Hope you GM's can help me out. Here's what I posted in Point-Counterpoint but I figure I might as well come to the source:

I was just browsing the MCPOCG's Blog and there was a topic basically about change in the CG and the Joint Rate Reduction. One person posted the following as part of their response. If you want to read all the comments they are on MCPOCG's Blog.


quote:
Weapons knowledge and capabilities are overlooked all year, with the exception of Tailored Annual Cutter Training. That was the one time a year that the FT’s and GM’s got to use the knowledge and experience they went to school, and studied for. However in the post JRR world, they were unable to complete the gunnery exercises successfully. There were many reasons for this, including equipment casualties. In hindsight many of these casualties were simple fixes that should have been corrected on scene. So what do we do? We eliminate the gunnery exercises from the battle E requirement. Instead of requiring people to know their duties, know their equipment, and know their publications, we lower the standard.


Is that correct? the CG no longer conducts gunnery exercises for the battle E requirement?

How on earth can a service refer to itself as a military service yet forego the most basic part of that training?

If the above quote is accurate than can someone educate me on when (or if) live fire gunnery exercises occur?

The poster goes on to mention equipment failures and the need to bring in civilians to fix those problems. Is that true too?

First off, I'm not a GM. The poster of the original blog has a valid point regarding training. Five years ago when I was on CGC Venturous in the weeks leading up to CART/TACT/TSTA we rushed to get all of our required annual training in because it was a requirement. I never understood why training only became a priority when it was required. I made a point to the command that training is a year-round evolution.

As far as getting somebody else to fix the equipment, sadly, that is the way the CG has gone. We have Coasties who are thinkers, ones who can problem solve and repair our equipment. Unfortunely along with the rest of our society, we continue to discourage inovation and tell our personnel they do not have they skill sets to work on our equipment. It's like telling somebody who is qualified to do an oil change on a Ford, is not capable of doing an oil change on a Dodge.

EX,

I read the same post and know the person who wrote it. Unfortunately, I would have to agree with him. I will expand on what he has stated just a little bit.

What has happened is the Coast Guard GM rating became "land based" after 9/11 with the stand up of the MSSTs. Along the way it was and still is possible to advance to GM1 in about 2 - 3 after "A" school. When I was at ATG, there was a 270 out of Portsmouth, VA with all 3 GMs under 21yrs. A lot, and I mean A LOT of the MSST GM1s ended up getting their sea time and became the LPOs unfortunately they never had been on a Cutter before. Nothing against them, some have done well, but there was/is a huge lose of knowledge on our weapon systems let alone trying to teach their GM2s and GM3s. In some case as the OP of the post stated about the ETs, the GM2/3s were just out of "A and C" schools and knows just about as much as the GM1. Along the same lines, it seemed to me that either do to the age of our weapon systems or other reasons, the Commands thought of the "gun" as more of an afterthought. This short little opinion should answer your 3rd question, but probably not.

Your question concerning the Gunnery Exercise. While I was at ATG Norfolk, I fought against the "dumbing down" of the requirement of the gunnery exercise. It seems now, after a short two years removed from ATG, they have completely done away with it. The Commands of the ships I rode on and other higher ups excuses were, services too hard to get (not really), drone/plane/ammo not reliable, why should one exercise be a factor in receiving (notice I didn't say EARN) the Battle "E" and many more excuses.

It is my opinion that the CG and gunnery exercises are something NOT on the high priority list to do. When I was on the Cutters, the Commands were more concerned about the DC drills and helo ops and the only time they want to do a GUNEX was when it was "time to catch up on missed drills". Please don't think I don't believe DC drills and helo ops are not important because they are very important. However, we were an "afterthought". You know the funny part was every time we did do our GUNEXs, everybody was saying "that was cool".

Hopefully the last 2 paragraphs answer your questions and I probably have opened up a HUGE CAN OF WORMS with my response.

GUNS

Chief Guns, sorry to butt in here as I usually keep a "hands-off" approach in commenting on the rating threads, but what you just said is disturbing as it sounds like the Area is using the "no live services" (as with respect to Gunnery Exercises, not refering to what the FTs do for their Air Tracking/Air Gunnery Exercises) as a cop-out.

For instance, I know from memory (and I need to be VERY GENERAL here as the FXP is still a classified pub and the CTQM and SFTM are UNCLAS FOUO pubs), but the SUW-7-SF and SUW-17-SF exercises DO NOT require live services at all; rather they can both be conducted independently with a drum/barrel with reflector and baloon on the top (NSN stock parts are in the CG Ordnance Manual...or used to be) and a "Killer Tomato". Hell, they don't even require a scheduled Navy FLETA HOT OPAREA and can be done as long as nobody is within range of the parameters specified in the pub.

