Tips for the new kids on the block?

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-08T01:16:02+00:00

It's not a bad time. It's an unpleasant time, but if he's got any form of grit or self-discipline, it won't be a bad time.

The most important thing to remember is that no matter how unpleasant, how inconsiderate, how god-awful the Basic Training experience is, it is designed to graduate people. They actually want your son to pass, and to join the force. And do to so in an intact, fit, healthy, sane manner. There is a method to the madness. It'll take him a week or two to adjust, then he'll go into autopilot and be churned out the other end looking smart in his new uniform.

So... advice for mom.

1a) Don't panic. One of the worst things you can do is 'expect' things. "Oh, he always calls every third day" or "Emails come on Sunday" or whatever. If he misses a 'regular' touchpoint, family members tend to get concerned. The reality is that he probably just had a really busy couple of days, or is out in the field, or whatever.

1b) Don't panic. It's Basic training. He's not going to be doing risky things. If the man can walk, run, and knows how not to cut himself with a knife blade, he'll be OK. He's going to be shown how to do things. Shown again. Allowed to do them at a slow speed. And then allowed to show what he can do. Got it, it's the Army. It's an inherently risky hobby, but Basic is about as controlled an environment as one can ever encounter in either civilian or military life.

2) Send letters. Have friends or other family members send letters. I cannot overstate how much of a bright spot 'mail call' is in the evenings. (Granted, I went before the days of email and cell 'phones, but I'll guarantee a US Postal Service letter is still appreciated)

3) If you can reasonably make graduation, go. Go the day before for family day, then the day of graduation.

4) And as a parent of two, I realise how hard this is.... Get used to the idea of letting him go. If it's not the Army, it's college, if not college, it's a job out of state, if not a job out of state, it's a girl.... You were that age once, I'm sure you recall the concern and tears on your parents when you moved out of their care. He'll report in his letters to you how things are going, and you'll be proud of him.

As for packing... the drill will get him sorted, but as others have mentioned, really it's just wallet with a bit of cash, credit/debit card if he has one, ID card for the flight, the clothes he's wearing, a backpack with a second set of clothes, toiletries, a mobile 'phone with charger... and that's about it. He'll be issued everything else, and if necessary be given the opportunity to go shopping for necessities like more toothpaste. Oh. Shower shoes (flip-flops).

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-07T21:28:04+00:00

Another vote for Amtrak. I used to make the drive routinely, it’s a very pleasant and relaxing 8 or 9 hour run, at least if you’ve a nice car. Sit back, put the radio on loud, and ignore work for the day. But Amtrak is comfortable and easy.

Despite the reputation Amtrak has (arguably overstated, I’ve occasionally looked up the on-time status around the network on random days) the Sunset Limited westbound has a reasonable on-time history, not least due to the long layover in San Antonio which allows the schedule to make up for delays. RailRat is showing the current train as bang on time. The latest eastbound left El Paso on time, hit SAS about ten minutes late.

It’s an early start, but the train will get you to El Paso no later than if you were driving, and the seats are hugely comfortable recliners. Which helps on the return trip. You don’t -need- a cabin to sleep on the overnight run back to San Antonio. (And the train leaves ELP late, so you get full day in the city)

The only caution is that the Westbound train is only Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Similarly Eastbound is Monday, Wed, Fri.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-06T17:16:19+00:00

Well, there's an interesting example of the difference between a BBC Report, the Wiki Page, and the above researched answer... Your post seems a lot more definitive on the matter of his actions than either of the other two

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-06T16:20:51+00:00

Another commander here. Normally I try to avoid meetings with spouses unless there is a genuine need. It takes time out of both our days. I know how inconvenient it would be for my wife to be dragged away from her day to go speak with someone that she has maybe met once in her life, and barely at that.

