5
5
0
Everyone has had one issue or another with cell phones in a deployed environment, but it's a reality of everyday life right now. There is benefit in "unplugging" and focusing on training without the distraction of the internet. All CTC's ban cell phones in the "box" since it poses a security threat and it becomes the go-to communication method versus using our MTOE equipment. Should we generally ban cell phone usage in the field for those reasons or are we just tilting at windmills?
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 54
SGM (R) Antonio Brown
I was assigned to a unit where during a fire fight the Soldier accidentally dialed his family and when his Mom answered the phone she heard the entire shootout. This could have caused his mother to have a heart attack. Cellphones were the topic of discussion in my shop Wednesday. Cellphones(government or personal) in the field can be a distraction. As a 1SG I would turn off my government and personal cellphone when in the field or on a range because I felt that if was something important the persons trying to contact me would call the range, call range control, or use the radio at the BN HQ to reach me. As a PSG I told my Soldiers, "You will not be on a cellphone on government time unless it was an emergency. We had things that must be completed and that cannot happen if you are chit chatting on your cell." Before cellphones leaders made sure to put out detailed information to Soldiers ensuring that they knew what needed to be done. It was mandatory that each Soldier have a green notebook or 3x5 cards and a pen which was given to you from supply. Cellphones while on mission/deployment can and has placed OPSEC in jeopardy.
(3)
(0)
SGT James Hastings
The fact that someone can triangulate you because of your cell phone might be a consideration. Incoming can be hell if you are the target! lol
(1)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
The ability to locate you with the cell phone regardless if it on or off, while the battery has power is a issue. Yeah, with these devices, how many soldiers still carry the notebook or cards and pen with them. When I was in they weren't issue, but we were required to have them just the same. As such as the issued phones for Commanders and such, I agree while in the field, they should be shut down, and even the battery taken out. There should be time, built into the schedule of the exercise where the Commander can and other who have to, due to mission requirement, can plug into the network, download and upload information, update documents and what not, check messages, and what not. If anyone needs to communicate with you, well they still have radio contact. If it is truly an emergency, and all other means of communication is failing, then use the Cell Phone to contact who you need to get help.
(0)
(0)
Deployed, no. In a FTX environment, should be up to the command team. They have come in handy at times to expedite calls in a medical emergency (or to locate lost PLT LDRS)
(13)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I think it truly depends on the leadership bc we as NCOs and leaders are responsible for what our soldiers do and if they see us doing it then they will also
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
When the Army can figure out how to get with the year 2015 with there broken radios and half way operating JCR's then I still see a need for a cell phone. I can do more with my I-phone in the field than I can with a fully operational hummvee with commo equipment. Verizon can reach a lot farther than a retrans.
(1)
(0)
This question begs a two part issue of what decision to make (allow cell phones in the field or not) and what level the decision should be made (lower or higher). Local commanders should make this decision based upon possible criteria of: field training duration, field training objectives, duty position, garrison events/environment, etc. I would argue against higher level leaders (installation or higher) implementing a blanket "one size fits all" policy. Local commanders can make event by event decisions that better balance competing organizational and individual requirements and mitigate any negative impacts from whatever decision they make. For example, a one day company level M4 range may allow cell phones while a seven day battalion or brigade field training exercise may not.
(7)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Yes. We have them down range. I once got pulled over on kandahar for driving and talking on my phone. 20 minutes earlier, I was in an M1051 with a computer in front of me, blue force tracker screen beside that, radio to convoy vehicles, radio to TOC, and an iPod blaring while blazing through afghan roads at night with a few bullets blazing by. Cop asked why I was talking and driving. Told him he was mistaken, I was training fort next big ride.
(5)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
MSG Danny Ibarra, that was funny, but really it not joking matter to be distract while driving when you don't need to be. The one thing you should asked the Officer if he was watching his computer screen while he pulled you over. It is serious problem here, where people drive too fast, in too much traffic, and too distracted with radio and phone. Many States have add no Texting and Cell Phone usage law while driving, but in many cases, the local Law Enforcement Agencies don't enforce it as they should. They understand and support the reason and logic of these laws, but the reality of real world application is. They themselves with the computers, the radar guns, issued cell phones they have in their cars. They can be at time just as distracted if they are patrolling as a lone officer, while travelling in traffic. It is why it not uncommon to see Patrol Cars pulled over in the odd place with cop texting on their phone or the laptop. They can't perform their duties without using these devices, and sometimes it unavoidable that they are driving. With the use of the smart phones, they no longer have to use open radio channel, to give dispatch information, or to talk to their supervisors on information that shouldn't be broadcast in the open. Much like the secure links have been used in the Military for years.
Talk about information overload. iPod blaring adding to it, really, that is interesting. I Would think that would be the last thing some people would want in those situations. Don't know, wasn't there, can't say for myself that I would be all to comfortable with the add noise, if it would be too much noise to push me into information overload. Being that I have Asperger's it might be the one thing factor that push me over limit.
Talk about information overload. iPod blaring adding to it, really, that is interesting. I Would think that would be the last thing some people would want in those situations. Don't know, wasn't there, can't say for myself that I would be all to comfortable with the add noise, if it would be too much noise to push me into information overload. Being that I have Asperger's it might be the one thing factor that push me over limit.
(1)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
Yes, I can see the argument where is should be handle at lower level, but how low should it be handled at? As you go down the Chain of Command, every Commander is going to have difficulty not having the final say so, where as if the say so comes from above, they just have to follow it, or total ignore it if they chose that route too.
I mean if you go down to Company level, it doesn't help if one Company of a Battalion doesn't allow them, while all the others allow them. Then when you have Battalion-level Field Exercise where small elements are crossed attached/deteched with this Company that doesn't. What about the troops who are coming in from units that allow them, and they have their cell phones with them. Should they be discipline because they have them, since in their Company they are allowed. It only get worse as you work your way up the progressive Chain of Command, on who sets the policy at which level.
With that said, I think it would be ideally at Company-level. It is here where leadership see what the soldiers are using their phones for in the field exercises, and they have to live with decisions to allow or disallow them in the field. There will always be exercises where some higher HQ will say they will not be allowed, and that is the privilege for that Command element to state so. Yet, for most part, it should be Company Commander who sets the tone, he the one responsible for the morale and discipline of his unit at the end of the day. Let him along with his XO, Top, and other top advisers figure out what is best for his Company.
I mean if you go down to Company level, it doesn't help if one Company of a Battalion doesn't allow them, while all the others allow them. Then when you have Battalion-level Field Exercise where small elements are crossed attached/deteched with this Company that doesn't. What about the troops who are coming in from units that allow them, and they have their cell phones with them. Should they be discipline because they have them, since in their Company they are allowed. It only get worse as you work your way up the progressive Chain of Command, on who sets the policy at which level.
With that said, I think it would be ideally at Company-level. It is here where leadership see what the soldiers are using their phones for in the field exercises, and they have to live with decisions to allow or disallow them in the field. There will always be exercises where some higher HQ will say they will not be allowed, and that is the privilege for that Command element to state so. Yet, for most part, it should be Company Commander who sets the tone, he the one responsible for the morale and discipline of his unit at the end of the day. Let him along with his XO, Top, and other top advisers figure out what is best for his Company.
(1)
(0)
SP5 Richard Maze
Col. Smallfield is spot on. Blanket policies can, in some cases, seem foolish and just lead people to ignore them for practical reasons.
(0)
(0)
Sir, you can't get out of bringing your government issued cell phone to the field.
(6)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
I'm trying man. Only 5 more months until I hand over the shackle to the next Commander. The official hand-over of the Black-Berry will soon replace changes of command.
(11)
(0)
SFC Mark Merino
They should let the outgoing Commander take a sledge to the Black-Berry, then have the tiny remaining pieces bronzed and framed.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Perspective. You might do well to gain some. No need to start a petty downvote war
(0)
(0)
My former BC informed us that we were required to use SINCGARS assets instead of cellphones for communications in the field (cell phones were kept handy for emergencies). This of course led to some interesting situations during AT where we had to figure out why we could not make contact with specific locations, but it was a great training experience.
(4)
(0)
SGT Isaac Jack
Probably a good idea. We normally had to spend most of the time just figuring out how to set up the radios let alone use them. I think had we been required to not use phones it would have been far better training.
(2)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
SGT Isaac Jack we are at the point of proficiency now where we can set them up and go and we can generally determine issues fairly quickly by changing the antennas, placing them higher if necessary, and even reconning the sites where there are issues. We found an issue this past weekend due to a range (about 1/4 mile from another we could speak with) being in a lower area and could not get line of sight. We sent the antenna up a tree and communications came in clear.
Hard to figure out those issues when your cell phone is dead or has no reception and you need communications without any practice.
Hard to figure out those issues when your cell phone is dead or has no reception and you need communications without any practice.
