View Full Version : "Teams" or "School House"
Basenshukai
03-19-2004, 20:26
Current active guys might know the background here.
Given the power and authority to make the decision:
If you had to choose between manning the operational SFODAs, or manning the "school house" with experienced instructors whom have had "team time" so they can produce more members for an ODA, which option would you implement?
Now, the rules are that you can't have it both ways. You have a limited pool to choose from (current active SFODA members) and any transfer of personnel from there will ultimately leave the teams with less men. Take into account that it is not a one-for-one swap. It will take time for the "school house" to turn out enough trained SF soldiers to make the shortfall. It is a choice between short term and long term goals and vision.
Now, I have my own opinion and it is biased since I'm on an ODA. But, which would you choose and why?
NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 20:33
We are at war.
Team Sergeant
03-19-2004, 20:37
And it would seem we will be at war for a good long time. I would man the school house. It is just as important as an SFODA and becomes more important as they are the only ones that can produce more SF soldiers.
There is another option, close down an SF group.
NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 20:43
Another option. Let the FOGs run the school house.
Surgicalcric
03-19-2004, 20:43
If I am out of place here please accept my apology.
That said, what about rotating NG SF soldiers thru the Schoolhouse as instructors in addition to using AD Groups?
Team Sergeant
03-19-2004, 20:49
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Another option. Let the FOGs run the school house.
Now that I agree with, with one exception all the FOG’s in a teaching position have to have been 18 series.
(Crip jumped in between posts!)
Team Sergeant
03-19-2004, 20:53
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
If I am out of place here please accept my apology.
That said, what about rotating NG SF soldiers thru the Schoolhouse as instructors in addition to using AD Groups?
Theres a reason they are NG in the first place. They do not want to spend 24/7 on AD. You've any idea how long it takes to train up a good SF instructor? Not an option in my opinion.
NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 20:53
He does that. That's what I mean 18 series FOGs running the whole thing with AD senior management. Colonels and CSMs.
Ambush Master
03-19-2004, 20:58
OK, how about SOG-FOGs !! Then all the rest would need to sweat what was being taught to the Newbies !!!
The Reaper
03-19-2004, 21:19
There are Reserve component all over the Training Group working as IMAs.
IIRC, Guard soldiers are occasionally brought in for courses, but not normally as Primary Instructors (PIs). The NG Groups are busy enough with deployments that I suspect they have other things to do while they are back home. If an NG soldier wants to be an AD soldier, all he has to do, in most cases is to ask.
It takes approximately six months to put an AD E-7 or E-8 on the platform as a PI.
FOGs already fill many of the jobs in SWCS, from old soldiers, guys with profiles, guys who just need to be back home for a while to recharge, retirees back as contractors, guys who are back as GS employees, etc. If the schoolhouse was restricted to AD SF soldiers only, we would have to shut down half the courses, cut student load in half, or cannibalize an AC Group to man the positions. LR1947 is one of our FOGs, as is ODA 564, I probably qualify as well. The senior civilian within SWCS, probably half of the GS positions, and most of the contractors are prior AD SF personnel. This will be hard to maintain as overseas contract work becomes even more financially lucrative. I think there is a major exodus underway right now by guys who are eligible to retire and take the overseas positions. The next few months should tell.
When the Germans stripped their schools to fill their units, the war was pretty much already in its final stages. We let the Schoolhouse slide for many years, dropping from six to four SFQC Classes per year, cutting instructor manning and authorizations, etc. This was done to maintain the manning in the Groups, which is an extremely myopic plan. The followup plan was to zero out one ODA per SF Company so that the remaining teams could be manned fully, as well as SWCS. This also failed. This culminated in graduating a grand total of about 250 soldiers in 2000 or so, which was about 1/3 to 1/2 of our requirements. Numbers have improved significantly since then by a number of methods, which did not include lowering standards. Big actions and big money are currently underway to produce 750 SF soldiers per year within the next few years. This is requiring additional resourcing, to the tune of an additional 500 permanent party personnel. Hey, anyone remember that old saying, "Competent SOF cannot be created overnight"? It takes SF soldiers to make SF soldiers, and it is a very manpower and contact hour intensive process.
FYI, SWCS enrolled over 10,000 students in some course last year, and if you count total students, cadre, and contractors for the year, had more people assigned or attached than the 82nd.
HTH.
