I won't disagree with this for a second except to say when you see the same discrepancies over and over because parts aren't forthcoming the concept of PMCS becomes a bitter and ironic joke. When you reach that point you need to move on until the vehicle situation can be fixed.
Back to basics for the Army....
- Thread starter Devildoc
- Start date
I won't disagree with this for a second except to say when you see the same discrepancies over and over because parts aren't forthcoming the concept of PMCS becomes a bitter and ironic joke. When you reach that point you need to move on until the vehicle situation can be fixed.
Devildoc
Verified Military
There are a lot of things that seem to be anachronisms in the military, fighting holes seemingly among them. But I think the tone of the article suggests that the Army support positions specifically can't see the forest for the trees, can't do basic soldiering. I think there needs to be a balance between the MOS-specific tasks and the foundations of soldiering.
I pretty well agree with both of your posts. I do however feel that we are not going to keep fighting the same style warfare. And with forces being drawn down the way they are, CSS/SS need to be ready to man the line (for lack of better words).
A couple times a year digging fox holes and sleeping in the dirt doesn't hurt anyone. I mean after all, it is the Army.
We've been fighting this way for 15 years and there is little to indicate it will change in the near future. It's a lot easier to train someone up quickly on how to dig a fighting position than it is to get them schooled up in their language, how to make comms, or how to keep their vehicles and equipment operational.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
The Army has grown soft? That's why The Army has various selections and schools for you to attend. You have to prove that you're not "soft" before you're allowed to do anything else.
You seem to be a bit of Marine fanboy, why didn't you join the Marines? It seems pretty cheap that you have so much criticism for the Army, yet you claim to have joined it- TWICE.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,304
If anything it should be harder. I don't want to hear such talk from anyone today. Get over it. My Grandfathers both were in Army basic to prep for World War 2 with training that would break recruits today.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2016
- Messages
- 33
Mr. Etype please don't misunderstand me. The Army is a good branch. I have heard of and seen the Army BCT standards drop so more people can achieve this goal. I am only referring to BCT. Yes there are a lot of school you can attend which is great because you have to show you wanna go. You are correct on all counts. From when I did BCT in 2006 we actually had to give out recruit brothers IVs now they don't do that, You cant yell at people anymore, you cant point and people, you cant drop them for more then 10 reps, its a bunch of little links in the chocker collar that make the military to seem less intimidating. They don't call you warriors anymore and WLC is now BLC. Basic was about brainwashing you needed to believe you were a killer and can accomplish any mission. The Army turned into a business. You make the most out what you put in. And yes I wanted the USMC at first and bitched out I'm not happy about it but I didn't have a ton of options when I tried to come in a 2nd time with my discharge and RE code but I made the best of it and I'm still trying to fight for the things I want.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
So you wanted to be in the Marines, but you were scarred? Yet you call BCT soft?
Before WLC was WLC, it was BNCOC. I'm glad they changed the name, WLC sounds cheesy and cliche.
BCT is just what it needs to be. You are a mechanic, not a warrior.
ETA-
The whole, 'everyone is a warrior,' theme is like giving every kid a trophy and everyone being a winner.
Before WLC was WLC, it was BNCOC. I'm glad they changed the name, WLC sounds cheesy and cliche.
BCT is just what it needs to be. You are a mechanic, not a warrior.
ETA-
The whole, 'everyone is a warrior,' theme is like giving every kid a trophy and everyone being a winner.
Last edited:
I never dug fighting positions in the bush because we wanted mobility in a firefight. We never dug-in in ambush sites because digging makes noise.
As you say, digging was punitive. Fuck up and you dig a 6'x6'x6'. And fill it in again when you're done.
The "book" has instructions on digging a fighting pit, complete with grenade sump. I can see where it might've been useful in the World Wars and Korea, when you might've had to face a charging horde...but how many charging hordes have we faced? Our enemies learned long ago that massed charges against automatic weapons is wasteful and unproductive.
