A training question for our resident Soldiers and Marines

I'm an active duty Air Force Staff Sergeant (E-5). This question is aimed at Soldiers and Marines who serve in non-combat jobs; like finance, personnel, aircraft maintenance, intelligence...

The saying is, "Every Marine is, first and foremost, a Rifleman". How much do Soldiers/Marines in jobs like these train in firearm skills? How about hand to hand skills (I'm very interested in MCMAP and MAC)? I mean to say, after your initial training is complete and you are serving at your station, how often do you train these skills?

I'll be honest, I've fired a rifle at a military range twice so far in my nearly 8 year career. I've been an aircraft mechanic and now an intelligence analyst, and I find this lack of training to be unacceptable. I know we can't all be Marines/Soldiers/Rangers/TACP/Pararescue/etc., but I would feel more pride in being a so called" Warrior Airman" if I had even some basic combat skills. I mean, what good is a military member with no martial training?

I'm wondering what it would take to send some of our members to become MAC or MCMAP instructors and share those skills with our people? I'd definitely rather spend a few hours a week doing combatives training rather than some stupid flight PT session.

Most of the support people I have been around confirmed what you said.
There is little to no training on fire arms after basic.

It is probably a cost issue.

It's great to have an interest and motivation in improving your skill set in these areas, but in my view, leadership isn't going to invest funding dollars and manhours for training that falls outside your primary AFSC CFETP requirements. I'm ANG T32 and all I see big-AF pushing is overall fitness standards. Money is tight (when is it ever not though) so from the 10,000 foot view, budget dollars have to be spent where it's most mission effective, at least on paper.

So if you're an analyst, this means you need SAPR and EEO training more than you need martial arts training (at least our leadership feels that way). Their priority is to spend training dollars to ensure you are "cross culturally competent" vice an effective marksman, because that's their political priority. Sure, you can undertake these efforts on your own time, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for agency funding for it.

I also spent a number of years as an aviation ordnance mechanic in the USMC, and there it was no different. If your MOS was a flightline related career field, you got your minimalist martial and weapons training early on (usually just boot camp), then you got shuttled to the rifle range once a year because it was a requirement, and that was it.

My nephew is a brand new jughead (just graduated in Oct) and one difference between when I went to boot camp and his stint at PI was they have broken out crew served weapons fam training as a post-boot camp school that's a bit longer and more involved, but still once he's done he'll plow forward in his MOS and likely (save for his annual M16 qual requirement) never touch most of the weapons that school trained him on again.

Anyway, that's the way it seems to me these days. Have a good one and good luck!

I'm in medical services mos. If we get called to kick doors in and engage the enemy, then something bad just happened.
However we are still required to qualify on an assigned weapon every two years or we loose the promotion points, we try to send everyone at least once a year, more often if they want to improve their score. I have been to the range about once or twice every year of my career, and two of those years I was assigned to a vet clinic that had no authorized weapons, we just piggy backed with the hospital or another unit who went to the range.
In basic I qualified on m16, but we had familiarization with the crew served machine guns, grenade launchers ,but outside of armorer school I haven't touched them since.

I went to Level 1 modern army combatives program but that was because the commander of that unit wanted everyone trained. I ended up with a cracked rib and a concussion and had no desire to continue with level 2-4.

If you want extra training, get certified to operate the EST2000 range, It wont cost your unit any ammo since its computer but it will give your guys some trigger time.

(4 years Infantry, 4 years Motor Transport, 1 year Construction Engineering)...it always freaked me out to be in support...knowing that YOUR unit, not the infantry or combat arms unit, was the most vulnerable and the softest target and the one most likely to be attacked. And the assumption that there would always be a combat arms unit around to cover you???? Scared the heck out of me that we didn't do more tactical weapons training in the support units.

I'm a Marine, was in for 7 years, and was infantry. From what I have seen, advanced combat-relative training doesn't extend too far beyond boot camp, MCT (4 week course for basic "combat" training for non-infantry types), and table 2 at annual rifle qual. Table 2 is basic "combat marksmanship".

The "Every Marine is a rifleman" saying relates to the fact that every Marine qualifies annually with a rifle - it does not mean that every Marine can fight as a rifleman (although they'll give the enemy hell if in a hot spot), it just means everyone is expected to know how to fire a rifle well enough to meet a standard - I think (my opinion) its a little bit of hype, some chest-thumping bravado. If it came down to it, I wouldn't expect some admin clerk to know how to clear a room (I've seen them try, its bad), but they better know how to operate a rifle and fire it with enough accuracy to have some impact in a fight. Even if they can only lay down some suppression.

BUT most (I say most because I can't say all for certain) Marine units will go through some form of training before deploying to at least help them along and MCMAP is widely available. They don't go through anything near what infantry battalions will go through, unless attached to a line company - and I have heard how bad these non-infantry groups can be - but they do get something (or should, at least).

Interesting - I would have thought as well that they'd keep everyone up to combat readiness (and more than just the yearly rifle training), but I see the budget and mission issue as well, and as such, it makes sense.

If it's any consolation, I certainly don't view anyone in active duty, regardless of MOS, as more or less valuable than others. Yes front line troops are taking more risk, in some cases a lot more and have a lot on the line (although, with transportation accidents being such a significant percentage of injuries these days, maybe not all *that* much different than support personnel). But it takes a lot more than the troops on the ground to make it all happen. You have my deepest respect, regardless.

Jamesspro has a good point. Not everyone gets combat training, but not everyone has a combat role. Everyone gets the training they need to do their jobs and in the end it is all service to the same end - an effective military force. Perhaps the best thing that anyone can do is ensure that they are the best they can be in their role so that they can contribute as much as possible to the end.

Infantry guys may do the majority of the fighting, but they need supplies, a place to rest, food, air cover, and medical personnel to aid them when wounded. It can't all happen with combat training alone. Someone has to fix and drive the trucks, get the helos in the air, and bring the food and ammo to the front.

I think you are not realizing the actual contribution that you are making. We all had/have down time to reflect on our role and at times, it gets redundant. The people that really matter are the ones that provide the support for the machine to function.

Thank you for all the replies. I'd first like to say that I am very proud of the role that I play in the military system. I don't feel inferior to my brothers and sisters in arms who play an active combat role, I have supported them and take pride in that. My current career field allows me to witness my impact on a daily basis, it was a little harder to see that impact as an aircraft mechanic, my role was important there as well.

I was under the uninformed impression that even the non-combat roles of my sister branches trained regularly with firearms and combatives, and I'll go ahead and throw PT in there as well.

To be honest, I'm not impressed with the discipline and military bearing of many Air Force members, and this is our fault as NCOs and leaders for letting discipline break down. I truly believe that many in the Air Force could switch their uniforms for a suit and tie or clothes that fit their career field, and our attitudes would remain the same. Meaning in my opinion, we a corporate force rather than a military one. Maybe the focus and discipline need to master skills like marksmanship and martial arts could bring us back into a military mindset. Again, I know we can't all be Special Forces and don't have the budget for us all to train like them, and I'm not suggesting that we do, just that we need to remember that we are in the military and could be called upon to fight and need to be prepared for that time.

Having said all that, I have discovered that there is an USAF Combatives program that was approved around 2008. Where is it? I've only read articles of it being a graduation requirement for the Academy but it was supposed to be available to the entire force. I'm doing research now. I hope its fruitful.

Thanks again for the responses and the insights!

I wouldn't expect a mechanic to be the most proficient marksman or the first choice to clear a hostile zone. But would you want a rifleman to try keeping a multi-million dollar aircraft in the air. Different training for different MOS's. Basic firearm skills are needed so that you would be at least capable to help with defense. Unless training is done regularly it would be a waste of time. taking one or two courses a year wouldn't cut it.

