCOs are trained to do."-

Umm...not sure this is an accurate statement, did you mean something else. I am not a fan of the Army culture but their O's know what their boys and NCOs do and are trained on.

"Restore "Crawl, Walk, Run" in the minds of all trainers in the Army. It is simple, easily understood and long standing great guidance on how to train. All training should be "multi-echelon" in order to better utilize all training time available. This phrase has taken a back seat for some reason. Restore to the training vernacular."-

Comes back to time and money, they should do all training like this but I often see them just go to straight to "Run" after "Chalking" it.

"Soldiers learn by seeing and doing, over and over again. "Performance Oriented" training is another time tested way to do training correctly.
Limit (I say limit, not stop) actual firing of large caliber weapons systems. Simulations for all weapons systems are key. Rapidly expedite fielding of simulations for mortars, artillery, heavy machine guns, etc. There is great fiscal responsibility in doing this and doing so will also produce better trained fire support organizations. A mortar platoon simulations would probably pay for itself in first month of use; likewise the same applies with other large caliber weapons systems."-

This is a huge mistake, they need MORE live fire training not less. Nothing makes you know your gun and increases your Situational Awareness (SA) like having a live rifle and then moving and shooting with it. The Army as a whole needs to spend a lot more time on the range, do live fire and movement (not the canned stuff they do now) and even eventually work it's way up to doing live fire in a house a lot more. If you saw how many barrels had holes in them overseas due to poor weapons training and handling you would go dizzy.

"Pathfinder and Air Assault produce similar skills. If so, consolidate the two into one course, determining what the skills, knowledge and experience are needed for the Soldier. You pick the badge. Or simply eliminate one or the other, your choice."-

Pathfinders jump, land, scout and mark Drop Zones (DZs), Air Assault does not. Pathfinder is more of a qual while Air Assault has whole division dedicated to it even though you can just get the qual. A merger of the two won't do much as far as change. How about we make the Airborne school an actual selection again and make the Airborne Units and elite "shock troop/light infantry" division again, instead of just an infantry unit that jumps?

"Bring back the bayonet. My guess is there were some in Afghanistan who had wished they had it. Bayonet training instills aggression in Soldiers. There are times, especially in STABOPS, where a weapon with fixed bayonets has a tremendous impact on people getting the right message. But, if you don't even carry a bayonet, it is real hard to instill that "cold steel" feeling in someone when you give the command "Fix Bayonets."-

There were a couple of bayonet charges in Iraq, none in Afghanistan but there have been several incidents of guys having to go to their knives. While I can agree it can't hurt to instill that aggression in them and give them basic skills in it, I would prefer to see more use of the knife period, chances are you won't ever use it "but better to have it not need it than to need it and not have it" Nothing crazy but every Troop should have a basic knowledge of how to kill with a knife/bayonet. I know of at least 4 incidents in Afghanistan alone where that came in handy with the Marines.

"Examine closely the relationship between constant roadmarching and disability. Does roadmarching make you better, more prepared or does it debilitate your body? Can you better prepare for roadmarch requirements by other, less abusive forms of fitness? I think so."-

I don't think anything preps you for a long hump like a hump. SOCOM did study this and it does indeed cause a lot of problems with knee and back injuries, should be limited to about 2x per week and should not exceed 50lbs of total weight, to include body armor. That is one of the things we ALL tend to do, go in way to heavy. It makes sense go heavy in you are on a long range recon, not sure it does in basic patrols.

"Restore Soldier traditions; walking on left of superior, reporting criteria, stand at attention when talking to an officer, parade rest when talking to senior NCO, etc."-

Nice, as long as that does not become the focus and this is what usually happens with an organization obsessed with uniformity, see previous posts on this subject.

"Establish a Skill at Arms course that will make our junior Officers and NCOs experts in weapons systems, ranges and training. Take a lesson from the Brits on this one."-

Every 11B and 0311 should be an expert in all the small arms in their perspective branches armory/inventory. Should start early, not at the NCO and JO level.

"Make Digital Training Management System (DTMS) work for the commander, not the commander work for DTMS. Fix it and they will use it. Don't fix it and they won't."-

Almost all Online training is about Cover Your Ass (CYA) or saving money, good luck fixing this with the culture you have, fix the culture first in it's early days and the rest will be easier to implement.

"Restore retreat formations to instill Soldier understanding of tradition."-

Not sure if you want to "instill" this as a tradition. How about we just train our grunts in basic small unit tactics and make sure all of our 11Bs and 0311s are Masters of Small Unit Tactics? Fix the culture.

I agree....other times in the week, some general conditioning drills or "crossfit" type stuff can be done, along with sprints, olympic lifts and so forth. One day per week should be long slow distance, not these "death runs" where the gazelles get to show the only thing they excel at.

Yeah, would make a really well rounded and fit troop I think but the Military has to start in the beginning and keep it going throughout their enlistment. It would be great to see it implemented, would lower the amount of long term injuries (one of the reasons that SOCOM did it in the first place), surgeries, make the training more functional. CrossFit has it's issues but they can be worked out. Are you still AD?

