Jump to content


Core Competencies


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

Bean223 #41 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 17:46

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 22183 battles
  • 540
  • [-EV-] -EV-
  • Member since:
    11-29-2010
It's about time the Top Brass pulled their collective heads out of their asses. During the initial stages of the Korean War the UN forces (US in particular) had to relearn defensive tactics. The death of the Amoured Division has been greatly exaggerated. And premature.

Sternwulf #42 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 18:40

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10334 battles
  • 10
  • [ACO] ACO
  • Member since:
    04-06-2011
I don't usually post things, but I think perhaps I may have a few worthwhile things to add to this conversation.

       I don't know much about tank ploughs, so I'll skip that.

       Ranger training for armored officers, though, I think there is a point that folks are missing.  Ranger training isn't all about tactics, it is actually more of a confidence course.  Ranger training tests a soldiers limits by forcing him to perform tasks under the worst conditions.  It shows Joes that even though they haven't slept in 3 days, have only eaten squeezable peanut butter, humped through the nastiest coldest wettest terrain imaginable they were able to perform in a combat situation and even lead troops to do the same.  Its the confidence and leadership skills learned during that training that make it valuable, not just the tactics used there in.  I think all combat arms MOS officers should go through ranger training in my opinion.

      On to the meat of the discussion... COIN vs. Conventional warfare.


      At the beginning of my military career in 1996, conventional warfare was a large part of the training regimen.  Multiple Reforger ops in Germany and multiple trips to the National Training Center in Ft. Irwin.  My bradley went head to head with a T54 there by the way and we kicked its ass with a tow missile.  T-54 OP my ASS!!! :P  At the time, I always thought NTC absolutely sucked ballz.  It was the heat I think that I hated most about it.  Thinking back now, however...  Where else do you learn to maneuver against your enemies by fighting in the VERY vehicles you would likely be facing?  We faced BMPs, T64s, T72, and yes even a few flippin T-54 and 55s.  How awesome would it be to hear from an OPFOR at NTC who crewed in a T54 somewhere here in these forums!

      Our training changed almost overnight however.  On monday we were gearing up for a weak of maneuvers, went to bed, and woke up Tuesday, Sept. 11th to a world forever changed by terrorist attacks.  We couldn't believe what was happening.  My guys wanted to break out the old float barrier, paddle across the atlantic, in through the mediteranian sea, drive up the beach and on into Afghanistan and start kicking some ass.  It became apparent rather quickly that we were going to go somewhere... we didn't know where, but no matter where we went the conventional part of the battle would be fast and short lived, followed up by COIN type operations which we had alsmost no training in.  We trained for MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain), but occupying area and using COIN tactics adds even more crap onto an allready stinky pile...

      In the military we train and train and train until you can do just about anyting in your sleep.  We make it muscle memory.  Repition so many times that it becomes as easy to clear a jammed bushmaster as it is to breath.  That takes alot of time and dedication.  I'm not sure most folks realize just how much training is involved with COIN.  Tactics is only part of it.  Rules of engagement play HUGE in COIN.  We spend as much time training to shoot as we do training to decide IF and WHEN we SHOULD shoot or not.  Fighting in urban terrain is hands down the most dangerous type of combat, throw in that a soldier had to be able to identify folks as non-combatant, combatant, or possible combatant and react faster than the target he is trying to identify...   Whole new sets of battle drills... Completely different equipment and ammo load outs...  training to move in an urban combat terrain.  You wouldn't think that last might not be that hard, but think about having to add a complete new dimension that you aren't used to.  Building are tall after all.  

    There is only so much time in a day and only so much training a human can withstand before any further traing actually becomes a hinderance rather than a help.  It was touched on in an earlier post, conventional warfare is not in the foreseeable future.  Conventional warfare might even be a thing of the past considering how quickly things might go nuclear.  It makes sense that the army focus on COIN at this point and time.

    As far as why tankers?  There isn't enough of us crunchies to sustain enough boots on the ground for a long period of time.  We need the tankers, mechanics, MPS, and even the Nasty Girls (National Guard) to keep things running.

   And now my fingers are starting to cramp from all this damn typing... time to go pop off a few or your turrets.