TR
Ambush Master
03-19-2004, 21:32
On a serious note, I was trained by SF-RVN Vets (some of whom went BACK over with us after we were Flashed) and then in country we were trained (in One Zero School) by experienced Recon Types that all had BTDT in a Big Way !!! It worked, and the payback can't be measured. I will say that I am here today because of those people, all the way from Phase I to One-Zero School, they taught us the real deal stuff and it worked !!
The people running the show and in constant contact with the students, need to have BEEN THERE AND DONE IT !!!
The confidence and the belief in what you are being taught is directly proportional to the Validity and Background of the Instructors !!!
Eagle5US
03-20-2004, 01:14
Originally posted by The Reaper
There are Reserve component all over the Training Group working as IMAs.
IIRC, Guard soldiers are occasionally brought in for courses, but not normally as Primary Instructors (PIs). The NG Groups are busy enough with deployments that I suspect they have other things to do while they are back home. If an NG soldier wants to be an AD soldier, all he has to do, in most cases is to ask.
It takes approximately six months to put an AD E-7 or E-8 on the platform as a PI.
FOGs already fill many of the jobs in SWCS, from old soldiers, guys with profiles, guys who just need to be back home for a while to recharge, retirees back as contractors, guys who are back as GS employees, etc. If the schoolhouse was restricted to AD SF soldiers only, we would have to shut down half the courses, cut student load in half, or cannibalize an AC Group to man the positions. LR1947 is one of our FOGs, as is ODA 564, I probably qualify as well. The senior civilian within SWCS, probably half of the GS positions, and most of the contractors are prior AD SF personnel. This will be hard to maintain as overseas contract work becomes even more financially lucrative. I think there is a major exodus underway right now by guys who are eligible to retire and take the overseas positions. The next few months should tell.
When the Germans stripped their schools to fill their units, the war was pretty much already in its final stages. We let the Schoolhouse slide for many years, dropping from six to four SFQC Classes per year, cutting instructor manning and authorizations, etc. This was done to maintain the manning in the Groups, which is an extremely myopic plan. The followup plan was to zero out one ODA per SF Company so that the remaining teams could be manned fully, as well as SWCS. This also failed. This culminated in graduating a grand total of about 250 soldiers in 2000 or so, which was about 1/3 to 1/2 of our requirements. Numbers have improved significantly since then by a number of methods, which did not include lowering standards. Big actions and big money are currently underway to produce 750 SF soldiers per year within the next few years. This is requiring additional resourcing, to the tune of an additional 500 permanent party personnel. Hey, anyone remember that old saying, "Competent SOF cannot be created overnight"? It takes SF soldiers to make SF soldiers, and it is a very manpower and contact hour intensive process.
FYI, SWCS enrolled over 10,000 students in some course last year, and if you count total students, cadre, and contractors for the year, had more people assigned or attached than the 82nd.
HTH.
TR
Tremendous insight and POV TR..thanks for sharing...
Eagle
longrange1947
03-20-2004, 07:37
Most of the points have been made. While it will not rape the teams, you need to have time in SWC to spread your expertise AND experiences to the newbs.
I too went kicking and screaming to my SWC Assigment as a new E8. Had orders to El Sal cancelled to go to SWC and hated it.
However, you must have expreience to train new troops or you ahve the computer problem of GIGO, Garbage in Garbage out.
While the idea of FOGs working the school is excellent, there is a problem wiht point o view being lost as no new perspectives are coming into the school house. That would be a crippling loss.
While I work at the school house, I know for a fact that i have an old view point that may miss some of the new info out there. That is why we have each Group represented on our commitee so as to manitain a deverse view for updating training. It also prevents the desert/jungle/urban/mountain ideas form becoming a dominate force in training. While my course is advanced skills, the pipeline is just as important.
The pipeline must be maintained by active duty guys that are experienced with what is happening right now, not some old crusty guy talking about SEA. Just as I did not want to hear about the Big one WWII when I was going through training group. I wanted to know about SEA.
If we do not keep the expereince coming into the pipeline then we will have a generation of newbs coming on to the teams that have been essentially short changed.
Sorry Basenshukai, but you need to do your time in purgatory! :boohoo
I will tell you that all the guys on SOTIC want to get in to the fight as fast as possible, but they also know that they have a job to do.
As a past thought, there was a time when they assigned promising grads right form Tng Grp into Tng Grp. It was a disaster and some never saw team time. Not a good plan, it is called inbred training, one mistake becomes doctrine and it is hard to get out of the system.
