Basic Training In American Army

[Desmond Hawkins]

I have been reading and hearing a lot lately about the lack of quality basic training for the non-frontline troops in the American military lately. Here is a good article about it, and an exert from the article.

Combat.

"That's not our mission," Lt. Col. Henry says. The rough stuff's for the shock troops training at Benning. "Here we're inoculating them for the prospect of maybe having a fight, hanging in there until the cavalry or infantry arrives to save the day."

Tough training for the line units, marshmallows for the rear? Talk about denial. In modern warfare, there is no front. Command and control nodes, airfields, supply dumps, logistics units, transport, the hospital, everything's fair game. If anything, in guerrilla warfare and terrorist actions, those targets are even more likely to be hit. A young sergeant I know put it this way: 'That U.S. Army name tag on your chest is the biggest bull's-eye in the world. These young soldiers are going to be in Korea. They're going to be in Bosnia. They are really exposed, man. When our cooks and clerks ran convoys of deuces and hummers through the streets of Mogadishu, do you think the Somalis were not going to shoot at them because they were 'noncombatants'''

.

I encourage you to read the rest of the article
Here

One note I got from this reading was that basic army training requires that potential male recruits only have to do 13 pushups to qualify, and female candidates 4! I thought it was crazy that Canada had a minimum of only 19 for men, and like 12 for women. And to graduate as a marksmen, you don't even have to be able to hit the 300 yard targets anymore.

I know that the actual shock troops probably get way better training, but these are the people they are sending to Iraq, such as the company of Private Jessica Lynch, and they are as exposed, if not more so to enemy attacks these days than the frontline grunts.

I am wondering if this standard has gotten as low in other Western armies as well, because if it has, then it spells bad news, if we were to have to muster a lot of combat troops very fast.

 

[Xen]

what can we say- theve taken the role of Auxilla in the American legions- all the glory goes to the legionaries, but in general, its the auxilla who are doign the real garrisoning, and are the ones who are really taking the brunt of the action in non-full scale combats

 

[ASA Dragon]

It has been a while since I was in (got out in 1994), so maybe things have gotten soft .... I was not in a combat intensive field (Military Intelligence), but standards then were the same across the board. X number of pushups, X number of situps, and min/max time limit for 2 mile run was the physical fitness test for the Army. the pushups and situps were in a 2 minute time period and, even though I don't remember the minimum, guys were averaging 60/50, and females 40/70. Run times averaged around 14 minutes/17 minutes (male/female). This was the average in my units, and again we were non-combatants.

With our job (Analyst to be specific), we rotated one year strategic (mostly desk work) and one year tactical (mostly field).
We got a lot more weapons training and had to qualify more often when we were tactical, and while a high score wasn't mandatory, it was rare that anyone shot below 75%.

 

[Sarevok]

this is a bad sign for the future world.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Those were the numbers for people ENTERING the basic training, not when they left. Obviously they get better when they finish.

The point being that the basic physical requirements seem to be dropping in most western countries (it actually isn't that bad in Canada, due to the fact that the forces were downsized so much, that they can pick and choose a bit more, for a small well-trained force)

The point is that that number of people that go out who aren't qualified in all areas of basic combat is going up a lot. It is quite worrying.

It is also my understanding through research, that most of the decline has come in the last 10 years.

 

[ASA Dragon]

Sorry, I misunderstood. Actually standards were pretty low even back in the late 80's - early 90's for getting in, and yes basic training for most was, well, basic. However at the end of basic, if you couldn't do certain things (physical, weapons, etc.), you did not graduate basic. For the most part that meant discharge from the service.

Extended infantry training was for infantry troops, and it was like an amped up version of basic. The remainder of the soldiers went to their respective schooling (in my case: 1 year language, 6 months specialized, and 4 months tactical intel).

What is sad is, that once troops got assigned to certain posts, sometimes training dropped off. I cannot speak for all installations ... at the tactical assignment I had <Fort Ord, CA>, almost every unit (combat and non). went through a lot of training. We had urban combat training (on post), jungle warfare training (Panama), desert training (Death Valley), and were either on alert or out in the field a third of the time there.

This was during peacetime (after the first Gulf war), and from what I gathered from my friends stationed at other tactical assignments (Ft Hood, Ft Lewis, Camp Casey), standard.

Perhaps, after such a relatively long period of absence from large scale hostilities, as well as training/budget cutbacks, and a mindset that there would never be hostilities in their time of service, led to an unfortunate laxness.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Yes we seem to understand eachother now.

As I understand it, the biggest problem is that they no longer cut people that are not making the grade, and instead just keep making it easier for them until the pass. There is extremely low attrition these days. How is that supposed to build talent and character?

It is worrying, and I think it is largely due to the "de-militarization" of the military, but if recruitment rates go up in the coming years, the problem could solve itself.

 

[ASA Dragon]

If recruitment numbers go up and they continue to take it easy on them, it will probably make matters worse .... more poorly trained troops=more casualties.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

What i mean is that if recruitment numbers go up, but the amount basic training turns out stays the same, then you can cut the fat easier. Easier to pick the cream of the crop. The problem was that the army was recruiting 6000 too few troops a year, so it started recruiting based on a civilian like job with LOTS of benefits, so people that weren't really interested in becoming soldiers joined up.

 

[Speedo]

Those were the numbers for people ENTERING the basic training, not when they left. Obviously they get better when they finish.

