Should MAT instruction be the exclusive domain of Cbt Engrs?

[McG]

I tend to think that any PLQ qualified Cbt Arms NCO should be fully capable to teach SANDI and self-extraction drills (if not, that individual probably should not be where he is).  However, there seem to be many (Engr & non-Engr) that feel only a Cbt Engr should be allowed to conduct this IBTS trg.  What do others here think (and keep in mind that I'm only talking about IBTS MAT I and not the Engr specific MAT II)?


Note: MAT = Mine Awareness Training

 

[Spr.Earl]

All with in Combat Arms should know their MAT drill's and be able to teach their own Troops.
When it comes to the basics of MAT it's fine but bring in a Sapper to define and clear up many misconceptions in regards to the old wives tales that are still present about A.P.'s and A.T.'s which a few still ask.

 

[McG]

Exactly.   I would have no objection to a mandated annual refresh-the-trainer training conducted by Cbt Engr for non-Engrs, but we do not need to run the complete MAT package for everyone.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I disagree. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  A little knowledge of things that can launch body parts a fair distance into the air is fatal.  Our sapper world is becoming smaller all the time, if we parcel out all our expertise to other arms, we become as superfluous as the rest of the army already thinks we are.  IMHO.

 

[SprCForr]

IMHO, MAT 1/ SANDI/Self-extraction is at the (or should be) All Arms Mine warfare level and should be taught by any Cbt Arms NCO. We never had to teach them protective/phoney minefields back in the day, so why add to your headache with this basic level stuff?

Is it time to ressurect the old Minewarfare (All-Arms) Instructor course?

 

[ZipperHead]

I'm somewhat in agreement with both Kat and MCG: I think that I could probably teach the BASIC MAT trg to my troops, after having received a fair amount of the trg over the years. Of course, I would want to talk to a SME before I do it to make sure that there aren't any new changes to know about, and also be refreshed in my skills.

We don't force SAIC qualified infantrymen to teach weapons handling in every sub-unit, so why should the Engr's be forced into having to do this over and over.

And while I agree with Kat on the issue of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing in regards to something as dangerous as mine awareness, then why aren't all crew commanders of all AFV's in the CF not required to go through the Armour School, and be qualified the same as our crew commanders. I'm sure more people have been killed due to poor crew-commanding skills (and driver skills) over the years than by lack of knowledge while carrying out a self-extraction from a minefield. Not that I think we have the manpower to accomplish this mission........

First aid isn't always taught by medics, so why not MAT level 1 crewmen, infantrymen, artillerymen, cooks, etc to do the teaching. Give a man a fish, feed him for a meal; teach a man to fish.......

I think that there is far too little mine trg done (in the Armour Corps, anyways). When I went through TQ3 we did a fair chink of mine trg, and when I was in Support Tp, we practiced laying minefields and how to disarm mines and boobytraps. Don't tell me I should wait for an engineer...... in most theatres, you would wait for at least 2 to 3 hours (if not longer) before a Sapper would get to you. A long time to wait if you or your buddy are bleeding out......

Al

 

[McG]

Kat,
If the only thing we Engr are usefull for is to instruct MAT, then we may as well give-up the occupation.  We do a lot more than this, and I don't think anyone would feel the Engr have become superflous if we stopped teaching MAT.  Neutralize, Disarm, and Destroy would still be Engr functions, and they are not taught as part of MAT I.  However, every soldier must be able to conduct self & buddy extraction in a mined environment.  By the time a Cbt Arms soldier reaches the lofty height of Sect 2ic, he should also be able to teach that skill.

We don't demand the Infantry run everyone through annual PWT shoots, we don't expect the medics to conduct all annual first aid refreshers, we don't look to MSE Ops to teach every driver crse.  So, why do we expect that only the Engr will instruct this fundamental soldier skill?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Sigh, I must be the most inarticulate person on this forum, as my point continually misses it's target.  Okay, all the India and Tango guys teach extraction drills.  If they did such a bang up job of teaching it, why were we called out time and again in FRY to extract infanteers and tankers from mined areas they had blundered into?  In '97 we were on the ground in CML for 72 hours when the first "help, we're in a minefield" call came in.  If you slip up poking a prodder into the ground, bang goes your no insurance claim bonus.  If you stick your hand where it doesn't belong, get used to wiping yer arse with a hook.  Don't take this the wrong way, but as an officer it's quite easy for you say who should do what.  Every time I taught or received MAT, the Ruperts all found a reason not to be there, to a man. A poorly taught FA course doesn't get you and your buds blown to ratcrap, and neither does failing a PWT. Maybe if the meds did teach all the FA, troop survival may go up as a standard of instruction is maintained, not a "jeez I better teach a class or lose my ticket" thing. A sect 2 ic should be able to teach, but only if it's something he has mastered himself.  We have got into a bad habit of "here's the book, you're teaching Euclidean Geometry tomorrow morning, while I'm on key pers coffee break/golf day".  Okay, rambling now, feel free to disagree, as the number of things I know nothing about has risen sharply lately.

 

[Laff]

This Topic will always come up.  Other trade figure that because they sat through a Mat Level 1 training in the past they are now qualified to teach.  Leave the training to the Combat Engineer. 

Cheers

 

[ZipperHead]

I know this argument, and variations on the same theme, depending on the subject (small arms instruction, map and compass, tying knots, crew commanding, etc) come up in every Corps, trade, etc.

The problem that I have seen, is that we (other trades) are always at the mercy of the SME trades (availability, resources, etc) to conduct this trg. Granted, just because you sat through a basic level class once, or once per year, doesn't mean you are qualified, any more than a recruit is qualified to teach PT after sitting through a few periods of PT with a PSP staff. Bring back Mine Warfare trg so all-arms, and all trades can get qualified to teach their own.

Everybody thinks that they can crew-command an AFV, but with the number of deaths and roll-overs, in training and overseas, dictates otherwise. The Armour Corps doesn't insist that we are the only ones capable of instructing crew-commanding (though after seeing people waist-high out of LAVIII hatches cross-country, I start to think otherwise sometimes.....)

Al

 

[KevinB]

MAT1 is basic - any Cbt Arms NCO should be able to teach it.

The idea is exactly as equated above in that we dont come over and run TOET's on weapons nor coach and run the PWT's...

If there is an issue with it - run a train the trainer

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

I believe MAT should be run by individual units. Of course pre tour work up training should get the full meal deal but in the case of yearly training, selected instructors from each units should be briefed by engineers on any new training requirements and can then go back to their respective units and instruct.

Much like first aid instructors must re certify and driver examiners must go to the source to be trained.

In addition MAT should be taught more often than the once a year "warrior" program B.S. as we all know that when that time rolls around, there are always those who dont attend or get their buddy to sign them off as having attended.

To me MAT is just as important as toet's.

 

[043]

I used to think that units should be responsible to cover off on there own MAT trg until I witness the fiasco that was named 2 Fd Amb during the TMST prior to Roto 4. They went out of there way to train there pers incorrectly!!!!!!!!!!!

Engrs are the SME's and should remain such. As for it being an individual skill, yes, all pers require the trg. As for conducting it on more than one occasion a year, I disagree. Until it become part of BTS's for each trade and is included on exercises there is no requirement for this. Would it lessen some of the forcefeeding prior to deploying..........yes it would however, it is a necessary evil that will save lives.

Chimo!!!!!!

 

[old fart]

I would like to offer a different but supporting view of why only Sappers should deliver MAT or for that matter any mine warfare or demolitions training.

In 1989 I deployed to Peshawar (eastern gateway to the Kyber Pass), to deliver Mine and EOD clearance training to the Afghans.  The mission was Op DECIMAL (or OP SALAM from a UN perspective).  Most of the soldiers on the mission were of course Sappers.  A fair number of other "highly trained!!" but non combat engineers were also on the teams.

To cut a long story short the students who were supposed to be in a class delivered by what I will call an unqualified instructor soon realized the fact, left the class and joined other instructional groups.

The Canadian groups often doubled in size, while these now redundant instructors shook there heads wondering why their Afghan students had all departed and all they had to talk to was an interpreter or two.

So, IMHO (yes I can be humble GEO), it would be best if the instruction remained solely delivered by the subject matter experts........

CHIMO-AIRBORNE-UBIQUE

 

[linus]

sappers are the sme.

infanteers and tankers are not trained to the same perspective we are.  Yes they think they know because they got mat level 1 for the past 3 tours, but put that guy in charge and I guarantee he is a cluster f--k, and its not even real time.  don't get me wrong there are engineers who have never seen a live mine in the ground, but they are trained to deal with it.  at least most good sappers now how to react and respond to the threat, which i believe other arms do not.. you do not get that exposure from mat level 1...not in a million years..From personal experience seeing truckers and strats walking off into the bush for a piss in mined areas, i say they do not even pay attention to mat 1...sleeper lecture or break in training.  So if they are taught by their own maybe it will  become worse but i dought better.  It is a pain to have to go train these troops, but at least they learn the correct methods, and hopefully how to save themselves.  The last thing we want is these bozo's thinking that they are sappers.

chimo

 

[George Wallace]

linus

Have we only done two tours since Oct '94?  I'm positive that we have had more tours than that since Roto 4 UNPROFOR.  :

Your over simplification of this matter is amazing.  We all believe that the Enkneneerrs are the SMEs, unfortunately they will not always be there, so do give us other Arms some credit.  MAT Trg has been going on for over fifteen years now.  I think many of us are a little more proficient than what you make us out to be.  Heck, lots of us can even do Basic Charges and Ring Mains too......now return your head to it's normal hat size....  ;D

 

[Spr.Earl]

  In '97 we were on the ground in CML for 72 hours when the first "help, we're in a minefield" call came in.  

I remember that one Kat and all poo hit the fan,as all had the MAT in brief when we arrived in V.K.

All Units should have a designated MAT trainer,trained by CFSME and every year must go back for requalification at CFSME to keep their qualification and also be on a list for updates or changes in doctrine in regards to basic MAT.

So simple yes?

 

[old fart]

All Units should have a designated MAT trainer,trained by CFSME and every year must go back for requalification at CFSME to keep their qualification and also be on a list for updates or changes in doctrine in regards to basic MAT.

So simple yes?

That's basically the British Forces way of doing business. 

The Royal Engineer Mine Information and Training Center do conduct an All Arms-Tri Service Mine Awareness instructor course, however not all believe that it is the way to go.....

CHIMO....

 

[Kat Stevens]

I remember that one Kat and all poo hit the fan,as all had the MAT in brief when we arrived in V.K.

We got the MAT brief in VK, and got on the buses for Zgon.  40 mins later, pee break.  Bus pulls over, the door opens, and everyone wanders off into the tall grass for a leak.  All the sappers stayed on the hardstand and peed on under the bus.  Yup, mine awareness is very important to the other arms... :

 

[ZipperHead]

OK, I'm a little tired of having my intelligence abused by the high and mighty. If you guys, the alleged SME's are so wonderful at MAT, how is it that all these "bozo's" and "Strats" are so useless. Could it be that some of  your instructional technique sucks ass?! That you don't emphasise the threats. That you've taught it so much, that your enthusiasm is gone?? 

I take mine awareness very seriously. I stay out of the long grass overseas, and in fact, I still think twice about it here in Canada. The fact of the matter is that you can't always stay to the hard-pack, and there is a thing called The Mission and threat/risk assessment. I HAVE left the hard-pack, and if you don't think I'm thinking about mines, you are on glue. It would be nice if we could stick to Bluebird, or Pac-Man, or whatever the routes are named in Afghanistan, but that isn't what being recce is about, or conducting mounted and dismounted presence patrols. And don't even get me started on what constitutes an engineer's assessing of an area to be "clear" (making one pass over a lane in a Mamba; suuuuuuuuuure it's clear.....).

As for the "help me!!" call that you refer to in '97, Kat, that was my Squadron, and in fact I know all the pers involved. They were in the wrong area (geographically challenged), and in my mind, they did the right thing: they contacted higher, and higher called out the pro's (Engineers). And as an aside, if I recall correctly, and assuming the story is true, it was a "cleared" minefield, but the Brit Engineers only disarmed the mines, not pulling them, so the threat wasn't that high, but you tell that to the vehicle crew when they spot mines (oddly enough, because they paid attention in MAT trg). It's called Mine AWARENESS Trg, right??? Not "Self Extraction Out of A Minefield When There Are Resources Available And The Threat Allows an Overnight Wait For The Engineers To Come Out" trg. We aren't talking about taking over your job, any more than we give two shits about guys with a beaver on their green beanie driving around in in an armoured vehicle (though to give you guys your due, you are much better than the Arty and leaps and bounds better than the Infantry.... probably due to being on the heavy stuff (AVLB and Badger's) for so long.)

If you want to protect your jobs so much, and teach the same thing over and over, and over, good for you. There are very capable instructors in all the other arms and even CSS trades that could learn the basics (and more) and teach the basics to their own guys. If you want to stretch your resources even thinner, fill your boots.... And just be thankful that I didn't pull the gloves off about some of the incidents, accidents, etc that engineers have been in (mine strikes, rolling vehicles due to shaky/poor crew-commanding skills, etc), out of respect for the dead and injured. Maybe you could show the same for the "bozo's" and brain-dead armoured, arty, truckers, infantry.....

Al