• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Basic the way it should be

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
33
Points
560
Battling Bushwhackers
U.S. Army recruits prepare for highway ambushes in Iraq.

By W. Thomas Smith Jr.

Fort Jackson, S.C. â ” Its engine gunning to life, the big five-ton truck jerks into gear then begins rolling down an isolated stretch of sandy dirt highway. Seated in the truck-bed on a centerline bench are 16 young American soldiers. All are armed with M16A2 rifles, and all are dripping sweat in the near-100-degree heat and unimaginable humidity beneath combat uniforms, Kevlar helmets, and bulletproof vests. Eight of the soldiers are facing portside (left). Their backs are to the other eight soldiers who are facing starboard (right). All weapons are locked-and-loaded, aiming out at the countryside from both sides of the truck.

Two sergeants are standing between the two groups of soldiers.

As the truck rounds a corner near several wrecked, burned, and bullet-riddled vehicles, a soaking rain begins, turning the soldiers' uniforms and helmet covers from a woodland camouflage to a dark green.

No one is talking. The only sound is the rain, the squeaking of the truck's undercarriage, the engine, and the occasional soldier tapping on the bottom of his gray, metal magazine to make sure it is properly locked into the magazine-well of his rifle.

â Å“BOOM!â ? The earth-jarring sound of an IED (improvised explosive device) detonating a few feet from the truck momentarily stuns everyone except Staff Sergeant Osvaldo Rodriguez.

â Å“Fire! Open fire!â ? he shouts at the portside group.

The truck slows, lurches once, then halts. Short bursts of fire crackle from the muzzles of the M16s.

The rain is now falling in sheets.

â Å“Dismount! Dismount! Get out of the truck! Move!â ? Rodriguez shouts at the soldiers on starboard.

The portside group remains in the truck and continues pouring a murderous fire into an enemy ambush position. Despite being encumbered with personal gear and weapons, the starboard side soldiers leap with an almost athletic grace from the rear of the truck and sprint to positions between the vehicle and the enemy. Dropping to prone positions in the mud, they thumb-off their rifle safeties, and begin blasting away at the enemy. As they do so, the soldiers who first began firing switch on safeties and begin leaping from the truck as quickly and as much like clockwork as the others.

These soldiers have been in the Army for only seven weeks. They are not yet in Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, they have another two weeks of basic training ahead of them before graduation, then on to a few weeks of advanced individual training (AIT).

But even at this stage, their performance is impressive. They all move in-sync with one another, reacting to commands as if this response to a vehicle-disabling IED blast followed by an immediate enemy ambush is second nature.

With the smoke from the exploded IED now dissipating in the rain, the soldiers continue firing at a variety of man-sized pop-up targets at varying distances.

In a real fight, the targets would be shooting back, and the badly wounded on both sides would be screaming. But this live-fire convoy exercise in the sandhills and piney woods of Fort Jackson, S.C. is as realistic as can be allowed in a training environment. It has to be. According to the Army, many â ” if not most â ” of these young recruits will soon be in harm's way. The biggest threat to their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan will be roadside bombs, highway ambushes, and suicide bombers. And not being assigned to a combat occupational specialty is no guarantee that these soldiers won't find themselves in the middle of a full-blown firefight.

â Å“Most of the soldiers who graduate from basic combat training, can expect to be deployed into an AOR [area of responsibility] which will require them to travel in convoys,â ? according to a U.S. Army document, Convoy Live Fire for Basic Combat Training, used by instructors at Fort Jackson. Additionally, â Å“100 percent of the soldiers who graduate from BCT will travel and operate in their AOR via convoy operations in soft-skinned vehicles. The threat's main TTP [tactics, techniques, and procedures] for attacking U.S. forces in theater is to avoid our strength and seek weakness in soft-skinned vehicles.â ?

Soft vehicles aren't the enemy's only consideration. Another concern is the combat capability of the chosen target. If a unit is less capable than others of launching an effective counter-attack, the more likely it is to be targeted for ambush.

