Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 180

Thread: Back to Basics…The Lost Art of Basic Combat Fundamentals

  1. #21
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Sheesh, Dude, you need to recognize who's on your side...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tracker275 View Post
    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.
    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...

    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.
    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...

    However, you also said this in another post above:
    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...

  2. #22
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Strategic Army Corps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    ...what was STRAC, anyway? Strategic Command? The figure of speech lived on way after the existence of the organization. In my time it had the connotation of being squared-away and ready for inspection.
    That was XVII Airborne Corps in the early to mid-60s. The STRAC appellation for squared away came from the propensity of the 82d and then 101st to spit shine anything not nailed down...

    The Strategic Army Corps reported to US Strike Command, then commanded by one Paul D. Adams, noteworthy for relieving and firing more senior people than even did DePuy (and thus arousing the ire of the Personnel folks who actually had to work and scurry to find replacements...). He demanded and got results. Different world today...

  3. #23
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    That was XVII Airborne Corps in the early to mid-60s. The STRAC appellation for squared away came from the propensity of the 82d and then 101st to spit shine anything not nailed down...

    The Strategic Army Corps reported to US Strike Command, then commanded by one Paul D. Adams, noteworthy for relieving and firing more senior people than even did DePuy (and thus arousing the ire of the Personnel folks who actually had to work and scurry to find replacements...). He demanded and got results. Different world today...

    Not only was Adams CINC US Strike Command, he was USCINCMEAFSA (Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia). Adams' personality conflicted with the equally large personality of Ambassador Godley in the Congo in 1964. Godley actually refused him country clearance.

    Adams was also notable as a former member of the 1st Special Service Force (Devils Brigade)

  4. #24
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default 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...

  5. #25
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tracker275 View Post
    I find it funny you say that, because I am still in. Having just returned from a tour only weeks ago, I think my points are valid as they encompass not only several years ago, but today. So, to act as if I am out of the service and dwelling on the "good-ole-days" is definitely a deficiency on your part, as I still live it and do it in combat theaters as you do.

    So, do not belittle me with your dribble about today vs. yesterday, as I am still humping the same ruck as you today in the same places that you end up. See you in theater on my next tour.
    Well then you should know as well as I the capabilities of today's soldier. Mine were fit, enthusastic and pretty savvy young men. Sure, they have had some things imposed on them from above (protective equipment), poor operational concepts (KFC in the FOB) and some training deficiencies (GPS/Compass seems to be a favourite) but the soldiers of today are as adaptable and hungry to shoot their enemy in the face as before. I really don't get where the assertion that we'd fall apart in the jungle is coming from. We'd probably adapt, improvise and overcome in that environment just as we did when we got fired off to the desert or the Hindu-Kush.

    My 2 Cents,

    Infanteer

  6. #26
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default The Kids are okay. In some cases their training is deficient

    Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
    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.

  7. #27
    Council Member Tracker275's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    As ever... thank you Ken.

    Technology: - I watched every sniper doing a British Army stalking exercise get detected by an old Hand held thermal imager in 1985. Today, TIWS, NVG and PRR have made soldiers greatly more effective that they were in the 1980s provided they are used in context. GPS has meant that things previously very difficult, can now be done quicker and by more people.

    The down side of technology is stupid people, and stupid leaders, unable to correctly understand its limitations or advantages. OK some folks can't work without it. They are merely badly trained and badly lead.
    Yup, well put. I'd say everything you wrote regarding the use of technology is right on the money, in my honest opinion.

    I have to say, I am most definitely not against it at all. Shoot, I am also a computer junky in more ways than one. I would just say I like to always incorporate a backup that does not rely on the same technology, or have a contingency plan that I can fall back on if everything goes to pieces.

  8. #28
    Council Member Tracker275's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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...
    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.

    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.

  9. #29
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default 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.

  10. #30
    Council Member Tracker275's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete
    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.
    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.

  11. #31
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking Well, I still wanta see the guys who tries Armor or Plate carriers in the Jungle...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tracker275 View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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:
    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.

  12. #32
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Cool 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...

  13. #33
    Council Member Tracker275's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    51

    Default

    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.

  14. #34
    Council Member Tracker275's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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...
    This may sound silly, but in some ways...I think that there is a good thing that comes to mind with all of this. Due a potential elevated blood pressure level in this thread for a moment...

    I think it reflects a concern by many of us from different points of view.

    What I am curious about is what is the best way to go about trying to present this one particular issue in the right venue?

    Ultimately, I think that is probably one of the first questions that should be answered, particularly since there are other threads covering the same subject.

  15. #35
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Got things to do tonight but will

    send you a Private Message tomorrow with a thought or two.

  16. #36
    Council Member Tracker275's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    send you a Private Message tomorrow with a thought or two.
    Cool, looking forward to it Ken.

  17. #37
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Oh well, my little kitty-cat Skindles still loves me. Or at least she did the last time I checked--females have this irritating way of changing their minds all the time.

  18. #38
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    ...females have this irritating way of changing their minds all the time.
    That's why their minds are cleaner than ours.
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  19. #39
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.
    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).

  20. #40
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Sadly correct...

    Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
    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).
    We have met the bureaucracy and it is us.

    Thank goodness most said opponents are even more fouled up than we generally happen to be...

    Not to worry, Pete. We still luvs ya.

    I think Kiwi Grunt must associate with higher order females than I seem to have encountered. I agree their speech is generally cleaner but the minds seem to be somewhat darker in all respects...

Similar Threads

  1. Appreciating the lost art of Field Manuals
    By Tukhachevskii in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-04-2011, 04:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •