Ranger Psych,
Ok, so I appreciate your input, and I'm sorry if my tone/candor seems diminutive, but I've put way too much time into this already and can only afford to edit so much right now. I will probably not come back to this for a couple of days; I'm sure a lot of it will piss you off, but I'm also sure there are some solid points of agreement. Anyways, I'm out, hope this is at all interesting or useful to someone if not yourself.
Doing better PT earlier yes, would benefit everyone theoretically, however the article in question mentions a 6 month plus trainup for SOF candidates specifically. As initial recruits for 18X or Option 40's, there's no room for that. You have what you have for the timeframe of 13 weeks of Infantry OSUT, another 3 weeks or so of Airborne, then 3 days at the shortest before you start RIP. SF candidates by contract actually get more train-up time, from what I know.
So the question becomes, particularly for Rangers, since you brought it up: why not re-allocate more for "train up" time, rather than plan a program that is so effective at weeding out the chaff? I'm sure there are budgetary, logistical, and other constraints to doing this, etc. . . . but this is all so ONLY given the fact that there are these customary time frames, sequences and traditions in place for service and force specific indoctrination. If that's not clear: you mention above a typical initial training pipeline leading up to Ranger Indoc. If "everything is fine in selection and training" land, and how dare I question it, can you explain to me the wisdom in giving someone less than a three day break between Airborne training and RIP?
To elaborate: I would love to see statistics on the number of candidates who fail out of RIP as a result of Airborne-training related stress fractures and the like. Assuming a significant number of people fall into this category, does that mean they are weak, stupid, blah blah blah? C'mon man. That it might be wise to give prospects some time to heal up prior to throwing them into an indoc program where they are literally *starved* is just some common sense shit that the Army, in this particular instance, seems to not care about. Shin-bones, ankles and knees, hell the entire person's organism is going to be stressed in an entirely new and severe way after Airborne training. To take someone from that sort of situation and malnourish them isn't just barbaric. I would reckon to say that it is completely freaking stupid, and ends up being a larger waste of resources in the long term, in terms of having disaffected dudes being reclassified to regular infantry, etc., and throwing hissy fits for not getting tabbed.
For anyone in-service, taking 6-9 months out of your day to day stuff is as expected, a total and utter nogo. Hell, our guys going to selections could do additional training if it could be worked into the schedule without interfering with actual responsibilities at the unit. The unit (regardless of what unit) is required by policy to allow you to go, but they're not required to allow you any special favors just because you're trying to go.
6-9 months out of your day? I think I get what you're saying, and that is that duties come first for someone who is already serving. But again, you're just describing the way things are traditionally speaking, and refusing to question the conventions that you take for granted as being valid. With all due respect, if I do end up fulfilling my little G.I. Joe fantasy - and yes, I will freely acknowledge that's what it is at this point - I have already promised myself that I will not settle for this kind of thinking. I will be that guy who gives his superiors hell when they insist on stupid shit, whether behind closed doors or to their faces, and who will ask for reasonable exceptions when it seems necessary. It's really a simple question of not permitting irrational and destructive authority to run roughshod over higher goals, ambitions and needs -- and I'm sure that is something you can appreciate. There are times, even and perhaps especially in the military, where tradition, convention and authority all need to be interrogated and overturned -- not always, certainly, but probably often.
On that note, if the a representative of the Army or any branch decides that an individual is a promising SOF candidate, why shouldn't they be given the resources, time and permissions to maximizing the chances of their success? Sure, it might cost more. Sure, it might piss off conventional troops who aren't given the chance, and it would create a need to recruit more of them, fill in the gaps, etc. But SOF is top priority today for reasons that I don't need to mention to you or anyone else on here. Why shouldn't there be policies in place that anticipate the candidate's success by providing full support for it, rather than anticipate and even plan for the candidate's failure, because "that's just the way it has to be?"
The other factor is that unless done properly (like most of the guys here that lift) weight training as a whole is done to the detriment of overall physical capacity. It does no good if you can deadlift or squat eleventy billion pounds, when you fall out on a 5 mile run. I saw it personally from some steakheads. Proper mixed training prevents that, but too many people go "hurr durr I getz big hurr" and don't keep a balanced focus... and their falling out is a detriment to the team that which they belong.
And there's another serious shortcoming in your thinking, but not just yours. It seems to be doctrinal to SOF in every branch that good candidates ought to be able to run distances, ranging from 1.5 to 5 miles or so, while completely unencumbered, and for times typically below say 6-7 min/mile on average. (I know that's rough, but it's about there, to the best of my knowledge). In any case, can you or someone else please explain to me how this at all mimics field conditions? Is there *any* time where almost *any* SOF troop OR "boots on ground" officer isn't carrying at least 40 lbs of gear, if not far, far more? Does any of that great "running endurance" really last while in field, and furthermore, does it need to? No and no.
