Setting Conditions: Preparation for Attending Advanced and Leadership Courses
by the Staff of Advanced Infantry Training Battalion - East
Previously, we discussed what Advanced Infantry Training Battalion-East (AITB-E) has seen as the largest contributing factors to student attrition at the advanced and leadership courses on the East Coast. As a follow up, the staff and cadres have consolidated some recommended preparation actions leadership from the Fleet Marine Force and Supporting Establishment can take to increase the likelihood of success for their attendees.
Formalize the Preparation
When AITB-E conducts performance review boards (PRB) for students that are struggling and likely to fail, the question the staff always asks is how long they knew they were enrolled in the course and what they did to prepare to attend. Most students state they had known for less than three months, and their preparation was only done with recent course graduates. Often, while students engaging with prior graduates is better than nothing, these graduates may have been low performers in the course and likely lack the ability to teach the knowledge effectively.
At least at the platoon-level, but ideally a company driven preparation plan significantly increases the likelihood of student success. Whether platoon or company driven, leadership and staff can either supervise or directly teach topics preparing students for the course. It can be done a week or two prior to the course commencing or integrated into other unit activities over a few months. Past and future students have access to all of the course materials in MOODLE and are welcome to reach out to AITB staff if leadership needs assistance finding materials or references/publications. All future students get access to MOODLE and course pre-work 30 days in advance of course commencement if they are registered.
Developing Your Prep Course
In some cases, even when students and units do devote time to course preparation, they over-emphasize the initial performance assessments (IPA). The IPAs are less than one day out of the training continuum and do not result in any student being dropped. There are many other topics/skills that units should focus on that will have a greater return on investment. For all courses we recommend:
Land Navigation
As mentioned in our previous article, land navigation is one of the largest hard skill deficiencies for students across the advanced and leadership courses. While time spent conducting a land navigation course is preferred, simply taking students through basic map work or using a simulation lab affords a large increase in student confidence in land navigation prior to the course.
Weapons
For advanced courses, student preparation for their specific weapon system is a must. This includes immediate and remedial action for individual weapons, assembly and disassembly of MMG/HMG (Advanced Machinegunner Course), Gunner's Exam (Advanced Mortarman Course), immediate/remedial action and error codes of CLU/SABER system (Advanced Anti-Tank Missile Gunners Course). Correct procedures can be found in the MOODLE resources for each course.
For the leaders courses, AITB-East recommends each student is deliberately introduced to any weapon not typically associated with their primary MOS (rifle company weapons for Infantry Small Unit Leaders Course, all battalion weapons for Infantry Unit Leaders Course). Most students fail at least one weapons PECL on the first attempt throughout the courses. While less than 5% of academic failures are dropped from the course from ONLY failing weapons PECLs, multiple PECL failures combined with planning, orders, and fires failures usually comprise the list of academic discrepancies discussed at performance review boards.
For IULC specifically, the method to expose the students to all Bn weapons systems should be formal to ensure appropriate familiarization. For unfamiliar systems outside the scope of the student’s MOS, they should receive the information more than once. Students get ample time in the course to get hands on the weapons systems prior to performing the evaluated PECL. However, if it’s the Marine’s first time formally conducting the PECL then they will be more likely to “punt it into the stands” than if they were able to PECL on the system multiple times prior to arriving to the course. The argument “he’s a Staff Sergeant, he should figure it out” has not yielded positive results with weapons PECLs at IULC.
Leadership Exposure
The leadership grade within AITB-E courses is comprised of peer evaluations (least weight), leadership evaluations administered by the squad mentors, and field leadership evaluations (FLE) (heaviest weight). While Field Leadership Evaluation (FLE) failures are common across all of the courses, they are most prevalent in the leadership courses.
FLE failure is attributed to the student’s receiving no repetitions or few repetitions in filling a leadership role in a tactical training environment before attending the course. Typically, this inexperience with basic leadership of an infantry unit during operations leads to an inability to make decisions in a stressful, chaotic situation. When heavy coaching and interjection from the instructor cadre is required, overall training for the entire class is diminished. Worse, when students freeze immediately on contact and are unable to make decisions, during both non-live fire and live fire training, instructors are forced to step in to avoid unsafe situations. From an exercise control perspective, the intensity of the environment created for the students is similar (maybe only slightly elevated) to what would be common during unit training. The course cadres do everything possible to provide non-evaluated FLEs and a second FLE if the Marine fails their first. However, repetitions with their home unit under the supervision of platoon or company mentors increases the likelihood of in-course progression and success.
These repetitions do not need to be overly complex. Simply conducting a task with a small unit in a time compressed situation under stress that requires decisions can be sufficient to build student confidence. These repetitions could be done in the field or as part of physical fitness events. The important component is the requirement to make a plan and implement a plan that is followed by feedback from their supervising leader.
Course Specific Preparation
Below are specific observations and recommendations from individual cadres within AITB-East.
Basic Scout Course
Student Shortfalls: The primary issue faced with students is deficient land navigation skills including map work and application, and an overall reduced ability in 1000-level 03xx tasks.
Recommendations
Marines selected to attend any scout course should focus on preparation in map work and land navigation. Additionally, preparation in individual skills such as field craft, patrolling, communications, and reporting can increase their overall progression in the course. These skills are prerequisites to effectively conduct reconnaissance and surveillance. The less time the course cadre needs to devote to retraining these basic skills, the more time can be devoted to developing scout-specific skills.
Units are encouraged to coordinate with AITB and the Scout SNCOIC to facilitate unit-specific training between course cycles. This will allow scout units to train together and would improve their skills with field craft, individual movement techniques, observation, surveillance, and reporting.
Infantry Small Unit Leader Course (ISULC)
Student Shortfalls: Although ISULC is primarily focused on leadership and decision-making in stressful environments, students spend the first couple weeks of the course conducting tactical planning, writing orders, and learning about small unit training. Students who have little to no exposure to METT-T analysis prior to attending the course struggle to grasp the concepts. This manifests during field leadership evaluations. ISULC students only fail the course for conduct or leadership, but inexperience with tactical planning and writing/briefing orders as identified in the first two weeks of the course often leads to failure in the planning portion of field leadership evaluations.
Recommendations: At a minimum, Company Staff should make sure any Marine attending ISULC has conducted a METT-T analysis, written a basic order, and briefed it at least once with feedback from an 0302 or 0369 prior to attending the course. Increased exposure to tactical planning and combat orders is key. The ideal method would be to assign orders to NCOs selected to attend ISULC each time the company conducts field training and carve out time for briefing and debriefing from their leadership. Each repetition the Marine receives increases the likelihood of passing a field leadership evaluation.
Infantry Unit Leaders Course (IULC)
Student Shortfalls
0369s are expected to be able to conduct planning, write orders, and plan for the integration of fires. Most students who fail through academics struggle with tactical planning, orders, and fire support planning. For the same reasons as ISULC, students arrive with little to no experience conducting planning and writing orders outside of their advanced course (if they even attended their advanced course). Students who have at least some exposure to basic fire support planning (basic call for fire, understand what FSCMs are, have seen a target list worksheet before, etc.) do well during the fires package. Students who have never been exposed to fires struggle and typically fail the fire support exam.
As mentioned previously, most students fail at least one weapons PECL on the first attempt throughout the course, but less than 5% of academic failures are dropped from the course from only failing weapons PECLs. Due to the weapons packages being in the middle (second phase) of the course, multiple PECL failures combined with planning, orders, and fires failures usually comprise the list of academic discrepancies discussed at performance review boards. The PECLs that students fail mostly correlate to their MOS and exposure to all battalion weapon systems.
Recommendations
Preparation for IULC is very similar to ISULC. Increased exposure to tactical planning and combat orders at every opportunity with quality feedback is a must. SNCOs need reps too! Additionally, many students struggle to understand how to employ basic fires in support of a maneuver element. Orders process development should be coupled with formalized introduction to fire support planning through available MarineNet and MOODLE resources, technical publications, fires workshop and practical application, Deployable Virtual Training Environment (DVTE), and other relevant methods. It’s clear that many Marines do not receive enough, or any, exposure to fires integration outside of their advanced schools, if they attended.
Formalize the methods for exposing Marines attending IULC to all Battalion weapons systems to ensure appropriate familiarization. Repetitive exposure is necessary for unfamiliar systems outside the scope of their MOS. Students get ample time in the course to get hands on the weapons systems prior to performing the evaluated PECL, however, if it’s the Marine’s first time formally conducting the PECL then there is an increased likelihood of failure.
Making the Infantry Better
The points listed above are intended to provide some proactive actions a command can take to help avoid their students failing in any of the advanced infantry training courses. However, these preparatory actions should not simply be seen as a way to avoid failure, less they be seen as only necessary for substandard Marines or in specific cases. Instead, AITB-E has seen that any investment commands put into preparing their Marines leads to students progressing much further along within the course. When commands stop seeing the formal infantry training environment as the place that infantry leaders develop their individual capabilities, and instead see it as continuation of an infantry leaders’ improvement, albeit a more focused and optimized period, then they will reap significantly greater rewards in their formation’s proficiency. When the FMF, Supporting Establishment, and Training Command are all working together toward making the individual Marine more capable, the impacts on combat lethality and readiness cannot be overstated.
For any questions specific to the advanced courses the POC is Capt Sam Odell. For unit leader courses the POC is Capt Luke Holley. All other AITB-East questions and inquiries can be sent to Maj Dan Chmelar and LtCol A. C. Eckert.