What you have said just confirmed my suspicians about the CG's naval gunnery focus being an almost purely LE function (Warning Shots/Disabling Fire, Armed Escorts of HVUs and AT/FP) now as opposed to the combat function (Detect, Classify, Engage and Destroy the enemy) that the service used to maintain proficiency in as well.

Sounds like you are one of the lone voices of reason during your time at ATG; too bad they didn't listen to you as the advice you gave is one of the many purposes of assigning Subject Matter Experts for each warfare area at the ATGs.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 1110,

Also as regards to GMs reporting aboard cutters with no prior sea time, my understanding is there have been some problems with some of the Independent Duty GMs (GM2/GM1) having issues as the ship is a world of difference from what they are accustomed to at the land-based units came from.

quote:

...why should one exercise be a factor in receiving (notice I didn't say EARN) the Battle "E" and many more excuses.

Hmm, a battle E that does not include firing the guns.

I am basically speechless! I had no idea things had gotten this bad. How can you possibly have anything resembling "battle" training and not fire the damn guns?

At this point I no longer need to ask the question as to whether or not the CG still sees itself as a military service (or deserves to be called one). The question is answered.....loudly.

What a damn shame. They best quit sending ships into harm's way before they get people killed. If you do not provide the equipment, OR if you have it, but do not train people to actually use it....and then you need it...bad stuff will happen. Big time. This has to border on criminal negligence.

As for your comment:

quote:

Along the way it was and still is possible to advance to GM1 in about 2 - 3 after "A" school. When I was at ATG, there was a 270 out of Portsmouth, VA with all 3 GMs under 21yrs.

GM 1 in 2-3 years? OK, I had split service. After 4 I was a GM 3 and got out. Came back in as an SN/GM, made GM3 and than GM 2 back fairly quickly. The ONLY reason I was able to go to Nam on the Mellon was that the other GM's, higher rated than I was at the time (I was GM 3) had nearly zero experience with the 5". The Chief welcomed me with open arms and pulled strings for my transfer.

Later I was asked when I would go for GM 1. And I said "After I attend Advanced GM school. There's still too much I feel I need to know before I would be comfortable as a 1st class."

Guess that ain't slowing folks down now....

I'm sorry, I cannot believe MY Coast Guard has allowed itself to reach such a pitiful state. It is downright disgusting.

No wonder they wear camo on deployment...it's the only damn way they can feel military! Sad....terribly sad.



I may actually break down and write the Commandant on this one.

quote:

For instance, I know for a fact from memory (and I need to be VERY GENERAL here as the FXP is still a classified pub and the CTQM and SFTM are UNCLAS FOUO pubs), but the SUW-7-SF and SUW-17-SF exercises DO NOT require live services at all; rather they can both be conducted independently with a drum/barrel with reflector and baloon on the top (NSN stock parts are in the CG Ordnance Manual...or used to be) and a "Killer Tomato". Hell, they don't even require a scheduled Navy FLETA HOT OPAREA and can be done as long as nobody is within range of the parameters specified in the pub.

You are correct. But "killer Tomato" should not be used anymore cuz of hazmat to ocean life.

I will not say what exercise/s they were/are doing at TACT (REFTRA for the old farts ) though.

quote:

Also as regards to GMs reporting aboard cutters with no sea time, my understanding is there have been some problems with some of the Independent Duty GMs having issues as the ship is a world of difference from what they are accustomed to.

Unfortunately, that has been happening since I became a GM3 way back when.

GUNS

quote:

Also as regards to GMs reporting aboard cutters with no prior sea time, my understanding is there have been some problems with some of the Independent Duty GMs (GM2/GM1) having issues as the ship is a world of difference from what they are accustomed to at the land-based units came from.

Good God......maybe the CG should pull it's head out of it's fundamental orifice and at least require sea time on a WHEC or WMEC prior to making 1st class!

Well, if Surface Force was an XO/ITT Leader, he'd just work a MOB-S-6-SF Man Overboard (Small Boat Recovery) into the the mix upon FINEX from Gunnery Exercise to recover the "HAZMAT" to marine life.

BTW, did you ever get any resistance from Cutter COs/XOs who only wanted to go to General Emergency (DCTT/MTT stuff only) vice General Quarters (battle scenarios involving ALL training teams) during the Basic Phase of Training (TACT)? My understanding this is now a frequent conflict between the "peace corps" types who only want to do GE drills and the more traditionally oriented officers who recognize the importance of combat readiness as well as damage controll readiness.

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
Well, if Surface Force was an XO/ITT Leader, he'd just work a MOB-S-6-SF Man Overboard (Small Boat Recovery) into the the mix upon FINEX from Gunnery Exercise to recover the "HAZMAT" to marine life.

BTW, did you ever get any resistance from Cutter COs/XOs who only wanted to go to General Emergency (DCTT/MTT stuff only) vice General Quarters (battle scenarios involving ALL training teams) during the Basic Phase of Training (TACT)? My understanding this is now a frequent conflict between the "peace corps" types who only want to do GE drills and the more traditionally oriented officers who recognize the importance of combat readiness as well as damage controll readiness.

Short answer "YES"!

quote:

Good God......maybe the CG should pull it's head out of it's fundamental orifice and at least require sea time on a WHEC or WMEC prior to making 1st class!

In my crystal ball I foresee sea time requirements coming back once the MEs become one!

GUNS

P.S. All of my responses are my opinion based on career experiences, if you don't like it them, don't read them!

quote:

P.S. All of my responses are my opinion based on career experiences, if you don't like it them, don't read them!

So are mine, and although I am aghast at what I have learned I want to thank you for sharing that info.

I can only imagine how bewildered a GM 1 with no sea time would be when first confronted with an equipment failure on a 76mm or 57mm......

This is an extremely hot topic and a touchy one at that. While I was on the BOUTWELL as the GMC 2002-2005, we fired our weapons as often as we could. We fired for both TACTs and had to enter FLETA HOT OPAREA for both. We had tug services, air services, and even the remote control go fast with sled one time. In 2005 – 2007 time frame NCEA started decreasing rapidly for 76MM and the opportunity to run 12 miles off shore and fire was revoked due to potential environmental impacts. This forced the use of existing water ranges and created some scheduling nightmares. I met with a command this summer and was told they did not get the battle E because their MK75 broke and they couldn’t complete the required exercise. I was told that on the East Coast you have to complete the live fire gunnery exercises during TACT, where on the west coast during my BOUTWELL time, you had up to 1 year to complete your gunnery live fire exercises.
As far as lack of sea duty and juniority in the GM rating, this is a fact. As everyone knows the GM rate almost doubled in size after 9/11/01. The GM rating went from 60/40 sea to shore to 30/70 sea to shore rotation and sea duty requirements were removed to make GMC and CWO (WEPS). There are many GM1s and GM2 with under 2 years of sea duty service. And yes those members are told they are sea duty candidates and have a strong possibility to go to sea. A large majority of the cutter positions are filled during the early sea duty slate time period allow anyone tour complete to ask to go to sea. After that process is done, the rest of the sea duty billets will be added to the shopping list. Some of those sea duty billets will go to those who ask to go to sea and others will go to sea duty candidates based on priority, marks, sea time, and career development needs. So there will be some 270s with a GM1 seeing his/her first sea duty as there are 110s with GM2s seeing his/her first sea duty. This needs to happen for personal and professional growth as well as maintaining the health of the rating.
The ME billet map has been released and the GM rating has lost approximately 280 land billets. Most of these are at DOG units, sectors, and stations. So the sea to shore ratio is shifting again towards sea duty, which in time will help bring back more of the technical experts on the larger weapons. This change process won’t happen over night; but through mentorship, followership, and leadership the rating will get there.

Gunner Winstein

Gunner-

Thank you for the information. It did manage to confuse me a bit though. One person has stated live fire is no longer a requirement for the battle E. Is that correct? Do you find it a bit odd that a ship can receive that "E" without conducting the firing exercise? Or did you mean they would only receive the "E" after successfully completing the firing exercise at a later date?

Based on what you have posted it sounds like there are live fire exercises, but they may not take place during those training phases.

I am not familiar with the 76mm Mk 75. Is that a problem a GM and/or ET should have been able to fix?

In your opinion do you believe the current training, specifically live fire training, is adequate to ensure well trained crews?

Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge on this subject. That's why I titled the thread "Educate the old guy".

By the way, I'm delighted to hear GM will begin to shift back toward being primarily a sea going rating.

