Ny State Trooper Vs Us Army


LT04
 Share

Recommended Posts

Don't think that I'm bitter to the Army I was a soldier and proud of it, I just think that the New York State Troopers have a better force for what they do then the US Army has for what they do. Here's why:

Typical time an Infantrymen spends in training before they get to a unit: 8 weeks basic, 8 weeks AIT total 16 weeks.

Typical time a NYS Trooper spends in training before they hit the streets: 26 weeks

In the Army you can pick any job skill you want / they have openings for.

In the State Troopers every one starts out a street cops then later down the road they can apply for auxiliary positions (by that I mean any thing other than street cops) .

In the Army I was sent a soldier who had 3 felonies before he enlisted all he had to do was get a wavier.

In the State Troopers ha ha ha are you kidding me.

In the Army you don't have to be a US citizen.

In the NY State Troopers you can't apply unless you are a US citizen and a resident of NY State.

If a soldier gets a DWI / DUI (or any other combination of letters starting with D) s/he will push for a article 15 under the UCMJ so it won't show up on their record when they get out.

In the State Troopers gets a DWI /DUI ha ha ha your career is over.

In the Army if you hit your commanding officer you get an article 15 two rank reduction and get back to work. (saw it happen several times)

In the State troopers again you just made a career ending gesture.

In the Army to qualify with a rifle they shoot 20 rounds from a "fighting position" (aka a foxhole so you know what I'm talking about) and 20 more rounds from the "prone unsupported firing position" (aka laying down). To qualify with a pistol as a State Tooper they fire standing up like they would in real life against a hostile target not resembling anything the Army does as far as qualification goes. When I went to Afghanistan I >>> NEVER <<< I repete >>> NEVER <<< fired a weapon laying down or in a "fighting position" it was always standing and on the move, but none the less the the Army said I was qualified to make war with my M4 based on an obsolete qualification test that doesn't reflect the way we currently fight a war. So as far as that goes the average state trooper is better trained to do my job with an M4 than I was as a soldier, b/c for his to be allowed to get near it he had to fire it in a standing position.

I know a soldier who went to his sergeants house after work one night set his truck on fire in the garage got 4 months credit for time served went to Fort Leavenworth for 16 months of his 5 year sentence and got out with a dishonorable discharge for "good behavior" then joined his home state's national guard and got promoted from a PFC to a Sergeant for his experience in the field.

Now maybe I'm by-ist (not sure how to spell that) b/c I saw a lot of bad eggs in the army, and I'm sure the State troopers have their warts as well, but come on is there any question as to who is better? If some one could point me in the right direction I would be very thankful.

-LT04

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure the State troopers have their warts as well, but come on is there any question as to who is better?

I think that's a facetious question. That's like asking if doctors are better than police officers. You're trying to trash one profession while elevating another; apples and oranges. For the record I've seen some bad cops as well.

Most troopers are not trained to do what a soldier does, and could not do it, and vice versa. It takes a particular kind of person to do either job, and neither is "better" than the other... :rolleyes: I've served with a lot of good soldiers, and I don't appreciate your attempts to put them down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outshined,

I’m not trying to offend any one I’m trying to enlighten others as to how our Army isn’t able to keep up with the times. The best example I can think of is the qualification test.

Soldiers fire 20 rounds from a fox hole and 20 more from a laying down position.

Troopers fire the very same rifle from a standing and then a kneeling position.

When I was in Afghanistan I NEVER fired my rifle from any other position than standing and standing wile moving. This makes the Troopers better trained with my rifle than I was.

I have heard it said time and time again that it’s cheaper to pay the service men / women’s families the $300,000 life insurance policy then it is to train them correctly. I don’t think that’s true but it seemed to be the consenseing view of the infantry.

I think the Army’s rifle qualification test is obsolete and echo’s of the wars fought 40 + years ago. The Army fails to keep up with the times on many other fronts as well for example there is no reason that a portable radio carried in the soldiers ruck should ever have to 40 pounds. How is it we can make a satellite cell phone able to call from Africa to Alaska that weighs less than a pound by far, but we can’t make a radio that only has an effective 5 mile range (unless parameters are changed by upgrading power supply to that of the HMMWV [that’s Humvee for all you civilians] and a series of other changes)

I also feel that if a unit has time constraints due to the increasing deployment manifests the first thing deemed unnecessary is the training schedule.

I think our fatality rate would drop a great deal if our soldiers had training that was 1 more adequate and 2 reflected the things soldiers were actually doing.

-LT04

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe the Army is behind the times at all. I've been to Iraq twice, and I have fired from positions very similar to the qualification positions; across the hood of a Hummer or wall, and from other postions.

Those positions aren't meant to train you; they are to ensure that you are familiar with your weapon and know how to aim. MOUT and FTX training is where you learn to fire under combat conditions. A police officer is not trained better than a soldier; he is trained to perform his particular job.

