Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are we really "Army Strong?"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by osage18 View Post
    I agree. However, I think it takes a really special kind of arrogance for one to insinuate an entire generation of Soldiers, most of whom will spend a significant amount of time in combat, are somehow substandard or weak because their drill instructors didn't haze them.
    I will bring the other arguement forth.

    Is you the generation ready for the next war?

    Historically, there is an arguement that you are not.

    My "2 and a half war" doctrine meant killing the USSR and China while keeping North Korea down. Your "2 war" doctrine is Iraq and Afghanistan. Hardly in the same league.

    While I have no doubt that your III Corps could run circles around my VII Corps, I have serious questions that you could hold off the 1st Moscow and the 16th Guards, especially when they start tossing nukes.

    Obviously, we're talking two very different things BUT and this a very big BUT, the historic perspective is the American Civil War, the Boer War, and WWI.

    The Boer War saw acts that can kill the combined armies of the American Civil War and yet, WWI saw that your Civil War tactics were more apt than the maneuvers of teh Boer War.

    The point here is that we have a historic example that your war may not be the next one we fight.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 31 Mar 09,, 18:17.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by osage18 View Post
      Thank you for disspelling that. It gets many Soldiers and ex-Soldiers up in arms...all for nothing, obviously.
      The very fact that it was piloted is troubling and demonstrates the meddling by these feel good, "do gooders" that are clueless to the evil in the world that our military is expected to vanquish. They even had it approved pretty high up the chain of command for it to be implimented.

      Originally posted by osage18 View Post
      I agree. However, I think it takes a really special kind of arrogance for one to insinuate an entire generation of Soldiers, most of whom will spend a significant amount of time in combat, are somehow substandard or weak because their drill instructors didn't haze them.
      I can tell you that from 1976 to 1981 the caliber of regular Army was sorely lacking in basic combat skills. Is that arrogant? I think not. They were cannon fodder IMO. My experience was based upon getting sent to the field with them as "advisors."

      Originally posted by osage18 View Post
      Exactly. I don't see any problems with the collective performance of our young Soldiers and junior leaders. They are outstanding.
      From what I have seen, here in Iraq they have stepped up the pace with the people they have on MiTT's (advising the Iraqi's) but I have seen some i-Pod wearing sleeping folks on convoys. They are complacent. Some units are better than others. Some have a highly negative pressure coefficient and scare me.

      Originally posted by osage18 View Post
      Great point, I didn't event think of that.
      They did not abuse us in SFQC but then again it was NOT our first exposure to the military. Additionally, because you read Eric HANEY's book, don't take everything you read in it as FACT.
      Last edited by JOgershok; 31 Mar 09,, 08:59.
      J. J. Ogershok, Jr.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally Posted by osage18
        I agree. However, I think it takes a really special kind of arrogance for one to insinuate an entire generation of Soldiers, most of whom will spend a significant amount of time in combat,........
        Most may spend some time in theater, but not actual combat. Your statement is unfactual.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
          It WAS tougher then
          Here's the fallacy. Giants walked before us . . .

          Originally posted by 7thsfsniper
          Technology has made the soldiers survivability much higher than ever before. The kevlar helmet and the UNARMORED HMMWV where the top of our high technologies. Before that we navigated with a compass, drove in open jeeps, and used Viet-nam era weapons and flak jackets.

          No GPS, No Gore-tex, no quick-clot, No lasers, No weapon lights, shitty boots, wool socks, no computers, no cell phones, no decent radios, I cold go on and on.
          Did the enemy have garage door opener detonated IEDs? cell phone detonated IEDs? internet chat rooms to trade TTPs and react to new American TTPs in a matter of hours, not weeks?

          This is a relative competition and the relative playing field hasn't changed all that much.

          Besides, it still takes soldiering to use these tools, and it makes "essential" soldier loads even heavier. There's a reason that the Army's suffering from an ever increasing rate of orthopedic trauma, and humping 60lbs of basic fighting load up and down mountains or in the streets in 120 degree heat will do that. Each generation is facing tough challenges.

          Originally posted by 7thsfsniper
          We wrote letters and often could only call home once or twice during a deployment. Sometimes never.

          Now lets back up to the viet-nam guys who got handed a shitty experimental weapon and dumped in a hot jungle.

          Now look at Korean war vets with an eight round, ten foot long rifle! and crappier boots, crappier radios and equipment far from even what I had. Yeah...I'm am really sure that was A LOT tougher than what any of us could even imagine. You didn't hop on a plane and jet over and jet back. You got on a boat and got to the war in a few weeks. You didn't speak to or see your loved ones for even longer, sometimes years.
          You had time to think about how your experiences changed you. You didn't get thrusted into an alternate reality where yesterday your best friend was blown up and today your in a chat room with your wife and troubled about whether or not to share your burden with her and worry her or to keep it to yourself and make that homecoming even more difficult. There's an expectation that call or email since it is available, and then when you change of mission to place where it's not available, you worry about the stress your family is going through because you couldn't tell them that you were going into an internet black hole and wonder if they're assuming the worst.

          I think we delude ourselves when we try to stack generations against one another. Each generation carrying the fighting for their nation suffers from different challenges and all should be celebrated. One area may get easier, but another area becomes harder.

          By stating that another generation is tougher, the converse has to be true in this logical construction - the other generation(s) is weaker.
          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by JOgershok View Post
            The very fact that it was piloted is troubling and demonstrates the meddling by these feel good, "do gooders" that are clueless to the evil in the world that our military is expected to vanquish. They even had it approved pretty high up the chain of command for it to be implimented.
            A$$hole leadership can be traced to an ineffectiveness in counterinsurgency. The argument that Abu Ghraib wasn't that bad because frats do it and basic training saw similar abuse is indicative of this. Leading through innate ability as opposed to fear is much tougher. Any d!ckhead can yell and use authoritative power. Do I think that stress cards were a good idea? No, that's taking the pendulum too far, but beyond the first couple weeks of basic training, intense physical exercises and harsh treatment is counterproductive.

            Originally posted by JOgershok
            I can tell you that from 1976 to 1981 the caliber of regular Army was sorely lacking in basic combat skills. Is that arrogant? I think not. They were cannon fodder IMO. My experience was based upon getting sent to the field with them as "advisors."
            That's a combination of post-Vietnam contributors. Some of it is the quality of soldier that enlisted, but it also has to do with leadership as well.

            Originally posted by JOgershok
            From what I have seen, here in Iraq they have stepped up the pace with the people they have on MiTT's (advising the Iraqi's) but I have seen some i-Pod wearing sleeping folks on convoys. They are complacent. Some units are better than others. Some have a highly negative pressure coefficient and scare me.
            Once again, leadership is the key. I heard stories of folks in convoys not wearing body armor, helmets, or manning their weapons during the summer of 2003 in Iraq from my battalion who had just returned from a recon, which seemed completely foreign to me. On the other hand, my officemate was talking to a National Guard transportation company who had traveled over 2,000,000 miles in convoys and hadn't had a single contact. Their success - the platoon leaders and company commanders took flatbed trailers and mounted several M2 and MK-19s and mounted weapons in rings mounts and simply presented themselves as bada$$ - if you messed with them, they were going to return fire. They told stories of where convoys just two miles behind them would get absolutely lit up.


            Originally posted by JOgershok
            They did not abuse us in SFQC but then again it was NOT our first exposure to the military. Additionally, because you read Eric HANEY's book, don't take everything you read in it as FACT.
            Never heard of Haney, but the toughest schools across the Army let the training beat you down, not a-hole leadership styles. The endstate is discipline, and self-discipline isn't motivated through fear and punishment.
            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
              Most may spend some time in theater, but not actual combat. Your statement is unfactual.
              No, it's factual. There is no frontline, and there's a constant expectation of attack. Also, while this holds true for Vietnam, what is different is that most of the FOBs are right on the edge of urban areas, and so you don't get the defensibility that many of the FOBs in Vietnam enjoyed.

              I was probably attacked less than non-combat arms unit because I had mounted infantry, protected vehicles, and lots of organic firepower.
              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

              Comment


              • #37
                Hey folks, just a FYI - I will probably lock the thread down later since I'm not sure how long folks can keep the civility up. However, I don't want to do this right now since I just posted and want to give others a chance to respond if they so choose :)
                "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Shek View Post
                  Never heard of Haney, but the toughest schools across the Army let the training beat you down, not a-hole leadership styles. The endstate is discipline, and self-discipline isn't motivated through fear and punishment.
                  I believe that is a reference to the book Inside Delta Force, Joger will need to confirm however.

