Ranger's focus on bringing everyone home by killing all the enemy first. Doesn't always work out, but it sure as hell increases survivability more than trying to turtle up without indiscriminate artillery fire.
Massive Cuts to Army Force Structure
- Thread starter Marauder06
- Start date
No disrespect, but I would like to read any stats or supporting documentation that support your claim "that NG units were less effective or capable compared to their AD counterparts". As that opinion doesn't hold much water in my experience, not only on the deployment side but also on the training and unit validation side.
I have some unit specific info/data I will share next time I am on a PC vs my phone.
PA ANG is the only COMMANDO SOLO unit around. AFSOC has sent AD folks to augment them.
Maybe the Guard needs to deploy as a Bde or lower TF.
SpongeBob*24
Verified Military
Reed......
The most casualty producing units WERE NOT NG or AR.....and you know that.
I won't go toe to toe on numbers and I won't disagree that NG and AR had a HUGE part in both wars..
My hat is off to both...
But come on really.....we all know who did what!!!
The most casualty producing units WERE NOT NG or AR.....and you know that.
I won't go toe to toe on numbers and I won't disagree that NG and AR had a HUGE part in both wars..
My hat is off to both...
But come on really.....we all know who did what!!!
No disrespect taken- it's all good brother.
And I hope you don't think I'm deliberately seeking to disrespect the Guard, but I think what I said is both accurate and important for people to understand. I specified in my initial post that my comments were based on personal experience, I'm not going to spend any time looking up documentation to support my point of view- if such documentation even exists. The Center for Army Lessons Learned might have some good, unclassified, and unbiased writeups that could support one side of this discussion or the another if someone wants to take the time to look for something more official.
It should be intuitive though that all things being equal, an organization that does something full-time is going to be innately better that someone that does it part-time. If Guard units are just as effective as AD units in an apples-to-apples comparison, why do we even bother with AD in the first place? Why not an all-voluteer, all-part-time force? The answer is because there IS a difference. A big one. Again, I'm not bashing the Guard, they do their part and are an important component of the team. But IMO anyone who thinks any size part-time Guard fivision is as capable as their direct counterpart on AD is deluding themselves. Again, this doesn't mean they're "not capable," just "less capable."
Officers with that degree of risk aversion typically didn't make it into the types of units I supported during the wars, so no, I didn't see it. Ever.
Not as direct as training time vs training time. Guard does have some strengths over AD. Unit cohesion, maturity, real world skills (especially the medics) and even on training, your average grunt has been in what 2 years? Your average Guard grunt has been in longer. There are clear weaknesses as well. On a whole, the physical fitness level of the NG is atrocious, technical skills take much longer to develop since we don't have new high tech equipment in peacetime, and there is a severe reduction in yearly training time. BUT, and I know you are old enough to remember this sir, peace time Army training in the conventional forces was not that intense. I spent a much greater time doing post beautification, change of command ceremonies, motor pool, mandatory paperwork, etc, then I ever did training and most of the training was still "hip pocket" training. And this was in an airborne unit, I can only imagine what day to day life in a conventional non-combat arms unit must have been like.
So you supported SOF units. Hardly a fair comparison for Guard units.
Reed
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
My BDE has deployed twice in the GWOT. Then piecemeal in at least one TF and a lot of individual augmentees.
Reed, I'm going to start using your argument like a skeet range.
PULL!
PULL!
PULL!
PULL!
Real world skills when recruiting from the same civilian stock and it's some college kid? Not every NG medic (in fact very few in my experience) are actually even medics outside of the NG. Even if they're paramedics, they still have their scope they can work as with that unit and probably won't have the resources they do on an ambulance... and ACLS serves very little purpose in combat when penetrating or blast trauma are the flavor of the day.
PULL!
A Infantryman that's actually been training for 2 years versus an "infantryman" who's been training for 2 months (Because that's how much patrolling time you'll have with a weekend and 2 weeks in the summer)? Really? You want to go there? This is SPC SAW Gunner versus fresh out of OSUT PV1 FUCKIDUNNO. Reading a manual does not an expert make, you need time in the fucking woods ESPECIALLY for infantrymen. Considering (and having seen the NG on training weekends and having NG friends) that the NG gets all the same paperwork, details, and other bullshit.... 2 years versus 2 months is a whole fucking PLANET of actually having trained and tested.