I’m a prior service guy, you know, I used to be a Staff Sergeant…those days are gone I’m a Major now. I’d like to tie three of the comments made by Tom Ricks in his latest edition of Fixing the Army (VI). First, understand my position, I’m a Tom Ricks fan. The Gamble was brilliant, in fact a paper I am writing at the CGSC-ILE has it cited several times. Which brings me to my first assertion about the latest entries…I am at CGSC-ILE. That’s what their calling it here, that’s what I call it. Some, like my instructors have continued to call it CGSC all the while. Much like many of us refer to ICCC as the ‘Advanced Course’ or some of us still call it BNCOC and ANCOC. It’s not that were resistant to change, we just relish the old, tougher terms. So there is a current trend, that is here at the school house, that are continually attempting to bring back the ritualistic things that endear the Army to us. And on to rituals, Mr. Ricks I assure you, people…Soldiers that care, still walk on the left of superiors. Even the ones we don’t like. We still say ‘By your Lead’ as we pass a senior from the rear. Furthermore, we still feel it our prerogative to make on the spot corrections that are polite and professional. We still stop the car to salute the Retreat. We still salute red flags with white stars on vehicles. That notion, that ability, is a calling. It’s not for all and forgive those who blow it off as some throwback nonsense. It’s not, it’s a mind-set, it’s a duty we pursue with deliberation and honor. Lastly, and probably the real reason I felt compelled to write….Blood, Blood makes the green grass grow! There’s an entire generation of Soldiers that have no clue what that means. Sadly, when those words are uttered a great majority of Soldiers are without some nostalgic reference. A reference to a time when that was a battlecry, a screamed call to violence and that’s a horrible thing! The fact is the bayonet is still in the arms room, Commanders who fail to train with it are missing a great training tool. It may look silly on the M-4,but the only place it looks sillier is on the Combat Action Badge. Soldiers respect peace more than most but we commit to violence for important reasons. Reasons we’re too proud to list, things like why the National Anthem still can produce a watery eye or why civilians still thank us for our service or why we still stop and talk to wide-eyed children as they stare at us as we parade on by in our Blues, excuse me, ASUs.

Perhaps things have changed, but one thing I disliked was the Corps hard focus on annual rifle requal, while all other combat things didn't matter. I'd prefer the 1-2 weeks "at the range" change to only half firing the M-16, but also some fam firing of machine guns, pistols, first aid, basics of call for fires, ect.

I assume you mean active duty.

Once again, very good comments.

I believe many would be surprised at how many officers don't know what their enlisted and NCOs do on a regular basis. I see this most on the "report back to me" tasks like doing PMCS on vehicles, or taking care of maintenance, even when it comes to preparing fighting positions and sector sketches.

One thing that we are generally awful at, as officers, is handling any type of "failure" - aka not finishing first. There is this myth that the officers have to be the best at everything. Your Soldiers never expect you to be the fastest runner, do the most pushups, solve calculus, know the mysteries of the universe, understand world economics and so forth. Officers sometimes duck out of PT for some "important meeting or briefing"; or don't participate in maintenance because they have to get those all-important command & staff slides done. I had a company commander that would always be there for the run because he was a fast runner. But when we put on kit, or did some functional PT he was a middle of the pack kinda guy - he viewed that as "failure" and always bugged out for some important talk with the BN Cdr or something. Soldiers don't expect their officers to be cyborgs at PT and Rhodes Scholars - they expect them to be there, to lead, to accomplish the mission, take care of their subordinates. You don't have to finish first on the run in order for your Soldiers to trust you, but you do need to be there.

I have to say that as a regular reader of this blog and its comments, I am blown away sometime how complex and erudite the US Armed Forces can be.

War can be complex, but it can also be quite simple.

Soldiers need to be fit- make them that way without ruining their combat readiness.

Officers need to know how to lead- some will be naturals, others can be taught, sadly some will never be good know matter if they were apprenticed to Alexander the Great.

Equipment should be made and utilized for defeating your enemy- training should be as close as possible to the real thing- the least surprises the better. I personally come from an army where the ends were also more important than the means- that should be the general rule.

better than the officers do. Project management, performance tests, meeting milestones for real, logistics, fielding, training, maintenance and sustainment, later life cycle work, in each of these areas where content matters more retired nco and warrants, with a meeting deadline deliverable bias, can be found than officers. It is a sea change that is occurring under the nose of the looking up and powerpoint class of soldiers without their notice...a force reduction opportunity of high cost reduction without any negative effect upon the performance of the Army outside the conference room.

Dancing with the stars(one and above) should may be the only assignment for the field grade and above West Pointers.

@ Bill Keller- Acquisitions seems like a giant cluster with no discernible leadership. The technical ability of the EM, WO, and NCOs is no doubt high. I have no doubt in my mind that Acquisitions and many other Functional area branches are a woeful misallocation of resources to be better utilized elsewhere.

