- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Maybe you can pass that along to some of your General friends.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Good idea, although I don't have any "General Friends" just at the moment. But, I have put some of these thoughts down in the last issue of Army Journal, and hopefully in the next issue (if I get published). I suppose some Generals will read that. But, do you have any answers? Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
pbi said:
PBJ, if you are who you think you are (38 CBG COS?), thanks for the Gettysburg PD trip, and your on-line PD section on the German Army in the 1920's. I look forward to your article in the Army Journal.
S
Spc_Cameron
Guest
gee what a novel idea... a soldier actually allowed to express an opinion with regards to present military conditions and structure , in print no less, without getting burned at the stake for it..
sorry
as you were.. this is turning into quite the thread...
sorry
as you were.. this is turning into quite the thread...
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
pbi,
Glad to hear you enjoyed your stay at Quantico. My unit is based out of Camp Upshur at MCB Quantico, which is in the far back bowels of the base and was used as the OCS and TBS facility from the 1950's through the late 1970s. For anyone who can remember the old Wainwright with it's quonset huts, it's not too different from what Camp Upshur looks like today.
As far as your question regarding dress, deportment and overall appearance of Marines vs. CF members.
In the Marine Corps, high standards of appearance are expected. Constant vigiliance by your leaders, peers and self ensure that most Marines are well turned out. I would say that Recruit Training does alot to instill a sense of manners/respect in most Marines and that our service is far more tradition driven than our colleagues in the other branches of the US Armed Services, which tends to ensure that that standard of dress and deportment are carried out in the Fleet.
Some of it can extend to an absurd level though, with Marines sending their camouflage uniforms to the dry cleaners to be cleaned, starched and pressed, but that is more present with the admin/REMF types. Yes, even in the Marines we have our share of pogues. It's just that our pogues tend to be more motivated about physical fitness, appearance, unarmed combat and marksmanship than their CF counterparts who seem to be more motivated by Tim Hortons and the canteen truck. Does that make our infantry more elite than the RCRs/PPCLI/R223eme? Not necessarily. It just means that we've been able to create/maintain more of a ethos that every Marine is a rifleman whereas I think that spirit is not so present in the CFs.
It really wasn't until after the First World War that the Marine Corps began to really develop specific trades/MOS' other than every Marine functioning as a rifleman. Prior to that an average Marine may find that he be assigned aboard a naval vessel and been a gunner's mate in a gun crew role (the crew would be all-Marine though). Then he may be posted to one of the Marine Barracks ashore and might find himself tasked with constructing a new rifle range in a pioneer type role. Then he might have been shipped down to Nicaragua and functioned as a rifleman fighting insurgent guerillas. After being in Nicaragua he may have received orders to go to China and might have served in a horse-mounted unit. Marines have always prided themselves on their flexibility and ability to learn new tasks. It wasn't until the nature of warfare got very technical during the 1930's and into the Second World War that a formal MOS system developed within the Marines. Even though with the development of specific trades for Marines, it's always been instilled that first and foremost you are a rifleman.
Where I'd say is that most non-infantry types in the CFs don't put enough emphasis on physical fitness and warfighting training to their non-infantry forces. In addition to that, with the exception of the "Warrior"/Individual Battle Task Standards program (do they even still do that?) alot of combat arms types have lost touch that they're in a profession of arms rather than a Government of Canada job that require them to wear a pickle relish pattern uniform and follow a more rigid workplace hierarchy than their compatriots at Canada Post. The workday begins at 8:00 followed by a 30 minute coffee break at 10, followed by lunch from 11:30-1:00 followed by another coffee break at 2:30 and the office closes at 4 or 4:30. Is unarmed combat even taught to non-infantry types?
Now because a CF member who's a bit pudgy in their combats, does it mean that they're lazy and incompetent in their job? Not necessarily. They may be great at doing their primary MOC as a vehicle tech/clerk/crewman, etc. However, their physical condition may prevent them from operating effectively in a hostile environment when it's 110 degrees farenheit in downtown Kabul they're kitted up in a frag vest, helmet, LBV and have to have to fireman carry wounded buddy a few hundred yards because their vehicle just got hit with an IED and the rest of the convoy cleared the ambush zone and is stopped down the road 700 meters regrouping. Fat chance (quite literally) that Cpl. Pieman, whose command has let him degenerate into a state of physical unfitness, will be able to do this.
What can the CFs do to change this? Probably for one change recruit training program to stress physical fitness and basic soldier skills such as marksmanship and emphasis on a soldier first/tradesman second mentality. Then have the PT and marksmanship skillset continued on in the units. PT is something that should be done more seriously also. When I was attached to the MTSC in Wainwright during the Fall and Winter of 1996 we rucked about 7-8 km pretty much every workday as our PT program. Nothing too serious by reg. force infantry standards, but enough to keep our feet hard and prevent us from getting too fat from the beer we drank. We had an old PPCLI/ex-CAR WO (I can't remember his name) and that's what he did was ruck...thefore we rucked. However my colleagues in the Transport Company of the PPCLI Battle School had no formal PT program whatsoever save the weekly collective school ruck march which was pretty much a joke and while some of them were motivated to PT after-hours, alot of them got pretty out of shape.
As far as Soldier First, Tradesmen second mentality: Perhaps a "Force Protection NCM (Sgt./WO)" position should be added to the non-combat arms units at least at the battalion and preferably at the company level to firm up their soldier skills through a small arms and crew-served weapons combat-marksmanship, counter-ambush drills, defensive area ops., etc. as well as an emphasis on a battle-ready PT program as part of the unit's capabilities.
Should this position be staffed by Infantry NCMs posted to CSS units? I would say no. Reason being is that while an infantry SNCO would be extremely knowledgeable in this area, it would could cause resentment by the CSS types as being roped into some hokey "warrior" program that is being shoved down their necks. By keeping the business of combat soldiering within the fold of the CSS pers. they would realize that "Hey, as part of my job, I have to fire this C7 as well as repair it." Adding this Force Protection Specialist position as an additional MOSID would be part of career progression for CSS pers at the 6A/B level. Ideally this position would be trained in a formal course (with this one taught by infantry) and graduates would be sent out to the various units to apply and spread their knowledge base.
Here's an example of how our non-infantry support types are in the Marine Corps:
During our unit's OIF tour, as part of each platoon's makeup, 2 LAV Tech's (CF EME veh. tech equivalent), 2 Navy Corpsmen (CF CFMS medic equivalent) and 1 Field Radio Operator (CF Signal "Jimmy" operator) were attached and when we'd go out on operations they'd function primarily as Scouts/Riflemen in the back of the LAV. When their specific skillset was required then they'd do that job, otherwise they functioned as just another member of the fireteam.
Now in this whole rant I don't mean to say that the Marine Corps is perfect while the CFs are completely faulted. We've got plenty of problems regarding MOS professional development in the Marine Corps. Here's an example: in the infantry it is possible to get promoted to the rank of Staff Sergeant and function in the billet of Platoon Sergeant (equivalent to a Canadian Platoon WO) without ever having attended Infantry Squad Leader's Course (equivalent to the Canadian ISCC) or Infantry Platoon Sergeant's Course (equivalent to the Canadian Infantry WO qual. course). I think that a Marine version of the Canadian formalized career progression path for our MOS' (QL 5, 6A, 6B, etc.) would work wonders at professional development here in the Corps. Professional development does exist through the Marine Corporal, Sergeants Courses and Staff NCO Academy, but it tends to focus primarily on the dress, drill and regulations side of things rather than the tactical/warfighting side of the house.
Glad to hear you enjoyed your stay at Quantico. My unit is based out of Camp Upshur at MCB Quantico, which is in the far back bowels of the base and was used as the OCS and TBS facility from the 1950's through the late 1970s. For anyone who can remember the old Wainwright with it's quonset huts, it's not too different from what Camp Upshur looks like today.
As far as your question regarding dress, deportment and overall appearance of Marines vs. CF members.
In the Marine Corps, high standards of appearance are expected. Constant vigiliance by your leaders, peers and self ensure that most Marines are well turned out. I would say that Recruit Training does alot to instill a sense of manners/respect in most Marines and that our service is far more tradition driven than our colleagues in the other branches of the US Armed Services, which tends to ensure that that standard of dress and deportment are carried out in the Fleet.
Some of it can extend to an absurd level though, with Marines sending their camouflage uniforms to the dry cleaners to be cleaned, starched and pressed, but that is more present with the admin/REMF types. Yes, even in the Marines we have our share of pogues. It's just that our pogues tend to be more motivated about physical fitness, appearance, unarmed combat and marksmanship than their CF counterparts who seem to be more motivated by Tim Hortons and the canteen truck. Does that make our infantry more elite than the RCRs/PPCLI/R223eme? Not necessarily. It just means that we've been able to create/maintain more of a ethos that every Marine is a rifleman whereas I think that spirit is not so present in the CFs.
It really wasn't until after the First World War that the Marine Corps began to really develop specific trades/MOS' other than every Marine functioning as a rifleman. Prior to that an average Marine may find that he be assigned aboard a naval vessel and been a gunner's mate in a gun crew role (the crew would be all-Marine though). Then he may be posted to one of the Marine Barracks ashore and might find himself tasked with constructing a new rifle range in a pioneer type role. Then he might have been shipped down to Nicaragua and functioned as a rifleman fighting insurgent guerillas. After being in Nicaragua he may have received orders to go to China and might have served in a horse-mounted unit. Marines have always prided themselves on their flexibility and ability to learn new tasks. It wasn't until the nature of warfare got very technical during the 1930's and into the Second World War that a formal MOS system developed within the Marines. Even though with the development of specific trades for Marines, it's always been instilled that first and foremost you are a rifleman.
Where I'd say is that most non-infantry types in the CFs don't put enough emphasis on physical fitness and warfighting training to their non-infantry forces. In addition to that, with the exception of the "Warrior"/Individual Battle Task Standards program (do they even still do that?) alot of combat arms types have lost touch that they're in a profession of arms rather than a Government of Canada job that require them to wear a pickle relish pattern uniform and follow a more rigid workplace hierarchy than their compatriots at Canada Post. The workday begins at 8:00 followed by a 30 minute coffee break at 10, followed by lunch from 11:30-1:00 followed by another coffee break at 2:30 and the office closes at 4 or 4:30. Is unarmed combat even taught to non-infantry types?