Regards,

Stan

By the way, if anyone wants to contribute additional info but is uncomfortable posting here I can be reached directly at:

stanrobbins@hotmail.com

Before e-mailing anything, remember OPSEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Before e-mailing anything, remember OPSEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have no desire to learn anything that might compromise security. On the other hand, if I learn that the CG is seriously and intentionally skimping on its training I, being retired, can fire off that information to the Commandant or whomever else might be able to address the situation and have no fear that it will impact my career.

I have just completed this years TACT, and while I can't speak for the West Coast, On the East Coast the Gunnery Exercises are still required for the Battle 'E'. We didn't get it this year though, after the PAC fire somthing came loose in the 92 and we couldn't track the drone, oh well, We got 100% on all of our other Gunnery Drills.

As for the juniority and lack of sea time, it happens, but there are some of us left in the fleet with the expirence to fix our own gear. My current command, CGC HARRIET LANE, lets me shoot every patrol, the Captain seems to enjoy Gunnery and thinks it's important enough to give me the time I need to train my people.

I have seen Cutters that don't shoot, and Cutters that do, it all depends on the Command. I have never met a GM who told the Captain that he didn't want to do a GUNEX.

quote:

I have never met a GM who told the Captain that he didn't want to do a GUNEX.

One would hope not!! If you meet one maybe you should suggest a change in rating....

Stan,
From all the information I have received, you need to complete the live fire exercises to get the Battle E. As far as if the ETs/GMs could have fixed the problem, I can not answer that since I wasn’t there. During my 1st TACT as a GMC on CGC BOUTWELL, you had causality with the MK75 during the PAC fire for our air shoot. Rounds were dropping from the screw feeder. We quickly took local control and shut down and disposed of the rounds that fell. We then assessed the situation, located the needed spring and supply sent the part up to us. Repairs were conducted and the air shoot went off without a hitch. This was the first time the navy ship rider (GMC) saw the required spare part on board and the causality corrected and the shoot still conducted the same day. The CAPT mentioned later he hadn’t seen the MK75 fixed the same day as causality either. I had 7 ½ years of MK75 experience at the time and had just come from a NESU.
I believe our training program is an effective one if it is properly used. Yes, you can’t fire tons of ammunition each quarter, but there is enough ammunition for effective live fire training if planned properly. You need to also implement the non fire training as well; loading drills, hot gun/ cold gun misfire procedures, malfunctions and stoppages, as well as refresher PQS. While on the BOUTWELL, I used every GQ drill to its fullest for training, and made excellent use of prefire and postfires of the weapons and weapon systems.
After CGC BOUTWELL, I was a senior chief at MLCPAC and I conducted inspections and weapon system change outs. That tour opened my eyes to all the different philosophies out there regarding GMs, shooting, and the trustworthiness of the systems. There were GMs who didn’t want to shoot and there was the opposite end of the spectrum where the commands didn’t want to shoot. Which ever one it was normally boiled down to unfamiliarity with the weapon system or the GMs lack of knowledge and troubleshooting ability. Don’t get me wrong, there are some awesome techs out there and I have had the pleasure of working with them. There are also some less than average techs out there and I have had the privilege of training them and sharing some of the knowledge I have gained. I think as the GM rating moves forward and the L/E type billets are phased out; the rating will once again become more technical.

Gunner Winstein

Gunner-

Thanks for all the additional info. One question....what is NESU?

I want to thank everyone that has provided me with insight into what is going on service wide on this topic. That includes those of you that contacted me via e-mail. I feel much better informed, and somewhat less concerned, than when I started the thread.

In a nutshell, it appears all ships shoot, although some may shoot more than others.

It appears due to the explosive growth of the GM rating since 9/11, with a large percentage of GM's stationed ashore, there are GM's with less experience on the cutter's weapon systems than there were in other periods of the CG's history.

Since the CG had a between 25-30 WHEC's when I was in, and now has a 12, it isn't surprising that hands on experience across the board has diminished.

The speed with which a GM can advance now far surpasses what it used to be. It was common for the CG to make 2 to 4 GMC's per year and it was common for many to retire as GM 1's.

What that meant was that when you went to a WHEC you could plan on the GMC and the first class to have a total of 30 years or more experience between them.

Bottom line, it sounds like the situation is not as dire I had believed and that there are plans to work to increase the percentage of GM's with sea duty. Doing that should help the GM's gain more experience on those weapon systems.

Based on all this I won't be firing off a letter to anyone. It doesn't seem that it would serve any purpose.

Thanks to all that helped "educate the old guy".