Should MAT instruction be the exclusive domain of Cbt Engrs?

[Kat Stevens]

At no point did I claim to be high and mighty, as I am painfully aware that I am neither.  where did I use the words "bozo" or "strat"?    Where did I use the word "useless"?  You can't always stay on hardstand, it's true, and I sure understand the importance of the mission of taking a leak in long grass. You're right, driving over the ground in a mamba and hoping your arse doesn't end up around your ears is NOT clearing an area.  Whoever came up with that, it sure as shyte wasn't me.  Absolutely, those guys did the right thing, that's what we were there for.  If they followed their SANDI procedures, they would have vacated their vehicle and self extracted to a safe area.  A minefield is an obstacle.  All good obstacles are covered by fire.  By sitting in their vehicle waiting for help, they put themselves in more danger.  I didn't say you wanted our jobs. When it comes to crawling on your belly like a reptile, with a million and one ways to fukkitup going through your head, the more the merrier, jump on in.  I said the training should be done by us.  Jaded by repetition?  Does that apply to you experts in the CTC as well?  Do you deliver an inferior lecture because you've taught it a thousand times?  You're missing my only point here ENTIRELY:  nobody can teach it better than us.  Nobody can teach D&M and tactical driving like the armd can.  That was my only point.  Please indicate where I used the term "brain dead".  The idea I have is that information gets diluted as it leaches down, like a copy of a copy of a copy..............
  Never mind, I'll just go to bed......

 

[George Wallace]

Kat

It was linus who raised my hackles back in Reply # 14 with some of his condensending statements.   Add a few more innocent remarks, us Musleheads begin blowing gaskets.   Now if you, like Allan, also had the Muff Coupling disconnected during the night, you too as Burgerpanzerpioneer would be upset.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Well, I guess I'm talking out my arse, George.  I'll just shut up and keep my opinions to myself.  Besides, like a birthday present, it's the thought that counts.... ;D

 

[ZipperHead]

Kat, it's nice to see you took my post so well  I didn't neccesarily direct all of it you, but yours was the only name I mentioned. It was mostly Linus' attitude that annoyed me, but you were also involved in the tag-team effort.

I will never defend an entire group (i.e the Armour Corps) because I know we have our share of sh!t-pumps (instructors, leaders, followers, students, NCO's, officers, etc), but I also try to limit my attacks against an entire group (i.e. Engineers). Believe me, I will NEVER defend the whole cadre of instructors at CTC, and within that, the Armour School, saying that no-one here has ever taught an inferior lecture. I pride myself on trying to present the best class that I can, but alas, many people "phone in" their classes. That's the way life is, particularly in this current military/society that rewards mediocrity (did I hear anybody say "IPS's and 5 year extentions all around!!"??) I sat through a few brutal MAT classes, taught by what I would consider to be inexperienced or complacent instructors (much in the same way that you probably sat through brutal classes taught by crewmen.....). To say that I COULDN'T teach a MAT class as well as an Engineer is insulting. If I had the right training, I could teach it. Much in the same way that an Engineer could teach Leopard D&M or LAV gunnery. I may not have the same experience, but I could teach it. 

I think that the military as a whole needs to expand our brain-housing groups a little bit, and realize that a lot of what we do isn't rocket-science, and that we can share the work-load, and hopefully thereby increase the quality of soldiers out there. To limit one thing (basic MAT or basic driving skills) to only one Corps is going to be the death (literally and figuratively) of us. Press the CFSME to start running Train the Trainer courses, and make sure that the trainers are well-taught and they can go back and ensure their soldiers aren't only exposed to things like MAT once a year, crammed into a Friday afternoon just before stand-down. Before MLOC/ELOC/?LOC, we used to do Continuation Trg (or as we old guys like to call it, just plain old training) all the time, not one burst transmission just before April 1st rolls around, and everybody and their dog is scrambling to book SME's. In Edmonton, for one MAT session, we had to make do with a few videos and a plastic board with the mines "embossed" into it (hard to explain, but I think you Sappers know what I mean), because the proper resources weren't available. Whether we sh!t the bed on ordering them in time, or 1CER didn't have the good stuff is moot: what kind of trg value do you think we got out of it??? I could have pushed "Play" on the VCR and waffled on about the fakey mines to the same effect......

Anyway, let's hope that the future (which, by the way, with all the Distance/Distributed Learning and such that is being worked on here at CTC, which I am part of for the Armour side, where anybody will be able to access the different "assets" (video clips, Flash animations, lectures, links, references, etc), is going to help people brush up on whatever they need to) will bring more training of things we need (MAT, wpns handling, combat-style First Aid, basic fieldcraft) and less of what we don't (environmental, diversity, sensitivity, etc, etc). To limit ourselves to the old ways ("we hold the knowledge, and knowledge is power, so you ain't getting any!!!") isn't going to bring us further ahead, it will hold us back.

Anyway, have a good one,

Al

 

[Kat Stevens]

Al,

  You and I are two dogs circling the same bone here.   I agree that there are Engineers out there I wouldn't trust to remove rust from end connectors on my (former) AVLB.   There has been a tendency for people to think that any sapper can teach this stuff. See my euclidean geometry comment a few miles back.   The teachers need to be screened, tested, and re-certified at a minimum of 2 year intervals, you can't teach if you're not current.   What we need is a mine warfare training centre, under the CFSME umbrella, and taught by HA/ HB/ HC qualified Engineers.   Keep the gene pool strong, if you will.   I also have sat through some absolute crap MAT lectures, from my own people.   Rest assured, they heard about it afterwards.   I guess what I'm driving at, and missing hopelessly, is that if something is not in your MOC specs, I really don't see how you can teach it as effectively as those who do.   I have deferred to ammo techs, tankers, and bayonets, as necessary.   Sorry, I'm getting a terrible migraine, and am becoming slightly incoherent here....

Addendum:  Nothing is more frustrating than teaching something you love, and seeing that absolutely nobody is paying any attention.  I was never the keenest parade square soldier as a sapper, but even those people who didn't like me will tell you that I was very good at what I did, and took it deadly seriously, because that's what MAT  is, deadly serious....

 

[McG]

Mambas/Nyalas are NOT used to clear routes or to "prove" routes.  Not only is this not doctrine, it is contrary to DCDS and J3 Engr direction, and it is an excellent way to get one's self killed or to get following forces killed.

There is absolutely no reason to mandate "H" guys to run MAT Instr Trg.  MAT is not about neutralizing, disarming, nor destroying mines.  It is about teaching soldiers to avoid mine threats and to extract themselves from a mined area.

I think agreement is forming that non-Engr could capably instruct MAT with an annual MAT Instr Trg.  However, with the occasional trained soldier looking like a "bozo" in high mine threat areas, is the current MAT standard high enough?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Mambas/Nyalas are NOT used to clear routes or to "prove" routes.   Not only is this not doctrine, it is contrary to DCDS and J3 Engr direction, and it is an excellent way to get one's self killed or to get following forces killed.

There is absolutely no reason to mandate "H" guys to run MAT Instr Trg.   MAT is not about neutralizing, disarming, nor destroying mines.   It is about teaching soldiers to avoid mine threats and to extract themselves from a mined area.

Mambas HAVE been used in the past as a means of "proving" a route.   I know, because I was there, were you?   Not using H guys to teach at an all arms mine warfare training centre is a gross misuse of a resource.  If that is your position, why is some kind of H qual required for a position in a MAC overseas?   Same job, just higher profile position.   Wait, I just answered my own question, never mind.

PS.. what I'm trying to say, and failing, is that a central, STANDARDIZED mine warfare training centre be established.  I'll even give you the level 1 MAT thing, but one more time, throwing the pam at any 5B qual person and saying "here, teach this" is unacceptable, negligent, even.  it's just too frickin important to be treated like a 5  minute shop safety briefing.

 

[old fart]

I thought I had said my brief piece on this but feel compelled to add a little more.

Firstly I have all the H trg on offer and yes used the skills on operations on and off over many years.  Even received some high risk pay serving in EOD 24, how can that be "we only picked up souvenirs" as mentioned on another thread.

And yes like a few others lurking around on these formums I'm a long time combat engineer with experience on 9 varied overseas operations.

On that note I don't support Kat's view that it should fall solely to H qual pers.  Any combat engineer in a leadership position should be able to teach this. 

