I'mb actually with you on most points.
1. Icrease the skil/desifer to decimate the enemy.
2. Take the gloves off in pre unt training.
3. Hammer the cherrys to get them to quit or make a real comitment to the job.
4. allow the I quit option to get rid of the chumps,
What if RS was Bootcamp?
-
Ranger2
I used to think a smaller, leaner, just warrior army was the only way to go. But in some cases you have to have bodies even if they aren't all elite or as well trained. Iraq is an example of that. A fairly large country that you need basically a police force of troops just to make a presence and to keep the peace. In combat a smaller highly trained force makes sense, but in keeping the peace a larger force is needed.
I also think basic is far too easy. It should be used to weed out the weaklings and to make a better army. It should be harder and maybe they should be given the option to quit. The problem would be that you may end up with only 150,000 soldiers in your army and with the army we currently have can barely do the job do to the demands of being the worlds police force.
Difficult question.
Ranger2
I also think basic is far too easy. It should be used to weed out the weaklings and to make a better army. It should be harder and maybe they should be given the option to quit. The problem would be that you may end up with only 150,000 soldiers in your army and with the army we currently have can barely do the job do to the demands of being the worlds police force.
Difficult question.
Ranger2
I would go as far as breaking it down into a couple different categories. For instance, the way MOS's are currently set up, makes sense to a certain degree. However there is a lot of MOS that could be canned. Instead of having 11B and 11C, you just cross train the two and get yourself an 18B type. The concept of ODA style combat arms is the most appealing to me personally. Though I have never been on one, to me it represents the most basic approach at creating a small unit that can cover any aspect of military combat operations.
Then you would have all support. And I mean ALL others are support. You train them in a different manner. They are not warrior types, they do not need to go to the range and qualify twice a year, because it is not their job to be qualified on a weapon that uses ammo that my combat arms would need. Their only mission would be to provide service and support to the combat arms boys. Be it Intel, Motorpool, Food, and what not.
At this time, you could consider creating one force, that would make the Army and the Marine Corps obsolete. Instead you would have a new branch. As far as Navy is concerned, nobody needs a SEAL team. You might just as well focus on Divers in your new branch. Same thing for Airforce. CCT's, PJ's, TAC-P's would also just be trained by the new branch as their service is not to their own branch, but to use the AF's assets to support the combat arms mission.
And I would severly reduce the amount of people in useless positions. I do not need 100+ officers working in one office. No, not even in Washington,DC. Another big one would be to even out the wages. I would not be as worried about the wages while the men are in, although I would try to raise them to a decent cost of living, but I would focus on the retirement aspect. Once someone retires, he should not have to worry about money again. Because he honorably served his country for 20+ years.
And that concludes my God for one day thought process.
Then you would have all support. And I mean ALL others are support. You train them in a different manner. They are not warrior types, they do not need to go to the range and qualify twice a year, because it is not their job to be qualified on a weapon that uses ammo that my combat arms would need. Their only mission would be to provide service and support to the combat arms boys. Be it Intel, Motorpool, Food, and what not.
At this time, you could consider creating one force, that would make the Army and the Marine Corps obsolete. Instead you would have a new branch. As far as Navy is concerned, nobody needs a SEAL team. You might just as well focus on Divers in your new branch. Same thing for Airforce. CCT's, PJ's, TAC-P's would also just be trained by the new branch as their service is not to their own branch, but to use the AF's assets to support the combat arms mission.
And I would severly reduce the amount of people in useless positions. I do not need 100+ officers working in one office. No, not even in Washington,DC. Another big one would be to even out the wages. I would not be as worried about the wages while the men are in, although I would try to raise them to a decent cost of living, but I would focus on the retirement aspect. Once someone retires, he should not have to worry about money again. Because he honorably served his country for 20+ years.
And that concludes my God for one day thought process.