I think one of the most important things to learn, aside from squad organic weapons, is comm. Whenever we had a replacement join us, he automatically got one of the PRC25s and a crash course of instruction and humped it until he learned how to call in everything.
Comm is the lifeline, especially for a small unit. If you're the last man standing you have to know it. So teach the Fobbits practical applications, the "camping trip" stuff they can learn along the way.
Last edited:
I agree that fighting positions are passe for the current conflict against an enemy that is fighting us with guerilla style tactics.
That said, it's a classic mistake to train for the last war rather than the next one. Our next conflict against a world power is going to feature a lot of hunter/seeker type drones. What's the best way not to get killed by a drone (for the Ground Pounder)? Overhead cover with camo and anti-thermal imaging properties... i.e. a classic foxhole, without beaten zones, or underground bunker.
That said, it's a classic mistake to train for the last war rather than the next one. Our next conflict against a world power is going to feature a lot of hunter/seeker type drones. What's the best way not to get killed by a drone (for the Ground Pounder)? Overhead cover with camo and anti-thermal imaging properties... i.e. a classic foxhole, without beaten zones, or underground bunker.
Good points and I agree. But learning to dig a by-the-book foxhole is not rocket science. It's something you can learn in a 1-hour class with a day of supervised practice. Learning weapons, communications and how to keep things working IMO should take precedence when teaching Fobbits who may someday find themselves in a fight.
You would think so... OTOH, I have seen NCO's in the Infantry during the 90's that had a decade of experience and still couldn't dig a foxhole properly.
Couldn't, or were too lazy? We dug hasty FPs and defensive FPs in the TACP pipeline, and it wasn't complicated. You just had to be willing to put in the work to do it properly. It was used more as a physical training tool than anything though. "Dig a hasty here." Dig the hasty and call the cadre over for inspection. "No, this spot 20m to the right looks better. Fill that one in and dig one over here."
Hasty is just a shallow grave. A proper fighting position is shoulder deep, enough room for two people to stand in the ports or both duck under the cover.
It has some type of wood roof, on top of which are sandbags which are in turn covered with camoflage. The sides are closed in and there is an escape to the rear for each person and a firing port to the front with stakes that delineate the fields of fire for that person. Once that is built, it is improved constantly.
That's what we used to build when we went to the field... Every time. We didn't always use the big logs though. Usually we were told to just use whatever branches we could find and stretch a poncho with them then toss some dirt on top. The couple of times we did it for real, we used logs provided by the combat engineers and filled sandbags as the layer directly on top of the waterproofing.
That's the book version I mentioned above. It usually means you've given up dynamic maneuver and tactical mobility, you expect the enemy to zero in on you, and you're preparing to sit in your hole and take whatever shit he lobs at you.
I don't know about OIF/OEF, but the only fixed positions and bunkers I saw in VN were at permanent compounds or firebases and had been constructed by engineer units or Seabees.
I don't know about OIF/OEF, but the only fixed positions and bunkers I saw in VN were at permanent compounds or firebases and had been constructed by engineer units or Seabees.
Desert Storm was where we did the real ones. Digging grenade sumps in sand is a bitch.
DocIllinois
Verified Military
We dug in positions and Ranger graves around the perimeter of Tuzla when the place was still going up in '96.
Before then, we hadn't trained much on this task back in Germany because we weren't expecting to have to do it for realz.
Yet there we were, picking and slinging for days. Funny old world.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,304
I dug one or two in 2003
WLC used to be PLDC back when I did it, BNCOC phase one was before you pinned E6, and phase two was within 2 years of pinning E6. ANCOC was supposed to be before E7.
PLDC
BNCOC 1&2
ANCOC 1&2
1SG Course
SGM Academy
At least during my time in. The whole warrior gayness, is exactly how you put it. That all said, I think even our support people should be able to build a fighting position and defend it. As I said before, it is the Army...
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
I never saw one in Iraq or Afghanistan. We made all of our permanent positions above the grade line.
I agree 300% about giving up the initiative by digging in. Fire and maneuver has defeated fixed positions since Napoleon swept across Europe.
Similar threads
