ARMY testing new BRM/QUAL Course

[chris]

dude that is awsome it's about time we get away from the cold war mentality of prone supported and unsupported. heck we finally qual'd kneeling last month. finally a change that would be beneficial to the soldiers of all ranks.

it will take a long time for regular units and a longer time for Reserve and Guard units to adopt the training.


i have brought this up to my unit and got a blank stare in the face "what are you talking about" look. i learned to do this fromt the SF team on my FOB and it is valueble training if done properly can also boost morale and attendence for ranges.

[11Z50]

In the Infantry and Armor, this training has been going on for decades. The various MPRC's and shoot-houses have been in operation for a very long time. It's just that not every soldier needs to be trained to that level.

My experience is that now, the enemy hesitates to attack Armor or Infantry because they know they will get their azzes handed to them. That's why they attack convoys on the MSR.

But, as even Combat Support and service-support units mobilize, they all are required to re-qualify with small arms, and in most cases negotiate some type of mission-oriented Live-Fire Exercise (LFX).

Iraq is unusual in that the Infantry did not sustain the bulk of the casualties. The IED attacks took a heavy toll on those that run the MSR, mainly transportation and support troops. Also, some Armor, Cav, Engineer and Artillery units functioned as Infantry, and therefore sustained unusually high casualties.

[Matt C]

My experience is that now, the enemy hesitates to attack Armor or Infantry because they know they will get their azzes handed to them. That's why they attack convoys on the MSR.

Eh, I don't think they really want to mess with the MPs either... But neither infantry nor armor make very good targets for IEDs. Nor does it really matter how good of a shot your target is (or esp. in the case of Armor/MPs how much firepower they have) if you are hitting with an IED. So what you mostly have is some kind of supply or other support getting hit because they make good IED targets, and it happens on MSRs because thats where those vehicles tend to be, note the S stands for SUPPLY. Alternately you are getting casualties from sniper fire, and they tend to direct that on whatever cavalry, combat engineer, artillery, mess units ect that have been shoehorned into doing street patrols with combat arms, air power or MPs providing rapid support.

What all this really tells you is the enemy knows it can't win an open fair fight, which is obvious. I have heard reports that the insurgents are disgruntled by that fact that it appears to them all of our troops are snipers. Even guys with M4s. this is because as much as you want to bash the marksmanship training even the most untrained soldier gets (and with average of 6 months pre-deployment post BCT/AIT training soldiers get it is a lot), it is a hell of a lot better than what the average insurgent gets.

[Uxi]

Basic and AIT just get a soldier to his unit.

Indeed. It's the same for a Marine and his MOS. Every Marine is trained as a rifleman... then every Marine is in school. But the training in basic and school is rudimentary. Just significantly more than their Army peers.

I don't mention any of this in the typical service rivalry manner, either (at least not in this thread. ). In the context of training, my point was to underscore that Marines are focused on the fundamentals in their significantly longer basic and MOS training, which gives a "head start" from the perspective of the point each member enters his actual unit.

Training even continues in combat. My last gig with the Army was tranining mech infantry on the Kuwait/Iraq border as they went into combat. You see, in the Army, training and combat are both types of operations.

That's not unique to the Army. Well I should hope "training" is complete by the time one's crossing LD... and it's "experience" that's instead being gained, but I agree... ultimately training never ends

So, what I'm saying here is that yes, it is not true that a soldier fresh out of AIT is a fully-trained soldier. He is much like a kid out of high school that goes on to college. Even Marines are not fully trained when they arrive at their unit. Training continues there as well.

Most definitely. My analogy was specific, though. The Marine has a "head start" on the fundamentals that the Army soldier needs to have reinforced in his unit at the same time they're both expanding their roles. In the context of this thread, if they're not prepared for "competition-style" marksmanship (the fundamentals), how can they be expected to practice marskmanship on the battlefield with it's numerous distractions. Especially in an assymetrical environment that is by it's nature so inclined to evoke frustration.