Now because a CF member who's a bit pudgy in their combats, does it mean that they're lazy and incompetent in their job? Not necessarily. They may be great at doing their primary MOC as a vehicle tech/clerk/crewman, etc. However, their physical condition may prevent them from operating effectively in a hostile environment when it's 110 degrees farenheit in downtown Kabul they're kitted up in a frag vest, helmet, LBV and have to have to fireman carry wounded buddy a few hundred yards because their vehicle just got hit with an IED and the rest of the convoy cleared the ambush zone and is stopped down the road 700 meters regrouping. Fat chance (quite literally) that Cpl. Pieman, whose command has let him degenerate into a state of physical unfitness, will be able to do this.
What can the CFs do to change this? Probably for one change recruit training program to stress physical fitness and basic soldier skills such as marksmanship and emphasis on a soldier first/tradesman second mentality. Then have the PT and marksmanship skillset continued on in the units. PT is something that should be done more seriously also. When I was attached to the MTSC in Wainwright during the Fall and Winter of 1996 we rucked about 7-8 km pretty much every workday as our PT program. Nothing too serious by reg. force infantry standards, but enough to keep our feet hard and prevent us from getting too fat from the beer we drank. We had an old PPCLI/ex-CAR WO (I can't remember his name) and that's what he did was ruck...thefore we rucked. However my colleagues in the Transport Company of the PPCLI Battle School had no formal PT program whatsoever save the weekly collective school ruck march which was pretty much a joke and while some of them were motivated to PT after-hours, alot of them got pretty out of shape.
As far as Soldier First, Tradesmen second mentality: Perhaps a "Force Protection NCM (Sgt./WO)" position should be added to the non-combat arms units at least at the battalion and preferably at the company level to firm up their soldier skills through a small arms and crew-served weapons combat-marksmanship, counter-ambush drills, defensive area ops., etc. as well as an emphasis on a battle-ready PT program as part of the unit's capabilities.
Should this position be staffed by Infantry NCMs posted to CSS units? I would say no. Reason being is that while an infantry SNCO would be extremely knowledgeable in this area, it would could cause resentment by the CSS types as being roped into some hokey "warrior" program that is being shoved down their necks. By keeping the business of combat soldiering within the fold of the CSS pers. they would realize that "Hey, as part of my job, I have to fire this C7 as well as repair it." Adding this Force Protection Specialist position as an additional MOSID would be part of career progression for CSS pers at the 6A/B level. Ideally this position would be trained in a formal course (with this one taught by infantry) and graduates would be sent out to the various units to apply and spread their knowledge base.
Here's an example of how our non-infantry support types are in the Marine Corps:
During our unit's OIF tour, as part of each platoon's makeup, 2 LAV Tech's (CF EME veh. tech equivalent), 2 Navy Corpsmen (CF CFMS medic equivalent) and 1 Field Radio Operator (CF Signal "Jimmy" operator) were attached and when we'd go out on operations they'd function primarily as Scouts/Riflemen in the back of the LAV. When their specific skillset was required then they'd do that job, otherwise they functioned as just another member of the fireteam.
Now in this whole rant I don't mean to say that the Marine Corps is perfect while the CFs are completely faulted. We've got plenty of problems regarding MOS professional development in the Marine Corps. Here's an example: in the infantry it is possible to get promoted to the rank of Staff Sergeant and function in the billet of Platoon Sergeant (equivalent to a Canadian Platoon WO) without ever having attended Infantry Squad Leader's Course (equivalent to the Canadian ISCC) or Infantry Platoon Sergeant's Course (equivalent to the Canadian Infantry WO qual. course). I think that a Marine version of the Canadian formalized career progression path for our MOS' (QL 5, 6A, 6B, etc.) would work wonders at professional development here in the Corps. Professional development does exist through the Marine Corporal, Sergeants Courses and Staff NCO Academy, but it tends to focus primarily on the dress, drill and regulations side of things rather than the tactical/warfighting side of the house.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Matt_Fisher said:
'Old Wainwright'? I'm afraid the quonset huts were still there when I was there just over a week ago! Sorry, couldn't resist poking fun at the sad state of that base, or our lack of properly funding it. At lease the new shacks are no longer condemed. :-[
As for your thoughts on 'soldier first, tradesmen second' - bang on my friend. The incoming rounds and those that fired them don't care what your MOC is.
- Reaction score
- 9,782
- Points
- 1,260
Excellent Post Matt. 
I like this idea. I remember reading about how Marine Infantry Companies have a unique position for their Gunnery Sergeants, something like the company "musketry" officer? Is this true?
As for instilling the "Soldier First" mentality; I think it needs to be done right from the beginning. I've long advocated something similar to the concept employed by the Royal Marines. All potential Marines attend a 32 week Recruit Course that culminates in the Commando Course at the end (I guess the USMC uses the same idea with the Crucible). The highlight of the Commando Course is the "30 miler" through the difficult terrain of Dartmoor that all Recruits must finish in under 8 hours (Potential Officers in 7). The goal is to take a recruit, regardless of what he will do in the RM, and turn him into a fighting professional.