IT is not economically feasible, but I have always supported Heinlein's interpretation of the Military as published in Starship Troopers. It is necessary to have cooks, and mechanics, and logistics personnel . . . but EVERYBODY fights. therefor, everybody should be TRAINED to fight, and that training should be kept current. How I would interpret that for today's military is to make it a minimum requirement that ALL personnel be proficient with the personal weapons available to soldiers (pistol, smg, assault rifle).

Well just for the sake of argument, what is the point of having a drone operator who is sitting in Arizona be Proficient with a rifle ?
The in area cook is very unlikely to need to use a weapon either, Where as sadly I know of far to many civilian contractor Truck drivers who darn well should have had a weapon and known how to use them, but had neither.

I think that It might be a good idea to have personnel in the combat area receive weapons training.

But I must also agree that our armed forces could do with a good bit more discipline (and self discipline) and PT, Not to pick on any one in particular, But I have been seeing some rather unfit sloppy looking troops around base, except the Marines.

I've been a Marine (AD and Reservist) for 23 years (I retire from the reserves this year). I've almost always been in the wing (as a maintenance analyst in an F/A-18 squadron as enlisted guy to a CH-46E pilot on active duty and the reserves). I spent a year and a half in an Infantry Battalion as a Forward Air Controller.

Yes, every Marine is a rifleman, and every officer is a basic infantry platoon commander. Does that mean we're proficient in it? Hardly. The statement is more of a two pronged idea. The first part of the idea is a mindset. Every single person who is not a grunt in the Marine Corps KNOWS that they are merely support for the grunts. And we're damn proud of it. We've had the basic training, experienced the inherent suckiness that comes with the infantry, and bent over backwards to support the grunts (whether they believe it or not). I've flown in some absolute dog-doo weather, nearly killed myself and my crew (literally), and taken some slightly questionable aircraft out flying (nothing unsafe of course), because there was a wounded Marine that I needed to pick up and take to a surgical site. No one in my crew questioned my decisions, and they were all supportive - because they wanted to do the same thing, get that Marine to the help he needed. We've also experienced the gut wrenching order to turn around because a patient expired. And then we started to question whether we had failed that Marine. That's the mindset part of every Marine being a rifleman.

The second prong is the fact that we as a service are very small. In some AORs, if we're the only ones operating in the area - we can't afford to have a Battalion/Regiment/Division providing airfield security for us, and those of us in the wing have to be basically trained to be able to provide our own security. If a C-130/CH-53E crew sets up a hasty FARP deep into bad guy land - we're not bringing grunts with us to provide security. It's all going to be maintainers, mechs, logistics guys, etc providing security for the site to get the mission (refueling/rearming aircraft that are assisting the grunts in taking the fight to the enemy) done.

In the opening days of OIF, my MEU went into Northern Iraq from the Med. We ended up being based out of Mosul. Security for the airfield was being provided by the Peshmerga. Until they up and left one night without telling anyone. The bulk-fueler logistics guys now became responsible for security on the northern side of the airfield, the squadron (mechs and other support personnel) took responsibility for the east side of the field, the Battalion took the west side of the field - and the MEU command element took the southern side of the field. We were assisted by the professional grunts (think fireplan sketches, determining where to put various elements for best opportunity for interlocking fields of fire, etc) to develop the plan - but in the end, it was our support guys laying in the defense. The bulk fuelers ended up repelling some guys north of the airfield one night. In Bagram, when the Taliban made it over the wire, it was the maintainers and support personnel in the Prowler squadron that repelled them before the grunts could arrive.

So no, we don't have much follow on training other than demonstrating a minimum capability every year, and MCMAP based on rank/desires of the individual. But we all will do what we need to do, so we can keep helping the grunts bring the fight to the enemy.

