View Full Version : SF Restructure
A while back, there was a link to a site that had some interesting SF restructuring ideas; eliminating the SF bn, new ODA structure, etc. If anyone remembers the link, I would appreciate it if you would post it. Thanks.
------------------
Arch hard and take it like a man.
I don't know about a URL link, but I was asked my opinion SF Organization a while back. Here's a reprint:
-------------------------------------------
I can think of several hundred ways, IMHO, to improve SF. I think the best route is the one that can save money and streamline command and control.
Personnel Retention:
Implement a policy of a MINIMUM 5-year initial tour on an SF A-Team for all new graduates. No exceptions. They also must receive formal school cross-training in another 18 series MOS (18B,C,D,E) also during the initial tour. During the initial tour they must complete a minimum of one 6-month rotation overseas with their team. The SF Soldier must spend at LEAST one year on an A-Team AFTER graduating from his secondary MOS School. Officers must also serve five years on a Team.
After the Initial Tour, they are eligible for other assignments within the Army SF community. Team Time doesn't start until after graduation from SFS, Language, and any other specialty courses. All personnel who finish the initial tour with favorable evaluations are eligible for 18F School.
After 10 years A-Team time, Enlisted SF are eligible for assignment within the Unified Spec Ops Community. Officers are eligible for Unified Assignments after serving on a Group Staff.
SF A-Teams:
Keep it 12 personnel. Eliminate one officer position; and replace it with another 18F. The single officer position can be manned with either a WO or CPT or MAJ. An A-Team is nothing more than an Infantry squad with some interesting job skills. It doesn't need two officers to handle the work.
The Team breakout would be:
One Team Leader (WO, CPT or MAJ);
One Team Sergeant (SFC,MSG,SGM);
Two 18F;
Two 18B;
Two 18C;
Two 18D;
Two 18E;
Every SF ODA must complete one 6-month rotation overseas every 2-3 years. This is an unaccompanied tour. There's plenty of work for them; the big problem is getting the chain of command off it's ass to implement the policy. SF personnel who don't want to deploy can find a job in the fast-food industry.
Every Team member will have standard rifle with grenade launcher and pistol; plus each team will have one 60mm Mortar, two sniper systems, one GPMG, two SAWs, and one Javelin Launcher set. All personnel will be equipped with Night Vision Equipment, SAR Radios, and personal commo systems for intra-team commo.
SF Company:
Plus up the number of ODAs from 6 to 9 per company. With 9 Teams, 4-5 will have Line Officers (CPT or MAJ), 4 or 5 will have Warrant Officers.
Four Teams will be Specialty Teams: Free Fall, Amphibious Operations, Ground Mobility and Rough Terrain. Another Four Teams will be plain 'Vanilla' Teams. One Team will be specially organized and equipped for Intelligence Operations.
All Specialty Teams primary mission is Reconnaissance and Surveillance. Their special means of insertion and recovery lend themselves to sneaking in and gathering information. The Specialty Teams are also responsible for assisting the Company in movement operations involving their skills. These teams should have the more experienced personnel in the Company.
All of the Vanilla Teams primary mission is Combat Patrolling: Raids, Ambushes, Offsets, etc. They are the "Heavy Hitters". They will also specialize in Urban Combat and CQB.
All Teams have FID as an additional mission. All Teams must complete an Area-Study and Language Training refresher program every two years for their Area of Responsibility. All teams must pass annual evaluations in Reconnaissance, Surveillance , Combat Operations, and Urban Operations.
Keep the Company HQ strength at 14 personnel: 12 SF, 1 Logistics NCO and 1 NBC NCO.
SF Battalions:
Eliminate them completely. Wipe out 70% of the personnel slots (approximately 140 people); and send the other 1/3 (70 per battalion) to the Group. They are a useless layer of Command.
SF Groups:
Keep all five Groups and their orientation. Reduce the number of SF Companies from 9 to 6 Companies per group. Today, on paper, there are 9 SF Companies with 6 ODAs in each company; a total of 54 Teams. With my recommendation, there would be 6 SF Companies with 9 ODAs in each company; a total of 54 Teams. The key difference is I can eliminate 450-500 slots and remove one layer of command between the Teams and the Group Commander. This will NOT affect command and control; hell, it enhances it.
With the extra 30% from each of the old battalions, blend those slots into the existing Group. Reorganize the Group into:
Six SF Companies.
One Group HQ Company;
One SF Support Battalion, consisting of :
--Headquarters and Headquarters Company.
--Operations Company (Ops, Intel, PSYOP, CA, OPLANS),
--Logistics Company (Supply, Maintenance, Transport, and Log Planning),
--Signal Company.
During deployments, the SF Group HQ Company and Support Battalion would ‘clone’ themselves into two Forward Operations Bases; each capable of supporting 3 SF Companies. Each FOB consists of the standard Operations Center, Support Center and Signal Center.
For those Groups with permanent forward locations overseas (1st and 10th Groups), they would permanently ‘clone’. One FOB stays in the US; the other stays forward.
Well, there’s my .02 worth. This should start some ‘conversation’…
--------------------------------
End of Reprint
That help any? And why are you interested?
tracy.**********@60mdg.travis.af.mil
Tracy,
I like it, however, I would do away with 18B MOS, make it part of the "Q" course, along with SOT....I feel that everybody should do what a weapons man does...replace the lost MOS on the teams with the critical MOS that we have trouble keeping...18E's or D's maybe an extra 18F when we get rid of the Warrant slot...I know to suggest getting rid of the B slot is heresy, but....shouldnt we expect any SF NCO that has been in Group for at least 4-5 years to do that job?
Tracy,
I like it, however, I would do away with 18B MOS, make it part of the "Q" course, along with SOT....I feel that everybody should do what a weapons man does...replace the lost MOS on the teams with the critical MOS that we have trouble keeping...18E's or D's maybe an extra 18F when we get rid of the Warrant slot...I know to suggest getting rid of the B slot is heresy, but....shouldnt we expect any SF NCO that has been in Group for at least 4-5 years to do that job?
Thanks. The reason that I asked was that my team and i were talking the other day and the topic of SF structure came up. I remembered your article and wanted to show it to the guys. Thanks again.
------------------
Arch hard and take it like a man.
SOTICgrad
26 May 2000, 21:41
Hey JMBJS....
Interesting thought on the Bravos, but...You mentioned "shouldnt we expect any SF NCO that has been in Group for at least 4-5 years to do that job?"
First...how do you get them to that point if you have no subject matter expert to teach them? Especially with the losses we're taking these days. Without being to confrontational, you may THINK you know a lot of non B's that can do the job, maybe you, but you're wrong. If the B's on your team agree with you then you might wanna send 'em over to weapons committee to brush up. I doubt you could expect everyone to keep their MOS current and have to combine the B's into it.
I think you're missing some of the things B's do, because they don't do them on a regular basis and the stuff you see us do all the time is stuff that many with an infantry background may be able to do. But don't forget that 30% of current SF candidates don't come from combat arms.
I truly doubt that a medic is going to have time to stay current on how to breakdown a multitude of foreign weapons. You can't always "brush up" before you go somewhere. Not to mention everyone on the team having time to maintain currency on doing adjust, shift, and polar plot fire direction indirect fire missions. Nothing like plotting below the pivot point. Ask your Bravo's about how simple it would be for everyone on the team to plot and fire a coordinated illum mission. If they think that's easy then they're studs, cause we've got B's from A-teams running through the committee every week to freshen up on stuff....yes I'm there.
What I'm saying is don't sell us short because we seem like the guys in college that were phys ed majors. There's a lot more to the B's than you see on a daily basis and finding out that inconveient fact in some mud hole is not a good thing. We do a lot more than shoot and loot...that's just what a lot of us like to do most. Stepping off the soapbox.