I feel a basic course for ALL Army soldiers following the same concept should be used here. The course should be a progressive buildup that starts by tearing the individual down and building him up as a member of his team, a team that exists to fight. A progressive, modularized system allows for a buildup of both physical and mental toughness to allow the recruits to work towards the end goal, completion of the "Warfighting Phase", which consists of Platoon operations in a variety of exercises that represent missions along the spectrum of conflict. The training cannot focus specifically on high-intensity fighting in the plains of Wainwright; we must also introduce low to mid-intensity Ops, from Kosovo to the current situation in Iraq, to prepare soldiers for the realities they'll face. However, the underlying idea throughout the Warfighting Phase is that soldiers must be prepared to fight, and will be trained so in Platoon live and blank fire exercises.
For a point of reference, here is how the RM organizes their Recruit Course as a launching point for devising a way to train Canadian Army recruits:
- Module 1 - Foundation (Weeks 1-3): Moving from Civilian to Soldier.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2740.html
- Module 2 - Individual Skills Training (Weeks 4-10): Now that the recruit is starting to look like a soldier, the next step is to teach him fieldcraft and Army small arms, the "meat-and-potatoes" of operating as a fighting soldier.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2741.html
- Module 3 - Advanced Skills Training (Weeks 11-15): All the Individual Skills are brought together and the recruits go to the field to complete exercises that challenge them to utilize what they have learned to accomplish basic field missions with members of a small unit (section).
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2742.html
- Module 4 - Operations of War (Weeks 16-23): Now that the recruit is showing himself to be a competent soldier, section and platoon tactics are taught so as to teach the soldier all aspects of Warfighting as a small unit; Sections and Platoons do defensive and offensives ops, patrolling, etc, etc.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2743.html
- Module 5 - The Commando Course and King's Squad (24-32): This is the culmination of the Basic Training. All the individual and team skills the recruits have been taught are put to the test in a series of gruelling tests that seek to best replicate the conditions of war. Following successful completion, the recruits have their Parade and are now given the title of Marine.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2744.html
If we had a system like this, the need for a BMQ and an SQ would be eliminated. Soldiers graduating would go onto their trades course and then be given their first posting. Often in the RM, recruits serve their first "draft" as a General Duties Rifleman; I would argue that all CF soldiers should do a two year posting in a Combat Arms unit before moving onto a trade, but that is another topic.
This type of course would require the Army to move away from the CF Recruit School to a Army Recruit Depot that had access to a large training area and ranges. Moving away from St Jean would help to move away from conducting Basic in a large institutional-like building. A course like this would be spent mostly in the field after the foundation module was complete, with the recruits returning to simple barracks when in the Recruit Depot for classroom learning.
I would also advocate that on top of required staff for the course, an additional PTI instructor be attached to every course. Perhaps this instructor could be something along the lines of Matt's proposed "Force-Protection NCO". This PTI would be qualified as a Physical Trainer; since we've abandoned this field and given it to CFPSA civilians, we'd probably have to send our NCO's to a British or Australian course in order to rebuild corporate knowledge. The PTI instructor would lead the recruits in PT and work with anyone who is falling behind by giving them remedial PT. Again, going with Matt's proposal, perhaps this NCO will also be charged with unarmed combat and pugil-stick fighting in order to ensure that a health dose of aggression and toughness is instilled on the recruits. At some point in the course, a rigorous PT Test will be administered (not the pathetic entry standards) which ALL recruits are required to pass in order to carry on with the training. The overall goal of the adding the PTI is to supervise recruits a physical training buildup that works towards producing soldiers who are fit to fight; the type of exercises administered to soldiers must be relevent to the types of tasks soldiers will be expected to carry out (ie: Turning recruits into mammoth, supplement filled gym bunnies is about as useful as giving them no physical training at all....).
Overall, the goal of the course is to enforce the idea that professional soldiers will be required to be first and formost tough and disciplined fighters (I do not use the term "warriors", we are building disciplined professionals here, not grunting cavemen). The skills they are taught on this course, up to small unit, live fire fighting, will be essential for any Army unit, regardless of trade, to survive on the modern battlefield, especially where front lines are non-existent and the enemy is tough, cunning, remorseless, and has been fighting for decades. We can give a recruit all the fancy technical skills we want; but until we orient his professional ethos and his mindset to building the requisite physical and mental characteristics to survive on the battlefield, he is merely a casualty waiting to happen.
I like this idea. I remember reading about how Marine Infantry Companies have a unique position for their Gunnery Sergeants, something like the company "musketry" officer? Is this true?
As for instilling the "Soldier First" mentality; I think it needs to be done right from the beginning. I've long advocated something similar to the concept employed by the Royal Marines. All potential Marines attend a 32 week Recruit Course that culminates in the Commando Course at the end (I guess the USMC uses the same idea with the Crucible). The highlight of the Commando Course is the "30 miler" through the difficult terrain of Dartmoor that all Recruits must finish in under 8 hours (Potential Officers in 7). The goal is to take a recruit, regardless of what he will do in the RM, and turn him into a fighting professional.