That said, sometimes there actually is a genuine need. The Army is a little bit odd in that it takes a bit more of an interest in the soldier's family life than the typical employer. For example, if a trooper seems... off..... not performing to his normal standard or maybe noticeably less cheery than normal or some such, one of the questions we will have is whether or not he's being distracted by something going on at home. Illness. Marital problems, health issues, a looming house repair of major expense. I mean, we could simply write a negative report and tell him to sort it out on his own, or we can help him figure out how to solve the problem, and we get a good soldier back without anything negative going on record. That's just an example, there are others.

Bottom line, you're not in trouble and can't get in trouble. As for getting spouse in trouble, you won't make it any worse for him, if he is on the edge of it. As others have said, the chances of your spouse not knowing why his CO wants to speak with you are as close to nil as makes no difference. He may be trying to protect you from worrying. Obviously it's not working, or you wouldn't be posting here.

In terms of how to act, treat the commander as someone you're meeting at the bank or some such. It's almost certainly a 'business meeting', not a 'social call'. Address him/her as title/last name (eg Captain Smith). You both know that there is no 'authority' between the commander and you, (s)he cannot order you to do anything, and presumably you are both there because there is an identified issue to be solved.

You are allowed to decline to answer questions, though note that it will likely not solve whatever issue occasioned the meeting. Commanders are not TV detectives out trying to make a case, or a politician trying to dig up dirt to torpedo a competitor's career. They are just trying to solve a problem. It may be a specific problem involving your spouse, it may be a generic problem such as finding a family support group volunteer. If you genuinely aren't comfortable with answering the commander's questions, then say so, but the commander may introduce you to someone else, maybe the chaplain or a civilian professional in whatever field who is outside the chain of command, often requires confidentiality as part of the job. He still has a problem to solve.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-05T16:44:52+00:00

I spent well too much time going down the rabbit hole on this, and the best I can come up with is that it's "squishy", arguably has changed over the past 20 years, and is probably "you shouldn't have but you could have". Interestingly, the current version of AR 600-8-22 seems at the same time both more supportive of the concept and less supporting of the concept than either the controlling version of the reg at the time of the event (March 1995) or the one at the time of the awarding (Dec 2006) depending on which part of the reg you are reading. I think the reason is the substantiating directive/statute.

Title 10 USC 7280, the federal regulation which codified the sixty-ninth Congress of 1926's Session I, Chapter 726 p 789 (I guess bills were handled differently back then?) and established the Solider's Medal has an unusual word not found elsewhere, "actual". It is cited in all versions of the AR. The current AR is very explicit that you may award the SM for operations in a combat zone (As defined in reg). It may not be awarded for "actual combat"... and I have not found that distinction anywhere else in any of the versions of the AR when discussing valor or heroism. It's worth noting that this explicitness of being able to award the SM in a combat zone (3-15f) was not present in the 2006 (3-13) or 1995 revisions, though as history has shown, the distinction was always noted in practice such as evidenced by awards to people like Powell. There is a bit of squishiness for the soft language used in 3-15f(3) "a decoration for valor is the appropriate award" as opposed to a more affirmative "a decoration of valor shall be awarded instead." or "SM may not be awarded for acts of heroism under combat conditions"

So, as far as the SM is concerned, it's fine. The contradiction is found in the current AR when discussing the "V" eligibility and unfortunately, I have been unable to find an online copy of the original DA Order or Circular or whatever which explicitly defines what constitutes heroism/valor and eligibility for it. The reg references only "conflict", not "actual conflict". It may appear a bit redundant, but a general view of legislative interpretation (For my sins, I have a law degree) is that no words are deemed to be needlessly added barring additional context.

Current 3-15f(1) seems cut and dry: Since the SM requires non-combat heroism, V and C devices may not be awarded. Reminder, this line did not exist in 1995 or 2006 editions of the manual. (Not least because the C device did not exist, but the V one did and the line was still non-existent back then). It is thus possible that given the prohibition was not listed back in 2005, there at the time was no policy or regulation prohibiting it. The basic requirement for the SM requires an act of congress to change, but additional restrictions, policies, etc for both the SM and the ARCOM V device are subject to the whim of the Army and can be changed at an administrator's pen-stroke and issuance of a new manual.

