| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 20 2006 : 01:46:36 AM
|
They wouldn't. To this day there is no way to really quantify training. Training is complex:
Doesn't have to be? Lets take getting a new rifle. You want the trooper to be proficient with it. You cover cleaning, maintaining, operating and malfunctions You measure speed and accuracy. You test for an acceptable level.
1. What should we train? How do we know that the things we select for training -- even if the units could do them perfectly -- add up to battle readiness? Do a needs assessment. Training should be done for individual "things" which are easier to measure than multiple "things". For example can every trooper fire 6 rounds in 60 seconds accurately" The 7th might have discovered the problem Reno described, if it truly existed,as a side benefit to training. You get equipment evaluation by using it, right? The some total of individually trained skills should indicate readiness.
2. How do we measure training? Hours spent? Rounds fired? Miles marched? Wouldn't that depend on what "thing" you were training. For the Carbine you could measure speed and accuracy.
3. How do we measure the effectiveness of the unit, as opposed to the individual soldier? Same example -could all troopers fire accurately X shots in Y seconds
Readiness should be the sum total of training with proficiency
at a determined standard. I won't argue with you that it doesn't always work. If it doesn't work determine what needs to fixed and train for that "thing".
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2006 : 01:59:07 AM
|
quote:
The Seventh had packed all the way from Fort Abraham Lincoln, and by that time had all the field experience with the pack mules anyone could ask for. It would appear that training was not the problem -- something else was.
Vern- I am not sure I buy that. If you are not trained or figure out how to do something right (a form of training), how does repeating the same misstates for months mean that training is not the issue? It sounded to me that packs coming undone never got any better. Either the packer wasn't trained to pack it right or the mule wasn't trained to carry pack during the entire trip to LBH. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2006 : 02:17:57 AM
|
Prolar- quote:
Well no Dc, I have said before and will say again , that my service was strictly peacetime, and I have great admiration for those such as Vern and Ranger who saw actually saw combat. However I believe these forums are for everyone, even draft dodgers such as you.'
Prolar I agree with you and value everyone on the forum. I don't always agree but it wouldn't be a forum without that. I also don't think you need to experience everything firsthand to engage in a discussion or that experience in the present makes you an expert on the past. It might even make you filter things incorrectly based upon your current knowledge. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2006 : 4:11:02 PM
|
quote:
They wouldn't. To this day there is no way to really quantify training. Training is complex:
Doesn't have to be? Lets take getting a new rifle. You want the trooper to be proficient with it. You cover cleaning, maintaining, operating and malfunctions You measure speed and accuracy. You test for an acceptable level
.
But you're only measuring one thing -- marksmanship. And the kind of marksmanship emphasized in that era (shooting at paper targets at known distances) was a long way from the kind of marksmanship needed in combat (shooting at fleeting targets at unknown ranges.)
Let me give the pack mule question as an example -- it has been said the pack train was mismanaged. Instead of one regimental pack train, each company should have had its own, much smaller pack train.
Now, you could have trained privates from now until doomsday to throw diamond hitches, care for sore backs, and so on -- and that wouldn't have got you company-level pack trains. Because that was a policy instituted by the regimental commander, and privates have no power over such things.
quote:
1. What should we train? How do we know that the things we select for training -- even if the units could do them perfectly -- add up to battle readiness?
Do a needs assessment. Training should be done for individual "things" which are easier to measure than multiple "things". For example can every trooper fire 6 rounds in 60 seconds accurately" The 7th might have discovered the problem Reno described, if it truly existed,as a side benefit to training. You get equipment evaluation by using it, right? The some total of individually trained skills should indicate readiness.
That's not a needs assessment. That's a "what can I measure, even if it has nothing to do with combat readiness" assessment. Going back to the pack mule question -- where does that fit in your needs assessment? Where do the actions of Custer himself fit?
quote:
2. How do we measure training? Hours spent? Rounds fired? Miles marched?
quote:
Wouldn't that depend on what "thing" you were training. For the Carbine you could measure speed and accuracy
.
Which brings us back to a "what can I measure, even if it has nothing to do with combat readiness" assessment. You're looking where the light is.
quote:
3. How do we measure the effectiveness of the unit, as opposed to the individual soldier?
Same example -could all troopers fire accurately X shots in Y seconds
That doesn't measure the unit. The unit is far more than the ability of individual privates to perform simple tasks.
quote:
Readiness should be the sum total of training with proficiency
at a determined standard. I won't argue with you that it doesn't always work. If it doesn't work determine what needs to fixed and train for that "thing".
The problem is there was no determined standard, army-wide, and no reporting system to tell you what had been done in training. So after the Little Big Horn, no one could point to a training deficiency. No one could say, "They trained this way, and they should have trained that way" because no records existed of how or what they trained. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2006 : 4:14:37 PM
|
quote:
Vern- I am not sure I buy that. If you are not trained or figure out how to do something right (a form of training), how does repeating the same misstates for months mean that training is not the issue? It sounded to me that packs coming undone never got any better. Either the packer wasn't trained to pack it right or the mule wasn't trained to carry pack during the entire trip to LBH.
First of all, no one has a copy of the 7th Cavalry's training plan and schedule (there wasn't one) and no one has copy of their External Evaluation (there wasn't one of those, either.)
We don't have a good standard for packs coming undone -- even in the best units some packs will come undone.
Nor can we attribute the defeat to packs coming undone, any more than we can attribute it to cases stuck in the chamber. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 2:58:44 PM
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They wouldn't. To this day there is no way to really quantify training. Training is complex:
Doesn't have to be? Lets take getting a new rifle. You want the trooper to be proficient with it. You cover cleaning, maintaining, operating and malfunctions You measure speed and accuracy. You test for an acceptable level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
But you're only measuring one thing -- marksmanship. And the kind of marksmanship emphasized in that era (shooting at paper targets at known distances) was a long way from the kind of marksmanship needed in combat (shooting at fleeting targets at unknown ranges.)
Vern- "But you're only measuring one thing" Your statement is not correct. You can measure individual "things", if they chose to do so. Since they apparently didn't keep good records who knows what they did.
I just finished instructing at our rifle class for issuing rifles to officers. In fact the previous posts were done from there.
If we teach them to take apart the rifle, clean it, put it to together, and function test it, and we observe them in a practical then it has nothing to do with marksmanship. We record in the training record that could do this at an acceptable level. We instruct them how to zero their rifle and observe them making the proper adjustments. Record it. We require them to shoot on the move using proper techniques. Record it. We instruct them how to change magazines and transition to handgun. Record it. We force them to demonstrate their ability by using dummy rounds, multiple targets, and using up all rifle ammo. We record that they demonstrated how to change magazines, handle malfunctions, and transitioned to handgun. Again this is not marksmanship. Finally we get to marksmanship by training various shooting positions and ranges. We test with a speed and accuracy marksmanship test. Timed fire on a TQ-15 target at various ranges and positions and a transition to handgun is included in this course.
We have many training blocks in our academy and at the end of 1 year we believe our officers are field ready. My point is simply this if you break all training to individual "things" it can be simple and should be done that way. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 3:06:00 PM
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What should we train? How do we know that the things we select for training -- even if the units could do them perfectly -- add up to battle readiness?
Do a needs assessment. Training should be done for individual "things" which are easier to measure than multiple "things". For example can every trooper fire 6 rounds in 60 seconds accurately" The 7th might have discovered the problem Reno described, if it truly existed,as a side benefit to training. You get equipment evaluation by using it, right? The some total of individually trained skills should indicate readiness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
That's not a needs assessment. That's a "what can I measure, even if it has nothing to do with combat readiness" assessment. Going back to the pack mule question -- where does that fit in your needs assessment? Where do the actions of Custer himself fit?
Sure it is Vern. If you determine you have a need to maintain sustained rate of fire per carbine and the average trooper can't do it without training and familiarization then there is a need to train. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on January 21 2006 3:13:33 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 3:12:34 PM
|
quote:
Let me give the pack mule question as an example -- it has been said the pack train was mismanaged. Instead of one regimental pack train, each company should have had its own, much smaller pack train.
Now, you could have trained privates from now until doomsday to throw diamond hitches, care for sore backs, and so on -- and that wouldn't have got you company-level pack trains. Because that was a policy instituted by the regimental commander, and privates have no power over such things.
I would suspect that after LBH someone higher up the chain of command would have evaluated both methods of handling pack animals and included it in some manual on how to handle pack animals. It would seem logical to me that my ammo was with me and not miles from me. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 3:13:24 PM
|
quote:
Vern- "But you're only measuring one thing"
Your statement is not correct. You can measure individual "things", if they chose to do so. Since they apparently didn't keep good records who knows what they did.
Now prove that your "individual things" add up to combat effectiveness.
Take the example of the pack train -- show how training privates to throw diamond hitches adds up to a separate train for each company.
quote:
I just finished instructing at our rifle class for issuing rifles to officers. In fact the previous posts were done from there.