Samurai_RAC #43 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 18:58

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 19905 battles
  • 53
  • [MISF] MISF
  • Member since:
    07-23-2010
Thanks for the great article!! Truly eye-opening.
I served 83-86 (2/64 Ar..Rogue)in Schweinfurt Germany.  During that time we were constantly training, normally out at least 200 days a year and more when I was the scout platoon ldr.  It seems hard to believe that little or no Hvy Armor training is being conducted.  With the resurgence of Russia and the buildup by the Chinese it seems very short sighted to believe COIN is the only game in town.  Hopefully those in command have identified these short comings and are taking steps to rectify the situation.  I am confident that once the decision is made to sharpen those skills our Tankers and Cavalry Troopers will re-take their positions as the finest Armored troops out there.

Thanks again Chief!

thegreenbaron #44 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 19:28

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 14173 battles
  • 330
  • [KERN] KERN
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011

View PostChiyeko, on Nov 05 2011 - 01:34, said:

To me it seems flat out stupid to let the basic skills go to waste that each branch has, armour should be able to deal with armour, navy with ships etc etc you get the idea.

Unfortunately, this problem is not unique to the Army.

The current generation of exported Russian ship to ship missile systems are quite capable of reaching speeds too fast for current CIWS to counter it.  The Navy seems baffled about what to do about this, as the idea of increased ship armor seems to have never entered their skulls at all, as the idea of armored warships is actually antithetical to current Navy thinking.  

One could only imagine what, say, a Yamato or even Iowa class battleship, with it's secondary batteries swapped out for CIWS and improved anti-missile armor might do against a carrier group.  It'd be a Taffy 3 all over again.

So it's not surprising that the army might forget how to fight an army, since the Navy has forgotten how to fight a Navy.

Garbad #45 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 22:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 30698 battles
  • 14,206
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    10-02-2010

View Postthegreenbaron, on Nov 05 2011 - 19:28, said:

So it's not surprising that the army might forget how to fight an army, since the Navy has forgotten how to fight a Navy.
To be fair, the probability of conventional war seems very low.

IMO, we should train for conventional war for one simple reason -- risk/reward. If we lose or perform badly in a low intensity conflict, at worst it costs us prestige and regional influence. But if we are caught off guard in a conventional war, we could very realistically lose everything. For the same reasons, i think we should keep our nuclear capacity reasonably well maintained.

That's why I support for example funding the F-35 and similar projects.

mr_angry_eyes #46 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 22:36

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 61992 battles
  • 254
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011
Many of us have military experience and this post relates to the game content, however, I find a front page post on this topic very misplaced. It strikes me as too political of an issue to have an international game of enjoyment linked to it. I would have no qualms if this post was buried in the forums, but presenting this issue in such a way only suggests that the publisher of this game has a vested stake in a change of doctrine for specific armies.

I humbly request that we keep the front page posts to non-political issues, more updates on game development and special incentives.

srmalloy #47 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 22:37

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 4255 battles
  • 376
  • [LOCAD] LOCAD
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

View Postthegreenbaron, on Nov 05 2011 - 19:28, said:

The current generation of exported Russian ship to ship missile systems are quite capable of reaching speeds too fast for current CIWS to counter it.  The Navy seems baffled about what to do about this, as the idea of increased ship armor seems to have never entered their skulls at all, as the idea of armored warships is actually antithetical to current Navy thinking.  

One could only imagine what, say, a Yamato or even Iowa class battleship, with it's secondary batteries swapped out for CIWS and improved anti-missile armor might do against a carrier group.  It'd be a Taffy 3 all over again.
It's going to be hard to get a missile fast enough for CIWS to be unable to counter it. The problem is that, while a single CIWS may be able to get 100% shootdown on any particular missile, [u]a[u] missile isn't the threat that it's facing, but four or more in a single wave, to obtain rollback on the target's defense systems -- i.e., by the time the system has taken out one missile, the remainder have closed on the target, with each 'sacrifice' missile allowing the remainder to close until they're within the engagement range of the system. The faster a missile is, the more effective it is at rolling back defenses. This was one of the design parameters of the Aegis system -- to be able to control a dozen or more missiles in the air at once. This has the concomitant problem of burning through the SAM supply rapidly; if the other side can throw more anti-ship missiles than you have SAMs to knock them down with, you're in a world of hurt.

