Hi Chris, if this doc is available on line, could you give us a link? I'd love to read it.Originally Posted by Chris jM
Some of the remarks you quoted are relevant to a number of other threads here as well.
Hi Chris, if this doc is available on line, could you give us a link? I'd love to read it.
Some of the remarks you quoted are relevant to a number of other threads here as well.
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
Concur. This document seems of great value and has managed to stay under my radar!Hi Chris, if this doc is available on line, could you give us a link? I'd love to read it.
Some of the remarks you quoted are relevant to a number of other threads here as well.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Kippenberger
This Kiwi general has appeared before, with posts by another member EmmetM (who has not been active for a few months) and this maybe helpful - it is not the desired link.
See:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...?t=1287&page=2
Last edited by davidbfpo; 01-30-2010 at 01:54 PM. Reason: Add EmmetM name
davidbfpo
Close to topic
Personally I have not seen any American Soldiers shy away from fighting, but as Ken mentioned in the more elite units such as SF and the Airborne Infantry there is a warrior culture which reduces the likelyhood of that happening. A friend many years ago said there are no better warriors than the Americans, Brits, Aussies and Canadians, there is just something in those cultures that produce men who like to fight. While simplistic, there seems to be degree of truth in that statement. Thoughts?
In all fairness, I wonder if it is fair to compare the combat stats from WWII (or the Korean War) where our Soldiers were fighting peer competitors (who had heavy armor, air, artillery and well trained infantry) where the combat intensity and casualty rate was much higher than in the combat we're engaged in today. Suspect that while there are many parallel forms of stress and factors weighing on a man's decision making process, there are also considerable differences that may be worth considering from a leadership perspective.
Shifting gears, is anyone aware of any studies, books, lessons learned that offer "practical" insights on how to inspire the foreign forces we're training in developing nations to develop the same level of fighting spirit that our troops have? I know there are a lot of factors, and in elite units where we can be selective like ISOF and the Afghan Commandos this isn't much of an issue, I'm more concerned about the regular infantry and police we're turning out.
As you said it is pretty simplistic and most likely tied to the personal and rather limited experience of your most likely anglophone friend - it does not seem to be a case that he only has other anglophones in mind.
As you said it depends an a rather large amount of variables and perceptions play a large part too. The German soldiers and commanders in WWII had a rather low regard for the bravery and fighting ability of the American soldier. This might partly be explained on the simple fact that their enemy could rely so much on their vast superiority in all supporting arms, as well as in numbers and material to dominate the battles. It may also play a role, that quite some members of the German army considered themselves to be man to man the finest soldiers of the war. You see, perceptions and the specific point of view are also to be considered.In all fairness, I wonder if it is fair to compare the combat stats from WWII (or the Korean War) where our Soldiers were fighting peer competitors (who had heavy armor, air, artillery and well trained infantry) where the combat intensity and casualty rate was much higher than in the combat we're engaged in today. Suspect that while there are many parallel forms of stress and factors weighing on a man's decision making process, there are also considerable differences that may be worth considering from a leadership perspective.
This is an interesting question and some examples come to my mind. Perhaps I will dig a bit.Shifting gears, is anyone aware of any studies, books, lessons learned that offer "practical" insights on how to inspire the foreign forces we're training in developing nations to develop the same level of fighting spirit that our troops have? I know there are a lot of factors, and in elite units where we can be selective like ISOF and the Afghan Commandos this isn't much of an issue, I'm more concerned about the regular infantry and police we're turning out.
Firn
Last edited by Firn; 01-30-2010 at 08:30 PM.
That limited experience amounts to watching and
participating in combat in two major wars (not the post 1989 type) with and against over 12 foreign Armies including those Bill Moore mentioned plus the New Zealanders -- the other eight were not anglophone. My observation was that all nations are willing to fight though techniques do vary and that cultural attitudes fall behind training in importance. I do not totally agree with Bill on airborne / SF warrior culture. There is an attitudinal difference but it's more complex than that and many non-airborne units also possess those same attributes.
Nor is Bills' comment simplistic. While I make no brief for it either way and would in fact say that in the eyes of many, it's a deficiency, not an asset, there's a fair amount of research that shows the Anglosphere does tend to be more violent than the other speech-i-phones.
Kiwigrunt, Wilf, - unfortunately the document isn't available online, however I do have access to it as a word doc at work. I'll try and get it uploaded early in the week (the worst case being if I can't upload it to the board, I'll email to those interested). I may have access to some other unrestricted docs on the history/evolution of the RNZIR/2NZEF that could be of interest you, too, Kiwigrunt.
With regards to the elite/ aggressive units, Sydney Jary in 18 Platoon (he was a British subaltern for a significant period of WW2 in the ETO - I imagine his name is already known to most here) made an interesting comment towards the end of his book. While I don't have access to the text, he basically disputed the requirement for soldiers to be aggressive and gung-ho. There was a quote I remember pondering where, from memory, Jary stated that he'd prefer a reflective poet in the frontline over an impulsive brawler. I can't attest to the accuracy of that comment, and if anyone had 18 Platoon close to hand I'd be greatly obliged if they could confirm this quote.
'...the gods of war are capricious, and boldness often brings better results than reason would predict.'
Donald Kagan
That may be an Anglophile prejudice - and even if it was true, the cultures changed a lot even during the past 15 years. Past observations from past wars may be entirely irrelevant in this regard.
Nevertheless, the assumption is quite questionable with a look at the 20th century: Judging by performance / men the English-speaking armies weren't exactly the most efficient during the 20th century. The before mentioned Finns and Germans were much more efficient during the their first three war years (afterwards exhaustion took its toll).
The examples of Crete and Narvik show that this isn't purely attributable to organizational advantages.
Oh yeah, and he forgot the Gurkhas who certainly have a favourable reputation as 'warriors', just as many other nationalities/tribes.
Assertions about quality of soldiers linked to nationality are generally very tricky.
The French built their doctrine till 1914 on a perceived national preference for the offense, in part because it was assumed that the French soldier was (the) best in the tactical offense.
The Germans meanwhile had at the same time the opposite view on French soldiers.
Concur
Agree with the jist of the counter arguments, but still wanted to see if there were any studies out there or if this assertion was largely urban legend (which it appears to be).
Further agree with Fuchs that the variables that shape whether or not culture will produce warriors (which I believe it largely based on socio-political factors, since they tend to create the mythologies and social norms, read expectations) vary over time. While the Germans may have been great warriors during WWII, there is little indication that is the case today.
This is an important topic for our efforts to develop effective security forces in partner nations. We can continue to run them our force production processes we have developed and then field equipped security forces with the right technical training (I don't think we do these as well as we could), but they key to success is engraining the fighting spirit. That can't come from us (I don't think), but rather their leadership. It doesn't do any good to field forces that won't take the fight to the enemy. Probably need a social-anthrologist to tell us where we need to connect the dots.
This raises an interesting topic. Tradition in the Alps at least had it that the formations were formed by specific regions. The Italian Alpini as well as the German and Austrian mountain divisions were raised that way. This made for formations with usually very considerable tenacity even against the odds. Fuchs already raised the example of Narvik. Of course the same system was also used in a lot of different places and regions.
Given that Afghanistan has very strong regional traits, using it might knit tighter Afghan units with possibly greater combat participation by the individual soldiers. After all you don't want to perform badly in front of your third cousin or your mate from the next village. It is no magic wand and has quite some drawbacks, but it might be a risk worth to be taken.
An now I wonder just how the Afghan army recruits
Firn
Last edited by Firn; 02-01-2010 at 06:29 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks