Military Roll Call! Veterans, GTFIH!

Looks like I'm right, again...

"Army Will Add 2 Months to Infantry Course to Make Grunts More Lethal"

Story: https://www.military.com/daily-news...ke-grunts-more-lethal.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

So, how do you justify this? The training was weak? The soldiers are weak? 2 months of training makes a soldier more lethal now? What were they before? That is the unit's responsibility to make a soldier more lethal, not the school. Here we go again. But hey, if a RASP graduate is a Ranger, anything goes right? ;) Waste of time and money.
Hold up bro. Did you even read the article?
 
Hold up bro. Did you even read the article?

Yes I did. I would not post on something I had not read. Plus, read the comments below the story, they are even better. If this is the case with 11B (Infantry), why not do the same with other MOSs? What's so special about 11B that they need extra training?
 
@Sir GymTanLaundry, what is that U.S. Army school that prepares Captains and Majors to become Battalion S-3 (Operations and Training)? There isn't one! It is called OJT (On the Job Training). I learned it from my boss who learned it from his boss. I was the Assistant S-3 as a Captain prior to becoming the S-3 as a Major. It is really amazing when you think about it. No school to prepare you and you are running a Battalion. You are the Battalion Commander's right hand man. In many ways you run the Battalion for him. It is all based on experience. Learning from your mistakes. Zero training, and that is how we go to war.
 
@Sir GymTanLaundry, what is that U.S. Army school that prepares Captains and Majors to become Battalion S-3 (Operations and Training)? There isn't one! It is called OJT (On the Job Training). I learned it from my boss who learned it from his boss. I was the Assistant S-3 as a Captain prior to becoming the S-3 as a Major. It is really amazing when you think about it. No school to prepare you and you are running a Battalion. You are the Battalion Commander's right hand man. In many ways you run the Battalion for him. It is all based on experience. Learning from your mistakes. Zero training, and that is how we go to war.
Sweet. But did you graduate AIT during a time like this where the US military is seemingly everywhere. And learning on the job could get you killed as well as your buddies. Probably not.
 
Sweet. But did you graduate AIT during a time like this where the US military is seemingly everywhere. And learning on the job could get you killed as well as your buddies.

I graduated from AIT in 1989, 11B, Infantry, Ft. Benning, GA, PFC (E-3). I found the unit training much more valuable than the school training. You are working with real NCOs that have experience that is being passed down to you. School environment is limited by the number of instructors and everyone else is a student. Not very realistic in my opinion. Just exactly how much training is enough? Who decides that? There will always be room for improvement. Sometimes you don't have that luxury...

Only folks that are 'everywhere' is SOF. Maybe a few non SOF in Afghanistan.
 
I graduated from AIT in 1989, 11B, Infantry, Ft. Benning, GA, PFC (E-3). I found the unit training much more valuable than the school training. You are working with real NCOs that have experience that is being passed down to you. School environment is limited by the number of instructors and everyone else is a student. Not very realistic in my opinion. Just exactly how much training is enough? Who decides that? There will always be room for improvement. Sometimes you don't have that luxury...

Only folks that are 'everywhere' is SOF. Maybe a few non SOF in Afghanistan.
I may be naively trusting what that article is saying but the Army I’m sure analyzed the current training, keeping in mind that this new stuff is still in the pilot phase, as saw weaknesses or areas that need to be improved on. It wasn’t like some generals woke up one morning and were like we need to extend and make infantry training more intense just because, analysis, design and development went into it.
 
Yes I did. I would not post on something I had not read. Plus, read the comments below the story, they are even better. If this is the case with 11B (Infantry), why not do the same with other MOSs? What's so special about 11B that they need extra training?
That's about how long it is in the marines (13 week boot camp + 8 weeks SOI).
 
The longer the training, the more skills a soldier can have before being put to a unit which may be deployed imminently.

What is the best rounded a soldier can be? Roughly and by no means in order:
-physically robust
-navigation (for mountains/jungle/desert with COMPASS and gps)
-weapons (rifle, pistol, light machine gun, HMG)
-communication equipment skills
-driving (in off road conditions desert/arctic and with contact drills etc)
-basic mechanical skills for said vehicles
-basic survival skills
-cold weather training
-medical skills
-correct contact drills (open area/CQB etc etc)


If you hand pick a few things rather than cover as much of this at a good level, and then throw a soldier at a deployable unit IMO youre doing him/her a dis-service. More training is only a good thing.

The modern soldier is expected to know/do alot more, and be more versatile than many of our warriors from days gone.
 
It wasn’t like some generals woke up one morning and were like we need to extend and make infantry training more intense just because, analysis, design and development went into it.

That is exactly what happened. Some General was trying to figure out how to get an extra 'star' and came up with this 'brilliant' idea. Just like when the U.S. Army switched to 'black' berets. Ranger berets! Would it not be easier to make the whole Army switch to 'tan' berets instead? Stupid decision, stupid headgear, but somebody got an extra 'star' for that. Trust me, there are some pretty stupid officers at the top.

That's about how long it is in the marines (13 week boot camp + 8 weeks SOI).

I think Marine boot camp (Basic and AIT for Infantry) is better than the Army boot camp. Marines spend a lot more time on marksmanship than the Army, regardless of MOS. As an Infantry guy, that is a big plus. As I recall my basic training in the Army was about 10 weeks long. Infantry AIT afterwards was also about 10 weeks. I'm reading Infantry AIT is now up to 16 weeks?

The modern soldier is expected to know/do a lot more, and be more versatile than many of our warriors from days gone...and then throw a soldier at a deployable unit IMO you're doing him/her a dis-service.

The 'modern' soldier as in the British soldier or all soldiers? Also, I would say it is dependent on MOS. Infantry would call for items in your list, but not Finance, Quartermaster, Transportation, and Medical. In the U.S. Army, a soldier does not have to deploy immediately after basic/AIT. They can, but it is the unit's choice when filling the 'Battle Roster'. Plus, all units deploying will spend at least two months (CONUS) preparing and training prior to going into theater. Plus, there is only so much money allocated to schools. An increase in school time would mean an increase in the school budget.

My thoughts on Tier I training (keep it simple):
. Physical: APFT (60%)
. Weapons: Assigned weapon and hand grenade.
. Medical: First Aid, Level I and II.
. Navigation: Using a map and compass, know where you are at all times (MEDEVAC).
. Communication: Basic radio use, how to call for a MEDEVAC.
. Battle Drills
. Urban Operations - MOUT Training

Tier II training:
. Driving
. Survival skills (not SERE)
. Cold/Hot weather training
. Communication: Call for direct and indirect fire.
. Weapons: Crew served (bring back the M-60) and M18 claymore mine.

* You can't expect a Private (E-1) to know the same stuff a Sergeant (E-5) knows. Infantry guys are not very bright, at any level. Privates (E-1) are young and inexperienced. The stuff needs to be simple for them. Shoot, cover, move and communicate. Repeat.
 
Last edited:
The 'modern' soldier as in the British soldier or all soldiers? Also, I would say it is dependent on MOS. Infantry would call for items in your list, but not Finance, Quartermaster, Transportation, and Medical.

Infantry guys are not very bright, at any level. Privates (E-1) are young and inexperienced. The stuff needs to be simple for them. Shoot, cover, move and communicate. Repeat.

All INFANTRY soldiers, the topic of discussion was the extension of training for infantry soldiers so that is what I was responding to.

Our forefathers did not have access to the technology we do today- the pros and cons that come with computerized/digitized communications gear, electronic counter measures, advances in vehicle armour/weaponry and the issues that comes with them as well as just about every other aspect of the military. Yes they had their own problems, but the modern soldier is taught infinitely more than one 50 years ago. You are expected to know the 'basics', but the basics involves alot more nowadays.

Infantry guys may not always possess academic skill, but a child can be taught many of these things given the time, and if time is what is being given to infantry soldiers well...then they can learn this stuff
 
The topic of discussion was the extension of training for infantry soldiers so that is what I was responding to....Infantry guys may not always possess academic skill, but a child can be taught many of these things given the time, and if time is what is being given to infantry soldiers well...then they can learn this stuff.
Plus, there is only so much money allocated to schools. An increase in school time would mean an increase in the school budget.

I was joking on the smarts of Infantry guys. There are some very bright ones out there and some not so bright, but I bet you never trained with the mortar section. Those are some of the smartest guys I've worked with in the Infantry. There are a lot of calculations that go into having a mortar round land on target. Watching them work their 'tables' and calculations is truly amazing. Distance, altitude, wind, weather, etc.

Who pays for the school? Two months (60 days) of extra training turns into more money to be spent. Where does that money come from? Depends on the unit (Active Duty or National Guard). Both will go through the same school and training, but the funding source may be different. Some is federal money and some is state money. Money that needs to be approved and allocated.
 
Last edited:
@Phr3121
There's nothing wrong with adding to AIT, soldiers will only benefit from it. Plus bring back the 60? Why? 240B is a great squad machine gun.. the claymore? I was trained on it, I retrained on it multiple times - never used one, in many many months of actual combat. The Gustav, AT-4, AT weapons in general - those are important.

Your infantry experience was so long ago, and so short, I think you're off the path in your logic.

Here dude, I was an 11B squad leader in Afghanistan and have 2 years, in combat as an 11B, before I even went SF.

You non stop talk about RASP, you've never been, you were not in the military when it was created. You talk about how shitty soldiers are today. SirGym is right man it’s always a pissing contest with you always adding in like you know it all.

You don’t. It’s obvious, I don’t see why you need to do that know it all shit. I wouldn’t comment on PsyOps, cause I know about nothing from them, I wouldn’t comment on Marine training, unless I was sure I knew what I was talking about. I especially like how you explain in detail things about SF, our recruiting process, selection, ect. It’s amusing, I stopped correcting your inaccuracies months ago.
 
That is exactly what happened. Some General was trying to figure out how to get an extra 'star' and came up with this 'brilliant' idea. Just like when the U.S. Army switched to 'black' berets. Ranger berets! Would it not be easier to make the whole Army switch to 'tan' berets instead? Stupid decision, stupid headgear, but somebody got an extra 'star' for that. Trust me, there are some pretty stupid officers at the top.



I think Marine boot camp (Basic and AIT for Infantry) is better than the Army boot camp. Marines spend a lot more time on marksmanship than the Army, regardless of MOS. As an Infantry guy, that is a big plus. As I recall my basic training in the Army was about 10 weeks long. Infantry AIT afterwards was also about 10 weeks. I'm reading Infantry AIT is now up to 16 weeks?



The 'modern' soldier as in the British soldier or all soldiers? Also, I would say it is dependent on MOS. Infantry would call for items in your list, but not Finance, Quartermaster, Transportation, and Medical. In the U.S. Army, a soldier does not have to deploy immediately after basic/AIT. They can, but it is the unit's choice when filling the 'Battle Roster'. Plus, all units deploying will spend at least two months (CONUS) preparing and training prior to going into theater. Plus, there is only so much money allocated to schools. An increase in school time would mean an increase in the school budget.

My thoughts on Tier I training (keep it simple):
. Physical: APFT (60%)
. Weapons: Assigned weapon and hand grenade.
. Medical: First Aid, Level I and II.
. Navigation: Using a map and compass, know where you are at all times (MEDEVAC).
. Communication: Basic radio use, how to call for a MEDEVAC.
. Battle Drills
. Urban Operations - MOUT Training

Tier II training:
. Driving
. Survival skills (not SERE)
. Cold/Hot weather training
. Communication: Call for direct and indirect fire.
. Weapons: Crew served (bring back the M-60) and M18 claymore mine.

