US Army Combat Medic loadout

[avantman42]

The following is copied/pasted from a friends post on Facebook. I thought it might be of interest.

Thought this might be of interest to Wilderness Medic types. I happened to come across a US Army report about infantry equipment loadouts, which included the medical equipment carried by their Rifle Platoon Combat Medics (the guys right at the front line of combat.)

The report is at:
http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf

Worn on Fighting Load Carrier/Interceptor Body Armor:
• Extra field dressings in MOLLE Pouches.
• Extra intravenous fluids bags in MOLLE Pouches with extra starter kits.

MOLLE or “M82” Aid Bag "Medical Rucksack" containing:
o Stethoscope
o Sphygmamometer with Case
o Field Dressings (8)
o Cravats (12)
o Israeli Dressings (4)
o Tourniquets (2)
o 1000cc NaCl (2)
o 4x4 Gauze (20)
o 2x2 Gauze (20)
o Bandaid (15)
o Kerlix (6)
o Chest Seal (2)
o Water Seal (3)
o J-Tube (4)
o Nasopharyngeal (3)
o IV Starter Kits (4)
o 14g Needle (8)
o Scapel 10 Blade (2)
o Scapel 12 Blade (2)
o Latex Gloves (10 pr)
o Pen Light (2)
o VS-17 Panel.
o Chemlite (4)
o Foot Powder (4)
o 4” Tape (2)
o 2” Tape (2)
o 9-Line Medevac Card (1)
o Scissors (2)
o Restricting Band (2)
o Oral Thermometer (1)
o Anal Thermometer (1)
o DD Form 1380 (8)
o Surgilube (8)
o Sharps Container (1)
o Pocket Mask (1)
o Acetomenophin (1)
o Aspirin (1 bottle)
o Lopermide (1 bottle)
o Zithromax (3 pack)
o Ibuprophin (1 bottle)
o Naproxne (1/2 bottle)
o Psuedophedrine (1/2 bottle)
o Medical quick reference books.

Total Fighting Load (uniform, body armour, all the stuff hung off those, a rifle and the M82 pack): 54.5lb

[headquarters]

good info

[Abbott Shaull]

Nice find.

[copeab]

I've found that PDF before when I was looking for the typical load carried by a soldier. Very useful.

One thing I'm curious about: is the base load of water typical for less arid environments? I know in a desert water is more valuable than ammo.

[kato13]

Here are a few medical kid loadouts from my gaming site.
From here: Gaming Site->Equipment->Kit List
note 1:Restricted to registered users of the forum to keep search engines out
note 2: A majority of the kits are for Morrow Project teams but many of the medical ones can be used in T2k.
################################

Medical Kit, LRS combat lifesaver (CLS) bags:
Assembly Weight: 5.95 kg
Assembly Volume: 0.49 cu. ft.

Contents:
Bag of 800mg Motrin (1)
Bag of Tylenol (1)
Bandage, Adhesive 3/4 X 3 inches flesh (10)
Bandage, Elastic Coban Brown (ACE) 2"x5 yards (2)
Bandage, Elastic Coban Brown (ACE) 4"x5 yards (2)
Bandage, Gauze 6 Ply 10cm x 4m Sterile (6)
Bandage, Gauze Pad 4X4" (100mmX100mm) (8)
Bandage, Vaseline gauze 3x9" Foil Pack (3)
Betadine - 8oz squeeze bottle (2)
Betadine swabsticks pack of 3 (4)
Blade, Scalpel, No 11, for handle No 3, sterile (4)
Forceps, Hemostatic, Dandy, 14 cm, serrated, sideways curved (1)
Medical Kit, Venom (Snake/Insect) Extractor Kit (1)
-Box, Plastic, Snake Bite Kit (1)
--Bandage, Adhesive 3/4 X 3 inches flesh (3)
--Instruction Card - Venom Extraction (1)
--Pad, Alcohol (2)
--Razor, Disposable (1)
--Sting relief pads (2)
--Syringe vacuum pump (1)
--Venom Pump Suction Cups (4)
Needle Unit (I.V) 18ga.X1.25" (2)
Pad, Alcohol (25)
Poleless litter 78" x 24" (1)
Resuscitator, Valve Mask (1)
Resuscitator, Valve Mask Bag (1)
Ringers injection lactate 1000ML plastic (2)
Scalple, Handle, No 3 (for blades 10/11/15) (1)
Splint Aluminum Malleable (11x91cm 4.25x36") (2)
Suture, Polypropylene, .2x75cm .08x29.5" (Sterile w/ needle) (2)
Tape Adhesive Surgical Porous Woven Rayon 1"X10YDS (2)
Tape Adhesive Surgical Porous Woven Rayon 3"X10YDS (2)
Tube Endotracheal 10.7MM Diameter (2)

################################

Medical Kit, M-5 Medical Bag
Assembly Weight: 3.56 kg
Assembly Volume: 0.58 cu. ft.

Contents:
Bag, Nylon, Steel Reinforced 9x16x7" (1)
-Bandage, Adhesive 3/4 X 3 inches flesh (18)
-Bandage, Compress (300x300mm) (2)
-Bandage, Elastic Coban Brown (ACE) 4"x5 yards (2)
-Bandage, Gauze 6 Ply 10cm x 4m Sterile (9)
-Bandage, Gauze Pad 2X2" (50mmX50mm) (12)
-Bandage, Gauze Pad 3X3" (50mm X50mm) (12)
-Bandage, Gauze Pad 4X4" (100mmX100mm) (17)
-Bandage, Gauze, 10cm x 4m, elastic,non-sterile (4)
-Bandage, Gauze, 15cm x 4m, elastic,non-sterile (4)
-Bandage, Gauze, 6cm x 4m, elastic,non-sterile (4)
-Bandage, Gauze, 8cm x 4m, elastic,non-sterile (5)
-Bandage, Triangular, 136 x 96 x 96 cm (3)
-Combine Dressings 5"x9" (127mmX229mm) (6)
-Eye Gauze/Cotton Pads (6)
-Mask, Surgical (1)
-Pad, Alcohol (14)
-Pad, Ammonia inhalant (12)
-Povidone-iodine oint USP 10 % 1/8oz foil pack (8)
-Resuscitator, Valve Mask (1)
-Telfa pad (50x75mm 2"x3") Non stick Dressing (8)
-Telfa pad (75x100mm 3"x4") Non stick Dressing (8)
-Tongue Depressors (5)
-Tourniquets 14 X 1 blood taking rubber (2)
-Waterless Surgical Scrub 6oz bottle (1)

################################


Medical Kit, M3 Combat Lifesavers Bag
Assembly Weight: 4.44 kg
Assembly Volume: 0.28 cu. ft.

Contents:
Bag, Polyamide Nylon 11X6X9IN (1)
-Antihistamine(Pseudoephedrine hydrochloride) Bottle of 24 (1)
-Auto Injector, 2 PAM Chloride (5)
-Auto injector, Atropine (5)
-Bandage, Adhesive 3/4 X 3 inches flesh (18)
-Bandage, Compress (100x180mm) (6)
-Bandage, Gauze, 5cm x 4m, elastic,non-sterile (4)
-Bandage, Triangular, 136 x 96 x 96 cm (4)
-Betadine prep pad 2 X 1.375" (12)
-Gloves, Latex Exam (non sterile) (6)
-Intravenous inj set, 7 comp macro 10drops/ml (2)
-Mild pain reliever plastic bottle, 50 units (Tylenol) (2)
-Needle Unit (I.V) 18ga.X1.25" (2)
-Povidone-iodine oint USP 10 % 1/8oz foil pack (8)
-QuickClot Blood Loss Stopper (powder) 3.5 oz (10)
-Ringers injection lactate 500ml plastic bag (2)
-Scissors, Bandage 1.5" Cut lg 7.25" (1)
-Splint Aluminum Malleable (11x91cm 4.25x36") (1)
-Strong sedative 2 cc Syringes preloaded (Diazepam (Valium)? 10 mg) (5)
-Tape, Paper Adhesive, 1"x10" roll (25mm X3M) (3)
-Tourniquets 14 X 1 blood taking rubber (2)
-Tube, oropharyngeal airway, Guedel, large adult (1)
-Tube, oropharyngeal airway, Guedel, small adult (1)

[pmulcahy11b]

As a combat lifesaver, I also carried an IV set and a bag of saline and a bag of Ringer's Lactate.

