-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
OCS type training for all Naval Officers?
- Thread starter Steve Wilkins
- Start date
"Yes, the basics are there but the refinement is not."
Provisional rifle platoon commander?
You're absolutely right, phrogpilot-san...my question is, after 2 or so years of training with the VTs, is a Marine aviator going to do a really great job commanding a rifle platoon at a moment's notice based on what was learned at TBS? I think said Marine would do it pretty damn well and pull it off, but it certainly won't be the refined leadership of someone who went infantry from the get-go.
If we're talking about follow-on training, such as you get when you go from the TH-57 to a -46, here's your analogy: the Navy guys learn the intricacies of how to conn a really big ship, with different engines and in different sea states...the Marine guys learn more about how to lead real infantrymen, and not just their TBS buddies.
Don't get me wrong, I like the Marines; but I do know some kids who went through Quantico who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, just as a lot of my Academy buddies don't remember what the "lee helmsman" does or why he's not standing to leeward.
Provisional rifle platoon commander?
You're absolutely right, phrogpilot-san...my question is, after 2 or so years of training with the VTs, is a Marine aviator going to do a really great job commanding a rifle platoon at a moment's notice based on what was learned at TBS? I think said Marine would do it pretty damn well and pull it off, but it certainly won't be the refined leadership of someone who went infantry from the get-go.
If we're talking about follow-on training, such as you get when you go from the TH-57 to a -46, here's your analogy: the Navy guys learn the intricacies of how to conn a really big ship, with different engines and in different sea states...the Marine guys learn more about how to lead real infantrymen, and not just their TBS buddies.
Don't get me wrong, I like the Marines; but I do know some kids who went through Quantico who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, just as a lot of my Academy buddies don't remember what the "lee helmsman" does or why he's not standing to leeward.
Aeolos
Registered User
The Academy grads that I have come across thus far, either at TBS or at API have not been that impressive. Though they are knowledgeable of customs and courtesies they lack military discipline gained by those from OCS (Marine OCS). TBS was essential in order to make them disciplined enough to be Marine Officers. The point is that after TBS we were all just officers of Marines and not stuck to commissioning source labels. I know that in the Navy when people attrite or NPQ out of flight school that they are they stand a 70% chance of separation rather than movement into other fields. Marines do not have that problem due to TBS, we can learn a new MOS in another area.
Aeolos said:
That make no sense whatsoever. Going to TBS doesn't mean squat on whether you can learn a new MOS. The reason Navy guys would get seperated is because the Navy is too fat on junior officers, not because they didn't go to some super-magic school that makes you ultra-able to learn other sub-communities.
"Though they are knowledgeable of customs and courtesies they lack military discipline gained by those from OCS (Marine OCS)."
Blame the Congressmen, seriously. And the administration. That place devolved into something less than ideal...ironically it was a Marine who did it, with the statement that "(Sgt. who was killed/wounded in a firefight in Lebanon) didn't need harsh physical correction to be a great man, therefore neither do you." Oh, and they tore down the accessible o-course because little kids were using it and got hurt.
The year 2001, when it was decided that dropping to the deck for pushups had no place in a training environment, except to simulate what soldiers go through in boot camp. Thanks, Colonel. And this was a guy who thought Starship Troopers ("basic was made AS HARD AS POSSIBLE for a reason...") was a great book! Oh well, he's a BGEN now and the damage has been done.
Blame the Congressmen, seriously. And the administration. That place devolved into something less than ideal...ironically it was a Marine who did it, with the statement that "(Sgt. who was killed/wounded in a firefight in Lebanon) didn't need harsh physical correction to be a great man, therefore neither do you." Oh, and they tore down the accessible o-course because little kids were using it and got hurt.
The year 2001, when it was decided that dropping to the deck for pushups had no place in a training environment, except to simulate what soldiers go through in boot camp. Thanks, Colonel. And this was a guy who thought Starship Troopers ("basic was made AS HARD AS POSSIBLE for a reason...") was a great book! Oh well, he's a BGEN now and the damage has been done.