Our manpack radios don't weigh 40 pounds, they weigh 18, and our senior NCOs and officers have satellite phones. The training I've seen as we prepare for our third deployment has been excellent, as is the progress with equipment; it sounds like maybe it's been a while since you've been in, as the life insurance has been $400,000 for several years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outshined,

I'm glad to hear your unit was nothing like mine. For some reason 40 came to mind about the radios (maybe extra batteries? any way) At the time my division was very over extended I went to Afghanistan 5 OCT 01 elements of my division were already in Egypt, Kosovo, England, Germany and some where else then we were asked to go to Afghanistan after all that. So needless to say if you NCOIC went to Egypt, then your ANCOIC would go to Kosovo, who ever was left went to the other places and that left me the PFCIC of the battalion S-4 b/c I was the only one left in the office with a MOS in that field. Very shortly after I became the CPLIC still thats a far cry from SFC like our MTOE described.

I hope your right my unit had some substantal losses due to lack of preparedness

-LT04

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give you an idea of what deploying units go through now, including Quartermaster, Signal, and every other type of unit.

An 8-week "immersion" program designed to emulate the theater of operations as closely as possible, including living in the same type of quarters. Each soldier fires a minimum of 1,200 rounds in that time, at the range an in combat conditions. Training is in urban combat operations, communications, language, all the basic skills. A 150-mile convoy course with ambush scenarios, engaging targets live-fire, and a minimum of 40 IED encounters per unit. No grades or points; just pass or fail, and no one deploys until they pass.

It seems they've learned from their mistakes, as we didn't get this much hands-on the last time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow that’s great we didn't have any thing like that. I think that was mostly due to the timely nature of our initial response. When we had follow up deployments we still didn't have any thing like that.

The two biggest blunders of the 10th MTN DIV via TF 187 deployment to Afghanistan I think were one lack of training. I think this was mostly due to the slumber the Army had gotten in the habit of not being used as regularly as it had in the past. Secondly, deploying as a task force was also a mistake. No one knew who was getting supplied from where or who was supporting what it was all a big mess.

I was in the DIV engineer BN. Before we left we were told that 1/87 INF was to be our parent unit for the deployment that we would treat them as our BDE HQ. Some where along the line no one told this to 1/87 INF so from the lack of support this subsequently lead to a lot of theft for things like MRE's so we could eat, fuel for the equipment, bullets for the fire fights and thinks of that nature. If 101st hadn't showed up several months early and taken the mantel of command like they did I'm 100% sure there would have been a mutiny. There was a lot of talk of over throwing the 1/87 command post for the food they had. So maybe it wasn’t that we deployed as a task force it was just no one knew what was going on b/c of the hasty preparation.

-LT04

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Sorry for resurging a somewhat old post, I'm new here, and as a soldier this one sparked my interest immediately, having spent 8 years active duty, and now in the reserves.

I do understand your feelings about soldiers now, and the lack of discipline in the army. I thought it was bad when I was on active duty, when I left there for the reserves, I got the shock of my life. The reserves are a total joke, they have no disciple at all, none. The unit I'm in now is mainly all college kids that don't care about doing their jobs or even learning to do their jobs, they are just there to collect thier tuition assistance, and they could care less about anything else.

What really got me though was when I was on active duty, a SSG in my commo section got 2 DUI's and lost his security clearence, and they involunarialy reclassed him, to what MOS you ask?? 88M... Transportation (Truck Driver).... 2 DUI's and they make his job to drive around very big army vehicles ... I defy anyone to explain the logic in that to me..

The last two m4 quals I've done with my reserve unit have been 20 prone unsupported, and 20 kneeling, which did seem more realistic to me. We also did 9mm, and you do a whole bunch of positions for that. Though all this is just training after all. Its one thing to be on a tightly controlled range with rounds all going one way. Combat is totally different, no nice firing line, and rounds going in all directions. Having been with a light engineer company in 3rd ID, when we first went into Iraq, I can tell you all about the chaos that is a small arms fight.

One of my major gripes though is the weapon itself. The .556 has no knock down power, its way too small of a round. I've personally seen where it has taken several shots at such close ranges as 50-100m to drop a target. Also it gets dirty way too easily, and isn't exactly meant to handle all the tan baby powder fine Iraqi sand, they gunk up and won't fire.

I could write pages and pages on our commuications equipment, its my MOS - 31U, well 25U now.

Comparing sat phones to manpaks isn't exactly a fair comparison, they each serve a very different purpose. Manpaks are for short range commo with an OP or a other people on patrols, though these same radios when in vehicles with power amps can talk for almost 30mi (on flat terrain, like Iraq), and they are very hard to jam when running in secure mode, and allow everyone on the mission to hear what is going on.

Sat phones on the other hand are only 2 people talking, possibly more with conference calling, still though not like a radio where everyone around can hear your. Sat phones are also very easily jammed, they work on a single dedicated frequency when you are talking on them. Also just like regular cell phones, when turned on, not in use, just turned on able to recieve calls, they are constantly making contact with the satellites to verify service, and the location of the phone, this makes it easy to locate the source of a sat phone's broadcast. True our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have the abilty or technology to do these things, but in a war with a more developed country (i.e China) its a very real possiblity.

