Is it easier now?

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Is it easier now?
From: Tank Fixer
Date: 2/26/04 7:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t

In article ,
on 26 Feb 2004 20:44:20 GMT,
ArtKramr attempted to say .....

Subject: Is it easier now?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 2/26/04 12:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


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

Do you mean compared to when the Oklahoma National Guard (45th
Infantry)
liberated Dachau?



"Liberated" ? As I remember it there was no German resistance whatever.
All
the
Germans had left and they just walked in without a shot being fired.
Hardly
the
equivalent of landing on Omaha beach was it?. (sheesh)

Yes, I guess your right.

I mean the 41st Infantry had an easy time in New Guinea during 1942/43.

Or that Provisional Tank battalion that ended up on the Bataan penensula
in 1941 as infantry after they ran out of fuel.

I mean, they were just National Guard troops....
Not real soldiers, right Art ?



At least Bush wasn't hiding in those units right?

Why not just answer the question instead of trying to hide behind personal
attacks?

ArtKramr wrote:

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



Why not, military life and systems are so simple now.

Don't have to worry about lack of discipline setting off one of those
High Explosive things they used in WWII, or letting loose the launch
codes, or positions of SSBNs or TACAMOs, triggering a LASER or anything
that might have serious consequences.

Certainly no need to worry about saboteurs infiltrating military
facilities.

Yea, I guess there is no reason discipline couldn't be looser.

Dave

In message , ArtKramr
writes
Did military discipline become looser and more liberal since WWI?.

Not as far as I can tell. In some ways it got worse: with "mission
command" you're not merely expected to fulfil your orders, but carry out
your commander's intent; and if that wasn't adequately communicated you
can get into a real mess. (It usually works and works very well indeed;
the recent fighting at Basra being an example, where units down to
platoon strength raided and recced without direct orders but fulfilling
the intent of "weaken the defenders and find out what's going on"). And
you'll _still_ be in the cacky for failing to obey an order unless it
was blatantly illegal.

Is
military life easier now than it was then?

A little more comfortable on exercises: Gore-Tex waterproofs, fleece
liners, better boots, good sleeping bags.

On the other hand, it's now a 24-hour battle, the enemy artillery is
larger and longer-ranged, chemical and biological weapons are
proliferated...

I'd have to say 'no'.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

No;

But then again, we can kick the degree of difficulty UP a notch now that we
don't have to put up with incompetent draftees.

The WWII generation was an exercise in training to the lowest common
denominator.

Steve Swartz


"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
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote

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

Yes (enlisted wise, probably not officer-wise). No one in the U.S. Armed
Forces is less than a high school graduate. With that, comes an education
base that consists of much more self-discipline. I'd say that after 1975,
the imposed discipline went away.

For example, in the Army, we had monthly detail duty at the Brig. It was
almost always full. After about 1975 the Brig was mostly empty, except for
a few sad cases, like AWOL or Desertion by men with hardship problems
back home. I remember in 1968 I had the detail at Fort Ord, and we had
three murderers, one arsonist, about 20 drug addicts, and maybe a couple
of queers. In 1989 I was assigned to take a rapist to Lawton, Oklahoma
and that was the first time in 10 years I had the detail.

When I retired, all you had to do was post the detail roster, and assign your
men to whatever training or duty you thought they needed, and they did it.
Most just wanted to get promoted as fast as they could.

"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
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


I assume you mean WWII. According to "This Kind of War" by T. R.
Fehrenbach, the looser and more liberal started right after WWII with the
Army's Doolittle Commission, which recommended taking out a lot of the
strict discipline that you describe. Many WWII Army veterans were of the
opinion that they didn't need all that discipline and would have done just
fine without it. They made this known to their congressman. The end result
was a lot of dead soldiers in Korea because the US Army was often too
undisciplined to stand and fight. Books like "The River and the Gauntlet" by
SLA Marshall or "East of Chosin" and "Disaster in Korea" both by Roy E.
Appleman show the lack of discipline in the American soldiers and its
consequences.

Joe




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Subject: Is it easier now?
From: "Joe Osman"
Date: 2/27/04 10:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"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
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


I assume you mean WWII. According to "This Kind of War" by T. R.
Fehrenbach, the looser and more liberal started right after WWII with the
Army's Doolittle Commission, which recommended taking out a lot of the
strict discipline that you describe. Many WWII Army veterans were of the
opinion that they didn't need all that discipline and would have done just
fine without it. They made this known to their congressman. The end result
was a lot of dead soldiers in Korea because the US Army was often too
undisciplined to stand and fight. Books like "The River and the Gauntlet" by
SLA Marshall or "East of Chosin" and "Disaster in Korea" both by Roy E.
Appleman show the lack of discipline in the American soldiers and its
consequences.

Joe




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


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
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

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.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Subject: Is it easier now?
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 2/27/04 11:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 417v309d5onmk1m7rbjsbsuvhu

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,

First you say the leadership was strong then you talk about incompetent
leadership. I think the leadership in WW II was outstanding, better than in
many wars that followed. 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?

I flew 50 missions. 15 short of going home. But as I started in a previous
post, :"An officer never allows himself to be put on the defensive" So I won't
go on the defensive now. And I certainly will not raise the issue of WW II
losses in the air as compared to Nam losses in the air.


Three out of
five who started a tour were shot down and killed or captured.

That is a 60% loss rate. Can you verify that?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Ed wrote:
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,

Art snapped back with :

First you say the leadership was strong then you talk about incompetent
leadership. I think the leadership in WW II was outstanding, better than in
many wars that followed.

Art read what the HECK that Ed wrote again. He didn't say that the US
leadership was incompetent. He SAID "it wasn't
blind obedience to incompetent leadership, He referred to STRONG LEADERSHIP and
MORALE/PATRIOTISM of the troops as the factors which led to success.

Rick Clark