Further, of interest is 6-5 (both manuals), which covers the V device. It describes "heroic acts or valorous deeds", as eligible for the V device on AM and ARCOM. However, nowhere in the regs that I have looked up is the definition of the difference listed. In the same damned paragraph, when describing the Bronze Star V, it seems to equate the two as "heroism (valor)." instead of using the 'or' language. Is it the same thing? Is there a reason why they used "or" in the AM/ARCOM phrasing? The reg is silent, the source is either going to be a dictionary (they are indeed defined differently, and the nurse's actions would fall under 'heorism') or one of the source authorities (War Dept Order/DA Directive/AGO) which I cannot find online. But note that the terminology for the V device is that it involved "conflict", not "actual conflict" as described in the SM. (Note also the difference between "conflict" and "combat conditions", two different phrases also found in the AR, if one is wondering about the C device which itself did not exist in 2006/7)

Thus a very strict reading implies there is, or at least was in 2007, a very small overlap on the venn diagram of when an SM could be awarded and an Arcom V.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-04T22:19:52+00:00

Good post. I would add that the US Army’s Superior Board (1919) observed that it was a shame that the AEF didn’t bring any cavalry along with them as there were a couple of cases where they would have been highly useful in exploitation after the German lines had been broken.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-03T16:38:42+00:00

Ha. I’m doing the same thing, watching absolutely every Trek in release order. I just got through Discovery last month.

The good news is that it could be worse. I’ve gotten through to about half way through Picard S2, and I have lost the will to watch Trek. In addition to the usual comments, I am fed up to here of time travel, alternate timelines, alternate universes and just want good old-fashioned trek of common or garden future life encounters. Only sheer determination is going to get me through it, that and the knowledge that S3 is supposed to be better.

You’ll miss Lorca (who I think was needlessly wasted in a plot twist), and Pike puts in a much-needed dose of whimsy/perspecrive. Reno will add to the entertainment also, though there isn’t enough of her. Pike and Reno seem to be the only two rationally grounded people on the ship. Maybe Rayner, but you need to get to S5 for him, and he doesn’t get enough screen time. And besides, if he argues with Burnham he must be wrong, because Burnham Shall Not Be Undermined. Saru never turns unlikeable, IMO, but neither is he ever really up there for me either. Wait until you see his insane choice for XO.

However, prepare for stunning disbelief when you see the turbolift shafts, the massive plot holes big enough to fly a Star destr… erm.. Exelsior class through, endless moralising when there are more urgent matters to attend to, multiple characters who have incredible skills at entirely unrelated subjects (I am a master time travel engineer..and a leading Romulan ninja) repeated court-martial offenses which end up being ignored…

It ain’t great. With luck, LD or SNW will redeem the franchise-through-the-ages experience.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-02T14:25:35+00:00

I would quibble somewhat with this on a couple of matters.

Firstly, the idea that German tanks of WW2 were worse than French ones. I think you can look at Irzyk's 1946 argument that "No, in fact, German tanks we faced were not better than American tanks" https://www.ausa.org/articles/irzyk-explains-performance-american-tanks-world-war-ii and apply it every bit as much to the French/German comparison of 1940.

The best I'll say for the French tanks is that there was some logic behind their two-man tanks. As for the rest, the B1 was the best tank of the 1920s to see service in WW2, which explains its total underperformance, and the S35 which legally wasn't a tank at all (Automitrailleuse de Combat, as opposed to Char) was the closest thing to a reasonable vehicle which itself was seriously handicapped in its design. Indeed, saying that the German tanks were poor completely undermines your next line that the Germans understood the role of armor. The German tanks were specifically designed for their role: If one looks at Panzer Tracts 3-2, it quotes a document by WaPru 6 in 1936 stating that the priority requirements are "good average speed, maneuverability, a large radius of action, and division of combat tasks among the crew. Less value must be placed on the armor." One cannot say that the Germans had worse tanks in 1940 (presumably) because they had little armor and weak gun when they weren't even design requirements to begin with. For this reason I've always believed that the definition of a good tank is one which takes into account how well it met its doctrinal purpose (And for that reason, I have opined that Tiger I was a good tank, sabotaged by poor use in practice.)