On the other hand, ship-to-ship, a single battleship loses badly to a CVBG; while a simulation I ran some years ago between a Kirov CGN and an Iowa resulted in a sunk cruiser and a slightly-damaged battleship, against a CVBG the outcome would be even more one-sided than the actual final battle of either the Yamato or the Musashi, which were both lost to dive- and torpedo-bomber attack -- laser-guided bombs would make even quicker work of either ship than the 'dumb' weapons that sank them in WWII. What makes such an engagement so one-sided is that, while there is little a CVBG could do to stop their 18" shells, they have to close to within 26 miles of the CVBG to employ them -- and at a maximum speed of only 27 knots, there would be a lot of time for the air group to work them over after the Hawkeyes spotted them hundreds of miles out.

Although I was not in the Navy, more than ten years writing training software for the TAO and EW courses at the Fleet Combat Training Center has given me an... odd collection of knowledge from both. And some amusing memories -- watching two groups of TAO trainees on the ENWGS (Enhanced Navy Wargaming System) playing a scenario with two groups of missile boats in waters with various merchies, when after the first round of detections, there was a brief flurry of anti-ship missile fire, during which all of the merchies were sunk several times over, with the only combatant casualty being the Mod Petya scout, which had had four SS-N-22s fired along its bearing at the blue ships it had detected, and which all turned on their seekers before passing over the Mod Petya, locked on it, and blew it apart. Or the story I got back about a visit from an admiral to the EW school, and they showed him the chaff launcher trainer I'd written, then let him try it... he kept four captains waiting out in the hall for half an hour playing it, brushing off their protests that they needed to get on with the visit, exclaiming "Don't bother me; I've got a war to win!" (that one anecdote made my week -- if I'd succeeded in making it that engaging, then the trainees would spend more time using it.

Sternwulf #48 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 22:50

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10334 battles
  • 10
  • [ACO] ACO
  • Member since:
    04-06-2011

Quote

IMO, we should train for conventional war for one simple reason -- risk/reward. If we lose or perform badly in a low intensity conflict, at worst it costs us prestige and regional influence. But if we are caught off guard in a conventional war, we could very realistically lose everything. For the same reasons, i think we should keep our nuclear capacity reasonably well maintained.

Worst it costs us pretige and regional influence?

Sorry, but I kind of take offense to this remark.

Worst it costs us are the lives of young men and women.  If we perform badly we die.  In actuality the margin for error is much tighter in COIN and urban type areas of operation.  

I've seen first hand how bad performance can cost the lives of not just my fellow soldiers, but the lives of civillians as well.

You can take your prestige and shove it buddy.

The_Chieftain #49 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 00:25

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14382 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostRazven, on Nov 05 2011 - 02:02, said:

Missed No. 2), Chief. Also, +1 for you for the prompt and informative reply.

No, I didn't! Post #four, last line!

View PostRazven, on Nov 05 2011 - 05:53, said:

How does one "interrogate" IED's?

With a plough, I presume you hit it and see what happens.

View Postchainer2150, on Nov 05 2011 - 06:06, said:

Probably just me, and I'm sorry for how off topic this is but the second picture down, on the original post by The_Chieftain featuring the tank 532. Aren't those tanks painted with incorrect camouflage for that type of terrain? If i was an enemy pilot I might get suspicious when I saw a set of square bushes that big in the middle of the desert.

Not much money available for repainting National Guard tanks. Most KVTs are in the more suitable brown and tan scheme.

View PostSarge18, on Nov 05 2011 - 14:25, said:

The National Training Center ran a hybrid rotation in March -

Good to know. We sent observers to one rotation in August, expecting a hybrid. We saw an MRE. We were also hoping for on this Spring, seems not. They're certainly not common.

View Posthavocovah, on Nov 05 2011 - 17:06, said:

On a side note....

Really? World Nut Daily? Really?

Yeah, I know, I don't think Minsk is au fait with the fine details... But the crux of the article isn't too wild.

