FM 3-27.75 The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills

[Jedburgh]

FM 3-27.75 The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills, 28 January 2008

(316 page 28 Mb pdf)

Earlier versions for comparison:

FM 21-75 Combat Skills of the Soldier, 3 August 1984

(249 page 13.4 Mb pdf)

FM 21-75 Combat Training of the Soldier and Patrolling, 10 July 1967

(No soft copy available)

[Ken White]

not bad. A personal dislike of mine is this 'warrior' BS but I suppose we're stuck with it.

Hopefully they'll issue one to every troopy -- I used to go wild trying to scuff one per man, made 'em read it and made leaders test on it. that, of course, was an somewhat earlier version...

[Jedburgh]

Originally Posted by Ken White

-- I used to go wild trying to scuff one per man, made 'em read it and made leaders test on it. that, of course, was an somewhat earlier version...

Ken - this may be the version you're referring to: Provisional Infantry Training Manual - August 1918

[Ken White]

remedy attached...

[MattC86]

Originally Posted by Ken White

not bad. A personal dislike of mine is this 'warrior' BS but I suppose we're stuck with it.

Hopefully they'll issue one to every troopy -- I used to go wild trying to scuff one per man, made 'em read it and made leaders test on it. that, of course, was an somewhat earlier version...

Ken,

Interested in to why you dislike the "warrior" moniker so much, though I agree we are stuck with it, for better or worse.

Although I'm not currently in the military (nor have been) and you were, I feel like using the term is a good way to foster the proper mentality among personnel. They're not just [fill-in-the-blank-with-MOS], they're the inheritors of a long and proud lineage in the profession of arms. Not that soldiers or Marines view it that way, but it seems at the very least to be a harmless way of reminding personnel of what their profession truly entails. . .

. . .from the perspective of a civilian student, anyway. . .

Matt

[Steve Blair]

I gotta go with Ken on this one. It's one of those words that's being bandied about so much that it's quickly losing any special meaning or worth (hero is another one...but that's a rant for a different time).

Not everyone in the service is a "warrior," nor should they be. I'd rather have a competent maintainer who doesn't starch his uniform than a pumped-up "hooah!" maintainer who spent so much time getting his run time into "warrior" shape that he doesn't know how to do his real job properly.

[Rifleman]

I still have my old FM 21-75. I thought it was the most useful FM I had.

FM 27-75 looks good overall but I noticed that the new 27-75 eliminated the combat tracking instruction that was in Appendix E of the old 21-75. That's too bad; although it was very basic instruction I thought it was a good introduction to the subject.

At the very least it served to make the reader track aware/track conscious, which most soldiers in my day were not.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by MattC86

Ken,
Interested in to why you dislike the "warrior" moniker so much, though I agree we are stuck with it, for better or worse.
...
Matt

Warrior -- a man engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict.

Soldier -- a: one engaged in military service and especially in the army b: an enlisted man or woman c: a skilled warrior.

Simply, a warrior is anyone who fights, a soldier (or Marine) is one who is trained, disciplined and, hopefully, skilled in fighting. Thus he's more than a warrior. Much more, IMO.

Basically, warriors aren't professional, soldiers are.

A good pro can whip a good amateur any day of the week.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Ken White

Warrior -- a man engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict.

Soldier -- a: one engaged in military service and especially in the army b: an enlisted man or woman c: a skilled warrior.

Simply, a warrior is anyone who fights, a soldier (or Marine) is one who is trained, disciplined and, hopefully, skilled in fighting. Thus he's more than a warrior. Much more, IMO.

Basically, warriors aren't professional, soldiers are.

A good pro can whip a good amateur any day of the week.

Good one, Ken. What you said reminds me of the opening scene in Gladiator. The Germanic tribes may have been "warriors" but at the end of the fight the field was in the hands of disciplined, skilled Roman soldiers.

[Gian P Gentile]

Ken:

You are spot-on with the "warrior" as title critique.

There was an oped in the Washington Post (I think) last year by a serving soldier who pointed out that the term "warrior" contributed to the divide in America between the civilian and the military in that it had an elitist almost intentionally separatist connotation.