As an aside, we have capable combat engineers and I fully expect them to do their job.  For a while there was an encroachment into some of our bread and butter tasks (combat engineering) by the some Sapper EOD types of which I'm one, but I always fought that off.  Back in the nineties a trend was emerging that you needed to be H this that and the other to deal with what was basically a combat engineer task, I never supported that view. In general our EOD/Combat Engineer capabilities & structure in the past was made to work on operations and as result we have been very successful, when required H pers were either present or available.  And although I'm out of the loop, I can see that things are continuing to develop and that is of course "a good thing".

Back to MAT which after all stems from a bread and butter aspect of our combat engineer trade. 

Teaching it is one thing, but credibility while teaching it is another.  I do not see how a non combat engineer can have much of that stood in front of a MAT class.  Just as much as if I was parachuted in to teach gunnery.

What we do currently works, so why attempt to fix something that is not broke...I don't think leaving it to the Sappers is over tasking anybody, our army just ain't that big and we have the Sappers to take care of it. 

Could other "all arms" folks be trained yes,are their pers equally capable, yes.  But apart from background knowledge you have the drama of keeping them current....Sappers remain current because the folks who rightly end up teaching this are the Sgt's, MCpl's and Cpl's.   

Having said that I believe that roll of our own Mine Info Center (currently located in NDHQ/J3) should be expanded, and as others have mentioned become a sub unit of CFSME with oversight on MAT Trg.

As for the other other aspects contained within this thread, I will resist the urge to chuck brown stuff around at this time.

CHIMO-AIRBORNE-UBIQUE

 

[Kat Stevens]

I just don't understand the position that you wouldn't want the most qualified guys out there teaching this stuff.  Better, more qualified instructor equals better student, no?  Yes, any sapper should be able to teach this stuff, but not all of then can.  You only needed 70% on your BMD final to pass, remember?  Also, if you're not going to utilise the experience of the H guys, what else are we going to do with them?  Ops Sgt, SQMS, Trg NCO can be filled by non H guys, freeing them up to pass on their knowledge.

 

[McG]

Kat,
I know what has happened in the past.  We've pulled our heads out of our backsides on this issue.  The Mamba/Nyala do not "prove" routes.  The vehicles are not invincible, and travelling a rte (even 10 times) does not prove that there are no mines.

We will recce a rte in order to determine the mine threat, and a comd decision will be made as to how it will be designated or if a clearance operation will be conducted.  Much credit to the intelligence of our recce sgts, typically when we said we were "proving" rtes, we were actually doing recce.  The distinction is important.

PS.. what I'm trying to say, and failing, is that a central, STANDARDIZED mine warfare training centre be established.

Couldn't the CERs do this for each area?

throwing the pam at any 5B qual person and saying "here, teach this" is unacceptable, negligent, even.  it's just too frickin important to be treated like a 5  minute shop safety briefing.

Nobody has been suggesting this is acceptable.

The H qual is superflous for MAT trg because we are not training the other arms to neutralize, disarm, or destroy.  We are already streched thin just manning EOD sections. 

  . . . and our MICC mine guy has no H quals.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So for the rest of us non Engineer types, will someone define exactly what an 'H' guy is?

 

[Kat Stevens]

The qualification codes for varying levels of EOD begin with "H".  Basic EOD is HA, etc.... sorry for the insider speak...

 

[Mineguy]

Hey Guys Is the CF and UK still using the term MAT? Just for example In the Civi Demining world in all orgs including the UN for example the term mat was years long ago changed to MRE....Most orgs in civi street dont even have a Demining/EOD qualifed person teaching MRE as its a waste of resources much needed elsewhere, its usually an employed normal joe or jane from country X who attends an MRE course, sometimes the same person may be even found doing general Mine action survey for the orgs at the same time. In the end though again no N&D or anything not needed or that may make trouble in grey areas is taught, only how to adopt good mine sense, ident a mine or UXO etc, report a dangerous area, get out of trouble...and the self extraction the cf is getting is alot better then what is being taught outside where they dont even go into it this detailed....in the end this is if all is going well done by average back bush travelling african nationals who have recently only learned to use a satalite telephone or cell phone, radio, and they do VERY well when confident... so I cant see why looking back this cant be taught by anyone in any trade in the service with a proper Army wide MRE course.

