Which important individual military skill is the worst-taught?

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:25:08 -0400

According to the wisdom of the RallyPoint community, "Communicate" is the most important individual military skill. Of the most important individual military skills which ones are the most poorly taught in our current system?

Extra Credit: How do we do it better?

Most important skill:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/what-is-the-most-important-military-skill?page=9&urlhash=530786#530786
For those that argue Think/Decide/Situational Awareness
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/is-ooda-the-best-description-of-decision-cycling

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 14 at 2015 5:40 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:40:39 -0400

Personally, I believe we teach "communication" the worst, even though people voted it the most important skill.

Most people do not know how to "tailor" information into a format that is brief, concise, and clear, to its intended audience. Additionally, the amount of time we spend repeating the same information is just plain staggering. The fact that we use "ad nauseum" as common vernacular highlights this.

Generally speaking, we teach people how to plan, and with that brainstorm. Critical thinking skills are encouraged, and even fostered. The application of Force (Shooting/Fighting) is a well documented skill. Moving, whether the mobilization of troops, equipment, or supplies is what makes us a military to be reckoned with. We can be anywhere in the world FAST.

But talking to each other. Or more importantly, talking to larger groups of each other... we still have issues.

There is an old phrase we use "Any means of communication will be used as a means of communication" which is a testament to our failures in this discipline. We just expect comms to go down. We plan for them to go nuts. So we over plan, we over train, and we don't rely on it. Luckily we don't have to because of the amount of time we spend on everything else... but...

It could use work.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2015 5:47 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:47:04 -0400

It may not be this way in other units, but the one I'm in seems to be very poorly trained on marksmanship and battle drills.

In the past I have seen some Soldiers struggle with qualifying at the range, and not very much training to correct/fix the issue. Sure we have a PMI before our ranges, but they go more along the lines of proper use and safety, and not so much into individual marksmanship.

As far as fighting(battle drills, Warrior tasks, etc.), we really don't see too much of it here either. We rarely ever go to the field, and most of the emphasis seems to be on Aviation related training, which you can't escape as I'm in a CAB. But any kind of ground combat training seems to fall to the wayside. However perhaps this will change in the future, as we are supposed to be going to the field more frequently.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Mar 14 at 2015 5:47 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:47:32 -0400

Map reading is the skill that is either not taught well or at all. We don't realize the importance of it until it is needed and you wind up lost. The Army is also horrible at teaching communication skills. Actually, I take that back, we teach communication, but we do not practice what we teach.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Mar 14 at 2015 5:55 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:55:09 -0400

So I'm going to say we're the very worst at all of these. I can't count the number of times I have been ANGRY, like table-flipping mad about failures in each one of these. It's like they're unending.

But you know, we're better than everyone else at them too. The other militaries I've spent time with don't hold a candle to us on any of these. We are the very best at all of them in aggregate. So like Churchill kind of said "We are the worst, except for all the others."
But that's a cop-out. I force other people to pick one so I'm going to also:

Planning.

When anything fails it is a failure in leadership A failure to train or to communicate or to prepare properly. And that means some leader, somewhere failed to plan properly.

How do we fix it? Hold eachother to the standards. Think critically, challenge 'the way it is' and make it make sense. Remember our purpose, what mission accomplishment means: being the most lethal fighting force out there. Be ready to drop stuff that doesn't serve that.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 14 at 2015 6:07 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 18:07:59 -0400

I believe all of our services do well at instructing marksmanship during their basic training. However, I believe we do a great job of range operations at our home stations - focusing more on the conduct of a safe range versus getting after the need to making on-the-spot corrections.

How do we fix our marksmanship training - it happens at the unit, well before going to the range. It happens during the last 15 minutes before Soldiers leave for lunch or before they go to close out formations. We have to make an investment in this critical skill which is really the purpose for every one of us serving, to effective engage and destroy the enemy...we do that by being able to shot them in the face.

We can and must most improve our marksmanship and you find your unit is having problems qualifying, there is an excellent training course available (Master Marksmanship Course http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/27/course-aims-to-improve-marksmanship-across-army.html )

It is imperative that our force is grounded in rifle marksmanship fundamentals and are willing and able to engage and destroy the enemy with precision shooting.

Course Aims to Improve Marksmanship Across Army

In June 2014, Maj. Gen. Scott Miller addressed an area many leaders in the operational Army had expressed concerns about - marksmanship.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Mar 14 at 2015 6:37 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 18:37:47 -0400

I voted "shoot" based on complaints I have viewed form all branches and specifically my own where "shoot" is a just in time training before PCS or deployment vs a routine training on a perishable skill.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2015 6:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 18:49:25 -0400

Teaching Soldiers to communicate is our most challenging problem. It is the hardest to master, and it takes time and patience.

There are several reasons for this: First, is that some people are afraid that if they communicate, they will not get credit for having completed a task or objective - that somehow, by communicating, they are losing control of their mission. These people also tend to micromanage, and are usually poor leaders anyway, because they don't communicate enough information to the Soldiers.

Second, is the person, who believes that if he/she communicates too much information, that that information will somehow lead to mission failure. This is usually a result of not understanding what it is that Soldiers need to know in order to ensure mission success. I was recently experiencing this with my previous company - they would not communicate a status of our contract to us (which was in forced rebid) or the status of the planned change (due to "secrecy"). This has lead to doubt, fear, and rumor mills flying rampant throughout the team that is responsible for running the contract - and as a result, a number (nearly half) of the personnel on the team have quit and found other work.

The third reason someone fails to communicate effectively, is they don't understand that by failing to communicate, they are directly leading to the failure of a mission. If I don't know who, what, or where the enemy is, or when they are going to be there, I can't engage them. If I don't know how the enemy is equipped, I can't provide my guys with an effective defense, or tell them what the enemy may have (identification-wise).

While parts of a mission might be classified, letting your Soldiers know the basics will hardly, if ever, lead to someone blabbing and causing problems down the line. Soldiers, when ever possible, also need to know "why" they are doing something - it may not seem like they need to, and perhaps it's just BS - but helping them understand the "why" actually motivates them to accomplish the mission, even if it is a BS detail. For example: Twice a year, Fort Bragg conducts clean sweep - Soldiers (and leaders) hate clean sweep - but the reason it takes place is because as the training areas get used, all sorts of trash gets left behind. This trash has to be policed up from time to time, so that the training areas remain an effective location to train - it's not just about making the base pretty. Imagine rolling in on your bivouac area, and there's trash scattered everywhere... You'll be pretty pissed off that you have to clean all of it up before you can really make effective use of the area. Soldiers who are told this, are much more likely to understand that even though it sucks, there's a logical reason behind the mission.

Leaders need to communicate regularly, and with enough detail, that Soldiers understand the 5W's and the H, whenever possible and training them on when it's appropriate to talk about what they are doing is a separate detail that leaders need to make sure they understand as well.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2015 12:36 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 00:36:56 -0400

No one thinks about their radios until they don't work. They assign their least experienced people to be RTO. Seniors persist in poor procedures with those juniors listening and learning it all.

Correct radio checks are almost unheard of.
TOC/CP communications are not universally written down.
"Copy" is not a proword and should only be used if discussing xerography.

And that's just a start on just voice comms. Don't get me started on automation.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2015 1:34 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 01:34:06 -0400

Isn't it ironic, the very most important skills to have are the ones we need the most training in..seems legit. Don't we often list our weaknesses, which are actually are our strengths? When critiquing ourselves...

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2015 1:45 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 01:45:50 -0400

Communications should be a skill taught from first grade all the way through grad school....and beyond. We could place our troops in positions which would require them to communicate early in their career, with positive reinforcing critiques...Officers could demand more of their NCOs in the comm dept. Public speaking is man's greatest fear, so it does fall right in line with that idea. Weakness does equate to fear in many avenues in our life. Nothing new there.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2015 8:34 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 08:34:16 -0400

Although I don't think plan is an individual skill it is listed so I picked it. The Army as a whole has taken a giant step backwards with regards to planning. One of the principles of mission command is use mission orders. With the almost exclusive use of the CONOP in Iraq and Afghanistan our junior leaders think that is a sufficient order. Now, I believe it is a good tool for what it was meant to be (concept of the operation) but in no way covers the detail that even a hastily prepared OPORD does.

This has affected how we plan for training. The use of the eight step training model is almost unheard of, trying to get my NCOs to use it for Sergeants Time Training required a NCOPD on the subject. Lack of using the eight step training model has impacted training management.

