Military Professionals Program - Page 3

Ray · 01-07-2007, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sappersgt

This isn't the first time I've heard about the best and worst dichotomy of officers promoted from the ranks. In fact I've heard it often enough to believe it to be at least partially true.

The only mustangs I worked with were really good but they were all previously Sapper NCOs. Sappers were already selected from the top 3%. While attending the Battle School the only other (non Sapper) NCOs I saw there were all Sergeant Majors.

I do see the benefit of promoting from the ranks based on performance in combat. Combat itself is a school. A school with a steep learning curve. Promoting combat experienced enlisted men gives you competent small unit combat leaders. That leaves two problems. First just because you are a good platoon (or company) commander doesn't mean you're a good battalion or brigade commander. Being promoted above your level of competence can be a problem.

Secondly for every combat officer there is an equal or greater number of noncombat officers. These officers require a skill set acquired only with extensive education and training. Requiring a previous term of enlistment cuts down dramatically on the time available to train these officers. In a perfect world all of your officers could be crossed trained in combat and non combat skills to the level you desired.

Glyns comment about Danish officer cadets and the time remaining in their enlistment is telling. Their enlistments expire almost at he same time they graduate! It's evident you'd need to increase retention or extend enlistment times (IA?).

Perhaps as Shek has suggested a blend of both schools of thought schools would be best.

I am using the Sappersgt's post to maintain the continuation of this issue since other issues have also surfaced in this thread.

The battalion is the basic unit that makes an effect in the plans of the strategists (Brigade Commander and above) or more correctly, operational art commanders.

Therefore, unless one is a good battalion commander who knows the ins and out of battalion employment and its capabilities and limitations (not theoretical but practical), he can never apply a group of battalion and regiments to make a tactical plan work.

A person who maybe a theoretical wizard, need not be a good at employing a brigade or above since he would not be conversant with the practical realities. Such people should only be on the staff and should not be given command.

In our army, we have people cleared for staff but not for command. That, however, does not mean that the system works. After all, appraisals are officially objective, though in real life, is more subjective!

Just a thought!

glyn · 01-07-2007, 12:02 PM

Raymond! I do believe our views are converging. One of the first things Monty did on taking his high office was to chop out the dead wood. In an ideal system the dead wood would not have accumulated in the first place. In my experience we have too many chiefs and not nearly enough indians. ( I can see that statement being misinterpreted where you live!

)

Ray · 01-07-2007, 13:16 PM

Monty wasn't much of General, no matter how great an icon he was to the British!

glyn · 01-07-2007, 13:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Monty wasn't much of General, no matter how great an icon he was to the British!

All you have to do is prove it!

667medic · 01-07-2007, 13:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terminator

Hi to all brothers!
I'm a Singaporean who used to serve in the Singapore. My armylife was born in Singapore Infantry Regiment, but had been posted as a instructor & platoon Sergeant in Singapore School of Infantry Specialists & FDS, field defence squadron thoughout my 7-yrs in it.

Really interested to know how the world works every now & then &.. i'm here, WAB

Welcome SAF comrade.

7 Years wow, are you a sign on. What's your rank 1SG or SSG. Just want to know so that I don't miss on the protocol. BTW when you were in ADF did you happen to know one Staff Timothy Rajah, who was a senior medic in the outfit....

I used to be in 6SIR, now a reservist in 667SIR.

Draconion · 01-08-2007, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Monty wasn't much of General, no matter how great an icon he was to the British!

Sir! Eversince I have read the book 'Montogomery' by Ronald Lewin I have been an ardent fan of Ol' Monty...care to ampilfy as to why you feel otherwise!

zraver · 01-08-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draconion

Sir! Eversince I have read the book 'Montogomery' by Ronald Lewin I have been an ardent fan of Ol' Monty...care to ampilfy as to why you feel otherwise!

Because he never ever beat an evenly matched opponent. His victories over DAK always occured at either the end of the DAK's logistical tether or when he had overwhelming superiority in men and materials. In Normandy he was bottled up but good with almost no chance o achieivng anything but creatign another lost generation.

His only real positive contributions to the war besides the morale boost he brought to the 8th Army was sucking the German army into the Falise Pocket and shoring up the flank of the Bulge in the Ardennes.

tankie · 01-08-2007, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

Because he never ever beat an evenly matched opponent. His victories over DAK always occured at either the end of the DAK's logistical tether or when he had overwhelming superiority in men and materials. .

and since when was war all about being fair , and the marquess of queensbury rules hold no credence in any theatre , history shows that war is all about winning , and thats what he did , he won , no matter what way it was achieved .

if the enemy were short of men and their generals were tired , so what ,do we sit back and let them re,arm and have a couple of weeks R/R ,, no no m8 hit them when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable thus saving many of our own lives .But i agree , he wasnt Mr perfect , but who is.

Ray · 01-08-2007, 12:19 PM

What Monty wants, Monty gets. (like what Lola wants, Lola gets!

He always killed ants with a sledgehammer.

He was Churchill's blue eyed boy!

Compare him with other WW II Generals.

Patton was a far superior General and he did wonders even though most of his seniors were fed up with him and put impediments in this way!

But no harm if you like Monty.

He also serves who bamboozles his way!

tankie · 01-08-2007, 13:42 PM

heh Ray , there was another general (emperor ) of his time who was reckoned to be the best there was ?

Bonaparte they called him ?

then he met the duke of boots ,, and so ended another legend .

glyn · 01-08-2007, 14:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

Because he never ever beat an evenly matched opponent. His victories over DAK always occured at either the end of the DAK's logistical tether or when he had overwhelming superiority in men and materials. In Normandy he was bottled up but good with almost no chance o achieivng anything but creatign another lost generation.

A strange argument. Should the coalition forces have gone to Iraq ill equipped and outnumbered?

His only real positive contributions to the war besides the morale boost he brought to the 8th Army was sucking the German army into the Falise Pocket and shoring up the flank of the Bulge in the Ardennes.

Let me correct you. He won the North Africa campaign. Clearly this is not enough to satisfy everyone. The old dictum about 'gittin' there fustest with the mostest' still holds good, even though it was not a Brit who coined it.

lemontree · 01-09-2007, 03:02 AM

In El Alamein, Montgomery had 230,000 men and 1,100 tanks facing Rommel's 80,000 men and 260 tanks. If one does not win with that amount of superiority then he is not worth his uniform.

After the failure of 'Op Market Garden', instead of analysing at the reasons for the loss, he blamed the disaster on Eisenhower, charging that the American commander had failed to provide his forces with enough material. When we all know that real reason was the slow progress of XXX Corps, and the bottling up of the British 1st Airborne Division by the Germans.

Monty was Churchhill's blue eyed boy, ever since his escape from Dunkirk with his division almost intact. No one worked harder at propagating his own legend than Montgomery himself. He has got more credit for EL Alamein than he actually deserved.

In Britain Monty is considered (by some) far more than just a general. He was a link to the fading days of empire and glory, the man who won the final battles before the eclipse of British military prowess by the rise of the superpowers.

Draconion · 01-09-2007, 06:00 AM

I guess you'll are right!

But at the same, organisizing what one needs is of the prime importance as a general...so thats one thing that goes his way.

There were so many others like Monty...Wingate for one; who were always getting more than what they needed, but were still called good generals!

I dont get it.

Lastly, with respect to the Indian Generals, I loved the way Gen. Sen lead his troops in '47(I have not read up on any other operation otherwise, so am not wise enough to judge other generals from the other wars).

From what I read about Timmy, I thought he was a good troops commander at a smaller level like that of a Battalion , but bigger than that he was not good enough. In J&K ops he was just not ruthless enough to pester his brigade commaders to push thier men forward.

(LT and Ray, I'd like to know your views on the latter part of my post!)

If I have made any gramatical errors, pardon me...time is of the premium and i may not have corrected them!

glyn · 01-09-2007, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

In El Alamein, Montgomery had 230,000 men and 1,100 tanks facing Rommel's 80,000 men and 260 tanks. If one does not win with that amount of superiority then he is not worth his uniform.

After the failure of 'Op Market Garden', instead of analysing at the reasons for the loss, he blamed the disaster on Eisenhower, charging that the American commander had failed to provide his forces with enough material. When we all know that real reason was the slow progress of XXX Corps, and the bottling up of the British 1st Airborne Division by the Germans.

Monty was Churchhill's blue eyed boy, ever since his escape from Dunkirk with his division almost intact. No one worked harder at propagating his own legend than Montgomery himself. He has got more credit for EL Alamein than he actually deserved.

In Britain Monty is considered (by some) far more than just a general. He was a link to the fading days of empire and glory, the man who won the final battles before the eclipse of British military prowess by the rise of the superpowers.

