Should everyone be trained in dual specialties?

SFC Mark Merino — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:38:04 -0400

I was a grunt that went ground cav and then air cav. Should it be mandatory to spend time in other specialties to gain appreciation and understanding of the bigger picture? Please share your views and experiences.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2014 3:44 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:44:34 -0400

I know it helped me, as a prior service Blackhawk mechanic (15T) when I headed off to flight school. My thoughs are, if we do look to get Soldiers dual tracked, then they should be in complimenting MOS's.

Response by SGT Chris Birkinbine made Aug 12 at 2014 3:44 PM

SGT Chris Birkinbine — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:44:52 -0400

Absolutely. Not only in the military but in any position anywhere. In systems engineering it is called redundancy, and it is vital in keeping your operations running and effective all the time.

Response by SPC Richard White made Aug 12 at 2014 3:54 PM

SPC Richard White — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:54:31 -0400

I would say yes, it is best to know more than one job

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Aug 12 at 2014 4:10 PM

MSG Wade Huffman — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:10:50 -0400

I held 3 MOSs during my career and I will say that it most definitely was an advantage when I got into the more senior ranks, but I'm not sure that the military should REQUIRE multiple specialties. It could be extremely difficult to maintain a high degree of proficiency in multiple fields at the same time and it could also create a nightmare as far as assignments go.
Bottom line, good to have a more diverse background; but shouldn't be required to maintain proficiency in multiple specialties.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Aug 12 at 2014 4:30 PM

SGT Richard H. — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:30:26 -0400

I could go either way on holding more than one MOS. I see value in it, but wouldn't consider it crucial. What I DO consider crucial is knowing every function within your MOS.
Example: If you are an Infantryman, don't be just a SAW gunner, be an expert Infantryman. By the time you have hard stripes (CPL or above) this is a must, in my book.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2014 5:29 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 17:29:03 -0400

I would say yes, I had 3 MOS(s) 11D, 11E, 16S during my career. In my experience it was beneificial to the Organization (1/11th ACR, Fulda Germany). There was a time period in the 70s when we did not have enough personnel to have complete 4 man crews on our Tanks or Sheridans. However, for annual Tank Gunnery, the requirement was for every one of those vehicles to go down Table VIII & X ( I seem to recall from back then) even though we did not have the personnel assigned to do so. The Squadron Cdr asked for Volunteers to go from the HQs Troop to one of the Line Troops, train on a crew and try to qualify during gunnery at Graf/Vilseck. By holding the 11D MOS, I jumped at the chance to go. 2 of us had 11D/E background, however the other 6 worked in the Motor Pool, Supply and S1. We were spread out among 8 vehicles/crews, moved into the unita for 2 months, trained and became qualified crew members in either driving, or loading. When Tank Gunnery was over, all 8 M60 and M551 Crews qualified. So I have to give it a definite "YES" that holding more than one MOS is beneficial, both personally and to the organization. But that was ...damn...40 yrs ago...seems like yesterday to me!

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Aug 12 at 2014 5:42 PM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 17:42:52 -0400

I can see how beneficial this would be however...I don't want to be infantry :(

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Aug 12 at 2014 8:38 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:38:51 -0400

My only concern is that we will only create folks, who while having a smidge of knowledge in a wide variety of areas, will be a master of none.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2014 8:44 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:44:46 -0400

No, absolutely not. If people want to do that, that's fine. I've done it myself....VOLUNTARILY... I didn't want to spend a career doing the first one the Army gave me. I did the second one out of convenience and to get a foot in the door. The third one is where I've wanted to be the whole time and thanks to contacts I made in the second one, I got it. Making it mandatory... I'll take the early out, kthxbai

Response by TSgt Scott Hurley made Aug 12 at 2014 10:52 PM

TSgt Scott Hurley — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 22:52:45 -0400

It is a good Idea to do this. But only in fields that have similar duties. Since you mention ground and air cav's, they have similar backgrounds so they should know about how each other operate and to gain experience in something that you would not be used too.

In the AF, the only career fields that really cross over each other, is the aircraft maintenance fields. I was cut trained to be a crew chief as well as do my primary job on B-52's. I did not forget this training, but I was on fighters the rest of my career and did not get to use it much. I also trained a crew chief on removing and replacing a component of ours because we were short manned and it was beneficial to have them also trained on it.

So it really depends on what jobs that are similar to do this effectively. I know that in the Marines, everyone is rifleman first then their primary job is second.

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Aug 13 at 2014 10:19 AM

SSG Pete Fleming — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 10:19:15 -0400

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Marines aren't they all riflemen first? As for the Army, we are all taught the bare basic stuff but them we move onto whatever specialty we are. As someone else had said many are then cross trained depending on the unit they are working with. And it is not uncommon for soldiers to have more than one MOS... but the thing is proficiency. The more you broaden your training the better your overall skillset will be but, then that may be detriment to your overall performance... just an opinion.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 11:20 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:20:46 -0400

Absolutely. I like the Marine Corps mentality of "everyone is a rifelman first." At a minimum every Soldier should go through some form of "school of Infantry" and as your career progresses you should be trained in something that complements your MOS.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 11:42 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:42:11 -0400

I hold 2 MOS's and will be attending another school in a couple months. Being well rounded is not a bad thing. There just needs to be ample type of training to ensure that soldiers are well trained in that field. Cross training is great, but we want to avoid having a bunch of soldiers who think they 'know everything' because they have spent some time training in that specialty.

That would be like in my old unit: I was a recovery NCO. 91H,91B Recovery qualified. It was awesome. But, we had to teach those that were cooks, and transpo etc how to do recovery. "In case they ever needed to do it"

I am sorry, a transportation specialist cannot get enough training in one week to properly utilize the the wrecker or the Hercules. There are some things that should be left to the specialist, and some things... Meh. Go for it I suppose.

Response by MAJ Joseph Parker made Aug 13 at 2014 1:03 PM

MAJ Joseph Parker — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:03:46 -0400

SFC Marino: Not only dual specialties (assuming you mean MOS), but also skill training with additional skill identifiers (ASI). For example: weapons, languages, maintenance, medical, Ranger and other special combat skills, communications, etc. Nothing like having an extra doc around when all the others are gone! Also, most of us speak the enemy's language in 3-6 round bursts, but sometimes it's even more handy to have someone who can communicate orally and get some information first.

You posed your question, however, from a personal development point of view. The military is packed full of schooling for a reason. From an organizational point of view, professional development for enlisted is as mandatory as it needs to be to sort out the go-getters from the sedentary moss. As a commander I sent as many of my people to as many schools as possible. If there were no slots available, they stood "in the door" on the first day of class with their orders and filled in for anybody who did not show up. My entire Scout Platoon in a leg Infantry BN was airborne and pathfinder qualified. The maintenance platoon in the motor pool could have fixed a Titan missile (a bit of hyperbole). Nonetheless, the promotion and re-enlistment rate in my company was the highest on post.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 1:07 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:07:10 -0400

SFC,

I love this idea and wish that it would be put into practice. As someone who is "support staff," I'd love to go out and see what my contributions to the cause actually accomplish.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 2:20 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:20:31 -0400

It only makes sense if the those dual specialties actually compliment each other. Too many officers and NCO's get off on some other specialty for too long and their primary specialty suffers. It is difficult enough to be a proficient leader in any field without getting sidetracked by, at times, irrelevant duty or training. A great (simple) example is Airborne School. Biggest waist of time and money in the US Army for those that are not Infantry. Why is it even offered to non-infantry but many do it for the badge. I have a unique perspective after doing 26 rotations at the NTC as a Platoon and Company trainer watching officers and senior NCO's embarrass themselves repeatedly because they spent to much time at a desk, doing irrelevant training or off specialty to long. To me all training should be relevant or people needlessly die in war or otherwise.

Response by SFC Douglas Eshenbaugh made Aug 13 at 2014 3:12 PM

SFC Douglas Eshenbaugh — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:12:30 -0400

I don't think spending time outside your specialty really gives you a better understanding of the big picture. Yes my time as a mechanic in a DS shop, my time as a supply sergeant, and my time as a company operations sergeant all gave me a better understanding of how a company and battalion works but they didn't really give me a better understanding of the big picture anymore than changing duty stations or units did. What gave me a better understanding of that bigger picture was the times when I was removed from the line unit and put in a position where I was working with the bigger picture. Working along side other branches and even other countries has given me a better understanding than any change in MOS would. Now I will admit I've been given / had opportunities that many won't ever get but that only has shown me that working beside an Armor or Supply company is not comparison to working in a joint command environment when. That's when you really get to see where each branch has its strengths and weaknesses.

And if you want bonus points throw some DA, DoD, and State department civilians into the mix and see how much fun that can be.

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made Aug 15 at 2014 7:48 AM

Cpl Glynis Sakowicz — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 07:48:40 -0400

Well, we don't have that worry about "Should we..." because every Marine IS dual specialty. From Boot Camp, we all know... We will have a job yes, but when necessary, we can be called upon to be used in our OTHER job, that of Marine Rifleman.
Coming from a Marine family, I remember being surprised that other services were not the same, of course, I have since put some thought into that, and realized that 'it is, what it is..' and each service is different, no better or worse, just different.
As to the view that neither job can be done to the best of one's ability when there are dual specialties, you'd have to ask someone who had a more techincal job than mine... Driving large trucks is not all that technical and quite frankly, I was never called upon to slide from one to the other, though I have no doubt that I could have done so without terrifying those around me... which is more than I can say for my cooking skills.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2014 10:48 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:48:00 -0400

I think everyone should be trained in dual specialties as long as the job is similar to their own. For instance alot of times 25B/25U are used exactly the same when they are not.

Response by PO1 Elwin "Butch" Marriott made Aug 19 at 2014 10:54 AM

PO1 Elwin "Butch" Marriott — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 10:54:18 -0400

IF WE ARE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE WERE OFFICALLY TRAINED TO DO THEN YES I AM MORE THAN QUALIFIED IN DUAL SPECIALTIES. DURING MY TIME IN THE SERVICE, AT THE TIME OF MY RETIREMENT I WAS QUALIFIED TO WORK ON THE FOLLOWING AIRCRAFT:

A-6E (LONG SINCE RETIRED)
EA-6B
F-18A-D(E&F TEST BED)
HH-1N SAR HUEY
UH-1N SAR HUEY
MH-53E
AIRBORNE HYDRAULICS
AIRBORNE PNEUMATIC
AIRBORNE STRUCTURES BOTH COMPOSITE AND METALIC

AND AIRCRAFT PAINT, FINAL FINISH, AND TOUCH-UP AND APPLICATION OF EXTERNAL MARKINGS.

SO DO I FEEL THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE TRAINED IN DUAL SPECIALTIES? ABSOLUTELY!!

WHY DO I TYPE IN ALL CAPS? BECAUSE TYPING IS ONE SPECIALTY I HAVEN'T LEARNED YET. AND I CAN'T SPELL TO SAVE MY ASS EITHER.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Aug 19 at 2014 3:07 PM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 15:07:38 -0400

Seeing things from a different perspective, especially being a Sr NCO, comes when you do staff time....I learned a great deal of perspective about how things work when I deployed for OIF-III as the S-2 NCOIC as compared to OIF-I when I was a tank PSG. I don't know that it is necessary to be dual-trained in differing MOSs to gain appreciation or have a better understanding of the larger picture. But, that's just my opinion of things.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2014 7:50 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:50:21 -0400

As a combat medic I experienced what you're referring to, but only to an extent. I spent time with armor, infantry, and cavalry scouts and with each group I picked up on new knowledge and the specific culture of those I was assigned to at the time. I very briefly trained up and assigned as the unit audiology tech, so I was able to get a small idea of how the med clinic side of the house operates. While it was definitely beneficial to me to be exposed to so many different specialties I think it would be difficult to make this mandatory for those MOSs where this doesn't exist naturally. LTC Labrador made an excellent comment when he mentioned his concerns for a "jack of all trades, master of none" endgame if this was applied.

Response by MSG Brian Breaker made Aug 20 at 2014 7:31 AM

MSG Brian Breaker — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 07:31:03 -0400

I think it should be your choice not mandatory. The reality is most Soldiers do have more than one specialty, well at least in the Army Reserve. I picked up two MOS's once I joined the Army Reserve because I wanted to relocate and that was the MOS the unit had available. Plus it helps with promotion.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2014 3:33 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 03:33:19 -0500

I had three specialties, communacations, maintenance and civil engineers. So in my opinion it doesn't hurt to be trained in more then one speciality it makes you more valuable.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2014 4:23 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 04:23:53 -0500

Everyone should be trained in general soldier tasks. The Warrior Task List pretty much identifies what should be trained on. There is no really an issue with cross training as most of us have done this in our career but it should not be used to hold a dual rating or two MOSs. You should be in one MOS and move up in it. If not you will see this being used to cherry pick promotions.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2014 5:03 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 05:03:43 -0500

I think it could be useful if the dual specialties were related. Combat arms would be easier than support functions in its relation to other branches/specialties.

However, a Soldier probably shouldn't dabble in multiple specialties without first mastering their own. I would love to learn another job and be able to perform multiple jobs but I still have a lot to learn in my current MOS.

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Dec 29 at 2014 11:54 AM

PO2 Steven Erickson — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 11:54:15 -0500

For me, this is a no-brainer. As submariners, we were REQUIRED to earn our dolphins or leave the boat. Dolphins symbolize the training and knowledge that the wearer knew enough about every part of the sub to be useful in any part of the sub during a casualty.

Of course, I couldn't shoot torpedoes, but I knew how they worked, how they were used, and how to do damage control (e.g., fires, flooding and power supplies).

If you transferred from one class of sub to another (e.g., "boomer" to "fast attack"), you had to do it all over again.

Yes. Cross-training and familiarization is vital, but I don't think every mech infantry soldier needs to know how to change a track on an Abrams.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2014 2:39 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:39:07 -0500

I'd say, make 'em learn their MOS! The problem that I see with holding multiple MOSs is that the soldier is usually only competent in one of them, if that. If it were a requirement to hold two, that could change. As it stands, if a soldier hold two MOSs he can get promoted based off his performance in his current MOS to an MOS where he is barely competent, and now in a leadership position. SGT Richard H., mentions an example of this in his comment.

I think the Army would be better served by raising the standards of MOS competency than by requiring soldiers to hold 2 MOSs.