For example, a company commander wants to conduct a squad live fire exercise. He briefs the battalion commander the basic concept at T+6 or 8, he fails to follow the first three steps of the eight step training model and when he attempts to brief the commander at T+4 or 5 for approval he has no resources, certified trainers, hasn't conducted a recon, etc.

You can't effectively train the other listed skills until you are trained on how to plan training/operations.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2015 10:01 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:18 -0400

I voted plan, based purely on my own experiences , because it seems we teach junior leaders very limited planning capabilities but make them experts at putting out short term, 5 meter, targets. I think the reason we are so 'reactionary' at the Troop level is because we are not conducting planning right at higher echelons. A brief stint in the 3 Shop, and becoming a field grade officer should not be the criteria when we decide to teach our soldiers to look beyond the current week.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Mar 15 at 2015 11:43 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 11:43:59 -0400

To be specific, pistol shooting (at least in my time). The first time I picked up a pistol was on the range to qualify. We were given a brief lesson about the Colt 1911 .45, field stripped it, reassembled it, and fired for qualification. It's the only time I failed with a weapon.

Although I had fired thousands of rounds of small bore rifle (.22 plinking) and shotgun (trap and skeet) before entering the service, and qualified expert on the M14 without difficulty, my pistol and revolver experience was limited to a half dozen rounds.

I purchased a .45 from another officer before he DEROS'd and carried it in Vietnam. I'm convinced it was captured by the VC and thrown back as unfit for use. The barrel wobbled inside the slide. However, I came up with a box of .45 tracers and used it like a primitive laser pointer (saving the last round to blow my brains out rather than risk capture).

In Hawaii, I was sent to the range to "requalify" on the .45. I think they found the one I left in Vietnam and saved it for this purpose.

I remember the colonel next to me who completely missed the target 21 times with the rounds he fired, and four more times with the pistol and three clips he threw at the target.

Fortunately, one of my sergeants has spent time on the Army pistol team and took me to Schofield Barracks one day to shoot with his buddies who were visiting there on their way to a competition. I was loathe to shoot with them, but finally hit the target with some regularity after being properly trained by them.

I see film and photos of most soldiers carrying sidearms these days. I hope they are better trained with them than we were...

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Mar 16 at 2015 3:21 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:21:12 -0400

I can just pick one. If you have a bad leader in the beginning that doesn't communicate well, then that goes with you,. If in basic you hit the bottom of the qual chart they still send you packing, with out proper training in the hope that the unit will teach you better. Hand to hand now a days sucks in the army. they teach you to fight on the ground. I want to learn how to kill the enemy in hand to hand and if I get down then I'll worry about that. This is the reason we where the best WWI, WW II, Korea. We fought to Live and survive. Not lay down on the ground and shrimp! Planning usually starts at the top and the bottom follows. If your leaders suck when you are young in the military and then roles down. they don't teach Planning they teach follow me. That's not always a good PLAN! Yes you have to follow but if no one teaches you to plan then in later years it will come to haunt you.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2015 9:10 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:10:52 -0400

Marksmanship in general is a problem. The way it is taught does not translate well to the battle field. Static potions with static targets is not reality. Marksmanship needs to work more towards action shoot sports. With movement and odd angles strong and weak hand shooting. All soldiers should be taught and practice these techniques not just before deployments.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2015 9:29 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:29:51 -0400

Communicate is the worst taught.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 17 at 2015 12:46 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:46:14 -0400

Communication far and away is the biggest issue. With the inability to properly communicate we cannot perform any of the other skills nor can we complete a mission. I do not know how many times that I have been unable to complete a task due to a lack of proper communication from my superiors. I also have likely issued my level of confusing communications as well.

I agree with what SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member said.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 17 at 2015 2:06 PM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:06:57 -0400

I think in the Army... at least until we realized after 911 many MOSs were not all well trained to fight and survive in combat (we were all good at what the Army needed us to do in peace time, at the NTC/CMTC/JRTC etc, or what we thought the Army needed us to be good at). Readiness varied widely by types of units.

After 911, the Army dramatically changed marksmanship to rival how the Marines do it, and added 30-40 Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills, to ensure all Soldiers were capable of fighting first and foremost. It was a great step forward, but we still have improvements to make.

The concept was great, but unlike the Marine mentality of everyone's a rifleman first and foremost (which they embrace, believe and live), I don't think everyone in the Army really embrace(d) this.

Yes, BCT was/is dramatically better, but we still have a long way to go in my view. Once we get to units, we all still focus on our missions, jobs, and skills we need to support our higher commands.