As a last shot: If national guard is so well trained and capable as you say...
Why was there a 1 year spoolup time of non-stop training and qualifications, etc, in order to deploy them... when the regular army just rolled the fuck out.
I rest my case.
PULL!
So performing repeated and consistent training and testing isn't a gauge of unit readiness? Gee, wish I had known that so we could have blown off K22 every year and just drank beer instead
PULL!
How so? Unit cohesion for a group of people that meet once a month and 2 weeks in the summer?
PULL!
Maturity when they recruit from the same stock as the regular army?
PULL!
Real world skills when recruiting from the same civilian stock and it's some college kid? Not every NG medic (in fact very few in my experience) are actually even medics outside of the NG. Even if they're paramedics, they still have their scope they can work as with that unit and probably won't have the resources they do on an ambulance... and ACLS serves very little purpose in combat when penetrating or blast trauma are the flavor of the day.
PULL!
A Infantryman that's actually been training for 2 years versus an "infantryman" who's been training for 2 months (Because that's how much patrolling time you'll have with a weekend and 2 weeks in the summer)? Really? You want to go there? This is SPC SAW Gunner versus fresh out of OSUT PV1 FUCKIDUNNO. Reading a manual does not an expert make, you need time in the fucking woods ESPECIALLY for infantrymen. Considering (and having seen the NG on training weekends and having NG friends) that the NG gets all the same paperwork, details, and other bullshit.... 2 years versus 2 months is a whole fucking PLANET of actually having trained and tested.
As a last shot: If national guard is so well trained and capable as you say...
Why was there a 1 year spoolup time of non-stop training and qualifications, etc, in order to deploy them... when the regular army just rolled the fuck out.
I rest my case.
(1) Unit cohesion for a group of people that have known each other for YEARS and believe it or not, talk to each other OUTSIDE of drill. (weird)
(2) Not the same stock, lots of prior service, and for the most part older, an 18 year old Guardsman is fairly rare, while it was common on active duty
(3) Our experiences differ. Keep in mind you are comparing NG training to RANGER training. No NG unit is ever going to come close to that level of proficiency, but hardly any, if any, non-SOF Active duty units will either.
(4) See (2) about large number of prior service, and some units do the stupid shit on drill weekends and some do not. I have been in 3 states and 5 units of the NG. Some were great, some not so much.
(5) Politics.
Look, I'm not saying the Guard is better or even as good as active duty, I'm saying that a straight "365 days of training compared to 36 days means were like 10x better" is not true, there are factors that make the Guard closer in capability to the active duty beyond just training days. Some of those things the active duty could do, and really improve themselves as well, such as recruiting a more mature base (college grads and early 20 year olds over high-school grads, allowing prior service that had been out for a short time to compete as recruiting numbers and not retention numbers, not PCSing everyone randomly every couple of years and allowing teams, squads and platoons a better chance to really gel as a unit.
Reed
I never said 10x better. 2 years of straight active duty with even a regular army training cycle (I spent 3 years in a Stryker Brigade, so I know what regular army's like) versus as I said a total of 1 MONTH a YEAR of training, with that month still having required stupidity that the rest of the military has to deal with? Not as well trained.
One weekend a month of marksmanship or patrolling training isn't even maintenance level for those skills, let alone enough time to improve or actually prove proficient.
Having a whole lot of prior service doesn't count for anything... because TTP's and equipment change.. and without actual time to train?
Your arguments aren't working. National guard specifically requires a huge workup before deploying. Regular army wether it's the 82nd or 101st or 75th or anybody else... is ready to go, NOW. THAT is proof enough, everything else is simply addendums and asterisks as to why NG's behind the 8 ball.
One weekend a month of marksmanship or patrolling training isn't even maintenance level for those skills, let alone enough time to improve or actually prove proficient.
Having a whole lot of prior service doesn't count for anything... because TTP's and equipment change.. and without actual time to train?
