ALL – Had a great discussion with Mr. Krivitsky from the MCoE, allow me to pass along some of the info.

@chris_s:

1. They recognize that specific organizations should/do not conduct live fire for their training gates. CATs, their tasks, and OBJ-T gates are being modified to reflect the new strategy (Some still working). The end state is to have those collective tasks evaluated ISO of a maneuver live-fire element. An example of how this might look is a Reconnaissance Platoon conduct a screen line, calling for fire in their EA and then conduct a RPOL with an infantry company who conducts a live fire breach.  Other organizations such as HHC/T/Bs will have similar support functions they will perform ISO larger live-fire maneuvers.

@x70037

2. DTMS is the system of record for OBJ-T to report all training completed against specific METs/gates. The data in DTMS will be pulled into Defense Readiness Report System – Army (DRRS-A) for training readiness.

3. OBJ-T is supposed to be used by subordinate commanders to argue for resource/manning (I.E: I am at a P, and need X amount of whitespace to get a T) and to help shape the HHQ in arguing for MOS shortages which affects training. Other than a commanders dialogue, there’s no forcing function in OBJ-T to feed HRC or other organizations  manning shortages and the priorities to fill them (Hope this helps clarify that question). My own assessment is that smart commanders can use OBJ-T to their advantage to fight for resources and manning.

4. No one unit is performing OBJ-T better than any other unit currently (straight from his mouth). The greatest difficulty with current implementation is at the O-6 and O-5 command levels, where socializing getting a P- or a T2/3 will now be common occurrences and that very few units will be able to achieve a T1 rating.