quote:

---

As far as what I knew... I knew a hell of a lot more - after only 6 months of TBS and 12 weeks of IOC - about commanding a platoon in the field than any of them did, including my platoon sergeant.

---

That is a fact. It never ceases to amaze me how little enlisted Marines know about the training pipeline that their officers have gone through. They all genuinely seem to think that we party our way through college, go through a half-ass version of recruit training, then show up ready to deploy. A basic Basic School complete lieutenant is already incredibly capable, and IOC takes them several levels above that.

Oh, and recruit training is a ****ing joke compared to Marine OCS. I work at Parris Island.

Are infantry officer slots in the Army as coveted as they are in the Marines?

Geez just when I thought I was on the Officer side of this argument some of you make some of the most arrogant post. Seriously? You believe initial entry Officer training prepared you to run a platoon better than any enlisted man? I helped train Armor Officers at Ft. Knox Kentucky and I can readily admit their training was far superior to any initial training an enlisted man gets. However, it was no different than the NCO schools someone from the ranks of SSG and SFC have most likely completed at that point in their careers (not to mention real world experience leading men with much of that in combat it today's military).

Maybe some of you have experiences that predate the current professionalizing of NCO training? Not to mention in the Army, Senior NCO's are the trainers for initial Officer training. Officers oversee the training and develop the curriculum, but the hands on day to day training is done mostly by NCO's. How could someone so incapable possibly do this? It makes me sad to read the back and forth here between NCO's and Officers after I had such a great experience in my career. It was my experience that Officer's consulted with their NCO's prior to making decisions (if time permitted). Then once that decision was made NCO's made sure everyone followed that order without question (at least public question/ridicule as human nature always has questions).

Also, in the Army it is typical that the day to day running of a platoon is led by the PSG. The young officer is focused on mission planning, range planning, acquiring training areas, admin stuff etc. that is beneficial to his/her professional development.

I think almost everyone posting in this thread needs to give a little more credit to the other side for what they do. It's all part of a bigger machine that would not work without everyone's contributions.

Just to add a little bit, maybe some of you confuse the overall higher intellect and drive of the Officer ranks with lack of training and ability of the enlisted ranks? On a person for person basis that is definitely the case. However, just because you know all the text book answers better than most of your NCO's does not prepare you to lead a platoon. Real world experience cannot be substituted. Doctrine is always behind by at least 2 or 3 years to what is being applied currently in the field. It is just the nature of the beast. Hopefully many of you who still mentor young Officer's tell them this and do not pump their heads full of BS that they will show up more knowledgeable than any enlisted man who falls under their leadership.

Also, you enlisted guys who seem to show so much resentment of your Officers need to know your place and roll in the scheme of things. Your power derives from the very Officers you don't like. You are not commissioned and therefore you have no power without their help. It should be a beautiful working relationship of mutual respect and teamwork.

Mission, I'm not talking about the army. I'm talking about the Marine Corps. I dont know or care how the army trains their officers.

and I'm not saying that a Marine 2ndLt knows more than any enlisted man...but he knows a hell of a lot more than a large, large percentage of them.

Well I can't speak of Marine training so you have a point. I worked with the Scout side of Armor so I can tell you what most accomplish prior to going to their first unit. Despite you not caring...

Optional (Kinda) prior to BOLC

Airborne School or Air Assault School 3 weeks

Optional (Kinda) right after BOLC

Ranger School 2 months
Army Reconnaissance Course 4 weeks

Your command is going to want you to complete one of those two schools. It's an infantry world now for Cavalry Officers. Heavy units are going away more and more so you need this skill set.

Mandatory

OCS 12 weeks (plus enlisted training as well prior to) or BOLC-A ??? depends on program
Armor BOLC-B 18 weeks

That is an impressive set of schools and almost a year of continuous training for a new Lt. Most NCO's don't get access to all those schools until they have proven themselves as a soldier. That still doesn't mean they are not ready or capable of leading a platoon by the time they are in senior enlisted positions. I seriously doubt the Marine's are any different. But I can't say that for sure and you are the "expert" on that here. I just somehow doubt a Marine 2nd Lt. shows up knowing more than a very high percentage of enlisted Marine NCO's. Just seems like a very arrogant thing to say.