Like you I am probably old fashioned and simple minded about such things. If i was at a dinner party at my sister's house in El Cerrito California (right next to Berkeley) I would be proud and comfortable to tell people I am a soldier; saying I am a "warrior" however would make me squeamish and uncomfortable.

So why then does our army continue to use such a misguided word? I don’t think the marines call themselves warriors, "just" marines. So why can’t we be just "soldiers?"

[marct]

Hi Gian,

Originally Posted by Gian P Gentile

So why then does our army continue to use such a misguided word? I don’t think the marines call themselves warriors, "just" marines. So why can’t we be just "soldiers?"

I suspect that it has to do with cultural valorization. For the past 30-40 years in the US, we have seen an upsurge in "wars" - the "war" on poverty, the "war" on drugs, etc. We have also seen a growing spread of what could be called neo-tribalization - think of the rise and spread of street gangs as an example.

There's another problem as well, and that is that here is another category of "fighter", outside of "warrior" and "soldier"; and I don't mean "mercenary" . Warriors are, historically, embedded in their tribes while "soldiers" as a group should be split into two separate terms; maybe "citizen-soldier" and "soldier". The difference is in a) motivations and b) attachment to the society. Citizen soldiers serve because it is their duty as citizens to do so - they are strongly attached to their society and, in general, the reverse is true - their identity is based around being citizens. The other category of "Soldiers" (and if anyone can come up with a better term please do!) tend not to be attached to their society and derive their identity much more from being part of a military organization rather than from their society as a whole.

Historically, democracies and republics have tended to start with citizen soldiers and gradually move towards the second form as citizens figure out that they can use their votes to escape from social responsibility (look at Rome as an excellent example of this). Obviously, it's not an absolute either-or situation - more of a frequency distribution. One other point; the final tipping point in a society is when the formal social organization of the society uses the second form of soldier to control the first, usually via an entrenched bureaucracy (e.g. Byzantium post-Basil II).

Back to "warriors" for a second - the term is often used as a recruiting device for the second type of "soldier" (e.g. Byzantium) since it relies on a "romantic" view held by neo-tribal organizations within the society that have little strong attachment to that society. Check out Michael Psellus' Fourteen Byzantine Rulers (Chronographia) for an example of this dynamic.

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by marct

The other category of "Soldiers" (and if anyone can come up with a better term please do!)

Paratroopers!!!!

[Ken White]

"...The other category of "Soldiers" (and if anyone can come up with a better term please do!) tend not to be attached to their society and derive their identity much more from being part of a military organization rather than from their society as a whole."

Because most of 'em consider the Army as a society and themselves as being different and in a military organization...

[marct]

Originally Posted by Ken White

Because most of 'em consider the Army as a society and themselves as being different and in a military organization...

Too true. My only worry is when the detachment becomes "normal". When citizenship no longer requires defense of the society and the defense of that society is in the hands of people who have no vested interest in that society...

[J Wolfsberger]

Originally Posted by marct

Too true. My only worry is when the detachment becomes "normal". When citizenship no longer requires defense of the society and the defense of that society is in the hands of people who have no vested interest in that society...

For example, if the Armed Forces of France consisted solely of the Foreign Legion. (Let's all refrain from the too obvious comments.)

The problem of (Marc, I hope I phrase this properly) lack of aggregation of the military with society at large goes back to the earliest days of the United States. It has become an immense issue in recent years, I think largely because of the undue influence of academic "intelligencia," with it contempt for the mililtary (and the United States). For example, can anyone imagine an elite university in this country offering John Keegan any sort of position?

"Warriors fight, soldiers fight together." In either case, they are either products of the society they fight for, or that society is in trouble.

[marct]

Hi JW,

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

For example, if the Armed Forces of France consisted solely of the Foreign Legion. (Let's all refrain from the too obvious comments.)

Actually, I was thinking of Byzantium post-Manzikert, but ...

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

The problem of (Marc, I hope I phrase this properly) lack of aggregation of the military with society at large goes back to the earliest days of the United States. It has become an immense issue in recent years, I think largely because of the undue influence of academic "intelligencia," with it contempt for the mililtary (and the United States). For example, can anyone imagine an elite university in this country offering John Keegan any sort of position?