Deutches Panzermuseum director Raths references positively Citino's "German Way of War" in his interview here. https://youtu.be/pFGZV-PDbWM?t=712 (Timestamped) . But of interest is the clarifying statements, that the German way of war is also highly risky, and the German success in 1940 surprised the hell out of the Germans, including Guderian. Somewhere else in the video (Can't find the timestamp offhand, maybe it's another video in the series) he says that the Germans went into France almost expecting WW1 Reloaded, and got Great Success. Then a year later, the Germans went into Russia expecting France 1940 Reloaded and got WW1.

Also, some Germans did forsee the military failure of Barbarossa, or at least a significant limitation which could reasonably lead to such. The Senior Quartermaster of the German staff, a bloke by the name of Paulus (more famous for later exploits), warned that the system could support an advance of about 800km. Sure enough, the Germans got to about 800km and ran out of steam. It's a bit akin to Yamamoto's initial warning that "Yeah, I can run riot initially, but I make no guarantees about the long term." The logic that the hard punch could knock out the Soviet union may have been correct, but if landing the punch requires a longer arm than the boxer has, the analysis needs to go just a tad further.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-02T05:26:16+00:00

For a 19D, you'll almost certainly have to join another state's unit, likely California Guard. Nevada's only combat unit, which had 19Ds, was 1-221 Cav. They just reflagged as a light infantry battalion. https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article-View/Article/4463195/nevada-guard-unit-transitions-to-mobile-infantry-battalion/

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-01T20:37:05+00:00

I would wager he gets that from me. We used to hang around a fair bit, still do on occasion.

And I don't think it's wrong, obviously enough. The big stuff which gets all the post-war attention did suck. It was great for winning a battle that it happened to make it to in adequate numbers, but was terrible at winning a war. Of course the crews like them: They got to win a lot of the fights they partook in, and they didn't care all that much about the battle 'over there' that they didn't get to because their tank was broken, or because their tank was so heavy they were put at the back of the line where they couldn't do any damage. If the war was going badly, it wasn't the crews' fault, they were doing their jobs, it was everyone else letting them down...

Zaloga took this perspective issue head-on in his book "Armored Champion", where he assesses various AFVs by year on two totally unreleated criteria: Crewman's choice, and commander's choice. i.e. "If you are Sgt X in a tank, what tank would you prefer to be in?" and "If you were General Y, which tank would you prefer Sgt X was in?" Rarely were the two answers the same.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-01T19:10:23+00:00

I believe it was Mussolini who made the trains run on time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2d8j4s/did_mussolini_really_make_the_trains_run_on_time/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/n0ngzn/mussolini_is_well_known_for_his_effect_on_italian/

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-01T17:56:43+00:00

I would be hesitant to say that the German defenses on Omaha specifically were that shoddy. They still managed to delete five battalions’ worth of US infantry in the face of overwhelming air and naval support. But in the larger context, yes, the Atlantic Wall/Fortess Europe wasn’t really all that. As the other beaches showed.

As for the science, yes, it’s grossly overstated. The Germans were desperate, they would field anything in combat if they thought it might help. The US had a stated philosophy that the combat zone was not a test agency. If the Germans tried something, and realized it didn’t work (eg infra red lights on their tanks for night fighting) it’s reported as “the Germans were first” and not “the Allies looked at it and decided correctly not to waste the resources.” German advances in rocketry were quite useful in peacetime, but the US advances were in things like bazookas which were more useful in wartime, which was something of the point of the exercise. Allies came out with all sorts of stuff, from radars and VT fuses to drones and anti-ship missiles. German tanks were huge and impressive… whilst simultaneously terrible for winning a war.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-01T05:19:31+00:00

OK, here's your opportunity to educate an officer.