View Postmr_angry_eyes, on Nov 05 2011 - 22:36, said:

Many of us have military experience and this post relates to the game content, however, I find a front page post on this topic very misplaced. It strikes me as too political of an issue to have an international game of enjoyment linked to it. I would have no qualms if this post was buried in the forums, but presenting this issue in such a way only suggests that the publisher of this game has a vested stake in a change of doctrine for specific armies.

I humbly request that we keep the front page posts to non-political issues, more updates on game development and special incentives.

I'm not going to say you're far wrong, and I don't intend on making such articles a common event.

The_Chieftain #50 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 00:52

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14382 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostMGElwood, on Nov 05 2011 - 15:14, said:

Well, Now ya got me all riled up.....

Let us start of with this comment..

"To a very large extent, the only thing a gunnery table will prove you can do is hit pieces of plywood in a controlled environment, but it is an indicator as to just how much time was being spent on steel as of three years ago."

I joined the US army in 1983 as an armor crewman on the M60A1. I went to Airborne school,then to the 3/73 Armor (ABN) at Ft Bragg. Then to Germany on the M60A3, then the M1A1/A2 before retiring.
The tank tables are a controlled environment I agree...BUT the US army Tank Tables have changed to make them Combat tables. If you can pull out an old copy of the FM 17-12 and compare the tank tables in the current version of the manual, you will see the tables are WAY different.

Heh. It's certainly changed (though the Brad tables haven't changed as radically as the tank tables). Still, ask a Bradley Mike Golf about the new standard for TOW firing. Ours has nasty things to say on that matter. :)

I in no way mean to suggest that gunnery is not a good thing to be done as often as possible, or that it does not have the positive benefits you list but. I do take slight objection to this line

Quote

You know FIGHT the tank.

It doesn't teach you to fight the tank, it teaches you to fight the gunnery table.I recall one Armor Magazine article, oh, must have been over five years ago now, entitled "Fight the Tank," lamenting the fact the gunnery has turned into a rules competition and not a proper training event, and I think the author was spot on.

Valkeiper #51 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 00:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostSeaApe, on Nov 05 2011 - 17:40, said:

Chieftain,

First I want to thank you for your well crafted articles as I enjoy reading them almost as much as decimating my opponents with my King Tiger. Secondly, I have to state that I was never a Tanker and that I was a US Navy Sailor (HT2, 2003-2009). My experience with ground forces in the real world is limited to a 6 month detachment to a US Marine Security Force Company, some Independant Duty in Africa and supporting amphibious operations (several in fact) during the GWOT.

My peers, friends and family serving in all the branches of the US armed forces the last few years have been complaining of the same degradation of force capabilities as you stated above. For those not familiar with real military applications, I must explain the importance of maintaining core skills. Any military that allows core skills to be set aside becomes weaker in general. Countries that become weaker, become easier targets and other nations are not as hesitant to enrage or attack them. Case in point, in the 1930's, Hitler's Germany was not seen as the greatest threat in Europe. Almost all of the world thought that his government would collapse and their military was too weak to pose a threat, despite the build up. As late as 1938/39, countries like Great Britain, France, and the US still considered Stalin the greatest threat in the world with his massive army and reviled political system. In June of 1941 the Axis invaded the Soviet Union and in the first phase alone, incapacitated 600,000 Soviet tropps. The Soviet Union had a 4:1 advantage in tank numbers on the frontier the day of the invasion. But disorganization, poor training and a purge of the Soviet Officer Corps led to almost all Soviet tanks on the Western frontier being destroyed or disabled (info). Now that expresses the point I was trying to make why we should train to be great in our core competancies. My career and passion is being a firefighter, you wouldn't want me to not worry about training to save you from a burning building because it's a rare event, would you?

As far as MY military experience, the US Navy fleet operations is in the same 'boat' as it were as the Army's Armor Units. The Navy is focusing on 2 major priorities, 1) Anti-piracy operations in sea shipping lanes and 2) Weapons/Drug interdiction. Neither program really uses the major core competancies of modern Naval combat. I was riding a Cruiser out of Mississippi on a drug interdiction mission in the Caribbean. We were having a successful operation so far until a submarine surfaced about 100 yards on the starboard (right) side of the ship. Needless to say, I lost my cigarette over the side in the chaos that ensued. It turned out to be a Peruvian (and therfore allied) sub but there was no warning from the sub (a flare launched before surfacing) or from ship's sonar. That's when I found out the cruiser's sonar had not be functional for a couple of YEARS! Fleet didn't consider it important since the ship was delegated to anti-drup ops in Central/South America. Since then, I have performed work on or ridden numerous ships with non-functional air-defence systems, anti-submarine systems, anti-surface systems or with crews that didn't even know how to adequately perform in their assigned roles. In fact, it was 22 May 2008 when the USS George Washington suffered a catostrophic fire onboard during an Underway Replenishment. This fire, while preventable, also showed the investigation team (including me) that the US Navy is not capable of dealing with shipboard emergencies, let alone combat damage!(Info)

In closing, I believe that the US military is vulnerable to many conventional avenues of attack. Even Admiral Mike Mullen stood before congress before his promotion and called for hearings on the state of the Navy today. We may not see the next big threat coming, but a skilled opponent never lets you see him until it is too late!

-SeaApe

your report on the sorry state of our navy saddens me.

I remember when I was in (most of my enlistment was during Jimmy Carter's administration). the military was taking BIG hits to their training even then.

It was interesting how that training STILL showed vast improvement in those who partook in them.

For example; during the 70s, we had exercises called Operational Readiness Evaluations (O.R.E.) which pitted entire battle groups against each other in mock battle and evaluated everything even down to the ability to repair a malfunctioning turret camera.

In Jimmy Carter's Last year The USS Independence (CV-62) was not allowed to use some of the more advanced aircraft (such as the F-14 Tomcat) and was saddled with 'lesser' craft (like the F-4 Phantom II).

Now the 'Ike' is a CVN (nuclear powered) while the 'Indy' was a CV (a fuel burner). the IKE had the 'latest and greatest' equipment available, while the INDY was stuck with the 'tired castoffs' of the Vietnam era.

Due to more intense training before the exercise, the "Indy" successfully engaged the USS Eisenhower (can't remember hull #) and 'sank' her no less than 4 times without being sank in return.

In the Pacific, the Coral Sea (another 'fuel burner') facing similar disadvantages, 'sank' the USS Nimitz (Another CVN) 6 times while being 'sank' twice.

When Ronald Reagan prepared to take office; he asked the Joint chiefs to put the navy's two BEST carriers off Iran's coast (codenamed 'Zulu station') for his presidential inaugural speech as an obvious preparation for combat operations if the Iranians did not release the US embassy hostages taken just over a year earlier.

The carriers chosen were NOT the newest and best equipped (The Nimitz and the Eisenhower); but the carriers which had proven they were better (the Coral Sea and the Independence).

The hostages were released only minutes BEFORE the new president took his oath of office. The Iranians tried to say Jimmy Carter finally secured the release; but it was obvious the true power behind that release laid off the Iranian coast.

This I know, because I was on the Indy. The ship was actually dropping anchor to go on liberty in Singapore when we got the orders to sail to 'Zulu Station'. We lifted anchor and did our duty. There was no doubt on that ship that WE WOULD NOT FAIL.

This goes to show (IMHO, at least); not only is training necessary, it is fundamental to success.

Valkeiper #52 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 01:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostBean223, on Nov 05 2011 - 17:46, said:

It's about time the Top Brass pulled their collective heads out of their asses.

careful about saying anybody making that particular anatomical contortion. I said the WoT Devs were doing it and got banned for a week.

If you don't get banned; I guess the devs finally learned that is NOT an obscene insult (or they simply didn't feel personally insulted by it)

Greener #53 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 01:12

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 8405 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    02-02-2011
"Truth be told, I have no idea how (or if) the other nations which have been involved in low-intensity operations recently such as France, Britain or Canada have been able to sustain their conventional warfighting skills, but they are too professional to not understand the possible negative repercussions as demonstrated by Israel's experience."