You are entitled to your opinions. It does seem fashionable these days to bash historical figures. Are you also suggesting that he should have gone into battle unprepared and outnumbered? El Alamein was the most important battle in North Africa. After it the enemy, Germans and Italians were a declining force. In Russia the same year the battle of Stalingrad took place. Should we denigrate the Russians for being so unsporting as to have more men in the conflict?

tankie · 01-09-2007, 06:09 AM

Quote:

and since when was war all about being fair , and the marquess of queensbury rules hold no credence in any theatre , history shows that war is all about winning , and thats what he did , he won , no matter what way it was achieved .

if the enemy were short of men and their generals were tired , so what ,do we sit back and let them re,arm and have a couple of weeks R/R ,, no no m8 hit them when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable thus saving many of our own lives .But i agree ,, he wasnt Mr perfect , but who is

Lemontree m8 , , i dont often do this but im gonna qoute myself above ?

also the fact that you are qouting from history is ok with me , but it was Mongomery who made that history for you to qoute , if he had not won the N/africa campaign , you would have been qouting different history , but thats the way it is , he won that particular game of poker .

01-07-2007, 12:02 PM	#32 (permalink)
glyn *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 5,875	Raymond! I do believe our views are converging. One of the first things Monty did on taking his high office was to chop out the dead wood. In an ideal system the dead wood would not have accumulated in the first place. In my experience we have too many chiefs and not nearly enough indians. ( I can see that statement being misinterpreted where you live! ) __________________ Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

01-09-2007, 03:02 AM	#42 (permalink)
lemontree Bandaid *Military Professional* Join Date: 10-04-04 Location: India Posts: 5,907	In El Alamein, Montgomery had 230,000 men and 1,100 tanks facing Rommel's 80,000 men and 260 tanks. If one does not win with that amount of superiority then he is not worth his uniform. After the failure of 'Op Market Garden', instead of analysing at the reasons for the loss, he blamed the disaster on Eisenhower, charging that the American commander had failed to provide his forces with enough material. When we all know that real reason was the slow progress of XXX Corps, and the bottling up of the British 1st Airborne Division by the Germans. Monty was Churchhill's blue eyed boy, ever since his escape from Dunkirk with his division almost intact. No one worked harder at propagating his own legend than Montgomery himself. He has got more credit for EL Alamein than he actually deserved. In Britain Monty is considered (by some) far more than just a general. He was a link to the fading days of empire and glory, the man who won the final battles before the eclipse of British military prowess by the rise of the superpowers. __________________ Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Iraq in Books - Review Essay	Shek	The War in Iraq	9	02-29-2008 06:08 AM
Guerilla Warfare	troung	The Staff College	13	04-05-2006 02:25 AM
Mullah's leading the charge...	troung	The Field Mess	11	03-28-2006 10:59 AM
Bangladesh plays the China card	Ray	South Asian Defense Topics	136	10-17-2005 10:14 AM
Pentagon under fire for waste of military supplies	troung	The Western Alliance	7	06-09-2005 12:40 PM

01-07-2007, 13:16 PM	#33 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 24,972 Country:	Monty wasn't much of General, no matter how great an icon he was to the British!

01-08-2007, 12:19 PM	#39 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 24,972 Country:	What Monty wants, Monty gets. (like what Lola wants, Lola gets! He always killed ants with a sledgehammer. He was Churchill's blue eyed boy! Compare him with other WW II Generals. Patton was a far superior General and he did wonders even though most of his seniors were fed up with him and put impediments in this way! But no harm if you like Monty. He also serves who bamboozles his way!

01-08-2007, 13:42 PM	#40 (permalink)
tankie tankie *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-22-06 Location: u/k Posts: 1,784 Country:	heh Ray , there was another general (emperor ) of his time who was reckoned to be the best there was ? Bonaparte they called him ? then he met the duke of boots ,, and so ended another legend .

01-09-2007, 06:00 AM	#43 (permalink)
Draconion Contributor Join Date: 09-14-06 Location: Pune, India Posts: 614 Country:	I guess you'll are right! But at the same, organisizing what one needs is of the prime importance as a general...so thats one thing that goes his way. There were so many others like Monty...Wingate for one; who were always getting more than what they needed, but were still called good generals! I dont get it. Lastly, with respect to the Indian Generals, I loved the way Gen. Sen lead his troops in '47(I have not read up on any other operation otherwise, so am not wise enough to judge other generals from the other wars). From what I read about Timmy, I thought he was a good troops commander at a smaller level like that of a Battalion , but bigger than that he was not good enough. In J&K ops he was just not ruthless enough to pester his brigade commaders to push thier men forward. (LT and Ray, I'd like to know your views on the latter part of my post!) If I have made any gramatical errors, pardon me...time is of the premium and i may not have corrected them!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)