[This message has been edited by Mission Velveta (edited 4/25/2013 1:17p).]

Velveta, spend a week at Marine IOC. I think you'll change your mind about the arrogance of Mameluke's comments.

Biggest challenges for a new lt hitting the fleet: 1. Understand that he DOES know as much as he really does and 2. Dealing with his NCOs in a manner that builds teamwork and does not smack of arrogance.

And finally, don't make assumptions about Marine lieutenants based on experiences with Army lieutenants.

Well to be honest my experience with Marine Lt's is from dealing with them directly. Armor BOLC is a joint service operation and the person while I was there in charge of field ops was a Marine Major. Marine Officers are very impressive and I'm not going to get into a pissing match about the different services. However, the Marine enlisted guys who also taught the course were just as impressive therefore I think this is a fair comparison. How can enlisted guys teach new Officers and then turn around and instantly be inferior in knowledge because the Officer shows up at his new unit? I don't see how this isn't obvious. Are things done differently at Marine Infantry Officer School? Do only Officers instruct the course? I readily admit I am ignorant on this subject.

I guess there is just a disconnect between the Army and Marines here. This is from the Ft. Benning website about Armor BOLC.

"Second, keep an open mind and be humble. You might think that you know everything, but you are a 2LT, so you actually know very little. This especially applies once you finish BOLC and report to your unit."

So the Marines tell you that you already know more than most? Interesting...

It's nice to see that the pissing contest between services is inevitable.

quote:

---

I dont know or care how the army trains their officers.

---

That's mildly ignorant of any officer to say of another branch considering they're your military peers and joint operations aren't exactly rare.

quote:

---

"Second, keep an open mind and be humble. You might think that you know everything, but you are a 2LT, so you actually know very little. This especially applies once you finish BOLC and report to your unit."

---

That's an interesting find on the website. While this would be advice to hand out in a more private setting, it's surprising that this is actually placed on a public website.

Either way, the only "disrespect" I ever showed an officer was when I got a new 2LT, on his first day, and that was normally just taping him to a chair and putting a baby bib on him. All in fun, knowing that this guy was about to lead me and my squad in combat. It's a team effort. The officer that the OP referenced sounds more like an anomaly than the norm. NCOs are experienced men who normally display solid leadership qualities. That's why somebody put stripes on them. Not all, I know, but that's certainly the idea. Officers are on the other side of the Type A coin. They're higher educated than NCOs (mostly) and go through plenty of doctrine and leadership training, both in ROTC and in BOLC, OBC, etc. There isn't much of a substitute on the enlisted side for the amount of military knowledge officers receive in their first twelve to eighteen months of training. There also isn't much of a substitute for officers for the ten years of experience and deployments that their NCOs have. Knowing how to be in charge is no substitute for knowing how to lead. And, just for the record, I know plenty of prior Marine enlisted and NCOs that mirror Army perceptions of fresh LTs. They're real book smart...which means they're not that smart. But it's our job to train them on the other stuff. Being a little humble in the military profession goes a long way, and that's for officers AND NCOs.

And, for the OP, while your reaction was perfectly normal, those are the things for private settings. Oh, and tact. Professional and military tact seems to be a lost art these days. Also not exclusive to officers OR enlisted (though officer tact tends to be a touch better, which I think is natural from the more professional settings in training).


**Edit for mixed modifiers. I'm a self-admitted grammar Nazi. I know, I know...I'm workin on it.

[This message has been edited by tombdaddy504 (edited 4/25/2013 1:55p).]

The intent of that quote is to be humble and realize your career is just beginning. You will learn so much more throughout your career as an Officer than your initial entry training. The difference between a 2nd Lt and a Captain for instance in knowledge is vast typically. That's usually only 4 or 5 years of service too in some cases. The 2nd Lt is the private of the Officer world. Dumb mistakes will be made and learned from. All making them a better Officer. I was lucky to be around some outstanding Officers in my career who were outstanding leaders. They could rub shoulders with Generals one minute and turn around and relate to a 18 year old private or 23 year old 2Lt flawlessly like a father figure. That's why I hate threads like these so much. Not sure why I got caught up in it.

Edited for clarity...

A 2nd Lt is the equivalent to private in the sense that they are just beginning their careers and have much to learn about their craft. In no way am I implying they are equal in knowledge. One is the equivalent of a worker and the other an entry level manager. Both have to progress and learn to further promote in the military.

P.S. Out of post for the day so this is in response to a post after mine. I don't buy for a minute an Army Infantry Officer did not know how to conduct a 9 line or set up a basic defensive perimeter. Any private coming out of initial training can do that at the drop of a hat. Let alone a Lt. who was deployed overseas. Substantial training is conducted prior to a deployment with each unit all the way down to the platoon level.They will be heavily scrutinized at minimum in Kuwait but most likely JRTC or NTC as well.

Army Infantry Officers are very highly trained and they are the best and brightest as this is the most sought after career field for career minded Officers. Rarely are non Infantry Officers granted command over the battalion level. There are very few slots for Brigade level command outside of combat arms.

At worst you must have been dealing with some direct commission support officer of some kind who is in the military for specialty reasons and not combat (They have that in the Army which is hard for Marines to grasp sometimes). Maybe you guys were supposed to supply the muscle and you instead asked some unqualified person to protect your Marines. That is on you. Just speculating on that part but I remain adamant no Infantry Officer would struggle with that!

[This message has been edited by Mission Velveta (edited 4/25/2013 4:17p).]

quote:

---

That's mildly ignorant of any officer to say of another branch considering they're your military peers and joint operations aren't exactly rare.

---

that's fine. i still dont care how they train their officers, so long as their officers are competent when i deal with them. as a lieutenant, i operated with an army lieutenant running convoys in helmand and he couldnt put together a simple ****ing casevac nine line or set up security for his convoy. i dont care what his training background was, just htat he was incompetent and that my Marines were put at greater risk because he was a moron.

quote:

---

Biggest challenges for a new lt hitting the fleet: 1. Understand that he DOES know as much as he really does and 2. Dealing with his NCOs in a manner that builds teamwork and does not smack of arrogance.

---

great post. too many lieutenants are too damn timid to make decisions because the overarching message is that a 2nd lieutenant doesnt know ****. well, a Marine 2nd lieutenant DOES know ****, especially an infantry officer. just because some salty lance corporal got his combat action ribbon three years ago doesnt mean he knows more than a lieutenant, but most of them think they do, and are completely ignorant of what training that lieutenant has been through.



[This message has been edited by Mameluke (edited 4/25/2013 3:58p).]

quote:

---

The 2nd Lt is the private of the Officer world

---

no he is not. there is not a comparable rank to a private in the officer world. i hate when i hear people say this.

[This message has been edited by Mameluke (edited 4/25/2013 3:27p).]

Velveta, roger on "why get caught up", at least in the inter service pissing contest. Those are always "All heat, no light". But the Leadership discussion, which this thread became, is interesting.

Regarding the mention of "Humility", the Marine Corps has identified 14 Leadership Traits. Humility AIN'T one of them ;-) Although, I believe that "situational humility" is important.
You know how it goes; young Lt is too humble, he gets run over by his NCOs. He is too cocky and they go passive aggressive on him.

Everything is about balance.

Back to the OP comment about "put him in his place". I am grateful for every NCO, Staff NCO and enlisted Marine who "put me in my place". The "place" they put me in was command at the platoon, company, battalion and regimental level. Would never have succeeded "in my place" without them.

Case in point: in Saving Private Ryan, CPT Miller asks SGT Horvath what he thinks. The sgt says "captain, you don't want to know what I think." Miller responds, "no Mike, I do."

[This message has been edited by Stbabs (edited 4/25/2013 3:31p).]

quote:

---

"Second, keep an open mind and be humble. You might think that you know everything, but you are a 2LT, so you actually know very little. This especially applies once you finish BOLC and report to your unit."

---

If that is really on the Army officers website, that is an atrocity. No wonder some 2ndLts go to their first platoon and get bossed around.
I have no problem with the Army, they have their mission and we have ours, but my Marines would have never attempted to tape me to a chair with a bib on and I would have never allowed it to happen, nor would have my Platoon Sergeant. That Lt lost any credibility he ever would have had that instant.

[This message has been edited by 3rdGenAg05 (edited 4/25/2013 3:55p).]

BTW, Velveta, thanks for the education on Army officer training. I don't know what all those schools entail, but I know more than I did this am.
I suppose I'm partially responsible for derailing this into Army v MC, but that was not my intent. I had just only seen Army folks posting about poor officers, thus I asked what the Army does to prepare them. I do think Marine 2ndLts by and large are better equipped to run a platoon than a SNCO, especially in the infantry, mostly because of the phenomenal training that officers get and the unfortunate lack of formal training that our enlisted men receive. Their training is supposed to come from officers, that's one way the USMC can spend less money.
To answer your question, enlisted men are really involved at OCS, but beyond that officers are trained by officers. Occasionally, enlisted men teach in areas where they are subject matter experts because of experience (e.g. A Sergeant machine-gunner would teach new 2ndLts about Machine-gunnery).
For the record, I think AgFan is just laughing at all of this, I took the hook and swam.

i think the NCOs training army officers vs. Marine officers training other Marine officers is one of two things that makes the major difference. the other is the existence of the Basic School.

[This message has been edited by Mameluke (edited 4/25/2013 4:29p).]

3dGen, I disagree about AgFan laughing at us. I don't think he's slept off his hangover yet!

quote:

---

i think the NCOs training army officers vs. Marine officers training other Marine officers is one of two things that makes the major difference. the other is the existence of the Basic School.

---

Don't drink so much Kool-Aid

[This message has been edited by Tango Mike (edited 4/25/2013 6:07p).]

I worked with a lot of Marines in Ramadi, if you guys honestly think you have some sort of tactical or leadership superiority to your Army counterparts, you are terribly ignorant or blinded by your own propaganda.

quote:

---

I worked with a lot of Marines in Ramadi, if you guys honestly think you have some sort of tactical or leadership superiority to your Army counterparts, you are terribly ignorant or blinded by your own propaganda.

---

Who said that?

Alright Diyala and Velveta pulled me in...This is a great discussion; at no point in time did anyone on the "Marine side" say that we're superior in tactics or leadership. I will not throw any deployment stories out there, but we all have them for both sides. If you’ve worn a uniform overseas in combat, you’ve seen shenanigans, unfortunately and there’s no need to go down that road…

3rdGen is right about AgFan, he just trolled a whole bunch of military officers so kudos to you my belligerent/entitled service member, mission accomplished. Please go grab a black sharpie, a piece of a cardboard box, post up on a corner, and do your thing my friend.

There is definitely a difference between the Army and Marines when it comes to officer entry level training. That difference such as TBS versus BOLC is due in large part to things like size of force which correlates to different locations for training, different training methodologies, etc. It is tailored specifically to each service’s mission whether it’s good or bad.

I took part in BOLC for my MOS (arty dude) and had the opportunity to witness where the Army is attempting to do the whole TBS thing in the way that the basic level infantry skills are taught before the assigned MOS training begins. Just coming off of 6 months at TBS the Marine Lts had a leg up on our Army brothers for that simple reason, we had 6 months of company-level infantry training. Even when it came to briefing a battalion-level fire support plan (trying not to acronym y’all to death) we were way ahead. Our passing grade was 80%, the Army dudes 70%.

Mind you this was several years back and I’m sure it has gotten even better for the BOLC course curriculum so that’s great. This is a fact, not a story from a deployment. With that being said, it’s the school house, it doesn’t mean crap and doesn’t correlate to success when you’re out in the operational area with Soldiers/Marines (this is me not saying Marine officers are superior to Army officers). What really matters is when you get in front of that platoon out in the fleet for the first time and take charge with that “balance” that StBabs was talking about earlier.

Apologies in advance if I became a troll myself….


[This message has been edited by yutyutag05 (edited 4/25/2013 8:19p).]

quote:

---

quote:
I worked with a lot of Marines in Ramadi, if you guys honestly think you have some sort of tactical or leadership superiority to your Army counterparts, you are terribly ignorant or blinded by your own propaganda.

Who said that?

---

Maybe here:

quote:

---

that's fine. i still dont care how they train their officers, so long as their officers are competent when i deal with them. as a lieutenant, i operated with an army lieutenant running convoys in helmand and he couldnt put together a simple ****ing casevac nine line or set up security for his convoy. i dont care what his training background was, just htat he was incompetent and that my Marines were put at greater risk because he was a moron.

---

that is one situation in which i can tell you, unequivocally, that i was superior both tactically and in leadership. but nowhere did i say that he was representative of the entire army.

Marmeluke,

Then don't make the implication.

I will be very quick to say I was privileged to work with some great marines in 2005, and I was overwhelming(with the exception of one infantry company commander in 3-7) impressed with what you guys are capable of - that said I have very little tolerance for the completely unfounded sense of superiority exhibited by many mostly younger marines.

As an enlisted member of the Army (SSG), I have yet to come across any officer who acted entitled or "superior" to me simply because they held a higher rank. Heck, as a PFC my PL let me plan a couple of patrols (including an ambush) because he knew I did ROTC and wanted to encourage me to apply to OCS.

I have worked with several D-Bags on both sides of the house. To be completely honest, I see a lot of "holier than thou" attitudes out of senior NCOs. I was not in the Army before 9/11, so please stop telling me that I would not have made it a full term back then, nor did I have the "privilege to shine black boots or starch BDUs (except for my Corps days).

In my opinion, the degradation of standards is killing the Army. The Army now is not what it was when I enlisted in 2007 or before. I spend my days doing random classes, just to print a certificate and turn it in just to show that my section and I completed it. We do pointless High Risk Questionnaires, that never get read by anyone higher than myself. I do little to no training on my MOS, which as a 13B, is sad. Not from lack of effort, but from lack of people. Everyone is cutting grass, raking dirt, police calling, cleaning stuff at Battalion, or at a computer lab doing a survey.

Anyways, sorry to digress. Worked with some good dudes (including an Edmund L. Gruber Award Winner 2010) from both NCO and Officer side of the house. Had a few tools too. No opinion on Marines, never worked with them, although I will come next week when I train on the M777.

[This message has been edited by JABQ04 (edited 4/25/2013 11:07p).]

Diyala

I made no such implication.

My bad then.

i will even add that we worked with an army route clearance platoon that were some of the best and most capable guys that i operated with the whole time i was in afghanistan. but they were lead by a senior 1stLt, and i thought we were talking about the capabilities and leadership of entry level officers.

Just my opinion, but there seems to be a significant disparity in the tactical knowledge and leadership training (or desire) between career fields in the Army. If you met a brand new infantry lieutenant you'd have a different opinion than if you met a brand new artillery lieutenant than if you met a brand new quartermaster lieutenant

While I don't believe the Marine Corps's propaganda that they are a better trained service, there is value in their belief that their newest non-infantry 2LTs are more tactically capable than the newest Army non-infantry/Armor/FA 2LTs. The Army, I believe, doesn't put enough value in basic fieldcraft for non-combat arms officers; the Marine Corps seems to do that better with their "everyone is a rifleman first".

DP? On a computer? Why?

[This message has been edited by Tango Mike (edited 4/26/2013 8:49a).]

quote:

---

Just my opinion, but there seems to be a significant disparity in the tactical knowledge and leadership training (or desire) between career fields in the Army. If you met a brand new infantry lieutenant you'd have a different opinion than if you met a brand new artillery lieutenant than if you met a brand new quartermaster lieutenant

While I don't believe the Marine Corps's propaganda that they are a better trained service, there is value in their belief that their newest non-infantry 2LTs are more tactically capable than the newest Army non-infantry/Armor/FA 2LTs. The Army, I believe, doesn't put enough value in basic fieldcraft for non-combat arms officers; the Marine Corps seems to do that better with their "everyone is a rifleman first".

---

i agree with you here, which is why i said there is so much value in the Basic School and Marine officers training other Marine officers, to which you replied for me not to drink the koolaid (caught the loggie comment before you deleted it too, not sure how that applies to anything).

i'm sure that an army infantry lieutenant who has been through the training pipeline and gone to airborne, ranger school and all that is highly capable and is comparable to an IOC complete Marine 2ndLt.

The loggie comment was just to screw with you, it had no value other than interservice ribbing, which is why I deleted it. Sorry if you took it as anything other than good-natured fun

I'd argue that you are probably more tactically proficient than 99% of non-combat arms Army officers. I wish the Army put more emphasis on basic training for lieutenants

Ha, ok my bad.