,
I agree!!! One other thing, in 2nd batt 1980 I was an 11B but ended up the senior mortar gunner in C co. Same thought applied. Why not cross train.Matador275 wrote:I would go as far as breaking it down into a couple different categories. For instance, the way MOS's are currently set up, makes sense to a certain degree. However there is a lot of MOS that could be canned. Instead of having 11B and 11C, you just cross train the two and get yourself an 18B type. The concept of ODA style combat arms is the most appealing to me personally. Though I have never been on one, to me it represents the most basic approach at creating a small unit that can cover any aspect of military combat operations.
Then you would have all support. And I mean ALL others are support. You train them in a different manner. They are not warrior types, they do not need to go to the range and qualify twice a year, because it is not their job to be qualified on a weapon that uses ammo that my combat arms would need. Their only mission would be to provide service and support to the combat arms boys. Be it Intel, Motorpool, Food, and what not.
At this time, you could consider creating one force, that would make the Army and the Marine Corps obsolete. Instead you would have a new branch. As far as Navy is concerned, nobody needs a SEAL team. You might just as well focus on Divers in your new branch. Same thing for Airforce. CCT's, PJ's, TAC-P's would also just be trained by the new branch as their service is not to their own branch, but to use the AF's assets to support the combat arms mission.
And I would severly reduce the amount of people in useless positions. I do not need 100+ officers working in one office. No, not even in Washington,DC. Another big one would be to even out the wages. I would not be as worried about the wages while the men are in, although I would try to raise them to a decent cost of living, but I would focus on the retirement aspect. Once someone retires, he should not have to worry about money again. Because he honorably served his country for 20+ years.
And that concludes my God for one day thought process.
Useless positions would not exist. I would make everyone work for a living. Start cross training and where the need is apply the troop.
RS Class 5-82
French Commando 11-83
LRSLC Class 5-87
U.S. Army 1980-1984 and 1987-1990
---------
“Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.”
George S. Patton
French Commando 11-83
LRSLC Class 5-87
U.S. Army 1980-1984 and 1987-1990
---------
“Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.”
George S. Patton
Totally agree.Furthermore, in my mind, there is no reason to occupy a country. Why would you? You would only ocupy something that had value to you. In Iraq, the value would be the oil. If I were "occupying" that area of the world, I would assgn a swath of land throughout the country that only US/Coalition forces as well as KBR oil developers could enter. Arabs would get hosed on sight. But this thread is about the idea of making bootcamp harder (or "worthwhile") and not my extreme selfishness and isolationist viewpoints.
Now back to the main crux.
I think Sharky covered this pretty well on a socnet thread. I'll look for it. It was the thread about making the Corps along the lines of the Ranger Batts.
I just don't think that there are enough potential soldiers out there with the heart to complete any extra training that has higher standards. Not evryone can be a Ranger, just like not everyone can be a Force Recon Marine. And the military does need Remfs, and regular "leg" infantry.
What I have seen lately is it appears that the conventional forces are getting more high speed gear/training then they had been in the past. Your average NG infantry unit looks more high speed then my Ranger squad did in the early 90's. But then again, you can dress it up and polish it, but in the end a turd is a turd.
I think more specialized training should be given to ALL units. They all could benefit from it. As far as Range School, I didn't learn anything tactics wise that I hadn't already learned in boot or Batt.
But maybe a watered down version of RIP could work for entrance into an infantry unit. The problem is, what do you do with the ones that wash out? What about making the entry requirements for an airborne infantry unit harder like it was in WW2? Soldiers could try out for an airborne unit, if they don't make it, they go to a leg unit. Raise the standards in units like the 82nd and the 173rd.
Good topic, wish I had more time to write on it.
-
Rock Island Ranger
- Ranger
- Posts: 10935
- Joined: February 8th, 2004, 10:00 pm
Everything that has been written here makes excellent sense, it's logical, it's efficient...it won't happen. Because the GOVT has built within itself many protection mechanisms that protect itself, its turf, it's dominion over a specific area. And Govt. does not equal logic, common sense, and efficiency.
Sec. Def is basic in concurrance of a more compact service, even to the extent of Matadors thoughts. But, Tankers say, "you can't fight without a tank! Tank manufactors say, all these people will be out of work! And it goes on and on and on.
Last but not least. BM Wrote...
What I have seen lately is it appears that the conventional forces are getting more high speed gear/training then they had been in the past. Your average NG infantry unit looks more high speed then my Ranger squad did in the early 90's. But then again, you can dress it up and polish it, but in the end a turd is a turd.
I understand the sentiment BM states here, but men who volunteer for service are not Turds and their lack of training is not necessarily a fault they (as men) can correct. The Guard and Reserves have been given tasks which they are unable because of training time to complete. A Mechanized Infantry Guard Unit. What the fuck? You barely have time to train these guys to any reasonable basic skill much less throwing in the biggest maintainance nightmare ever created.
The Guard and Reserves are necessary however, their roles should be limited to what they can master immediatly and within a 90 day recall train up time. Throw in a manning requirement that units MUST have 110% strength and you have a recipe for disastor. They HAVE to accept Cat 4's in the ranks because they have a difficult time getting semi intelligent people to begin with unless they are specialized units.
An total revamp or enema IS required but if we made Basic as hard as RIP or Ranger School...our Combat forces would amount to having about 75,000 soldiers. I would though advocate Army basic taking on aspects of Marine training where ALL soldiers are Infantry FIRST.
[/b]
Sec. Def is basic in concurrance of a more compact service, even to the extent of Matadors thoughts. But, Tankers say, "you can't fight without a tank! Tank manufactors say, all these people will be out of work! And it goes on and on and on.
Last but not least. BM Wrote...
What I have seen lately is it appears that the conventional forces are getting more high speed gear/training then they had been in the past. Your average NG infantry unit looks more high speed then my Ranger squad did in the early 90's. But then again, you can dress it up and polish it, but in the end a turd is a turd.
I understand the sentiment BM states here, but men who volunteer for service are not Turds and their lack of training is not necessarily a fault they (as men) can correct. The Guard and Reserves have been given tasks which they are unable because of training time to complete. A Mechanized Infantry Guard Unit. What the fuck? You barely have time to train these guys to any reasonable basic skill much less throwing in the biggest maintainance nightmare ever created.
The Guard and Reserves are necessary however, their roles should be limited to what they can master immediatly and within a 90 day recall train up time. Throw in a manning requirement that units MUST have 110% strength and you have a recipe for disastor. They HAVE to accept Cat 4's in the ranks because they have a difficult time getting semi intelligent people to begin with unless they are specialized units.
An total revamp or enema IS required but if we made Basic as hard as RIP or Ranger School...our Combat forces would amount to having about 75,000 soldiers. I would though advocate Army basic taking on aspects of Marine training where ALL soldiers are Infantry FIRST.
[/b]
RS Class # 7-76
I'm not the way I am because I was a Ranger - I was a Ranger because of the way I am.
¿Querría usted el primer redondo en la rodilla o la cara?
The road goes on forever and the party never ends.
I'm not the way I am because I was a Ranger - I was a Ranger because of the way I am.
¿Querría usted el primer redondo en la rodilla o la cara?
The road goes on forever and the party never ends.
-
Ranger2
The so called elite divisions of the army are not elite. The 82nd just uses jumping as a point of entry and they haven't really done that in a long time without someone else being on the ground first. Airborne school should also be a smoker. Kind of like a Airborne unit RIP. the way it used to be. If a woman or man can't hack it then they shouldn't be in the unit.
There should only be one PT standard, the 18 year old. Age and sex have no meaning on the battlefield. If you can't do the job man or woman you should be gone. Same with age. Anyone might have to hump the machine gun or carry it from one point to another and if you aren't in good enough shape because you are to old or to weak you really aren't much good.
Ranger2
There should only be one PT standard, the 18 year old. Age and sex have no meaning on the battlefield. If you can't do the job man or woman you should be gone. Same with age. Anyone might have to hump the machine gun or carry it from one point to another and if you aren't in good enough shape because you are to old or to weak you really aren't much good.
Ranger2
-
Spartan
"In a perfect World" maybe. But this isn't a perfect world and serving in the Army, like it or not, shares many organizational similarities with working in/for many other large businesses, as far as how human resources are hired, managed, motivated and promoted have great similarity.
Look at most companies out there and you have:
1. shitbags,
2. underperformers who have great potential,
3. mediocre performers who are dependable,
4. excellent performers and
5. every once in a while a star performer.
It is up to first line supervisors (NCO's) to:
1. reform or fire the shitbags,
2. stimulate those who underperform yet have potential to receive better performance,
3. demand better performance from those reliable mediocre performers.
4. place great responsibility on those who perform excellently
5. promote those who are star performers.
The military is very much the same and you don't see too many workplaces in the world who just shitcan everyone but the star performers, at least not in VERY LARGE organizations, if they are to offer viable competition to others who are pursuing similar goals (be they military goals in this case) for their organizations.
What our military has done is to create dedicated work units in this case, Rangers for the Army, where soldiers can serve in an ideal world for a limited time, then filter them back through and try to raise the excellence of the entire organization - Abram's Charter for forming the two Ranger Bns - with those who have come to expect others to operate at a higher standard and have greater accountability to the organization.
Occassionally some will get to stay a great many years in the Regiment, but not often.
It is up to the NCOs in the Army, and those Rangers who return to 'The Big Army' to set the standard for others to follow, to raise the standards, to do everything noted:
1. reform or fire the shitbags,
2. demand better performance from those who underperform yet have potential,
3. demand better performance from those reliable mediocre performers.
4. place great responsibility on those who perform excellently
5. promote those who are star performers.
When it comes down to it, it is up to the NCOs and leaders in the Army to raise the standard, not some super-attritting school with high stanrdards. It takes YEARS to make great soldiers and putting a 62 day course into place as a 'barrier to service' will not increase the quality of soldiers out there. The NCO's who supervise, coach, train and mentor soldiers will increase their quality and in far greater numbers than a course which is limited as to how many we can afford to offer such training to.
Look at those who are on this board who didn't make it to or pass Ranger School. Those guys never would have served if this happened.
Look at most companies out there and you have:
1. shitbags,
2. underperformers who have great potential,
3. mediocre performers who are dependable,
4. excellent performers and
5. every once in a while a star performer.
It is up to first line supervisors (NCO's) to:
1. reform or fire the shitbags,
2. stimulate those who underperform yet have potential to receive better performance,
3. demand better performance from those reliable mediocre performers.
4. place great responsibility on those who perform excellently
5. promote those who are star performers.
The military is very much the same and you don't see too many workplaces in the world who just shitcan everyone but the star performers, at least not in VERY LARGE organizations, if they are to offer viable competition to others who are pursuing similar goals (be they military goals in this case) for their organizations.
What our military has done is to create dedicated work units in this case, Rangers for the Army, where soldiers can serve in an ideal world for a limited time, then filter them back through and try to raise the excellence of the entire organization - Abram's Charter for forming the two Ranger Bns - with those who have come to expect others to operate at a higher standard and have greater accountability to the organization.
Occassionally some will get to stay a great many years in the Regiment, but not often.
It is up to the NCOs in the Army, and those Rangers who return to 'The Big Army' to set the standard for others to follow, to raise the standards, to do everything noted:
1. reform or fire the shitbags,
2. demand better performance from those who underperform yet have potential,
3. demand better performance from those reliable mediocre performers.
4. place great responsibility on those who perform excellently
5. promote those who are star performers.
When it comes down to it, it is up to the NCOs and leaders in the Army to raise the standard, not some super-attritting school with high stanrdards. It takes YEARS to make great soldiers and putting a 62 day course into place as a 'barrier to service' will not increase the quality of soldiers out there. The NCO's who supervise, coach, train and mentor soldiers will increase their quality and in far greater numbers than a course which is limited as to how many we can afford to offer such training to.
Look at those who are on this board who didn't make it to or pass Ranger School. Those guys never would have served if this happened.
-
Silverback
- Ranger
- Posts: 20118
- Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
-
Silverback
- Ranger
- Posts: 20118
- Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
