Adapting to battlefield experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army is revamping its basic training regimen for the first time in three decades by nixing five-mile runs and bayonet drills in favor of zigzag sprints and honing core muscles.
I saw this on yahoo..not sure how I feel about it. For me the bayonet assault course still stick out in my mind. Cramming a dull ass piece of metal into a hard ass tire and trying to actually cause damage was a rather violent act, and our DS did not leave us alone until we actaully got into it and showed some genuine aggression, which for me, after living in a bay with 50 or so other bitchy, whining, annoying females was not hard to do. Some soldiers have never done a violent act in their life, and BAC kind of introduces you to that. BUT if people that have been deployed 6 and 7 times recommend these changes, then okay. They certainly have more experience than me.
Personally I thought using the bayonets was pretty neat, I felt like it was part of the Army's history and I was getting to use it like thousands before me had.
Posts: 758 | Location: Fort Carson, CO | Registered: 12 March 2010
I think the bayonet is a politically incorrect device, but one of importance in a heavy conflict.
I fear that if we drop these "obsolete" skills, we will have to learn them the hard way later on.
The 5 mile runs, I can see dropping if not really needed. Running further can always be picked up later, there are plenty who run outside the military. If nobody trains with the bayonet, who will know how to train future generations?
Of course, there probably aren't many who actually are proficient with the weapon these days. I know I'm not.
I don't think they should have really changed basic training. I mean, yeah, we did need to stop training like we're in Vietam.
But the changes they want to make is kinda pointless. I was looking at the article mentioned here and the one in the recent Army Times, and I couldn't believe they dropped the amount of time training some really important things and put more time into training in kinda obsolete things, like CBRN. I know that there is always the threat for NBC threats so keep the training but there is no need to put more emphasis on things we haven't seen in along time.
Yes, dropping running long distances in basic is probably a good thing, don't remember the last time besides PT that I've run long distances in the Army. Granted its a good way to build cardio, endurance and stamina, but so is the core training they are talking about.
Another thing I don't like about the new training is the lack of discipline. I went through in 2003, so I know it wasn't as rugged and tough as you older posters, but Benning still wasn't that easy. The quality of soliders coming through these days in terms of discipline has slacked and makes the jobs of the NCO that are receiving them harder (as we've seen on these forums). Being in Recruiter school I'm close to Drill Sergeant school, and from what I've heard from them you need an act of congress to get into someone these days.
I'm not saying its all on Basic Training but there used to be a time when basic was the hardest thing in the Army and when you came out on the other side you were disciplined, but not brain washed. You were still you, but you had respect for those above you.
If I recall correctly (which could be wrong because this was almost 10 years ago), we did bayonet training for two days. Maybe if it were just a short (1/2 day training) to familiarize soldiers with the history of the weapon?
And I hated distance running, so you can probably guess what my opinion is about that
The only time I did any distance running in Iraq was when I was off duty and ran because there was nothing else to do. I did basically sprints when getting in position for the few times we were told that there was intel of an attack in our area.
I was discussing this recently. The Army seem's to be behind the curve on fitness things such as LSD runs have a time and a place and the APFT in my opinion is a good tool for testing how fast someone can run 2 miles and how many pushups/situps they can do in 2 minutes.
Things such as sprints, pullups, crunches, strength training (deadlifts, squats, cleans, bench pressing) should be put into pt programs army wide. Things such as swimming, rucking, more combatives, should also be added.
I know you guy's don't want to hear this but a program like crossfit or any other functional programs that offers variety and is scaleable from the elite to the below average have figured out fitness for those involved in our types of career fields. And the equipment needed is minimal.
In all reality all crossfit really provides is variety. It doesn't even have to be a crossfit workout but that's where my knowledge of functional fitness began. I know it helped me get in shape. And it also throws in a random 5k or 10k run.
But it's been a known fact that the Army has been behind on physical/combat fitness...Remember I am talking from the perspective of a REMF or Pogue as I am a QM NCO. I know alot of the combat arms and specialized units have already moved into using more of these ideas.
This is just my opinion I am not saying every one should do only crossfit but check the site and think back to basic ideas of what fit really is...And for the military bodybuilding is a hobby but it isn't really that functional.
Personally, I think the bayonet course was one of the most physically challenging days of basic. Swinging around about 7 or 8 pounds of metal all day with force and running and jumping and all that in 100 degree heat, nothing could be more fun. It sucked yes, but it was a stress relief and was a good endurance reality check.
Originally posted by Infantry4life: ...I couldn't believe they dropped the amount of time training some really important things and put more time into training in kinda obsolete things, like CBRN. I know that there is always the threat for NBC threats so keep the training but there is no need to put more emphasis on things we haven't seen in along time.
As for this, I am a 74D. Granted CBRN hasn't been a MAJOR threat compared to bullets and explosives, but it can take 10,000 7.62mm rounds to kill a few soldiers, while 100lbs of a chemical or biological agent could kill off our entire force in an area, be it actually KILL or hinder all operations for a good period of time. Its thinking like that that screws us in the end. If I try to assign, fit, fix, and clean masks company wide you know how much hell I take? It might sound like a joke at times, but its a necessary precaution in the event that something happens. If we got any more lax on our CBRN needs, the enemy could easily use it against us. The cold war is over and the threat is low, yes, but have you not heard about the chlorine bombs that have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan against US troops? Luckily the insurgents didn't know how to disperse the chemical properly, but if they had, luck wouldn't be a factor anymore. Don't knock CBRN, it's a skill I hope I never have to use, but know that if I do, CBRN will matter one hell of a bit. Sorry, little off topic in a sense, but needed to put my $.02 in there.
As for the disciple I agree. I went through in 2006 at Ft. Lost in the Woods, 787th MP's and training was tough, but they didn't spend enough time breaking people. If a soldier can't shut his mouth and just stand in formation without fidgeting around the entire time, what good is he? They definitely need to crack down on respect (hmm, sounds familiar, LDRSHIP?) and get soldiers to be the disciplined individual they should be.
This "new" PT program sounds very similar to the one we had for eons, until early 1980's. I think 1983 or 84, was when they got rid of all the Run, Dodge and Jump, Inverted Crawl, Horizontal ladder and Pullups. Seems like we had a few more, but my brain is stuck in the old mode right now.