* You can't expect a Private (E-1) to know the same stuff a Sergeant (E-5) knows. Infantry guys are not very bright, at any level. Privates (E-1) are young and inexperienced. The stuff needs to be simple for them. Shoot, cover, move and communicate. Repeat.
I think that the extended training is trying to address some of this stuff man. That’s why I asked if you read the article.
 
I was joking on the smarts of Infantry guys. There are some very bright ones out there and some not so bright, but I bet you never trained with the mortar section.

In my old unit we cross train in alot of sections. As for the money side I dont and never have cared where the military budget came from lol
 
@Phr3121
There's nothing wrong with adding to AIT, soldiers will only benefit from it. Plus bring back the 60? Why? 240B is a great squad machine gun.. the claymore? I was trained on it, I retrained on it multiple times - never used one, in many many months of actual combat. The Gustav, AT-4, AT weapons in general - those are important.

Your infantry experience was so long ago, and so short, I think you're off the path in your logic.

Here dude, I was an 11B squad leader in Afghanistan and have 2 years, in combat as an 11B, before I even went SF.

You non stop talk about RASP, you've never been, you were not in the military when it was created. You talk about how shitty soldiers are today. SirGym is right man it’s always a pissing contest with you always adding in like you know it all.

You don’t. It’s obvious, I don’t see why you need to do that know it all shit. I wouldn’t comment on PsyOps, cause I know about nothing from them, I wouldn’t comment on Marine training, unless I was sure I knew what I was talking about. I especially like how you explain in detail things about SF, our recruiting process, selection, ect. It’s amusing, I stopped correcting your inaccuracies months ago.

But you're not properly ranger trained so what would you know? ;)
 
lol @ wanting to bring the M60 back.
 
lol @ wanting to bring the M60 back.
Asked a friend that carried a 240 while he was in the 82nd if he'd be down with having the Pig back:
"Man, I'd saw off my own leg before having to hump that hunk of steel around"
 
Asked a friend that carried a 240 while he was in the 82nd if he'd be down with having the Pig back:
"Man, I'd saw off my own leg before having to hump that hunk of steel around"
I like the Mk 48 the SeALs use. It's basically a 7.62 version of the SAW.
 
Thanks for the kind words @Mike Hagger. Had a bad weekend? Things are a little stressful at work? You have always been a little bi-polar in your posts, from nice to a total dick. The 'hot shit' SF Ranger with all the answers. At the end of the day you are just another soldier in the U.S. Army my friend.

@Phr3121
There's nothing wrong with adding to AIT, soldiers will only benefit from it. Plus bring back the 60? Why? 240B is a great squad machine gun

Nice to know your opinions about an extended AIT, mine are different. I loved the M-60 and would like to see it back.

@Phr3121Your infantry experience was so long ago, and so short, I think you're off the path in your logic.

Indeed, 7 years in the Infantry is a short time. Would 14 years be OK with you?

@Phr3121You non stop talk about RASP, you've never been, you were not in the military when it was created. You talk about how shitty soldiers are today. SirGym is right man it’s always a pissing contest with you always adding in like you know it all.

That's right, I've never been to RASP I was in a light Infantry unit. When exactly did I say soldiers today were shitty? Putting words in my mouth? I think @Sir GymTanLaundry was referring to the eternal discussion of the value of the Ranger tab between Regimental Rangers and Infantry soldiers. No, I don't know it all, wish I did. Not sure what gave you that idea. Not sure why you feel so insulted. Maybe you should go back to your medication.

@Phr3121I don’t see why you need to do that know it all shit. I especially like how you explain in detail things about SF, our recruiting process, selection, ect. It’s amusing, I stopped correcting your inaccuracies months ago.

I'm not allowed to talk about the SF program? Do I have to be SF qualified to do that? How many times have I asked you questions about the SF program? You still have not answered my question about how long selection takes, so, I guess I don't know it all.
 
And we have a dick measuring contest going on in here... again.
 
Back
Top