Fly Navy said:
HAHA... is said school available as a shore tour? At first I was confused by the original intent of this thread. OCS is just another way to a commission... anything you learn there will be redundant to your academy or rotc training. If you're talking about professional development, isn't that what BOLTC is for? Now, having been through the one week krispy kreme course there are probably ways to improve it... i.e. less talking, more leadership labs. I once heard... every marine a rifleman... every sailor a firefighter. maybe we're going about this all wrong? perhaps we should teach us JO's how to use a fire-extinguisher instead. but i digress... leadership in a plane is just different than leadership on a ship. Sending everyone to one leadership program is akin to sending SWO's to flight school... doesn't fit. That said... my first real experience with leading enlisted was at SERE school.... i think a lot of ensigns and marine 2nd LT's were humbled by that experience.
vsoJ said:Hey Flash, that is a valid point and why I made sure to comment that it was based on little experience. Regardless however I am not going on who's uniforms look better, hell they all look bad to me (jk :icon_mi_1 ). I am going off of professionalism and so forth in a classroom environment (god forbid not carrying on a side conversation that the whole class can hear WHILE a Major is discussing the lesson...trust me it happened). Other than that I have been down here other than API for about a month and a half that I have been able to observe a lot about how they perform in general. Are all of them like that? Of course not, I know a lot of good guys who are Navy officers but even they agree (some of them at least) that they would have liked to do some sort of general Naval training similar to the Marine Corps TBS (obviously not the infantry basis but you get my point).
Never claimed to be all knowing on this, just what I observed...
Okay, hold on a second here. I have noticed almost all of the comments so far about the exceptional quality of OCS graduates vice Academy or ROTC graduates are brand new to the services. I also presume that most have graduated from OCS rather than the USNA or ROTC.
Take a step back and look at where you are coming from. It seems like most of you are very recent OCS grduates (within hte past year) and have gone through a life changing experience. That is great, kudos on you for joining the military and serving your country. However, you have to realize that there is a lot more to the military than OCS/TBS/API/Primary etc. The people who join the military do so through a variety of means. I know a Gunnery Sergant in hte Marines who has been in for 3 years and never went to Boot Camp, he is a trumpet player for the Marine Band. Does that make him any less of a person because he did not go to Parris Island or San Diego? Uhh, no.
So you have seen a handful of Academy or ROTC guys in TBS or API that may act up or goof off or talk in class. Do you realize how prejudiced that makes you sound? When I showed up to API I had over 4 years experince in a military enviroment and I laughed at the OCS types becasue they took everything so seriously. Since then I have learned that it does not really mean a hill of beans where the heck you can from, I work with a few OCS grads and don't hold it against them.
So, while the above statement you made might be factually correct, to make such sweeping statements while your time on the Navy is less than a year and only consists of just API (or TBS/OCS etc.) does not ring true with someone who is experienced and has some 'fleet' time under their belt. Tell that to a 'fleet' guy and he will probably laugh in your face.
Aeolos said:
To put it another way, they don't have the "switch on" all of the time. For many of them, the fear and rigidness associated with wearing the uniform has worn off, along with its newness, after they've been doing it for four years. Fear not though, there are definately some out there who have not relaxed at all and are still have plenty of "discipline" (other terms that can be used, but you seem to like that one).
We started this thread ...
This thread got started in reply to Mr. Wilkins' remarks about:
- earning a commission (NROTC guys seem not to have earned theirs)
- the value of an OCS-type common experience for all naval officers (seemed aimed at NROTC).
Mr. Wilkins also remarked, as have others, that the commissioning source gets blurred after a while. I don't believe this thread was meant to try to focus on differences between the commissioning sources. Mr. Wilkins is correct, all three main sources supply all varieties.
Mr. Wilkins is correct in his assertion that some sort of OSC-type or TBS-like experience or training would be valuable in preparing an Ensign. But I would think that the cost is going to be viewed as prohibitive if it has to be done all at the same place and at the same time (Plebe Summer).
Congress is not going to buy another naval academy, i.e., a place with enough heads and beds, classrooms and instructors to produce 1000 Ensigns all at one time (at graduation).
NROTC avoids owning the college and avoids having to acquire and maintain all the heads and beds. (Frankly, the Navy is under-resourcing NROTC.) NROTC naval science courses and the NROTC Unit provide the military orientation but frankly, the summer training program, I maintain, is the key. I also have repeatedly suggested that it is now diluted.
I agree with Mr. Wilkins that the Marines have the OCS - TBS formula right. Maybe the Officers of Marines do not hold this formula in the high esteem that I do. I'll lower my esteem if needed but I do hold it in very, very high regard.
OCS-TBS are basically free of the academic calendar. They can program their production across the entire fiscal year. USNA & NROTC produce 900-1000 officers mostly at the end of the Spring Semester. For prospective SWOs, there are likely ships that can absorb them. Nuke Power school might be able to take its small share of this crowd at one time; Flight School might have pools (I was stashed for two months at a fleet squadron after graduation but before reporting to P'cola. It was terrific.)
OSC-TBS provide that common experience which Mr. Wilkins values. But I don't see the Navy expanding OTC - Newport to handle 900 mids all at once along side their normal OCS production. In other words, Wilkins has a plausible concept but there's not going to be the bucks to buy it I would think.
To achieve what Mr. Wilkins advocates, NROTC would have to be disbanded and OCS expanded to absorb a production of 900 Ensigns. (The Navy 06-11 BES/POM indicates that OCS will be providing 1/3 of Ensigns, NROTC 1/3, and USNA 1/3.) So OTC Newport would have to be doubled in capacity but it could spread its production across an entire fiscal year.
This is an intriguing concept and might be affordable. I would opine that the NROTC used to have a much better at-sea program. I hold the view that OCS does does not have the equivalent today. I would also suggest that there is value in capturing the 18-19 year old and bring them into the military/naval culture then and not necessarily wait until they are 22 or older. But maybe I over-value this early capture. And is the cost of the early capture worth it? The success of USMC OCS-TBS suggest otherwise. NROTC captures them now but I agree with Mr. Wilkins that the NROTC may lack some of the standardization he values (I say its acceptable and affordable) and definitely does not have the common bonding experience (I say that's not affordable but an acceptable alternative approximation could be achieved by reinvigorating CORTRAMID).
This thread got started in reply to Mr. Wilkins' remarks about:
- earning a commission (NROTC guys seem not to have earned theirs)
- the value of an OCS-type common experience for all naval officers (seemed aimed at NROTC).
Mr. Wilkins also remarked, as have others, that the commissioning source gets blurred after a while. I don't believe this thread was meant to try to focus on differences between the commissioning sources. Mr. Wilkins is correct, all three main sources supply all varieties.
Mr. Wilkins is correct in his assertion that some sort of OSC-type or TBS-like experience or training would be valuable in preparing an Ensign. But I would think that the cost is going to be viewed as prohibitive if it has to be done all at the same place and at the same time (Plebe Summer).
Congress is not going to buy another naval academy, i.e., a place with enough heads and beds, classrooms and instructors to produce 1000 Ensigns all at one time (at graduation).
NROTC avoids owning the college and avoids having to acquire and maintain all the heads and beds. (Frankly, the Navy is under-resourcing NROTC.) NROTC naval science courses and the NROTC Unit provide the military orientation but frankly, the summer training program, I maintain, is the key. I also have repeatedly suggested that it is now diluted.
I agree with Mr. Wilkins that the Marines have the OCS - TBS formula right. Maybe the Officers of Marines do not hold this formula in the high esteem that I do. I'll lower my esteem if needed but I do hold it in very, very high regard.
OCS-TBS are basically free of the academic calendar. They can program their production across the entire fiscal year. USNA & NROTC produce 900-1000 officers mostly at the end of the Spring Semester. For prospective SWOs, there are likely ships that can absorb them. Nuke Power school might be able to take its small share of this crowd at one time; Flight School might have pools (I was stashed for two months at a fleet squadron after graduation but before reporting to P'cola. It was terrific.)