If we teach them to take apart the rifle, clean it, put it to together, and function test it, and we observe them in a practical then it has nothing to do with marksmanship. We record in the training record that could do this at an acceptable level. We instruct them how to zero their rifle and observe them making the proper adjustments. Record it. We require them to shoot on the move using proper techniques. Record it. We instruct them how to change magazines and transition to handgun. Record it. We force them to demonstrate their ability by using dummy rounds, multiple targets, and using up all rifle ammo. We record that they demonstrated how to change magazines, handle malfunctions, and transitioned to handgun. Again this is not marksmanship. Finally we get to marksmanship by training various shooting positions and ranges. We test with a speed and accuracy marksmanship test. Timed fire on a TQ-15 target at various ranges and positions and a transition to handgun is included in this course.
Where's your documentation and validation data? How does all this add up to an effective police force?
quote:
We have many training blocks in our academy and at the end of 1 year we believe our officers are field ready. My point is simply this if you break all training to individual "things" it can be simple and should be done that way.
Actually, what you're doing is called "individual training." What's missing is "collective training" which is the key to an effective combat unit. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 3:16:40 PM
|
quote:
I would suspect that after LBH someone higher up the chain of command would have evaluated both methods of handling pack animals and included it in some manual on how to handle pack animals. It would seem logical to me that my ammo was with me and not miles from me.
They might have -- although I point out that Merrill's Marauders in WWII did not have company pack trains.
But what you're talking about is doctrine, not training.
Tell me how, having established a new doctrine for pack trains, you get it instituted and practiced in units -- in the Army of the 1870s. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 3:25:54 PM
|
quote:
Now prove that your "individual things" add up to combat effectiveness.
I have never said that they add up to combat readiness. What I have said is that for training purposes it easier to isolate indicate "things". This is in reference to your complexity of training statement.
What you can prove is that without these individuals skills you are not combat ready. For example if you cannot ride a horse, fire a SAA Colt, don't know how to reload your Trapdoor Springfield, never fired it 5 times or more at a rapid rate then your probably not combat ready in the 1876 Cavalry.
I think your point if any is that one doesn't know the sum total of all individual skills a trooper needs to be combat ready. So far it hasn't stopped us from going into combat. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 3:32:07 PM
|
quote:
I have never said that they add up to combat readiness. What I have said is that for training purposes it easier to isolate indicate "things". This is in reference to your complexity of training statement.
Yes, it is easier -- but all too often those easy to identify things are stressed to the point where the really critical things are ignored.
quote:
What you can prove is that without these individuals skills you are not combat ready. For example if you cannot ride a horse, fire a SAA Colt, don't know how to reload your Trapdoor Springfield, never fired it 5 times or more at a rapid rate then your probably not combat ready in the 1876 Cavalry.
The 7th Cavalry's combat readiness was far worse than its shooting ability would indicate. In any case, we don't -- and can't -- know how well or badly they shot because there are no records.
We do know that the kind of shooting they did in training (if they did any) was poorly chosen for combat training.
quote:
I think your point if any is that one doesn't know the sum total of all individual skills a trooper needs to be combat ready. So far it hasn't stopped us from going into combat.
Which is a tragedy.
But my point is that the shooting ability of the unit was far down on the list of deficiencies that contributed to the defeat. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 3:39:53 PM
|
quote:
They might have -- although I point out that Merrill's Marauders in WWII did not have company pack trains.
But what you're talking about is doctrine, not training.
Tell me how, having established a new doctrine for pack trains, you get it instituted and practiced in units -- in the Army of the 1800's.
The Regimental v Company pack train is not my argument. Although I would be be favor of the Company use of pack animals. If you have items falling off pack animals in close proximity to the enemy you have a problem. Since the pack train survived then the problem(s) can be identified and potentially corrected by training. If the hitches came undone then work on that. If you can't control the animal another training issue may be involved. Maybe someone should be trained to follow the pack train and pick up stuff so the indians don't find it. Certainly several of these could be addressed through training. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 3:43:57 PM
|
Myself, I can only address the pack mule issue. You said the diamond hitch was key, not me, and I never reduced it to that level. So long as it held, a granny knot would have improved things. In the 7th, it was a bigger deal, a bigger problem, entirely.
Start with what was carried. We're not certain, but it seems Custer had handguns and rifle that could not use the standard rounds. So Custer carried his own ammo and so did a few others. Would Custer order the train to himself because of that when viewing an unexpectedly larger fight than anticipated? Who knows. Does it make sense to allow that sort of thing? Calhoun carried his cake, we think, and it strikes us that much could have been left at the dumps and back at the fort.
But how much other stuff deemed essential wasn't remotely. Custer must always fall under attention here, given he felt a band essential, and that stove on the Yellowstone, and his dress uniforms for the victory arrival. Certainly booze and other stuff had no business and no right to be on a military mission dependent on speed and mobility. I don't care what the manuals allowed, or tradition. Commanders certainly had the ability to say yea or nay and enforce it. The train is only as fast as its slowest elements. Otherwise, it becomes a part of projected force that needs to be perpetually defended and limits the distances the fighting units can go from it. That's why having backup with you rocks, as Crook had.
You cannot learn how to pack and run a train in media res. That takes training jaunts around the fort, overnights, and see what works and what doesn't, what holds or not, and whether wooden boxes or large leather and cloth bags work better and for what. Then, of course, that has to be obtained. Crook made it a study, somewhat like Rickover and even Speer studied a process down to the lowest unit in order to improve the product to the need.
This all should have been part of training, but was apparently viewed as punishment detail, which with badly trained and handled mules it must have been. And I contend it just as important as anything else in the long run. It's boring, has no dramatic archaeology, and no sigh inducing paintings - say, "Burkman Adjusts Mule's Load While Hawking Phlegm" to contend with "Thoughts of Libby" - but it is important. And Custer and Custerphiles avoid it because it isn't thrilling fun but work. Ain't it the way of the world? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on January 21 2006 4:25:12 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 4:05:05 PM
|
quote:
The 7th Cavalry's combat readiness was far worse than its shooting ability would indicate. In any case, we don't -- and can't -- know how well or badly they shot because there are no records.
We do know that the kind of shooting they did in training (if they did any) was poorly chosen for combat training.
So when the officers are sitting around and talking about how good the Regiment was are they referring to actions on the parade ground?
It would seem that all the officers didn't know how bad off they were as they left Fort Abraham Lincoln. Was this common place during this time and therefore they didn't know or were they negligent in becoming combat ready?
I am inclined to Agree with DC that the "Reno issue" of shooting the Trapdoor Springfield 5 times rapidly should have been discovered
during practice before going to battle. Either it wasn't a prevalent concern or there was negligence. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on January 21 2006 4:08:59 PM |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 4:30:01 PM
|
quote:
The Regimental v Company pack train is not my argument. Although I would be be favor of the Company use of pack animals. If you have items falling off pack animals in close proximity to the enemy you have a problem. Since the pack train survived then the problem(s) can be identified and potentially corrected by training. If the hitches came undone then work on that. If you can't control the animal another training issue may be involved. Maybe someone should be trained to follow the pack train and pick up stuff so the indians don't find it. Certainly several of these could be addressed through training.
The idea of having a pack train is so you will have what you need, when you need it. An occasional lost pack is an annoyance -- a pack train that is inaccessable is a disaster. To the extent that the pack train influenced the outcome, it was by not having ammunition well forward where needed. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 4:32:51 PM
|
quote:
Actually, what you're doing is called "individual training." What's missing is "collective training" which is the key to an effective combat unit.
The thread here is the Springfield Carbine so I am taking that approach here. The issue of a failure to function after 5 quick shots is not a collective training issue. It is a individual carbine issue easily discovered if it existed during individual training.
Within my Department we also train in Sector, Regional, Field Operations Division , Department, and other Agencies levels of "collective training". Our role and function is different than the military but I can relate my own personal experience as the receiver of training in the military and for the most part it is the same methods. The experience I don't have in the military is the design of the training but since I took it I can compare what I received in methodology and substance. I am also sure the USMC believes it is combat ready. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 4:33:55 PM
|
quote:
So when the officers are sitting around and talking about how good the Regiment was are they referring to actions on the parade ground?
That's basically correct. And not only the offiers of the 7th, but most regiments were that way -- there was no system of training in place at that time.
quote:
It would seem that all the officers didn't know how bad off they were as they left Fort Abraham Lincoln. Was this common place during this time and therefore they didn't know or were they negligent in becoming combat ready?
It was common place. Remember, there was no system of officer training either, beyond West Point.
You'll recall I asked how, if doctrine were change, the change was to be implemented? It would be the officers who implemented it -- but they had no system of periodic return to school as we have now. To implement a doctrinal change -- and have it actually working in every unit -- was almost impossible in those days. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 4:39:27 PM
|
quote:
An occasional lost pack is an annoyance -
Come on Vern it is one of the reasons given for attacking sooner rather than later as planned(discovery of the the lost pack items). Al thought one would suspect that a trail of hundreds of shod horses might be a clue also. It must certainly rise to a higher level than annoyance. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 4:43:37 PM
|
quote:
It was common place. Remember, there was no system of officer training either, beyond West Point.
You'll recall I asked how, if doctrine were change, the change was to be implemented? It would be the officers who implemented it -- but they had no system of periodic return to school as we have now. To implement a doctrinal change -- and have it actually working in every unit -- was almost impossible in those days.
You can supply the proper military term but we have directives. Certainly even in those times there were general orders that could have been issued. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 4:49:30 PM
|
quote:
Come on Vern it is one of the reasons given for attacking sooner rather than later as planned(discovery of the the lost pack items). Al thought one would suspect that a trail of hundreds of shod horses might be a clue also. It must certainly rise to a higher level than annoyance.
Let me point out there was other evidence they had been detected -- several groups of indians saw them. Lost pack or no lost pack, some indians were aware they were there.
And the pack fell where? In the trail of "hundreds of shod horses!!"
If there had been no pack fall, the trail would have been found by the same indians who found the pack.
|
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 4:51:58 PM
|
quote:
You can supply the proper military term but we have directives. Certainly even in those times there were general orders that could have been issued.
To issue a manual is one thing, to put it into practice is another. How would Emory Upton, in Washington, know how Elmo Zipper was handling his pack train in Arizona? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 5:10:14 PM
|
Crook could have cared less for doctrine and manual. He wanted good results as easily as possible, and I think many in the military to this day have the same attitude and good on 'em. What works, works. He did it, and Custer and others clearly should have.
That one box on that one trail isn't the issue. That one box is only recalled because it gave Custer an excuse to go forward, but they'd been losing and relaiming packs from day one, a huge waste of time and energy, and that is VERY important. It was a horror show of ineptitude and badly done.
It's unimportant what manual or official Army culture in Washington thought should be done. There were, apparently, many common sense approaches that didn't require much overall to fix serious problems the Army had in its Indian warfare, and the good field officers noted and did something. Further, the likes of Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant would admire and encourage that sort of stuff, because that was their attitude as well. Does it work better? Yeah, you do it. The Hallecks, McClellans, and Pope's didn't get that.
Whatever needed to be done, by the time the manual covering it would come out, it would be irrelevant in the 19th century. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 5:15:24 PM
|
quote:
Crook could have cared less for doctrine and manual. He wanted good results as easily as possible, and I think many in the military to this day have the same attitude and good on 'em. What works, works. He did it, and Custer and others clearly should have.
But the system and culture that let Crook do what he thought was best also let Custer do what he thought was best.
quote:
That one box on that one trail isn't the issue. That one box is only recalled because it gave Custer an excuse to go forward, but they'd been losing and relaiming packs from day one, a huge waste of time and energy, and that is VERY important. It was a horror show of ineptitude and badly done.
Nor are any lost boxes the issue -- they had no effect on the outcome.
quote:
It's unimportant what manual or official Army culture in Washington thought should be done. There were, apparently, many common sense approaches that didn't require much overall to fix serious problems the Army had in its Indian warfare, and the good field officers noted and did something. Further, the likes of Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant would admire and encourage that sort of stuff, because that was their attitude as well. Does it work better? Yeah, you do it. The Hallecks, McClellans, and Pope's didn't get that.
The attitude that what works is what's important is admirable -- but up to the Little Big Horn, what Custer did worked. He had had success, and everyone thought he was a great cavalry leader.
As I said, the culture that allowed Crook to do what he thought was best also allowed Custer to do what he thought was best.
quote:
Whatever needed to be done, by the time the manual covering it would come out, it would be irrelevant in the 19th century.
Perfectly true. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2006 : 5:17:16 PM
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. How do we measure the effectiveness of the unit, as opposed to the individual soldier?
Same example -could all troopers fire accurately X shots in Y seconds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That doesn't measure the unit. The unit is far more than the ability of individual privates to perform simple tasks.
So give me your criteria for combat readiness assessment. In the above example if only one trooper in ten can produce the minimum expectation then I would be inclined to think the unit is not combat ready.
Again you are going to the effectiveness of the unit. I am sticking with a simple training and practical application testing of the Springfield. If they hadn't even fired it 5 times rapidly what are the chances that that they were highly trained in other basics skills. My question to you orginally was how did they know they were combat ready. Te answer was they didn't. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Carbine