(1)
(0)
SGT Isaac Jack
Proficiency takes practice and practice requires and emphasis being put on the importance of the task. I expect that if everyone had been required to use radios rather than cellphones during a few Drill Weekends the reserve units I was with would have quickly learned the correct way of doing things.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
That is large part of the problem, we rely too much on modern technology. Pen, Notebook, Military Map, Radios, and Compass are great training for when new tech or logistic fail. I will admit even back in the day, us E-3s and E-2s never got enough time to really be proficient on the Radios or the use of the Compass. Unless were Platoon RTO regularly or on point most of the time. Even as E-4 we had done enough times, where we would remember how to do it. It wasn't until we got into positions where we did it all the time, when we got proficient. Same with Officers, the junior ones were who did it more regularly were always more proficient at it, than say the O-4 or O-5 from Division HQ who hadn't done much of it in more than couple years.
(0)
(0)
If you are doing field training no big deal IMO we had ours and if you used it at a stupid time you paid the price lol but in combat or something like that no way there is NO reason for that it would be nuts to allow that.. When our interpreter would try to use ours on the fob we would turn on our jammers lmao he never understood what was going on
(4)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Agreed. That's my general opinion as well. It's better to restrict their use than ban them entirely.
(2)
(0)
I would expand this question to the reserve side for our WAREX/CSTX (NTC for the Reserves). It goes beyond cell phones to include NIPR email (ie ARnet access) so that people can work their day jobs in a deployed environment. There has been much debate from those running the exercises not wanting to support it vs GO Commanders that want a balance of training while in the box as well as capabilities to support ongoing operations that they would normally be doing from hom station. With the advancement of geolocation capabilities to peoples' cell phones, yes they present an inherent risk and we should train as we are supposed to fight, HOWEVER...there is certainly an MWR component to having your cell phone there, and that has to be weighed against the needs of the exercise. I personally dislike the knee / jerk, throw the baby out with the bathwater approach. Policies can be created and designed to weigh the needs of both and still meet the intent of the exercise. For example, ban use during certain hours and have "operational pauses" at certain points to allow communication as needed. It does no one any good to have an all or nothing mentality about it, however COMSEC discipline, as well as social activities / cyber / IO training is woefully inadequate at present.
(3)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
I think you cover all the points with the exception of the use of the camera function found on most phones too. This should be common sense, there are lot of things we shouldn't be taking pictures of, but someone is always taking them anyways. With these phone, it so much easier to share them with social media. So I can see where the nothing comes into play more often. Then I again, there should be some point where everyone can agree on.
(0)
(0)
I feel this is something that should be controlled by leadership. Yes there is a possible security risk but the same can be said for email, Facebook, even snail mail or talking to some one out in the open. Are we also going to stop the joes from communicating back home. OPSEC is something we must all be aware of and something we MUST train our soldiers about. Them now knowing what is wrong to share sounds like a leadership issue.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
If your soldiers are playing candy crush on guard duty then it is your responsibility to throat stomp them and correct the deficiency.
(3)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Amen on the throat stomping. I also believe that it's not something that can be totally, nor should it be totally controlled in a jack-booted way. I think Soldiers need to understand the risks and be informed in the use. That being said, when it's deployment time against an enemy who has the ability to detect and intercept, those have to go away.
(2)
(0)
Yes,
We shouldn't run from technology. Service members are disciplined, and can handle this. I've had cellphones, satellite phones, and other communication methods both deployed and in the field.
we had blackout periods when we took casualties until we were cleared. Other than that, you could phones and the Internet.
We shouldn't run from technology. Service members are disciplined, and can handle this. I've had cellphones, satellite phones, and other communication methods both deployed and in the field.
we had blackout periods when we took casualties until we were cleared. Other than that, you could phones and the Internet.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
COL (Join to see). I don't know about cell phones . . . they're awfully easily compromised using a fake cell repeater . . . that shifts calls into A5/1 encryption which has been broken . . . so I carry the Motorola 9555 Iridium Satellite Phone in the field . . . for communication backup . . . it has been life saver many times over!!! Best to check with Command, SIGINT, and ELINT teams before even turning it on. Warmest Regards, Sandy
SFC (Join to see)
Any distraction during training is not authorized, in the past; part of the Brigade and Command Sergeant Mayor guidance include safety and training. Also is a matter of respect, in order to have a successful training, SM’s need to paid attention not only to the instructor but to the audience and surroundings, most important is that everybody present during training most be fully engage, stay focus and ask questions during the exercises. As a NCO or Commissioned Officer, you can always make a memorandum for record !!!, explaining why you do not allow the use of cellular phones or anything else that will distract you from the class. The main purpose of training is too enriched, increased and maintained a high proficiency level on your Warrior Task and Drills. Make it a standard and the problem will be solved.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next

Cell Phones
Training
