I was told that with the old WWII buckle-top boot you used a dog-tag chain to make the rough leather smooth so it would accept a polish.
I was told that with the old WWII buckle-top boot you used a dog-tag chain to make the rough leather smooth so it would accept a polish.
Better way is to slather on the polish, light it with a match
and let it burn long enough to burn off most of the little bits of protruding hide then hit 'em with an old bore brush. Five times as fast as the chain...Originally Posted by Pete
Not that I know, I read that somewhere...
Tracker 275Nah, you made the point. Wilf's merely pointing out a basic "stay alive" fact lest someone get the wrong ides from the visuals and Ranger usage, rubber boats do have merit (turning over in heavy surf...) but patrolling jungle rivers sure isn't advisable."I may need to repost to get the point I'm trying to make so folks don't think it is about boats.
For that, you use the old M2 Assault Boat shown below. Engineer Assault Boat Teams have 80 of 'em by TOE, probably few to none operational right now but there are likely dozens of the boats in the bunkers at Pueblo Army Depot. Six guys can carry them and get 'em in the water then ride in them (10 overload).
Your points, that we do not teach the basics at all well and that we are sometimes over reliant on techo-goodies is well made and is certainly valid. Your further point that things that work in the 'Stan or I-rak may not work elsewhere is even more important. I've long been waiting to see he who tries personal armor in the Jungle...
However, in line with the 'picture is worth a thousand words' bit, putting pitchers of a large batch of boats with outboards and a couple of shots of a SOF 60 bird did sort of turn the end result toward the techno aspects rather than your valid and important points...
Last edited by Ken White; 10-27-2011 at 01:20 AM.
Now that Ken's let the cat out of the bag it won't be long before the Army is shining its rough-leather-out boots. It'll start at Fort Bragg, migrate to Fort Campbell, and then to Fort Riley.
I do not see how this particular portion of your points actually makes sense. Considering that the Waffen SS utilized inflatable boats in WWII, and the innovation of the helecopter is as old as the Korean War.However, in line with the 'picture is worth a thousand words' bit, putting pitchers of a large batch of boats with outboards and a couple of shots of a SOF 60 bird did sort of turn the end result toward the techno aspects rather than your valid and important points...
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.
Most are missing the point that after you are tranported to where you need to go, they maintain the reliance on everything from mine resistant vehicles, satellites, roads, etc. The Chinese proved that a satellite is just as vulnerable as anything on earth, when they shot one out of space in January 2007. Considering that all vehicles are reliant on their Blue Force Tracker, DAGGER GPS, etc., and the fact that the lensatic compass is not considered as part of your kit, or a map is anywhere to be found....
...Well, that is only one piece of the big picture. Look at who we are fighting in Afghanistan. The fact that we are still there after almost 10-years, the supposedly most "advanced" military in the world can not defeat those that wear regular cultural garb, and only carry the most basic of weapons.
Please note, that the enemy we fight today, is holding off the self-proclaimed "military superpower" of the world. All the Taliban is doing is what we did against the British in our own history.
Now, for a recap on the boats and helecopters you speak of, here is some history when apparently "techy" was started.
...The first picture is a squad in the Waffen SS on the Eastern Front in an inflatable boat, and the second is a MEDEVAC in Korea during the Korean War.
....Geesh...to think we moved beyond frick'n boats...
Tracker:
Your point about over reliance on technology and disregard for the basics is well taken (please note that I am a forever civilian when you consider my opinion) I think. And it extends beyond the ground and into the air. I illustrate with the following story.
We took off one very fine day from our base next to the Tigris. About 2:00pm it was with visibility clear to the horizon. 15 miles from the field we had a total electrical failure and lost all our radios, nav and comm. I was the non-flying pilot so while I was sorting things out I told the flying pilot to head back to the field. He then asked me which way he should go. 15 miles out and he didn't know where he was or how to get back to base because the GPS was out! I was shocked. After that I made sure to tell new pilots to make a point of learning the landmarks so they could find their way in good wx if the nav went out. When I started my flying career 36 years ago I never dreamed that I would someday have to brief a professional pilot to look at the countryside so he could find his way.
The guy I flew with that day wasn't deficient or especially unusual. That is how many guys are today. Not just civilian either. If the GPS constellation was knocked out, it would be complete chaos.
I would like your opinion on something I've thought about over the years and asked other people. Do you think it would be useful to sort of wargame old battles and campaigns using present equipment and technology? For example, run the Merrill's Marauders mission with modern uniforms, equipment and weapons; but without the helos. Could it be done? Or chasing the Apaches into Mexico, again without the helos. Just curious.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
That was just one story about aircrew learning to forget about landmarks, maps and roads. I have lots of others.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
I would like to say that you provided a perfect case in point...
No, the wargaming of old battles and campaigns using present equipment and technology is not the key to either training or current operations in a wartime environment.
One thing I learned early on in my military career is always have a contingency plan. That plan was focused on utilizing another avenue for completing the mission without any relationship to the initial plan.
When I go to theater, yes, I utilize my GPS, and all of the technology that is available to our forces in a combat theater.
However, I always have another means that does not rely on the same technology that doesn't work at that time so I can continue on with my mission.
A few months ago, I will never forget the look on a Platoon Leaders face when he was fiddling around with his GPS, and couldn't get it to do what he wanted. In the time it took him to just fiddle around with the various screens of his GPS, I pulled out a lensatic compass out of my kit, and in literally seconds...I was like, "Sir, we need to go this way, and we should be at the point we need to get to just up ahead...Follow me..."
What he was trying to pull up was the compass capability on his GPS, instead of just pulling out a compass, which he did not have. Granted, this is a simple scenario that is only one facet of what I am bringing up. It does not have to be a GPS vs. a compass. It can be anything that has a technological tie, but is backed up by a backup that does not require the same technology.
I do not ever want anyone to say that I said technology is bad. What I want folks to realize is you never "put all your eggs in one basket", so to speak.
Always have a contingency that does not rely on one thing, and always be able to rely on what is not the latest and greatest in technology.
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.
Last edited by Tracker275; 08-27-2010 at 06:32 AM.
Sheesh, Dude, you need to recognize who's on your side...
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.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...Considering that the Waffen SS utilized inflatable boats in WWII, and the innovation of the helecopter is as old as the Korean War.
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.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...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.
However, you also said this in another post above: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.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.
Please recall that 'discussion' isn't a synonym for attack. Lighten up...
Ken, I'm fully aware of the use of the "Search" function on a website, and fully capable of utilizing it. 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.However, you also said this in another post above: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...
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, which I have had to provide a multitude of couter-arguments. Which have only in recent posts brought out thoughts and debate of the concept of what I bring up, instead of the "sharpshooting" of my content.
So, if it is viewed as an attack, then I would like to transition your comment back in yours, or anyone elses direction. It does go both ways, which I can say that I have yet to view anyone in this thread as having attacked my position. 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.
Now, what I have been noticing is that there has been a fixation in this thread on "boats", "jungle", etc. That was not the point. The point was to point out an opposite environment, and a different time period with a different viewpoint. Unfortunately, the point I've made has maybe been identified by some, and still not by others. Instead, the defensive seems to be what I am viewing after my initial posting. I read how "Yes, your point is valid, but..." which appears to be the comments. That is fine though.
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.
Please let me know the rules of this board, and if I am supposed to search the site entirely for any topic I wish to post on. If this thread does not have validity in any form, because of previous posted topics, then please remove it.
Just my opinion, for what it is worth.
Last edited by Tracker275; 08-28-2010 at 04:12 AM.
Three Tears in a Bucket
Lighten up Tracker, don't take yourself so seriously. You made some good points that people in this thread have made a special point of agreeing with and acknowledging. However, your Ranger experience doesn't make you the only person here who has been through some tough things while in uniform. It seems to me that one of the main occupational hazards of long service in the military is turning into an opinionated know-it-all.
Hey Pete, you need to lighten up. I could say the same about Ken, yourself, or anyone else. However, I definitely do not throw the kind of directed attack that you just did.
You need to chill out Pete, you are getting worked up over a simple website. However, if this is your only life, then I guess you can. That is your call.
Funny you say that. Everything I have posted, and everyone else has posted is their "opinion". So, I would say based on your argument, we are all "opinionated know-it-all's". If we weren't, we wouldn't be reaching out to post our opinion on an open forum. If you do not have an opinion, what is there to talk about on forums such as this??? Now, if mine annoy you, you also have the freedom to not read it or respond to it.
Note, what you just posted is most definitely an example of another...yes..."opinion".
....So, lets move on with more of them in this forum, as that is what forums are based on to keep them going.
Last edited by Tracker275; 08-28-2010 at 05:10 AM.
Well, I still wanta see the guys who tries Armor or Plate carriers in the Jungle...
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.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.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 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.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.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.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...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.
To get back on the topic, you asked: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...Can anyone honestly say that a Stryker, or that soldier with the IOTV, and tons of gear will be able to survive there?
The list is long.
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...
Hey, you bet Ken. Got all you said, and what you were saying is exactly where my thoughts are as well. Honestly, I see where you are coming from on many points in many threads. However, you definitely pose a good fun challenge in debates.
In regards to opinions I post on here, I know that nothing much will become of it, regardless of how many read it here. I view forums like this as a way to vent about things sometimes, particularly when many of us at work feel like we are bashing our heads against the wall due to policies that are in place...many which take devine intervention to change.
You are definitely fun to debate with on here though, I can say that for sure.
Yup. Behind this there seems to be a mix of lessons forgot, luxary of facing mediocre opponents and no real urgency in winning (ie: we're more keen to see a conflict rolled into the institutional Army than see the Institutional Army bent to win a war).To get back on the topic, you asked: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.
Wilf & Ken are spot on w/the boat reference. I was in a unit called Small Craft Co. We were a Marine Infantry Rifle Company that specialized in Riverine Assault & various forms of Amphibious Raid.
We used our Inflatable Zodiacs almost exclusively in open water. And for anything brown water we used our Hard Bottoms; the 12' Rigid Raider & the 38' Riverine Assault Craft for the reasons stated above.
The Rigid Raider:
The RAC: Our Gunboat Platform
Together for a Combined Large Scale Assault in Paraguay:
We eventually combined them & added the Surf Zone(Blue Water) capability of the Zodiac & made the SURC (Small Unit Riverine Craft). It can basically do all missions.
Last edited by COMMAR; 08-29-2010 at 01:12 AM.
Infanteer,
I have to say that you have two points that you stated that are absolutely correct to a “T”, as far as I’m concerned.
#1
It is ironic you say “mix of lessons forgot”, because the US Army has the Center for Lessons Learned (CALL), however I see at times that what is posted as a learning point is not sent down to the lowest level and implemented too often.
Also, you are so correct in the fact that there seems to be no real urgency in winning. Instead of getting in, getting what we went there for, and getting the hell out…we end up staying and changing the end state goals that do not match the initial ones at all. While we change that, we build up bases, start moving in contractors, and even make sure Starbucks has a shop next to the Burger King. To me, that is occupying, and indicates we intend to stay their far longer than who we are supporting ultimately intended. This also only increases the outward appearance as an “occupier” vs. “liberator”.
Frankly, I really don’t see how we as a Coalition Force that went into both Iraq and Afghanistan to root out terrorism that is responsible for attacking all of us in our own homelands….to the sudden shift to promoting a democratic form of government. Besides the fact that a democratic form of law goes completely against their religious belief, which the Sharia Law and the Koran are what they believe is a form of government. There is no democracy in Islam, there is only Sharia Law and their guide book, the Koran. Maybe this was an effort to promote us staying longer, I don’t know.
What I do know is that the British tried to do the same thing in Iraq in 1920, and within a few years, they realized that the establishment of a Parliament, and a King, were a failure in the region.
#2
If you do not mind, I would like to use this quote from you, because It is again so true with what is going on right now. There is nothing I can elaborate on this anymore, because what you have stated says it all.
Great points, and I’d like permission to use them in some of what I write.
"To a 'T'"
Keep your messages coming, Tracker, you have good input. The expressions "To a T" and "Screwed Up to a T" go back to the old technician grades during World War II. Back then it was a stripes-for-skills kind of thing, which offended the old-school NCOs. My Dad was an E3 technician, two stripes with a T, and later a E4 tech, three stripes and a T. As a courtesy they were called corporal and sergeant, and those ranks were the origin of the later Specialist grades.... absolutely correct to a “T”, as far as I’m concerned.
I agree that trying to achieve rapid, substantial democratization in Afghanistan or Iraq was always an unrealistic goal. That being said, relatively few Muslims believe that Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible. As Mark Tessler has argued on the basis of extensive public opinion polling in the region:
Similarly, a survey of Egyptian opinion found no linkage between Muslim religiousity and support for democracy:Taken together, the findings presented in Tables 3-6 suggest that Islamic orientations and attachments have at most a very limited impact on views about democracy. With respect to personal religiosity, at least as measured by involvement in religious activities, there is not a single instance when this variable is related to attitudes toward democracy to a statistically significant degree. Further, there is only one instance when this variable is related to views about whether there are problems associated with democracy. This is the case in Egypt, where individuals with higher levels of involvement in religious activities are more likely than others to agree that democracy has drawbacks. The relationship is significant at the .05 level.
As noted earlier, there is very little variance associated with personal piety, belief in God, and self-reported religiosity, and so these questions from the survey instrument have almost no explanatory power. All that can be said is that most people claim to be pious and most also have a favorable opinion of democracy, thus suggesting, in the aggregate, that there is no incompatibility between Islam and democracy. Support for democracy, in other words, is widespread in Arab societies where most citizens have strong Islamic attachments.
Now, back to combat fundamentals...
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks