Sheesh, Dude, you need to recognize who's on your side...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tracker275
I do not see how this particular portion of your points actually makes sense.
and trying to help. My point was simply that you diluted your important message about the basics by including not totally germane pictures. Nothing more than that.
Quote:
Considering that the Waffen SS utilized inflatable boats in WWII, and the innovation of the helecopter is as old as the Korean War.
How did that end up for the Waffen SS in Russia? The point Wilf made was that rubber boats can be sunk easily with small arms fire and that on jungle rivers, patrolling or moving to contact, where concealment of your opponent is not difficult, that is a likely occurrence. My added point was that we have craft better suited but they aren't readily available. That mostly to remind Ol' Wilf and various readers that we've been one of those Armies with Jungle experience as well, however in training as in war, you use what's available... :D
Yeah, I remember we had hoptiflopters in Korea, I saw 'em. Also got to ride in a bunch of different types flown by Army, Navy, Marines and the Air Force as well as Korean and Viet Namese birds and do insertions and CAs in the southeast Asia War Games.
Quote:
A soldier can still make their ruck float, and helecopters transporting troops is definitely not a new concept. However, the fact that those same individuals that were transported either by boat or helo, could at least use a compass.
I take your point and agree. That says it all, the rest of your here quoted comment is unnecessary. Been there, done that -- lot of folks who post here have been other places and done more... :wry:
However, you also said this in another post above:
Quote:
Right now, we are finding ourselves in theater only a few dead batteries away from disaster. However, the main point I've been trying to make is that when technology fails, we do not have a backup.
Also true. Also not the first time it's been noted here: LINK. You can use the 'Search' function on this site and find other posts and threads related to over reliance on technology and allied thoughts. Here's an example (LINK) using 'infantry load weight.' Try searching posts for 'GPS' then scroll through the resulting Titles. That's merely a suggestion for your consideration, there are a lot of experienced folks posting here and many ideas have been broached in an existing thread that one can add to; the newest post will rise to the top and make the front page even on a Thread started in 2006 and with no posts since 2008.
Please recall that 'discussion' isn't a synonym for attack. Lighten up...:cool:
Paul D. was indeed a piece of work...
His acquisition of the MEAFSA title was a notable bit of bureaucratic guile. Nearly as I could tell, Adam's personality conflicted with most everyone. He never seemed terribly concerned. He was the ADC of the 25th in Korea and fought with everyone. He earned the ire of the entire 1st MarDiv when he was CofS Eighth Army -- except for one Platoon Sergeant whom Adams had given a bottle of Bourbon in Italy when he was the 1 SSF XO...
Never met Godley but I do know he and COL Laurent, the Belgique Para Cdo commandant in the fall of '64 were, um, not friendly... :D
The Kids are okay. In some cases their training is deficient
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Infanteer
Well then you should know as well as I the capabilities of today's soldier...
but that's the fault of the system, not the kids. Aside from a small percentage recruited who should not have been for obvious reasons, most of these kids will do what's needed -- if they don't do it right, it is the fault of the system that failed to decently train and prepare them.
The same son who came from Afghanistan on the MTT to Edmonton four or five years ago was a few years before that a Ranger Instructor (RI) at Dahlonega. While he was there, they brought in a bunch of old, retired 1960 version RIs for a couple of days to assess and get their thoughts on current training.
After they'd followed the working RIs around a bit, they assembled them and asked their opinion. The general response was "It's a wonder you get anything done; you have a bunch of wusses..." (I think they used another word). The Bn Cdr replied, "Yes, student preparation and attitudes are a problem." The Old guys response was "Yeah, they're kinda weak, too..."
The story that the second US Marine recruited in 1775 came aboard the Frigate Alfred, griping and moaning and was met by the first one recruited with "You should've been in the old Corps..." may well be true...
Some things don't change all that much. :wry:
Well, I still wanta see the guys who tries Armor or Plate carriers in the Jungle...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tracker275
However, if it is taboo to note from my own thoughts what I wish to post, because it has already been posted...then maybe we should only post thoughts that have not been published after a full comprehensive query of this entire site.
No one said that -- I sure didn't. However IF one turns up a relevant thread, there's nothing wrong IMO in one adding ones opinions to those of others. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes not. Certainly post in a way that suits you.
Quote:
As far as a "discussion" vs. an "attack"...I totally agree. But, please note that a majority of my posts have been to support my initial post... instead of the "sharpshooting" of my content.
My point was and is that most are not sharpshooting. Wilf made a valid point on the rubber boats, I agree with him, you may not -- but we do not have to totally agree on everything. The point on the boats was made because it seemed relevant and could conceivably keep someone some day from making a bad mistake. It was not made to attack you or your point -- didn't even really pertain to your point, in fact. It was an aside comment and those will happen in threads, all you gotta do is avoid getting upset and try to steer everyone back on track. Sometimes a Moderator will step in to do that, sometimes they'll just let it go.
My comment on the boats and the bird was aimed at pointing out that including those pictures in a written comment about getting back to basics drew attention away from your point -- I was trying to help for the future, not sharpshoot anything.
Quote:
Well, the only one would be Infanteer, whose comments were most definitely sarcastic to say the least. So, yes, I will attack back in light of comments of that nature.
That's fine, to respond in kind. He misread your intent, I think, and took it to be "We used to do it better..." thing. I didn't see your comment that way but I can see how he or others could do so. Since you didn't mean that, you could have simply pointed out that he misread your intent. Thus my comment, perhaps poorly worded on my part, about attacks was merely to point out that -- as you note -- no one was really attacking you or your points, just writing about them to discuss things written. This is an imperfect medium and without smiles and body language, the ability to say "Uh, wait, I really meant..." it's easy to misconstrue people and to be misunderstood. :(
Quote:
So, I'm going to sit back and see what comes about, and leave it up to the audience to determine if they wish to continue with this thread. Maybe it should not be, since as you noted, this topic has already been discussed.
No reason for it not to continue and while it could be added to a couple of old threads, there's nothing wrong with revisiting the topic with a new thread. The suggestion was made simply because the fewer the number of threads, the easier it is for someone visiting the site to find topics of interest and comment on them. As I said, it doesn't hurt to look and if it makes sense tack on to an existing thread, if not just start a new one. No hard and fast rule on it. Sometimes the Moderators will gather up a thread or part of one and consolidate somewhere that makes sense to them. All that solely in the interest of trying to keep it simple...
To get back on the topic, you asked:
Quote:
Can anyone honestly say that a Stryker, or that soldier with the IOTV, and tons of gear will be able to survive there?
Good point. Current practice mostly works for the war and METT-TC factors of today. The loads and the vehicles will be totally inappropriate in a Jungle or heavily wooded environment and much of the so-called 'urban' tactical practice will get people killed in a defensed urban area. We're picking up some bad habits that will not do us well in event of mid or high intensity combat. The excessive number of senior people, the oversized staffs, the over use of 15-6 investigation, ramp ceremonies and memorial services -- none of those are possible in more intense combat. As you wrote, our training today is marginal and breeds failure to trust subordinates because they're not well trained...
The list is long.:mad:
Okay, Folks, let's chill a bit
Pete made a comment based on his perception. Not taking any of this too seriously is good advice. Tracker 275 came back with the same advice -- so perhaps we can all chill out and not get personal. I'd hate to lock the thread for a cool-off period... ;)
Got things to do tonight but will
send you a Private Message tomorrow with a thought or two.