# Changing Basic Training to Suit a Changing Army



## D-n-A (30 Sep 2005)

http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,012405_changing,,00.html?ESRC=recruiting.nl
Changing Basic Training to Suit a Changing Army

By Sgt. Michael Volkin
Author, Ultimate Basic Training Guide Book


The long-standing tradition of a 9-week basic training following a specific training format is all about to change. Currently in the testing phase at Fort Benning, the Army is experimenting with a couple new basic training schedules that will encompass a more hands-on approach to fighting today's enemy, terrorism. 

Under the current basic training regime, recruits spend 3 days on an FTX (field training exercise). The new experimental programs send recruits to anywhere from a 10 to 23 day FTX. 

Field exercises will now focus on urban combat with more weapons training. Under the current basic training regime, recruits get only a brief introduction to the M-249 squad automatic weapon (SAW), a popular weapon in today's army. Under the new programs, recruits will gain access to more heavy weapons, such as the SAW. Currently, both experimental basic training schedules are still 9-weeks long. 

Less class time and more hands-on training will be the focal point of the new program, in the hopes that soldiers will be more battle-focused than in the past. 

Unfortunately for recruits, the addition of these new exercises requires an increase in the recruit-to-drill sergeant ratio. Recruits selected to undergo the new experimental basic training regimen will definitely have a drill sergeant everywhere they look. I would suggest keeping up with my articles on surviving basic training, as well as reading The Ultimate Basic Training Guidebook. 

After researching this new training program, it is in my opinion this program will provide numerous positive changes. Not only does this new program provide hands-on access to fighting today's enemy, it carries over the "army of one" mentality that has proven very successful in the past. The world's toughest army will only get tougher from here on out. 

Download The Ultimate Basic Training Guidebook in less than one minute at www.ultimatebasictrainingguidebook.com. Almost half off the paperback price with no shipping charge. The book dedicates a chapter to these upcoming changes to basic training. 

I welcome all questions and comments. SGT Michael Volkin is the author of The Ultimate Basic Training Guidebook. The Ultimate Basic Training Guidebook is available in both book and e-book format at www.ultimatebasictrainingguidebook.com.


----------



## TheNomad (3 Oct 2005)

Well if the educationally sub-normal such as Lyndie England can get through the training system - how much lower are they going to make their standards?


----------



## ghazise (3 Oct 2005)

"Well if the educationally sub-normal such as Lyndie England can get through the training system"

Education level and training proficiency are not directly proportional,

"how much lower are they going to make their standards?"

Seriously, how does article even relate to lowering training standards?  my general impression of the article, was that the US Army, was experimenting with re-organizing the training schedule to allow for more field time and a better recruit to DS ratio; that's good because without increasing the 9-week basic, re-organizing the training schedule to allow for more field is the best way re-enforce small-unit tactics,  and with increasing the DS to recruit ratio, will only improve training standards within Basic;  considering these young soldiers will be heading to Iraq and to combat this re-organization is no-brainer,


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Oct 2005)

TheNomad said:
			
		

> Well if the educationally sub-normal such as Lyndie England can get through the training system - how much lower are they going to make their standards?



We can't condem the US, can we.  I can think of many 'sub-normal' people who have fell thru the cracks of the CF and ADF systems alone (thats both Regulars anad Reserves)! The CF and other western countries soldiers are not supermen, nor should we look at ourselves as such (although many are damn good - including the US), so why pass such negative judgement on the US when we are all just as bad in many ways, having our own strengths and weaknesses, whether they be borne by gaps, say lacking in certain in training standards, and lack of expereince and limitations, or the individuals personal capability of retaining information taught. 

BTW thats with going on 30yrs in the experience of two Armies, so I think I know what I am talking about.

My 2 cents,

Wes


----------



## paracowboy (3 Oct 2005)

TheNomad said:
			
		

> Well if the educationally sub-normal such as Lyndie England can get through the training system - how much lower are they going to make their standards?


had a guy in my unit who had been committed to an insane asylum.
Twice.
Had a guy on my JLC who could not read. In either language.

And anyway, you seem to have misunderstood the article. Completely.


----------



## KevinB (3 Oct 2005)

Stop talking about me


----------



## paracowboy (3 Oct 2005)

OH! Hey, Kev. Didn't...ahhh...didn't see you there.


----------



## KevinB (3 Oct 2005)

It was only once - my invisible friend Bob's lock up cant count...


----------



## TheNomad (4 Oct 2005)

Well that was me shot down in flames then :-[


----------



## Glorified Ape (4 Oct 2005)

One could say the same thing about the the soldiers who pulled that crap in Somalia, but I don't think we'd agree that they represent the standard of the CF accurately. 

BT in the US only has a 3 day ex? I didn't know that... I thought their training was much more field-oriented than ours but there you go - ignorance thy name is Glorified Ape. Sounds to me that a higher # of days in the field would constitute an INCREASE in standards, not a decrease. Field time (from my limited experience) weeds out the non-hackers alot faster than the garrison.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Oct 2005)

The short FTX might be 3 days (its all an intro and familiarisation), but this does not include and pre-deployment trg, but their trades trg, be whatever MOS they are undertaking.

I have been here with the US forces during fd trg ex's (USMC), and its hardcore intense stuff. Plenty of men, plenty of eqpt, and all the trimming. So I think we can throw that theory out of lack of days in the fd for trg. Familiarisation and introduction fd trg, does not even come close to long ex's in the field. 

Look at the EOs/POs in the CTP and see what is encountered for the 001 MOC in the CF system. How to light a stove, why things are seen, cam and concealment, maybe some earthworks, defencive stores (fences etc), pers hygene and sanitation, etc. All this too covered in a matter of days.

We should not go thinking that one does 3 days fd trg before going off to war.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## D-n-A (5 Oct 2005)

Well, looks like the US Army is now lowering its standards. A better way of getting more recruits without having to lower their standards would be to start sponsering green cards like they did in the '60s.

Los Angeles Times
October 4, 2005 

Army To Lower Bar For Recruits

By Mark Mazzetti, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON â â€ Facing recruiting shortages brought on by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has decided to accept a greater number of recruits who score near the bottom of military aptitude tests, the secretary of the Army said Monday.

Coming off a recruiting year in which the Army fell short of its goal of 80,000 active-duty soldiers, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey announced that the Army would allow up to 4% of its recruiting class to be Category IV recruits â â€ those who scored between the 16th and 30th percentile in the battery of aptitude tests that the Defense Department gives to all potential military personnel.

The Army until now allowed no more than 2% of its recruiting class to be from the Category IV level, fearing that letting too many low-achieving recruits into the Army might dilute the quality of the nation's largest military branch.

The continuing violence in Iraq has made the Army's annual mission to bolster its ranks especially difficult in recent months. The Army fell nearly 7,000 recruits short of its goal for the 2005 fiscal year, which ended Friday. Army officials have said that recruiters might be faced with an even bigger challenge during the current fiscal year.

Harvey insisted that the Army was not lowering its standards but merely conforming to Department of Defense guidelines that allow up to 4% of each military service's recruiting class to be Category IV troops.

Yet one Army official said that the policy change is also a concession to reality. The Army failed to meet its benchmark for 2005, and decided to widen the pool of recruits it could target during the 2006 fiscal year. The Army official spoke on condition of anonymity because the 2005 recruiting figures would not be formally announced until next week.

Before being admitted into the military, a potential recruit takes a group of tests known as the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. The recruits fall into categories based on their performance on the aptitude tests.

Harvey said he saw no reason why the Army standards should be more stringent than Pentagon guidelines, and pointed out that the Army already allows more Category IV troops to join the National Guard than it does the active duty ranks.

"We had sort of an artificial system. When I asked the question how we got there, I never got a straight answer," Harvey told reporters Monday. "They really weren't standards. They were just kind of guidelines," he said.

Harvey spoke to reporters during a convention of the Assn. of the U.S. Army, a private organization that supports active duty and reserve soldiers.

Harvey said the Army would also ease the service's requirement that at least 67% of every recruiting class be made up of recruits who scored in the top half (50th percentile or above) on the aptitude tests. The new threshold would be 60%, Harvey said, in accordance with Defense Department benchmarks.

The Pentagon benchmarks were established to prevent the military services from meeting recruiting quotas by accepting too many people with low IQs. Despite these parameters, the Pentagon allows each service, if it wishes, to set more rigorous standards.

Until the last fiscal year, the Army had few problems staying below the 2% threshold for Category IV recruits. According to data provided by the Army, Category IV recruits comprised less than 1% of the 2003 and 2004 recruiting classes.

The Army's recruiting problems have become more pressing as the violence in Iraq has intensified, scaring potential recruits away. Recruiters in 2005 accepted more individuals whom they might have rejected previously.

Harvey denied Monday that the Army was in the midst of a recruiting crisis, pointing to a series of new initiatives â â€ including increasing the Army's advertising budget by $130 million and putting 3,000 more recruiters on the streets â â€ that he hoped would reverse the downward trend.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Oct 2005)

Hard and realistic training is always what is needed. The Marines now train using what they call the "Cruicible", which is a very intense series of "challenges" that each soldier has to undertake, before becoming a Marine. If I understood this right it is a very militarized sort of "outward bound" experience, but the Marines on the board can set me straight.

The Army is also undergoing a lot of changes, see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32144/post-233058.html#msg233058

Now if only we can get it in gear.....


----------