The difference is Army Infantry is way more diverse and has much more and different weapons and equipment. This requires more specialized training at the unit level. An Army Infantryman with the same 40 weeks in the Army is at a very similar proficiency level as his Marine Comrade.

Given the time disparities, it's difficult to see how that's so. Your statement that the Army infantry is even more specialized would seem to indicate that they would be less well rounded than their Marine peer... even without the disparity in training time.

[11Z50]

Indeed. It's the same for a Marine and his MOS. Every Marine is trained as a rifleman... then every Marine is in school. But the training in basic and school is rudimentary. Just significantly more than their Army peers.

I don't mention any of this in the typical service rivalry manner, either (at least not in this thread. ). In the context of training, my point was to underscore that Marines are focused on the fundamentals in their significantly longer basic and MOS training, which gives a "head start" from the perspective of the point each member enters his actual unit.



That's not unique to the Army. Well I should hope "training" is complete by the time one's crossing LD... and it's "experience" that's instead being gained, but I agree... ultimately training never ends



Most definitely. My analogy was specific, though. The Marine has a "head start" on the fundamentals that the Army soldier needs to have reinforced in his unit at the same time they're both expanding their roles. In the context of this thread, if they're not prepared for "competition-style" marksmanship (the fundamentals), how can they be expected to practice marskmanship on the battlefield with it's numerous distractions. Especially in an assymetrical environment that is by it's nature so inclined to evoke frustration.



Given the time disparities, it's difficult to see how that's so. Your statement that the Army infantry is even more specialized would seem to indicate that they would be less well rounded than their Marine peer... even without the disparity in training time.

Let me break this down for you....

The Army has 10X the amount of troops and 50X the amount of mission than the USMC.

Your basic 0311 is no better trained than a 11B10 when they arrive at their unit. The Army realizes this and cuts the expense, time and pomposity out of the picture. The Marines just take longer to get the same result.

When 1 each basic grunt arrives at his unit, the training begins in earnest.

[Uxi]

The Army has 10X the amount of troops and 50X the amount of mission than the USMC.

What percent bigger is the budget?

Your basic 0311 is no better trained than a 11B10 when they arrive at their unit.

So is the Army magically more efficient with it's drastically shorter training time or you think the Marines are just wasting time some how? Please elucidate on how you came to that conclusion.

For myself, it's my direct experience with the Army's mediocre training in basic and AIT, I'll submit my 13 weeks at Ft Knox where I saw it first hand and interacted with everyone from boots to Drill Sergeants to permanent personnel. The intensity was a paltry fraction of what any Marine would face at the equivalent stage, the time duration was a far smaller fraction, and the entire experience cannot be objectively compared. And the interaction with their women only confirmed it.

The Army realizes this and cuts the expense, time and pomposity out of the picture.

ROFL. Are you just trolling or do you actually believe that?

[Matt C]

For myself, it's my direct experience with the Army's mediocre training in basic and AIT, I'll submit my 13 weeks at Ft Knox where I saw it first hand and interacted with everyone from boots to Drill Sergeants to permanent personnel. The intensity was a paltry fraction of what any Marine would face at the equivalent stage, the time duration was a far smaller fraction, and the entire experience cannot be objectively compared. And the interaction with their women only confirmed it.

Can't really disagree with that... But IMO the Army does better classroom training.

Basically (IMO)-

Airforce-Best classroom training, worst combat/(ground)tactical training +Best Base locations
Marines-Best combat/tactical training, worst classroom training +Best comradeship
Army- Right in the middle. +easy promotion?

[Uxi]

I'll give em a more comfortable medical setup, too. Comparing large base to large base, and all that, at least. Just on the physical before leaving training and reporting to my unit, alone.

Seriously, though. I don't mind the Army. Met some cool and competent enough guys in 4th ID in Baghdad. Even if they were a month late coming to relieve us. Seeing them train at Knox was the worst thing that could have happened regarding my young and budding development of esteem for them, though.