Your arguments aren't working. National guard specifically requires a huge workup before deploying. Regular army wether it's the 82nd or 101st or 75th or anybody else... is ready to go, NOW. THAT is proof enough, everything else is simply addendums and asterisks as to why NG's behind the 8 ball.
The Guard is designed around a 2-6 week train-up period with AD advisors before deploying. Even with the GWOT some units took longer and used their AT periods for an extra trip to JRTC/ NTC. The worst case is obviously the 48th BDE back in DS/ DS which never deployed.
If you can't take a Guard unit from the drill hall to the battlefield in 2 months' time, your leadership has seriously screwed you.
As to an earlier point made, and I'm not saying Guard units didn't do this, but I know of an entire AD brigade which went into casualty avoidance mode on the order of their CG and at least one aviation BN just a few years ago.
Comparing the Guard and AD is always a fruitless exercise because of the vast differences, even among identical units.
If you can't take a Guard unit from the drill hall to the battlefield in 2 months' time, your leadership has seriously screwed you.
As to an earlier point made, and I'm not saying Guard units didn't do this, but I know of an entire AD brigade which went into casualty avoidance mode on the order of their CG and at least one aviation BN just a few years ago.
Comparing the Guard and AD is always a fruitless exercise because of the vast differences, even among identical units.
The regular Army as a whole did not just roll the fuck out.
NTC/JRTC rotations for units identified as next out so they were up to speed on current threats.
NG units took a year of drill time (vs 90 days pre-deployment time).
Were some units filled with shitbirds, yes.
Others did a great job, just like their active duty counterparts.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
NG does seem to be a little older when it comes to rank i.e. a NG E5 will on average be a little older than his AD counterpart. This is offset by his lack of training time as you have stated though IMO.
Yes NG has a lot better real world skills than AD. WTF does an AD guy who enlisted at 17-19 yr old know about the real world and working? What outside job experience skills does he bring? Not a lot.
That's like saying NG Infantry has the same training skills as AD
Also as a NG medic, I will say NG medics are very well trained and have a lot of experience. I'd put my guys up against any conventional AD unit when it comes to medic skills.
Half of my medics are real world paramedics, nursing students (one senior ER nurse), a couple of NCOs who are ex AD medics with AD deployment time, a bunch of EMT-Bs that work as medics for FDNY, as well as other private companies and other FD's.
Once the guys have proven their skills/maturity to us senior medics and therefore the PA, our scope of practice is wider than civi medics get.
I'm not impressed with the NG at all, in fact it is a fucked up system in a lot of respects, but I'm also not impressed with conventional AD either.
I see the same stupidity there, except done on a daily basis. Overall AD has better skills for sure, no way you can compare someone who trains for 20 days a year to someone who trains for 100-200 days (whatever the exact number is).
I hear and have seen plenty of cases of NG doing a better job than AD, I'm sure AD guys can say the same in reverse.
This whole discussion actually completely supports my statements elsewhere about moving a large portion of CSS to the guard.
I would rather have a truck driver that just traded his Kenworth for a HET, for just one MOS example.
Scope of practice for military medicine vs civilian... not touching that with a 10 foot pole, I know it all too well for fact.
I would rather have a truck driver that just traded his Kenworth for a HET, for just one MOS example.
Scope of practice for military medicine vs civilian... not touching that with a 10 foot pole, I know it all too well for fact.
Florida173
SOF Support
My experience with the Guard deploying at the tactical side is that it is often times unable to fulfill its mission with even 80% organic members to the the unit. My last PAANG deployment had what seemed to be 40% or more from individual augmentees. This was at the BDE and below level with most of the 11Bs having been inactive for a few years before being re-activated.
I don't believe a maneuver element unit could ever be as good as their active duty counterparts with the lack of training. Real world training is going to get you shit when you haven't done basic battle drills over and over with the same group of guys in your team/squad.
On the other hand.. Hard to compare myself and some of the people I work with in the intel environment because of us doing real world intel work full time as contractors.. compared to a typical AD person that's likely spending time in this place I've heard about called the motorpool... even as an infantry guy at Bragg I never spent any time there..
I don't believe a maneuver element unit could ever be as good as their active duty counterparts with the lack of training. Real world training is going to get you shit when you haven't done basic battle drills over and over with the same group of guys in your team/squad.
On the other hand.. Hard to compare myself and some of the people I work with in the intel environment because of us doing real world intel work full time as contractors.. compared to a typical AD person that's likely spending time in this place I've heard about called the motorpool... even as an infantry guy at Bragg I never spent any time there..
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
I'm not going to agree or disagree with you or Reed. I think everything depends on the State and the Unit (most California Units appear to be lazy compared to what I've heard in talking to people from other States). I've been in NG Units that never did any major training, and then I spent time in 19th Group. There is a HUGE difference between what goes on between the SOF side and the conventional side. The SOF guys (ODA and ODB guys) were on it all the time. Everyone was focused and always doing something. On the conventional side, when we would hit the field, we would pop smoke. Sometimes we would do some training, but not much IMO. When it came to deploying, we were supposed to have a 2-month work up. Well, an entire brigade showed up to the mob site and they had us go through the training in reverse (run, walk, crawl). The First Army cadre (not a fan of them) learned a few things from us and told us it was unfortunate we were stuck there for two months because there was nothing they could do to prepare us more than we already were.
While overseas, the battalion we fell under gave us vehicles and missions from an AD unit that couldn't perform and stuck them at the gate. We also had an AD unit laze an entire platoon convoying back from another FOB. That laser was attached to an M2, which means he intentionally pointed his weapon at every vehicle in the convoy, during daylight hours.
Do I believe the NG is "behind the 8 ball"? In some areas, yes (mainly with combat arms). But I also believe the AD guys are behind the 8 ball in some areas also that Reed pointed out (non-tactical skills, such as construction, building rapport with "different" people, and other "soft" skills). It's an interesting conversation here with a lot of valid points/opinions/experiences from each side.
Standbys for one hell of a drawn the fuck out post, to address all of the weekend warrior vs day to day soldiering.
Coming from someone who spent 10.75 year guard..... 9.5 of those were on title 10 AD orders.
Until then ......everyone have a happy 4th of July! More to follow tomorrow
Coming from someone who spent 10.75 year guard..... 9.5 of those were on title 10 AD orders.
Until then ......everyone have a happy 4th of July! More to follow tomorrow
lol, well you asked me what I saw.
This is the statement that I originally took issue with, and for which I still have yet to see any substantiation:
By what metrics, and by whose account?
Might some small units (squads, ODAs) be better than some of their active components? Perhaps. But IMO and IME, the farther you go up the organizational chart, the more complicated things get and the harder it is for part-timers to match the effectiveness of their active components. The main unit of employment was the brigade, right? I would be astonished to read credible accounts of brigade size or larger units matching the effectiveness of their active components. I don't think it happened- but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if anyone wants to make the case.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
When I went through NTC, the training/support staff there repeatedly told us how they thought my NG BDE was awesome, when asked why, they kept telling us that the BDE from the 82nd that preceded us was ate up beyond belief. Anecdotal and taken with a pinch of salt but it happened.
My squad leader was telling a story tonight about a convoy led by an AD COL in Iraq, that he refused to allow into the fob when he was in charge of the gate as an E5.
The COL didn't have a convoy manifest, had no idea how many vehicles (civi tractor trailers) let alone how many people were on the convoy.
Interesting.
Personally I would tear the NG system down and rebuild it. Forget the weekend silliness, bring them in for *4* one week blocks a year, plus a large exercise. something like that. Or after basic/AIT cut them loose, no training at all until a deployment comes up then activate them 6 mths prior and train them up.
Ramble ramble...
My squad leader was telling a story tonight about a convoy led by an AD COL in Iraq, that he refused to allow into the fob when he was in charge of the gate as an E5.
The COL didn't have a convoy manifest, had no idea how many vehicles (civi tractor trailers) let alone how many people were on the convoy.
Interesting.
Personally I would tear the NG system down and rebuild it. Forget the weekend silliness, bring them in for *4* one week blocks a year, plus a large exercise. something like that. Or after basic/AIT cut them loose, no training at all until a deployment comes up then activate them 6 mths prior and train them up.
Ramble ramble...
Similar threads