SOTICgrad
26 May 2000, 21:42
Hey JMBJS....
Interesting thought on the Bravos, but...You mentioned "shouldnt we expect any SF NCO that has been in Group for at least 4-5 years to do that job?"
First...how do you get them to that point if you have no subject matter expert to teach them? Especially with the losses we're taking these days. Without being to confrontational, you may THINK you know a lot of non B's that can do the job, maybe you, but you're wrong. If the B's on your team agree with you then you might wanna send 'em over to weapons committee to brush up. I doubt you could expect everyone to keep their MOS current and have to combine the B's into it.
I think you're missing some of the things B's do, because they don't do them on a regular basis and the stuff you see us do all the time is stuff that many with an infantry background may be able to do. But don't forget that 30% of current SF candidates don't come from combat arms.
I truly doubt that a medic is going to have time to stay current on how to breakdown a multitude of foreign weapons. You can't always "brush up" before you go somewhere. Not to mention everyone on the team having time to maintain currency on doing adjust, shift, and polar plot fire direction indirect fire missions. Nothing like plotting below the pivot point. Ask your Bravo's about how simple it would be for everyone on the team to plot and fire a coordinated illum mission. If they think that's easy then they're studs, cause we've got B's from A-teams running through the committee every week to freshen up on stuff....yes I'm there.
What I'm saying is don't sell us short because we seem like the guys in college that were phys ed majors. There's a lot more to the B's than you see on a daily basis and finding out that inconveient fact in some mud hole is not a good thing. We do a lot more than shoot and loot...that's just what a lot of us like to do most. Stepping off the soapbox.
SOTICgrad
26 May 2000, 21:43
Sorry about the double post folks.
hello all
what about geting rid of the CAPT and the Maj and put the team leaders slot only for WO? and have another 18f and have the rest of them as is and have the wo bid them all together. the other ? is that would you have a capt and maj as a TL or a wo?
is this a good, bad or what?
later
------------------
ooooo rrrraaaahhhh KILL KILL KILL
hello all
what about geting rid of the CAPT and the Maj and put the team leaders slot only for WO? and have another 18f and have the rest of them as is and have the wo bid them all together. the other ? is that would you have a capt and maj as a TL or a wo?
is this a good, bad or what?
later
------------------
ooooo rrrraaaahhhh KILL KILL KILL
OldSFer
27 May 2000, 12:09
I second SOTIC's view. Weapons men are very important to a team.
SPY,
Would you please restate your question(s)...this time in English please.
spy,
Have you been skipping your English classes or what?
Double Post
[This message has been edited by Swat1 (edited 05-27-2000).]
Sotic Grad,
All Q-course students would go through the 18B course, that includes the mortars...you say that it would be hard for a medic to stay current on the breakdown of foriegn weapons...well, most of the B's I know couldnt just pick one up and tear it down and put it together without having to finger it here and there to jog their memory...So every body would have that training, that means that medic would pick that weapon up, finger it for a while, then be able to give a familiarization to the other guys, who have had the SAME training as him...As far as infantry background goes(the 30% you mentioned)why would that figure change if you dropped the MOS? You would still have about 30% of the guys that dont have an infantry background....Although Im not sure of your original #'s.
You would now have EVERYBODY, regardless of backgrounds, on the same sheet of music. We have a great weakness in SF on people with basic infantry skills, so lets make it part of the "Q".
As far as your point on how hard it is to keep up with the skills, I agree completly. Most guys, with maybe the E's being the exception, dont really practice much on what they were trained in the course, ESPECIALLY the B's (i.e. mortars). So, imagine this, you get a mission to go train LBG's in mortars, anyone can be tasked with being NCOIC because of the basic training....doesnt matter what his former MOS is....everybody know how to plot, everybody can shoot (SOT), can tear down weapons and sometimes even fix them...
Im not busting on the MOS, I have a B on my team that is very good due to his interest in guns BEFORE he came in...but there are also guys on the team that probably know as much about them that are not B's.
Everybody runs ranges and fights with range control, everybody writes training schedules, everybody teaches LBG's anyway....
Oh yeah, HALO should also be part of the Q course....
My .02 cents.....
hello
sorry about the double post and the confusion, what i was saying was that, could we get rid of the CPTs and MAJs as the team leaders and put a WO in the place of them (Maj and Capt) and put another 18F in the place of the WO slot? any suggestions?
later
------------------
ooooo rrrraaaahhhh KILL KILL KILL
PatK9681
27 May 2000, 20:54
Why do people seem to think that the cure all for spec ops is to get rid of those 'career minded', 'lazy' O's (I hope you can detect my sarcasm) and replace them with enlisted troops?
my guess would be because they spend more time on a team than O's do. Two years on an ATeam and a Captain goes to a BTeam. Not great for continuity in the team itself if you're breaking in a new Captain on a regular basis. Not dogging on O's, there's good ones and bad ones out there, but I'll bet there's a lot of good ones that would like to spend more time on an ATeam.
Just 2 cents from someone who hopes to make SF,
Mac
On "O's",
The problem is not that "O's" are lazy. Its that an NCO can sign into Group along with a Cpt he went to the course with, and that Cpt is gonna be around only about 18 months, sometimes longer, most of the time shorter. He is gone with the team. Life is good, both he and the NCO are fired up about deployments and they stay gone alot. Just about everything he can sign up for he takes because, he knows that he has a limited time on the ODA and he MUST get in certain types of trips if he wants to stay competitive. Plus, team life is the easiest thing he has EVER done in the military and the deployments are just plain fun! Alas, that wise organization we call DA, consults the oracles and sends an edict, "Move on young Cpt, to another job, you have many blocks to fill on your OER and you mustn't stay on an ODA too long, least we RIF you as a Major"!
And move he does.... to lets say, JRTC or someother slot. A nice job, relaxes with the family for a few years, maybe even goes to school and gets his Masters, and the Army pays for it! Down time with the family... School... Great pay... What a DEAL!
Meanwhile, years later, back at the ranch, SFC Gonealot, has been on the same ODA, maybe done a year or two working at the company or Bn level, good chance he's been divorced, hasnt seen his kids in their formative years, cannot go to school "due to mission requirements", and is just burned out. He has seen many Cpt's come and go within the Bn...Some of them competent leaders who want nothing more than to stay on an ODA.
Then the next time you see that Cpt- Major by now, he is now a Company CDR. Only got bout 18 months so he knows the deal. Gotta get certain blocks checked so he turns to the NCO who he knows to be competent, and can find his way around the Bn well.
By this time Sgt. Gonealot is a sr E-7 maybe an E-8, has been doing it for 8-10 years, pays his child support on time, and knows the toll the revolving door policy of the officer career management field takes on the NCO's in SF. In all the surveys they give him, he repeatedly writes that the best thing that could happen to SF, is to subject the officers to the same career management (or mismanagement) policies as the NCO's. The best officers that he has seen, violate their career paths, find a way to stay on a team, and are bent on getting out afterwards.
So the Company Cdr does his time, with the help of the ever faithful but growing weary NCO, and wonders if the last 10 or so years has been worth the cost to he and his family. As the guidon is passed to another Major, he recognizes and welcomes the new Cdr with a grip-and-a-grin. Welcome BACK Sir. Here we go again.......
Officers should stay on teams and as company CDR's at least 4 years, maybe even longer....They are there long enough to see a fundemental problem in the system, but not there long enough to address it...and that leaves the NCO's to deal with the problems year in and year out. They are not willing to fall on a sword, after all, why risk pissing off somebody as a team leader or company cdr and paying for it later. After all, Command time is such a small percentage of time spent with troops during ones career so they can put up with it for a short while, they will be gone soon....