I was gonna say... Well its not that surprising then. Most civilians, even those who aren't overweight, aren't really in good physical shape. That's why the military has basic after all. Anybody who can only do 13 pushups when they enter basic is gonna be drummed into shape or they'll be gone.

Here are the Army fitness and weight standards: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/arfitness/blarfitness.htm

To graduate basic you need a score of 150 out of 300 IIRC, which (for a 17-21 year old male) would mean 35 pushups, 47 situps and 16:36 on the 2 mile run. (that's to get a score of 50 on each test)

 

[ASA Dragon]

Originally posted by Sobieski II
What i mean is that if recruitment numbers go up, but the amount basic training turns out stays the same, then you can cut the fat easier. Easier to pick the cream of the crop. The problem was that the army was recruiting 6000 too few troops a year, so it started recruiting based on a civilian like job with LOTS of benefits, so people that weren't really interested in becoming soldiers joined up.

I see what you mean, yes hopefully they can start being mor selective again. I also know what you mean about all of the benefits ... I know someone who just got out and it was almost like a combo of college and working for your dad's company.

Better living conditions, free things (they got either a computer or something similar), less restrictions, etc.

Personally, I thought it was kind of sad. I mean, it was almost as if they weren't soldiers at all.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Yup, I think America should have soldier program like the French Foreign Legion, where essentially you are given a uniform, a brush for cleaning, soap, and a modest pay, while training the hell outta yourself. That would draw real soldiers.

Of course unfortunately half the army would disappear, but hey.

It is true though, in trying to stay competetive with the private sector, the military is losing its militarism, and is becoming practically civilian in some areas.

 

[Speedo]

Personally, I thought it was kind of sad. I mean, it was almost as if they weren't soldiers at all.

Which branch was he in? I know the AF basically is a civilian job where you wear a uniform to work in many cases.. I wouldn't have expected the army of marines to be that bad.

It is an interesting topic though. If the portion of society which can meet the standards is growing smaller at the same time that less members of society are interested in the military, is it worth lowering standards to get more people?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I don't think the marines are very bad off, and in fact are quite the opposite.

It is primarily the army, and yes it is sort of a meeting of two dangerous factors. It is a dangerous time in the west, especially since there is a huge surplus of young males in countries that won't be so friendly to us.

 

[ASA Dragon]

Originally posted by Speedo


Which branch was he in? I know the AF basically is a civilian job where you wear a uniform to work in many cases.. I wouldn't have expected the army of marines to be that bad.

It is an interesting topic though. If the portion of society which can meet the standards is growing smaller at the same time that less members of society are interested in the military, is it worth lowering standards to get more people?

He was in communications (USArmy). I personally don't know many from my time in that are still in, mostly lifers. Even those I know that were in Special forces got out long ago.

I know what you mean about the AF also. Heck, I remember when they had to live in our barracks (newer 3 man rooms), they were two men per room, and got paid for substandard housing.

 

[ASA Dragon]

Originally posted by Sobieski II
I don't think the marines are very bad off, and in fact are quite the opposite.
QUOTE]

Yeah, I didn't like a lot of them, but I respected them. The ones I knew were always at the top of their game. If all the military trained like they did, we would be a lot more prepared, but that's a group I wouldn't want to be around during extended periods of peace.

 

[ASA Dragon]

Off - topic :
Hey, by the way Speedo - can I assume you were at least at one time associated with First Cav? There has been a lot of avatar switching, but you seem to have a familiarity with the Army ...

 

[blackthorn]

Well I was about to mention the Marines 'till I read the last post.
GO MARINES! They will keep the standard high. If you want it done right the first time, just call them.

The army is a waste of time, these days. If you are interested in being a fighting machine that is.

Boyscouts with a rifle. I feel for those who are forced into combat unprepared, they should never allow it to happen. If not for superior technology we would be in real trouble.
All the army is concerned with these days is a number on paper,this number, is supposed to represent what it would take to wage an all out war,since all they are(and have been) doing is filling in the blanks with the weak and untrained,I dont see how they figure anything.
I will say this though,the main fighting force here is civilians with guns(since most of us have them). If there was to be an invasion of any kind, I pity the idiots who would have to learn that the hard way.

 

[ShiplordAtvar]

Originally posted by Sobieski II
Yes we seem to understand eachother now.

As I understand it, the biggest problem is that they no longer cut people that are not making the grade, and instead just keep making it easier for them until the pass. There is extremely low attrition these days. How is that supposed to build talent and character?

It is worrying, and I think it is largely due to the "de-militarization" of the military, but if recruitment rates go up in the coming years, the problem could solve itself.

From what I understand, when a recruit has trouble in boot camp, they get recycled a week or two. (USMC only) If the recruit is decidedly overweight or otherwise deficient, then he may be sent to the Physical Conditioning Platoon, where a recruit does strenuous exercise about five times daily, and stays there for a minimum of one week.

I know USMC, USAF, and USA recruit training regimens allow for a recruit to be held back a week or so (recycling) on account of deficiencies, or not making the grade as you describe it. I would hesitate to call an extra week of boot camp easy.

Just my $0.02.
YMMV.

 

[Speedo]

Originally posted by ASA Dragon
Off - topic :
Hey, by the way Speedo - can I assume you were at least at one time associated with First Cav? There has been a lot of avatar switching, but you seem to have a familiarity with the Army ...

Nah, one of my great-uncles that died a few months ago was in 1st Cav in Korea, and I thought it made a decent enough avatar.

Most of my familiarity is because after I finish my associate (2 yr.) degree next fall, I'm applying for WOCS. That and being a life-long military nut