[HorseSoldier]

I've never known a medic to carry anything like a standardized load plan to begin with, and a good medic would always tailor load out to mission, threat, etc.

[pmulcahy11b]

As a combat lifesaver, I also carried an IV set and a bag of saline and a bag of Ringer's Lactate.

A couple of other things I added to my bag were superglue (to quickly seal gashes that weren't too deep, but would probably under normal circumstances require stitches), and tampons (to plug bullet holes). HorseSoldier is right, most soldiers in general, let alone medics, don't carry standard load plans.

[Eddie]

A couple of other things I added to my bag were superglue (to quickly seal gashes that weren't too deep, but would probably under normal circumstances require stitches), and tampons (to plug bullet holes). HorseSoldier is right, most soldiers in general, let alone medics, don't carry standard load plans.

Maybe in the old days, but nowadays pretty much every BN has an SOP of how many of what to carry where. And funnily enough, they seem to mimic the 75th Ranger Regiment's or Ranger Training Brigade's packing lists. Every soldier will carry that minimum amount, some go over, some stay with the minimum.

Now, in recent years with lessons learned in Iraq and A-stan and the introduction of MOLLE gear, most Company-level leadership is being a lot more relaxed on enforcement of having this pouch in that spot on that piece of equipment and looking more at, a) can the soldier kill the enemy with his gear on, b) does he have the equipment necessary for the mission, and c) does he have any additional equipment stipulated by the packing list to mitigate risk/weather?

Thankfully, in even more recent years, that philosophy is starting to filter up to BN- and BDE-level leadership as they move from Company-level and BN Staff-level jobs. But the packing lists still exist...

[perardua]

Maybe in the old days, but nowadays pretty much every BN has an SOP of how many of what to carry where.

When I first joined the reserves, our kit policy was that in training you carried what you were told were you were told, but as soon as you got badged you could make your own decisions except for a few obvious things like everyone carrying their personal medical kit and ammo in the same place.

When I went to Afghanistan with a regular unit the kit demands became even looser, we were mainly doing vehicle mounted patrols and were told to keep as much stuff as possible off our person when in the vehicles, as getting kit caught on the hatch as you left it at some speed after hitting an IED had been known to cause more injuries. Most of us just had ammo and a mine kit on our persons, with the majority of our dismounted kit plus a camelbak in a daysack tucked into a shady spot of the wagon.

Of course, I get back to my reserve unit and find that in the year I've been gone it's become full of new recruits, and as a result has reverted to strict packing lists and kit checks before every exercise. Furthermore, because my face is no longer known, I'm treated like one of those recruits by the newer members of the training staff. Annoying.

[pmulcahy11b]

So here's what could be the start of a new thread: what non-standard gear did you carry in the military?

Some of the non-standard stuff I carried at various times (aside from personal stuff like a cassette player and some cassettes, and generally at least one book I was reading at the time) included a strong work-knife with a hammer end (which I also kept sharp enough to be used as a weapon, though I never got in a situation where I had to), a dagger (ditto), a compass pouch, a 5-quart canteen attached to my ruck, a signal flasher (used it only once -- in Korea, one of the TAC crew got hit on the head by the hatch of an M-577 and was knocked unconscious. I signaled the Medivac helicopter with it -- tactically, through the bore of an M-203).

In Desert Storm, I had my standard six 30-round magazines -- plus three more in an extra ammo pouch, another in one leg pocket, and two 20-round magazines in the other leg pocket. And compared to many troops, I was carrying a light ammo load. But then again, I was also the Dragon gunner, since I was the only one in the platoon to have an actual C2 qualification.

[perardua]

Hmmm. On exercise in the UK my webbing normally contained whatever ammo we were issued, plus two water bottles (one with a metal mug), a single ration pack meal (sausage and beans, for preference), some tea/hot chocolate, socks, three six inch nails and two hexy fuel blocks for cooking with, my weapons cleaning kit, some mine tape, green string and arc markers, a magazine charger and some spare AAs in for my PRR and CWS. In my daysack I had a cut down foam sleeping mat for sitting on, sometimes a camelbak (in which case I binned off one of the water bottles), head torch, a warm layer for putting on if we were laying up for any length of time, and any other bits and bobs required for the task in hand.
My pockets contained first aid kit (left hand trouser map pocket contains a tourniquet and two field dressings), leatherman, soft hat/beret, cam cream, a compass, racing spoon, notebook and pens, aide memoire, more batteries, sweets, mini maglite, range cards and all kinds of random crap. I used to carry a lot of privately purchased stuff, but have since realised that nearly everything I need is available through the supply system.

In Afghanistan I was a lot more able to strip down to the absolute minimum - attached to my Osprey were my mag pouches for six mags, six 40mm pouches, a PRR, and a utility pouch for my mine marking kit, rifle pull through, miniflare (for warning people off when dismounted) and bandoleer of extra ammo. Tucked into the MOLLE loops was my racing spoon, rifle combi-tool and mag charger.

My daysack was kept right by the door of the wagon, and contained a camelbak, 24 hours of food, loads of lucozade powder, a ton of spare batteries, my CWS and HMNVS, a bandoleer of 11 40mm rounds plus 5 loose, rifle and UGL cleaning kit, several water bottles, and, in the top zip pocket, my PSP with a selection of films and games and whatever book I was reading. The idea was that this would be the only thing I'd grab if I had to leave the wagon under fire, and so it contained everything I might need. If I went on foot patrols I'd strip out what wasn't needed and travel light, often just taking the camelbak and leaving the rest if it was a quick bimble. Also, as I spent a lot of time in and around the wagon, the book and PSP gave me the means of entertaining myself without having to dig around in my bergen on a short stop. I tended not to eat, drink or use batteries from my daysack as the wagon I was the top cover on was the Flight CSS vehicle, so I could happily grab what I needed without digging into my emergency stocks.

You may be able to tell that I am a firm believer in one of the clauses to Murphy's Law, which is that the more you prepare for something, the less likely it is to happen.

My trouser pocket contained morphine, tourniquet, two field dressings and a selection cyalumes, both IR and visible. The other trouser pocket held my notebook and pencil, leatherman, headtorch (I had an LLM on the rifle so I didn't bother with a maglite) and random bits of food for giving to locals.

[perardua]

Oh, and for all of three days I carried the Sig pistol I was issued in a thigh holster, before, like nearly everyone else, I realised it was unnecessary, annoying and useful only for posing like James Bond, so I binned it off.

[pmulcahy11b]

Something I liked to have a good supply of were Granola Bars (I can't remember the specific brand, but they came in a green box and I haven't seen them in the stores for years). Great energy food; one or two will fill you up for hours, they're great energy food, and take up almost no space -- you can stash several of them on your person. You can easily eat them on a full-speed road march, and you can even munch on them during a patrol. The granola bars they sell these days in the US suck in comparison, and are made more for taste than nutrition; if you want something these days similar in quality, you'll have to pay a premium for items that are specifically sold as "energy bars."

Sometimes, they'll just inexplicably take something good off the market. What ever happened to Captain Crunch with Crunchberries and Tang?:(

[Eddie]

What ever happened to Captain Crunch with Crunchberries and Tang?:(

I buy both every payday.

[HorseSoldier]

Of course, I get back to my reserve unit and find that in the year I've been gone it's become full of new recruits, and as a result has reverted to strict packing lists and kit checks before every exercise. Furthermore, because my face is no longer known, I'm treated like one of those recruits by the newer members of the training staff. Annoying.

That is, of course, the problem. New Joes fresh out of basic training rarely have much of a clue as to what they need to go to the field, much less into combat. It takes good NCOs (and good troops) to get that sorted out to the point where you can trust the troops to do their own thing. The packing list is the path of less resistance, however much of a headache it is to have a room full of junior enlisted guys playing "show me a canteen cup."

[perardua]

I agree, I just have fond memories of the days when it was only applied to the new people, not everyone.

[pmulcahy11b]

Of course, I get back to my reserve unit and find that in the year I've been gone it's become full of new recruits, and as a result has reverted to strict packing lists and kit checks before every exercise. Furthermore, because my face is no longer known, I'm treated like one of those recruits by the newer members of the training staff. Annoying.

I'm reminded of that scene early in Platoon where SGT Elias is checking out his new guys before they go on a patrol. He's looking at them, saying, "Shitcan this, don't need that, get rid of this..." etc. Most of the basic field issue for troops (don't know what they call it these days, but we called it TA-50) consists of "snivel gear" that you just don't need for most operations and is best left back at the camp. Unless you're on a road march for training, you pretty much left most of it behind for most of your work, and supplemented what you did carry with some small but useful items.

[Eddie]

It takes good NCOs (and good troops) to get that sorted out to the point where you can trust the troops to do their own thing.

SF and CAG doesn't even do this. The packing list and the PCC/PCI layouts are a leader's best friend. Now what with SF and CAG being such a small percentage of the US Army (and equivalents in foreign militaries), an old adage that my Platoon Sergeant told me when I took command of my first platoon was, "Sir, anything you or I don't check, Joe forgot. Joe will f*ck us if we let him."

At first I was kinda upset at the lack of trust and the misunderstanding about who "us" was, but the first time I trusted Joe to play by big boy rules, it bit my platoon in the ass when we needed some BII for one of our 240s.

I don't know...maybe it's my background from my first unit, but I'm a firm believer in carrying everything on the packing list to the ORP and dropping rucks before you begin your assault.

[Eddie]

I'm reminded of that scene early in Platoon where SGT Elias is checking out his new guys before they go on a patrol. He's looking at them, saying, "Shitcan this, don't need that, get rid of this..." etc. Most of the basic field issue for troops (don't know what they call it these days, but we called it TA-50) consists of "snivel gear" that you just don't need for most operations and is best left back at the camp. Unless you're on a road march for training, you pretty much left most of it behind for most of your work, and supplemented what you did carry with some small but useful items.

Which could have all been avoided by the issuance of a packing list.

Instead, the movie tried to make an effective point instead of making Elias an effective leader.

And it's still called TA-50.

[perardua]

I wonder if my feelings are affected by the culture of my reserve unit when I first arrived. It was small, most of the members had been on multiple operations before, and due to the nature of the reserves in the UK at the time, nobody turned up if they didn't want to. The guys who were regularly attending training were well motivated and often older and more mature than their regular counterparts, hence the feeling that we could be trusted to square our own shit away.

Went on ops with a regular unit, and they also didn't see the need for a formal packing list. There were some items you had to have, but everything else was mission specific and worked on the theory that all you should have in your webbing/on your Osprey is ammo and water. As for daysacks, in vehicles they were set up as grab bags if you had to bail in a hurry, but on foot patrols you cut down your personal gear to fit into one of the side pouches, and the rest of the daysack was for Section/Flight ammo and kit. Of course, some of that may have been affected by the fact I was on mortars and thus we potentially had to carry a lot more crap than everyone else, hence we were pretty brutal with binning stuff off when required. That, and mortars tended to have the older and more mature guys on the squadron.

Came back to my unit, and, as mentioned, it had suddenly gone from 25% manned to 100%, and most of the new manpower did need some handholding compared to the old bunch. As a result, we turned to relying on the PAM for packing lists, and now I have webbing with far too much stuff in it that should be in my daysack or bergen, and bergens that are a good weight for road marches, but not at all representative of what is carried on ops.

[headquarters]

SF and CAG doesn't even do this. The packing list and the PCC/PCI layouts are a leader's best friend. Now what with SF and CAG being such a small percentage of the US Army (and equivalents in foreign militaries), an old adage that my Platoon Sergeant told me when I took command of my first platoon was, "Sir, anything you or I don't check, Joe forgot. Joe will f*ck us if we let him."

At first I was kinda upset at the lack of trust and the misunderstanding about who "us" was, but the first time I trusted Joe to play by big boy rules, it bit my platoon in the ass when we needed some BII for one of our 240s.

I don't know...maybe it's my background from my first unit, but I'm a firm believer in carrying everything on the packing list to the ORP and dropping rucks before you begin your assault.

We have a saying in our forces ( NCO level and up ) :
"trust is good.control is better " .
Meaning that your job is to make sure the rest does theirs in all its details .

Also we dont say " Joe " with us its either "Ola Dunk " or " Johnny".

"I need the supplies moved over there "
"take 3 Johnnies and get it done "
hehe.

[Eddie]

My saying, and I admit I stole it from some unremembered source is, "Trust, but verify."

[perardua]

I've heard that saying. I suspect it ultimately depends on your unit, your relationship with your troops, and your tasking.

In the case of mortars when I was with them, we were at one point maintaining an 8 man overt OP, an on-camp mortar line and a constant patrolling presence with 28 or so men, not including R&R, sickness, etc. That meant that A) our NCOs were extremely busy (our officer spent most of the tour on compassionate leave), and B) we all had to be ready to step into someone else's place at a moments notice. It was not unusual for people to come off the helicopter from the OP after 8 days and be told that they were on a patrol that was leaving in 5 minutes, which left little time for kit checks.

In those circumstances, we never had anyone lacking vital kit, the only kit checks we conducted were to ensure we had all our sensitive items once a month.

Of course, if we were doing deliberate ops such as arrests or assaults, we would do kit checks and all that good stuff. But even then, it wouldn't be the case of being given a specific packing list, more a case of carry what you know you need, and Section/Flight kit will be spread out amongst you as necessary.

[Eddie]

There is always time for the TLPs. And an OP is a combat mission in and of itself. You haven't had a chance to download mission-essential items from stepping off of that bird. Maybe you have to put stuff back on and readjust, but you haven't turned anything in yet.

Quite honestly, I know that I couldn't operate the way you're describing. I don't know if it's something unique to your unit, or if it's a Brit Army-wide practice, but if one of my PLs was running his PLT that way, I'd have his ass standing before the BC recommending a job on the staff.

Nothing sucks worse than to seize an OBJ, capture the HVI, and then have your RTO tell you that the batteries in the camera are dead, no pictures for the prosecutors this time. That happened to one of my peers during my deployment. Any leader that doesn't check that stuff out is not doing his job.

[perardua]

Equally, our leadership felt that we were fine as we were. I can't speak as to other units, but we never had an incident of essential kit being forgotten, or lack of spares.

Obviously we have had different experiences with different military cultures, and how you lead your unit is entirely up to you. Our leadership chose to treat us as professionals, and it paid off for them. Maybe if we had different leaders, or if the personalities on the Flight were different, then we also would have enforced packing lists rigourously.

Different strokes for different folks, and all that.

[jester]

DAMN!

I am so glad I am out and from what I hear glad they denied me when I tried to get back in, sorry if this seems like a slap, but especialy the army.