                  I agree that leadership is definately the key to military success. Not only in training but also in operations. With one exception which appears to have resolved itself the debate is on the civil side if you feel the need to lock it down however thats fine.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    [QUOTE]
                    Originally posted by Shek View Post
                    You had time to think about how your experiences changed you. You didn't get thrusted into an alternate reality where yesterday your best friend was blown up and today your in a chat room with your wife and troubled about whether or not to share your burden with her and worry her or to keep it to yourself and make that homecoming even more difficult.
                    I think any homecoming is difficult. I wouldn't call the plane ride home quality time to think about what has transpired over the last few months. And at least our guys are getting a welcome home now. Thats all I will say about that.
                    There's an expectation that call or email since it is available, and then when you change of mission to place where it's not available, you worry about the stress your family is going through because you couldn't tell them that you were going into an internet black hole and wonder if they're assuming the worst.
                    Try six months without so much as a letter.
                    I think we delude ourselves when we try to stack generations against one another. Each generation carrying the fighting for their nation suffers from different challenges and all should be celebrated.
                    I agree with this
                    One area may get easier, but another area becomes harder.
                    By the points you made here, I don't totally agree, but don't discount it either.

                    By stating that another generation is tougher, the converse has to be true in this logical construction - the other generation(s) is weaker.
                    Not saying that they were physically "tougher" but the conditions and times were. IMO, of course.

                    An observation I make about the post cell/internet gen (PCIN from here out) is that they are in constant communication by texting or voice or IM, ALL THE TIME. They are addicted to it. I have seen it in my daughter and even quite a few thirty somethings. I can see how the absence of that could be interpreted as hardship by them, but it would be laughable to older vets.

                    I don't seem to be making my point successfully for some reason here. More than likely its the generation gap of which we speak, so I will refrain from any further posts in this thread before I earn myself my first timeout.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                      I don't seem to be making my point successfully for some reason here. More than likely its the generation gap of which we speak, so I will refrain from any further posts in this thread before I earn myself my first timeout.
                      Disagreement doesn't equal timeout, so my locking the thread comment wasn't a subtle hint and was general in nature. It's just that most of us military apes are Type A folks and I don't want the thread to create bad blood between folks.
                      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        Is you the generation ready for the next war?
                        If it is high-intensity conflict, then Hell No. We are not.

                        Historically, there is an arguement that you are not.
                        You are correct.

                        My "2 and a half war" doctrine meant killing the USSR and China while keeping North Korea down. Your "2 war" doctrine is Iraq and Afghanistan. Hardly in the same league.
                        I know. Yours didn't happen.

                        While I have no doubt that your III Corps could run circles around my VII Corps, I have serious questions that you could hold off the 1st Moscow and the 16th Guards, especially when they start tossing nukes.
                        I guess we'll never know.



                        The point here is that we have a historic example that your war may not be the next one we fight.
                        It might not be.
                        America doesn't deserve its military

                        -Emma Sky

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                          Could someone here please tell me where in the hell I called any of the currently serving sodiers weak. What in my reply and question deserved an obviously arrogant reply as this?
                          You said:

                          During my eventful but short enlistment I noticed many changes beginning to take place. I could see that the changes in training were also leading to lax standards. I was one of the last cycles to complete basic where a drill could cuss you up one side and down another, and dare fall asleep in a class. You were going to get hit with something, just hope all the DI had was his hat, which they where by the way, deadly with. I could go on and on with what would be lawsuit material and horror stories today.
                          My units had the best mechanics, the best cooks, all in all the best support personel I have ever seen. (of course expect nothing less from Ft Bragg) We where kick ass soldiers that would have been offended by DoD workers powdering our fannies and cleaning up or doing our job. However, just prior to my ETS I was beginning to see the changes. I had a Ranger buddy that retired about 9 years after I got out and told me that I had made the right decision to get out at the right time. He knew what my attitude was
                          and he knew that I probably would not have coped very well with what was happening. It wasn't easy for him either being an old school Ranger. Some just have higher levels on thier bullshit-o-meter that enable them to put up with more.
                          Let me sum it up:
                          1. You noticed changes starting to take place while on active duty. You felt standards were more lax then when you enlisted. You were upset that Drill Sergeants could not "cuss" trainees or strike them. You feel that if those events happened today, trainees would sue the army and be scarred for life.
                          The support elements of units that you were in were the best. You were a kick ass soldier and would have been offended if a contractor performed any kind of service function for you. Or as you so eloquently put it "powder your fanny, clean up after you or do your job". You view your separation of service as a good judgement call because you "wouldn't have coped very well with what was happening", which I can only assume is in reference to the negative changes and lax standards you mentioned earlier. You also apparently know an "old school Ranger" who shared your sentiments. You also note that your internal "bull shit meter" has a relatively low tolerance, only bolstering your justification for separation for service.