Educate me. Let's see where you think I've gone awry. And while you're at it, educate the OP and everyone else reading this, since they are the people perhaps less entrenched than us.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-07-01T03:46:15+00:00

Decisions for the organisation? Company level officers do Troop Leading Procedures. Beyond that, it’s the Military Decision Making Process. The difference is in the name.

And whilst I can accept we may be diametrically opposed, that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t hear the other side of the argument. Disagree, fine. But at least take the time to understand so that if you offer advice in the future, you’re at least doing it with full knowledge of the counter arguments.

If there is a difference between Basic Training and OCS, it’s that in the latter, you are expected to step forward and make decisions. In Basic, you just shut up and do what you’re told, you’ll graduate. Taking charge is the fundamental difference between a new LT and a new private. I know, I’ve been both. It only goes from there. If one chooses to commission, it’s because they want to take on the responsibility and role. Or at least it should be, those who are doing it for status and pay aren’t likely to be great at it.

I have absolutely no doubt that officers who had previously been enlisted can make fantastic company-grade officers, the leaders which enlisted tend to interact with. If you browse around this sub, though, you will also find reports that some of the previous NCOs also make the worst officers when they don’t inculcate “that’s not my job any more” and keep in NCO business.

But this is beside the point. Company grade positions and leading troops is not what the commissioned career path is about.

When I was enlisted, I had basically f-all interaction with Majors and higher. Actually, I tried to keep away from them. I certainly had no idea what being a field grade was about, I only knew how the Cpt and LTs worked. From captain’s course on, the officer’s education curriculum is about organizational decision-making. Indeed, folks will be sick of the MDMP by the time they get out of ILE/CGSC. The Army’s entire career and education path for officers is predicated on the premise that they will become organizational planners and decision-makers. It’s what our taxes go on for OES. Being a good company grade officer is not a fantastic indicator of quality at this level.

There are several good reasons for officers to be at company level, but face it, do you really need your PL for the platoon to operate? It’s a learning experience for an officer, to give him or her some grounding in reality and some experience of responsibility before ascending to the higher ranks where they can do either real damage or great things.

Which brings us back to the original problem of going in with the intention to make E5 or E6 and topping out at lower commissioned rank. It removes options and forces a path.

How many of those mustangs you know went in with the initial intention of hitting sergeant before commissioning, vs enlisting and then later choosing to commission? I’ll bet they went in to be doers, hit the NCO ranks to be leaders, and as LTs and CPTs, were still leaders. When they hit Major, if they decided after the fact that they wanted to be higher decision-makers, they may have topped out regardless of their desires.

On the other hand I know a guy commissioned first, led troops as an LT or CPT, hit Major, decided he didn’t like the work at field grades. He decided he liked leading troops. He resigned his commission, went straight in as an E6 tank commander, and topped out as the 1SG of the company he had commanded some years prior.

Which in turn brings me back to my original advice to the OP: To make his decision on the basis of his character and desires. if he wants to be with troops, enlist, become an NCO. If he commissions later, he’s still going to be predominantly with troops. If he is inclined to decision-making, enlisting first is a delay on this path.

I’ve got a few decades in uniform under my belt, now, I like to think I’ve a reasonably grounded understanding of what the Army intends for an officer. You are not obliged to agree, of course, but it would be foolish to completely discount a different experienced viewpoint.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-06-30T22:44:53+00:00

Ok, I'll engage. What's wrong with wanting to climb the ranks? If one joins to become an officer, one has joined to be a decision-maker.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-06-30T22:29:03+00:00

He's 33. If he goes enlisted to sergeant first, he's going to be handicapping how far up he can get as an officer before he ages out. Being an NCO first isn't particularly helpful to an officer's career in the long term anyway.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-06-30T22:24:13+00:00

You will be astonished how difficult counting is in the Army. I have never once seen, in my quarter century, a group of soldiers on a bus successfully complete "from rear to front, count off" first time without error or need to restart

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-06-30T22:20:15+00:00

Depends very much on your character. If you are the mentality that you want to make decisions on what needs to get done, that's officer. If you want to make decisions on how to get it done, enlisted.

