"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 27 Feb 2004 19:02:11 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Did military discipline become looser and more liberal since WWI?. Is
military life easier now than it was then?


Arthur Kramer

You ask a question, but then it appears that if the answer doesn't fit
your pre-disposition, you can't accept it. If you are asking about
discipline since WWI (not II) then quite clearly you would really be
asking about the French, British and Germans (plus Turks), since the
USA only spent a year and a half out of the four year war. Certainly
there was iron discipline then--witness the carnage of the trench
warfare. The museums and particularly the Ossuary at Verdun are
sobering testimony to the price to be paid by the discipline
footsoldier led by the aristocratic officer corps. I don't think
that's what you are talking about. You've always seemed much more
egalitarian than that.

But, maybe you meant WW II and simply typo'd the lost "I". Then, I'd
have to say the US leadership was strong and the morale/patriotism of
the ground soldier was what made the military so powerful. It wasn't
blind obedience to incompetent leadership, but rather a citizen army
of highly motivated individuals. Again, a more egalitarian army than
that which the Germans and Japanese fielded.

Have things changed in the intervening years? Absolutely. There is a
much more highly educated officer (and NCO corps) than in WW II. The
technology has advanced incredibly and the force multiplying potential
of modern weapons has made massed infantry charges largely obsolete.

Life is certainly easier in an all-volunteer force. A professional,
rather than conscript, military expects to get reasonable compensation
for service and the competition with the private sector means ritual
abuse of lower ranks can't be tolerated. Living conditions are much
better and reasonably should be. There's no need for open bay barracks
and communal latrines if you aren't dealing with a full national
mobilization.

Thank you. Best post on the subject yet.
We were trained to iron discipline and obedience to orders. The price of
paid
later for a sloppy momma's boy military is now well documented. Sadly.


Arthur Kramer

Sorry, Art, but here you go too far. You regularly talk about those
who've been and those who've not. I've been. We weren't sloppy and we
weren't "momma's boys". When I flew F-105s over N. Vietnam, the loss
rate was one per 65 missions--the tour was 100 missions. Three out of
five who started a tour were shot down and killed or captured.

When I returned in the F-4, I logged another 150 missions. That was
among a lot of guys on their second or even third combat tours. That's
250 total--how many did you say you got?

Today, we look at Desert Storm and the loss rate for fixed wing
aircraft in the campaign was 1 per 3500 missions. In Iraqi Freedom,
one fixed wing aircraft was lost in 11,600 sorties. Does that sound
lax, poorly trained, inefficient????

You'll get respect when you give it. And, you'll need to recognize
that while your war was hard and vicious, the business of combat is
always going to be brutal. When men go to war and "see the elephant"
they learn a lot about themselves and those around them. Don't demean
them and you'll find they won't snap back at you.

Bravo! I couldn't have said it better if I'd spent ten years trying. Pity we
can't bottle it or can it and sell it out of vending machines to high school
kids. The country'd be a lot better off if they consumed a little bit of that
instead of all those soft drinks that rot their teeth. (*-*)))

George Z.