The manpaks we have now are on their way out anyways. The new JTRS system works not only on military frequencies, but on a whole bunch of other frequencies as well, like civilian air traffic control, AM/FM (what you listen to in your car), American and international cell, and is compatible with the radios of nearly every friendly countries radio systems in the world. It is also capable of computer networks, with a usb input, at 2-4Mbps. The most interesting feature though, since I mentioned cell phone freqs, is that this box on its own is capable of operating as a cell phone jammer, seen this in action at a recent Signal conference in Ft. Gordon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FranklinJL,

Welcome!

Sorry to sound like an old decrepit broke down bitter soldier, b/c that’s not my intent. My interest is in keeping soldiers alive.

I agree with you that 9mm (although equally as ineffective as the M4) has a very comprehensive qualification process.

I’m glad to hear about changing out the manpaks radio systems. That system has remained virtually unchanged since at least Vietnam with its grand father stretching back to WWII. My only concern here is how fast they can change out the old systems and send in the new systems. I was in the 10th MTN DIV and we took M16’s to Afghanistan and our first Iraq deployments, and we were a line company.

Rambling aside It’s always nice to meet a new face, again welcome,

-LT04

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how is the m16a2 more reliable then the m4? Its the same weapon basically, except the m4 has a slightly shorter barrel, and the collapsible butt stock. The middle firing assembly is the exact same thing in both weapons.

The only thing I could think of, is the m4 slightly less accurate at long ranges (300+ M) because the shorter barrel gives the round less spin.

My preference though was the M-4, its lighter and easier to maneuver around in tight spaces, such as firing from a vehicle.

The change out process will take a while for the new radios. The newest version of the sincgars cost 6,500 a piece, the new radios cost 38,000 a piece. So it is going to take a while to replace all 650,000 radios we have in the army alone, not counting the other services. Part of the last congressional defense spending bill paid for about 180,000 new radios, and they are expecting to phase more in in the comming years. Right now they are going mainly to 87th abn, 3rd ID, 10th mtn, 4th ID and that striker brigade out in Ft. Lewis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, the A2 is more reliable than the M4, and the barrel length does give it greater range and accuracy. Our sister unit last time had a time with their M4's but it may have been poor maintenance. Keep either one clean and it will work fine.

The M4 has little to offer in any 'improvement' beyond an adjustable stock; it was meant to be a stopgap weapon until the new systems were fielded. Those have yet to be implemented, though some SF battalions are actually buying their own HK upper recievers to replace the M4 setup. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003386.html

In 20 years and two wars (so far), I have only had real problems with the M16A1, and firing from a vehicle has never been a problem for me, even with a SAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M16 is a rifle. The M4 is a carbine. So the rifle will have greater accuracy at longer distances. Not only that they Army tends only to buy M16 bullets not M4 bullets. M16 bullets are heavier to carry it that extra distance. M4 bullets are lighter.

Who knows why the Army changed from a rifle to a carbine, less weight can’t be the only reason. Don’t tell me it’s for urban operations. I think that’s a load of hooey. Why in the world would you take a M4 with a muzzle velocity like that into a building? I have a AR10 like the M4 (mine is better and cheaper, but that’s beside the point) and one night my mom said if an intruder breaks in are you going to use that? I said no If I used that at the top of the stairs it would go through 3 intruders the wall into my neighbors wall and into her basement floor.

-LT04

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're talking about a regular AR10, that's 7.62 weapon anyway, with a lot more power than the M16/AR15...The Army is supposed to be transitioning to a 6.8mm weapon at some point, and Barrett has a pretty sweet one. http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1463...h_M468,,00.html

No, if I was doing house-to-house close quarters combat, I'd want a shotgun. Or even a subgun like the MP5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3rd ID infantry units in Iraq did use shotguns for house to house, not only is it great for room clearing, but it can remove a door lock rather easily ;)

I wasn't aware they made different rounds for the m16 and the m4.. We always used the same green tip (or orange for tracers) 5.56 rounds in both. I know the a1 and a2 have different rounds, but they work with each other, its just a matter of the rounds specifically adapted to the the different barrel twists.

That Barret looks nice, it says its compatible with all of the upper rail optical systems, but is that thing also compatible with the 203 conversion kit for the 16 too? I would still like to see a larger caliber, the 6.8mm is nice, but would still like to see a 7.62.

I'm not so much concerned with long range accuracy, in 2 trips to Iraq, and one to Afghanistan, I've rarely engaged a target at over 200 yards. If the target is that far out, thats what crew served weapons are for, the 50cal, 240B, and my personal favorite the mk-19.

My second trip to Iraq we worked with a lot of ROK (Republic of Korea) soldiers and they had a really good rifle they used. It was a 7.76, had 3 modes of fire - semi, 3 round burst, and full auto. (kinda a combo of the m1/m2 modes of fire). In all the patrols I did with them, I never seen their rifles jam, ever. It was bigger then our 16, but a lot lighter, it was all made of some polymer material, like what glocks are made of

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why the new proposed standard is 6.8mm; perhaps it's to make sure no one else can use our ammunition. It does have good ballistic characteristics, but it's an odd size...

And I agree with you on the .45; great caliber. No wonder the SF guys went back to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share