Posted on May 14, 2016
Army is implementing standardized METL. Does anyone know if we will still train KCT that support the METs or will we train directly to METs?
15.1K
5
22
2
2
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
Ran across this while looking for the same answer. I think the Army was going the right direction by redefining METL in ADP 7-0 and ARDP 7-0 but the idea never caught on. The lack of understanding of UTM and thus the reason for implementing a standardized METL is lost in the 200+ pages of the guide. But just in time, FM 7-0 is coming along to change everything and faster than a Delorean take us back to the '90s reintroducing things we left there for a reason. Under OBJ-T, my company will never be higher than a T3 due to MTOE and design.
Have you found any other info since this post?
Have you found any other info since this post?
(1)
(0)
LTC David Del Favero
Find me on the global and drop me a line with your unit type. I'll try to connect you to your proponent so you can discuss your concerns with your company's METL.
It wasn't an issue of UTM that has led to standardizing the METLs. It has to do with resourcing/budgeting much more than your training management.
It wasn't an issue of UTM that has led to standardizing the METLs. It has to do with resourcing/budgeting much more than your training management.
(0)
(0)
The CSA directed standardized METLs down to company level, and units will begin reporting against the new METLs as early as 1 NOV (reserve component units later). Some standardized METLs have already been approved and are available on the METL viewer on the Army Training Network (look for the big METL button). The most of the rest will be available very soon. METLs consist of 7 or fewer Mission Essential Tasks (METs), each with as many as 7 Supporting Collective Tasks (SCTs).
I'm not sure exactly how we'll treat tasks below company level (e.g. will they be KCT or will they be battle tasks?), but that will be spelled out in the new FM 7-0, which will be published in July (perhaps a little later due to some changes at the Army Publishing Directorate this month). The FM has been approved, and copies of the signature draft may be available as early as next week to senior leaders.
I'm not sure exactly how we'll treat tasks below company level (e.g. will they be KCT or will they be battle tasks?), but that will be spelled out in the new FM 7-0, which will be published in July (perhaps a little later due to some changes at the Army Publishing Directorate this month). The FM has been approved, and copies of the signature draft may be available as early as next week to senior leaders.
(0)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
True, but so far I think this fairy is on the right track. Forces CDRs to put their money where there "T" rating is!
(1)
(0)
LTC David Del Favero
Like-type units were designed by the Army to provide the same capability to combatant commanders (all armor companies provide the same capability). USR is a measure of the readiness of each company to provide that capability. All units measure supply, maintenance, personnel, etc by the same yardstick. They should do the same for training readiness.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
LTC David Del Favero - I guess the issue I have is the CSA isn't bringing anything new to the force; he's trying to reimplement a standard that existed 20 years ago. We had standardized METL when I was a tank PL; then they started creating all these hybrid formations in BCTs focused on universal and joint essential tasks. That didn't go so well and now the CSA wants to bring back traditional concepts. The issue isn't lack of standardized METL but the enforcement and resourcing of training. Oh and formation uniformity would be nice too.
(0)
(0)
LTC David Del Favero
What's 'new' with it this time around (there's never anything new in the Army) is that they're going to tie the METLs more closely to the CATS, and, among other things, projecting training costs so the Army can better communicate our resource requirements to Congress.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next