19D question

Discussion in 'US' started by Gassing_Badgers, Jun 27, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'm doing some work on differences between UK and US training ethos, and I would particularly welcome any input from the board's resident Cav Scouts!

    As I understand it, Cav scout AIT is now incorporated within OSUT, and is essentially a 'round-robin' of relevant level 1 skills to a bsic level - e.g. gunnery, driving, maintenance, tactics etc

    A couple of questions:

    1) Are all cav scout platforms taught at OSUT (CFV, Stryker, Humvee), or is it unit-specific?

    2) Are subsequent qualifications required to qualify as CFV driver/gunner etc, or is it on the basis of 'on the job' training?

    3) Ref question 2), is there a formal syllabus for driver/gunner qualifications?

    Also, if anyone has anything similar for 19K (armor) training, it would be gratefully recieved!
  2. Yes, and has been for over a decade.

    Yes and no. Last I recall, the HMMWV and CFV were the two primary systems taught, though they are exposed to the Strykers. However, they keep tweaking the syllabus. If you'd posted this a few days ago, I could have asked one of my new 19Ds just back from OSUT. I won't be talking to them again for a month.

    There may be training at the unit level. For example, a 19D can be assigned as a driver for the M1068 command track. In such a case, the unit would conduct the training course and certify the trooper to be an operator for the vehicle. There is no separate training course for a 19D to be a driver or gunner of the CFV, all the required skills are taught at OSUT. Before partaking in a gunnery, every crewmember must pass the Bradley Crew Gunnery Skills Test, even if he's the driver. (Task list here: http://www.armyreal.com/forms/pdf/A7522_R.pdf) However, the 'finer points' of gunnery are taught on the job. (There is a related GST for other platforms)

    Syllabus, no (at least,not outside the schoolhouse), standards, yes. It doesn't matter so much how the trooper is taught to do his job, as much as he meets the required criteria as outlined in the manual. To be a 'qualified' gunner, he must pass the BCGST and also attain a passing score on the live fire gunnery range, which measures adherence to procedure and ability to put steel on target in a range of conditions to include degraded systems or NBC environment. To get to the final gunnery table, there are certain gates, or azimuth checks, which must be passed.

    Very similar, except they're not going to come out with a license to drive HMMWV, so again, it will be done at the unit level. They will, however, be exposed to the dismount/'dragoon' role in OSUT, since the reality is that that's what most will be doing when they deploy. Recruits in armor OSUT will sit in all three junior positions of the tank, and will perform in all three positions on the gunnery range, albeit a simplified table, and, again, every tanker must pass the complete tank crew gunnery skills test, no matter what position he holds in the tank. As the officer, I've never had to, for example, remove the firing pin on the main gun except as part of the test, and even though the driver has no need to load the gun, he must still be able to load a Sabot round in six seconds before he can drive in the gunnery.

  3. Ahh. For a minute there I thought I would have to get up and search my rusty brain for knowledge on the 19E task lists. ;-) :?

  4. Thanks - very grateful for the reply!

    My immeadiate thoughts are that they must cram an awful lot into the 6 weeks of the AIT phase (if I have this right?), considering that in the British Army, CVR(T) driver alone is around 5 weeks!

    ...either that, or my views on the British Army's 'course inflation' are being rapidly substantiated!
  5. When I went thru they were still training the driving ranges with 113's with the laterals. The AIT and basic were mixed really so you never really had the feeling of going from basic to AIT just phase to phase 4, I think it was 4 and the only mark of progress was two things. Colored tape on your ear plug case to denote what phase you were in and the old turtle shell helmet liner from the steal pots. I think it was the last week of osut you got to wear the steel pot with cover. Never saw a steel pot after that duty stations all had kevlars.

    So I went through OSUT in 86 at Knox (not so recent), and at the time there was no syllabus per se but they had the old school manuals for levels 1-4 from grades E-1 thru E-4, E-5, E-6, and E-7 accordingly with which they did away with in the 90's. Back then emphasis was training on dismounted TOW system, there was a mounted TOW system but it was a separate training certification and resulted in an 'E9' identifier on your MOS as a M901 qualified. That was not part of the OSUT.

    That said I recall that training units were split between bradley and non bradley scout training. Non bradley training had more emphasis on dismounted operations I think as I promptly got sent to korea.

    In 88-89 they had a bradley transition course at knox and began a "train the trainer" type program.

    Once out in the duty station it's pretty much up to the unit to train you according to their configuration. One interesting weapon system I was trained on was the M21 way back in the day. Unfortunately the unit used the scout pool as it's sniper team, or rather counter sniper team, or as we liked to call the guy that got the first round to allow the commander to button up. Being scouts we never qualified for the "real" army sniper school (you have to be 11 series) and since an armor unit (1/72nd) had no infantry we were it. They did have some rather nifty training centers on Camp Casey but the dragon and sniper courses stick out the most in my mind. Especially the dragon that would burn the crap out of your lips and the smell of that gas from the training tube.

    I'm sure tankers post above is a probably a little more in line with moderns training however and I couldn't speak to what they do nowadays.
  6. It must be said, I learned a hell of a lot more about the tank by operating it in the field for a year than I did in the schoolhouse. 99% of operator-accomplished tasks can be learned very quickly. This is how you drive. This is how you break track. This is how you change a roadwheel. This is how you disconnect the final drive for towing, etc. The remaining 1% (which probably constitute some 80% of the possible tasks) are so varied and rare that you're as well off just learning by demonstration when they actually crop up. "OK, we need to enable the fuel filter bypass in order to get home", "The Delta-P just went out, hop to emergency mode", "We hit a mine, reverse the #2 torsion bar and short-track", "You twat, you hit 'off' instead of 'shutdown.' Runaway engine, hit the fuel cut-off!" The alternative is to cover absolutely everything in the manual in training, most of which will probably be forgotten by graduation, when any sensible TC will make sure to have the manual and BDAR book (Battle damage assessment and recovery) to hand for reference when needed anyway.


  7. I agree 100%.

    I can't help but question our own training regime, in which soldiers are exposed to a variety of irrelevant facts (coolant capacity, FFS! It's either full or not!) nugatory, time-wasting lessons (the 45 minute period on mount/dismount the vehicle drills) and 'time in the hatch' outweighed by smoke breaks and NAAFI breaks.

    Why are we in this mess?
    1) The Army accepting it up the @rrse from litigation culture i.e. the "I never had a lesson on why not to put my fingers in the breech" syndrome, followed by the implementation of a mandatory 2-week course (based on obligatory 45 minute blocks) on how to avoid any digit being caught by any potential piece of machinery.
    2) The school's course authors and training standards group, in which the mentality often degenerates to the creation of rules as means of advancement, and lesson-plan Gestapo (apologies to TSG staff who genuinely see their job as maintaining the warfighting standards of the British Army!)
    3) The British Army's corporate 'we am de best' mentality, in which we seem to have lost track of the fact that training soldiers to win in battle could be a whole lot simpler and more effective...