If the military focuses on setting the standard, why is it that soldiers, after AIT, are not trained like SF, SEALs, etc., in combat arms?

2016-10-10T03:35:17-04:00

wouldnt this training save more lives??

Response by SPC Eddie Espejo made Oct 10 at 2016 3:38 AM

2016-10-10T03:38:28-04:00

Response by SPC Eddie Espejo made Oct 10 at 2016 6:50 AM

2016-10-10T06:50:00-04:00

i feel that training like that should be the standard. not only would our military be squared away but we would be strong and at least respected by other militarys in the world and not so many sick call heros maybe as well ahaha.why have a special group when we all could have been operators?? just my rant is all. thx for reading

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 10 at 2016 7:13 AM

2016-10-10T07:13:25-04:00

Cost / Benefit.

Not everyone needs to be trained to that "standard."

You are referring to a "specialized skill level" which MOST people will never use. Frankly, the benefit for the cost is just not there. It's the same reason that everyone is not Jump or Dive qualified. Not everyone is going to use those skills therefore in is unnecessary to train to that level.

Therefore, you determine what is necessary and establish that as the baseline "standard" and develop unit standards above that for specific missions. If your Division is assigned CENTCOM you focus heavily on training related to the ME. If your Division is assigned SOCOM, you train for drug interdiction.

Drawing a parallel, it's the same reason we have different branches of Service. Each has distinct missions, therefore each has distinct training requirements, and we must balance costs around the missions and training.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2016 8:47 AM

2016-10-10T08:47:19-04:00

If we all trained to those standards then what would the point of having all of those Special Forces groups be? Also how many people do you actually think would be able to tough it out? We'd have to lower the standards in order to maintain a big enough military. And then you've lost what you were trying to gain.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Oct 10 at 2016 8:58 AM

2016-10-10T08:58:59-04:00

Need...cost vs benefit, capability of the demographic your asking about to complete such training, resources and funding.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2016 9:51 AM

2016-10-10T09:51:30-04:00

Average length of training time for an operator is what....1-3 yrs before they are fully operational on their team/unit? Financially, that's not feasible.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Oct 10 at 2016 10:30 AM

2016-10-10T10:30:08-04:00

I also think there is a difference in missions. Despite what happened in parts of the GWOT. Army Special Forces are not supposed to be direct Combat Troops their missions are training indigenous forces, humanitarian, hostage rescue, etc. Yes, they experience Combat but that is not their Primary role to close with and engage head on Enemy Forces. I am not sure of the modern Cavalry Scout Mission since it has evolved since I left the service so I excluded it from the below.

They are Different than Infantry. The way I think of it is this:

Infantry - Light Infantry - Mech Infantry - Deployable and Occupational Force (not Expeditionary)
Airborne Infantry - Light Infantry - Expeditionary Force
RANGER Infantry - Airborne Light Infantry - Advanced tactics from the above also Expeditionary.
Army Special Forces - Airborne Light Infantry - Training, Humanitarian, Terrorism (Delta), Military force building also Expeditionary

Expeditionary - Means they have rapid deployment benchmarks they have to meet regularly to be rated Combat Ready and typically are seen as a unit with Global Reach as part of the President's emergency response force.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Oct 10 at 2016 11:39 AM

2016-10-10T11:39:55-04:00

Soldier are trained to work within their MOS, while SF is trained within their MOS, which is very varied and their expectations are very different the rest of the services.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2016 1:51 PM

2016-10-10T13:51:13-04:00

Budget Cuts and Funding

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2016 2:30 PM

2016-10-10T14:30:20-04:00

I support combat arms soldiers having additional training beyond that received in AIT/OSUT. The issues affecting the training you actually receive are related to mission, cost of the training, leadership and political will. If the stories I have been hearing over the past few years are correct, training and training resources have been cut. Even with these cuts, training doesn't have to suffer if the leadership has the imagination and will to overcome the shortages.

In 1972, the US Army was at a very low point. When I arrived at my unit, we had old equipment and no resources or ammunition. We were lucky enough to have some talented NCO's who weren't going to accept the situation and came up with some very novel ways of training a light infantry platoon. Rather than sit around or if the training was a 'mandatory' event, they would integrate it with other opportunity training to keep us focused. As a result, when we started getting some funding in 1974, we were actually in a position where we could use the funds to do even more.

