Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1978
Force Development, Doctrine, and Training
As with all military organizations past or present, in fiscal year 1978 the readiness of the U.S. Army's operational forces was the product of their organization, composition, and training. Maintaining the readiness to deter major aggression and lesser threats to peace and our national interests was an unremitting task. It involved not only the operational forces but all elements of the total Army. Staff members at all levels devoted much attention to force development and training, two of the most important ingredients of force readiness.
Force development is continually influenced by other dynamic factors. In 1978 the Army adjusted to shifts in our national strategy, the rapid pace of technological developments in weaponry and equipment, budgetary constraints stemming from rampant inflation, and the goal of balanced forces capable of both deterrence and instant response to various contingencies. While the Army's overall structure remained the same, a 24-division force comprised of sixteen active and eight National Guard divisions, significant changes occurred in units making up that force and its supporting elements.
The Army has devised a management approach called force packaging methodology to ensure that planning, programming, and budgeting actions are responsive to Army priorities and that available resources are allocated to best promote force readiness. The force packaging methodology aligned all Army forces, active, guard, and reserve into separate force packages, one for each of four mission priorities announced by the Chief of Staff in June 1977. The priorities were as follows:
1. Those forces and supplies essential to the first thirty
days of any European war and those forces and supplies needed for any unilateral
contingency elsewhere, including support base functions.
2. Those forces and supplies needed for the second month of a European war.
3. Those forces and supplies needed for the third month of a European war.
4. The minimum needs for the remainder of the Army.
Resources were being distributed accordingly, with the result that improved near-term readiness was often achieved at the expense of later deploying units. Resource constraints made it necessary for the Army to meet its most pressing needs first, redressing inequities through longer-range fiscal actions.
As in the previous year, the Army tried to combine active and reserve components with civilian support in a balanced force that maximized the combat potential of available resources. The trend to increased reliance on reserve components continued. In 1978 they provided 54 percent of the Army's land combat forces, 57 percent of its special forces groups, 65 percent of its combat engineer battalions, and 65 percent of its tactical support units. They also continued providing combat units to round out and augment active divisions.
The Army took steps to add combat strength to its forces which would be available as quickly as possible, fulfill its commitments to NATO, and increase the units that could be deployed in non-NATO situations.
To improve its status in Europe, the Army raised manpower authorizations, deployed an eight-inch field artillery battalion, planned for deploying other artillery sections, added more missile firing Cobra gunships, and continued prepositioning the equipment of units that would be flown from the continental United States. It made plans to increase manpower in Europe in 1979 to improve electronic warfare, chemical defense communications, and missile maintenance capabilities. The Army also provided a 5 percent manning increase to selected combat elements in the United States scheduled for deployment to Europe in the event of a conflict.
Outside Europe, the Army increased from 90 to 100 percent of wartime requirements the manpower of the 5th and 24th Infantry Divisions and the 194th Armored Brigade. It planned in 1979 to finish converting the 24th Infantry Division to mechanized infantry, activate in the United States two tank battalions, one Hawk missile battalion, one Vulcan air defense artillery battery, one field artillery battalion, and one attack helicopter battalion (-) to increase the structure of the 6th Cavalry Brigade (Air Combat). In addition, it planned to convert the first returning battalion of the 2d Infantry Division to mechanized infantry.
During fiscal year 1978, the U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) activated 29 units, inactivated 15, deployed 2, and reorganized 490, all within the active component. Among the units activated were six artillery target acquisition batteries, ten
military intelligence units, and one additional division support chemical unit.
FORSCOM completed deferred parts of the Army Reserve fiscal year 1977 troop-action program and set the 1978 program in motion. As in 1977, however, the program continued experiencing difficulties, such as stationing problems, determining if the reserve could support cellular units, obtaining equipment essential to missions, and overcoming the objections of a number of state adjutants general. Consequently, FORSCOM completed only a part of the program, activating twenty Army Reserve units, inactivating twenty-one, and reorganizing eleven.
In fiscal year 1978 the Army was on the threshold of transition to a new generation of weapons and equipment. Impelled by the Warsaw Pact buildup in Europe, the Army was developing new or improved systems in almost every combat field. In January 1978 the new XMI tank passed a major development roadblock when the Secretary of the Army announced that the German 120-mm. smoothbore tank gun would become its main armament. In June the Department of the Army ordered limited production of the major interim antiarmor vehicle, an improved TOW (tube-launched, optically-tracked, wire-guided) missile system mounted on the M113AI armored personnel carrier. The XM2 infantry and XM3 cavalry fighting vehicles remained in engineering development.
In artillery, the Army contracted for the development of the multiple launch general support rocket system (GSRS). Keyed to NATO requirements, the GSRS would be used jointly by NATO forces. It approved starting full-scale production of the AN/ TPQ-36 mortar locating radar, and completed advanced operational testing of TACFIRE, an improved tactical fire direction system for artillery.
Development progressed on new air defense systems. However, only a new short-range missile, the U.S. Roland-SAM (a U.S.-produced version of the French/German designed Roland II), and the AN/TSQ-73 air defense command control system reached the production stage.
The Army worked on several aircraft systems, including new assault (Black Hawk) and advanced attack (AAH) helicopters, and a modernized medium lift helicopter (CH-47). Only the Black Hawk was scheduled to reach the field in 1980.
Early in 1976 the Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) initiated a comprehensive study of the optimum size, mix, and organization of a heavy division for the 1980's. By 1977 TRADOC had devised a plan that would provide more, but
smaller, maneuver battalions; greater artillery firepower, improved electronic warfare and chemical defense capabilities, and a weapons-oriented logistical system.
The innovations TRADOC proposed were field tested in the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas. From October to December 1977, TRADOC sponsored battalion-level tests of the restructured elements. Those were followed by tests of a restructured brigade-size organization and subordinate units, employment of alternative tank battalion organizations, a 96-hour live-fire exercise of a direct support field artillery battalion, and a comprehensive field test of the restructured brigade. The field tests were completed on 30 September 1978. The Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, conducted numerous war game evaluations of the test concepts, including analysis using a computer assisted division war game.
The results of both the field tests and war games will be analyzed, compared with similar evaluations for current H-series organizations, and used to develop a new heavy division. Designated Division 86, its initial structure should be ready to present to the Chief of Staff early in fiscal year 1980.
TRADOC also studied the airborne division. This year it made recommendations for some restructuring of that organization. For example, TRADOC proposed expanding the firepower of the division, adding to that of its infantry and 105-mm. howitzer battalions, giving the latter 155-mm. pieces for use in Europe, and increasing the number of attack helicopters.
A large, modern military organization operating with the most technologically advanced weapons faces extremely complex problems. Accurate information on which to base decisions must be readily available. In recent years, the Army has begun developing a number of management and information systems to supply the data base needed for planning and carrying out the almost continuous restructuring of its organization.
In fiscal year 1978, budget constraints measurably slowed the progress of placing new systems into full operation. For example, the vertical force development management information system (VFDMIS), which was described in detail in the 1977 Department of the Army Historical Summary, received no new funds in 1978. VFDMIS was designed primarily for wartime, but has a capability of functioning with equal efficiency in peacetime. It incorporates centralized, structural programming techniques hitherto not attempted in a system of its magnitude. Work continued on previously funded communications support requirements and selection of technical software for teleprocessing.
Steps were taken to revise the VFDMIS communications plan to permit consideration of the use in the system of standard remote terminals and AUTODIN II, the advanced automatic data digital network. The VFDMIS development team, reconstituted in fiscal year 1978 as a result of a manpower survey of the U.S. Army Computer Systems Command, established a program to train new personnel in the centralized design and structural programming to be employed in the system.
Development of the Force Development Integrated Management System (FORDIMS) also fell behind schedule because of personnel shortages and a shift of priorities. Accordingly, the Army extended its completion date to September 1979. Progress in 1978 toward this goal included completion of users guides for some of the subsystems and of training and implementation plans.
In anticipation of the completion of VFDMIS and FORDIMS, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (ODCSOPS) made preparations for using the two systems in conjunction with its Structure and Composition System (SACS). ODCSOPS had established SACS for stating personnel and equipment requirements to appropriate Army agencies for use in developing budgets for personnel accession, training and distribution, equipment acquisition and distribution, and related activities. To expedite the output of SACS and increase the timeliness and accuracy of its data, ODCSOPS arranged a contract with General Research Corporation to ascertain how SACS might use VFDMIS and FORDIMS.
The wartime requirements for ammunition, materiel, and personnel (WARRAMP) study program seemed likely to produce data pertinent to VFDMIS and related Army information systems. In 1978 phase two of the study, methodology development, was completed. A start was made on system testing and an experimental production run. After this is accomplished, work will begin on producing consumption and loss factors for use in programming the Army's requirements.
The recent proliferation of systems relating to the Army's development and acquisition process, all with the goal of force modernization, has caused concern that planning and programming for placing new systems into operation might be inadequate. One obstacle faced by the major Army commands responsible for programming new systems was the lack of data upon which to base budget estimates. To overcome this handicap, the Department of the Army issued a supplement to the Preliminary Army Planning and Programing Guidance Manual
with information on support planning and programming for forty-two new systems. The supplement was further evidence of the Army's widening awareness of the need for special management for effective use of the many new systems the Army would be producing in the 1980's.
Concepts and Doctrine
As a signatory to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the U.S. had participated in diplomatic conference negotiations during 1971-77 to consider new protocols. The conference adopted protocols on international and civil wars. Consistent with the Army's interest in whether the United States should become a party to the new protocols and what reservations or understanding might be required, in late 1977 the Army staff and the judge Advocate General's Office (JAGO) carried out substantial studies on them, including a detailed review and analysis prepared by JAGO. Following these studies, the Department of the Army concurred in the decision to sign the protocols, which the United States did on 12 December 1977.
During fiscal year 1978 JAGO began writing a new law-of-war manual to incorporate the new protocols. The Army undertook studies to determine future training requirements relative to the protocols and changes that might be advisable in standard Army procedures. The Army continued coordinating with NATO how the protocols could best be implemented in NATO, such as by common manuals, rules of engagement, and standardization agreements. At the end of the fiscal year the Department of the Army was engaged in detailed studies on the feasibility of the new protocols in combat conditions and in preparing for U.S. Senate hearings on their ratification.
Although the 1977 conference had discussed restrictions on specific weapons, none were adopted in the new protocols. During the conference many nations had expressed the desire for negotiations to continue on prohibiting or restricting specific conventional weapons, including land mines, incendiaries, and small caliber projectiles. Accordingly, the conference recommended that the United Nations convene a separate diplomatic conference on weapons that might be excessively injurious or have indiscriminate effects. The United Nations issued a call for this conference in 1979 and held a preparatory conference in August and September 1978. Representatives of the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition, Surgeon General, and Judge Advocate General were members of the U.S.
delegation to the preparatory conference. The United Nations scheduled a second preparatory conference for the spring of 1979 to consider concrete treaty proposals.
To meet a responsibility assigned by the Department of Defense, in fiscal year 1978 the judge Advocate General's office continued reviewing conventional weapons to determine if they were consistent with international law. An Army regulation on the legal review of weapons was approved. It had been prepared by the Army staff to make JAG's review process more efficient and to ensure a timely review of new conventional weapons systems.
Concern with weaponry development was an important element in Army planning for future wars. TRADOC developed the battlefield development plan to give direction and focus to Army development efforts in the areas of materiel, training, force structuring, concepts and doctrine. TRADOC will revise and expand the plan annually. The first edition will be published in November 1978 and contain four chapters: a description of the impact of technological advance on the Army; a net assessment comparing the Army's program to achieve near-term readiness and mid-term modernization with Soviet force capabilities; an analysis of the ability of development programs to meet battlefield demands in the 1980's; and a set of conclusions and recommendations.
TRADOC undertook other _ studies pertinent to the battlefield of the future. It began a study of engineer tasks that would most contribute to force effectiveness. The Engineer Family of Systems Study, a draft report distributed this year, designated three principal mission areas: mobility, countermobility, and survivability. It investigated obscuring of battlefields with smoke clouds created by various types of ammunition as an aspect of the effect of the environment on combat operations. From these studies it provided appropriate agencies with basic data for developing performance models and battlefield scenarios incorporating smoke and dust.
Battlefield automation came under study from several different directions. The Vice Chief of Staff directed TRADOC's battlefield automation management program (BAMP), which already had responsibility for identifying, validating, and approving requirements for battlefield automation systems, to also manage development of these systems to control the proliferation of computers on the battlefield. BAMP's critical review resulted in termination of two systems and recommendations to terminate or modify others. TRADOC's automated battlefield
interface concept moved forward in developing requirements for systems interoperability. If approved by the Department of the Army, its evaluation of forty-nine systems likely to be functioning on the corps battlefield in the early 1980's will become the Army's first major interoperability requirements document.
The Army's command and control system of the 1980's will be expected to conform to the Army command and control master plan (ACCMP), which continued under development. With contractor support from the Federal Systems Division of International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), in June 1978 the Army completed work on the theater nuclear level of conflict phase of the ACCMP. Also completed were architectural guidance and solutions and scenario documents for other levels of conflict, such as conventional war, general nuclear war-post attack, and crisis situations. In August work began on a pilot master plan to be published in October.
Responding to a TRADOC study which revealed a significant gap in existing and potential capabilities of U.S. tank forces, the Chief of Staff formed the Tank Forces Management Group in August 1976. The group recommended and the Chief of Staff approved the establishment of the Tank Forces Management Office, which since August 1977 has been providing intensive management of the Army's tank forces in the areas of personnel, training, logistics, and development and coordinating an integrated tank program. In fiscal year 1978, TFMO's Special Tank Task Force (STTF), set up at the direction of the Chief of Staff, completed a review of the tank program and formulated an integrated research, development, and procurement plan. The STTF plan will be the basis for a significant shift in future tank budgetary requests. Many specific actions recommended by the plan were assigned to appropriate staff agencies. The Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, for example, completed eight of its ten assigned tasks in fiscal year 1978 and estimated that it would complete the remaining two by the end of fiscal year 1979.
Training and Schooling
In fiscal year 1978 the Army continued emphasizing training as its most important peacetime activity. In the summer of 1978 the Chief of Staff approved a significant administrative change at the Department of the Army level for the management of training. A direct result of the Army Resource Management Study (1977-78), this change transferred the Training Division, Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, to the Office, Deputy Chief
of Staff for Operations and Plans, effective 1 October 1978. Consolidating training functions at this level should ease the determination of training requirements from individual entry through major units and open the way to trade-offs between individual and collective training in this unit.
In keeping with the total Army concept, training guidelines were the same for both active and reserve component forces. The guidelines set as the primary training task improving the ability of units to conduct and support sustained land combat operations. Four basic goals received special attention: accelerating the development and use of junior leaders; ensuring productive use of each soldier's full training day; improving individual proficiency in the tasks set forth in the relevant soldier's manual; and improving unit proficiency in the tasks set forth in the relevant unit Army training and evaluation program. Emphasis continued on decentralizing training management, which was to be achieved by having all individual commanders use a four-step training management model: set objectives, provide resources, coach subordinates, and measure results.
In combat training the Army stressed the need for a sound balance between individual and collective training. It also stressed training under realistic conditions. Simulated sustained combat operations were employed, as were activities to improve the use of smoke and nuclear, biological, and chemical skills. There was an increase in the use of Opposing Forces personnel, tactics, and materiel, and of intelligence training.
Specialized training contributed to a balance between individual and unit training. Under the small unit exchange program the active Army had exchanges with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. There was on-the-job and observer training of 156 individuals from twenty-two foreign countries. FORSCOM units increased their use of U.S. Navy amphibious facilities on both the east and west coasts, attended the three-week jungle orientation course conducted by the U.S. Army Jungle Warfare Training Center at Fort Amador, Canal Zone, and received arctic orientation training at the U.S. Army Northern Warfare Training Center, in Fort Greely, Alaska. Individual soldiers benefited from efforts to revitalize marksmanship training and competition.
Participating in twenty-six exercises under the Joint Chiefs of Staff exercise program during fiscal year 1978, the Army gained training experience in mobility, command and control, communications, and other areas under likely wartime conditions. The largest exercise was REFORGER 78, which has been held
annually since 1967 under a trilateral agreement among the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Federal Republic of Germany. Beginning in August, elements of the 4th, 5th, and 9th Infantry Divisions, an attack helicopter battalion of the 101st Airborne Division, and other combat and service support units deployed by land, sea, and air to Europe. Units of the 4th Infantry Division came under operational control of the 1st Netherlands Corps for field training exercises designed to provide them with experience in NATO interoperability. Fifth Division units and supporting elements joined in a U.S. V Corps field training exercise. Concurrently, tactical operations center groups from 1st and 9th Infantry Division Headquarters took part in a command post exercise conducted by the U.S. VII Corps in Germany. A unique feature of this year's REFORGER was a no-notice exercise in which an artillery battalion was alerted to deploy to Europe within ninety-six hours, fall in on its prepositioned equipment, participate in a field training exercise, turn in its equipment, and redeploy back to the United States, all within ninety-six hours. The exercise was judged successful in every respect. In the Far East, TEAM SPIRIT 78 was a successful strategic deployment exercise in reinforcing U.S. defenses in South Korea.
As the fiscal year ended the Army prepared for Exercise NIFTY NUGGET/MOBEX 78, the most comprehensive mobilization and deployment command post exercise conducted by the United States since World War II. The Army's portion was to run from 10 October to 8 November.
Army training was affected by the expanded development of the Opposing Forces (OPFOR) program. FORSCOM included OPFOR concepts in the division combined arms training cycles and the United States Army, Europe, began organizing an OPFOR training detachment. Both FORSCOM and TRADOC included OPFOR concepts in all training documents relating to skill qualification tests and Army training and evaluation programs. TRADOC began a series of OPFOR manuals. The first, FM 30-102, OPFOR Europe, was issued, and another on North Korea was in progress.
While REFORGER arid similar large-scale activities provided some realistic combined arms training, many other units were denied comparable experiences because of a lack of facilities. Such training requires a simulated battlefield environment which employs appropriate size enemy forces, live-fire, close air support, and the most sophisticated electronic equipment, under conditions that may be adequately evaluated. To overcome this
training deficiency, FORSCOM and TRADOC collaborated on plans for establishing a national training center (NTC). The plans were completed in December 1977, approved by FORSCOM and TRADOC commanders and the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, and submitted for funding in the fiscal year 1980 budget. In September 1978 the Army filed a draft environmental impact statement with the Environmental Protection. Agency proposing three alternative sites for the center: Fort Irwin, California, which the Army favored, Twenty-Nine Palms Marine Corps Base, California, or Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona.
A number of new training concepts tested and validated by TRADOC were introduced into the regular training program. In January 1977 the Department of the Army had approved basic initial entry training. It provided a basic training course for women trainees that was essentially the same as the one men had been receiving for many years. Women were to undergo more strenuous physical activities and receive training in individual tactical techniques, hand grenade qualification, and the use of weapons. Courses began in September 1977 with all-female units at Fort McClellan, Alabama. In fiscal year 1978, men and women trained together under this program at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. TRADOC made preparations to train women at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and men at Fort McClellan.
Other new training concepts introduced into regular training were .the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course for Combat Arms, and record testing for the first group of enlisted personnel management system career fields. Skill qualification testing was extended to the reserve components later in the year.
Since fiscal year 1976 the Army has been working on a one-station unit training concept, in which initial entry training is conducted at one installation in one unit with the same cadre and one program of instruction. Basic and advanced individual training are integrated to permit early instruction in specific military occupational specialties. Reinforcement training follows to assure mastery.
If one-station training was as or more effective than the traditional two-station method, then time and money could be saved by adopting it. Following TRADOC's test of one-station training in 1976, Congress accepted the Army's conclusion that the length of initial entry training could be reduced. However, due to objections from congressmen and the General Accounting Office, it directed the Army to conduct another test compar-
ing one- and two-station training to determine which is more advantageous and economical for initial entry infantry training. During fiscal year 1978 TRADOC devised such a test. It is to be carried out at Fort Benning, Georgia, and Fort Knox, Kentucky, and is designed to compare cadre qualifications, program execution, facilities, and the handling of trainees. Training began at Fort Benning in August 1978, and is scheduled for completion in time to submit the results to Congress by the summer of 1979.
In 1976 the Special Commission of the United States Military Academy convened to assess honor code violations. This commission suggested the formation of the West Point Study Group, which in 1977 submitted a report containing more than 200 recommendations. In October 1977 the superintendent of the academy appointed eleven committees to consider the study group's report. They covered the areas of curriculum, governance, staff and faculty development, honor review, scheduling, computer management and training support, cadet quality development and commitment, ethics and professionalism, instructional methods and technology, faculty council, and the library committee. At the close of the fiscal year, more than 70 percent of the group's recommendations, modified in some instances, were in effect, while most of the others remained under study.
One noteworthy change under way this year was the transition to a new curriculum emphasizing academic excellence and reducing the number of required courses. It is hoped this will enable cadets to better utilize their time and energy. Other changes under review would upgrade the comprehensive and diversified character of the cadet experience, while reaffirming traditional values.
In 1978 the Army took another step towards revising its system for educating and training officers. In June the officer training and review group in the Office of the Chief of Staff completed a study begun in August 1977. Entitled Review of Education and Training for Officers, the study proposed fundamental changes designed to meet the criticism that the present system failed to provide officers with adequate technical competence. Earlier TRADOC had made a detailed study of the 1973 Israeli-Egyptian war, in which both sides had employed modern weapons. The study resulted in revision of the curricula in Army schools to include more technical training. These revisions, however, had not produced military leaders distinctly superior to those of America's potential adversaries.
The June 1978 study recommended a series of changes encompassing all of the education and training needs of the officer.
It extended from precommissioning through career completion, covering both the active and reserve components, and was adaptable to periods of rapidly expanding forces. Some of the recommendations were instituting accession screening for all officer candidates; establishing military qualification standards which would provide every young officer through his first ten years of service with an unambiguous guide to self-development, unit development, commander responsibility, and institutional learning; reshaping the officer's advanced course; establishing a new Combined Arms and Services Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to ensure that all officers selected for the rank of major receive the required staff training; reducing attendance at the Command and General Staff College regular course to 20 percent of the officers selected for the rank of major; providing precommand courses for all commanders regardless of their component or specialty; developing at the Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, war game simulation capabilities for instruction in warfare involving joint, combined, and coalition forces; and providing for the continuing education of general officers, particularly when they move from one position to another.
The highest level Army school for noncommissioned officers, the U.S. Sergeants Major Academy at Fort Bliss near El Paso, Texas, changed its procedures for selecting and assigning students. Scheduled to go into effect with the fiscal year 1980 selection board, the changes were made to improve management of selection and assignment and to adjust to new limitations on permanent changes of station imposed by the Department of Defense in late 1977. Under the new system, the board will name from among eligible master and first sergeants 400 as primaries to attend the school and 400 as alternates. Twice as many alternates as in the past will be named, thereby ensuring an adequate number to replace primaries who cannot attend because they are ineligible for a permanent change of station. The changes will ensure that noncommissioned officers who must postpone their attendance will have an opportunity to attend at a later date.
Some more specialized areas of Army education also underwent change. The foreign area officers program, which is designed for officers assigned to attaché, security assistance, psychological operations, unconventional warfare, civil military operations, and civil affairs positions, reduced training time abroad to twelve months. The only exceptions were students scheduled to attend a command and general staff college in a
host country or the State Department's Foreign Service Institute Language School. These students will train for eighteen months to permit travel and area orientation. In addition, Russian area specialty trainees will spend twenty-four months at the U.S. Army Institute for Advanced Russian and East European Studies in Garmisch, Germany.
The foreign language training program underwent a thorough review and revision. The revised Army linguist program, which became effective on 1 September 1978, established an Army language review committee, provided a procedure for setting up linguistic requirements, emphasized the role of the commander in maintaining the linguistic proficiency of his command, required an assessment of language capability in statements of unit operational readiness, and increased the role of the Army continuing education system in refresher and maintenance training. The Army contributed to a revision of the regulations governing the Defense language program, published in July 1978, and will participate in the new foreign language training development five-year plan, approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in September.
In July 1978 the Department of the Army approved TRADOC's substantial revision of the command refresher course program for colonels and lieutenant colonels selected to command infantry, armor, field artillery, air defense artillery, and engineer commands. Divided into six parts, the program included self-study at the officer's home station, a branch refresher phase, command development and battle captains segments to be taken at Fort Leavenworth, and language study and legal orientation for selected officers.
The Office of the Surgeon General and the Army Medical Department effected changes in health education and training. In an effort to comply with the Chief of Staff's actions to reduce the Army staff, effective 1 April 1978 the Surgeon General consolidated the two divisions involved in staff functions for health education and training. To overcome the perennial critical shortage of Army medical officers, the Medical Department expanded its graduate medical education program, increasing from 1,190 to 1,450 the number of physicians in internship, residency, and fellowship training. The Surgeon General sought authority to resume in-service training of physician's assistants, which was discontinued in 1975 for budgetary reasons. The Army Medical Department also strengthened its long-term policy of providing financial support to encourage its members to
maintain their professional competence through continuing education and acquiring professional specialty recognition from national health organizations.
Members of the Judge Advocate General's Corps require extensive specialized training to perform with professional competence. With this objective sixty-one corps officers completed courses of instruction at the following in-service institutions during fiscal year 1978: U.S. Army War College (2); U.S. Industrial College of the Armed Forces (1); U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (9); Armed Forces Staff College (1); and the judge Advocate General's School graduate course (48).
Faced with dwindling resources, the Army tried to increase the efficiency of its training. The training management control system was designed to provide data on training costs and to identify the type and scope of training consistent with available resources in terms of battalion field training days for a division. Testing of this system began in the spring of 1978 at Fort Stewart, Georgia, with the 24th Infantry Division, and was expected to conclude late in fiscal year 1979.
More efficient use of an essential training resource was also the purpose of the Army's training ammunition management system. In December 1977 the Department of the Army published interim directions and procedures for this system. In March the Training Ammunition Authorization Committee validated ammunition requirements, and these were incorporated into fiscal years 1980-84 budget requests. Programs and reports to support ammunition management requirements and authorizations moved forward.
Improvements were made in the Army training requirements and resources system, which transmitted and received data on virtually every aspect of Army training and schooling. In the fiscal year, the system expanded to include the Office of the Surgeon General, the Academy of Health Sciences, the U.S. Army Transportation School, the Reserve Components Personnel and Administrative Center, the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center, and Headquarters, Forces Command. It now covers the majority of Army formal school training activities. The system also broadened its data base to include student input and graduates, attrition, class schedule changes, and a projection of the number and types of students scheduled for training at any given time.
The Army Study Program
In fiscal year 1978 the Army study program, which continued under the Management Directorate in the Office of the
Director of the Army Staff, consisted of 321 studies. Over 80 percent were conducted by Army organizations; the rest by nongovernment study groups and consultants. Sixty-eight of the completed studies related to the eleven priority problem areas identified in the fiscal year 1978 SA/CSA Study Planning Guidance document and listed in the 1977 Department of the Army Historical Summary. For example, several of the fourteen studies conducted under the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel concerned recruiting and personnel management models.
In July 1978 the Under Secretary of the Army directed the Army staff to review Army study and analysis activities. The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans served as executive agent for the ad hoc study group, which was chaired by the Deputy Under Secretary for Operations Research. The review addressed selecting problems for study, improving the quality of study results, efficient use of resources and procedures, integrating study programs, and providing them with guidance and control. The study was scheduled to be finished in late October. Staffing with major Army commands and Headquarters, Department of the Army, will then follow.
Return to Table of Contents
Last updated 7 September 2004