"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Absolutely not. I just suggested (or asked) if the students were getting
less
by not getting a combat experienced instructor. We would have gotten
less
if our instructors had no combat experience. What is your feeling for an
instructor? Combat experience or none?


First, instructional skill. People with instructional skill can pass the
information out from a limited number of people with combat experience.
It's not unreasonable that some combat-pilots, especially from
single-seat aircraft, may have survived due to aggressiveness and superb
reflexes -- which aren't necessarily the best tools to teach.

We have vets back from Iraq involved in training. Nothing against them,
just some of them haven't a clue about how to be an instructor.

[snip]
Second, subject matter knowledge in a technological world that changed
much faster than WWII. I'd want my electronic warfare training to come
from someone who has kept up on as many threats as possible, including
those we haven't directly encountered in combat, but knows about their
characteristics as understood by the intelligence people, and has run
simulations against them.

Wars run too fast today to bring combat vets back and have them get up
to speed training and turn out troops before their war is over. Sure there
are a lot of lessons learned that apply to the next war but they have to
be generalized so the military isn't "fighting the last war".

Third, one has to consider today's training methodology. I'm most
familiar with Army experience, but the comment was made again and again
that the National Traininc Center OPFOR was tougher than anything the
Iraqis had.

While not the NTC, just a small urban site, we got a nice message
back from an NCO in the field. Seems as they were loading back
aboard the Blackhawks he heard one of the squad comment "That
was easier than [the MOUT site]".

All other things being equal, it helps to have someone with direct
experience. But with smaller, shorter wars, and rapid technological
change, you cannot any longer assume that an instructor will be
available with relevant combat experience in the same aircraft.
Remember also that there's going to be demand for the same limited
number of people in the doctrine development centers and the battlespace
laboratories.

The truth is that the United States military doesn't train like it did
in WWII, the US does it much better today. From Red Flag down
to our little town, the US trains with much more realism. At some
of the larger, better funded MOUT facilities -such as Fort Polk- they
have even hired large numbers of Iraqi expatriates to "live" in their
urban terrain to make it as real as possible. It's approaching the point
that by the time people deploy they have the experience equivalent of
a WWII GI who had been in a combat unit for a while.

Could we do better?
Of course, not every unit gets to work up at Polk. There are only
so many days on the calendar to use any facility and money to
support training and the facilities. But heck, I'm *trying* to learn
enough Arabic to make the right noises.