I think the fact that the Canadian Army had to "rent" Leopard 2's from the Dutch just to get a tank that had A/C for the hot Afghan climate should tell you something about the mindset that exists within the Canadian Forces when it comes to preparing for future conflict.  Another case in point is the 45 year old Sea King helicopters that the Canadian Navy has to keep patching up and flying; despite attempts to have them replaced for almost 20 years.  But my Canadian friends always quote Lester B. Pearson and say "Canada is a nation of Peace Keepers, not Peace Makers.....",  write that as your epitaph if you are so short sighted.



Sternwulf #54 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 01:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10334 battles
  • 10
  • [ACO] ACO
  • Member since:
    04-06-2011

Quote

It doesn't teach you to fight the tank, it teaches you to fight the gunnery table.I recall one Armor Magazine article, oh, must have been over five years ago now, entitled "Fight the Tank," lamenting the fact the gunnery has turned into a rules competition and not a proper training event, and I think the author was spot on.

I agree

The_Chieftain #55 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 01:40

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14382 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
In all fairness, I don't think the Canadian Forces' position on the matter of the tanks or the helos was misplaced, just the politicians in charge of the purse strings have their own opinions. The government of the time wanted to get rid of tanks, what are the generals going to do? Similarly some comments from the Dutch military about recent capability cutbacks indicate that the attitude is "we don't like it, but obey our civilian masters" (My favorite line was "We are being turned into the Belgian military, useful only for parades and airshows. Maybe, if there is enough money, we can perform a trick")

Scaedugenga #56 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 02:29

    Private

  • Players
  • 9270 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
To hear this from a current Alpha is both a relief (in that someone's putting out that higher has realized we may have a problem) and also appalling.

Those of us who've been out of the business for a bit don't always get to keep in touch with what's going on - Especially if we've gotten fat, lazy, become reservists and transferred branches...

That said, as a former 11M from 2/11 ACR, between the time I got to Irwin (January, 1998) and the time I left active duty (August 2011) we heard constant chatter about how MOUT training was becoming more and more important.  We never really partook of it - we had augmentees from the local Guard and Reserve units for the (actual) infantry side of the house - but even then the word was in the air that a shift in focus was coming.  As OPFOR, we rarely got to do what we needed to do, to keep up our skills - I drove for a Table VIII once, and was gate-guard on the other two my unit did while I was in.  We focused on being ready to train the guys coming in on their rotations, and we took pride in it - I'd never have thought that TRADOC would have shifted focus so heavily as to neglect 'traditional' roles so completely, despite the clear and pressing need to ensure that everyone is up on the basics of being a grunt.

It's both a shame that we let our focus fall off so much, and a remarkable swing in mentality that we realized there was need for everyone in the Combat Arms fields to be able to do whatever was needed to win the fight, but in the end it's horrifying that it happened.

I'm glad that the Bosses In General of Special High Intensity Training Systems have begun to rethink and re-deploy our training programs.


...

P.S.  if I rambled incoherently, you have my apologies.

WWDC #57 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 03:02

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 31764 battles
  • 57
  • [REJEX] REJEX
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011
Chieftain,
I am engaged while reading alot of your stuff. Wish I could retain some of it to...lol

No doubt the life of a Tanker in WW2 was much different than it is now.

Nighteyes_5 #58 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 03:12

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 4349 battles
  • 6
  • [LUSK] LUSK
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010
On the units in Korea remarks.

I have personal Experience in what you were saying as the flip-side of the coin.. I wa stationed in Camp Howze south Korea in 44th engineers when 2ID was deployed from Korea into Iraq. Cco 44th is one of the oddball units of the military. (Or was.. 44th was disbanded after we returned from Iraq) Cco 44th engineers was a light/Heavy, Airborne, Air Assault Sapper company. With the design that should North Korea ever start a fight, we were to break into groups of 2-3 people each assigned to all the different infantry companies and become part of them.

The Troops in Korea were stagnant.. we had unusual training schedules and field problems, many times force-on-force training against infantry and tankers. We never expected to deploy to an actual combat, and the military didn't expect us to either, but because of that, we would train on the most obscure, obsolete equipment imaginable. Many of the vehicles we had were barely usable. the AVLB's required a signature from a general for us to be even allowed to move them because they were so dangerous to drive. Rifles where upper and lower receiver would wobble seperatly from each other, Vietnam era handguards on M203's, etc.

