Commissioned officers don’t generally take the ASVAB. When I applied to the military academies and ROTC out of high school, they used the same criteria as the universities to which I was also applying used: SAT scores and high school transcripts/GPA (as well as an interview).
I ended up going into the NROTC program at a civilian university, and applied for the Navy Nuclear Power Program in my senior year. In that case, they used my university transcript and GPA (along with multiple interviews, including one with the 4-star admiral in charge of the program in D.C.).
Physical standards for officers and enlisted are the same.
Agree here too, when I took the ASVAB in 1979 the Army had the lowest min standards. Back then, for me I looked at and seriously considered all the service branches (yes including the Army) and then chose the Marines in part because, as a broad generalization, they are the most challenging and demanding for the common enlisted person.
I ended up doing 13 years enlisted, from 1980-1993. Then when I finished my degree I did not want to become an officer and spend even more time away from my young family. I got out and transitioned into a good civilian job and eventual good career in medical device software test engineering, and quality assurance and regulatory affairs.
I’m glad for my Marine Corps experience and that has helped me tremendously in my civilian career. I learned early on the skills of small unit leadership, and then picked up more management skills later as a section chief, then operations chief, then as a platoon sergeant, and also at the Staff NCO Leadership Academy (a School of Infantry career course; I was artillery not infantry). Those skills and experience helped me in my civilian job — I’m in tech, software engineering, and that experience helped me rise through engineering management into a director level position.
My degree was in applied mathematics, with a minor in computer science. And, there were some USMC years that I hated it there, especially early on. The Marines, it’s not for everyone, and each service branch can offer excellence for many people. The special forces is all of the branches are excellent in their own ways. Each branch has its own different mission and in the end we are all on the same team.
I finished in the Marines as a Gunnery Sergeant (a “Gunny” / E-7). To me that rank, and also Corporal / E-4 and Sergeant / E-5 are the best enlisted ranks to hold in the Marines. My experience anyway.
In the end it worked out pretty well and I am grateful for my USMC experience. But, to each their own and YMMV.
Where do you get that the Air Force will prioritize comfort over mission? Are we looking at budgets and saying that the USAF could have bought 5 more KC-46A Pegasus tankers, and thereby be more mission-ready if not for that persnickety air conditioning that their junior enlisted have become accustomed to?
Or is it something more vague, like “Because they like air conditioning, they’re not well suited to deploy to places without it, so they don’t.”
I’m not sure what part of individual weapons standards must be met by individuals is open to interpretation or how the standards and frequency for weapons qualification are mandatory sounds like the shit is optional, but I have no doubt there are some high ranking pogues in the pentagon who get away with ignoring the regulation. But that’s like saying there is no requirement in the Army to maintain physical fitness or hieght/weight standards simply because there are some overweight Army personnel in the Pentagon (or elsewhere) or haven’t taken a fitness test in years. The requirement still exists even if some people are getting away with ignoring it due to command apathy, favortism, VIPism or incompetence. I bet those same officers who brag about not firing in years haven’t been given an honest APFT in years either. But it is still required. Every ORB and ERB has a section for weapons qualification, and I bet if you look at theirs it shows as current. Why? Because they just have someone update it for them. But why even do that if it isn’t required in the first place? Why not just let it show the truth?
Because the truth is that it is required, and they know it.
Time and again, when there are required budget cuts, DoN and the Army generally offered up more people programs to protect warfighting, while the Air Force generally protects more people programs. Frankly, I’ve been doing that very thing all day today getting ready for the FY21 budget. A couple of these programs really give me heartache to cut.
This really isn’t even up for debate within DoD. Is it somehow a surprise to you that this is the case?
**NETA: Actually, the ORB might not have a spot for weapons qual or APFT. But the ERB definitely will, wcen for the high ranking sergeants major running around there.
In the National Guard (and I’m presuming the Reserves) it’s once a year. It takes an entire weekend as it is. Having to do it twice a year would be a strain on training time.
There have been times when my primary weapon was not a rifle. Rifle qualification is not mandatory. It’s mandatory to qualify on your assigned weapon.
When I was an aerial scout my weapon was a .38 revolver then a M9 when they came in. Later on I again had a M9 as a tanker. Didn’t fire a M-16 for years. As a 1SG my weapon was again a M9 but I always qualified with the M-4 to show the kids I would still get the high score.
Right. The once a year requirement and assigned weapon requirement were mentioned in my cite. Everyone* in the Army is-or should be, based on MTOE, GCSS Army, and DTMS–assigned a weapon. Maintaining qualification on that weapon is mandatory. It is just as manfatory as passing a PT test twice a year. Sure, there are lots of soldiers getting over, but they’re still supposed to be doing it.
*Except for chaplains of course and limited other exceptions
For your speciality and component that’s true. It is not universal.
The two Army reserve components qualify with personal weapons annually not twice a year.
The personal weapon assigned is often, but not always, a rifle. Tank crewmen are assigned a pistol as their primary weapon and I was an Armor officer. There is one M16 for each crew of four on the Abrams. Without checking current STRAC standards ISTR no requirement to qualify but some ammo being made available for familiarization fire. Qualification is not exactly the same as qualification with a rifle.
There are table of distribution and allowance units (TDA) with no weapons on their TDA. By STRAC standards they had no requirement to qualify and no ammunition allowances to do so as of my retirement a couple years ago. I finished my career in one of those units -a mixed AC/RC Training Support Battalion. We did qualify and some of our trainers shot quite a bit more than the bare minimum. Being subject matter experts made it important. According to the Army it was optional, though. We literally had to borrow weapons to do it.
USMC standards are a little more uniform in their requirement for firing a rifle than the Army’s. Its a harder baseline than the Army even if the norm is not particularly high.
Partly. USMC rifle qual includes slow- and rapid-fire from multiple positions at fixed targets at distances of 200, 300, and 500 yards (earlier I mistakenly said meters), and then also includes combat marksmanship firing at pairs of silhouette targets from 25 yds.
The Marine Corps is the only service that requires its recruits to fire from distances as far as 500 yards.
Well… it’s more like there isn’t a bunch of money to be made in pulling triggers for a living. Many Army grunts are fortunate to have the jobs that they have. By contrast, the Air Force has to worry about losing people to lucrative civilian jobs in the aviation sector. I’m not sure anybody in the Air Force ever has any serious jeopardy of working in a building that isn’t air-conditioned.
And if you think hitting a target at 500 yards is easy, remember that it’s the effective range of the M-16, and holding that lightweight bugger steady at that range is an accomplishment. I’ve done it with an M-14 in prone during competition, and it was a bitch even with the extra weight.
If you’re willing to learn it, the military can teach you much more than just how to pull a trigger. Most former military guys who have paid attention understand mission, chain of command, and responsibility, which makes them effective and determined workers. If you’ve spent more than just one hitch, you also start to learn leadership and personnel management skills. I was trained as an electrician; by the time I retired, I was management material, which is what I did in civilian life.
This is true, but all things being equal, an Air Force E4 has much more lucrative job prospects in the civilian sector than an Army E4. Then compare Army O4 vs Air Force O4… forget about it. How can an Army Major aspire to a career track that ends with a $350K/yr gig with Delta? That’s why the Air Force overspends on human amenities, while the Army gets a spirited pep talk.
No, not easy. We shot with iron sites, the stock sites on the weapon. The target for 500 yards is the size of a human, and at 500 yards the front site post completely covers the target.
If a shooter doesn’t understand how to get, and hold, their site picture and site alignment, then at the 500yd line that shooter is screwed. It took me a while to learn how, and when I did that’s when I began to qual repeatedly as expert. Before that I was regularly a SS.
