Expectations of Your Maneuver Captain’s Career Course – What Army Leaders Need to Know

As the Army has evolved over the last 14 years of war, so has the Maneuver Captain’s Career Course (MCCC). We are working to ensure we are producing captains who are prepared to meet the rigors of leading Soldiers and Army formations in an ever-increasingly-complex world. A 22-week course of instruction, MCCC focuses on the necessary skills captains need to successfully lead within the operational Army, including asking students to build doctrinally and tactically sound plans for all types of operations and units. The purpose of this article is to inform Army leaders as to what their MCCC is teaching our captains to ensure there is common understanding between the operational and institutional Army as to where our captains are currently deficient in their skills and what MCCC is doing to educate them and close this intellectual gap. As officers arrive at Fort Benning to attend MCCC, our expectations of students has not changed. We expect students to arrive having an understanding of operational terms and graphics, able to properly use doctrinal language and be well-practiced, at a minimum at the platoon-level, in troop-leading procedures (TLPs). These three areas are the necessary foundation from which small-group leaders (SGLs) teach to build successful students. However, a current trend is that all too often students arrive with little to no additional professional development focused on those three areas and cannot develop tactically sound and detailed operations orders (opords). Through a series of student surveys, MCCC has determined that the profile of an average class has the following experience:

• A rudimentary understanding of the TLPs. Surveys reveal that around 50 percent of students have produced fewer than five opords since their Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC). Many students have produced concept-of-the-operations (conops) briefs, but these typically do not contain details beyond a basic course-of-action (CoA) sketch and statement.

• A limited understanding of the intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB) process. Fewer than 25 percent of students have produced five graphical terrain-analysis overlays/modified combined-obstacle overlays or situational templates since BOLC. The conops will typically display an enemy position but will not include any analysis other than templated, tentative positions.

• A limited understanding of the military decision-making process (MDMP). Fewer than 20 percent of students have conducted MDMP five or more times. Students who have served in a staff position – which is less than 20 percent of a typical class size of 130 U. S. students – can demonstrate some general knowledge of the MDMP process to any relevant standard. Most have little understanding in the process from CoA analysis to orders production/rehearsals.

• A limited understanding of reconnaissance-and-security operations. Fewer than 50 percent of students have ever conducted a s c r e e n, z o n e a n d a r e a reconnaissance and/or passage-of-lines to the appropriate tactical standard. Most Armor officers can be expected to have been instructed at Armor BOLC on the basic tenets of these enabling operations but have neither Expectations of Your Maneuver Captain’s Career Course – What Army Leaders Need to Know Figure 1. MCCC’s Active Component course map, program of instruction for FY 2015.

planned nor executed them while in their previous unit. Understanding where the average stu dent begins as they enter the course allows SGLs to best determine how to get each of their students to reach their fullest potential prior to gradua tion after 22 weeks of instruction. The summarized major three course outcomes for MCCC are:

• Mastery of TLPs across armored, infantry, and Stryker brigade combat teams (BCTs) using combined-arms maneuver and wide-area security tactical tasks.

• Proficiency in using MDMP to plan offensive, defensive and stability operations.

• Understanding of the management of Army systems, including unit-training management (UTM), Uniformed Code of Military Justice ( U C M J ), e t h i c s, w r i t t e n communications and a rudimentary understanding of command-supply discipline and company-level administration. The course accomplishes its goals by organizing into three phases: company phase, in which individuals produce five opords; battalion phase, where groups produce four opords; and com mand phase, when students receive in struction on training management and unit-oriented electives. Company phase Company phase focuses on students’ learning and applying the TLPs and the IPB process to create a tactically sound opord, constructed in accordance with the latest Army doctrine. In the A1 module, students receive instruction on each major step of the TLPs. Captains use critical thinking to under stand and apply mission command to build teams, establish shared under standing, issue clear commander’sin tent, demonstrate disciplined initiative, use mission orders and accept prudent risk. The goal is that they are precise and lethal in planning by employing and synchronizing direct fire, indirect fires, close-combat attack, close air support and other enablers on the battlefield at the company level to meet their commander’s endstate. Students also receive module-specific instruction on the three different BCT types. Students develop opords for an infantry BCT (IBCT) in Module A1, armored BCT (ABCT) in A2 and A3, and Stryker BCT (SBCT) in A4. The culminat ing exercise for the company phase of the course is a practical examination when students have eight hours to plan prior to formally briefing a SGL in detail for grade. To expose students to the virtual and gaming dimensions of training, once they have demonstrated a grasp of the material at the end of each module, they then apply their plan in simula tion. Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS2) is used for the IBCT and the SBCT mis sions, while the Close-Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT) is used for the two ABCT modules. VBS2 is a computer-based, first-person shooter-style game that allows students to input graphic-control mea sures; plan and use indirect fires; and maneuver their squads and platoons to accomplish their mission. While there are limitations to the system, it dem onstrates the complicated process of echelonment of fires and the necessity for clear, simple plans that can be quickly and efficiently executed. The CCTT serves two purposes for Figure 2. Students participate in a combined-arms rehearsal.

students: first, to execute their planned mission, and second, to expose all stu dents to mechanized and armored systems. For about 58 percent of the students, this is their first exposure to these sys tems. Each simulation receives an after-action review led by SGLs to focus students on the differences between the plan and the execution of the mission. Beginning in mid-2015, Call-for-Fire Trainer was integrated to provide students a simulation to exercise their indirect fire plan. Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulations Environment (JCATS) and anew system (Linguistic Geometry Real-time Adversarial Intelligence and Decision-making), will be incorporated to allow students realtime feedback for their missions as well. Lastly, this year more student captains are being incorporated into infantry and Armor BOLC culminating field ex ercises. This provides valuable experi ence for MCCC students to interact with lieutenants and provide feedback on their opord. This unique opportunity allows students to physically exercise mission command over a company during alive field exercise. Battalion phase Battalion phase also consists of four modules that cover offense, defense and stability operations, which in cludes an ABCT squadron zone-reconnaissance mission. The course out come is that captains are practiced in MDMP for battalion operations that seize, retain and exploit initiative across the range of military operations. As in the company phase, students must demonstrate critical thinking to develop comprehensive and complete plans during the battalion phase. The first module is constructed in a very similar fashion to Module A1, in which students receive instruction on all seven steps of MDMP and their sub components. Students assume staff positions, and the SGLs or other senior officers guide them through the mod ules. These senior mentors are either the seminar’s assigned senior mentor, (Fort Benning assigns current or former battalion commanders) or lieuten ant colonels who are currently attend ing Maneuver Pre-Command Course (MPCC) and who simulate the battalion commander for one or more of the battalion modules. This integration provides students with a valuable realistic interaction that allows them to replicate the interface between an ac tual battalion commander and his staff. The battalion phase is highlighted by a collaborative exercise among centers of excellence that includes – via Command Post of the Future (CPoF) and Defense Connect Online – connection with engineer, adjutant general, signal/ cyber, fires and aviation captain’sca reer course (CCC) students. The MCCC acts as the S-3 section and provides the student-battalion executive-officer leadership to drive the MDMP process, with input from the other CCCs in their areas of expertise. The last block of instruction exposes students to the Army Design Methodology, in which students learn and ap ply the basics of design to develop lines of effort as part of a stability-operation scenario. Command phase The final phase, command phase, consists of UTM instruction and electives that focus students on the capabilities of their gaining unit. For example, students bound for airborne units receive instruction on airfield seizure; ABCT-and SBCT-bound captains receive classes on direct-fire gunnery; and all students are exposed to maintenance and other standard operations for a company. UTM students execute an important practical exercise (PE) in which every student constructs an eight-week training plan that moves a company from individual training to conducting a squad-level live-fire exer cise (LFX). They plan this LFX using a range from the installation where they will command. There is a current initiative, to imple ment in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, of an in crease of 10 days to the MCCC program of instruction (PoI). There will be three additions to the course: a fifth company-phase module, an air-assault com ponent to a battalion-phase module and a combined-arms live-fire exercise planning exercise in the training-management module. In the fifth company module, students will receive troop reconnaissance-and-security instruction and write an opord. With half the Armor population taking command of Cavalry troops, and about 20 percent of infantry officers commanding a headquarters and head quarters company with an organic scout platoon, providing this valuable instruction will close the education gap that exists in our officer corps conduct ing reconnaissance-and-security mis sions. Figure 3. Students participate in staff-planning exercises.

MCCC is not an all-encompassing course; there is only so much time and many tasks to train in a 22-week PoI. There are many functions of a staff and unit on which students do not receive instruction. Each unit is unique, and the individual tactics, techniques and procedures, standard operating procedures and shared understanding of ev ery BCT and battalion cannot possibly be covered. The PoI does not empha size the development of non-modified table of organization and equipment (MTOE) staff officers. The CPoF is used in battalion phase, but students do not become experts in this system. MDMP is mostly focused on intelligence and operations functions, while the other staff sections and their warfighting functions concentrate on enabling the learning objectives that focus on the maneuver plan and the IPB process. MCCC places primary emphasis on mis sion analysis, specifically IPB, and sub sequently on CoA development and analysis. Orders production, while im portant, is oftentimes not reached in every module due to SGLs focusing on achieving the learning objectives and sacrificing the technical aspect of orders production. The MCCC’s writ is to produce gradu ates who are masters of TLPs and familiar with MDMP. They should not be expected to be masters in UCMJ and non-MTOE/non-operations-oriented staff positions. This includes the tech nical aspects of the Digital Training Management System. There are several reasons for this, but it mostly cen ters on the amount of time we have to make them tactically and technically proficient in all three formations the Army has – and in only 22 weeks. MCCC instructors do their best daily to produce for the operational Army cap tains who are immediately prepared to assume duties on brigade and battal ion staffs and to be competent company-level commanders when they assume command. The instructors’ efforts, no doubt, provide Army captains who can execute operations on a mod ern complex battlefield by synchroniz ing and delivering lethal and precise ef fects to achieve their commander’sin tent. LTC Chris Budihas is chief of tactics at MCCC, Fort Benning, GA. Previous as signments include commanding a Stryker battalion in 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Germany and Afghanistan. De ployments include operations Desert Shield/Storm (Iraq); Joint Task Force-6 counternarcotics missions; Sea Soldier (Persian Gulf); Vigilant Sentinel and Southern Watch (Kuwait); Joint Forge (Bosnia); Operation Iraqi Freedom II and V; and Operation Enduring Freedom 13-14 (Afghanistan). LTC Budihas’ military schools include Marine Corps basic training; Officer Candidate School; infantry basic and advanced courses; Command and General Staff College; School for Advanced Military Studies (SAMS); Airborne, Air Assault, Rappel Master and Ranger schools; Mountain Warfare and Cold Weather Survival schools; and Anti-Terrorist Tactics Course. LTC Budihas holds a bach elor’s of science degree in political science from Jacksonville State University, a master’s of science degree in man agement from Webster University and a master’s of arts degree in military operational arts and science from SAMS. CPT Thomas Flounders is an SGL for MCCC, Fort Benning. His past duty as signments include commander, Troop C, 3rd Squadron, 1st Cavalry, 3rd ABCT, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Benning; commander, Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3-1 Cav, 3rd ABCT, 3rd Infantry Division; squadron planner, 3-1 Cavalry, 3rd ABCT, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Benning; and assignment officer, Armor Branch, Human Resource Center, Fort Knox, KY. His military schooling in cludes MCCC, Cavalry Leader’s Course, Ranger School and Infantry Officer Ba sic Course. CPT Flounder holds a bach elor’s of arts degree in economics and international relations from the College of William and Mary. AASLT – air assault ABCT – armored brigade combat team BCT – brigade combat team BN – battalion BOLC – Basic Officer Leader’s Course CAB – combined-arms battalion CCC – captain’s career course CCTT – Close-Combat Tactical Trainer CME – competitive maneuver (field) exercise CoA – course of action CoE – center of excellence COIN – counterinsurgency Conop – concept of operations CPoF – Command Post of the Future FY – fiscal year IBCT – infantry brigade combat team IPB – intelligence preparation of the battlefield JCATS – Joint Conflicts and Tactical Simulations JFP – joint firepower LFX – live-fire exercise LT – light MCCC – Maneuver Captain’s Career Course MDMP – military decisionmaking process MNGMT – management MPCC – Maneuver PreCommand Course MTOE – modified table of equipment and organization Opord – operations order PE – practical exercise PoI – program of instruction R&S – reconnaissance and security SAMS – School for Advanced Military Studies SBCT – Stryker brigade combat team SGL – small-group leader SQDN – squadron TLP – troop-leading procedures TNG – training UCMJ – Uniform Code of Military Justice UTM – unit-training management VBS2 – Virtual Battlespace 2 VBS3 – Virtual Battlespace 3 WK(s) – week(s) Acronym Quick-Scan