You could at least read what the question was before you start trying to correct people. His question was:
The answer to that question is clearly “no.”
Why? It’s pretty well inarguable that a competent pilot or aircraft mechanic or technician is eminently more employable as a civilian than some guy whose training has been primarily in how to shoot people and blow shit up.
I mean, just how DOES a Marine rifleman’s training translate directly into a civilian career, save something like working for Blackwater or DynCorp?
Meanwhile, a pilot just needs some additional training- in the case of fighter pilots, they’d probably need a new class rating and type rating, but the transport pilots might merely need a new type rating.
Military aviation mechanics need some new training, but there’s a mechanic shortage, so they’re in high demand.
It’s not the comment that more highly trained people have greater opportunities. They clearly do. It was the comment that the Air Force has more creature comforts in order to keep retention up, while the Army doesn’t have to care about their people as much so they don’t. It’s impossible to know what came first, the chicken or the egg. But the Air Force will prioritize these comforts over mission requirements, and that seems unsat, to many, including me. YMMV.
…and they make the best kool-aid. Jarheads continue guzzling for the whole rest of their lives, no matter how long ago they mustered out.
My first instinct is to say, “Of course - they’re soldiers, first and foremost, and soldiers need to be able to fight;” but in retrospect, I guess that’s my own military culture talking.
No such requirement? Will you please just admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about? I’m curious why you would make this statement? Why did you think you knew this to he a “fact”?
Army Regulation 350-1, the bible of training & readiness requirements mandates that:
“Individual, crew-served and collective weapons standards described in DA Pam 350 – 38, AR 350 – 1, paragraphs 1-17, 5-6, F-1, and F-7 must be met by individuals and crews. The standards and frequency for weapons qualification are mandatory. . . Weapons qualification training will be conducted per the appropriate doctrinal or training publication for the particular weapon.”
And what is the requirement specific to the M4/M16?
TC 3-22.9
“Soldiers must fire the record fire course at least once a year for qualification (active component Soldiers must fire this course twice a year for qualification with the primary day sight and one a year with secondary sight, if so equipped)”
Every commander in the Army knows this requirement and must keep the data updated in DTMS. That system allows higher commanders to track the readiness of their subordinate units, and they’re not happy when qual scores go red because they’re over 6 months old. To stay in compliance, most units qualify at least 3 times a year, ensuring that no soldier goes uncurrent.
Hey Bear, just because you served in the Army long enough to retire from it, why would you know more about the Army then spiffy?
Oh. And the Army also shoots at a pop up targets which present at varying distances and exposure times, often popping up two at a time. And they shoot from three different firing positions.
Last I heard, the Marines only shoot from the prone and they fire at a known-distance, slow fire target.
Yeah, yeah…but can Army pukes do this?
The expectation of a Marine Corps Rifleman goes beyond just being an effective marksman. He should be able to function as an Infantry Rifleman (MOS 0311). Following boot camp every Marine attends Basic Infantry Training (BITS). From there one goes to their specialty school, one of which is Advance Infantry Training (AIT) Obviously, those who attend AIT will be more proficient at their skill. However, all Marines, regardless of other specialties, should be able to function in the roll of an infantryman.
FYI, the terms BITS and AIT were those in use at the time I entered the Marine Corps (1969). The terminology may have changed since then.
The answer may well be different for Israel than for the US. In Israel, nobody is ever very far from the front lines, and (save for the vigilance of the Israeli military) there really is a risk that enemies could invade and overrun as far as your drone control and cyberwarfare facilities, in which case you’d need every able-bodied serviceperson you could get your hands on to defend those facilities. In the US, though, that’s just not going to happen: Any conceivably possible strike against those sorts of facilities will be of a sort that a rifleman can’t defend against.
Just to be clear – you’re saying that units not in combat arms must qualify with an M4/M16 twice a year? So like, soldiers in public affairs, acquisition, JAGs, etc, all head to the range every six months?
I’m pretty sure we qualified with the same standards as the Marines, although only at 200 yards. The positions were prone, sitting and offhand (standing). As I recall, Marines fire at 200 and 300. Of course, this is going on 30 years in my past, so I could be way off on things as they are today.
In 1969 I qualified at 200, 300 and 500 yds. Same position as noted above. We used M-14s.
Certainly not true of the Army.
This is so wrong.
We fire prone, sitting, kneeling, and off hand. We qualify out to 500 meters.
I have to look up the requirements. It’s been a while. I served 1980-1993, USMC.
Haha, my uncle was in the USMC and was a complete “pogue”, served stateside the whole time, but it didn’t stop him from being obsessed with the Marine Corps for the rest of his life (even though he actually wound up accomplishing some significant things in his civilian career.) God love him though, he was a character. I’ll say this, despite the fact that Marines are stereotyped as being the dumbest of all the service members, I’ve known a lot of people from all the different services, and in general I’ve found the Marines to ironically be the smartest. My own experience might not be representative of any larger trend, but most of the guys I know who served in the Marines are really intelligent, both in the sense of having studied some technical field or skilled trade, and also being super interested in the world, international affairs, geography, etc. They’re pretty well-rounded guys. (I know my small sample size is not really indicative of anything.)
Strange, I don’t know this stereotype and it was always the Army that was known for having the lowest “intelligence” standards. The ASVAB test isn’t an IQ test but the general service test given to all recruits. The Navy & Marine minimum has usually been higher then Air Force and Army and at times the Army’s has been very low. I’m pretty sure when I took the test the Army was allowing exceptions for a 25 score which has to be pretty close to Gump level.
I did check, today the Navy & Marines expect a 35+ and the Air Force & Army are 31+. Not much of a difference. But the Navy & Air Force also had a long more jobs or ratings that required high scores on the test.
Oh before any Army vets gets upset, remember the Navy Physical Fitness standards were a lot lower then Army’s and was if I remember correctly the lowest.
So as far a minimum standards go the Marines had the highest minimum standards for both the ASVAB & Physical fitness.
All this is in reference to the enlisted, I honestly don’t know anything about requirements for Officers.
You’re misinterpreted this quote.
You’re correct that Soldiers must fire annually for qualification if they are indeed going to be qualified. But this doesn’t mean that all Soldiers must be qualified. There is no blanket qualification for all Army personnel. Navy and Air Force have a similar qualification for side arms. If one is to remain qualified, they must fire annually. So after a year of not firing, they are no longer qualified, and would have to re-qualify if necessary. But it doesn’t mean that every Sailor must be qualified all the time. These are two different issues.
This comes up in our office every so often in our joint office here in the pentagon. (Don’t want that to come off as arrogant, or making me “the” authority.) The only people who say that they have to qualify with any periodic are Marines. And frankly even they don’t qualify each year on staff duty.
The Navy and Air Force never have to unless they are going to handle weapons. The Army states they do when they are in a combat arms unit which goes to Ravenman’s point above. I asked two O-6 Army Officers in our office today if they have to qualify twice a year. They both made a face, and said they hadn’t fired in years since they were in a ground unit.
I can’t find the cite right now, but I’ve read that by IQ, Marine Corps Officers have been found to be the most intelligent. From experience, I can’t argue with that.