 

[McG]

MRE?
We still use "MAT."

 

[old fart]

The UK still calls it MAT also.

In addition we are talking about the "training" of soldiers not the briefing of civilians.

 

[Mineguy]

Well it can be viewed many ways   I guess if you want but just from my own experience after all the army tours : Us people out here specailzed doing Civi demining and eod getting alot of hands on and good experiences on what is actually for us a continous overseas tour (most ex Engrs and eod) we get to see the development of Mat trng Both Military and Civi around the world and UN and NGO versions of standard wide mre/mat courses. I have seen 22 year old University students from europe taught how to conduct MAT/MRE and they are training them to do alot more then a simple breifing. They follow a lesson plan and format and cover all the points needed to train/ brief the persons attending and do just that...Its the same meat and potatoes as what the CF is teaching take away the extraction because it can cause all sorts of problems and make 3rd world people think they can do their own backyard demining possibly due to   low education and bush life etc and can have insurance implications etc....I still stick with my opinion that it is a waste of resources in the long run to keep employing engrs "all the time" to do this although yes it may be better from the subject matter knowledge, questions, proffessional development and we have the most experience in this area   standpoint but i dont see why a standard army wide mre/mat course cant bring any JLC qual soldier up to the standard where he or she can pass a course, therein after follow a lesson plan and teach the basics to "train" soldiers as you say, or "brief" them on how to conduct themselves in trouble and stay out of trouble in a possible mined area, its the same thing in my opinion....The best thing to come out of a standard course would be to "train" the Instructor (even some engineers who may need it)  how to instruct a proper standard across the board MAT/MRE class by the numbers....and be taught how to conduct this properly, having the right lesson material and training aids and to have control checkups to ensure its being done right. Is simply not rocket science and I can see how there would possibly be some trade envy as to dishing the responsability out in a Forces wide qual to instruct mat would get to some people. It still seems like a waste of resources having this the sole domain of the Engrs although it should in my opinion always be "under" Engr Direction from NDHQ and I stick with idea that the UK plan is a good one! 8)..but its arguable of course with others and open for much debate! :warstory:

 

[Spr.Earl]

Whats so hard about teaching self extraction along with a little bit of recognition of the A.P.,A.T. mines you may encounter in your A.O.R.?

 

[KevinB]

FWIW (to have a non Engineer get back in).

I am failing to see HOW a M/Cpl or Sgt in Armour or Infantry cannot teach MAT  -- I snored thru a BRUTAL MAT 1 lessor prior to going to Afghan that was run AUTROCIOUSLY by 1 CER - shitty classroom - shitty teacher (sorry Mama...) well maybe she did not suck - but she was too quiet - and she beat me on Mountain Man (albiet barely) so I am naturally suspicious of her 

Half the problem with MAT overseas is it get maginalized by many other threats -- or some idiot that can't read a map take a two vehicle patrol up a dried out creek bed that happen to be full of old mine that had run down the hill...  (Still surprised I am here still)
A lot of MAT issues are also HEADUPASS issues.

 

[McG]

. . . she beat me on Mountain Man (albiet barely) so I am naturally suspicious of her  

She beat a lot of people at MM 03.

I'd like to think we are doing a better job now for TF ORION by doing MAT where it sould be done: in the field (less a few classroom stuff done in a tent).

 

[Kat Stevens]

FWIW (to have a non Engineer get back in).

I am failing to see HOW a M/Cpl or Sgt in Armour or Infantry cannot teach MAT   -- I snored thru a BRUTAL MAT 1 lessor prior to going to Afghan that was run AUTROCIOUSLY by 1 CER - shitty classroom - shitty teacher (sorry Mama...) well maybe she did not suck - but she was too quiet - and she beat me on Mountain Man (albiet barely) so I am naturally suspicious of her  

Half the problem with MAT overseas is it get maginalized by many other threats -- or some idiot that can't read a map take a two vehicle patrol up a dried out creek bed that happen to be full of old mine that had run down the hill...   (Still surprised I am here still)
A lot of MAT issues are also HEADUPASS issues.

My point exactly: NOT JUST ANYONE CAN TEACH THIS STUFF!  More qualified teacher, better source quality instruction, no?