I feel a basic course for ALL Army soldiers following the same concept should be used here. The course should be a progressive buildup that starts by tearing the individual down and building him up as a member of his team, a team that exists to fight. A progressive, modularized system allows for a buildup of both physical and mental toughness to allow the recruits to work towards the end goal, completion of the "Warfighting Phase", which consists of Platoon operations in a variety of exercises that represent missions along the spectrum of conflict. The training cannot focus specifically on high-intensity fighting in the plains of Wainwright; we must also introduce low to mid-intensity Ops, from Kosovo to the current situation in Iraq, to prepare soldiers for the realities they'll face. However, the underlying idea throughout the Warfighting Phase is that soldiers must be prepared to fight, and will be trained so in Platoon live and blank fire exercises.
For a point of reference, here is how the RM organizes their Recruit Course as a launching point for devising a way to train Canadian Army recruits:
- Module 1 - Foundation (Weeks 1-3): Moving from Civilian to Soldier.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2740.html
- Module 2 - Individual Skills Training (Weeks 4-10): Now that the recruit is starting to look like a soldier, the next step is to teach him fieldcraft and Army small arms, the "meat-and-potatoes" of operating as a fighting soldier.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2741.html
- Module 3 - Advanced Skills Training (Weeks 11-15): All the Individual Skills are brought together and the recruits go to the field to complete exercises that challenge them to utilize what they have learned to accomplish basic field missions with members of a small unit (section).
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2742.html
- Module 4 - Operations of War (Weeks 16-23): Now that the recruit is showing himself to be a competent soldier, section and platoon tactics are taught so as to teach the soldier all aspects of Warfighting as a small unit; Sections and Platoons do defensive and offensives ops, patrolling, etc, etc.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2743.html
- Module 5 - The Commando Course and King's Squad (24-32): This is the culmination of the Basic Training. All the individual and team skills the recruits have been taught are put to the test in a series of gruelling tests that seek to best replicate the conditions of war. Following successful completion, the recruits have their Parade and are now given the title of Marine.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2744.html
If we had a system like this, the need for a BMQ and an SQ would be eliminated. Soldiers graduating would go onto their trades course and then be given their first posting. Often in the RM, recruits serve their first "draft" as a General Duties Rifleman; I would argue that all CF soldiers should do a two year posting in a Combat Arms unit before moving onto a trade, but that is another topic.
This type of course would require the Army to move away from the CF Recruit School to a Army Recruit Depot that had access to a large training area and ranges. Moving away from St Jean would help to move away from conducting Basic in a large institutional-like building. A course like this would be spent mostly in the field after the foundation module was complete, with the recruits returning to simple barracks when in the Recruit Depot for classroom learning.
I would also advocate that on top of required staff for the course, an additional PTI instructor be attached to every course. Perhaps this instructor could be something along the lines of Matt's proposed "Force-Protection NCO". This PTI would be qualified as a Physical Trainer; since we've abandoned this field and given it to CFPSA civilians, we'd probably have to send our NCO's to a British or Australian course in order to rebuild corporate knowledge. The PTI instructor would lead the recruits in PT and work with anyone who is falling behind by giving them remedial PT. Again, going with Matt's proposal, perhaps this NCO will also be charged with unarmed combat and pugil-stick fighting in order to ensure that a health dose of aggression and toughness is instilled on the recruits. At some point in the course, a rigorous PT Test will be administered (not the pathetic entry standards) which ALL recruits are required to pass in order to carry on with the training. The overall goal of the adding the PTI is to supervise recruits a physical training buildup that works towards producing soldiers who are fit to fight; the type of exercises administered to soldiers must be relevent to the types of tasks soldiers will be expected to carry out (ie: Turning recruits into mammoth, supplement filled gym bunnies is about as useful as giving them no physical training at all....).
Overall, the goal of the course is to enforce the idea that professional soldiers will be required to be first and formost tough and disciplined fighters (I do not use the term "warriors", we are building disciplined professionals here, not grunting cavemen). The skills they are taught on this course, up to small unit, live fire fighting, will be essential for any Army unit, regardless of trade, to survive on the modern battlefield, especially where front lines are non-existent and the enemy is tough, cunning, remorseless, and has been fighting for decades. We can give a recruit all the fancy technical skills we want; but until we orient his professional ethos and his mindset to building the requisite physical and mental characteristics to survive on the battlefield, he is merely a casualty waiting to happen.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Interesting how you you bring up Force Protection Matt, especially within the CS/CSS elements.
With how things are going it's a good reminder to all that force protection is everyones responsibilty and how it's being put into place by what we are calling "Sheild" for now (I think).
Now in order for us to tie into the current thread here have you come across many MPs in theater and what exactly were they doing? with what and how? Please don't say drinking coffee and eating douhnuts..I'm part of the new army and apt to have my feelings hurt.
Cheers
With how things are going it's a good reminder to all that force protection is everyones responsibilty and how it's being put into place by what we are calling "Sheild" for now (I think).