As a junior officer, I did not need to get any special training to know what my squad leaders were trained to do. Most posters hit it right, ROTC/West Point and OBC training teaches you what to expect of your NCOs. Technical Competence, Primary Trainers, and first line leaders. Sadly, as a whole the NCO corps is in a bigger crisis than the officer corps across the Army. Why else do you think they made 2009 the Year of the NCO? NCOs like the officer corps have experienced too high of a promotion rate (in some MOSs) too quickly which reduces the Technical Competence and Emotional Maturity necessary for both combat and garrison. NCOs do not know how to manage training, maintain equipment, and account for items as was their core expertise in a peacetime/garrison Army. Infantry NCOs in my experience are very proficient at riflemen skills, engaging the enemy, and surviving deployments. They too often are focused and knowledgeable at their previous positions. Many of my platoon sergeants were excellent squad leaders, and two of my first sergeants were excellent platoon sergeants. All were mediocre at their current position.

Simulations have incredible value, and do save a great deal of money on training budget. The Call for Fire Trainer and RVTT are worth their weight in gold, and do allow a huge amount of scenarios that you could not conduct on any live fire exercise in training anywhere. Engaging the enemy with crew served and heavy weapons is developed on a range complex but unfortunately due to risk adverse leadership , SAFETY, and money fears it is difficult to get a quality heavy weapons density.

During Initial Training Officer and Enlisted, cull the herd. Get rid of weak officers, non-performers, those that fail academically. Same with new trainees. I went to OBC and the Career course with officers who failed the APFT at both courses and were near academic failures in two courses where nearly all tests are Open Book. I have since chose to leave the Army, but these officers are still there!

The bayonet is an archaic and useless , pointless weapon. It does instill violence during basic training and the bayonet assault course is a ball smoker. I would rather see increased use of the Modern Army Combatives Program (MACP) and integrate defend against an armed opponent (rifle, pistol, and knife) and blocks of instruction on how to kill with a fighting knife. Besides stick the pointy end in the bad guy.

Road /Ruck marching done properly (leadership and technical knowledge) is the best conditioning tool for dismounted combat( Afghanistan). Running 3x a week army style for 20 years is far more damaging. Too many incompetent NCOs and officers take a unit from no or little ruck marching to a full combat approach load. Conditioning is necessary to ensure success.

Instill new traditions: Saluting, attention, parade rest, and all other military courtesies are done in units with good discipline. Reveille/Retreat being played at major installations is important but not worth holding formations for. Adjust schedules that make sense for your unit. PT in small teams when it makes sense, train all day and all night, and comp family time. Do not train over the weekend ever until our combat obligations end. Time at home is too important for mental and emotional well being. Get over things like smoking, hands in pockets, various uniform changes. Pockets are made for stuff and to keep your hands warm, if its cold wear gloves, and a ski cap. Too many hot/cold weather injuries have occurred by enforcing stupid regulations and not using the 5 th principle of patrolling.

an uncommon trait...it's also the 5th principle of patrolling.

For Mike D: regarding junior officers, well, what they aren't taught in OBC/BOLC is causing them problems. You don't need special training, just basic foundational training. That is not given in a lot of BOLCs now. What's needed is for a senior officer like a Co Cdr, XO, etc to show them all the things they didn't get at BOLC.

That is not happening as much as it should. This is a chief reason I believe the officer corps is in worse shape than the NCOs. Problems with the NCO Corps, in my opinion, can be traced to the issues with the officers.

About culling the herd...makes sense, but the metrics to be used are going to be tricky to iron out. Additionally, there's a lot of garrison super soldiers out there that do great in training, then when they deploy they suck terribly. Same goes on the officer side. Some officers struggle a bit through OBC, then out in the force their leadership skills become evident; vice versa and so forth.

I'm of the opinion that if a person is willing to bust his or her ass, we in the military can find a place for them and they can contribute. When failures result from a lack of "want to", purge. When failures result from a lack of capability, but the effort is there, then I feel it's in our best interest to train, re-train, develop, and find a place for this person.

Military operations are a marathon, not a sprint. They require persistence and 'want to'. All the capability in the world will never outlast the guy that wants to be there and is willing to stick it out.

A young British officer, Lieutenant James Adamson, who won two gallantry awards while serving in Afghanistan has told how he fended off an enemy attack by bayoneting a Taliban fighter to death.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6178044/British-officer-wins-two-gallantry-awards-for-fending-off-Taliban-attack-with-bayonet.html

Your logic is sound. A systemic issue within the officer corps/leadership environment will lead to a systemic issue within other parts of service ie the NCO corps.

So often executing and understanding the basics are vital. Unfortunately I believe the requirements for training are too often focused on the shiny object du jour. I do a think a longer focused block of basic officer training would be a sufficient start. Sadly due to multiple reasons the BOLC experiment came to an end in FY2010. Maybe in peace time.

"All the capability in the world will never outlast the guy that wants to be there and is willing to stick it out."

A simple truth that applied tragically to our adventure in Vietnam. But we didn't realize it then, and there are many today who still think we could have "won."