*Bottom line: Keep the "O's" on the Company level for at least 4 years so they can get a good taste of what the NCO's have to put up with year after year. If we do that, maybe these issues that come up in all of our surveys can be solved. Maybe by the time an officer is a Bn or Grp CDR, he knows full well how the Op-Tempo, staff imcompetence, absence of funds for white SOF, and lack of confidence in our leadership effects his CMD and is willing to do something about it...
Find a way to keep Officer's in field command slots for a decent amount of time, -without- torpedoing their careers...
Snake
25th ID(L)
SAPPER317
30 May 2000, 11:16
Gents,
The removal of the officer from an ODA sounds good, but the US would never allow a WO or NCO be the "Representative" of America. Much of the friction that surfaces when a team is deployed, stems from the fact that maost nations only consider officers as having any authority in the military. Polititions don't relate with NCOs, they relate with Officers.
Why don't we (US) restructure the SF officer management? SF NCO management is different than regular Army NCO management. Look at the Brits. Members of their military get into a unit, and stay for most of their career. It is common for a Brit E4 to be there 20 years. When I worked with them, they all new each other very well, as they worked with each other for many a year. Brits competed for job openings within their regiments. If a soldier wanted a job outside his regiment, they would almost always lose rank. Possibly because they are so small, compared to the US Military, they have to be so selective. But then again, that is what we are asking our SF community to do.
JMBJS:
In 1980, JFK Center VERY seriously considered eliminating the Weapons Slots on ODAs and making EVERYBODY Weapons Qualified.
C-1-5 SF even task-organized two ODAs like that to test it out. The reason for the test was to evaluate changing the organization of an ODA to something similar in 22 SAS and US Navy SEALS.
The concept called for increasing the size of an ODA from 12 to 16 personnel. It consisted of:
Team Leader (Officer)
Team Sergeant (MSG)
4 x Engineers
4 x Communicators
4 x O/I Spooks
2 x Medics.
They organized (typically) into four 'Bricks' or fire teams:
Team 1:
TL
Commo
O/I
Demo
Team 2:
Tm Sgt
Commo
O/I
Demo
Team 3:
O/I (Ldr)
Commo
Demo
Medic
Team 4:
O/I (Ldr)
Commo
Demo
Medic
Two Fire Teams could form a squad, two squads could make a section. All personnel were weapons qualified. The personnel most in short supply were SF Medics and Team Leadership. So the theory was to put an O/I, Commo, and Demo guy in every Fire Team; and put two medics on two of the fire teams and a team leadership guy on the other two. That way SF wouldn't severely tax pipeline for medics and good leaders.
There would be four 16-man ODAs per SF Company. 20 years ago, there were only five SF Teams per SF Company; or 60 personnel. With the 16-man concept, it would put 64 trigger-pullers per company.
Both 'new' ODAs deployed to the Mediterranean
for operations (FID and DA); and they worked out incredibly well.
Politics killed the concept outright. It increased the number of NCOs in the SF Company and REDUCED the number of officers. The Weapons Committee almost had a heart attack when they learned they might become a "Phase 4" program and train EVERYBODY. Logistically, it would have destroyed all of the weapons used for training. This was before SF got a blank check from Ronald Reagan.
The reason I'm familiar with this is I was a weapons guy who was also Demo-qualified. So I got pulled from Project Greenlight for three months to go with the new team and work on SOPs and deploy down range. It was kind of funny seeing everbody on the team weapons qualified except the medics and officers...
[This message has been edited by Tracy (edited 05-30-2000).]
Tracy,
You mentioned that making the weapons portion phase 4 would have logistically been unsupportable, but that it was done before the Reagen years. My qestion is: Politics aside, do you think with the current structure of the weapons committie, and the weapons that they do have, it could be done today? The issue has, from what I hear, come up at SWC again...for what that's worth...
I think even if it where supportable, I cant see anybody with the gumption that would issue the order, with the exception of Gen. Toney....and he is taking USASFC....anyway, curious to see what you think...