                          Is that about right?

                          So it appears:
                          1. You feel that the Army was becoming weaker because of negative changes in training and lax standards; implying that those who came after you, aren't as well trained and have adhered to lower standards than you did.
                          2. You feel that the Soldiers that provided support were superior to contractors that perform the same function, and military personnel today who recieve support from civilian contractors are having their fannies powdered, being cleaned up after and their jobs are done for them.
                          3. You conclude by saying that you separated from service at the right time, because the army was becoming weaker, for the reasons mentioned in #1. This opinion is also shared by your "old school Ranger" friend.
                          4. You also say that those who stayed in service and continue to serve have a higher tolerance on their "bull shit meter", which apparently aides them in tolerating all of the bullshit training and low/lax standards.

                          It is easy to see that you feel the Army was tougher, harder, better, etc when you were in it, and because it became less of the aforementioned adjectives, you chose to leave it, which you feel was right. That implies that the army you left (the one that exists now) is less tough, hard or better than when you were in. I understood your message loud and clear. My response was appropriate. I think you are upset that I called the proverbial spade.

                          but you know nothing of me
                          I read many of your posts, which is why I was so disappointed in what you wrote and implied.

                          As a member or the VFW, I support our vets, especially the ones who came before me. My mission has not ended as I support them now with my time and money.
                          Ditto.

                          My comments were obviously misinterpreted, but yours was quite clear.
                          I thought your comments were also quite clear. I'm glad mine were.

                          Seems to me that the difference between us is not only in the era of which we served, but how we treat those who came before us.
                          I have nothing but respect for those who came before me. I only stated a few truths about the Army generation before mine, which served during relative peace; compared to the contemporary environment. A fact.

                          you are the one with a chip on his shoulder
                          I just call them like I see them, sir.

                          Adios pal, and BTW, thanks for your service.
                          And thank you for yours.
                          America doesn't deserve its military

                          -Emma Sky

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Shek View Post
                            By stating that another generation is tougher, the converse has to be true in this logical construction - the other generation(s) is weaker.
                            The current generation (this is not necessarly the current military but is the pool from which they are able to choose) is weaker and fatter than previous generations.

                            Latest Obesity Statistics

                            USA Obesity Rates Reach Epidemic Proportions
                            • 58 Million Overweight; 40 Million Obese; 3 Million morbidly Obese
                            • Eight out of 10 over 25's Overweight
                            • 78% of American's not meeting basic activity level recommendations
                            • 25% completely Sedentary
                            • 76% increase in Type II diabetes in adults 30-40 yrs old since 1990
                            As a society, we are lazy.

                            Problem is this is NOT what this thread was to address.
                            J. J. Ogershok, Jr.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by JOgershok View Post
                              The current generation (this is not necessarly the current military but is the pool from which they are able to choose) is weaker and fatter than previous generations.

                              As a society, we are lazy.

                              Problem is this is NOT what this thread was to address.
                              Those stats are talking over the hills guys like you and 7thsf (over 25), not the young Turks scrambling on the sides of mountains in Astan ;)

                              Seriously, the military is drawing from a more out of shape pool of recruits, but nothing that few months of heat in Sand Hill won't melt away. The Nintendo generation used to be able to handle the 10 mile Friday runs my platoon would do every other week and the X-Box generation is humping the Korengal just fine today.
                              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Heh a remf is going to weigh in here. I think that the military of today and the military of yesteryear are probably about equally tough but in different ways to be able to meet the challenges of their day.

                                Whats important to remember is that since the 50's all of you army guys have been essentially useless, you are just there to fight limited engagements and that in any real conflict us wise elisted personal will send up the missiles and our officers to kill everyone and everything as we sit in our hardened shelters hoping to hell that 1. we brought enough women into the shelters with us and 2. That we aren't directly targeted so that when it cools down enough out there and the mre's run out that we can repopulate. Who knows maybe some of you dirt crawlers will have mutated into something cool and glowing by that time.


                                (yes the whole post is a joke but honestly the army is a different life form than us wise USAF people)
                                Last edited by Maxor; 01 Apr 09,, 15:28.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X