OSC-TBS provide that common experience which Mr. Wilkins values. But I don't see the Navy expanding OTC - Newport to handle 900 mids all at once along side their normal OCS production. In other words, Wilkins has a plausible concept but there's not going to be the bucks to buy it I would think.
To achieve what Mr. Wilkins advocates, NROTC would have to be disbanded and OCS expanded to absorb a production of 900 Ensigns. (The Navy 06-11 BES/POM indicates that OCS will be providing 1/3 of Ensigns, NROTC 1/3, and USNA 1/3.) So OTC Newport would have to be doubled in capacity but it could spread its production across an entire fiscal year.
This is an intriguing concept and might be affordable. I would opine that the NROTC used to have a much better at-sea program. I hold the view that OCS does does not have the equivalent today. I would also suggest that there is value in capturing the 18-19 year old and bring them into the military/naval culture then and not necessarily wait until they are 22 or older. But maybe I over-value this early capture. And is the cost of the early capture worth it? The success of USMC OCS-TBS suggest otherwise. NROTC captures them now but I agree with Mr. Wilkins that the NROTC may lack some of the standardization he values (I say its acceptable and affordable) and definitely does not have the common bonding experience (I say that's not affordable but an acceptable alternative approximation could be achieved by reinvigorating CORTRAMID).
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
As Marine Officers, we do hold the OCS/TBS formula in high regard. So high in fact, that when at TBS as an Academy grad (we don't do OCS), we have to work harder to gain the respect of our peers. The reason we hold it with such high regard, and what makes Marine Aviation different than every other service is this - Ever Marine is a rifleman. The young LCpl with the rifle knows that we not only sympathize, but EMPATHIZE with his current situation as we're coming in for CAS/Resupply/Extract/Insert/etc... That goes a long way in regards to mission accomplishment. He can be rest assured that we will do everything in our power to assist him.USN99 said:
The biggest difference between Marine Officers and officers in other branches is that we MUST identify with that young Marine. There's infantry, and support. If we forget that, we have failed that young man.
"Does that make him any less of a person because he did not go to Parris Island or San Diego? Uhh, no."
There's a bit of a logical error in this kind of thinking, especially trying to apply it to the military. The nice old Chamorro lady at the tailor shop is no less of a person than that Gunny...she excels at what she does. Does that mean I'd want her on a combat team? Of course not. Likewise, the Gunny in question hasn't been in a combat MOS for the last 3 years, and even though every Marine is supposed to be a rifleman, I'd pick the more junior guy who's been through PI to lead a squad.
What we're talking here is a common, difficult experience to unite members of similar rate or rank; Navy officers currently don't have one, and some are suggesting we should. In the Marine paradigm, it might be irrational to want someone in your foxhole who's had the exact same experience and thousands of pushups as you, but it's also irrational to be out there amidst the flying lead...we expect a lot from our servicemembers, and asking that they go through some similar training is not really a tall order.
There's a bit of a logical error in this kind of thinking, especially trying to apply it to the military. The nice old Chamorro lady at the tailor shop is no less of a person than that Gunny...she excels at what she does. Does that mean I'd want her on a combat team? Of course not. Likewise, the Gunny in question hasn't been in a combat MOS for the last 3 years, and even though every Marine is supposed to be a rifleman, I'd pick the more junior guy who's been through PI to lead a squad.
What we're talking here is a common, difficult experience to unite members of similar rate or rank; Navy officers currently don't have one, and some are suggesting we should. In the Marine paradigm, it might be irrational to want someone in your foxhole who's had the exact same experience and thousands of pushups as you, but it's also irrational to be out there amidst the flying lead...we expect a lot from our servicemembers, and asking that they go through some similar training is not really a tall order.
I take it back, said elderly lady probably sent a few Japanese on their way back on Guam in '44. But it's just an example.
Yeah, I demand satisfaction too.
?
?
Is violence a normal outcome of a night of drinking for you?mules83 said: