Task force suggest soldiers in mid 20's are more lethal

[platoonDaddy]

Very interesting concept on the transition into a grunt


Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, chairman of the Pentagon's Close Combat Lethality Task Force, has suggested that Marines should have to go through four years in a different career field and wait an enlistment before transitioning into the infantry.

As part of this effort, Scales — an Army field artillery officer who earned the Silver Star in Vietnam when his base was overrun — has been working to convince the Defense Department that soldiers in their mid to late 20s are more lethal. The retired general told Military Times this is, "the optimal age for a close-combat soldier."


https://www.businessinsider.com/top-pentagon-advisers-say-most-lethal-marines-are-in-mid-20s-not-18-2018-8

[26 Inf]

Very interesting concept on the transition into a grunt



https://www.businessinsider.com/top-pentagon-advisers-say-most-lethal-marines-are-in-mid-20s-not-18-2018-8

At four years if you are worth a pooh you should be picking up Corporal, shouldn't you? How's that going to work?

I can hear the Career Planner now: 'Corporal Smith, you've down an outstanding job as an air frame mechanic, well worth the nearly a year in formal schooling the Corps spent training you, now you need to reenlist reenlist and go 03 you Devil Dawg, you!'

So how about we just raise the enlistment age to 25? That would work. :sarcastic:

[flenna]

My father enlisted in the Marine Corps at 17 yoa and was in the infantry. At 18 he did his first tour in Viet Nam. At 20 he did his second tour as a platoon sergeant (and de facto platoon leader since 2nd LTs were hard to come by and hard to keep) in which he was awarded a silver star. I guess he and the rest of the young men he led were too young? I would think 18-22 are the best years to handle the rigor and stress of a Marine infantryman. And why is a retired ARMY general suggesting what Marine infantryman should do?

[uffdaphil]

The lone 24 year old in my boot camp cycle (‘68) was called the old man. Funny how perspective changes as we age.

[ggammell]

An Army Artillery Officer making recommendations on what the Marines should do...alrighty then.

[SeriousStudent]

General Scales was actually asked by Secretary Mattis (peace be unto him) to do this. Mattis approached Scales after reading these two books:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1682471020/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/074251773X/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I possess and have read both books. They are worth the read, and contain valuable ideas. I would be curious if anyone else here has read them.

Frankly, as a former Marine NCO who wandered about the landscape with a heavy piece of iron, I'd not be so dense as to assume the Corps is the sole voice of wisdom. "Not Invented Here" has crippled many a military effort.

Why else does the Corps do exchange tours with foreign services?

I have zero doubts that SECDEF will examine all the ideas floated, and chose appropriately.

[Coal Dragger]

I don’t think the concept is such a bad idea, at least the age notion of mid 20’ to late 20’s being a more optimal time for a man to be a grunt.

Look at it this way, the average male brain fully develops around 25, so a 25 year old is invariably smarter and more mature than an 18 year old. Far more capable of effective rational independent thinking and action at that point, which in a small unit conflict is very important. A 25 year old who is active and trains physically is also probably going to outperform an 18 year old who has also been active and training physically. He’s had more time for his body to fully mature and build muscle mass.

So if you are magically able to change the entire service and how rank is awarded and clear other logistical hurdles why wouldn’t you want to be recruiting 2nd enlistment soldiers and Marines to be grunts? They’re more mature in life experience, biologically their brains are also more mature, and assuming a 2nd enlistment they’ve had 4 years of structured physical activity so chances are they’re stronger too.

Make the base pay considerably higher, and offer substantial bonuses for optioning to infantry if a candidate can meet the standards. The notion of paying everyone the same based on rank regardless of MOS has been pretty stupid for a long long time. Paying an Air Force jet engine mechanic essentially the same as an infantryman is insulting, how often to mechanics die in combat, get maimed, or suffer career ending training injuries compared to a grunt? How much time do they spend sleeping on the ground? Eating MRE’s? Shitting in a hole they had to dig? The dude who signed up for the misery and risk taking should see some reward$$$$$.

[Wake27]

The basis for some of the arguments here that are against this so far is pretty weak. It’s probably a safe assumption that there is some evidence to support his claim that ignores the fact that he’s from a different branch of service.


I don’t think the concept is such a bad idea, at least the age notion of mid 20’ to late 20’s being a more optimal time for a man to be a grunt.

Look at it this way, the average male brain fully develops around 25, so a 25 year old is invariably smarter and more mature than an 18 year old. Far more capable of effective rational independent thinking and action at that point, which in a small unit conflict is very important. A 25 year old who is active and trains physically is also probably going to outperform an 18 year old who has also been active and training physically. He’s had more time for his body to fully mature and build muscle mass.

So if you are magically able to change the entire service and how rank is awarded and clear other logistical hurdles why wouldn’t you want to be recruiting 2nd enlistment soldiers and Marines to be grunts? They’re more mature in life experience, biologically their brains are also more mature, and assuming a 2nd enlistment they’ve had 4 years of structured physical activity so chances are they’re stronger too.

Make the base pay considerably higher, and offer substantial bonuses for optioning to infantry if a candidate can meet the standards. The notion of paying everyone the same based on rank regardless of MOS has been pretty stupid for a long long time. Paying an Air Force jet engine mechanic essentially the same as an infantryman is insulting, how often to mechanics die in combat, get maimed, or suffer career ending training injuries compared to a grunt? How much time do they spend sleeping on the ground? Eating MRE’s? Shitting in a hole they had to dig? The dude who signed up for the misery and risk taking should see some reward$$$$$.

At least one problem with that, however, is the fact that an aircraft mechanic would probably make a lot more money in the civilian sector so there wouldn’t be a whole lot of reason for those guys to stay in if the pay isn’t even fair across the board. Plus I know plenty of non-infantry types who have had a lot of risk and misery. Probably not as much, but it’s a foolish notion to think that just because someone isn’t infantry, they’re not enduring some suck too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sundance435]

Look at it this way, the average male brain fully develops around 25, so a 25 year old is invariably smarter and more mature than an 18 year old. Far more capable of effective rational independent thinking and action at that point, which in a small unit conflict is very important. A 25 year old who is active and trains physically is also probably going to outperform an 18 year old who has also been active and training physically. He’s had more time for his body to fully mature and build muscle mass.



Maybe I'm stereotyping here, but it's got to be easier to convince an 18 year-old to do what's required of combat infantry than a 25 year-old, especially in combat. By age 25, I'd look at something with a healthy dose of "eff no", especially after seeing for 4 years how the military operates (just going off what nearly every person I know who served has said - loved serving, hated the "insert branch"). I'm making a guess that there's about a 1 millimeter-wide sliver on a pie-chart of soldierly conduct where "eff no" from an enlisted man is a good thing in combat infantry.

Not to mention the actual logistical problems of it - is every Marine enlisting with the caveat that they might be in combat infantry in 4-5 years? As someone else said, if they've been in for 5 years already, are they going to CI as an E-4?

[26 Inf]

Again, it is commonsense that someone around 25ish, is going to be more lethal - a couple of things - if he is looking across the branches, 23-25 year-old infantryman has 4 to 7 years of being a grunt under his belt; they've got a couple years as an NCO and the greater responsibility that entails.

Why wouldn't they be better tactically? Why wouldn't their force preservation skills be higher?

What we don't have is a comparison of the 'lethality' of the first term grunt - 18 to 22 year-old - versus the 'lethality' of older, mid-twenties, first term grunts.

Additionally, what everyone seems to overlook, is that if a majority of first term re-enlistments were into the 03 career field, you'd be draining the knowledge from a lot other fields. How would you like to be flying in a squadron where as soon as the guy essentially gets his feet on the ground, and could be trusted to crew chief your aircraft, they get shunted to the infantry?

Myself, I can see some unintended consequences.

[Coal Dragger]

The basis for some of the arguments here that are against this so far is pretty weak. It’s probably a safe assumption that there is some evidence to support his claim that ignores the fact that he’s from a different branch of service.



At least one problem with that, however, is the fact that an aircraft mechanic would probably make a lot more money in the civilian sector so there wouldn’t be a whole lot of reason for those guys to stay in if the pay isn’t even fair across the board. Plus I know plenty of non-infantry types who have had a lot of risk and misery. Probably not as much, but it’s a foolish notion to think that just because someone isn’t infantry, they’re not enduring some suck too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not saying lower the pay of non infantry MOS’s I’m suggesting raising the pay of infantry to reflect the real day to day disadvantages that career path involves.

A guy who turns wrenches isn’t getting the shaft here by not optioning infantry, he’s making a decision to not put up with some extra suck in exchange for more $$$ and keep on doing what he already planned to do.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Look at it this way, the average male brain fully develops around 25, so a 25 year old is invariably smarter and more mature than an 18 year old. Far more capable of effective rational independent thinking and action at that point, which in a small unit conflict is very important. A 25 year old who is active and trains physically is also probably going to outperform an 18 year old who has also been active and training physically. He’s had more time for his body to fully mature and build muscle mass.

Exactly this. 18-19 year olds are really not mature, mentally or physically. Just because they were successful soldiers in past wars, with a mass draft, doesn't mean they are ideal. And even the ones in excellent fitness tend to lack physical strength compared to the 22+ crowd.

How do you make this happen - put the 18yo enlistees on some track that is like an apprenticeship to front line infantry. Truck driver / reserve infantry or something. I don't have the full solution on that part.

[Averageman]

I joined the military as a teenager, I turned Nineteen in AIT.
I didn't mature physically until my mid twenties, I didn't peak until my mid thirties.
The only real advantage to joining at that age was that I gained an awful lot of good practical experience in my early twenties on the job that I wouldn't have gotten until my late twenties had I waited four years.
I wasn't Infantry, I was Armour, so there might be a big difference, I don't know for sure.
If this was implemented in Armor the only practical way to move forward would be to start Tankers as Mechanics, that would really pay off.

[Wake27]

start Tankers as Mechanics, that would really pay off.

Fully agreed there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ABNAK]

So some guy who has just spent 4 years in an "XXX" MOS, and has matured enough to see what the grunt lifestyle is known to be, is going to forgo his REMF job to re-enlist for Infantry? Nah, I ain't seeing it. Not to mention that now you have the same problems as the Army's "cohort" units used to have: everyone attaining rank at the same time, in this case a bunch of E-4's staffing the Infantry but where are the Privates and PFC's?

If this was implemented what would result is a significant involuntary diversion to Infantry if you wanted to stay in and make a career of it. There wouldn't be enough volunteers.

Look, I was a grunt. I went in the day after my 18th birthday. I essentially didn't know any better ("Young and dumb and full of cum" as they say). I'm proud of what I did, and in hindsight wouldn't change a thing as it gave me valuable life experiences. However, if I had been 22 or 23 years old at the time I had to make the MOS decision after serving a hitch as a REMF I doubt it would have been Infantry.

[Coal Dragger]

That’s why you incentivize pay for grunts.

If you have a 4 year POG and he’s looking at staying in, and grunts make 3X as much, that’s a hell of an incentive to hit the gym and re-enlist 11x or 03x.

Pay grunts more, and open up promotions so they have more opportunities to advance. Then push those standards up so the good pay comes with increased performance.

As for what will be done without Pvt’s and Pfc’s: well there will be some shitty working parties that have to get done and Cpl’s and Sgt’s might find themselves doing them. However a lot of that shit is busy work to keep junior enlisted busy and hopefully out of trouble. If you factor in older more mature guys, the need for busy work goes away to a large extent.

[ABNAK]

That’s why you incentivize pay for grunts.

If you have a 4 year POG and he’s looking at staying in, and grunts make 3X as much, that’s a hell of an incentive to hit the gym and re-enlist 11x or 03x.

Pay grunts more, and open up promotions so they have more opportunities to advance. Then push those standards up so the good pay comes with increased performance.

As for what will be done without Pvt’s and Pfc’s: well there will be some shitty working parties that have to get done and Cpl’s and Sgt’s might find themselves doing them. However a lot of that shit is busy work to keep junior enlisted busy and hopefully out of trouble. If you factor in older more mature guys, the need for busy work goes away to a large extent.

What they ("they" meaning Scales in this case) are looking for is to make all grunts essentially into SOF units. It's not gonna happen. SpecOps are who they are for any one of a number of reasons, not the least of which is the grueling pipeline they have to endure to get there. Magically making all grunts 22 or 23 years old ain't gonna achieve that goal. Sure, they'll be more "mature" grunts age-wise, but they will NOT automatically be the HSLD force this plan envisions. They'll be more mature grunts, that's all. Maybe less drawing of dicks everywhere, less drunken debauchery and drama, but certainly not all Raiders/Recon/Rangers/Green Berets/SEALs.

[SeriousStudent]

The lone 24 year old in my boot camp cycle (‘68) was called the old man. Funny how perspective changes as we age.

I turned 26 in boot camp. I was older than everyone in the recruit training company I was assigned to, with the exceptions of the company Gunny and the Caption that was the CO.

My Senior Drill Instructor would yell "Get yer ass out of the rack, Pappy!" when the lights flipped on. He also yelled other things.

Yeah, my nickname was Pappy for about the first two years I was in. It was a lot better than the names he called other people - like Shitbag, Turd Thief, and JizzStain.

[Coal Dragger]

What they ("they" meaning Scales in this case) are looking for is to make all grunts essentially into SOF units. It's not gonna happen. SpecOps are who they are for any one of a number of reasons, not the least of which is the grueling pipeline they have to endure to get there. Magically making all grunts 22 or 23 years old ain't gonna achieve that goal. Sure, they'll be more "mature" grunts age-wise, but they will NOT automatically be the HSLD force this plan envisions. They'll be more mature grunts, that's all. Maybe less drawing of dicks everywhere, less drunken debauchery and drama, but certainly not all Raiders/Recon/Rangers/Green Berets/SEALs.

There will still be drawing of dicks, and debauchery. If you give me a sharpie and a porta-shitter I’m drawing dicks on it and writing “Wagner Loves The Cock” inside, and I’m 39 years old now. There would be more discretion out in town, and probably a lot less stupidity in the bricks though.

I don’t see this being a turning everything into an SOF like unit, there’s still a ton of training a guy in one of those outfits will endure to get where he is.

Logistically this is a tough one to change over to, but theoretically if a magic wand could be waved would have positive results.

[ABNAK]

I turned 26 in boot camp. I was older than everyone in the recruit training company I was assigned to, with the exceptions of the company Gunny and the Caption that was the CO.

My Senior Drill Instructor would yell "Get yer ass out of the rack, Pappy!" when the lights flipped on. He also yelled other things.

Yeah, my nickname was Pappy for about the first two years I was in. It was a lot better than the names he called other people - like Shitbag, Turd Thief, and JizzStain.

I went through Army Infantry OSUT in 1983. We had a guy who was 37yo go through my cycle......but there was a catch. He was a 'Nam SF vet. For some reason (I surmise because he had been out for too long) they made him re-do OSUT from Day One. He was made a Platoon Guide right off the bat. Soft-spoken guy, we all knew (the Drill Sergeants included) who/what he was. He did everything with us, no slack cut there. However, the DS didn't f**k with him either. He is the only guy, and that means the DS too, who had shaded glasses on in my basic "yearbook". On graduation day he had a full rack of ribbons, SF combat patch on his right shoulder, Combat Infantry Badge, jump wings, and those damn shades! One of my senior drills walked up to him in, gave him a once over, and walked away as he smiled and shook his head......that dude's uniform blew his away!

He was rumored to have been trying to get back into SF. Don't know if it ever happened, but it wouldn't surprise me if he had done it.

I can remember once or twice he was called into the DS CP ("head shed") and he was in there for a while both times. We wondered if they dared to try and smoke him, but he never had a bead of sweat showing! I would wager that the senior DS (most of them 'Nam vets too at that time) told him to have a seat and they bullshitted.

[rero360]

I started out 11B, did 6 years of it before being forced to 31B for 4 years before I moved out of state and reclassified again to 13F. Now I’m moving back to the Infantry as an HHC 1SG, was a SPC when I took my blue cord off. We shall see how well I do with 12 years of non infantry experience going back in.

[Averageman]

I dunno, it might not be a bad idea for Infantry guys to do a couple of years as a mechanic, Striker's, Bradley's, light wheels or even commo.
Infantry guys especially the light are pretty proud of what they do. The other side of that coin is they can be stubborn as F about learning something outside of Infantry stuff sometimes.
Doing this might be beneficial in ways you can't imagine, coupled with Proficiency Pay, Combat Arms Increased Pay and maybe you'll see an increase in lethality.
What you will definitely see is a better well rounded Soldier with diverse skill sets.