End my thoughts, kill the messenger!
Oh yes, there have been NGs assigned to our Company as trainers for two year stints.
Basenshukai
03-20-2004, 11:26
Originally posted by longrange1947
Sorry Basenshukai, but you need to do your time in purgatory! :boohoo
This is not the reason for the post. I am not anywhere near the "crosshairs" of SWC.
Originally posted by longrange1947
As a past thought, there was a time when they assigned promising grads right form Tng Grp into Tng Grp. It was a disaster and some never saw team time. Not a good plan, it is called inbred training, one mistake becomes doctrine and it is hard to get out of the system.
This has happened again within the last year. In fact, I saw a few friends go from the Q Course, right into SWC duty. One of them is a senior E-6.
Team Sergeant
03-20-2004, 16:18
Originally posted by Basenshukai
This has happened again within the last year. In fact, I saw a few friends go from the Q Course, right into SWC duty. One of them is a senior E-6.
Now that I disagree with. Big mistake and the wrong way to start an SF career.
longrange1947
03-20-2004, 19:44
This has happened again within the last year. In fact, I saw a few friends go from the Q Course, right into SWC duty. One of them is a senior E-6.
They seem to never learn from past mistakes. They do loved to repeat history, over and over.
This is not the reason for the post. I am not anywhere near the "crosshairs" of SWC.
Sorry, you had mentioned being biased and on a team, I 'ass'umed you had orders pending. :)
Forgive me if I am out of line in posting here but after reading your comments I remembered seeing this and thought you may be interested.
Obtained from https://www-perscom.army.mil/epsf/Hottopics.htm
"SWCS SFQC Assistant Instructors / Stay Behinds:
SWCS is pursuing an initiative to produce 750 SFQC graduates per year by FY07. In order to meet this mission USASOC(A) is seeking to significantly increase CMF18 Authorizations at SWCS and specifically 1st SWTG(A). As that request is processed through the Army system USASOC(A) has made the decision to man SWCS at no less than 100% strength and to augment current authorizations with 28 additional assistant instructors. These assistant instructors are recent SFQC graduates who will remain at SWCS for 9-12 months as assistant instructors in the Q-Course prior to reporting to their gaining Group. The first 16 such soldiers have already been identified and are performing in this capacity. The next 12 soldiers will be identified in April 04. "
The NG groups do help out with SWC tours. My company sent two guys to be phase 2 instructors for 2 years.
My 18C course had a few NG instructors to include one E-7 who pretty much ran the show for Theater Operations and the Engineer FTX. The weird thing about this E-7 was that prior to 911, he was always doing temporary SWC tours in the 18C course. So naturally he just got assigned to the charlie course as an instructor.
My phase 4 class had NG guys who were doing red cycle support for Robin Sage. I also heard of NG guys doing red cycle support for phase 2 (sut)
SERE had a bunch of NG instructors there.
Coming back from A-stan, SWC was asking for volunteers for SWC tours.
DarkWatch
03-21-2004, 08:15
"As a past thought, there was a time when they assigned promising grads right form Tng Grp into Tng Grp. It was a disaster and some never saw team time. Not a good plan, it is called inbred training, one mistake becomes doctrine and it is hard to get out of the system."
Well, you can tell 'em...but you can't tell 'em much.
The "Powers That Be" have already started keeping a couple
to guys from each class back to be instructors. I believe the
plan is to keep them for up to a year as AIs and then send
them on the way. Also, a mix of GS, contractors and green
suiters (total of 500+) is being added to train the extra troops
need to plus up each Group and maintain the force.
longrange1947
03-21-2004, 10:26
The weird thing about this E-7 was that prior to 911, he was always doing temporary SWC tours in the 18C course
Every year, the NG, prior to 9-11, would send NCOs and Oficers to SWC, and regular Groups, for their summer training cycle. Our Company got one as well and sometimes he was attached to us or one of hte other courses. He would be of assistance, but could not do platform time as they would not have gone through the Instructor Candidate Course, which is required to instruct with us and most advanced skills course.
Also, a mix of GS, contractors and green suitors is being added....
Yes, they took our TDA slots and gave them to the pipeline, rather erks me as it will impact on our course.
augment current authorizations with 28 additional assistant instructors.
They seem to think that as they are only AIs that it will not make a difference. They obviously have not been in a classroom for a while, nor worked with young impressionable troops looking for guidance from a "knowledgable" instructor in a one on one basis. This is even more prevelant in that environment as many do not wish to call attention o themselves and will ask questions on a one on one basis. Add to the fact that they will naturally seek out those closer to their own age as opposed to the "crusty old fart" teaching the class.
OK, Shutting up now. I know that will make you guys happy! :D
Blitzzz (RIP)
11-11-2008, 00:33
You have to spread out the experience.
FOGs and Temporarily injured/wounded can do well with the school with some young bloods to run the more physical duties.
The teams need experienced members to provide further training through Mentoring. The best training I had was on the teams by experienced members. A-Teams are the operational unit of Special Forces. The better they are the greater we are.
What is better than a well experienced, multi-talented. Team. A well oiled machine is difficult to achieve without some longevity of many of it's members. Blitz
The Reaper
11-11-2008, 07:31
Holy necropost, Batman!
Back from the grave after four and a half years.:D
TR
Blitzzz (RIP)
11-11-2008, 22:28
I guess if you leave 'um open someone will write. Blitz
Basenshukai
11-12-2008, 00:23
Funny thing is that after five years in Group, I decided to volunteer for SWC duty as I have about 12 months to offer before I had to take care of ILE requirements. One reason is that after being in Group for five years, there was no way branch would justify keeping me around without a PCS in there. Also, I wanted to stay in Fort Bragg and actually "live" in my house for a while. Lastly, being that I had my choice of several commands, I chose SWC because I honestly felt that if I had to be anywhere else - other than Group - I'd wanted to be in SWC in "give back" somehow.
Note: I use "Group" to mean an active line unit such as 7th Group.
GreenSalsa
11-12-2008, 08:10
Like most have posted...a combination of the two...although I voted to man SWC.
We are in a long term war, we MUST develop a rotation cycle, using FOGs, and war wounded / disabled, encouraging people to stay on after retirement, to man what they can--then we must take it out of hide.
In my experience, it is important to pick a guy that will kick and scream leaving a team and starts looking for an ODA as soon as he arrives in SWC--thats generally your best instructor. Their focus is on training guys that they WILL serve with / depend on.
Very important not to let guys in SWC stay too long there.
I don't like the idea of taking a entire group off-line. We would lose a TREMENDOUS amount of situational awareness in those areas, no matter what AOR. I would rather dilute the pain over the entire force.
Like most have posted...a combination of the two...although I voted to man SWC.
We are in a long term war, we MUST develop a rotation cycle, using FOGs, and war wounded / disabled, encouraging people to stay on after retirement, to man what they can--then we must take it out of hide.
In my experience, it is important to pick a guy that will kick and scream leaving a team and starts looking for an ODA as soon as he arrives in SWC--thats generally your best instructor. Their focus is on training guys that they WILL serve with / depend on.
Very important not to let guys in SWC stay too long there.
I don't like the idea of taking a entire group off-line. We would lose a TREMENDOUS amount of situational awareness in those areas, no matter what AOR. I would rather dilute the pain over the entire force.
Now that I am retired I have changed my outlook some. I was one of those guys in SF that did not ever want to work at SWC and that was my goal. 2 times I had orders and wiggled out of them. As I look at it now I have to agree with GreenSalsa when looking at the over all picture.
Kingfisher
11-12-2008, 14:11
I vote for manning training group. Keeps the latest info from the war zones being passed to the students and allows new troopers to develop their learned skills while on a team. Also, new guys bring a fresh thought process that helps keep the ODA from falling into a routine that can occur over multiple deployments.
While I beleive a well rounded team is essential (Seniors and Juniors) and it seems way to many teams are too junior for comfort right now, the school house has to manned by COMPETENT & MOTIVATED instructors.
I think another idea is to have AC groups start a rotational schedule to assist in training the the new QC candidates. (8 teams every 2 months; out of every two years or so) They could perform AI duties taking some pressure off the manning shortage in SWTG, pass on current TTPs to DOTD / commitees to insure timely POI adjustments and ID personnel they want for their company / team. Give them the pick of the litter and ID them early. This could also be a time for one or more of the guys on a team with less than two years to get an advanced skill.
No happy answer.