The running requirements simply make no sense, given that. For SOF, they need to be hugely de-emphasized in favor of SHORT, HEAVY timed rucks. I know, who the hell am I to suggest something so sensible. If there's something I'm missing here, you are very welcome to let me know. As far as I'm concerned, though, a 220 lb. dude with 10% bodyfat who can squat 2X his body weight will have WAY more "endurance", in a field relevant way, given that he can ruck 110 lbs. 100 yards in less than half the time that a 170 lb. dude who runs a 17 minute 5k who can't squat 340.
Hell, there's frigging troops that don't even know how to insert a magazine in a rifle, or even load a magazine properly. Do you think that these points of human brilliance really should be introduced to doing a clean or something? With bodyweight exercises, at least their capacity to injure themselves is relatively restricted.
Dude, I'm all for BW exercises, and see all the wisdom in their being the most time-tested and perhaps overall most valuable, accessible mainstay of military fitness. However, cals and rucking and cals and swiimming and cals and running ad nauseum are NOT a substitute for a comprehensive, truly well considered, professionaly designed tactical athlete training program, a hugely important portion of which is going to be weight training, and even bodyweight training with added resistance (i.e. chin ups with weight vests, etc.) The reason being is very simple, and has been already alluded to: SOF guys and regular troops for that matter are always required to carry far more than their own weight. In such circumstances, the closer they are to being able to act is if they were unencumbered, the better.
Nutrition in the military varies highly as well, and part of it is also driven by time as well as if you're going to feed the troops, you really are going to also want to feed them something they'll actually eat. Would it have been nice if protein powder or other stuff was provided? Sure, but I could always go back for second helpings of chicken or whatever prime protein they were serving at the Ranger chow hall as well."
I ain't talking 'bout the military providing me with supps and protein. That would be stupid IMO. Not as stupid, however, as them not permitting people to use staples like protein powder, amino acids, etc., bought with their own money, whether in selection or otherwise. If SOF troops aren't taking a well considered regimen of supplements, in my opinion, they are doing themselves, their battle brothers and their country a huge disfavor. Consider that beta alanine, for instance, can be used to literally innoculate people against PTSD. What that means is that you can literally take beta alanine before going into combat, have a mortar round explode close by enough to where it might cause you to panic and be mentally scarred, and have any of those sorts of long-term battle-shock effects be essentially prevented. That is just one small, stupid example compared to the immense benefit-to-cost that comes from taking a well-considered course of supplements at all times.
u're missing the entire frigging point.... which has been pointed out repeatedly by others: SELECTION COURSES ARE NOT A TRAINING EVENT. They are a SELECTION event, intended to suck badly, weed out the weak of heart, the physically incapable, the mentally incapable, and as a result present the best possible troops to the training that occurs once selected!!! SFAS does a green beret not make, as a prime example! BUDS is an odd monkey, as it's a selection and training course rolled up into one, but the initial phase is intended as the primary selection event
No, I do get it, but let me ask you some serious questions. Please give it due consideration before responding. Do you really think that when selection instructors are getting super nasty with candidates, that 100% of the time, it is really out of a desire to "make them stronger?"
Do you think that they take the time to consider, in those situations, the way in which they might be effecting a person's ability to perform, not just in the short term, but in the long-term?
How much punishment is enough? Is it really sensible to leave these sorts of judgments up to some DI who is pissed that he's not in campaign any more, and feels usurped by "this bunch of young pussies" who would dare to step up to the plate and overtake a role that he regrets not being able to fill himself anymore?
Lastly: does pushing people through a dangerously sleep deprived, food deprived, water deprived week really give you an accurate idea of how they are going to perform in the field?
I understand the need to test a candidate in each of these ways INDIVIDUALLY. The fact that it is almost always combined, and a state of severe deprivation and overtraining is pushed upon candidates for weeks on end, doesn't help anyone IMO. THAT is when injuries occur during selection processes, and when sheer dumb luck becomes a factor in determining who makes it to the end. You can tell me until you're blue in the face that I haven't been there or done that, but do you really think that what I'm suggesting is that insensible?
Sure! Make it hard as hell. Hell, make screening SO hard that way, way less people are even permitted into selection in the first place. When the candidates get there, though, they deserve to be tested *within reasonable bounds.* There need to be objective criteria. They can't simply be at the whim of "barrel chested freedom fighters" who go through five cans of dip a day, and hate themselves for having retired from their AD SOF jobs. If that seems too politically correct for you, I don't know what to say besides psychotic father-figures don't generally raise stable, mature and capable men.
It's already been proven that all the selection courses are directly related to the duties inherent to the positions that the resulting graduates fill. You WILL Land nav. You WILL traverse varied terrain and obstacles. You WILL run in boots. You WILL ruck long and unknown distances. You WILL carry varying and heavy loads throughout any and all of these events. You WILL have to function as part of a team. I don't know what clinical science you're thinking would apply, every selection is as functional as it gets.
That basically contradicts what you were saying earlier about selection not being training.