Some units place a a priority on shooting, and fighting, but in many places, after IET, this becomes a once or twice a year qualification, or pre-deployment training... for many units outside the BCTs.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 3:07 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:07:48 -0400

First of all, shooting and fighting remain the cornerstones of any military unit. You learn everything else as you go (hopefully) but marksmanship is a lost art if you don't teach and practice it.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 3:44 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:44:24 -0400

Teach! We don't teach our instructors how to teach. Teachers and educators go through years of school to become entry level teachers. then they practice their skill year after year, day after day. We go though about a week of "how to make a power point presentation" then send our newest instructors on their way!

Response by SPC Allison Joy Cumming made Mar 18 at 2015 9:15 PM

SPC Allison Joy Cumming — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:15:03 -0400

That great good also resides within every human being just as the ability to kill.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 9:10 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 21:10:10 -0400

I realize my response may not qualify as a "skill" but more of a "task", but, I think it will apply at a micro level.

Running - I can't tell you how many injuries I have seen from over use and poor running techniques. <> I am not advocating less running, just the opposite.

Most injuries from running come from over use or over exertion. I've been running my entire life, more so once I joined the Army. I was a terrible runner...back, feet, knees, etc. It was only after a pretty serious knee injury that I learned "how" to run. Techniques from body position, cadence, shoes, frequency, etc. It has even improved my speed. I realize that some are natural runners, but not everybody has the same athletic ability. A lot of Soldiers today have NEVER been physically active.

Looking back on every military school I have been to, the focus on running was on speed, the faster you were the better you were. But I was never taught the "skill" of running. I consider myself a hack runner now, and later in life actually enjoy long runs, but the damage has already been done.

I'd like to see the military (Army) really focus on physical fitness, not just as a morning task, but more like a professional athlete.

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Mar 24 at 2015 9:23 AM

SFC Collin McMillion — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:23:33 -0400

I was pretty extensively trained in hand to hand combat, which after the military, as a police officer and even as a civilian, I was glad I was taught well. It has had to come into play several times. Even in the military battle is not always a long range event.

Response by SPC David S. made Apr 6 at 2015 4:25 PM

SPC David S. — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:25:13 -0400

I feel that communication skills are paramount for any leadership roles. If you can't get the point across of the purpose more than likely undesired results will occur. Also communication is a two way street as it takes a good listener to be a great communicator. These things are not so easily taught. Some may argue that it can't be taught and that the gift to gab is a more innate virtue that makes select individuals great leaders through their effectiveness in their ability to communicate. I think if the military is going to fix this they should have the lower ranks present information (not power point) to their peers and allow for their superiors to provide feedback. I don't see this as a pass or fail skill it is something that needs to be kindled and refined by practice and application. Kind of like the tea toasters do. Alright PVT Smith you got 5 minutes to tell your cohorts here why we use the 5.56 mm round. Go.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 11:13 AM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 11:13:54 -0400

There are many ways to communicate; verbal, nonverbal, passive, non passive etc. The ways in which we communicate will affect the situation and outcome of the transfer of information. By not understanding how to communicate we limit ourselves and our goals. There are classes that can be given to help an individual become a more equipped communicator but it takes effort to communicate efficiently. There has been more reliance on technology to enhance communication but there is a shortfall of the basic components that structure communication itself. Regardless of someone's background, rank, or job set the basics are the same. There are also classes on Army E learning that individuals can utilize for free or they can take classes at a local college, it is a skill that is necessary when they transition out of the service. Communication has been the most difficult thing to learn and teach because of the time it takes on the part of each person involved.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Apr 8 at 2015 11:54 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 11:54:46 -0400

Writing

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 11:57 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 11:57:49 -0400

Marksmanship, for sure. I have been in the AF Reserve for four years now. My military shooting experience is limited to two occasions, both of them half days in duration. One was at BMT, the other was at OTS. In both instances, proficiency was not a requirement for graduation. It was an "experience." At BMT, I managed to qualify on my weapon. There has been no follow-up training to improve my skills. At OTS, I had a cornea abrasion on the morning of M9 shooting and didn't get to shoot. There was no concern expressed by leadership to have me repeat the training and complete it.

I've heard of members in my units doing M9 training, in particular, my flyers, but it is not something that is mandated for all. Any additional training I've done has been personal.