New class of Branched Army female Infantry Officers.

[Sledge]

I guess you could see females in Regiment from other branches, but they'd have to tab first unless (again) they bend the rules. Thinking about it, we could probably see option 40 Regiment or 18X SF enlisted applicants before officers.

Really good info above. Thanks, Hawk. Regarding what I quote above, I thought I'd read the Army was going with a "leader first," i.e. officers, approach to females in the combat arms so the female enlisted would have "mentors" when they arrived.

I also note that the new "gender-neutral" entry PT test for SFAS is the same as the RPFT, with one exception. The run is 2 miles in 7:15 instead of the 5 miles in 40:00. Push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups are identical.

 

[cga82]

The run is 2 miles in 7:15 instead of the 5 miles in 40:00.

I think you meant 1 mile @ 7:15 unless your Dave Wottle. Very good info--sharp.

 

[Sledge]

I think you meant 1 mile @ 7:15 unless your Dave Wottle. Very good info--sharp.

Yes, my mistake. 2 miles in 15 minutes, I think

 

[MemberLG]

There is currently a big emphasis on IBOLC as prep for Ranger School

Back in mid-90's, there was a big emphasis on IOBC as prep for Ranger School. We constantly heard "In Ranger school . . ." during IOBC.

Recent figures are that about half of ABOLC grads are sent to RS. (informal per the LT's) They apparently have a harder time even with RTAC as ABOLC spends virtually no time on things that would help prepare for RS.

What do you expect with the branch with an informal motto of "Death before dismount." About half of ABOLC grads being sent RS seems high. Not to stereotype, but most Armor guys pick Armor so they don't have to walk or carry a big rucksack on their back

As a somewhat disinterested observer, I expect 2-3 years of data gathering, then the IBOLC/RS pass rates will not look good enough and they will either change the standard or remove RS tab as a defacto IN requirement. Or remove it from consideration for AER's or promotion, etc.

Although Ranger tab is a defacto IN requirement, it will never change as it's not an official requirement. It's a school you have to volunteere for. I served under two INF BN commanders without Ranger tab and both of them made general officers.

 

[hawk]

Back in mid-90's, there was a big emphasis on IOBC as prep for Ranger School. We constantly heard "In Ranger school . . ." during IOBC.

Funny, I guess there is truly nothing new under the sun. Last fall the IBOLC students regularly heard stuff like "the current 2-11 commander has emphasized reducing washout rates during RAP week", "renewed emphasis on RS prep", etc.

The current curriculum does seem to have a reasonable balance of hitting the doctrine & training new LT's will need while also making sure they are exposed to what they will encounter in RAP and Darby RS phases. Also appears there is close cooperation apparently between 2-11 and RTB.

About half of ABOLC grads being sent RS seems high. Not to stereotype, but most Armor guys pick Armor so they don't have to walk or carry a big rucksack on their back

This seemed skewed to me as well, but apparently it's the effect of smaller and less frequent ABOLC classes. (about 40% of IBOLC size, and 2-3 less per year)

The LT's indicate RTB currently allocate a certain % each RS class for IBOLC and ABOLC respectively.

It is apparently harder for Armor types to fit it in as their BOLC is longer, and they have to add RTAC in before attending RS.

Although Ranger tab is a defacto IN requirement, it will never change as it's not an official requirement. It's a school you have to volunteer for. I served under two INF BN commanders without Ranger tab and both of them made general officers.

Very interesting. I guess it varies by timeframe & growth mode of the Army, but current IN LT expectations is that you likely will not be given a platoon in many units if you are not tabbed. I know my son's perception for his unit is that there is an unwritten expectation "don't bother showing up un-tabbed".

I don't know how rigidly that's applied, or if it is old LT's tales. You do see LT's making a 2nd attempt at RS before they report to their unit, as long they were not LOM drops.

The buzz is that most units are significantly overstrength in 2LT's (120+%?) and that even follow-on schools (Mortar leader, RSLC, etc) matter as differentiation. They see this as an (apparent) sea change, that it's no longer a race to get to their unit. It's now more important to arrive with any training you may need, and ideally will make you more competitive.

 

[scoutpilot]

Funny, I guess there is truly nothing new under the sun. Last fall the IBOLC students regularly heard stuff like "the current 2-11 commander has emphasized reducing washout rates during RAP week", "renewed emphasis on RS prep", etc.

The current curriculum does seem to have a reasonable balance of hitting the doctrine & training new LT's will need while also making sure they are exposed to what they will encounter in RAP and Darby RS phases. Also appears there is close cooperation apparently between 2-11 and RTB.



This seemed skewed to me as well, but apparently it's the effect of smaller and less frequent ABOLC classes. (about 40% of IBOLC size, and 2-3 less per year)

The LT's indicate RTB currently allocate a certain % each RS class for IBOLC and ABOLC respectively.

It is apparently harder for Armor types to fit it in as their BOLC is longer, and they have to add RTAC in before attending RS.



Very interesting. I guess it varies by timeframe & growth mode of the Army, but current IN LT expectations is that you likely will not be given a platoon in many units if you are not tabbed. I know my son's perception for his unit is that there is an unwritten expectation "don't bother showing up un-tabbed".

I don't know how rigidly that's applied, or if it is old LT's tales. You do see LT's making a 2nd attempt at RS before they report to their unit, as long they were not LOM drops.

The buzz is that most units are significantly overstrength in 2LT's (120+%?) and that even follow-on schools (Mortar leader, RSLC, etc) matter as differentiation. They see this as an (apparent) sea change, that it's no longer a race to get to their unit. It's now more important to arrive with any training you may need, and ideally will make you more competitive.

For a long time, when the Army was bigger, Ranger was something that only light infantry officers got. Mechanized infantry officers and those in heavy divisions were neither expected to get a tab nor afforded the chance. You'll see a number of former infantry GOs without the tab, as they came up in the heavy world.

 

[MemberLG]

Very interesting. I guess it varies by timeframe & growth mode of the Army, but current IN LT expectations is that you likely will not be given a platoon in many units if you are not tabbed. I know my son's perception for his unit is that there is an unwritten expectation "don't bother showing up un-tabbed".

I don't know how rigidly that's applied, or if it is old LT's tales. You do see LT's making a 2nd attempt at RS before they report to their unit, as long they were not LOM drops.

The buzz is that most units are significantly overstrength in 2LT's (120%?) and that even follow-on schools (Mortar leader, RSLC, etc) matter as differentiation.

That hasn't changed. A few of my buddies that went to the 101st Air Assault and 82nd told me that if differ from Brigade to Brigade, but in most Brigades, no Ranger tab no platoon or no Ranger tab, with TOW or support platoon. It seemed like the mechanized infantry units didn't care about the tab so much. I was in the later IBOC and mechanized so I went to Ranger school late. I ran into some of my classmates that graduated IOBC before me, started Ranger School, failed, and the unit sent them back for second try by the time I got there. If I remember correctly, my days, when you failed out Ranger school, 2LTs reported to their unit. 2LTs going to OCONUS units were usually allowed to recycle.

 

[hawk]

Very interesting info, MemberLG.

The other explanation I've heard for increased tab emphasis for Armor officers is the addition of the Stryker BCT's and even the BCT approach in general.

Apparently a big push for tabs for Cav officers, especially in the IBCT's, especially light. Similar in the SBCT's due to being primarily IN operations.

Other apparent sea changes even in the last 2-3 years is how the training batts handle additional schools. YG 2012/2013 and even to a certain extent YG 2014 saw more emphasis on filling dead time at 2-11 with potentially useful courses (ARC, RSLC, IMLC, PF, etc).

Where now, 2-11 stated policy is that only honor grads get pathfinder, even if gaining unit commander formally requests it. (DS ran into this) And to get any additional training beyond the minimum identified it has to be requested by gaining unit commander on proper form 47, in triplicate. Does not matter if this means a month or more of dead time, 2-11 has a sea of snot nosed 2LT's in the same situation. (insert Monty Python sketch video, or maybe a scene from the Walking Dead)

2-11 telling LT's they will only schedule based on curriculum: IBOLC-RS-BAC/Airborne (if needed) if assigned to an airborne unit. IBOLC-RS-AASLT if general IBCT, IBOLC-RS-Bradley or Stryker leaders Course if headed to a HBCT or SBCT respectively. And looking now, the IBOLC published curriculum now states only one shot at RS, though I'm aware of exceptions to that in the last several months. The Early Ranger track (RTAC-RS-IBOLC) pretty much guarantees a 2nd shot at RS if needed and time allows.

I guess it makes sense, shrinking army, tighter budgets, etc. DS felt lucky to get into RSLC before PCS, several buddies were not able to get in IMLC/RSLC, etc just based on slot availability alone. PCS location probably helped in his case.

 

[NavyHoops]

I have to admit I had to google those acronyms to have this make sense. Can't you guys just speak Marines for me? Or better yet, just make a picture for the USMCGrunt and I?

 

[T.Valiant]

For now, I understand women are volunteering to serve in a combat arms branch. To to which I say - awesome, go for it! Back in the day, however, those in the bottom of their class at USMA were branched infantry or field artillery depending on the year and the needs of the Army. I doubt that has changed, but I don't know. From reading this forum, it seems like a few cadets (ROTC and USMA perhaps) are sometimes "detailed" to a combat arms branch. Has anyone heard the policy for the immediate future, could women be forced into a combat arms branch?

 

[hawk]

I have to admit I had to google those acronyms to have this make sense. Can't you guys just speak Marines for me? Or better yet, just make a picture for the USMCGrunt and I?

Hah! The acronyms are bad enough, try following it in conversation! My wife trying to talk to my son: "R-Slick??? Do I know what that is???" Son: "Mom, I've briefed you on this..." I made her a cheat sheet at one point.

The various BOLC's- Basic Officer Leaders Course (Ex: IBOLC Eye-Bowl-ick)

PF- Pathfinder (badgefinder)- Often dissed, but LT's desire it because it apparently helps them angle for a more interesting operations slot if stuck on staff waiting for a platoon. (S3 shop?)
BAC- Basic Airborne Course
AASLT/AA/?- Air Assault
RS- Ranger School
BLC- Bradley Leader's Course- Role specific training, usually after BOLC
SLC- Stryker Leader's Course- Role specific training, usually after BOLC
MLC- Mortar Leader Course- Role specific training, usually after BOLC (em-L-C), less common apparently
RSLC- Reconnaissance and Surveillance Leader's Course- Role specific training, usually after BOLC (less common for 2LT's, often a 1LT thing)

Others can probably explain better, but the Brigade Combat Team flavors are:
SBCT- Stryker Brigade Combat Team, largely mounted infantry
IBCT- Infantry BCT- can be "light" (Airborne or Air Assault) or "Mech"
HBCT- Heavy BCT- Armor centric BCT, with IN in Bradleys in most cases

 

[hawk]

Back in the day, however, those in the bottom of their class at USMA were branched infantry or field artillery depending on the year and the needs of the Army. I doubt that has changed, but I don't know.

This very much has changed. Branch rivalries aside, IN now starts very high in the OML. I'd have to check, but from memory half of the top ten order of merit list from USMA 2015 went Infantry, and that trend carried through to the top 50. It's the biggest branch, so it has the most slots typically. But starts very high, especially for certain well known units and posts.

Don't know if it is reality or not, but cadet & young officer perception is that if you are wanting to do a command track, IN has the best odds. "IN can command an HBCT, but it is very uncommon for another branch officer to command IBCT's, and even SBCT's". Numerically, it makes sense given the mix of unit types and the BCT approach. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's the current perception, and if you look at the leaders of units for the last couple of years it appears fairly accurate.

So for now, Chem Corps and Loggies are the new Infantry in branching! (relative to Viet Nam & 80's era, apparently)

From reading this forum, it seems like a few cadets (ROTC and USMA perhaps) are sometimes "detailed" to a combat arms branch. Has anyone heard the policy for the immediate future, could women be forced into a combat arms branch?

Being Branch Detailed is different than being force branched. And yes, females have been force branched into combat arms for the last couple of years (FA, primarily). Expectation is that will increase with the addition of IN and AR. But it's been communicated that none occurred for 2016 USMA, volunteer only apparently.

Force branching is not normally a separate action, it occurs naturally through the branching process. Cadets have to list branch preference in order 1-N, and if low ranked, you might get one of your lower choices.

I have heard discussion of 2014 & 2015 females rebranched into something they did not want, but it sounded like circumstantial exceptions.

ROTC branching is far more complex, and ends up with more of a forced branch effect. Some of this is by design, if I recall, they used to branch in bands by thirds, which protected less popular branches from getting only low ranked cadets.

If there was a hierarchy now by volume of cadet preference, it'd probably be:
Maneuver branches- with Light IN & Aviation being harder to get
Specialty stuff for advanced degrees (JAG, Med School, etc)
MI, Cyber, Engineers- (other criteria to get selected usually)
Everything in between
Loggies
Chem Corps

By "difficulty to get a slot" it changes a bit. Only a handful of slots for things like JAG & Med. And to a lesser extent, Aviation. (which varies in size year to year). These close out earlier due to less slots, and thus on average require a higher rank to get. But that does not mean the highest ranked cadets always chose those, and certainly have not for the three years I had visibility to.

But it's a different candidate pool. The cadets wanting JAG/Medical typically know it's not optimal for command track and vice-versa.

For females, some were trying hard to get things like FA as it was combat arms. Others hated getting FA, did not want combat arms. I suspect this will change over the next few years.

 

[T.Valiant]

Hawk, thanks for the detailed response. I could have been more clear. I'm still not sure how much things have changed at West Point. In my class, Infantry, Aviation, Armor and Engineers were all very popular (in demand). Infantry got more than its fair share of cadets high on the OML. The number 1 guy in my class went Infantry. So that hasn't changed.

The branch with the largest number of slots was Field Artillery followed by Infantry. All the smaller branches were gone by the time the very bottom of the class picked. The last twenty guys (not gals) or so on the OML went FA or IN. Yes, they had a 'choice.' For many, FA & IN were the last and/or second to last 'choice' on their preference sheet. They certainly didn't characterize that as volunteering. Are you suggesting the last slots to be filled for the Class of 2015 were Chemical and/or Quartermaster? If so, that's a big change and, as a former Infantry officer, one that makes me happy.

Regardless, here's my question is: If a woman is the goat (last in her class) and the only slot left is Infantry, what happens if she doesn't 'volunteer'?

 

[hawk]

Regardless, here's my question is: If a woman is the goat (last in her class) and the only slot left is Infantry, what happens if she doesn't 'volunteer'?

Apologies if I over answered or did not hit your question. I was somewhat answering for the parents of current Cadets because this is a topic of high interest.

My read as a civvie parent observing from the peanut gallery: she will be forced branched or the Army's going to run into significant policy issues regarding equal treatment under the law type issues.

Also based on observations on how they handled field artillery branching when it was opened up.

Also assuming the candidate met any branch specific requirements in place for officers at the time.

But that's just my conjecture based on observation of 3 years of branch and posting process / outcomes.

That is indeed THE question, and I'm sure others may have different insights

 

[T.Valiant]

I'm not sure how much we can predict based on recent/current Field Artillery branching. It's been all over the place. In my day, women could choose 'missile' artillery but not 'cannon' artillery. Then, they phased out the Pershing missile system and FA closed to women for a period (I think). Now, I think its been open to women, but I don't know the details. Could they be forward observers; 105 battery commanders; limited to MLRS? I just don't know.

 

[USMCGrunt]

I have to admit I had to google those acronyms to have this make sense. Can't you guys just speak Marines for me? Or better yet, just make a picture for the USMCGrunt and I?

Thanks Hoops! So true. It reminded me of listening to a cell phone conversation where the speaker keeps cutting in and out. I was only getting half the conversation/.

ProudDad: thanks for the picture. Going back to the basics!

Can't believe how many school options our Army colleagues have access to. The average Marine could serve three 30 year careers and never hit that many!

 

[hawk]

Are you suggesting the last slots to be filled for the Class of 2015 were Chemical and/or Quartermaster? If so, that's a big change and, as a former Infantry officer, one that makes me happy.

You can smile, consistently the last few years that IN has been pretty competitive, and even with the largest number of slots goes fairly high in OML.

I don't have the 2015 stats handy, but do have 2013 in my phone. Just one year's snapshot, but 2014 and 2015 are similar. If I recall, Aviation was not as large in later years, etc. And from memory, maneuver branches dominated the top 10 OML picks. 2013 USMA branching specifics:

- IN, MI, Medical, Aviation, and Signal Corps all maxed their 25% BRADSO, indicator of high demand for slots
- EN started at OML 1, ended at 1001, 12% BRADSO. 127 slots
- Aviation started at 2, ended at 588. 119 slots
- IN started at 3, ended at 975, 220 slots
- Medical started at 4, ended 637, 20 slots
- MI started at 13, ended at 681, 64 slots
- FA started 27, end 1044, 150 slots
- AR started at 70, ended at 1002, 83 slots
Then at the bottom:
- AG started at 244, ended 988, minimal BRADSO allowed, 11% returned to OML
- Chem started at 463, ended at 936, no BRADSO
- QM appears to have gone out the lowest, but started fairly high at 48, go figure.

EN, AG, Finance, and QM had the most people returned to the OML for another branch

I'm not sure how much we can predict based on recent/current Field Artillery branching. It's been all over the place. In my day, women could choose 'missile' artillery but not 'cannon' artillery.

Was not referring to what they would pick, but rather how the Army would handle forced branching. When FA (and AD?) first opened up, Females were definitely assigned combat arms who did not want it. Later years there was more enthusiasm and it appears more females sought FA and AD out as a chance for combat arms.

thanks for the picture. Going back to the basics!

There are times we felt we needed something like that to keep up with the jargon!

Can't believe how many school options our Army colleagues have access to. The average Marine could serve three 30 year careers and never hit that many!

I've found it interesting as I've been exposed to the various Army officer career tracks. IN they call the "yellow brick road" apparently, as it's normally yellow on powerpoints. Series of key assignments, broadening assignments, etc. I still don't entirely understand it. And from current serving officer buddies, it's what the Army does, except when it does not! (Really more of a guideline, needs of the Army and all that!) For every rule everyone seems to know of an exception.

In the past the branch reps cover this quite a bit at USMA prior to branching, so it appears the cadets are making an informed decision. I'm sure there are some biases in there as well.

 

[Jcc123]

2-11 telling LT's they will only schedule based on curriculum: IBOLC-RS-BAC/Airborne (if needed) if assigned to an airborne unit.

I don't think that's a written in stone policy, or my son must be an exception - he's at Airborne school now - post-Ranger, and is not going to an airborne unit.

 

[hawk]

I don't think that's a written in stone policy, or my son must be an exception - he's at Airborne school now - post-Ranger, and is not going to an airborne unit.

Very likely, like most things Army there appear to be exceptions. And things change, back in 2011-2013 it apparently was almost automatic that IN officers were slotted for Airborne after IBOLC/RS if they did not have it.

I'm wondering if it depends on how their orders were written at graduation/commissioning. The ones I know with BAC (Airborne) after IBOLC had it already in their orders unless they already had been, presumably because they were headed for an Airborne unit.

Here's the official progression from the current 2-11 IBOLC curriculum. I know this is a bit afield from the main topic, but it is very much relevant to the path female IN officers will take. Specifically the RPFT in IBOLC as well as Ranger School.


Source: IBOLC main website

 

[Jcleppe]

I don't think that's a written in stone policy, or my son must be an exception - he's at Airborne school now - post-Ranger, and is not going to an airborne unit.

I think you're right in regard to nothing written in stone, my oldest has been offered Ranger School twice and he's an Aviation Officer. RIMPAC and a Rotation to Korea messed up both schedules. He was sent to Air Assault as well but in reality, if he has to fast rope from a helicopter then they have some real serious issues.