Is it easier now?

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Is it easier now?
From: Tank Fixer
Date: 2/26/04 11:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t

In article ,
on 27 Feb 2004 03:49:51 GMT,
ArtKramr attempted to say .....

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 .....


"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?

No, he was flying a rather unforgiving aircraft.

Or are you saying the USAF had lax standards for pilot training in the
early 70's ?


As Colin Powell said:
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and
well-placed managed to wangle slots in the Army Reserve and National
Guard units... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class
discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all
Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

You got any new tunes you can play? That one has proven to be a bit
stale--especially given the response that same individual provided to the
smart-assed congressional staffer who wanted to visit the issue during
testimaony a week or two back...but you probably missed that, right? Just
like you seem to have missed every other significant development that has
occured since 1945.

Art only showed up for the last year of WWII.

Subject: Is it easier now?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 2/27/04 8:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Is it easier now?
From: Tank Fixer
Date: 2/26/04 11:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t

In article ,
on 27 Feb 2004 03:49:51 GMT,
ArtKramr attempted to say .....

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 .....


"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?

No, he was flying a rather unforgiving aircraft.

Or are you saying the USAF had lax standards for pilot training in the
early 70's ?


As Colin Powell said:
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and
well-placed managed to wangle slots in the Army Reserve and National
Guard units... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class
discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all
Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

You got any new tunes you can play? That one has proven to be a bit
stale--especially given the response that same individual provided to the
smart-assed congressional staffer who wanted to visit the issue during
testimaony a week or two back...but you probably missed that, right? Just
like you seem to have missed every other significant development that has
occured since 1945.

Art only showed up for the last year of WWII.


1943-1946. You can't count either. Never saw you there btw. Tell us about your
combat experience.



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: Is it easier now?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 2/27/04 8:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Is it easier now?
From: Tank Fixer
Date: 2/26/04 11:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t

In article ,
on 27 Feb 2004 03:49:51 GMT,
ArtKramr attempted to say .....

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 .....


"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?

No, he was flying a rather unforgiving aircraft.

Or are you saying the USAF had lax standards for pilot training in
the
early 70's ?


As Colin Powell said:
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and
well-placed managed to wangle slots in the Army Reserve and National
Guard units... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class
discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all
Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their
country."

You got any new tunes you can play? That one has proven to be a bit
stale--especially given the response that same individual provided to
the
smart-assed congressional staffer who wanted to visit the issue during
testimaony a week or two back...but you probably missed that, right?
Just
like you seem to have missed every other significant development that
has
occured since 1945.

Art only showed up for the last year of WWII.


1943-1946. You can't count either. Never saw you there btw. Tell us about
your
combat experience.

You have changed your experiance, old fart. Don't start lying to us.

"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

On 27 Feb 2004 20:08:09 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

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.

I said the leadership was strong. I said it WASN'T blind obedience to
incompetent leadership.

One of the key elements of American success in the air--all wars in
the air, not just WW II, has been the aggressiveness and the
initiative of the American aviators. That isn't lock-step blind
obedience.

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

If you'll check the Appendix of When Thunder Rolled, you'll find a
listing of 101 F-105 losses (tail number and crew names by date)
during the period April/November 1966. That was from 3 squadrons at
Takhli (18 aircraft/squadron) and first two squadrons, then from July
onward, four squadrons at Korat. That's a loss of 110 % of the
assigned aircraft in six months. The names and dates come from "Roll
Call: Thud" and from Hobson's "Vietnam Air Losses." (dual sourcing.)

Newsweek magazine in August of '66 published the 1-in-65 missions
figure as part of a feature article on Major James Kasler, Korean War
ace who was active in F-105s from Takhli. Kasler was shot down shortly
thereafter and spent the next 6.5 years in captivity.

You might want to discuss the "momma's boy" comment with some of the
ex-cons. They would be happy to talk about courage, I'm sure.



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

"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.