Posted on Oct 10, 2016
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?
11.3K
130
71
4
4
0
wouldnt this training save more lives??
Posted in these groups: 
Combat Arms
Combat Arms
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 39
32
32
0
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.
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.
(32)
(0)
CH (COL) (Join to see)
In addition to the above good answer, I would add unit mission and required level of readiness.
(4)
(0)
SFC Alfred Galloway
Agreed with the above two responses, unit mission/needs vs actual usage of training and readiness requirements.
(0)
(0)
SPC Les Darbison
I was a engineer equipment Operator and Mech. Only touched a fire arm to times after boot camp . Blanks. When push comes to shave every one should have more tactical training . Because when SHIT happens it will save lives. And with the current leavel of readiness now in our understaffed military. It could come in handy. Not saying they should be at a SF. level but they should be proficient and comfortable using small arms up to and including saws ECT.
(0)
(0)
13
13
0
10
10
0
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.
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.
(10)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google