It sounds like there is little is any leadership, and thus everything is micromanaged. And that sort of system does not develope leaders. It developes bureaucrats, which is the enviroment that was allowed to develope durring the 90s so the senior level zeros and ncos of today were learning their craft then, and poof here we are.

In my take, its part of uniformity. Everyone knows their duties, and knows the kit they are required to have for said duties. Poof enough said, done. A man is supposed to have the items he needs to handle his tasks. Part of SOPs and such.

In the olden days ;) it was the NCOs and even non rate team leaders to ensure their men had what they needed to handle their mission, and that is what we did. All were deemed capable of doing their jobs and expected to do them, if they didn't preform well they found a place for them in supply or the mess hall counting, inventoring or something else that needed to be done but required no knowledge, skill or initiative where a screw up couldn't result in casualties or degraded mission.

The junior NCOs did their jobs, they were treated as adults and became leaders. The Platoon Sgt simply checked with the squad and team leaders who would give the thumbs up, or alert any issues, and the Pltaoon Sgt would handle it or refer it to the platoon comander (seldom was this done, things got handled "inhouse" at usualy the squad level.)

Thus, our leadership became excperienced, we became professionals and considered ourselves such, the officers and seniopr NCOs left us alone and they did their own jobs and not ours (unless new Lts showed up who seemed to want to do everyones job which we had to show them we knew our shit and they didn't so we would expose them at every chance when they messed up. After a while they would learn and back off.) In the end, we did run like the proverbial machine, trust of the enlsited was developed by the officers and we developed trust in them <or made them look like utter fools and they would disapear to supply or the motorpool> and we all could focus on our jobs and mission and have much less stress for all invovled.

One thing, and again this is from my time back in the stone age and now sitting on the sidelines, but, isn't leadership "inastilled!" I do not mean through classes or reciting codes and creeds or being sent to a school or course. For us, you already had to be a leader to go to those things. It sounds like the leaders are just laying down on the job, and I mean the small unit leaders, or has it become such a climate where "that is the way it is." Because the system has been doing that for so long, where the officers don't let the men and junior leadership do what they are supposed to do.

Remember, trust is needed because you are going to have to trust everyone in your team with your life! So, they need to be trusted to do their most basic of tasks and that is pack their own gear and what is needed to accomplish the mission!

Lists are needed, but not down to how many needles in your sewing kit. And yes for the REAL items for those who slack, they pay the penalty, replaced, grab an e-tool to make a full sized mock up of a trenchline or every example of a fixed defesnsive position in the manual for a company. "Oh you left that behind again! Well remember the full sized examples you dug last time? Well, now you get to crawl under the barracks and dig them there!"

How can troops learn to be good NCOs if they aren't allowed to do their jobs?


Sadly, I am told this is similiar with junior officers as well.

[jester]

My saying, and I admit I stole it from some unremembered source is, "Trust, but verify."

President Ronald Wilson Reagan said it in a speech nuclear limitation talks with Gorbachev.

[Eddie]

Equally, our leadership felt that we were fine as we were. I can't speak as to other units, but we never had an incident of essential kit being forgotten, or lack of spares.

That's impressive, I've never heard of any unit that could make that claim. I don't know, Reserve units in the UK must be massively different from what we call the Reserves. In the US, Reserves have outdated, crappy equipment that is usually left over from Vietnam or Desert Storm. Their discipline usually matches, despite their good intentions.

I have a couple of Brit officers in my large class, I'll have to ask them about this stuff on Monday. I just find it mind-boggling that they don't do it. That's not a derisive comment, it's just one of astonishment.

I didn't mean to imply that you guys were "wrong" for operating the way you did in an absolute sense of the word. After all, there are a million ways to fight. I just meant what I said, I could not operate that way as a leader. See below for reasons.

Our leadership chose to treat us as professionals, and it paid off for them.

It isn't a question of "treating them as professionals" or not "treating them as professionals" in my opinion. In mine, it's being a professional leader yourself and taking every action you can to mitigate as much tactical and accidental risk as possible to ensure that as many of your people come home as possible.

It sounds melodramatic but as a former NCO and now an officer in the Infantry, I've been entrusted by mothers and fathers to do everything in my power to keep their sons safe. Even more basic than that though, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if one of my guys didn't have something that got them or someone else killed or maimed on one of my patrols. My incident with the 240 glove was minor, but when we needed it, we didn't have it, and as a young Lieutenant who had gotten lazy, I checked myself.

You keep mentioning your "Flight." I assume you were RAF?

[perardua]

RAF Regiment, yes (too blue for the army, too green for the RAF). That might be another cause for a difference, the highest level we operate at is Sqn level (reinforced company), and nearly everything we do is at Flight (Platoon) or often Multiple (half Flight) level. And the RAF culture is very different from Army culture, which is a whole other thread (as the people responsible for trying to make the rest of the air force realise that it's actually a military organisation, we sometimes... clash with members of other trade groups).

I think one of the differences between US reserves and ourselves is that we don't deploy as a formed unit, we get attached to a regular unit and do our pre-deployment training with them. I get the impression the US operates differently. I dont know if it's different for the TA (I've heard of TA soldiers being called up and then deployed a couple of weeks later, our cycle is normally to get the call up, go through 4 months PDT with the unit we're attached to, then do the tour). As for our equipment, for reserves we're quite up to date, and the sheer fact we've got someone on virtually every deployment means we keep up to date with what's in theatre. Discipline, as mentioned, revolves around the fact that if you don't want to be there, you won't turn up, and then you get booted, especially now we're fully manned. But, as I said, I trained, was equipped by, and deployed with a regular unit.

And finally, I would be interested to hear what the policy is in other units. I'm pretty limited to the RAF Regiment so itd be nice to find out if my experiences in the reserves and with regular troops are a pleasant aberration or a common thing. I'm pretty sure, as with all things, it depends on the situation and the troops involved though.

[jester]

Eddie;

Can I ask, this;

Aren't you doing a disservice to your men by not letting them learn to be leaders and do for themselves what they need to? So then they can operate on their own? After all you will not be there all the time, there will come a time and a day when they will have to act for themselves. And if they haven't done it they will surely suffer. Kinda like the whole "give a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life." Or as the shrinks say the term is "enabling." And this goes not just for a packing list, but for operations and training. Remember one of the traditional hallmarks of the US that helped us win in the Pacific especialy was our versatility and adaptability whereas the Japanese always kept to the plan. And then we also have the evil empire and many of the countries in Europe where the NCOs or senior NCOs and officers are the only ones who lead, command or know how to operate key equipment, thus you take out the leader and that system or part of the plan is KAPUT!

I know in my unit, most of us craved leadership and responsibility to prove outselves and thus we always did what it took to excell and thus 90% of us could handle damn near any billet and position in the platoon except for maybe the Corpsman and in many cases we would end up doing just that for weeks and months sometimes.

[perardua]

Just to say, I'm finding this thread sufficiently interesting that I've just burned my dinner.

[pmulcahy11b]

Just to say, I'm finding this thread sufficiently interesting that I've just burned my dinner.

I don't need an interesting thread to do that. I can honestly tell that yes, it is possible to burn water! I was once boiling some water in a pot, forgot about it, and when I got back to it, there was this black mess on the bottom of the pot.

[perardua]

That's quite impressive. I have no excuse, I finished my degree yesterday so it's not like I've got anything better to do for the next month!

[perardua]

Actually, just had a thought that might seem odd - the film Black Hawk Down is pretty much a film about what happens when you don't bring the right kit for the job (even if they job may not have been well-advised in the first place). I can honestly say it's why I never went left the vehicle for any length of time without at least my HMNVS on me somewhere.

[Eddie]

DAMN!