Sapper317,
I have never proposed taking the officers off the teams, that is counterproductive and would never happen anyway. My proposal is to keep the Officers on the teams and as company commanders for at least 4 years. That would be enough time for them, the captians, to be evaluated enough to determine thier worthiness to stay in SF.
I have seen Team Leaders $%^& up so bad, the same mistake anywhere else and they would no longer be employed army, but are they evaluated as such? They only have enough time to screw up once, be forgiven, then go off to another job, only to return again... Not enough time to REALLY see if they should stay in SF....
As far as your comments about the U.S. never allowing the representive to be an NCO, well....your wrong...there are units out there that will actually trust a senoir NCO in SF to conduct all pre-deployment, deployment and redeployment activities..All they wanted to know is when we were leaving and coming back and how often commo with us would be made...I know, I was in one and I must say, you wouldnt BELIEVE how smoothly things went! There ARE times when the NCO is the only representative around. That is when the host nation really understands what our Special Forces is about-Senior Non-Commissioned Officers in the U.S. Army that are capable of being Platoon Leaders and Company Commanders. I have been to many countries who are trying to emulate the U.S. Army Special Forces. Our commands should strive to place our NCO's in that inviroment, it is when he learns the most and is when he excells in what he is paid to do.
There is a fundemental problem when we in SF feel that we should automatically send an officer to do something that we have recruited, trained, and pay SF NCO's to do...SF is about NCO's, not part-timers.
gear_guru
30 May 2000, 18:51
Wow...B-500 stories. Now there was an outfit...Tracy did you know Mark Goode? I worked with him in 3d Group and he used to tell me about the period out at Bliss working on the DMVS program.
Also, how did you end up in the Air Force? I am sure there is a story there somewhere.
[This message has been edited by gear_guru (edited 05-30-2000).]
JMBS:
I think eliminating the Weapons Slot on A-Teams is still a valid idea:
provided everyone gets tested and evaluated on weapons as a part of their SQT;
provided everyone gets weapons training and tactics just like weapons school now;
provided we can logistically support it.
It's hard to think of an operation where Weapons knowledge is NOT used. Everywhere I went I wished I had more 18Bs; especially during FID ops.
I think a more important issue now, 20 years later, that needs immediate solving is the levels of command and quality of leadership above the ODA level. If I were in charge, I'd definitely eliminate the SF Battalions and have the reporting chain as : ODA-Company-Group. In real world operations, that's how it is anyway.
Read my first post, it explains better what I'm talking about.
If you run into Frank Toney "the Tiger", give him a loud and thunderous Hoo-Ahh for me. I was one of his Tac NCOs in the SF Officer's Course 19 years ago. We were very impressed with him. He recommended me for the 180A Program as well when he was the XO of 2/5 SF. Do me a favor: can you send me an e-mail address for his office; or close to it?
mine is: tracy.**********@60mdg.travis.af.mil
Gear-Guru:
I knew Mark Goode professionally; and he is a very competent soldier. B-500 had to go through a LOT of nut-rolls to satisfy everybody and their second cousins. They did great work for us.
The Air Force hired me as a GS Employee to be a Software Engineer for Travis AFB, CA. I'm one of those weirdos that actually HAS a degree in Computer Science (Bachelors) that I didn't buy from a catalog or cereal box.
SAPPER317
31 May 2000, 12:19
jmbjs,
I should have worded my reply differently. I believe the officers should remain, but I strongly agree with you and many others that their Team requirement be longer. The Army policy of 18 months is still haunting us. PERSCOM should completely redevelop the SF branch, as the officers are still looked at as ticket punchers.
The key to a succesful team is continuity, and the weak link is usually the officer slots.
SF and the SF NCO Corps is a great idea, one that works. You state: "...SF is about NCO's, not part-timers" is about as accurate as it can get. At formation or a meeting, the officers are usually few and far between.
