View Full Version : Helmets for the "Nasty Nick?"
There is a book called "Chosen Soldier" about Special Forces Selection and Training. On page 98 is a photograph of soldiers going through an obstacle course. The caption recites:
"THE NASTY NICK. Swing through the air, crawl through the mud. The obstacle course at Camp Mackall tests the candidates during SFAS and Phase I."
OK, I understand that the former policy of placing concertina wire under the obstacles (as an added incentive not to lose one's grip) has given way to mud and water, in the manner of Ranger City Week, BUT...
the photograph appears to show the soldiers wearing plastic hockey helmets for the obstacle course. Is that the procedure now?
Ambush Master
09-17-2007, 21:36
There is a book called "Chosen Soldier" about Special Forces Selection and Training. On page 98 is a photograph of soldiers going through an obstacle course. The caption recites:
"THE NASTY NICK. Swing through the air, crawl through the mud. The obstacle course at Camp Mackall tests the candidates during SFAS and Phase I."
OK, I understand that the former policy of placing concertina wire under the obstacles (as an added incentive not to lose one's grip) has given way to mud and water, in the manner of Ranger City Week, BUT...
the photograph appears to show the soldiers wearing plastic hockey helmets for the obstacle course. Is that the procedure now?
OK, WTFO?!?!?!
What difference does it make?!?!?! If an injury is prevented, what is wrong with that?!?! Other than the fact that you could say that you were in the "Last Hard Class" if you were ever there??!!!!
Surgicalcric
09-17-2007, 22:05
...Is that the procedure now?
Yes it is. It was put in place as a safety measure.
Crip
Ambush Master
09-19-2007, 16:09
Yes it is. It was put in place as a safety measure.
Crip
Given the equipment requirements today, they should be doing it with the MICH helmet on. Vests and helmets are required for everything now. Practice like you FIGHT.
Hell, if Hockey Helmets will prevent an ugly scalp wound, then what is the issue!!! More Product out the end of the Pipeline,.right?!?!?!
Thank you for unlocking the thread.
Yes, I was there. August - December 1975.
http://members.aol.com/cbjpegs/SF_Dip.jpg
It was just the Camp Mackall SF obstacle course then, before it had a name.
And I didn’t recall anything there that would have required a helmet, other than a possible free fall from perhaps 20 feet in the air from some of the high structures, or a bonk on the head from some WWII era tunnels that went under a road.
Not "the last hard course syndrome " rather, plastic hockey helmets struck me as too PC, too artifical.
Part of the SF course consisted of obstacles that are by design intended to test confidence by presenting the candidate with items that appear to more difficult to master than they truly are. Hockey helmets, in my opinion, defeat the purpose of the course by providing reassurance that no harm can befall you.
For example, in SERE training it was difficult to appreciate the true horror that could be dished out to a POW. Yes, the cadre could shout at us, we did endless pushups (like we haven’t done that before), and denied sleep and food. But inside, we knew it was an Army school, just training according to a published SERE POI, and they really aren’t going to break your arms or drill through your muscles with an electric drill. So an SF student can demonstrate fortitude and resistance because he “knows” in the back of his mind the threat is a facade.
To a lesser extent, the old obstacle course—with rows of concertina wire under the obstacles – was a real shock to those of us who had negotiated mud pits (Basic/AIT/NCO school), sawdust pits (Ranger), and water filled pits (Infantry OCS). If you slipped or fell, it was into the “thorn bush” of barbed wire. (By the way, it was barbed wire, not razor wire). It wouldn’t kill you, just scratch and cut a bit as you high-stepped out. It had a psychological impact well in excess of the physical threat. At other obstacle courses on other posts you could laugh and simply decide to take a harmless dive into the water if you didn’t feel like digging in and gutting out the obstacle.
Camp Mackall didn’t give you that option.
NousDefionsDoc
09-19-2007, 20:39
It's been a while, but I don't remember the head being the critical path to success on any of the obstacles.
I don't think the troops are given a false sense of security by wearing a protech helmet - they're pretty smart.
There are a lot of things done now to train smarter. Not a bad thing. And judging by the results in the GWOT, it doesn't appear that we are raising a generation of pussies.
Ambush Master
09-19-2007, 21:35
Thank you for unlocking the thread.
Yes, I was there. August - December 1975.
What, some 32 years ago, and I went through in '69!!! At least some of us FOGS can accept and understand the NEED for changes to the TO&E along with TTP!! The Training Curriculum today is not what it was back when!!! Plus we are in WAR MODE!!! We must have qualified Folks comming out of the Pipeline, not injured rejects!!!
Hell, we ate breakfast (C-Rats) around burning cut-off barrels of shit and slept in GP Tents (one, maybe two tarpaper shacks for classrooms)!!! Today there are Million Dollar Latrines/Shower Facilities and Dorms at CMK!!!
We have several Cadre and past COC in here that I feel will support my stance. Other than the "No-See-Um" around the compound, there is NOTHING PC inside/outside of that facility!!!
More Qualified Troops out of the Pipeline is the MISSION AT HAND!!!
Take care.
Martin
Surgicalcric
09-19-2007, 22:24
...Not "the last hard course syndrome " rather, plastic hockey helmets struck me as too PC, too artifical...
How do you equate the wearing of a helmet while negotiating an obstacle course to Political Correctness? While I applaud your graduating the SFQC when it was apparently harder than it is today (as drawn from your comparison of the obstacle course when you were a student) I cannot help but find some fault in your reasoning. As well, there appears to me to be a litany of things we could apply your same reasoning to; some of these may include: body armor, boots, socks, running in boots, web gear, etc, etc...
It seems to me that the helmet is a means to prevent SF Candidates from succumbing to a injury that was identified as being preventable. Trust me when I say that there are plenty of other places where Candidates are afforded the opportunity to injure themselves on obstacles where there is little to no preventable measure or no quantifiable rate of injury associated with said obstacle.
Maybe today we are just training a little smarter in some instances.
Crip
(1095 days, trainable)
NousDefionsDoc
09-20-2007, 07:48
I have to say I disagree with the "running in boots" thing. Just need better boots. If they are n't good enough to do PT in, they aren't good enough to go to combat in. What little bit of PT I do, I do in assault boots - because that's what I wear all day.
incommin
09-20-2007, 08:20
To say that things have changed since I went through a couple of years before Martin.
I do not know about harder then vs now. I do know it is different. I believe in injury prevention, but I also believe you should train in the gear you will be required to fight in.
Having said that, running is a conditioning drill. It is not training for combat. You don't need to wear all your combat gear to go lift weights in the gym to increase muscle mass and strength. Running shoes are designed for running. Combat boots are not! Combat boots have to be designed to support the feet and ankles, provide traction, and give some protection from the environment.
If you are doing combat related training, wear all your stuff. If you are conditioning or learning motor skills, wear what you need to prevent injury.
My .02
Jim
NousDefionsDoc
09-20-2007, 16:01
Well, I wasn't going to write my congressman or anything Jim.:D I hear you and you are right of course. Training needs to be balanced. I just have flashbacks to a poster boy E8 (he wasn't my Team Sergeant, mine don't act like that) I had once. Prettiest thing you ever saw. Nylon shorts and Reebocks he'd could run a gazelle down. Then we had to run about a mile to the door once with full kit. We were in and through the first two rooms before he got to the BP. Actually got mad because we didn't wait for him.
No training balance...
Besides, these new assault boots are like tennies. All warm and soft and what not...:cool:
RE: the Pro-Tec helmets used for the Nasty Nick--IIRC, they were mandated following an accident one or two Q-course classes before mine (circa 1996). The story was that a student fell from a high obstacle and sustained a serious head injury. As TR pointed out, it would be a shame to lose an otherwise fully capable SF candidate to a preventable injury. Probably the same reasoning we were issued clear protective eyewear to use during night land nav and SUT.
FWIW, if you aren't the first guy to wear the helmet (there were limited numbers, and many more candidates when I did it), it took a little intestinal fortitude to put on a plastic bucket full of sand, muddy water and some other guy's sweat, (and in some cases) blood and tears.
After watching a guy bust his head falling off the 3rd tier of the Dirty Name...even though I had passed, if Protech, or hell, even football helmets had been handed out the next time through, I'd have put mine on and STFU.
Train smarter, train harder.
Thanks for the update. If it saves a good candidate for SF from a head injury and keeps him in the pipeline, I guess that has to be called a good thing.
It seems that the course has adjusted over the years due to fatalities.
I know that we also cleared out the tunnels of snakes by firing a rocket flare star cluster down them prior to running the course. Looked cool, sounded great. ... WHOOSH ... We could smell the sulfur during the run. Several years later (late 70's) the class started through too soon afterward, and one of the leadoff students choked to death on the fumes. Not enough O2 left in the tunnel.
And there was the drowning death (water landing in a tiny farmers pond) during a Robin Sage infitration in 1973-1974 era.
And the infamous demolition range accident that killed about six SF officers who were holding charges in their hands when the ring main went off (1969-1970?). After that we weren't even allowed to have a battery powered wrist watch on the demo range. Hard lessons learned.
So I now understand the pro-tec helmets.
Hey, what about Pro-tec helmets and concertina wire underneath? (Just kidding.)