Author Topic: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?  (Read 5732 times)

Tom Kratman

  • New Member
  • Posts: 55
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2013, 06:38:27 PM »
Going back to my days as an MP Platoon Leader in Baumholder, In order to fire on MTA each firing unit had to provide a trained OIC (for small arms E-7 and above) and Safety Officer (IIRC for small arms E-6 and above) to run the ranges.   I always made sure my Platoon Sergeant and I were qualified* as OIC's and my Squad Leaders as SO's.  I may have been the OIC, but by NCO's ran the ranges.  

Since according to USAREUR 350-1 we, as MP's, had to qualify with our sidearms, quarterly, I always used the range opportunity to also practice/qualify on the M16 and M60 Machine gun.

Apparently no one up at company had read USAREUR 350-1, so the rest of the company was simply doing once a year quals.  No training/practice sessions, just the once a year La-de-da-de everybody to the range to qualify flustercluck.  My platoon was able to avoid said clusters, because I could show that my troops were qualified.  However, my PSG and I were not so lucky and ended up running ranges for the company, because "We knew how to do it."  Usually either at the BK or Mannheim local ranges, because if you didn't request a range at Baumholder 90 days out at the quarterly Range Scheduling Conference you were SOL, yes, even if you are the company commander, and no, the Germans don't care about your USR.    

My platoon also did the Waldkampfbahn several times, when I was able to scrounge some plastic ammo.  Very similar to an LFX in that it's a shoot and move course through wooded, somewhat hilly, terrain and shooting pop-up targets.  If they get our of position, well, it wouldn't have looked good on my OER.  In fact, my last Company Commander almost *expletive deleted* himself when he saw it on the training schedule, asked what it was, I explained it.  Needless to say he cancelled it.  Same guy that got the vapors when he found out that I broke open the sealed ammo crate in my arms room and issued the bayonets out to my troops when we went to the field.  He had them sealed after his change of command inventory, can you say, "Not a risk taker."   Also made me store my shotguns in the arms room, and I could only take them out to shoot trap and skeet at the Baumholder Rod & Gun Club on weekends if I said "Mother May I?" the week prior. Also I could only get the from the Arms Room if there was a shift change going on and the CQ and his Runner opened it (usually around 6 am).  I also had to return it as soon as I was done shooting, whether or not a shift change was occurring.   Let's just say.  He was not a "gun guy".  He did make O-6, simply by not ever making a mistake in his career and ensuring that any "errors" were pinned on his subordinates.




*Qualification consisting of spending an afternoon listening to a Bundeswehr Officer haranguing us about what American units had done in the past to piss him off.  And a copy of the 116 page Baumholder MTA SOP #2 with appendices A-V.  He first page being a letter from the Baumholder MILCOM commander explaining the if you piss off the Germans you'll be on the carpet in his office and it won't be fun.

Ah, "Beautiful sunny..."

I didn't do a tour in Germany til I was a field grade, hence avoided most of the misery.  But, Jesus, you could almost always tell when someone had been an infantry lieutenant in 7th Army because he had close to zero initiative.  Not his fault, but when everything's an international event, and every trivial movement fraught with diplomatic peril, hardly anybody trusted the lieutenants to do anything on their own...at least not the grunt lieutenants. I remember walking to battalion HQ on Stewart and running into the guy who had taken over my rifle company (whom the troops were not hugely fond of, mostly because they were bored), a year after the change.  He complained that in the previous year there had been not one day he'd done what _he_ wanted to do.  I couldn't think of a single day in command when I hadn't. But the reason, at least the major reason, why he hadn't done what he wanted to do was that battalion had never done what he wanted to do.  He was waiting to be told what to do, just like in USAREUR. You couldn't do that on Stewart, where battalions didn't count for much, brigades for nothing, and companies counted for most.

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2013, 07:49:56 PM »
Yep, initiative was either beaten out of you or if you still possessed any your OER reflected your failure to conform.  I was lucky in that I had a separate platoon and the Head Shed was in BK.  Had fun the first two years, simply because my first CDR had been in a command for about 19 months when I arrived.  He was burned out and simply trying to the hold all the spaghetti on the fork long enough to pass it on to his successor.  I had been there about 2 months when the ARTEP was coming up.  I remember him calling me to his office, and he had this extra long bony index finger that waggled at me as he said "I have a successful ARTEP and Successful Command OER.  Do not *expletive deleted* up this ARTEP and make me look bad."

Roger that Sir !!   I'm all kinds of motivated now.

Finally, after he had 26 months in command they found a replacement.  She lasted all of 13 months, before they shuffled her off.  Not relieved, but given an "Acceptable" command OER.  

Last commander was only worried about his "Report Card" and often threatened us LT's with ours.  By that time I was the "Senior LT" and he made me "XO" (We didn't have an XO slot, just 6 platoon leaders.)   Given that he didn't bother to mentor, nor had we been mentored by our preceding commanders, other then suddenly being the "Extra Duty Officer", I had no clue what I was supposed to do as XO.  

Did I mention that he came from an all LEA background in the MDW?  Yep, never went to the field once in his four years in DC and then given command of a Division MP Company.  To quote Malcom Reynolds, "Yep, that went well."

I remember one time, one of my fellow (2)LT's in Mainz goofed up, nothing major.  I had the CDR call me to BK, then spend about an hour chewing me out for this LT's mistake, and then another hour chewing me out because I didn't do anything about it, all in the orderly room in front of the troops.  He finally ordered me to drive from Baumholder to Mainz to "explain to him the error of his ways and retrain him as to not make that mistake again."  (Something I was pretty sure his PSG had handle tactfully.)   That and several other instances of his public hissy fits and lack of tact and professional demeanor lost him the respect of the NCO's and most of the troops.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 01:05:07 PM by scout26 »
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

Tom Kratman

  • New Member
  • Posts: 55
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2013, 08:26:50 PM »
Yep, initiative was either beaten out of you or if you still possessed any your OEr reflected your failure to conform.  I was lucky in that I had a separate platton and the Head Shed was in BK.  Had fun the first two years, simply because my first CDR had been in a command for about 19 months when I arrived.  He was burned out and simply trying to the hold all the spaghetti on the fork long enough to pass it on to his successor.  I had been there about 2 months when the ARTEP was coming up.  I remember him calling me to his office, and he had this extra long bony index finger that waggled at me as he said "I have a successful ARTEP and Successful Command OER.  Do not *expletive deleted* up this ARTEP and make me look bad."

Roger that Sir !!   I'm all kinds of motivated now.

Finally, after he had 26 months in command they found a replacement.  She lasted all of 13 months, before the shuffled her off.  Not relieved, but given an "Acceptable" command OER. 

Last commander was only worried about his "Report Card" and often threatened us LT's with ours.  By that time I was the "Senior LT" and he made me "XO" (We didn't have an XO slot, just 6 platoon leaders.   Given that he didn't bother to mentor, nor had we been mentored by our preceding commanders, other then suddenly being the "Extra Duty Officer", I had no clue what I was supposed to do as XO. 

Did I mention that he came from an all LEA background in the MDW?  Yep, next to the field once in his four years in DC and given command of a Division MP Company.  To quote Malcom Reynolds, "Yep, that went well."

I remember one time, one of my fellow (2)LT's in Mainz goofed up, nothing major.  I had the CDR call me to BK, then spend about an hour chewing me out for this LT's mistake, and then another hour chewing me out because I didn't do anything about it, all in the orderly room in front of the troops.  He finally ordered me to drive from Baumholder to Mainz to "explain to him the error of his ways and retrain him as to not make that mistake again."  (Something I was pretty sure his  PSG had handle tactfully.)   That and several other instances of his public hissy fits and lack of tact and professional demeanor lost him the respect of the NCO's and most of the troops.

One of the indicators that someone has no business in command is that they get burned out.  Given any talent for it, regular company command is the easiest job in the world, and so much fun that it would be like getting burned out from having a free lifetime pass to every high end brothel in Europe.  Maybe it could be done and it would sure be fun to try.

freakazoid

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,243
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2013, 08:47:13 PM »
One of the indicators that someone has no business in command is that they get burned out.  Given any talent for it, regular company command is the easiest job in the world, and so much fun that it would be like getting burned out from having a free lifetime pass to every high end brothel in Europe.  Maybe it could be done and it would sure be fun to try.

"so I ended up getting the above because I didn't want to make a whole production of sticking something between my knees and cranking. To me, the cranking on mine is pretty effortless, at least on the coarse setting. Maybe if someone has arthritis or something, it would be more difficult for them." - Ben

"I see a rager at least once a week." - brimic

Tom Kratman

  • New Member
  • Posts: 55
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #29 on: September 26, 2013, 09:07:47 PM »


Okay, now you need to put in the 4187 (Request for Personal Action) to get that highly coveted lifetime pass.  I'd approve it if I could but, alas, I am just a retiree now, with no legal authority.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2013, 09:09:11 PM »
We're almost talking apples and oranges, Fitz.  No, I take that back.  We _are_ talking apples and oranges.

There's a huge difference between an admin range and an LFX.  Admin ranges scare the bejesus out of me.  So, for that matter, can an LFX, once it's over the troops go into post adrenaline overload shutdown.  That's when stupid crap happens and that's when you need someone - RSOs - to lock everything down.  Conversely, during the LFX, provided you are doing it right and it is a good sim of actual combat (minus people shooting back), people watch out for themselves, and they must listen to one voice, their own leader, or _really_ dangerous things happen.

I am, by the way, currently writing an article for Baen on training for war.  So this, unlike a whole bunch of other things I could be but should not be doing, is not a waste.  The article will be a freebie on the Baen.com site.
 
Also, since there are currently serving NCOs on this board, it might be worth while to you, and even useful to me, to discuss a couple of things.  This may be true even for E-6Ps, who are pretty sure they already know everything, to include things they weren't there for.  ;)  It's my take; you don't have to agree.
 
Live firing is, potentially, the most valuable training we can give people.  There we can train skills - shooting, moving, communicating, planning, giving orders, supervising.  We can condition people against fear to some extent because, properly done, there's a heightened element of risk.  We can develop their problem solving ability in problems involving the use of force to overcome force.  We can test our equipment and doctrine under conditions most closely approaching war.  And we can select for leadership and elimination from service, in part because of the heightened risk.  Some will deal well with it.  Some, however, will not, particularly if you push the envelope.
 
_UNFORTUNATELY_, live firing in the Army or Marines can be, and typically is, the _worst_, the most counterproductive, training on offer.  Why?  Well how about that walk-crawl-run thing?   You know, the one where we convince the troops they and their leaders just aren't competent to fight.  It's got a place, mind you.  ONCE.  The very first time.  Ever.  But after that, having shown how to do it, to keep on with the travesty has nothing but bad effects.  And how about on site rehearsals generally?  The ones that are just so like real combnat since the enemy, being gentlemen, always lets you rehearse on his ground.  The ones that ensure leaders need not do a recon?  As they would in war?  Yeah.  Or how about giving the leader or commander the plan, rather than letting him develop his own from higher's plan..because he's just not competent...and never will be, since you won't let him even try.
 
My advice then is do it like war, or don't do it at all.

I basically concur with near all of that. Obviously, circumstances dependent.  I packed most of my range and exercise management into one deployment, as I was lower enlisted.  Whenrunning exercises with US, Irish, Finnish and Swedish soldiers, communications get interesting. e of the Finnish or Swedes spoke better English than any American I ever met. Some only speak their own language, which is gibberish to the rest of the world. We did a crawl step of slowly going through the steps as a visual explanation, then went live. That was enough and made for good training. The individual marksmanship and squad training was quite decent. But honestly, the real training was operating different units with different languages, equipment and ways of doing things.  So crawl, then... Jog. Better to jog well than land on your face. With uniform soldiers, we could have ran but with too many different units, no go. Imagine slapping together an infantry brigade with combat engineers, admin folks, the odd ODA, tankers and a mix of infantry units.

The TMK on the other hand...  Ye unholy gods. Crawl, crawl, walk like an 80 year old. They were very good with mountaineering, but rarely beyond the equivalent of company strength. We were training them to be more National Guard than regular mechanized infantry, but with a light covering of that as well. It will take them 10 years to become a cohesive entity, instead of a collection of individual units acting independently.

For actual LFX, with a line unit, yep. Don't do the same exercise 5 or 10 times. Do it, and see how you did. RSOs can provide a critical advantage by being both independent safety eyes, but also independent evaluation. Units should do their own AAR before being given the independent viewpoint. You need good people, or it is counterproductive. They need to be honest, objective and know what the hell they are doing. I have seen poor evaluators basically ruin an exercise by getting too involved, or give poor feedback. Worst were the ones that thought they were defining the exercise. That's fine and essential in a school setting, if the RSO is supposed to be an instructor. Otherwise, the chain of command should be defining the bloody exercise.

Admin and qual RSO duties should be fairly straight forward duties. Run the range, count the holes in the targets, rod folks off the range.

I hate to put it this way, but you should have RSOs handy in nearly any event with live munitions because there are plenty of morons that SHOULD have been discharged. Oxygen thieves exist at all ranks, and since we don't seem to be able to weed them out, oversight is a good thing. In an ideal world, they would be unnecessary except as basically traffic control.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2013, 09:29:45 PM »
Vishnu on a crotch rocket. One time we were working with the Spanish Army. Just weapons show n' tell. A dumb staff officer assigned a bunch of Latino soldiers to be the coaches. Hey, they both speak Spanish, right?

Yea, and apparently they really hate each other. First time I loaded my weapon on a range because I thought it was going to turn into a hostile fire zone. If one person twitched wrong, that would have been a very bad day. So sometimes apparently you need an RSO to potentially lay down suppressive fire.

On the plus side, the Spanish let me burn out half a dozen barrels on an MG3. Worth a near death experience. The Germans would only give me 15 rounds at a time, which went in my little green book.


http://revdisk.org/gallery/var/albums/Old-Army-Photos/SpanishMG.jpg


"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

Frank Castle

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 675
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #32 on: September 26, 2013, 10:28:23 PM »
Romanians TRYING to train the Afghan Army.

Gary what some time on the saw!(function test)
Yes , we both had beards. We were the only America on the COB ,providing coms and we were trying to look like the Romanians ! The Romanian Major , didn't what us to looking like Americans .












Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2013, 10:31:07 PM »
By the time I was there in 1987, not much live fire training was done.  MILES had take it's place.  We used to do Graf/Hohenfels rotations.  Graf for Gunnery and then Hohenfels to practice maneuver.  MILES made it easier for the O/C's as most troops when "killed" wouldn't take one more step from that spot.  (Like all soldiers, it was time to grab some sleep, until someone with a "G-d Gun" came and revived them.  

The major problem was that not many people bothered to take the 1/2 (or maybe it was full) day MILES training class.  They would just go to TRAC check out a bunch of harness, and not get the Zeroing Device (I disremember the name of it, Big white box thing), so they'd just slap the lasers on the end of the barrels of their M16's and M60's and then their exercises/AAR's would end up with the troops arguing about who shot who and "this stuff is a bunch of junk."   Taking 20-30 minutes to have your platoon zero all their lasers to their weapons and suddenly "LT's Scout26's Platoon are all a bunch of snipers."    Yes, I taught and was a firm believer in mark your target, then one round.    Usually the OPFOR (other MP platoons) liked using the "Spray and Spray"  (not a typo).   Which gave away their positions every time.  Then you'd hear one round per rifle from my platoon and lots of "BBBBBBBBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPP" and swearing from the other side.  

I actually picked that trick up early on from a Infantry Platoon that served as OPFOR for an different MP company's ARTEP.  I was assigned to "Run" the OPFOR, and had my Squad Leaders and 2 Team Leaders with me (To explain what MP's do I guess.)  Anywho, the Infantry LT was nice enough to "embed" my NCO's into his platoon and go out as OPFOR on the various missions.   Suddenly I was a freakin' genius in their eyes.  All the crap I preached and talked about, Fire and Manevuer, Fire Discipline, Setting up a Hasty Defense, Patrolling Techniques, etc. "GETTING OUT OF THE FRAKING VEHICLES!!!"  It all suddenly made sense.  After that, when we were out in the field if there was a dismounted mission, we were the *expletive deleted*.

Thereafter, the Brigade commander like to use us as "scouts" at Hohenfels.   "Move Out and Draw Fire"   Good Times.  :rofl: :rofl:
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 01:06:42 PM by scout26 »
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2013, 10:33:16 PM »
Romanians TRYING to train the Afghan Army.

Gary what some time on the saw!(function test)
Yes , we both had beards. We were the only America on the COB ,providing coms and we were trying to look like the Romanians ! The Romanian Major , didn't what us to looking like Americans .




Nice target holder.  Looks like an Aussie.

Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

Tom Kratman

  • New Member
  • Posts: 55
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2013, 10:58:06 PM »
By the time I was there in 1987, not much live fire training was done.  MILES had take it's place.  We used to do Graf/Hohenfels rotations.  Graf for Gunnery and then Hohenfels to practice maneuver.  MILES made it easier for the O/C's as most troops when "killed" would take one more step from that spot.  (Like all soliders, it was time to grab some sleep, until someone with a "G-d Gun" came and revived them.  

The major problem was that not many people bothered to take the 1/2 (or maybe it was full) day MILES training class.  They would just go to TRAC check out a bunch of harness, and not get the Zeroing Device (I disremember the name of it, Big white box thing), so they'd just slap the lasers on the end of the barrels of their M16's and M60's and then their exercises would end up with the troops arguing about who shot who and "this stuff is a bunch of junk."   Taking 20-30 minutes to have your platoon zero all their lasers to their weapons and suddenly "LT's Scout26's Platoon are all a bunch of snipers."    Yes, I taught and was a firm believer in mark your target, then one round.    Usually the OPFOR (other MP platoons) liked using the "Spray and Spray"  (not a typo).   Which gave away their positions every time.  Then you'd hear one round per rifle from my platoon and lots of "BBBBBBBBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPP" and swearing from the other side.  

I actually picked that trick up early on from a Infantry Platoon that served as OPFOR for an different MP company's ARTEP.  I was assigned to "Run" the OPFOR, and had my Squad Leaders and 2 Team Leaders with me (To explain what MP's do I guess.)  Anywho, the Infantry LT was nice enough to "embed" my NCO's into his platoon and go out as OPFOR on the various missions.   Suddenly I was a freakin' genius in their eyes.  All the crap I preached and talked about, Fire and Manevuer, Fire Discipline, Setting up a Hasty Defense, Patrolling Techniques, etc. "GETTING OUT OF THE FRAKING VEHICLES!!!"  It all suddenly made sense.  After that, when we were out in the field if there was a dismounted mission, we were the *expletive deleted*.

Thereafter, the Brigade commander like to use us as "scouts" at Hohenfels.   "Move Out and Draw Fire"   Good Times.  :rofl: :rofl:

SAAF.

The problem is that MILES can't replace live firing, really.  It's got zero moral component.  Maybe worse, the better you teach people to shoot the MILES, the more you are conditioning them to shoot real bullets badly, since MILES not only lacks a moral component, it lacks a ballistic component, too, being pure line of sight without any drop.  I can envision a system that would have an effective ballistic component, say a transmitter that is actually 5 or 6 or 7 of them, aligned such that, say, the top one is straight LOS, and focused for 50 meters, while the one at the other extreme is focused for 350, but shoots low so the troop has to aim high, at the right elevation, for it to hit at 350.  Someone, a DAT, once told me that such a system existed for tank cannon, which we didn't buy because it was too expensive.  He didn't know if there was a grunt equivilent.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #36 on: September 27, 2013, 08:42:59 AM »
SAAF.

The problem is that MILES can't replace live firing, really.  It's got zero moral component.  Maybe worse, the better you teach people to shoot the MILES, the more you are conditioning them to shoot real bullets badly, since MILES not only lacks a moral component, it lacks a ballistic component, too, being pure line of sight without any drop.  I can envision a system that would have an effective ballistic component, say a transmitter that is actually 5 or 6 or 7 of them, aligned such that, say, the top one is straight LOS, and focused for 50 meters, while the one at the other extreme is focused for 350, but shoots low so the troop has to aim high, at the right elevation, for it to hit at 350.  Someone, a DAT, once told me that such a system existed for tank cannon, which we didn't buy because it was too expensive.  He didn't know if there was a grunt equivilent.

Yep. They have one for tanks, and I believe helicopters now.

And concur with Scout. Folks don't zero their MILES gear and wonder why it's not working. MILES gear can't replace live fire, but it's better than nothing. I concur with becoming over familiar with MILES may mildly decrease marksmanship, but that may be an acceptable cost for more training. Not sure why, but often the Army grudgingly hands out ammo like no more was ever being manufactured. Other times, it's "Here's three pallets, and I'm only going to be picking up spent brass when you're finished."

It's easy to make such an accurate system. My ladyfriend and I could crank a functional prototype out over a weekend. "Cheap and durable enough to last 20 years of soldiers handling it" is not so easy. Because MILES gear is so dead simple, it lasts a very long time. Increasing the sophistication will up the price by an unknown amount or reduce service life, likely both. You also need calibration, or self-calibration. The first is expensive in people (MILES is proving that expense here), the second is probably more expensive in cost.


I know of someone that was working on a system like that, but ONLY to work within an enclosed environment. Weapons had some 3 axis tilt sensors, which would stream back a trajectory when the weapon was fired. Actually, it constantly streamed back the angle and position of the weapon, which was very fascinating to watch. People had a handful of location sensors (actually, just serialized beacons) on them. The data was all recorded, so AARs were very accurate. When you have detailed locational sensor data and good high definition video, you can't argue the results. Market was more LEO and Special Operations. The sensors were designed for accuracy, not "you can wear them sleeping in the mud while it's raining".
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

Fitz

  • Face-melter
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,254
  • Floyd Rose is my homeboy
    • My Book
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #37 on: September 27, 2013, 10:21:10 AM »
I got together with some NCOs a while back and we came up with a litany of suggestions for improvements to miles after playing with the "latest" version.

I , at the time, was friends with someone who knew a program manager for Miles.

As i understand it, they took it seriously. No idea when the next fielding is, but some of the suggestions i made were:

- marrying weapons to a harness based on proximity. Hop up on a machine gun after that person dies, weapon automatically pairs to you. no bullshit.

- semi-painful response (no idea how. I'm no engineer. Electric shock was my idea) on hits.

- Better system for determining wound vs. kill. Mostly so the casualty collection / treatment/ triage portion can be trained better.


There was a bunch more, i'm forgetting now.
Fitz

---------------
I have reached a conclusion regarding every member of this forum.
I no longer respect any of you. I hope the following offends you as much as this thread has offended me:
You are all awful people. I mean this *expletive deleted*ing seriously.

-MicroBalrog

41magsnub

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,579
  • Don't make me assume my ultimate form!
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #38 on: September 27, 2013, 10:34:46 AM »
In my day, it would have been nice to have actually had blanks, batteries, and keyed up miles gear.  Instead we were issued the gear for field problems (more like camping trips), had to wear it, keep track of it, and clean it...  but never used it.  We had some seriously lame ass training in the 1st Engineer Battalion between '94 and '97.  Looking at you former BN CO and now Commanding General and Chief of Engineers Thomas Bostick (and the Clinton administration budget).

Of course, it was entirely probable the gear didn't work.  It was the first gen MILES gear and it was pretty worn out.

I was really glad we didn't have to deploy anywhere, readiness was a joke.

Tom Kratman

  • New Member
  • Posts: 55
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #39 on: September 27, 2013, 11:12:46 AM »
I got together with some NCOs a while back and we came up with a litany of suggestions for improvements to miles after playing with the "latest" version.

I , at the time, was friends with someone who knew a program manager for Miles.

As i understand it, they took it seriously. No idea when the next fielding is, but some of the suggestions i made were:

- marrying weapons to a harness based on proximity. Hop up on a machine gun after that person dies, weapon automatically pairs to you. no bullshit.

- semi-painful response (no idea how. I'm no engineer. Electric shock was my idea) on hits.

- Better system for determining wound vs. kill. Mostly so the casualty collection / treatment/ triage portion can be trained better.


There was a bunch more, i'm forgetting now.

They're good suggestions, except maybe for the electric shock because, frankly, a heart attack can be induced in almost anyone if you shock them at just the wrong time.  My similar idea was release of some seriously nasty pepper spray.  I don't know that that would work, either.  That said, we've really got two almost entirely different uses for MILES, home station with small units and NTC/JRTC/CMTC/JMTC.  At the latter, the usage level is tremendous, hence so is the complexity, hence we really want something simple.  This is especially true since those major training centers are all about commanders and staffs, and almost complete wastes of troop time.  I'm not a big fan of the CTCs, actually.  We could have better MILES for small unit actions at unit level, but I doubt the Army or Corps will pay for two distinct systems or want to explain to ignorant pols and pressies ("Lord, forgive us our redundancies.")  why there are two distinct systems.

Hmmm...ever notice how the various computer sims the Army uses are essentially devoid of moral factors, even though the latter have been features in civilian wargaming for at least 3 decades?  How the troops always obey, never run away, never really get surpressed?  Yeah, the Army senior leadership - Marines, too - politicians and PR experts to a man, do not want to ever have to admit to the press or civilian politicians that the troops are not mindlessly brave and utterly loyal automatons. Yes, I have reasons for believing that's the reason.

Fitz

  • Face-melter
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,254
  • Floyd Rose is my homeboy
    • My Book
Re:
« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2013, 11:40:02 AM »
Yeah, the big training centers are generally a waste of time for individual troops

In fact, it seems like almost all the larger exercises are. It always seemed like the training was fast when it was company level or smaller



I did not think about the heart attack risk from electric shock, but I like your pepper spray idea. During CQB training, I like simunitions for this very reason : death in training should have consequences, preferably a little bit of pain.

Computer-based training has its place, however.  For example, someone with serious issues with marksmanship is much better served by spending several hours working on fundamentals in the engagement skills trainer, then he is waiting on the bleachers for a firing point

We will be going to JRTC next year. It has been a long time for me. Although I am a staff weenie now, I will try to post here when we return to see how it has evolved
Fitz

---------------
I have reached a conclusion regarding every member of this forum.
I no longer respect any of you. I hope the following offends you as much as this thread has offended me:
You are all awful people. I mean this *expletive deleted*ing seriously.

-MicroBalrog

Fitz

  • Face-melter
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,254
  • Floyd Rose is my homeboy
    • My Book
Re:
« Reply #41 on: September 27, 2013, 11:45:55 AM »
That should have said best, not fast, but tapatalk won't let me edit the post
Fitz

---------------
I have reached a conclusion regarding every member of this forum.
I no longer respect any of you. I hope the following offends you as much as this thread has offended me:
You are all awful people. I mean this *expletive deleted*ing seriously.

-MicroBalrog

Tom Kratman

  • New Member
  • Posts: 55
Re:
« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2013, 11:49:48 AM »
Yeah, the big training centers are generally a waste of time for individual troops

In fact, it seems like almost all the larger exercises are. It always seemed like the training was fast when it was company level or smaller



I did not think about the heart attack risk from electric shock, but I like your pepper spray idea. During CQB training, I like simunitions for this very reason : death in training should have consequences, preferably a little bit of pain.

Computer-based training has its place, however.  For example, someone with serious issues with marksmanship is much better served by spending several hours working on fundamentals in the engagement skills trainer, then he is waiting on the bleachers for a firing point

We will be going to JRTC next year. It has been a long time for me. Although I am a staff weenie now, I will try to post here when we return to see how it has evolved

I think serious training value generally goes up one level and down two.  Squad level, for example, has benefit for platoon leaders, who are probably evaluating, and for team leaders and troops.  Even platoon level often has no value for the troops, though you can make it useful for them if you break out of the drill mindset and hit the unit with fairly complex problems that require and give time for rehearsal (which IS individual training, too) in order to succeed.  And then, ya know, there's always a little something around the margins, even for snuffie in a corps level attack.  But that's only around the margins and hardly worth snuffie's time.

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re:
« Reply #43 on: September 27, 2013, 02:12:30 PM »
I got together with some NCOs a while back and we came up with a litany of suggestions for improvements to miles after playing with the "latest" version.

I , at the time, was friends with someone who knew a program manager for Miles.

As i understand it, they took it seriously. No idea when the next fielding is, but some of the suggestions i made were:

- marrying weapons to a harness based on proximity. Hop up on a machine gun after that person dies, weapon automatically pairs to you. no bullshit.

- semi-painful response (no idea how. I'm no engineer. Electric shock was my idea) on hits.

- Better system for determining wound vs. kill. Mostly so the casualty collection / treatment/ triage portion can be trained better.


There was a bunch more, i'm forgetting now.

IIRC,

1)  You could take your key out of your say M16 and put it in your dead buddy's M60 and make it work.  You could not however, take your key out of your M16 and put in an M1 Abrams that had it's yellow whoopie light flashing and make it work.

2)  Maybe not a painful response but that alarm right in your ear was pretty damn annoying.  And as I stated most soldiers took the opportunity to grab some Zzzz's the moment their MILES went off.  IIRC, it also beeped if there was a near miss.

3)  What we did was make up "casualty cards", put them in sealed envelopes and randomly distributed them to everyone in the exercise and they carried it in a shirt pocket.  Your harness went off, you pulled out your envelope, opened it, and started crying for Momma.   Each card listed location, type, severity of wound (we did very, very few KIA), simply so that everyone got to practice first aid, the medics got in on the "fun" along with evac'ing the wounded from the battlefield.


I think serious training value generally goes up one level and down two.  Squad level, for example, has benefit for platoon leaders, who are probably evaluating, and for team leaders and troops.  Even platoon level often has no value for the troops, though you can make it useful for them if you break out of the drill mindset and hit the unit with fairly complex problems that require and give time for rehearsal (which IS individual training, too) in order to succeed.  And then, ya know, there's always a little something around the margins, even for snuffie in a corps level attack.  But that's only around the margins and hardly worth snuffie's time.

That was one distinct advantage to being a separate platoon leader.  My Platoon spent quite a bit of time not only in the Baumholder LTA,* but also on the MTA Nobody seemed to like areas Juliet and Whiskey on the MTA as they were always available at the Range Scheduling Conferences.  They were hilly, tree covered, and pretty rugged.  Not a good place for tracks.  Some roads, so we could have one squad ambush another squad while mounted.  Always fun to kill the leaders and see who rallies the rest of the troops.   Same with being able to do quite a bit of dismounted Lanes Training.  I was always able to get slice elements (Commo, NBC, Medic, Mechanic(s), etc.) from the HQ Plt, simply because it was more fun to go run around the woods doing the stuff you joined the Army to do rather than sit around in some building killing time, hiding from Officers and NCO's with their "Hey You" details. 

The thing was we would go out and work on two, maybe four, squad and platoon level tasks.  We'd do it in daylight, we'd do it night, we'd do with all the leaders in place, we'd do it with all the leaders killed.  We did them upside, downside, and backwards, until it became second nature (muscle memory for lack of a better turn), not the same drill over and over, be variations.  Put PV2 Snuffie in charge of the 4 survivors of the ambush, he then learns when his Squad or Team Leader says "DO X" why he's saying that. 

We did something unique.  I sat down with all my NCO's and any other soldiers in leadership positions and we created a Platoon METL.  From that we prioritized the tasks (and required individual that needed training) and then setup our training schedule.  Yes, the company may have put out a schedule that read "Motor Stables 0700-1200.  Lunch 1200-1300.  Motor Stables 1300-1700."  My NCO's were working with the soldiers in their teams and squads going over the individual tasks they needed to know.  (always great fun teaching 60 gunners how to roll down the back of the HMMWV and land on their feet while holding the M60.)

But yes, Hohenfels was mostly for Brigade and the Battalion/Task Force Staffs.  Maybe the Companies' Ops section got some benefit.  But mostly the troops just rode around tearing the place up in their tracks.     


* to include the MOUT Village.  We would also go to the BK and Aschaffenberg LTA's (near our GDP).   I do have to give my NCO's credit for being able to scrounge Pyro and Blank ammo when the Company said "No."
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

Fitz

  • Face-melter
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,254
  • Floyd Rose is my homeboy
    • My Book
Re:
« Reply #44 on: September 27, 2013, 08:23:37 PM »
The new version of miles went away from the key system, and had a complex and stupid way to pair yourself to a weapon

In the middle of a firefight, it was completely impossible to switch weapons systems without getting killed

For example, if my gunner died, I couldn't just pulli him in the truck and take his place on the gun

I have to get on top of the truck and wave my *expletive deleted*ing harness in front of the emitter on the weapon system
Fitz

---------------
I have reached a conclusion regarding every member of this forum.
I no longer respect any of you. I hope the following offends you as much as this thread has offended me:
You are all awful people. I mean this *expletive deleted*ing seriously.

-MicroBalrog

Frank Castle

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 675
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2013, 09:04:23 PM »
Quote
In my day, it would have been nice to have actually had blanks, batteries, and keyed up miles gear.  Instead we were issued the gear for field problems (more like camping trips), had to wear it, keep track of it, and clean it...  but never used it.  We had some seriously lame ass training in the 1st Engineer Battalion between '94 and '97.  Looking at you former BN CO and now Commanding General and Chief of Engineers Thomas Bostick (and the Clinton administration budget).

It's starting again,

My brigade's training budget was, 13 million in 2013. The 2014 training budget, is 3 million!

 :facepalm:   

Tom Kratman

  • New Member
  • Posts: 55
Re: Range Safety Officers - Yay or Nay?
« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2013, 09:22:35 PM »
It's starting again,

My brigade's training budget was, 13 million in 2013. The 2014 training budget, is 3 million!

 :facepalm:   

Okay, but remember what the budget covers and does not cover.  Unless things have changed pretty radically, ammunition is issued separately, as is, IIRC, fuel, though I believe the unit pays for other POL.  So what's left is basically Class IX and other kinds of wear and tear, along with losses.  NTC or JRTC is budgeted separately, too (because 3 mil wouldn't cover half of it).  For a tank unit, that kind of reduction is death.  For an infantry unit, to include Stryker and Brad, not so much, since LPC still works.  For a mixed unit, it will mostly go to the tanks and trucks to support the tanks, and the infantry can hoof it and not necessarily be worse off for that.

Tom Kratman

  • New Member
  • Posts: 55
So give me an opinion, is this a clear set of instructions?
« Reply #47 on: September 28, 2013, 08:15:11 PM »
Don't sweat the typos, if any.


Appendix 1: Build your own targets

   Training doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t, stop in the theater of war.  Rest is needed, of course, or the troops begin to morally and mentally disintegrate, but the biggest and most important rest troops pulled out of the line get is relief from danger and the stress danger brings.  It is in those rests that new troops are best integrated, and best integrated by hard training with the old troops.
   I’m not a huge fan of electronic targets.  They have their place, but they also have certain disadvantages, expense, the need to be dug in from direct fire, unreliability, ease of hitting , and – because they’re so easy to hit, unrealistic zombie-like behavior.  They just won’t stay down.  They’re also going to be about last priority for shipment to the theater of war.
Remote control electronic targets are also not necessary to conduct live fire training.  And, since we do in war what we practice in peace, it is rather important that the troops learn how to build and use their own in peacetime, so they can do it from available materials in war.
1.    The basic live fire target begins with an e-type sillouette, or any other roughly man-shaped, lightweight but sturdy target.  Cut a round hole inside the target, center of mass, four to six inches in diameter.  Make sure the sides of the hole are fairly smooth.
   
2.    Take a wooden ammunition box with a hinged cover.  Almost any box will do, though I’ve always preferred mortar ammunition boxes.  Nail the silhouette to the box cover, with the bottom of the target nearest the hinges.  You may need to put strips of wood over the target before driving the nails, to distribute the stress on the target.

3.   Drive a nail into the box, between the hinges.

4.   Take a fifteen to eighteen inch stick and drill a hole in one end, from side to side.  Run string through the hole, and affix to the nail in 3, above.  This stick is for leverage.

5.   Take a sandbag and place in in the hole in the target, open side down. 
6.   Stuff a filled balloon or a blown up and tied off surgical latex glove, into the sandbag.

7.   Site the target where you want it, and fill the box at least partway with dirt, to prevent the target being pulled completely over.  Run commo wire from the sandbag to the stick, affixing it to the stick, then on as far as needed toward the beginning point of the live fire.

8.   When you pull the commo wire, the stick will rise, giving leverage to allow the target to be pulled up.  It can be pulled up and dropped as much as desired, until a friendly troop manages to put a bullet through the balloon or glove, allowing it to collapse and the commo wire to pull the sandbag through the hole.  After that, the target will go down and stay down. 

9.   It is possible to make the target “shoot,” once at least, by using a practice grenade fuse, with the spoon held down by a loop of wire, it being pulled out of the wire, or vice versa, when the target is raised.

Note, here, that marksmanship in combat – the probability of a hit – drops to a fairly tiny percentage of the probability on an administrative range.  The smallness of the part of the target that must be hit for a kill compensates for that reduction.




Okay, but remember what the budget covers and does not cover.  Unless things have changed pretty radically, ammunition is issued separately, as is, IIRC, fuel, though I believe the unit pays for other POL.  So what's left is basically Class IX and other kinds of wear and tear, along with losses.  NTC or JRTC is budgeted separately, too (because 3 mil wouldn't cover half of it).  For a tank unit, that kind of reduction is death.  For an infantry unit, to include Stryker and Brad, not so much, since LPC still works.  For a mixed unit, it will mostly go to the tanks and trucks to support the tanks, and the infantry can hoof it and not necessarily be worse off for that.