The SF NCOs are SF, everything else is just window dressing.
gear_guru
31 May 2000, 19:44
Brigadier General Frank Toney (do I hear that there is another star in his future?)...what a great leader. He was 1/3 Commander when I reported into the activation cell for 2d Bn. Never had a chance to work for him though until Operation Desert Thunder. He actually remembered me from 3d Group even though I wasn't in his Bn and had only been a lowly E-5. I work with SOCCENT now alot and every time he sees me he is always sure to say "Hi". That means alot for a General to do that. He is the kind of guy I want to be when I grow up.
[This message has been edited by gear_guru (edited 05-31-2000).]
I would like to respond to two issues, the first being that of the removal of Officers from ODAs. As others have said, the military will never allow that. Many feel that the ODAs need "adult supervison." Secondly, several of the third world military units do not depend on, nor do they develop thier NCOs to the level that we in the US do. Instead they rely heavily on thier officer core. This is why the ODAs need at least one offcier, to react with the officers of the third world armies. Now the WO idea was good in theory, take senior NCOs who can no longer remain on odas, due to thier rank, and baiscly recycle them back on to an ODA. This prevents the loss of these NCOs who have years of valuable experince to offer.
The Second comment is that of the removal of 18Bs from ODAs. I started out in SF as an 11BS, before the 18 series MOS came along. At that time you had to have a combat arms MOS to go into the weapons course. Being a weapons sgt is more then just tearing down weapons, you must know tactics. It has been my experince that in the FID role an 18B's knowledge of tactics is critical. Having served on the weapons committe for several years I know first hand of the frustration in trying to teach a some one, with non-combat MOS, the basic weapons skills needed to make it on a team. To implement a program where the weapons portion is taught to every one would add at least year to the course, to fully train the students to the level needed by the ODAs.
The organization of an ODA is one that is rich in history and tradition. It is a structure that has worked for several years and is contiuning to work. So if it is not broke do not fix it.
NaMa,
You wouldnt be removing the skills from the team by removing the MOS, as a matter of fact, you would be expanding it by requiring everybody to learn weapons/tactics-get your Infantry license as a prerequisite for continuing in the QC. You would still have the baseline of infantry MOS experience on a team that, I very much agree, is critical to almost ANY role that an SF team is involved in. I dont see why anybody would interpret that I am advocating removing the Infantry skills from and ODA....
-You do not have to come from the infantry to be an 18B. There are plenty of 18B's out there who do not have infantry experience.
-You would still have the same amount of Infantry background on an ODA if you did away with the MOS or not...Why would that change? So you take a grunt, put him through the weapons portion, then he becomes a commo man, or medic....He is now twice as nice to have around....You take a turrent mechanic, put him through the weapons course, then he becomes a medic...Waallaa, you now have an infantry qualified medic who used to be a turrent mechanic...not just a medic....and the same goes for the rest of the guys...they are ALL grunts.
-So what if the course takes 10 weeks longer, or 13 or so....if it produces a better SF trooper, I'll be glad to wait another summer to get a soldier that I know, regardless of his SF MOS, is by trade, a weapons man (bullet launcher). Anybody that walks into the team room I can pick to go on any mission, unless that soldier has proven to me otherwise...
-To say that a jr. Bravo would be in charge of training LBG's just because he is a Bravo(doctrinally speaking), as opposed to an experienced 18D who was a SQD LDR in the Rangers, is not using your people to the most potential. And that is your argunment. Just because a guy is a B, dont think he is a wealth of knowledge when it comes to raids, ambushes, etc. He may have never spent more time than in basic training learning what its like to be a grunt....
*I suppose in the early days of SF it was a lot easier to identify who would be in charge of weapons/infantry training/issues...it would most certainly be the heavy or light weapons guys. Nowadays, its a struggle just to fill the force, and that is whats causing a turrent mechanic to become a weapons guy. So the MOS (i.e., skills, experience) is not what it used to be.
That is why removing the MOS and having everybody learn the same infantry skills would be an expansion of capabilities of the ODA.
I know, it sounds like heresy, but I would have been prepared to do whatever it took to get into SF, including going through more infantry training.
vBulletin® v3.8.3, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.