Modern warfare isn't what you expect either.. standard training barely applies. the crazy insane training we did just to stay busy was actually more useful then the stuff in the books that they teach, and most people who joined the military know, the training you get in Basic is 90% useless, and you re-learn your job once you get to your actual unit.

On the subject of Ranger tabs.

In most units, Ranger tabs or Pathfinder, or even the little Airborne/Air Assault badges, are a big deal.. but in Combat Engineer units, you'll see a wide array of things, and people are judged more by what they do, then by what they accomplished, because there was a ghost tab for the engineers for years.. the Sapper tab. a tab that was awarded for successful completion of Sapper school, but until about 2004, was never allowed to be worn on a uniform as an official marking.

and on the last bit about Mine plows.

Yes.. Mine plows and expecially mine rollers, they would have been lifesavers in Iraq. instead of sweeping roadsides, we could have sifted and compacted so that any digging was visible, but for the most part, you didn't get to see the place the IED was before it went off. There were even mines double and triple stacked and burried several feet below the ground on the hope that we wouldn't detect them with the metal detectors or explosives sniffer dogs.

So really the point is;
No Training that makes sense, will apply in reality. Playing Paintball will help soldiers understand squad movement, hand signs, and violence of action tactics better then an actual MOUT city will. shooting from the prone at stationary targets with breathing control will teach soldiers hesitation rather then instinct, and the only training that can truely prepare you for combat, is going to combat.

Pongo #59 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 04:14

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 24626 battles
  • 2,267
  • Member since:
    08-06-2010
As has been stated, the general tendency of military's is to train and equip for the last war. It is good that that tendency is being recognized and plans being put in place to  have the troops AND the generals ready to fight a high intensity conflict.
I agree with the poster that said, I paraphrase, you can fumble an insurgency(unless its at home) for a while, WW3 will need competence from day one minute one.

GearaDoga #60 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 05:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 8517 battles
  • 2,597
  • [WIH] WIH
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Nov 06 2011 - 01:40, said:

In all fairness, I don't think the Canadian Forces' position on the matter of the tanks or the helos was misplaced, just the politicians in charge of the purse strings have their own opinions. The government of the time wanted to get rid of tanks, what are the generals going to do? Similarly some comments from the Dutch military about recent capability cutbacks indicate that the attitude is "we don't like it, but obey our civilian masters" (My favorite line was "We are being turned into the Belgian military, useful only for parades and airshows. Maybe, if there is enough money, we can perform a trick")

This has always been a bit of a sore spot among the more military-minded Canadian population, and I think it's one of the major points in our current government's favor that they've actually taken steps to give the Forces some teeth again.  It's just sad that we had to get caught in a war with our pants around our ankles before it happened.

When jokes about Sea Kings dropping out of the sky (although hey - not too bad after 48 years flying off ships smaller than most sane pilots would prefer...) and the Navy heading out in a canoe with a shotgun become commonplace, something's definitely not right.  Greener's point about poor preparation is valid, to a certain extent - we did have to panic and rent new Leo II's to deal with Afghanistan, and we did wind up spending a good chunk of the conflict hitching rides with the Americans and anybody else with proper transport choppers.

The good news is that things are changing.  

The much maligned old Sea King is finally being allowed to retire once the CH-148 Cyclone shows up in a year or two.  

We may have had to rent the new Leos, but they're staying put along with some older models, recovery tanks, etc.  

They FINALLY bought us some bloody C-17's and Chinooks (with plans to buy more), so our forces can actually move themselves around now.

The RCAF is getting a bunch of F-35's to replace the old Hornets, and new J model Hercs, too.

And the Navy boys are looking at plans to build new Support vessels, Frigates and Destroyers.

As is the nature of all things involving this many politicians and this much money, It'll take time.  But the CF are definitely getting things back up to snuff now that they've got government support to make the changes that everyone knows are long, looooong overdue.  Time will tell if that support truly lasts, but things are looking up for the time being.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users