Provider Maintainers In The Army
BY Herschel Smith
4 years, 3 months ago
DoD.
The training, provided by the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, gave the small-arms repair Soldiers an opportunity to get a hands-on feel for the new systems and learn the details of operating and maintaining them.
“An instructor came here from TACOM and went over the whole weapons system for the M17 and M18 pistols, breaking down the weapon understanding how it fires,” said Staff Sgt. Ryan Daly, platoon sergeant with 632nd SMC.
The instructors also covered all the different trajectory, how to disassemble not only the weapon but also the magazine and how to properly clean it, Daly said.
[ … ]
The maintainers ended the training having gained confidence in their ability to provide the Division and tenant units the quality support the Sustainment Brigade is known for.
“For an SMC, this is an important opportunity because it helps Soldiers basically cross train with some of the tenant units and the units we support here on Fort Stewart,” said Capt. Jessica Richardson, commander, 632nd SMC. “We are the only ones that are going to be maintaining them on Fort Stewart and it gives our Soldiers an opportunity to fulfill their military occupation specialties.”
Provider Maintainer. Is that what the Army calls armorers now? Is that an actual MOS? Does this go along with all the sensitivity training they get now?
Have any of you gunsmiths heard of this MOS?
On September 12, 2020 at 11:25 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Herschel
Re: “Provider Maintainer. Is that what the Army calls armorers now? Is that an actual MOS? Does this go along with all the sensitivity training they get now?”
It’s beyond stupid, the needless obfuscation and make-work which goes on under the rubric of the so-called leadership of so many senior officers and NCOs. Upon encountering mil.gov foolishness of this epic level, I honestly can’t decide whether to laugh at its inanity or cry at its waste of the hard-earned taxpayer’s dollar. Perhaps I ought to do both.
The one which still has me shaking my head is the years-long effort by the different branches to determine their newest uniforms and camouflage patterns. Tens (perhaps hundreds) of millions of dollars and countless hours expended so that the Army (or the Navy or the Marine Corps, or the USAF) can reinvent the wheel and settle on a camo pattern that someone figured out seventy years ago during WWII. Or the now-famously inept effort by Big Green which resulted in the digital Universal Camouflage Pattern (UPC), an “all-terrain” camo pattern which actually made it easier for the enemy to spot the soldier so-uniformed in certain visual environments. Someone got promoted for that, count on it.
Getting back to “Provider-Maintainer,” some flag-general officer probably got another star and a letter of commendation in his jacket for thinking that one up! Maybe a Legion of Merit, too!
In fairness to our armed forces, civilian bureaucracies and specialty fields are just as famous for inventing new jargon when someone wants to make a name for his/herself and rise in rank/prestige. Great way to get published in academia, too – if you can’t actually discover something new, then find something old and rename, reorganize or re-categorize it. Easy peasy.
The underlying problem is that the armed forces are too top-heavy with field-grades and general/flag officers who all need to be kept busy with this or that.
One place to stash an officer or two – or a group of them, and the people who report to them – is in a program of some kind, whether it is something genuinely useful or something of dubious usefulness.
The personnel system needs reform as well. Personnel on active duty who have an “R” for reserve in their service designation, i.e., “USMC” versus “USMCR,” can be more-easily-shed if excess to the needs of the service, but personnel who have attended a service academy, for example, and have chosen their branch as their career, are pretty much promised a full twenty to retirement. Whether they deserve it or not.
Some analysts I’ve seen calculate that the U.S. military could shed as much as 20% of its senior officer corps without adversely affecting performance, with the caveat that it was done properly. That the fat was cut and not muscle and bone.
On September 13, 2020 at 12:03 am, Name (required) said:
“Some analysts I’ve seen calculate that the U.S. military could shed as much as 20% of its senior officer corps without adversely affecting performance, with the caveat that it was done properly. That the fat was cut and not muscle and bone.”
What was the officer/troop ratio during WWII, and how does that compare to the current officer/troop ratio? I think I recall hearing that we have more admirals today with 300-some ships than we had during WWII when we had 1000-some. We could go back to the officer/troop and officer/ship ratios we had during WWII and be far more effective for it. I wouldn’t be surprised if we would wind up cutting more like 50% than 20% to do that.
As far as ensuring that we only cut fat, not muscle, dump all the diversity, and encourage officers to resign in protest to that policy. We might miss a few of the diversity, but we wouldn’t miss any of the Leftists who resigned in protest.
On September 13, 2020 at 2:37 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Name (required)
Twenty percent is just a figure for starters, I agree. We could probably axe double that and still do fine, again with the caveat that it was done properly. That’s where the problem lies, because all big bureaucracies protect themselves if threatened, even at the expense of their primary mission(s).
Classic example is a local government which threatens to shut down unless its tax revenue/budget is increased. Common sense would say to cut/reduce non-essential city services first, while leaving services like police and fire and the schools intact or as close to it as possible. That’s not what happens, though.
The core of the bureaucracy, feeling itself threatened, makes its cuts out where the public and the government most-interact, as a bargaining tool, but also simply because that’s how big bureaucracies work. When the big-shots feel threatened, they cut first the number of teachers, firemen or cops – not the number of chair-warmers at headquarters.
The military are no different, which means that all of those admirals and generals would cut the force out at the tip of the spear before ever allowing reduction in force at the Pentagon/DOD proper. The prime directive of all bureaucracies is self-preservation. Then and only then comes the mission. I don’t know the answer to that problem; only that it exists and is real.
On September 13, 2020 at 2:50 am, Duke Norfolk said:
Unfortunately reform of that type is a pipe dream. As is reform of any other aspect of our imperial government. It’s all rotten to the core, with too many incentives to stay that way to ever make any real headway in reform. In any case, it’s all rearranging deck chairs…
I’m afraid that the only way it gets “reformed” at this point is for it to fail and come crumbling down.
On September 13, 2020 at 8:14 am, tired dog said:
Nothing more than corporate HR style gobble de gook designed to obfuscate, confuse and thoroughly remove straightforward definitions of roles and responsibilities.
The head shed must rate command staff on creating the most vacuous bs imaginable. ‘Sustainment Brigade’, geezus ?
Sorry, no idea if this is a real MOS.
On September 13, 2020 at 9:15 am, Chris Mallory said:
Provider Maintainer is twenty characters if you count the space. Armorer is only 8. Do you know how many more power point slides those extra 12 characters will provide over a 20 year career. Vietnam era army had body counts. Now days they count the number of power point slides you produce.
On September 13, 2020 at 10:34 am, Name (required) said:
“Now days they count the number of power point slides you produce.”
We have had a peacetime military for three generations, and this is the result.
On September 13, 2020 at 12:13 pm, billrla said:
Pew Pew Helper didn’t make the cut.
On September 13, 2020 at 1:35 pm, Another Persona said:
Fundamentally Transformed as part of the Great Leap Forward redux.
I almost feel sorry for TRADS that still cling to the police and military will save me delusion.
Also intelligence agencies are not staffed by Captain America types who love mom and apple pie.
Our external enemies don’t make any moves because there is no need for it.
Already conquered from within by a fifth column of true believers.
Plan accordingly.
On September 13, 2020 at 3:20 pm, Pat Hines said:
One of the smarter things I did as a unit commander was to cut orders making myself the unit armorer.
That gave me a discount at several firearm parts suppliers.
On September 13, 2020 at 7:12 pm, scott s. said:
I think you will find that “Providers” is the nick for the 3rd Division Sustainment Brigade. For a while the Army was parceling out logistics units to Combat Brigades (also artillery) but I don’t think that worked out well and now they have division-level support (what used to be DISCOM) as a Sustainment Brigade and also DIVARTY. This 632nd SMC is part of the Special Troops Battalion.
On September 14, 2020 at 8:27 pm, Sheepdog said:
Didn’t Stalin kill a majority of his officer corps?
Just asking for a friend…