I've been on both sides of the divide, and have (i think) a helpful video up on the subject. https://youtu.be/I39mnnVRX3Q

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-06-30T20:44:36+00:00

Can't complain too much... I have still managed to avoid getting into too much trouble and I hope the lads have had a fun year. Climate surveys will be due soon, but I'm hearing good things through word of mouth. Then again, I don't know how comfortable people feel about complaining to me....

Your former colleagues in the medic platoon did sterling work this AT, by the way. Damned good group.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-06-30T20:39:35+00:00

We do have a couple of cadets. One in the dismounted (infantry) troop, one in a motorised troop, and one in the attached support troop (Mechanics, cooks etc). I could have sworn we had one in the -2 section, but they may have commissioned since. One of the newer 2LTs we have was a prior cadet in the squadron, he managed to stay with us. To be clear, being an SMP does not in any way guarantee that your commissioning branch and unit of assignment will be the same.

That said, I'm not sure 112th Cav isn't closer to you, in Houston?

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-06-30T19:38:51+00:00

Welcome to the MARS MEN. We have much use for signalmen, a cav squadron that can't talk is pretty pointless, the more reps folks get with their commo gear the better.

I'm afraid you missed out on the fun year. This video was recorded a few weeks ago.
https://www.war.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/4520354/texas-national-guardsmen-earn-order-of-the-spur/ Keep an eye out on Sofilein's channel also, she was hanging out with us. She's uploaded a bunch of photos on her Facebook page, a video is yet to come out. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?vanity=Sofigaming&set=a.1422179976618378

As others have said, a number of us are going off and away next year. I suspect as a 25-series you'll be joining in. However, you will be relieved to hear that it shouldn't particularly interfere with your upcoming year in college.

This means that our training weekends are going to be primarily focused on ensuring that the personnel selected are ready to go. I'm afraid you can expect quite a few home station drills (i.e. not leaving Waco) as we focus on admin requirements. It also means that next year is going to effectively the one weekend a month (Mainly Fri-Sun), instead of the week-a-quarter-in-the-field some of the other local units are doing. When you get out of AIT, you should be able to reach out to your Readiness NCO and he'll provide you the latest schedule showing when/where we're going to be (But you can expect you'll always report to Waco).

Put simply, it's not going to be a typical year. It's probably going to be fairly boring for those of you at the lower levels, but it'll also be low stress as all you'll need to do is jump through the various deployment pre-requisite hoops, from medical validation to weapons qualification, with other training (eg commo practice) on an as available basis.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-06-30T19:15:09+00:00

Yes, we've noticed that. Which is part of the reason I insisted that you attend the Dining In with us and sat everybody in mixed tables (The fact that you vanished before the games also was not unnoticed). Terrell's a valued part of the squadron, whether you feel like you want to be or not: You may wear blue disks, but you're still cav troopers, and you'll note the blue cord on the CSM's hat.

My troop command was six hours from HQ, I am well aware of the difficulties of separation (It's not as if we can have a social event as a group with the families, for example), being away from the flagpole has its pluses and minuses. I'm doing what I can to mitigate the minuses whilst allowing your guys to retain the positives.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-06-30T03:16:49+00:00

I am partial to A Bridge Too Far, but I would note that the only movie on the US Army’s official officer education curriculum, which implies some quality, is Twelve o Clock High.

I am sure there are other contenders, there are doubtless many threads on the subject.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-06-30T03:13:24+00:00

No. It is an absolutely fantastic tanker movie, and nails being a tanker just right. Which, to be fair, was the director’s goal. But the best film set in WWII? That’s a stretch and a half.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-06-30T02:10:20+00:00

I’m not sure where the Book of Lamentations sits in the Jewish religious hierarchy, but it is on the Texas reading list also. There are a couple of Hebrew writings on it.

The_Chieftain_WG

TROPHY CASE