I know the OP addressed Marines and Army but even as an Diesel Boat Submariner there was little reason to be a marksman with anything but torpedoes. We still had to qualify on the small arms carried on the boat; 1911 .45 pistol, Thompson Submachine Gun, M1 Carbine and BAR. Our training and quals were held out at sea, usually shooting empty coffee tins or for excitement, lithium hydroxide canisters. In boot I vaguely remember shooting a Springfield 06.

In the current armed forces, it is very much a budget issue of keeping everyone proficient with weapons. As an active submariner, when attached to a boat I did live fire once a year. 9mm, 12ga, and m16. As a nuke, I had to fight for anything more than the 9mm. A handful of the crew got crew served qualified once a year also. As a submarine, our concern isn't maintaining the combat proficiency so it makes sense.

As for the other forces, the same can be said. As much training as needed for the mission and job you do. With specific training given if needed for a specific mission or deployment.

As to the physical fitness and discipline, that is the responsibility of the senior enlisted. If the leadership does not lead by example and enforce the standards, how can you expect that fresh boot to do the same?

You have to enforce the discipline and lead with discipline to make a change. And that change can ripple outward as people come and go to other units and duty stations. You have to change the force 1 person at a time and just be patient. Start offering fitness sessions after work. Find a local taekwondo, karate, or whatever martial arts place near you, ask about group rates or military rates. Offer them to come train at a PT session. There are countless ways to get things done to get the experience you need. And unfortunately some will need to come from your own pocket. But it is all dependant on your goal and what you want to do.

I was a mechanic in the Air Force and spent only part of a day with a rifle during basic training and with little follow-up. Just imagine my feelings of inadequacy when several years later I would pull guard duty in Vietnam.

Such feelings aside, I had little trouble seeing the big picture: non-combat support staff carrying out a mission.

I'm an artilleryman in the National Guard and deployed once. As combat arms, we are required to be proficient in our individual and crew served weapons. We have death by powerpoint presentations a lot in my unit and go over the fundamentals of marksmanship constantly. Those same fundamentals carry over to any weapon system. The National Guard has been called to clear rooms, run convoys, do foot patrols, and the same tasks that the regular army does. Often times, the guard does it more than the active guys. We have also lost a lot of guys in combat.

Now I always laugh whenever active duty guys try to rag on us guardsmen and say we are undisciplined and not as good. Some units are ate up, some are high speed low drag. That goes with both active duty and national guard. But I have never seen a guard unit that was ate up besides the normal idiocy the military brings.

Just remember, that no matter what branch we might be in; the enemy will try to kill us just the same. So be ready for them.

one cut said:

Well just for the sake of argument, what is the point of having a drone operator who is sitting in Arizona be proficient with a rifle ?

Click to expand...

Some good responses to this question, but I will add the most basic one of all. The reason that Drone Driver needs to be proficient with a rifle is because the day may come when he NEEDS it. First and foremost, ALL military personnel are SOLDIERS. I go back to Heinlein's doctrine . . . EVERYBODY FIGHTS. It is far better to know how to do something and never need that skill, than to need that skill and not have the proficiency

MegaBullfrog09 said:

Just remember, that no matter what branch we might be in; the enemy will try to kill us just the same. So be ready for them.

Click to expand...

Orville said:

Some good responses to this question, but I will add the most basic one of all. The reason that Drone Driver needs to be proficient with a rifle is because the day may come when he NEEDS it. First and foremost, ALL military personnel are SOLDIERS. I go back to Heinlein's doctrine . . . EVERYBODY FIGHTS. It is far better to know how to do something and never need that skill, than to need that skill and not have the proficiency

Click to expand...

I totally agree with these statements. The likelihood that an intel geek like me will ever have to fire a round in combat is very slim, but the skills need to be there. I was at Bagram in 2010 when it was attacked. That was no joke. The Taliban fighters didn't get on base, but they got close. I don't want to give the impression I was posted up next to the Soldiers we lived near (a few of us Air Force folks ended up living in an Army camp), but they did come by and make sure we were ready to defend ourselves. This was nothing at all compared to what the ground pounders go through, but it was very real for me at the time.