â Å“The enemy chooses when, where, and how he will strike, and he usually tries to choose softer targets,â ? Brigadier General Abraham Turner, commanding general of Fort Jackson, tells NRO. â Å“You see, an infantry platoon is a hard target. If the bad guys go after an infantry platoon, they know that platoon may take them out before they've accomplished their mission. Infantrymen are trained to fight off attackers and defeat them. The bad guys know this.â ?

Indeed. Last week, a U.S. Marine convoy â ” primarily manned by support (non-combat) Marines, most of whom were female â ” was targeted by an al Qaeda suicide bomber. Five Marines (two of them female) and one female sailor were killed in the attack.

Because they cannot stand toe-to-toe with U.S. and allied ground combat forces in a pitched battle, ambushes and IED detonations on passing vehicles and foot patrols are Al Qaeda's tactics of choice.

How to respond to those tactics is the responsibility of combat commanders who've been there and experienced the reality on the ground. They bring that experience home to share with American recruits who must develop the instincts to survive once they deploy.

â Å“If I was a general for a day, I'd have them [the recruits] do this convoy training 50 times over,â ? says Captain Jeremy Smith, a recruit company commander who, while serving with 101st Airborne Division in Iraq, experienced and survived an IED attack. â Å“It's great training in terms of teaching the soldier how to handle the weapon in this environment and being confident that he can survive it. Also, these soldiers here are going to get more training on this when they graduate and get to their unit before they go to Iraq.â ?

How long might it be before some of these soldiers find themselves in Iraq?

â Å“They've got to have 30 days of training [post BCT] before being deployed,â ? says Smith. â Å“But it's fast. We had a soldier just out of basic training, did his additional 30 days, two weeks later, he was killed in Iraq.â ?

Aside from responding to an IED blast, firing, dismounting the truck, and repositioning on the ground; recruits are taught to identify and engage targets from moving, bouncing vehicles that are traveling at different speeds.

They come to the week-seven convoy exercise fully prepared. They've already qualified on the range, firing the rifle at stationary and pop-up targets, and they've developed reflexive firing skills. Reflexive firing is a quick-fire method wherein soldiers are trained to instantly bring the rifle up to the ready position and fire into a target without aiming the weapon from the shoulder. Though reflexive firing is not employed from the back of a five-ton, it is useful in all live-fire exercises because through-it recruits develop a confidence in their ability to handle the rifle in rapidly changing gunfights, and convoy ambushes are always rapidly changing.

From a tower overlooking the â Å“Old Anzioâ ? range where the convoy exercise is taking place, Lt. Col. Fred Johnson, a battalion commander at Fort Jackson, adds, â Å“These soldiers today are joining the Army knowing they are going to war. It's up to us to make sure they are ready for battle.â ?

â ” A former U.S. Marine infantry leader and paratrooper, W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a freelance journalist and the author of four books, including the Alpha Bravo Delta Guide to American Airborne Forces.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/smitht/smith200506280841.asp

Note this is not "work up" or "Mission Specific" training, but basic....
 
So much for the old myth that we are much better trained than the americans. This "lessons learned" type training, instantly integrated into basic et al should be our very minimum training. Ah well, one can dream I suppose.
 
A good article and this looks like good training. 

An interesting example of risk management, in that they are balancing the risk of a fairly complicated range involving new recruits against the risk of sending people into combat unprepared.  It is also an example of an effective lessons learned process tied in to the training system.

The part about "confidence" is a good one.  We had a high ranking officer with recent Iraq experience and one of his key points was the importance of having confident soldiers.  One of the ways you get confident by going through demanding and possible hazardous training.

Cheers,

Iain
 
When compared to what basic training is now in Canada, it shows how far behind we are. So much for our Army's Warrior First policy.
Thought to be fair, we tend to not throw people out the into the AO as quickly as the U.S., but the question is, does the lack of realistic, high intensity war-fighting training for our non-combat arms trades endanger us? What about the upcoming changes to SQ, and its incorporation into Basic? How advanced is the combat training for pre-deployment?
Questions, comments, arguments?