To come back to your question, you may not be SF, SEAL Ranger or other SOF, but there is no reason you can't adopt some of their training and integrate it into your own. It just takes a desire to have your soldiers be the best and the will to make it happen. That's the way combat arms soldiers have been doing it for many many years.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Oct 10 at 2016 2:32 PM

2016-10-10T14:32:58-04:00

I could see an extra week or two of specialized basic infantry type training but nothing to the level of an 11B or SF.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2016 3:14 PM

2016-10-10T15:14:29-04:00

Well, you don't give your pizza delivery drivers Porshe 918 Spyders when they can get by with Ford Fiestas.

Response by CPT Nicholas D. made Oct 11 at 2016 1:18 AM

2016-10-11T01:18:01-04:00

Combat Arms training to a SOF standard is not practical for everyone in the US Military, but I do have to agree with you that if we could replicate the resiliency aspect within all units, we could very much save lives. I don't need the finance clerk to be an expert marksman, I just need them to quickly and effectively solve my pay problem. With that said, if that finance clerk has the same mental toughness and emotional resiliency as your average SOF soldier, they will be less inclined to succumb to mental health problems (as related to their military service.) If you ever get to work with SOF folks, you will be pleasantly surprised the caliber and sharpness of many of their troops. Every organization has their duds, but the mean average of quality is refreshing. Yes, I think it would be awesome if every unit in the US Armed Forces shared that verve.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2016 9:26 AM

2016-10-11T09:26:33-04:00

Take a look at the 3rd SOF Truth: "Special Operations Forces cannot be mass produced."
The time and cost into training individuals to perform at those levels is very high, and not viable for general purpose personnel, especially given their job which would realistically not be utilized in such a fashion.

Response by MGySgt James Forward made Oct 11 at 2016 2:34 PM

2016-10-11T14:34:39-04:00

Self answering question: Because not everyone is not SF, Seal or Recon. In other words you don't need that training to accomplish your mission. If you are a cook would you need to know how to jump out of a plane? I don't think so. Semper Fi.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2016 7:25 PM

2016-10-11T19:25:48-04:00

let's realize too the amount of attrition from first term SMs. It is (by design) over 60%... We need more privates and CPLs than we need SNCOs. SF is primary SNCOs... you have to thin the herd.

Response by PO1 Roger Waddle made Oct 12 at 2016 8:30 AM

2016-10-12T08:30:39-04:00

You cannot "train" to be jsoc operators you either are or not only by selection is the most logical way to go

Response by PO3 Ty Kinslow made Oct 12 at 2016 9:37 AM

2016-10-12T09:37:26-04:00

The financial aspect of it

Response by SPC Keelan Southerland made Oct 12 at 2016 9:50 AM

2016-10-12T09:50:33-04:00

Someone, Please correct me if I am wrong. SOF people are vetted for the training and are not just given it willy nilly. There are Peer Evaluations in the Army and it is designed to get rid of the guys who do not pull their own weight. Along with that you have Security Clearances to consider. There are TTP's that are Classified like Loop-Hole shooting, SERE, equipment capabilities and so much more I do not know. However, the average joe snuffy can't keep his mouth shut about what he is doing when he is talking with family or at the strip club. Why would the military invest money into people who; have not proven they can keep their mouth shut; keep their initial commitment, master their MOS, manage finances, maintain accountability for their CFI and all of the other basic soldier tasks. Forget the money, the ability to OJT their chosen MOS is most important first. Most soldiers do not hit their stride until they are about 4 years into their military service, to invest several more millions of dollars is a waste if that soldier is a total waste. I agree that it could save money, but so could war-fighting robots. My point is this, Some soldiers; ie truck drivers, radiology techs, admin specialist and what not do not need SOF training. However, I am sure there is someone in your unit who was either a long or short tabber that would help you get in shape for that calling. Once you get there I am sure you will see some turds in training you would not trust with a butter knife or a spork.

Response by Cpl George Crab made Oct 12 at 2016 9:55 AM

2016-10-12T09:55:25-04:00

Also, look at the drop out rate for those who enter SF taining. I am not sure about the Army, but the Navy and the Marines wash out a buttload of men that can't even make it through the first week of training, for the Seals and for Recon.

Response by CPL Daniel Schwinge made Oct 12 at 2016 10:20 AM

2016-10-12T10:20:01-04:00

Look at it this way, why not train everyone as a combat medic, operating room tech, lab tech, LPN. All of these specialties are needed, but what about the cost of all that training, in time and money. Personally I would have liked to have more infantry training before I went to combat medic and ORT. You train what you need, and everyone does not need to have all the training to do everything. Also don't forget it takes about 10 people to keep SF, SEAL and other combat soldiers in the field.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2016 11:33 AM

2016-10-12T11:33:57-04:00

I think we've already wondered into the area of useless training by sending non combat arms to schools like airborne, ranger and pathfinder. What would we gain by attempting to teach hard skills to individuals who will likely never love the FOB? Teach them enough to defend themselves in case she hits the fan then leave them to their real jobs

Response by CPT Chris Newport made Oct 12 at 2016 12:42 PM

2016-10-12T12:42:29-04:00

If you examine the requirements, most of the military could not qualify and dropping standards would foolish in the extreme. These guys are specialist in a certain kind of work, a very special kind of work. A politician was once hosted by the SAS at a dinner and, after circulating among them, accused them of putting Officers in EM uniforms, that's a measure of the people these units use.

How many can get through Airborne training - except for women, a decision to reduce standards for political expediency that deeply reduced morale in those units. Unless you go through the same "initiation" you can never be truly accepted among an elite unit They do, however work with fellow travelers on occasion; the mission comes first.

When I went through the Airborne school at Ft. Benning, we lost all the Captains the first week.

Response by SGT Matthew Schenkenfelder made Oct 12 at 2016 12:58 PM

2016-10-12T12:58:28-04:00

Would you really trust even a tenth of the booger turds in your unit to carry out any of the missions that special operations guys do? Less than that would barely make it through selection and less than a tenth of selectees actually go on to green berets.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2016 1:21 PM

2016-10-12T13:21:11-04:00

waste of money so that will be a no Eddie how many ppl wash out a year into getting to the fleet or whatever you guys call it that would be a huge waste of money

Response by CPO George Mac made Oct 12 at 2016 1:34 PM

2016-10-12T13:34:14-04:00

Maybe the fact that most service members CAN'T train to that standard has something to do with it...
Maybe there is a reason they care called "SPECIAL".......hummmmm......

Response by TSgt James Carson made Oct 12 at 2016 2:11 PM

2016-10-12T14:11:59-04:00

Tghink about it. Most people aren't that willing to go that far when it comes to killing with control or training all the time, being away from family and not being allowed to tell anyone what you are doing. There is also the legal and mental aspects to deal with. Political changes and choices you have to be willing to bend with. That is why this is a special few people that do this job. Be happy you get to serve.

Response by TSgt James Carson made Oct 12 at 2016 2:14 PM

2016-10-12T14:14:46-04:00

Sorry for my response my writing. My fingers have a hard time on this key board and I failed to proof read my responses.

Response by COL Dave Sims made Oct 12 at 2016 2:31 PM

2016-10-12T14:31:56-04:00

I think the real question here might be : Is Army basic training tough enough and what standards need to be maintained thereafter. Special Ops standards are at the fundamental level no different from other branches or specialties...just different. For example - cryptologists and EOD techs have an entirely different skill set and standards ...as does other MOS's The Army is a complex mix of people and skills that fit into a huge organization. Basic training teaches you BASIC skills you need as a soldier to function in that organization. After basic training - the individual is responsible for maintaining these skills and standards ...looking and acting like a soldier. My old mentor made it simple for me - "Be tactically and technically proficient."

Response by Andy Van Der Plaats made Oct 12 at 2016 3:05 PM

2016-10-12T15:05:48-04:00

It's been my observation that troops only receive a minimal amount of training and much of that doesn't generate the necessary level of stress to insure they'll be able to function properly during hostile encounters. For example while observing a group of Marines going through Demo School some years ago, I and the retired Master Gunny who I was with observed that the one officer in the ranks wasn't even going through the motionstaking part, while the rest attempted to navigate the infiltration training lane. It was as if they were trying out for roles in a Keystone Cops comedy and while this was taking place there wasn't any OPFOR present to challenge them. Of course this was some time ago, so perhaps this course has improved, but regardless it was disheartening to hear the instructor's reply when we asked him how his students were going to get 'up to speed' with training like that? His response was "well we just give them the 'basics,' the rest they get when they get to the fleet." In other words they would learn the finer points when facing combat. That's a hell of a way to train people if you ask me.

BTW, less you think this was some sort of adoration, I ran into similar situations at bases all over the country, including Bliss, Bragg, Benning, Quantico, Lewis, N.T.C. etc.

Response by SPC Franklin McKown made Oct 12 at 2016 6:22 PM

2016-10-12T18:22:14-04:00

The average soldier is not valued to the point such advanced training and cost would be desired,not to mention its REALLY hard, and not all can make it ,they need the numbers.

Response by SSG Wayne Wood made Oct 12 at 2016 8:52 PM

2016-10-12T20:52:50-04:00

Pretty much agree with most of the statements here; BCT SHOULD be tougher - we are doing no service to our troops if we are allowing them to "Skate" through initial entry training if they can't hack the pressure and horrors of combat and crack under the stress. The idea that "they'll get it in their unit" sounds nice in a peacetime environment but won't wash in times of war. And as I learned in the 82nd when I got called out on a real-world shoot[em-up on my ex-wife's birthday you never know when the balloon is going up and you don't have time to get any smarter, faster, or better - you go with what you got. We owe it to ALL our troops to better prepare them for combat.

So, perhaps a better question isn't whether we should train all our troops to SpecOps standards but rather why don't we better enhance our troops' basic soldier skills. We used to do BST or Basic Skills Qualification but maybe something beyond that - that was just skimming the surface. I was an artillery crew chief and chafed at the days we wasted doing "Command Motor Stables" in the Motor Pool when not in the field because our command lacked the imagination to conduct real soldier training. I wanted to take my crew out in the woods and practice some squad tactics or basic patrolling (in case something happened to my gun) - but usually hit a brick wall or red tape. How much money does it take to get a squad or section or even company and teach them some hand-to-hand or bayonet drills - no matter what their MOS? From what I gathered in my years in, most young soldiers would rather do that than sit around the motor pool wiping a wrench with a rag pretending to do "Maintenance."

Response by CW4 Tim Claus made Oct 12 at 2016 9:07 PM

2016-10-12T21:07:38-04:00

Depends entirely on the MOS. You don't train a medic to be an 11 bang bang, advanced infantry training is useless for a marine engineer. Best bang for the buck is the appropriate training for the rank/skill level.

Response by SFC(P) Richard Warren made Oct 12 at 2016 9:26 PM

2016-10-12T21:26:57-04:00

The Army generally focuses on the training that is necessary to achieve the mission of that fighting force.

I would LOVE it if the training were available to all, but then some of what makes our Army the best in the world would be leaked all over Facebook. OPSEC is often overlooked by the average Joe.

Could you imagine: "Today we learned how do XY task. Turns out all you have to do is this (insert video to be used by ISIS here)".

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Oct 12 at 2016 9:27 PM

2016-10-12T21:27:49-04:00

Sp4 Byron Skinner…A great idea, training beyond AIT or in a secondary MOS that compliments the primary MOS. Here is the problems. First off maneuver troops in ranks E-1 through E-4 are the expendable part of ground warfare. We are trained through AIT, given two weeks leave and off to war. We make up most of the casualties. All rank above Specialists. is NCO which has loads of schools, academies etc. Make it back for a combat zone still fit for duty as an E-4 or a combat promotion to E-5 its off the school you go. Likely fist duty assignment after you first leadership course is to a BCT training billet. The Army really doesn't have any need for over trained 11B's.

Response by MSG Dan Castaneda made Oct 12 at 2016 11:03 PM

2016-10-12T23:03:44-04:00

It takes a Special kind of man to be SF or a SEAL. the military has very few.

Response by MSgt David Guenther made Oct 13 at 2016 11:51 AM

2016-10-13T11:51:15-04:00

$$$$$

Response by SGM Debra Bradshaw made Oct 14 at 2016 2:54 AM

2016-10-14T02:54:12-04:00

Each stage of training costs big dollars. I did 32 years of service and for combat tours and never saw the kind of action that would have required SF training. The more they subject you to, The more they train you for.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2016 3:32 PM

2016-10-18T15:32:27-04:00

One thought that I haven't seen covered in the previous answers. To get people requires a LOT of time and training. In every selection, you have a bunch of guys that want to be there more than anything. They volunteered for it and still MANY do not make it. In my class, we started with 254 people.... we graduated 78. It is not something to train everybody on because most people, even in combat arms don't want to do it. Even if the time constraints and money weren't factors, few to none would make it because there whole heart isn't into it, and I can assure you, if your heart and mind isn't in it...... you're not going to make it..... PERIOD, especially considering the number of guys that do have their heart and mind in it and still don't make it.