An Officer.......

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa5d38fc0183f9f98992b@news...
In article ,
says...
An officer never complains.

Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
morale problem.


Soviet soldiers in WW2 did not complain. According to the Russian
authorities they had few if any morale problems.

And the little matter of those NKVD units to their rear had no
influence...right?

Brooks

Subject: An Officer.......
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 2/23/04 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 23 Feb 2004 15:10:55 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:


We learned our jobs at a different time and in a different war. And we
didn't
do all that badly in the process. I guess we learned to something right.
Show
me an officer who complains and I'll show you a whining wimp.

There is a difference between "griping"/complaining and whining.
Flying units are inherently comprised of officers, some in leadership
roles and some in subordinate positions. I'll bet there was a lot of
griping in your unit, regarding the weather, the chow, the mail, the
headshed decisions, etc. That generally isn't whining, it's healthy.

How an officer
behaves always trickles down to his men and his complaining can demoralise
troops and result in defeat. Be strong, always be strong. When an officer's
decisions are challenged by those below him explanations are signs of
weakness
and make for poor leadership.

We've got a disconnect there. Strength and confidence don't equate
with arbitrariness and dictatorship. Leadership isn't simply giving
orders, it's establishing the rapport with those being led that you
know what is required. You won't get them killed and you will do the
job. You'll lead from the front and share the risk, but you won't
waste your men.

Talking with Robin Olds last spring in Las Vegas, someone mentioned a
legend about a propaganda drop of leaflets over N. Vietnam airfields
in which Robin challenged the infamous Col. Tomb to an air duel. Robin
responded quite clearly that it never happened. He then went on to
explain that his job as commander of the 8th TFW was to bring his guys
home. His task was not to gain personal glory killing MiGs in general
or Col. Tomb in particular. It was to hit the assigned targets as
efficiently as possible and take care of his men. That's leadership
and it isn't done without explaining to your men what is going on and
why.

Hard to characterize Robin Olds as "weak" in any terms.

And when challenged he need only be secure in his decisions and demand his
orders be followed. That is a strong leader. Once troops qustion a leaders
decisions, he has lost both the control and faith of his troops. But I was
trained in the army. You were trained in the Air Force. That may be the
difference. No offense of course.

I'm not suggesting toleration of insubordination. That's a whole
different ball game. I learned that the value of a subordinate comes
from being willing to question the leader. Debate, discuss, argue if
you will in the staff meeting, then when the decision is made and the
door opens come out with a solid team in support of the agreed upon
policy.

If you see significant errors in the decision, you must raise the
questions. You don't do it to demean the leader and you do it in the
appropriate venue, but you must do it. A leader who refuses to be
questioned is going to sacrifice his men and will most assuredly lose
their confidence.

Simply gaining an "A" prefix (commander) does not suddenly imbue the
holder with papal infallibility.



Ed,

My purpose in posting this material is to share history with the NG. This is
the way we were trained in 1943. These were ideas that were drilled into us.
Arguing the point doesn't change history. It changes nothing and is pointless.
What I have gotten for sharing history are flames. arguments and insults. Not a
thank you in sight. But I must admit it gives me a lot to think about.


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 in message
...
Subject: An Officer.......
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 2/23/04 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 23 Feb 2004 15:10:55 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:


We learned our jobs at a different time and in a different war. And we
didn't
do all that badly in the process. I guess we learned to something right.
Show
me an officer who complains and I'll show you a whining wimp.

There is a difference between "griping"/complaining and whining.
Flying units are inherently comprised of officers, some in leadership
roles and some in subordinate positions. I'll bet there was a lot of
griping in your unit, regarding the weather, the chow, the mail, the
headshed decisions, etc. That generally isn't whining, it's healthy.

How an officer
behaves always trickles down to his men and his complaining can
demoralise
troops and result in defeat. Be strong, always be strong. When an
officer's
decisions are challenged by those below him explanations are signs of
weakness
and make for poor leadership.

We've got a disconnect there. Strength and confidence don't equate
with arbitrariness and dictatorship. Leadership isn't simply giving
orders, it's establishing the rapport with those being led that you
know what is required. You won't get them killed and you will do the
job. You'll lead from the front and share the risk, but you won't
waste your men.

Talking with Robin Olds last spring in Las Vegas, someone mentioned a
legend about a propaganda drop of leaflets over N. Vietnam airfields
in which Robin challenged the infamous Col. Tomb to an air duel. Robin
responded quite clearly that it never happened. He then went on to
explain that his job as commander of the 8th TFW was to bring his guys
home. His task was not to gain personal glory killing MiGs in general
or Col. Tomb in particular. It was to hit the assigned targets as
efficiently as possible and take care of his men. That's leadership
and it isn't done without explaining to your men what is going on and
why.

Hard to characterize Robin Olds as "weak" in any terms.

And when challenged he need only be secure in his decisions and demand
his
orders be followed. That is a strong leader. Once troops qustion a
leaders
decisions, he has lost both the control and faith of his troops. But I
was
trained in the army. You were trained in the Air Force. That may be the
difference. No offense of course.

I'm not suggesting toleration of insubordination. That's a whole
different ball game. I learned that the value of a subordinate comes
from being willing to question the leader. Debate, discuss, argue if
you will in the staff meeting, then when the decision is made and the
door opens come out with a solid team in support of the agreed upon
policy.

If you see significant errors in the decision, you must raise the
questions. You don't do it to demean the leader and you do it in the
appropriate venue, but you must do it. A leader who refuses to be
questioned is going to sacrifice his men and will most assuredly lose
their confidence.

Simply gaining an "A" prefix (commander) does not suddenly imbue the
holder with papal infallibility.



Ed,

My purpose in posting this material is to share history with the NG. This
is
the way we were trained in 1943. These were ideas that were drilled into
us.
Arguing the point doesn't change history. It changes nothing and is
pointless.
What I have gotten for sharing history are flames. arguments and insults.
Not a
thank you in sight. But I must admit it gives me a lot to think about.

Because your "history" is often factually incorrect (like your repeated past
claims of PGM-like bombing accuracy each and every time you performed a
mission). *Real* military history of the US during WWII is replete with
comments from the players as to how the US soldier was often asking, and
being told, the "why" of the mission. There is a wide gulf of difference
beween a lot of your accounts and real, documented history--don't mistake
one for the other.

Brooks



Arthur Kramer

ArtKramr wrote:

What I have gotten for sharing history are flames. arguments and insults. Not a thank you in sight.

Arthur Kramer


Art,

I have seen several, maybe even many, posters offer you sincere thanks
for your personal description of history as you remember it.

Maybe you could try to remember some of those "Thank you" comments.

Dave

so maybe we knew something back then that the military
has forgotten since.

Yeah, we're in pretty rough shape right now (????).


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Just because you are willing to discuss your plans with your troops
does not mean that it undermines your authority. Often the troops an
officer is commanding are more experienced than them.

And in some circumstances, the inexperienced guy may see a better way to plan
or execute a mission, simply because he/she sees things in a different light. I
had a co-pilot during ALLIED FORCE come up with a very simple solution to a
tactical problem that us more experienced guys were over looking. I had a bit
of a chuckle when we executed the bomb run as the co-pilot had suggested. But
our more complex plans would have been more fun to execute




BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Soviet soldiers in WW2 did not complain. According to the Russian
authorities they had few if any morale problems.

An armed NVD regiment assigned to *any* unit would keep the complaining
down....retreating too.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

An armed NVD regiment

I thin I need a new eyboard...make that N*K*VD...


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

(ArtKramr) wrote:


My purpose in posting this material is to share history with the NG. This is
the way we were trained in 1943. These were ideas that were drilled into us.
Arguing the point doesn't change history. It changes nothing and is pointless.
What I have gotten for sharing history are flames. arguments and insults. Not a
thank you in sight. But I must admit it gives me a lot to think about.


Arthur Kramer

But the way that you wrote your 'officer's rules' made it appear
that you consider them appropriate now as well. You hopefully
realize that they're very much not the best way to lead troops I
hope. It seems strange that they'd appear appropriate even then
actually, WW2 wasn't in the dark ages after all.
--

-Gord.

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

Just because you are willing to discuss your plans with your troops
does not mean that it undermines your authority. Often the troops an
officer is commanding are more experienced than them.

And in some circumstances, the inexperienced guy may see a better way to plan
or execute a mission, simply because he/she sees things in a different light. I
had a co-pilot during ALLIED FORCE come up with a very simple solution to a
tactical problem that us more experienced guys were over looking. I had a bit
of a chuckle when we executed the bomb run as the co-pilot had suggested. But
our more complex plans would have been more fun to execute

BUFDRVR

Sounds like CRM at work here...
--

-Gord.