Now in order for us to tie into the current thread here have you come across many MPs in theater and what exactly were they doing? with what and how? Please don't say drinking coffee and eating douhnuts..I'm part of the new army and apt to have my feelings hurt.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Infanteer,
To answer your question, in most Marine units there is what as known as the "Company Gunnery Sergeant" and the role is either filled by a Staff Sergeant (CF Sgt./WO equivalent), Gunnery Sergeant (WO equivalent) {most commonly}, or Master Sergeant (MWO equivalent). This role is roughly a cross between a Canadian company Ops. WO and CQMS. The Company Gunny is in charge of getting company level training and operational resources locked on (ranges, training areas, transport, etc.) as well as the stores needed to support the company (ammo, fuel, chow, etc.) and is involved in developing the company's training and operations plan.
I would love to see the US Marine Recruit training model follow more closely that of the Royal Marines. We do a pretty good job in the infantry at developing the rifleman, but more could still be done. All in all our Recruit Training is 13 weeks long with 3 weeks spent at the rifle range, one week doing rudimentary fieldcraft and NBC drills and another week on the final FTX the Crucible. The rest of the time (save the one week of combat swimming qualification) is pretty much General Service Knowledge and Drill filler with alot of PT thrown in all the time. After Recruit Training non-infantry Marines attend another 3 weeks of field/weapons training through the Marine Combat Training Program whereas the Infantry Marines attend the 8 week long School of Infantry for basic rifleman qualification, or longer for other more technical MOS' such as LAV Crewman, TOW gunner, Mortarman, etc.
Poppa,
as far as working with Marine MPs, yes, our company did do quite abit of work with a Marine MP platoon that was part of TF Scorpion from July through August. We did several raids with them and alot of Iraqi Police Liason missions as my LAV section invariably almost always ended up drawing escort duty for the TF Iraqi Police Liason Officer (a US Marine Major) who worked quite closely with the MP platoon.
As far as how the Marine MPs functioned, they were pretty much like an infantry platoon mounted in HMMWVs equipped with .50 cals and M240s, with more emphasis put on TCPs and escort duties as well as training and developing the local area Iraqi Police units. Their platoon commander got the unenviable job of editing and forwarding to headquarters the Iraqi police investigation reports. At that point the Iraqis were very much so the Keystone Cops and some of their antics and reports were hilarious to listen to.
Marine MP Officer: "So you went to Mahmoud's house?"
Iraqi Police: "No, Mahmoud took us to his house."
MP: "So you were at Mahmoud's house"
IP: "Yes"
MP: "And why did you go there"
IP:" "Mahmoud is bad man...he sells RPG."
MP: "So Mahmoud was turning himself in? Is that why he took you to his house?"
IP: "Mahmoud's brother Hasan, he sells RPG. Mahmoud took us there."
MP: "Ok, so Hasan sells RPGs and Mahmoud wants you to arrest his brother?"
IP: "Yes, Hasan took us to arrest Mahmoud for selling RPGs"
and so on and so forth...
To answer your question, in most Marine units there is what as known as the "Company Gunnery Sergeant" and the role is either filled by a Staff Sergeant (CF Sgt./WO equivalent), Gunnery Sergeant (WO equivalent) {most commonly}, or Master Sergeant (MWO equivalent). This role is roughly a cross between a Canadian company Ops. WO and CQMS. The Company Gunny is in charge of getting company level training and operational resources locked on (ranges, training areas, transport, etc.) as well as the stores needed to support the company (ammo, fuel, chow, etc.) and is involved in developing the company's training and operations plan.
I would love to see the US Marine Recruit training model follow more closely that of the Royal Marines. We do a pretty good job in the infantry at developing the rifleman, but more could still be done. All in all our Recruit Training is 13 weeks long with 3 weeks spent at the rifle range, one week doing rudimentary fieldcraft and NBC drills and another week on the final FTX the Crucible. The rest of the time (save the one week of combat swimming qualification) is pretty much General Service Knowledge and Drill filler with alot of PT thrown in all the time. After Recruit Training non-infantry Marines attend another 3 weeks of field/weapons training through the Marine Combat Training Program whereas the Infantry Marines attend the 8 week long School of Infantry for basic rifleman qualification, or longer for other more technical MOS' such as LAV Crewman, TOW gunner, Mortarman, etc.
Poppa,
as far as working with Marine MPs, yes, our company did do quite abit of work with a Marine MP platoon that was part of TF Scorpion from July through August. We did several raids with them and alot of Iraqi Police Liason missions as my LAV section invariably almost always ended up drawing escort duty for the TF Iraqi Police Liason Officer (a US Marine Major) who worked quite closely with the MP platoon.
As far as how the Marine MPs functioned, they were pretty much like an infantry platoon mounted in HMMWVs equipped with .50 cals and M240s, with more emphasis put on TCPs and escort duties as well as training and developing the local area Iraqi Police units. Their platoon commander got the unenviable job of editing and forwarding to headquarters the Iraqi police investigation reports. At that point the Iraqis were very much so the Keystone Cops and some of their antics and reports were hilarious to listen to.
Marine MP Officer: "So you went to Mahmoud's house?"
Iraqi Police: "No, Mahmoud took us to his house."
MP: "So you were at Mahmoud's house"
IP: "Yes"
MP: "And why did you go there"
IP:" "Mahmoud is bad man...he sells RPG."
MP: "So Mahmoud was turning himself in? Is that why he took you to his house?"
IP: "Mahmoud's brother Hasan, he sells RPG. Mahmoud took us there."
MP: "Ok, so Hasan sells RPGs and Mahmoud wants you to arrest his brother?"
IP: "Yes, Hasan took us to arrest Mahmoud for selling RPGs"
and so on and so forth...
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Matt_Fisher after reading how its done in the Corp I believe even more so thats the way to go. Big problem we have to overcome though is money. To put it in its most basic concept I will be lucky to see the range twice a year (not including work up training).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Wow! Some great stuff posted here! I always look forward to coming in early in the AM to read what has posted by the rest of the crew while I was racking.
Matt Fisher: Thanks for the excellent answers. While I agree with you that we Canadians are not a complete loss, and have many strengths, I do think that the USMC offers a very good model for us. I was very proud of my brief time spent alongside the Corps and I will always keep a light on for them. Semper Fi.
Highland Laddie:
PBJ, if you are who you think you are (38 CBG COS?), thanks for the Gettysburg PD trip, and your on-line PD section on the German Army in the 1920's. I look forward to your article in the Army Journal.
Well, Highland Laddie, I am who I think I am (I think) and it looks like I am who you think I am, too. Roger so far? You are very welcome for your kind words, but I cannot take fulll credit for either of those things. A number of good people worked to make GBurg the great success that it was. BTW, our guide, a USMC LCol (Retd) told me that the 38 CBG group was by far one of the most professional groups he had ever seen, including USMC C&SC, West Point, War College, Brits, etc. I share his opinion: the calibre of presentations done by the young officers (both Res and Reg) was easily as good as anything I saw during my GBurg trip with USMC C&SC. You folks should be proud of yourselves.
As for "REICHSHEER-Learning From History" that was a joint effort too, with the officer who was my predecessor and is now DComd 38 CBG. He has a Masters in MilHist. Putting that study program together was a real joy: I learned alot. Unfortunately, despite our attempts to advertise it, we have never had more than a handful of applicants. As a result, the last two units are still not written. Glad you liked it. Tell your friends! Cheers.
Matt Fisher: Thanks for the excellent answers. While I agree with you that we Canadians are not a complete loss, and have many strengths, I do think that the USMC offers a very good model for us. I was very proud of my brief time spent alongside the Corps and I will always keep a light on for them. Semper Fi.
Highland Laddie:
PBJ, if you are who you think you are (38 CBG COS?), thanks for the Gettysburg PD trip, and your on-line PD section on the German Army in the 1920's. I look forward to your article in the Army Journal.
Well, Highland Laddie, I am who I think I am (I think) and it looks like I am who you think I am, too. Roger so far? You are very welcome for your kind words, but I cannot take fulll credit for either of those things. A number of good people worked to make GBurg the great success that it was. BTW, our guide, a USMC LCol (Retd) told me that the 38 CBG group was by far one of the most professional groups he had ever seen, including USMC C&SC, West Point, War College, Brits, etc. I share his opinion: the calibre of presentations done by the young officers (both Res and Reg) was easily as good as anything I saw during my GBurg trip with USMC C&SC. You folks should be proud of yourselves.
As for "REICHSHEER-Learning From History" that was a joint effort too, with the officer who was my predecessor and is now DComd 38 CBG. He has a Masters in MilHist. Putting that study program together was a real joy: I learned alot. Unfortunately, despite our attempts to advertise it, we have never had more than a handful of applicants. As a result, the last two units are still not written. Glad you liked it. Tell your friends! Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
pbi said:
ACK PBI! Sorry to be somewhat cryptic, but I didn't want to 'name names' on the forum
In regards to the Gettysburg trip, the guide definitely made the difference. I would not hesitate to nominate him to anyone wanting a guide with a thorough military background for a battlefield tour. I also certainly have a much more thorough understanding of 'selection and maintenance of the aim', " commander's intent", and the "mission orders" concepts after that PD exercise. Being assigned the "Little Round Top" portion of the battle was a challenge though!
I regret to hear that the "REICHSHEER-Learning From History" modules were not finished. Fascinating reading. We were toying with the idea of using these modules and the Gettysburg readings / assignments as an excellent PD tool for our Junior O's. Both of these exercises brought a new perspective in terms how I think of how we do things, leadership, etc.
To others - sorry if this strayed a bit of of the thread topic, but not enough 'thanks' are expressed these days for a job well done.
S
Spc_Cameron
Guest
Matt great posts.. the usual insight I get from the marines is from Ex-marines who have since joined the army. that usually entails the whole ' why the Army sucks and the amrines are better " you provide a great structual analysis... I can see now where my officer leadership is taking us.., if you looked at our training schedule right now there isn't a day that goes by without something going on... javelin training, live fire ranges, BFV M2/A3 NET training, Gunnery, ( hell the BFV course is 9 weeks alone. ) a vast difference than before we deployed when we pretty much didn't do anything.
once again great posts all... good " intelligent " discussion... not the norm on allota military forums I read.
once again great posts all... good " intelligent " discussion... not the norm on allota military forums I read.
P
pappy
Guest
I agree with the others commenting on Matt's post, his posts are outstanding. And I'm not saying that just cause I'm a former Marine.
My comments on the "quality" of Marines vs (fill in your choice of branch or country of origin military unit), as based mainly on my experience while I served, which was a while back to say the least... 1977-83 time frame. We had our share of "shitbirds" but less so then other branches of the US Military, but the peer pressure from the traditions of the Corps made it less of a problem, we had a joke, that I think was based on some truths, "you can join the army, but you become a Marine", but that becoming a "Marine" was not so much a outcome of MCRD, but an attitude brought there from values and commitment that the recruit brought with him / her. I rarely if every met some Marine that didn't wanna be there, granted he may have bitched about "being there", but in his heart he WANTED to be there. When I was in we had pure shit for gear, most hand-me-downs from the US Army, it was a rare day we got something new. When I was in Korea the US Air Force airmen had better cold weather gear they used walking from one heated building to another heated building then we Marines had and we slept outside in sleeping bags and unheated tents when we where lucky. Cold weather gear? we looked like Marines from the Korean War, as the gear we had was the same crap our farthers used then. Thanks god things have improved, is it perfect, not yet. But we where working alongside the ROK Marines (Republic of Korea Marine Corps) and our gear made us feel pretty good, it's all perspective I guess. I'll have to say those ROK Marines where some tough tough Marines. Those guys didn't bother stuffing their hard earned gear inside their rucks for PT, but used Rocks instead, yes good old fashion rocks. And Everyone of them WANTED to be there too even with those hardships. I think that is true for any small elite unit, be they US, Canadian or British. But even the large percentage of the normal regular US Army (or Canadian) was and is full of good highly motivated people, its just in the less "elite" units the percentage of screwups is higher. High tech gear is great, but more important is the man / woman inside it.
But I agree Matt, I too would like to see the US Marine Corps turn to training techniques more in line with the Royal Marines, I think it would make even better Marines. I met a few Royals that came out of Lumpstone and have to say they are an impressive bunch.
Military personal have bitched and complained about the quality of their training, food and gear since someone picked up a spear.
The ROK Marines/ Royal Marines thought we where crazy trading our C-rats for their field rations and we thought them crazy too for the same trade, perspective...
Trading food was simple, trading kit, that took a bit more effort and alcohol... I'm sure Mr. Muddy got grief for wearing my Camies as much as I did wearing his arctic windproof the next morning in formation / roll call hahaha.
Just a hint Matt, the Royals get issued rum and the ROKs sujo, so watch you kit when you meet them ;D
Matt, seems like the US Marines got two good imports from Canada, the LAV and you, Semper Fi Bro.
My comments on the "quality" of Marines vs (fill in your choice of branch or country of origin military unit), as based mainly on my experience while I served, which was a while back to say the least... 1977-83 time frame. We had our share of "shitbirds" but less so then other branches of the US Military, but the peer pressure from the traditions of the Corps made it less of a problem, we had a joke, that I think was based on some truths, "you can join the army, but you become a Marine", but that becoming a "Marine" was not so much a outcome of MCRD, but an attitude brought there from values and commitment that the recruit brought with him / her. I rarely if every met some Marine that didn't wanna be there, granted he may have bitched about "being there", but in his heart he WANTED to be there. When I was in we had pure shit for gear, most hand-me-downs from the US Army, it was a rare day we got something new. When I was in Korea the US Air Force airmen had better cold weather gear they used walking from one heated building to another heated building then we Marines had and we slept outside in sleeping bags and unheated tents when we where lucky. Cold weather gear? we looked like Marines from the Korean War, as the gear we had was the same crap our farthers used then. Thanks god things have improved, is it perfect, not yet. But we where working alongside the ROK Marines (Republic of Korea Marine Corps) and our gear made us feel pretty good, it's all perspective I guess. I'll have to say those ROK Marines where some tough tough Marines. Those guys didn't bother stuffing their hard earned gear inside their rucks for PT, but used Rocks instead, yes good old fashion rocks. And Everyone of them WANTED to be there too even with those hardships. I think that is true for any small elite unit, be they US, Canadian or British. But even the large percentage of the normal regular US Army (or Canadian) was and is full of good highly motivated people, its just in the less "elite" units the percentage of screwups is higher. High tech gear is great, but more important is the man / woman inside it.
But I agree Matt, I too would like to see the US Marine Corps turn to training techniques more in line with the Royal Marines, I think it would make even better Marines. I met a few Royals that came out of Lumpstone and have to say they are an impressive bunch.
Military personal have bitched and complained about the quality of their training, food and gear since someone picked up a spear.
The ROK Marines/ Royal Marines thought we where crazy trading our C-rats for their field rations and we thought them crazy too for the same trade, perspective...
Trading food was simple, trading kit, that took a bit more effort and alcohol... I'm sure Mr. Muddy got grief for wearing my Camies as much as I did wearing his arctic windproof the next morning in formation / roll call hahaha.
Just a hint Matt, the Royals get issued rum and the ROKs sujo, so watch you kit when you meet them ;D
Matt, seems like the US Marines got two good imports from Canada, the LAV and you, Semper Fi Bro.
S
Spc_Cameron
Guest
pappy ... you are a .. true /.....proffesional
Similar threads
