Run-level training for such tasks was not subsequently defined by task, condition or standard, so no training requirement was developed and confirmed. Virtual simulation was never intended to replace vital walk training on the ground, but since no comprehensive training strategy addresses how all battlefield tasks should be trained and sustained, commanders develop their own solutions. Thus, valuable simulations do not serve design purposes, which is a much broader issue than preparing for battle command. The inadequacy is grave for leaders and leader-teams preparing for battle command using either virtual or constructive simulation. While we applaud Bertha's application of CTC practices to home-station training, such efforts alone will not solve the battle command training challenge.
Effective training requires defined leader and leader-team tasks, conditions and standards.
Integrating these tasks under a comprehensive, intense, rigorous training approach that harnesses simulations will best prepare leaders for the demands of combat command. While this is a desirable goal, it is not a valid assumption. Army units can and often do deploy in less than a fully trained status. AR 2201 is a status-reporting policy document not a training doctrine publication. Standards for individual training are prescribed in doctrinal training publications.