Thanks


"Through life's school of war: that which does not kill you only serves to make you stronger." -Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
 
There's plenty of threads about this already.  We've all done our share of comaplining about the lack of realism in training, with too soft of a disciplinary system, and how a more lax leadership system is also lowering the standard for instructors who have to teach new recruits.  It's not a problem with any one policy, it's a problem with the entire mindset of the CF.  As much as we bitch about being called "peacekeepers" by the civilians, we're more and more starting to train, act, and think like peacekeepers instead of warrioirs.
 
Yes, but that does'nt stop so many of the soldiers in our army (and many civilians) from smugly proclaiming themselves "smarter" and better trained than their american counterparts.

Perhaps someone better acquainted with our trg system can explain why americans are doing vehicle ambush drills in basic, but we are teaching soviet trench system break - in drills on Mod 6. And saying that it is a generic skill that develops leadership is BS. We could be doing something practical with that 4 days of couse time.

Any thoughts?
 
GO!!! said:
Yes, but that does'nt stop so many of the soldiers in our army (and many civilians) from smugly proclaiming themselves "smarter" and better trained than their american counterparts.

Perhaps someone better acquainted with our trg system can explain why americans are doing vehicle ambush drills in basic, but we are teaching soviet trench system break - in drills on Mod 6. And saying that it is a generic skill that develops leadership is BS. We could be doing something practical with that 4 days of couse time.

Any thoughts?

The Wizards in Puzzle Palace are too busy shuffling around letters to form acronyms?

"I have an Idea, let's take QL2, and QL3, and break them up a bit, and then call them BMQ, SQ, and BIQ....but here's the kicker...let's teach all the same things as on the old courses!  That'll confuse the heck outta the instructors, provide some good laughs for us, set everything spinning for a while, and make it seem like we're doing something.  And the best part?  10 years from now when things are STILL broken, we get to start all over again!  Talk about job security...."

Well at least that's the way I THINK that conversation went....
 
48Highlander said:
There's plenty of threads about this already.   We've all done our share of comaplining about the lack of realism in training, with too soft of a disciplinary system, and how a more lax leadership system is also lowering the standard for instructors who have to teach new recruits.   It's not a problem with any one policy, it's a problem with the entire mindset of the CF.   As much as we ***** about being called "peacekeepers" by the civilians, we're more and more starting to train, act, and think like peacekeepers instead of warrioirs.

Based on Hillier's moves to date, you would think this will eventually make it on his radar, would you now?



Matthew.  ???
 
^It should be the first thing on his agenda; change the way the troops think about themselves. Soldier first and always. Everything else afterwards.
 
RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
Soldier first and always. Everything else afterwards.

HERETIC!!!! cried the purple faced, wrinkled denziens at Timmys in the Rideau Centre...

;)
 
Purple faced or purple trade... ;D

I guess both !

DF
 
My views on Basic?

I teach REG F SQ so I have a little insight.
(1) Mix BMQ and SQ together and make it at least 5 moths (20 weeks) for army pers only

(2) Knock it off with the trying to teach all recruits at St Jean, have the training centers conduct the off the street to quality soldier

(3) Lets ditch fire trench (Like really), maybe teach shell scrapes because even in the last Iraq war, yanks were digging "Ranger graves", similar to a shell scrape.

(4) For fire and movement, lets stop pretending that a section can do a serious offensive action by itself. HOWEVER we teach fire and movement. Start with team, then group, then section. With emphasis on short distances and good rills. Then progress to live fire for the previous drills but instead of assaulting "Lone trench", have realistic bunkers built and stuff. Also for that secnario, include a GPMG to help fire the section in (more realistic). Oh yeah, use live grenades (It boost soldiers confidence).

(5) Include other trg such as counter ambush for convoys, IED equiped suicide bombers, ambush in urban areas, etc, etc

(6) Include a Typical canadian style camp built in each trg center (hasco whatever they're called with bunkers, wires, trip flares, gates, road blocks), for their defensive ex, they will defend their camp in a worst case scenario. I would throw in stuff like rocket and mortar attacks, suicide bombers on foot and vehicle, drive by shootings, snipers, RPG attacks, etc.  Its alot more realistic than digging a 2 up, 1 back platoon formation defensive with your two course driver store man running around at night shooting at the troops and throwing some T-Flashes. 

