Which important individual military skill is the worst-taught?

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.

Capt Richard I P.
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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.