Helmets for the "Nasty Nick?"

CSB · 09-17-2007, 21:19

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSB

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSB

...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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric

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?!?!?!

CSB · 09-19-2007, 19:02

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSB

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSB

...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.