BOTTOM LINE "THINK OUTSIDE THE 1980 BOX"
 
ArmyRick

These are all good ideas, but they are barely workable at Bde level for reg force infantry Coys and Bns. Our safety rules require sooo much staff that you can barely move on the ranges! On a live fire Coy patrol ex, there were so many safety staff and observers that it was nearly impossible to withdrawal due to the large number of staff standing behind you watching the show. I can't even imagine how it would be in basic.

I do agree with your post, I just can't see it working.
 
Rick, I really like your ideas, especially the first one.  They really stress getting out into the field quickly and away from "St-Jean Mega" syndrome.
 
Ah for safety to be as it was prior to MacKinnon...

Last year
We did a 5 man tank hunter killer team during a combined defensive - we each had 5 M72C7's and our pers weapons (all live) - one saftey (the CO) and a pretty much free play environment with me my WO and our troops.

I also saw a live vehicle ambush scenario - live where the driver was "shot" and drove into a ditch - and the section had to fend for their selves in a near 360 ambush.


BUT sadly you will never see it in a basic.  the CF is too low on combat experienced folk - and it is hard to explain to people who have not been shot at WHY the TRG SAFETY pam need to be overridden preping for ops (and it can be...)  GAYDAR the Safety NAZI has to get out of our life and the fact that our job is to kill the enemy reinforced from DAY 0 - so much for Cornwallis and 'your here to kill Russians...'



 
There must be some sort of compromise. The article which started this only identifies 2 sergeant instructors among the 14 trainees, who do live fire dismounts and fire and movement against the "enemy". This is inverted from our usual shooter/staff ratios, even if there are some other training/saftey staff not identified in the scenario.

The key in my mind is to make the candidates familier and comfortable with carrying and handling weapons. In "About Face", Col Hackworth describes his time in a training battalion in Ft Lewis where he insisted the candidates carried weapons loaded with blanks 24/7 to become comfortable in an armed environment. An accident or ND in the mess would carry consequences (for the trainee and staff ["Why dosn't this guy know his drills!"]), but a fatality would not be one of them.

Troops starting the Known Distance ranges and learning instinctive shooting in "Jungle lanes" early in the course would also be confidence buiders. These guys in the article were doing fairly complex anti-ambush drills in week 7 of their training, because they were trained to do instinctive shooting earlier on. KevinB's examples were probably near the end of a fairly intensive "work up" training where everyone was comfortable with their skills and drills.
 
Circa 94 - the RCR BSL attempted something like that - and I heard it was driven by one or two of their Bn's - what happened was a lot of the augmentee staff did not carry their weapons  ::) (I was teaching a reserve GMT - and I NEVER ONCE saw the course officer with his) and many of us were given rubber rifles  :-\  I never figured it out if it was due to the higher not wanting to clean rifles or worried about instructor ND's - I ended up taking a troops rifle for most stuff - (but I dont think I ever cleaned it for him  :-[ )
 
Boy oh boy things keep getting worse.  I know the Ottawa wannabe's in the early 80's decided that they did not want to deal with liability issuses, but this is ridiculous.

It probably answers some questions pointed in my direction on return to the RGT, in the 90's.

Guess the sheltered world I lived in was far removed, with every body being at home with L&L.

Cheers
 
The new and improved CAP brought to you by the Infantry School integrates many interesting and highly useful objectives to training.

1. Convoy and force protection
2. OBUA (limited)
3. Detainee handling
4. 30 plus random "throw on you at anytime" scenarios which can be handed out for the poor bugger in the breach to think his/her way out of.

While the conventional war fighting skills at section level is still taught, (offence, defence, recce plts) it is no longer section attack week...it is section attack 2 or 3 days, that's it that's all. The new cmdt is a high-speed soldier and a real thinker. He recognizes what a waste of time, money, resources it is doing attack after attack after attack. Or setting up static defences for 10 days and just waiting to be bumped between patrols. Sooooo, the change in mind set in working its way in, but not yet to the basic level. Someday.... someday.

 
Back
Top