US Army Modernization Strategy

jsport said:
defensescoop.com

Army units able to communicate more dispersed in recent exercise

Communications technologies allowed forces to disperse their staff sections on the battlefield, enabling smaller command posts and more mobile formations.
defensescoop.com defensescoop.com
Click to expand...
defensescoop.com

Army used pair of concurrent exercises to test distributed command and control nodes

The Army concurrently ran its Warfighter Exercise with Yama Sakura, a first in the Japanese-American annual event's 40-year history.
defensescoop.com defensescoop.com
 
www.dvidshub.net

Enhancing Soldier Proficiency: Addressing Inefficiencies in Army Training

The United States Army has faced criticism in recent years regarding the inefficiency of its training programs and the inability of Soldiers to master essential tasks such as marksmanship. The Department of Defense (DOD) reported that the military faces significant challenges in protecting U.S...
www.dvidshub.net www.dvidshub.net

Insufficient marksmanship training in the U.S. Army is an issue that requires immediate attention. The current standard, which only requires Soldiers to hit 57% of their targets, is not enough to guarantee individual proficiency and the success of military operations. The absence of proper training has led to a pervasive culture of inadequate marksmanship skills among military personnel. The statistics reveal that the U.S. military fired around 250,000 rounds for every insurgent killed during the global war on terrorism (Buncombe, 2012). While this number does not consider factors like weapon system, caliber, or employment method, it highlights that Soldiers cannot accurately hit their targets, and leaders lack the competence to use their assets efficiently.

The limited focus on marksmanship proficiency in Army units is a problem that senior leaders need to address. A recent evaluation of 838 Soldiers in March 2019 showed that only 7.6% of the tested population achieved at least 80% of the correct answers on a preliminary marksmanship evaluation, highlighting the need for comprehensive training in marksmanship fundamentals (Tashima, 2020). Proficiency in marksmanship is essential for Soldiers to use direct-fire weapons systems and engage the enemy effectively. Yet over 90% of the tested Soldiers could not pass even a basic marksmanship evaluation.

The Army Research Institute displayed that it is not uncommon for the Army Rifle Qualification to be the only marksmanship training that Soldiers receive (Dyer, 2016). Understanding the training requirements prior to live fire ranges is crucial for Soldiers to be proficient in their skills and for leaders to have the knowledge to improve the lethality of their formations. Live fire ranges may include instructional elements, but their primary purpose is to provide practical application, refinement, and validation of skills already learned through other forms of training.

One possible way to assess the correlation between marksmanship skills and other individual Soldiering skills is by examining the percentage of Soldiers who have earned the Expert Infantryman's Badge (EIB). This badge is awarded to Infantry Soldiers who can successfully perform various basic Soldiering tasks under testing conditions. However, over the past four years, only 21% of Soldiers who attempted to earn the EIB were successful, meaning that only one out of every five Soldiers can demonstrate mastery of these essential skills. Additionally, it is worth noting that the Expert Infantryman's Badge (EIB) is not the only badge awarded for demonstrating proficiency in basic skills. Another example is the Expert Soldier Badge (ESB). However, compared to the EIB, the ESB is awarded to an even smaller percentage of Soldiers, with only 10% of Soldiers earning this badge.
 
www.army.mil

EIB/ESB/EFMB not just for the young

The EIP ( Expert Infantry Badge) is a badge given to soldiers after completing special training. This isn’t a badge that most soldiers, especially those...
www.army.mil www.army.mil

..why technology to support as much participation as possible is a good idea.
 

Loading…

www.military.com

Stringent rules for badge testing make the process incredibly time-consuming for units, and some on the active-duty side are lucky to conduct one test a year. In the Reserve and National Guard, testing is virtually nonexistent because of logistical hurdles.

For troops, the expert infantry, soldier and medical badges are prestigious and can give them a leg up over others competing for promotions. (should be incentivized somehow & nearly universal)

Leadership has stressed that more opportunities to earn a badge would mean more training for soldiers on the essentials: radio communications, land navigation, treating combat wounds, and weapons proficiency.

The Army is rolling all tests into one event while keeping the three unique badges intact, allowing units to share resources and opening opportunities for recipients of different badges to grade the test, lifting a massive logistical burden for units.

The Expert Infantry Badge, or EIB, is awarded to infantrymen who complete a grueling multi-day gantlet testing their skills in basic combat tasks, such as land navigation and weapons competency. The Expert Soldier Badge, or ESB, was introduced in 2019 and is effectively earned the same way as the EIB, but is awarded to non-infantry jobs. The Expert Field Medical Badge, or EFMB, is mostly the same as the other two badges but adds specific combat trauma treatment tasks for medics.
But a major factor is the culture in units, where leaders may have a hard time motivating non-combat troops to spend a lot of time training for combat tasks.

"Biggest challenge is motivating non-infantry folks to try and get their ESBs. It's new and not ingrained in the non-infantry culture the way EIB is part of the infantry culture," one senior Army officer told Military.com on the condition of anonymity to speak freely on the topic. "It's required a lot of education, motivation, and change management for it to take off -- we aren't where we need to be yet."

Some leaders in non-combat units also might not be comfortable with skills tested for the badges and don't want to risk failing the event in front of their soldiers. (leaders could be tested discretely by roving unassociated Mobile Training Teams)
"They see it as an unnecessary reputational risk," the senior leader added. "It's safer not to test. What does resonate is telling folks that being one of the first to earn it will set them apart in future promotion boards."

But Terenas stressed to Military.com that testing more isn't "about the badge." Instead, it's about "sets and reps" for skills all soldiers should have. However, he said that the number of badges awarded is one of the easiest surface-level ways to see how ready a unit is to fight.

The tests themselves have a great deal of overlap, which should have made it simple to roll them together. But small differences in each of the tests have required detailed adjusting. Medics will perform most tasks with other soldiers but break away to conduct their specific job tests for the EFMB.

"We had this legacy system that took too long. We had badges that had the same damn tasks, but they all had different standards," Terenas explained.

The existing process of training for and testing for a badge takes about 45 days, which can be a tall order for units. Terenas' trial program shortens the whole event to less than two weeks -- seven days for training and five days for testing.

At first, there was pushback because the changes could have meant more soldiers would fail the tests.

"I'm thinking, 'Holy cow, this is going to be a disaster,'" Terenas said.

But pass rates actually went up: The idea is that if there are more tests, soldiers will train regularly during their downtime knowing an opportunity to earn a badge is always around the corner. Terenas said the pass rate now is 23%, up from 18%.

Yet there were problems with the medical badge during the first trial run. The badge exam includes a written test that goes over a lot of basic medical knowledge, but it also includes advanced questions that can be overwhelming for a junior soldier. Soldiers get two attempts to pass it, and it was a prerequisite for the hands-on exam.

During a test run, at Fort Polk, Louisiana, only one medic out of 65 passed the written test. That person didn't end up earning the badge.

But in a tweak during a subsequent trial, soldiers who failed the written test were allowed to go through the hands-on portion. They got their second attempt at the written test near the end of the process, before the 12-mile ruck march. With the new rules in place for a group of 120 soldiers, roughly 80 passed the written test.

The key to getting more medics through the written exam was setting more time aside for mandatory study halls. Terenas said he needed about 15 hours of study to pass the test.

Now because there's always a test around the corner, instead of maybe once a year, soldiers are constantly training for the test, saying that during downtime, troops are training on weapon systems and radios.

When asked whether cavalry scouts could combine their spur ride -- a gantlet similar to the badges, but it awards a set of spurs that can sometimes be worn as part of a soldier's uniform -- with an ESB event, Terenas said that would "just be greed."
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom