Class comepetitiveness at West Point
- Thread starter jonafox94
- Start date
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
For engineers, Sapper is good. So would any of the foreign training opportunities or CDQC. Any small unit tactics course would pay dividends.
Chemical Corps...I strongly recommend against ANYONE branching chemical corps. You will not like your career.
Why is career as an Officer in Chemical Corps not enjoyable?
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
Being a chemical corps officer means you will likely never lead a platoon, nor command a company. The number of chemical units has been slashed. The main things Chem officers do is fill the billet of the Battalion Chemical Officer or "Chem-O." The result is that your lieutenant days are spent in a staff job, filling out reports and doing the other scutwork that the S3 doesn't want his combat arms Assistant S3s wasting their time on.
Wow, thank you for that information. That is definently something that I do not want to do.
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
This is a prime example of why it's important to ask questions in a mature manner and seek help from those who've been there. Remember, EVERY job looks cool in a "job description." They have to get people to sign up for them.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
- Messages
- 518
While we're on the topic of branches; I have a few questions as well. I enjoy working with people and technology and I plan to major in electrical engineering. I know it's a little early to be thinking about branches, but from what I've read, signal, MI, and ADA have piqued my interests. What are your honest opinions on those branches?
my two cents about MIAD
Some of the military courses, such as Airborne, Airassult, Sapper, etc, you could do it after you graduate.
I know times have changed, but when I graduated any of my classmates that wanted Airborne school go it as a professional development regardless of their branch. I heard they cut it down due to budget reasons.
If you go to an airborne unit, the unit will send you the Airborne school. If you an air assaut unit, the unit will send you to the Airassult school. Back in 1994, pretty much most of my classmates that went aviation went to Air Assault school at Fort Rucker.
For me, I did Air Assault, an academic course, and internship. My rational for Air Assault was as based the practice at the time, I can go to Airborne school after I graduate but not Air Assault school unless my assignment was to an air assault unit. Beside, attending Airborne school as an officer is a lot better than as a cadet. It was before my infantry basic course, so I stayed in BOQ instead of staying in barracks with other Airborne students.
Some of the military courses, such as Airborne, Airassult, Sapper, etc, you could do it after you graduate.
I know times have changed, but when I graduated any of my classmates that wanted Airborne school go it as a professional development regardless of their branch. I heard they cut it down due to budget reasons.
If you go to an airborne unit, the unit will send you the Airborne school. If you an air assaut unit, the unit will send you to the Airassult school. Back in 1994, pretty much most of my classmates that went aviation went to Air Assault school at Fort Rucker.
For me, I did Air Assault, an academic course, and internship. My rational for Air Assault was as based the practice at the time, I can go to Airborne school after I graduate but not Air Assault school unless my assignment was to an air assault unit. Beside, attending Airborne school as an officer is a lot better than as a cadet. It was before my infantry basic course, so I stayed in BOQ instead of staying in barracks with other Airborne students.
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
Here is my thought on branching:
This is my opinion. It's free and worth every penny. If you truly want to be a part of what the Army is about, you need to be in a branch that will be the main effort of the fight. If your branch isn't going to be in the main effort paragraph of the Scheme of Maneuver portion of the OPORD, you're not going to really experience the business end of the Army. That means, generally, you would want to be in the maneuver, fires, and effects branches (what we used to consider Combat Arms). There are some caveats to that. Generally speaking, I urge all males to consider Aviation, Infantry, Armor, Engineers, and to a lesser extent, Field Artillery.
The point is that decisive actions are not planned around the Signal Corps, or MI, or ADA, or Finance, etc. The meat & potatoes of being an Army officer is being a leader of warfighters in close combat. Support branches are just that...support. That's where you tend to find your type-A go-getters. In simple terms, think of this way: when you were a kid and you played Cops & Robbers, did you ever say "I'll volunteer to be the desk sergeant!" No, you did not. You volunteered to be the cop. Or the robber.
As for the branches you mentioned...
MI: You will largely experience war through your email inbox. You won't leave protected areas much, if at all. The result is that you'll spend much of your time analyzing products produced by other intel geeks and turning them into usable products for your unit. Get to know powerpoint, because it will be 90% of your career.
ADA: Don't even consider that branch. They're a branch in search of meaning and relevance. The days of humping Stingers alongside the infantry are gone. It's all Patriot Missile focused now, and that's the definition of "in the rear with the gear."
Signal: In this day and age, you'll spend almost all your time setting up computer networks and filling radios. The best a SIGO can hope for is to not get yelled at. If everything is working, you'll never get a pat on the back. The second someone can't talk or can't print, you're the first guy they call a you-know-what.
Some folks will likely get bent out of shape about this, but this is how I see it. Is the support side crucial? Of course. Bad logistics and bad commo will ruin a mission faster than anything. But it's still support. Who got a handshake from the President? The guys who flew the shooters to Bin Laden's house and the guys who shot him. Not the Signal Officer who loaded their radios with the right crypto. Not the logisticians who secured all their ammo and fuel. That's not my way of saying you should be a glory-chaser, but those guys are our heroes for a reason.
If you want to be an officer in a position of consequence and see what the Army's about, then you want to be in those "operations" branches. ADA, Chem, Signal, MPs...support is support.
Maybe that's what you want, but the vast majority of officers I've met in those branches wished for combat arms and didn't get it. So consider that for whatever you think it's worth.
Again, support functions are important. I mean, life would be downright unlivable without indoor plumbing. That doesn't make me want to be a plumber, though.
Scout Pilot -
I basically agree except that light Field Artillery is definitely in the thick of every battle (except the fight against radical Islam which will not last forever).
Logistics is critical. I remember a sign in from of our Support Command that said "Try Fighting Without Us". Also Napolean said that "Professional Generals think about logistics and amature General think about tactics". That is probably an overstatement but it has some truth.
However, these logistic people are in support of the combat units. Therefore, if you want to be a true combat leader in the cutting edge of the Army you should be in a combat branch. I do value the people in the support and technical branches but they are not the real combat leaders in the Army.
I basically agree except that light Field Artillery is definitely in the thick of every battle (except the fight against radical Islam which will not last forever).
Logistics is critical. I remember a sign in from of our Support Command that said "Try Fighting Without Us". Also Napolean said that "Professional Generals think about logistics and amature General think about tactics". That is probably an overstatement but it has some truth.
However, these logistic people are in support of the combat units. Therefore, if you want to be a true combat leader in the cutting edge of the Army you should be in a combat branch. I do value the people in the support and technical branches but they are not the real combat leaders in the Army.
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
My only rebuttal is that off the top of my head, I believe Omar Bradley said that. Napoleon said "an Army marches on its stomach."
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 846
DS indicated he is having to submit for his MIAD's this week.
Looks like only 236 ABN slots for the whole corps.
But still 4 AASLT sessions, but only 2 that don't conflict with CFT for rising 3c's.
Given the various constraints there are not as many MIAD options for rising 3c's as it initially appears.
Makes you wonder what the impact will be with further budget cuts...
beat navy
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 75
This is true. I will be a rising yuk and Airborne is going to be very hard to get this year, with preference being given to the rising firsties who actually need the MIAD graduation requirement.