On another note: We can be our own worst enemy - I have always hated the TM SGT or SGM that sends their crappy soldier to higher or SWC to get them off a team. Grow a pair and put them out (of SF; they usually are cream of the crop in many units), never send your problem child higher or to the school house it infects the pool.
deanwells
11-19-2008, 01:08
It is my firm belief that experienced QP's should be instructors at some point in their career. I do not agree with the minimum standard of 3 yrs team time. At three years, guys are still learning and need a little more time on the ground before handing the baton off to the new guys. I propose that the standard be changed to minimum 6 yrs on an ODA not a couple of yrs on a team and a couple of years of staff. If guys stay on teams for 6 yrs then there is a great amount of continuity for the teams as well as more experience and tricks of the trade to hand off at school to new aspiring students.
I grow very tired of hearing guys in the hall complain about the new quality of troops in group while they try their hardest to dodge a SWC tour at the same time. It is my belief that it is up to seasoned veterans to teach, train, and mentor not complain and hide out.
Just my 2 cents.
When I went through the course I only had 1 SSG as an instructor in any of my courses. He was a TAC and he was a worthless piece of SH*&t. He had no worth in the training process and had almost 0 team time. He did not contribute anything to the process except letting us focus on how to screw with him. We did a good job at that. Years later we found out that he was a Paper Tab that got on active duty. He showed up to group a few years later and he did not last. Wound up in the 82nd.
The other instructors wer all SFC's and above and they were great. They had a lot of time in group and in vietnam and other AOR's. I was amazed at what they knew and passed on to us. I agree that they should be seasoned SF personnel and should not be 3 yr Tabbed instructors.
As our training program has evolved I would think that we should work out some sort of benifit that would entice andbenifit Quality experienced QP's to go. Guarantee to return to your Group or Guarantee of new group if desired. I found that I gained a lot by being able to go from one group to another over the years. It rounded me out and I was able to pass on a lot of info that would not have been known in my assingment in the other group.
Warrior-Mentor
11-19-2008, 11:11
It is a choice between short term and long term goals and vision.
Now, I have my own opinion and it is biased since I'm on an ODA. But, which would you choose and why?
A wise man I respect very much once told me:
"When faced with a choice between the short-term and the long-term,
there is no choice."
uboat509
11-19-2008, 12:07
While I aknowledge the value of having your best guys in the schoolhouse, I personally learned more the teams I was on than I did in the schoolhouse. Instructors can impart some of their knowledge and experience but they have POI that they must adhere to. On a team, the experienced guys can teach what needs to be taught the way it needs to be taught. I was an 18C and when I got to my first team, I discovered that I used probably less than 10% of what I was taught in the 18C course. I did do a lot of the stuff that the instructors told us that we would be doing but that was not in the POI. I am now back in the schoolhouse reclassing to 18D and it is still in a contstant state of flux here. The POI will never change fast enough to meet the current needs of the teams. That's why I think that the teams will need to retain a lot more of the experienced guys, because that is where the most pertinant learning occurs.
SFC W
I agree on the teams needed the manning. Now that we are "100% strength" most of that 100% is people right out of the course. Experienced guys are always needed on the teams. There are people getting out by the boatloads. An attractive option is more civlian instructors, although obviously more costly. As long as there is a POI at the end of the day someone whos been through 1-2 deployments or on a team for 2-3 years can teach at the schoolhouse and then get right back to the team afterwards.
The only way to learn combat lessons is by having been there. No amount of schooling or combat experienced instructors will fix that. Those guys need to be on the teams, especially the ones deploying that have like 1-2 guys that have been downrange before.
longrange1947
12-23-2008, 13:46
........ An attractive option is more civilian instructors, although obviously more costly.........
Actually, as many have found out, a GS-11 instructor makes less than an SFC on active duty in both take home and benefits. So it would be cheaper to go civilian. However you can not go entirely civilian as you need the fresh TTPs and experience to keep the course fresh. To also relate to the student what is occurring at that moment and what they can expect.
..................The only way to learn combat lessons is by having been there. No amount of schooling or combat experienced instructors will fix that. Those guys need to be on the teams, especially the ones deploying that have like 1-2 guys that have been downrange before.
This is true to a certain degree but combat experiences taught in the classroom will prevent the new guy from making some errors. :munchin
Bottom line, the new kids need someone that has been there and done that and give them the feeling of survival. It also gives them an important break from the ODA so they and their family can breathe.
Another 2 cents from the FOG. :D