I think the anti-war rhetoric certainly played a part in the current situation, but I don't think it is causal - more of a symptom that a source as it were. I think the problem is tied more closely into a shift in the military-economic system. Basically, if we look at the development of industrialization, we can actually track most of the social organization as coming out of the military revolution of Maurice of Nassau; i.e. standardization, assembly line production, time-motion efficiency, etc. This gets adopted (co-opted?) during the early industrial revolution as the basis for the factory production system and then worked back into the military post-F.W. Taylor.

Meanwhile, as Stan would say , "Sierra happens" and the military undergoes major shifts. Up to the present, and we have a system designed by engineers that is increasingly divergent from the society. Don't like your job? Leave and get another one. Don't like your family? The same. Increasingly, "community" is being divorced from physical location and identity is being divorced from citizenship (one of the effects of globalization amongst many) and I think that this is where a lot of the intelligentsia are playing a part. As I note, I really don't want to get started on that rant .

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

"Warriors fight, soldiers fight together." In either case, they are either products of the society they fight for, or that society is in trouble.

Yup.

[Tom Odom]

(Let's all refrain from the too obvious comments.)

Restraint? Moi?

[Ken White]

One of the few benefits of being old is that most things have been seen before and therefor one realizes that many worries are misplaced. In the 1930s when I was a kid, the people in the Armed Forces were virtual oddities to most Americans. The two societies were quite distinct and had little in common on the surface -- yet, those serving came from that greater civil society and reflected it quite well. WW II of course changed that -- not necessarily forever...

I think JW is correct in ascribing some of the current angst on that score to the ascendancy in Academia of the anti-everything crowd from the 60s; most of them do not understand the Beast and it therefor worries them; all they know is that they don't like what it is or does...

They have transmitted that worry to the ever larger population of tertiary students. It has always fascinated me that coterie is first to call for some form of citizen service -- explicitly including the military for some -- but themselves would (did?) go to great lengths to avoid such service. Most would go to equally great lengths to insure that if their children had to serve, it would not be in uniform. I think there's some incongruity there...

In any event, JW is correct when he notes that a civilian - military disconnect is the norm in the US. I served during a period when one could wear a uniform anywhere and also later when one was ill advised to wear that uniform away from the base or post. I've been insulted, had things thrown at me and been subjected to petty tirades by ill-informed people half way around the world and back. No big thing, one simply considers the source and moves on. Yet, in all that time and since, the Armed forces of the US were and are today nothing more or less than a broad reflection of the society from which they spring -- with the minor exception of the presumed elite other than in exceptional cases.

Thus I think that your statement

"...When citizenship no longer requires defense of the society and the defense of that society is in the hands of people who have no vested interest in that society...

reverses the problem; it seems to me we should be worried when the defense of the society is in the hands of people who have a very strongly vested interest in that society -- because in any democracy it is after all their society, is from where they come and is the home of their friends and relatives and is the place to which most will return (and that is emphatically the case now) -- but that society has little or no real interest in they who would defend it.

[marct]

Hi Ken,

Originally Posted by Ken White

Thus I think that your statement reverses the problem; it seems to me we should be worried when the defense of the society is in the hands of people who have a very strongly vested interest in that society -- because in any democracy it is after all their society, is from where they come and is the home of their friends and relatives and is the place to which most will return (and that is emphatically the case now) -- but that society has little or no real interest in they who would defend it.

Hmm, could be. I keep thinking back to my family history when it was socially de rigeur for all gentlemen to hold commissions (at least in Colonial society). One of those little cultural differences between the US and Canada .

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by marct

...Hmm, could be. I keep thinking back to my family history when it was socially de rigeur for all gentlemen to hold commissions (at least in Colonial society). One of those little cultural differences between the US and Canada .

the model a little earlier. I think the Civil War curtailed a lot of interest in things military...

In the case of the US, I will NOT call that earlier maturity...

In any event, WW II and the subsequent failure of that 'Greatest Generation' worldwide to raise their kids as they had been raised -- fairly well, in most cases -- due to the siren call of Dr. Spock destroyed way too many societal norms in the sixties. Never to return...

Some good and some bad in that.