I am so glad I am out and from what I hear glad they denied me when I tried to get back in, sorry if this seems like a slap, but especialy the army.

No problem. I'm more than happy to debate leadership styles and philosophies. For the sake of clarity, you are a former Marine, correct? I believe I read that on one of threads around here...

It sounds like there is little is any leadership, and thus everything is micromanaged. And that sort of system does not develope leaders. It developes bureaucrats, which is the enviroment that was allowed to develope durring the 90s so the senior level zeros and ncos of today were learning their craft then, and poof here we are.

That's an easy assumption to make based on a few posts on an internet forum. Please define leadership for me as you mean it here.


In my take, its part of uniformity.

That's a huge part of it. If we're in the middle of a patrol and our truck gets hit, rolls, and things get jumbled up, you grab the nearest rucksack and unass the truck to take cover, it helps if everyone packs the poncho in the same pocket, or the etool, or whatever you need so that you can grab it blindly in the dark without having to use a red lens flashlight (or for that matter even having to see it period).


Everyone knows their duties, and knows the kit they are required to have for said duties. Poof enough said, done. A man is supposed to have the items he needs to handle his tasks. Part of SOPs and such.

So an officer, a Platoon Leader/Commander doesn't have any responsibility for his men or his mission? They get paid so much more than an E5 because that shiny bar looks prettier?

And what happens when TSHTF and dude who had X job and stashed the gear for that in the bottom of his ruck isn't conscious to tell the others where it is? They dump his ruck? Does the platoon take a timeout to reset themselves? Having a packing list and an SOP of what goes reasonably where is a method of mitigating that tactical risk.

In the olden days ;) it was the NCOs and even non rate team leaders to ensure their men had what they needed to handle their mission, and that is what we did.

And they still are. The Team Leader is the first person responsible. It's his job. It's his purpose. But who checks to make sure he isn't too busy worrying about Momma back home with his newborn kid that just went to the hospital? Who checks to make sure that he isn't too busy playing the PS3 to verify his team has what they need? And so on and so forth.

PCCs (Pre-Combat Checks) are the sole realm of the NCO. A layout. A simple question of "Do you have everything?" A visual checkover. Whatever works for him. He knows his troops better than anyone else. PCIs (Pre-Combat Inspections) are the realm of the Officers. A spot check of this, a pet peeve of that, making sure that everyone's water is full. Not a complete walk through of every little item because that is what the NCOs did.

But what happens when he's an idiot? What happens when he comes up to his squad leader and says, "Hey Sergeant X, can I use your NODs tonight at the Range, I forgot mine?"

In front of the whole company (I was both thankful that he wasn't and wishing he was in my PLT that day).

How does that PL trust him to do his job after that? How can you trust that he did his job prior to that and you just didn't get lucky?


All were deemed capable of doing their jobs and expected to do them, if they didn't preform well they found a place for them in supply or the mess hall counting, inventoring or something else that needed to be done but required no knowledge, skill or initiative where a screw up couldn't result in casualties or degraded mission.

It's not that simple in a wartime environment. And it's been proven that not everyone is capable of doing the job that they're expected to. You can't tell me that you didn't see guys that got promoted when they shouldn't have? That weren't put in a position that they weren't ready for?

"F*ck up, move up." Any ever hear that?

Hell, it's not that simple in a peacetime environment.

And I'd say that there is very few jobs at the company level and even Battalion level that don't degrade mission if done poorly or result in someone becoming a casualty if the right equipment isn't there.

The junior NCOs did their jobs, they were treated as adults and became leaders.

Really? All of them? You never looked at a guy and just said, "How? How did that guy get picked/promoted?"

The Platoon Sgt simply checked with the squad and team leaders who would give the thumbs up, or alert any issues, and the Pltaoon Sgt would handle it or refer it to the platoon comander (seldom was this done, things got handled "inhouse" at usualy the squad level.)

How is the Platoon Commander not "in-house?" It's his platoon. If his mission fails, the Battalion Commander isn't coming for that guy that forgot his widget...he's going to fire that Platoon Leader.

And I completely agree with handling things at the lowest level possible. No issue with that. But once again, the PL needs to know what is going on so that he doesn't step into a minefield or get blindsided by his superiors.

Thus, our leadership became excperienced, we became professionals and considered ourselves such, the officers and seniopr NCOs left us alone and they did their own jobs and not ours

In general I agree with this, but your next comment that I'm going to quote is very unprofessional.

(unless new Lts showed up who seemed to want to do everyones job which we had to show them we knew our shit and they didn't so we would expose them at every chance when they messed up.

Wow. All I can say is wow. That's a very professional tactic as opposed to, I don't know, consulting him privately and expressing your concerns or demonstrating your alternative to his course of action.

After a while they would learn and back off.)

It sounds to me more like they would just not care. Or were weak leaders and wouldn't stand up to his NCOs.

In the end, we did run like the proverbial machine, trust of the enlsited was developed by the officers and we developed trust in them

Which is what everyone is striving for. But I ask, why did it have to become a confrontational, Es vs. Os type occurrence?

<or made them look like utter fools and they would disapear to supply or the motorpool> and we all could focus on our jobs and mission and have much less stress for all invovled.

Couldn't your professionalism have spoken so much better for you by showing that new LT the error with his suggested COA and the effectiveness of the recommended COA

One thing, and again this is from my time back in the stone age and now sitting on the sidelines, but, isn't leadership "inastilled!" I do not mean through classes or reciting codes and creeds or being sent to a school or course.

Instilled? Or innate? Is leadership something that you're born with or taught? Or is it a combination of both?

For us, you already had to be a leader to go to those things.

To what? Schools and stuff? Once again, assuming I'm correct in your Marine background, the Corp doesn't have people getting promoted into a higher rank based on time or, more often, people he knows in high places. SGMs never took care of their driver in the Corp?

It sounds like the leaders are just laying down on the job,

Which is exactly what it sounds like to me in perardua's posts.

and I mean the small unit leaders, or has it become such a climate where "that is the way it is." Because the system has been doing that for so long, where the officers don't let the men and junior leadership do what they are supposed to do.

I know very few officers that don't listen to NCOs. There are some out there, yes, I don't deny that. But the majority listen, heed, and respect the wealth of knowledge that the NCO Corps brings to the military. I know that I made very few decisions both as a PL and as a Company Commander without consulting my Platoon Sergeant and my First Sergeant, and even when I did consult my First Sergeant I checked with one or two of my Platoon Sergeants usually as well. Granted this was in a training environment for the Company Command time.

In combat, though, I was the decision maker. I was the one responsible for those men. I was the one that was maneuvering that assault element where I wanted them. I was the one telling that squad leader to take his people there and secure that. Not my Platoon Sergeant. Not my squad leaders who were too focused on their little piece of the fight. Were they capable? I have no doubt that two of them were. The other not so much.

I didn't promote him. I couldn't trade him. I couldn't demote him. So I was just supposed to accept that he's an NCO and thus he knows what he's doing and will keep my men alive? Hell no. If that's micromanaging, then so be it. I'm not a leader to be a friend, I'm a leader to accomplish the mission and keep my men alive.

Remember, trust is needed because you are going to have to trust everyone in your team with your life!

Exactly. You are trusting them with your life, and as a leader, you're trusting them with the lives of your other men. Don't you owe it to those other men to ensure that people are doing the right thing behind just saying, "We good, Sarn't?"

So, they need to be trusted to do their most basic of tasks and that is pack their own gear and what is needed to accomplish the mission!

How do they know what is needed to accomplish your mission though? Does a Private know what the effectiveness of a PAS-13 is and that it has to have special Lithium AA batteries as opposed to just Duracell AAs or it will die in less than 30 minutes? Are you willing to bet the ability of your machinegunner to see the enemy at 800m as opposed to right in his face on that trust? Suppose he gets lazy just one time? Is it realistic to expect everyone to be 100% disciplined every day?

Lists are needed, but not down to how many needles in your sewing kit.

Yack, :spit:, ugh. Is that words someone is trying to put in my mouth? I never said anything to that detail. I said a packing list. Not an inventory of every piece of BII in the TM.

I could care less if my guys have the polarized filter for their NODs. But I want them to have a helmet mount, a swing arm, and the PVS-14 as well as a serviceable battery cover, fresh batteries, and a tie down. Is it asking too much that as the single guy that will be held responsible if something does go wrong, that I be allowed to spot check guys and make sure they're doing the right thing?

How can troops learn to be good NCOs if they aren't allowed to do their jobs?


Sadly, I am told this is similiar with junior officers as well.

But you're ranting that a junior officer shouldn't learn his job. He shouldn't be in charge. He should just shut up and let the NCOs and Es do all of the work and then take the credit for it. And if he does try to learn, make fun of him until he goes away and lets you do what you want to do.

Being a "good" NCO and being a "competent" NCO are not the same thing in my opinion. A "good" NCO, is a guy who strives to know his job inside and out, is physically fit, and imparts that philosophy on those around him for the betterment of the unit, whether that person is a Joe or his new PL.

That's how I tried to behave and that's what I took with me when I made the switch over to the O side of the house.

If there is one thing that I absolutely hate and wish I could change every day, though, is this erroneous attitude that it's Os vs. Es in the military. That shit pisses me off to no end, because my life, and my wife and children's husband and father, is on the line just like that NCO who may or may not be ready for his job.

[Eddie]

Eddie;

Can I ask, this;

Aren't you doing a disservice to your men by not letting them learn to be leaders and do for themselves what they need to?

Absolutely not. I was typing up my reply to your other post and answered just this question. Read the part about PCCs and PCIs and how they differ.

So then they can operate on their own?

Addressed this as well. To further it though because I'm pretty sure you're not going to like the part where I said in combat I make the decisions, I'm talking about big stuff.

"I need a squad there. SSG Z, take your squad there, establish a blocking position."

"SSG T, establish a base of fire here. SSG D, get your squad on me, I'll take you to the position I want you to assault from." Or with two of my squad leaders, I could have said, "take your squad to <that spot there> and assault from East-to-West/Left-to-Right/In-to-Out/etc."

After all you will not be there all the time, there will come a time and a day when they will have to act for themselves.

Yep, but who is responsible for when they fail?

And if they haven't done it they will surely suffer. Kinda like the whole "give a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life." Or as the shrinks say the term is "enabling." And this goes not just for a packing list, but for operations and training. Remember one of the traditional hallmarks of the US that helped us win in the Pacific especialy was our versatility and adaptability whereas the Japanese always kept to the plan. And then we also have the evil empire and many of the countries in Europe where the NCOs or senior NCOs and officers are the only ones who lead, command or know how to operate key equipment, thus you take out the leader and that system or part of the plan is KAPUT!



NCOs in the US military are some of the most "enabled" NCOs in the world. Absolutely no military in the world uses them the way that we do. The level of trust and confidence that we entrust them with and the authority we give them is profound.

But can you honestly tell me that every one deserves that trust?


I know in my unit, most of us craved leadership and responsibility to prove outselves and thus we always did what it took to excell and thus 90% of us could handle damn near any billet and position in the platoon except for maybe the Corpsman and in many cases we would end up doing just that for weeks and months sometimes.

And obviously you can't by your "most of us" comment. How do we treat that other 10%? Wear blinders and hope?

[Eddie]

Actually, just had a thought that might seem odd - the film Black Hawk Down is pretty much a film about what happens when you don't bring the right kit for the job (even if they job may not have been well-advised in the first place). I can honestly say it's why I never went left the vehicle for any length of time without at least my HMNVS on me somewhere.

I wondered how long it would be before someone brought this up.

If it matters, this is the exact reason why leaders check their guys before a mission and why I'm so adamant about it. I grew up as a Private in 3rd Ranger Battalion and Jeff Struecker was my TAC in RIP.

[perardua]

Snip massive post

I've got to admit, I completely agree with almost all of that. I take exception to the suggestion that our officers and NCOs were laying down on the job - the very fact that every member of the Flight could be relied upon to know what he needed and to make sure he had it with him kind of gives me the impression that actually, they had done their jobs well. That, and the fact that they were all, without exception, long service professionals who, in my opinion, led us well and took good care of us.

On the other hand, as I have tried to make clear throughout all of this, different units, different branches of service, and different countries have different ways of doing things. I suspect that the squadron I served with (a ceremonial unit renowned for attention to detail) differed drastically from, say, II Sqn (our airborne unit). And the RAF Regiment differs from the Army infantry, just as the British forces as a whole differ from the US.

For us, it worked. For others, it may not. And in the end, it's all about effectiveness. By treating us as adults I like to think that we behaved like adults. In some units, or for some individuals, that approach may not work, so you use one that does. I'm sure my next tour, with a different squadron, will be vastly different from my last one, and, as always, I'll improvise, adapt and overcome.

[perardua]

NCOs in the US military are some of the most "enabled" NCOs in the world. Absolutely no military in the world uses them the way that we do. The level of trust and confidence that we entrust them with and the authority we give them is profound.


I beg to differ :p

Seriously though, in my experience British NCOs are extremely 'enabled' as you put it. My Flight was led by a Sergeant throughout almost the entire tour, and the quality of the vast majority of Corporals I have met is beyond comparison. I had the pleasure of playing enemy for part of the FT1 (now FT2) which is the RAF Regiment equivalent of the Army's Section Commander's Battle Course. I don't know about the US equivalents, but that course is tough. It lasts several months (I have no idea exactly how much, they've just changed all the career courses) and produces aggressive and independent NCOs. Your mileage may vary, as with everything.

[Eddie]

I take exception to the suggestion that our officers and NCOs were laying down on the job

That's okay, I took exception to your professionalism remark. ;)

On the other hand, as I have tried to make clear throughout all of this, different units, different branches of service, and different countries have different ways of doing things.

And I acknowledged that at least twice. I also said that my statement of not being able to work that way was for me and my self-imposed sense of responsibility.

[Eddie]

I beg to differ :p

I didn't say that other nations don't use them effectively. I just said that no one uses them the way that we do.

[perardua]

That's okay, I took exception to your professionalism remark. ;)



And I acknowledged that at least twice. I also said that my statement of not being able to work that way was for me and my self-imposed sense of responsibility.

Fair one. My apologies. As for the differences between units thing, that was aimed not so much as you as at others, I have a great deal of paranoia about being misunderstood.

Anyway, in the end, I am an SAC who does what he's told. You're an officer, you have a lot more responsibility than I ever will, and it's your job to look after your men in whatever way you see fit. I'm not going to tell you what's right or wrong, it all comes down to what works. Which has led me to the following conclusion:

My posts have basically described how we did things on my last tour. It worked for us. However, there's a chance that particular method could go badly wrong. I don't know how strong that risk is, but clearly it was felt that it was not high enough to be a problem.

Your posts have talked about how you do things. It works for you. It certainly reduces the risk of things going wrong. I would argue that there are advantages to the method I experienced in terms of promoting responsibility amongst individual soldiers/airman/marines/what have you, but that if I were in your position, with your responsibility, I would probably do exactly what you did if I thought there was the slightest chance someone would forget something important.

And now for a completely different question:

How does the US use NCOs? I'm curious to see how it differs from my own experience.

[Eddie]

How does the US use NCOs? I'm curious to see how it differs from my own experience.

The more appropriate question would be how do we not use them.

All of the things you talked about with your NCOs, you see in the US military as well.

NCOs will lead patrols. They'll assume the duties of a Platoon Leader. They'll fill duties of staff officers. They'll basically do everything except assume command of a Company or higher. They'll sign for millions of dollars of equipment. They'll be responsible for analyzing intelligence that determines the outcome of various decision-making processes. They'll train individuals, crews and teams.

They are where the rubber meets the road.

But we also hold them to a higher standard than other nations do. I guess it's the level of responsibility and professionalism that we expect from them. For instance, in the Iraqi army, NCOs to the level of Sergeant Major really have no authority. It's the officers that run their army. Stuff that a Staff Sergeant or a high-speed Sergeant would do in our Army, would have a Captain in charge of it.

I can't really give you specifics that will make a light bulb click on and say, "Oh, I see it now." It's more than just combat leadership though. It goes more to their value. For me, some things that come to mind...

As a PL I had an E5 that had gone to Malaysian Tracker School, a couple of civilian shooting courses (Army-sponsored attendance, that is), and a lot of high-speed, low-drag training that he really lucked out on. Contrary to what Jester thinks of me, I knew that I could rely on him to do what was right and ensure that his guys were doing the same thing (yes, I still conducted PCIs on his guys so that no favoritism was perceived and that no one would think I didn't do it to him, so I wouldn't do it to them). I was the only PL in my company that sent an E5 out as a patrol leader on any patrol.

After I took command of my first company, I received guidance on tasks that I needed to train my men on, I came up with a timeline of when I wanted to train certain parts and what the ARTEPs and MTPs said we needed to be able to do, and I went to my NCOs and had them tell me what we needed to do to achieve a T-level proficiency. How did we train those tasks? I entrusted the safety and proficiency of my men (as well as my reputation as a commander) to my NCOs. Granted, I had a First Sergeant who had been a Master Gunner, a Drill Sergeant, and God-knows-what-else; a Platoon Sergeant who was the head instructor at the US Army Sniper School (one of my instructors as a matter of fact) and had developed the Army's Long-Range Marksmanship/SDM Course; a Platoon Sergeant that had been to every school under the sun except for Ranger, SF, Sniper, and Master Gunner it seemed like; and another Platoon Sergeant who had been in the Army for 18 years. They've forgotten more than I'll ever know. I took what they came up with then, made the training plan, and started delegating out classes to Platoons to teach the Company.

Webstral, your thoughts? You were an officer as well.

[Eddie]

Now on the flip side, you get some real turds as well. Guys that get promoted when they shouldn't. Know people that take care of them. Know how to work the system. The usual stuff.

[cavtroop]

I don't have anything of real meat to add here - I never made it past E-4 in the US Army, so... :-D

I just want to say that I find this conversation fascinating. It's wildly interesting to see the different leadership styles, both of individuals, organizations and whole armies.

So, thanks to everyone participating, that's why I love this forum :)

[Graebarde]

Very intersting discussion gentlemen. One thing that was not address, or if it was I missed it and appologize, was the real reason for uniformity of the uniform/LBE... yeah, it's pretty when everyone looks the same, but I had an old sergeant tell me way back when I asked the same question (Thing about Yanks is we have to have a REASON for everything.. ;)). His response made the best sense I've heard, "So you can find your buddies aid pouch in the dark.. or his magazines or what ever.. time in combat is critical.. you don't have time to search and dig for something critical. When everyone has said item in same location as you.. easy to find." Yes there are exceptions made, but uniformity for this reason makes great sense. Funny though MOST highers I've seen did it for looks rather than functional reasons *sigh*

Grae

[Eddie]

Very intersting discussion gentlemen. One thing that was not address, or if it was I missed it and appologize, was the real reason for uniformity of the uniform/LBE... yeah, it's pretty when everyone looks the same, but I had an old sergeant tell me way back when I asked the same question (Thing about Yanks is we have to have a REASON for everything.. ;)). His response made the best sense I've heard, "So you can find your buddies aid pouch in the dark.. or his magazines or what ever.. time in combat is critical.. you don't have time to search and dig for something critical. When everyone has said item in same location as you.. easy to find." Yes there are exceptions made, but uniformity for this reason makes great sense. Funny though MOST highers I've seen did it for looks rather than functional reasons *sigh*

Grae

Apology accepted. ;):D

[pmulcahy11b]

Now on the flip side, you get some real turds as well. Guys that get promoted when they shouldn't. Know people that take care of them. Know how to work the system. The usual stuff.

Yes. Like my stepmonster. 28 years in the Marines, promoted all the way to Sergeant Major -- and yet has never displayed any sense of personal honor or integrity. To me, it's baffling how something like his career can happen.

Anyway...rant over.

[cavtroop]

Yes. Like my stepmonster. 28 years in the Marines, promoted all the way to Sergeant Major -- and yet has never displayed any sense of personal honor or integrity. To me, it's baffling how something like his career can happen.

Anyway...rant over.

It'd be interesting to know if he was combat arms, or not. I've seen non-combat arms SFC, SGM etc that have zero morals - mostly in supply. But I've not dealt with one that was corrupt. Some serious ars*holes, but not morally corrupt. Though they must exist, I'm guessing they do much more so in the support roles vs. combat arms.

[Eddie]

It'd be interesting to know if he was combat arms, or not. I've seen non-combat arms SFC, SGM etc that have zero morals - mostly in supply. But I've not dealt with one that was corrupt. Some serious ars*holes, but not morally corrupt. Though they must exist, I'm guessing they do much more so in the support roles vs. combat arms.

According to the Marine Captain in my class, the Corp tends to mix them up. Your First Sergeants and Sergeants Major could come from any career field into that slot and some of them just don't cut the mustard.

[perardua]

I get the sense, then, that you use NCOs almost, if not exactly, identically to us! I'd post more, but I'm entertaining filthy students! :p

[cavtroop]

According to the Marine Captain in my class, the Corp tends to mix them up. Your First Sergeants and Sergeants Major could come from any career field into that slot and some of them just don't cut the mustard.

Ah, interesting - I don't have much experience (read: none) with Marines.

And my line above: "But I've not dealt with one that was corrupt."

should read: "But I've not dealt with one combat arms that was morally corrupt."

*sigh* so much for proof-reading :)

[perardua]

To amplify my last quickly, we do all the things Eddie described, using NCOs in senior staff positions, for training officers at the service academies, we had Corporals leading patrols, Sergeants leading multiples and Flights, going on high powered courses (I really can't explain how demanding a Section commanders and Tac Sergeants courses are, suffice to say they are not easy).

[jester]

Actually, just had a thought that might seem odd - the film Black Hawk Down is pretty much a film about what happens when you don't bring the right kit for the job (even if they job may not have been well-advised in the first place). I can honestly say it's why I never went left the vehicle for any length of time without at least my HMNVS on me somewhere.

Blackhawk Down is a good teaching tool, but realisticaly, the mission was planned to last all of 30 minutes on the ground and taking place in the day. Of course the mission went south in so many ways. And all other options were slow in comming. <Just watched it an hour ago, lived durring it in uniform and tried to make it to the theater several times> But, there is a difference between bailing out of a vehicle in hostile territory, operating in enemy territory intentionaly and well the whole, "shit happens" aspect.

I will say, one can not plan for every event. We can, but its unrealistic unless you want your team bogged down with all manner of gear. We are operating in the desert, but hey it can snow, so lets bring our goretex. There is a river, so we need a zodiak. I mean the line needs to be drawn.

You mention the nigh vision aspect of Blackhawk Down as your example. But, they also ran out of ammo too and medical supplies. Which would be expected to be used durring the action, but, how much of those would you want to have on a raid? After all the purpose of a "Raid" is to be quick, in and out, so you travel light.

As for burning your dinner, how can you tell? I mean you folks in the UK normaly serve your food like that don't you? ;)

[Eddie]

Blackhawk Down is a good teaching tool, but realisticaly, the mission was planned to last all of 30 minutes on the ground and taking place in the day. Of course the mission went south in so many ways. And all other options were slow in comming. <Just watched it an hour ago, lived durring it in uniform and tried to make it to the theater several times> But, there is a difference between bailing out of a vehicle in hostile territory, operating in enemy territory intentionaly and well the whole, "shit happens" aspect.

So what you're saying is that you were just as there as the rest of us, right? Okay, no problem.

If you guys want, I can invite Chaplain Struecker, Keni Thomas, or a host of other people who were actually there to the forum. I mean, if we're going to throw around pedigrees and justifications, I'd say the guys that were there have the best ones, right?

I will say, one can not plan for every event. We can, but its unrealistic unless you want your team bogged down with all manner of gear.

Let's just agree to disagree on priorities of planning and micromanagement vs. doing your job.

We are operating in the desert, but hey it can snow, so lets bring our goretex.

Well, if it is snowing it means it's cold, right? Is that in itself not enough reason to have a jacket? I don't know, that's just me thinking about mitigating the accidental risk of cold weather injuries...

There is a river, so we need a zodiak. I mean the line needs to be drawn.

Absolutely, no one has said anything about not using common sense. In fact, since you joined this thread you've been nothing but derisive and argumentative. I'm wondering is it me, officers in general, or me as an officer?

I started posting on this forum again after a long hiatus to cool down and some other reasons, but I gotta say, I'm not feeling too welcome right now.

You mention the nigh vision aspect of Blackhawk Down as your example. But, they also ran out of ammo too and medical supplies. Which would be expected to be used durring the action, but, how much of those would you want to have on a raid? After all the purpose of a "Raid" is to be quick, in and out, so you travel light.

I don't understand the purpose of this part of your post. Eighteen hours of combat tends to eat through ammo and medical supplies. Is that the point you're trying to make?

[HorseSoldier]

The more appropriate question would be how do we not use them.

But we also hold them to a higher standard than other nations do. I guess it's the level of responsibility and professionalism that we expect from them. For instance, in the Iraqi army, NCOs to the level of Sergeant Major really have no authority. It's the officers that run their army. Stuff that a Staff Sergeant or a high-speed Sergeant would do in our Army, would have a Captain in charge of it.


We don't do much with them that's very remarkable or different than other 1st World nations, from what I've personally seen. Sure we do more with them than developing nations, but a big part of that is quality issues, NCO recruiting policies (i.e. those nations that rely on shake & bake NCO tracks for conscripts), and such.

[Eddie]

We give them a lot more professional education than anyone else.

I'm just saying.

Your opinions may vary.

[jester]

I feel slighted!

If I were to speak your words I'd say,

"I haven't met one who wasn't moraly corrupt" ;) But, then again morals are totaly different, as the saying goes, "I'd trust ya with my life, but not my money of my life."

Eddie, I will be cutting and pasting and replying in detail. Some I can agree on, some not just no, but hell no! And what do you mean by the crack of "contrary to what Jester thinks?" I do have a low general opinion of occiffers <spelling is intentional> but I have had the priveledge to have served with some stellar ones as well. Overall though, most in the regular service are interested in bettering their careers even at the cost of their men. And this info has come from some of the stellar officers I served with.

As for Marines, yes I am for a time in the 80s and 90s. And this is also something to think about, of course we do things differently. How we operate, and are organized is similiar more to the UK military than the Army. In my unit we operated frequently with UK forces and in all honesty, we operated with less issue with them than when we worked with U.S. Army forces, even putting the rivalry aside.

I will make one other remark, you are a reserve officer? So, do you have regular experience? And the complaint of having inferior equipment. We always had inferior and obsolete equipment when compared to the Army which makes the mission harder but it is still accomplished.



Ah, interesting - I don't have much experience (read: none) with Marines.

And my line above: "But I've not dealt with one that was corrupt."

should read: "But I've not dealt with one combat arms that was morally corrupt."

*sigh* so much for proof-reading :)

[Eddie]

I will make one other remark, you are a reserve officer? So, do you have regular experience? And the complaint of having inferior equipment. We always had inferior and obsolete equipment when compared to the Army which makes the mission harder but it is still accomplished.

Nope, Active Duty Army since 1996.

[jester]

Huh? When have I slighted or personaly or even intentionaly attacked you? I even prefaced ALOT of what I said and tried to so in a comical manner using terms like "in the olden days." Lighten up! Don't take out whatever it is on me. If I were to attack or make infrences I would be direct. I haven't and never intended so please don't jump to conclusions.

So what you're saying is that you were just as there as the rest of us, right? Okay, no problem.

You posted choke, gasp etc about putting words in your mouth. Don't do so here. Marines landed first. We were there for some time on two occassions before it went political and the UN went in. My unit alone had four drafts for personel to ship over. And I requested mast after the second. Please knock the chip off your shoulder. I was using that as an example of the times, to have been in uniform at that time, and be held in check. But also at a time when equipment was not being replaced or maintained, numbers were reduced and folks were having to do more with less. A freind of mine put it, "I served when clinton was in office, I've used duct tape to hold my equipment together." But, you failed to post the context in which the post was made as well, and then throw out names. Remember, freshman debate class. When you attack the oponenet directly you loose credibility. I have not started any venom, I asked some questions and you feel threatened? Dude, CHILL!

If you guys want, I can invite Chaplain Struecker, Keni Thomas, or a host of other people who were actually there to the forum. I mean, if we're going to throw around pedigrees and justifications, I'd say the guys that were there have the best ones, right?

My pedigree was what? Huh? You asked if I was a Marine, I responded I was. I posted a time frame when I was in. As was posted earlier, different strokes for different folks. And that applies, different times and different units. Again, when did I prompt such an agressive response? Chill


Let's just agree to disagree on priorities of planning and micromanagement vs. doing your job.

To short to really reply. But it seems civil so okay.

Well, if it is snowing it means it's cold, right? Is that in itself not enough reason to have a jacket? I don't know, that's just me thinking about mitigating the accidental risk of cold weather injuries...

You misunderstood the point! Anything can happen. Can you plan and have your personel hump every item of kit for each and every possible situation that may go down? You know, the more you load your troops the slower they go, the more a chance of injury of your personel etc. And that is why I made an almost absurd example of cold weather gear in the desert, or a zodiak because there is a river in the area.



Absolutely, no one has said anything about not using common sense. In fact, since you joined this thread you've been nothing but derisive and argumentative. I'm wondering is it me, officers in general, or me as an officer?

Argumentatvie? I asked some questions simply that, and added "back in my day in the stoneage" Again trying to illustrate times and situations as well as organizations are different. As for officers, honestly, at this point, you are helping foster that idea. I am also thinking along the lines of obsesive and control from what you post here being so defensive, passive aggressive with me, and your posts about your control of your personel.

I started posting on this forum again after a long hiatus to cool down and some other reasons, but I gotta say, I'm not feeling too welcome right now.

Dude, chill. I was really asking about the differences and such. I have not meant nor said anything as a personal attack. If it comes off that way, that was not the intent. Relax.



I don't understand the purpose of this part of your post. Eighteen hours of combat tends to eat through ammo and medical supplies. Is that the point you're trying to make?

No, I answered it above, but again the point and I am guessing it was missed. Clear the anger or idea I am attacking. I was trying to say, and you are a senior company grade, so you have a different view, so really I'd love to get a different perspective. An operation that was planned to last as a quick snatch and grab lasting no more than an hour in broad daylight, where it was not planned nor expected to turn into a long drawn out fight where you are surrounded and facing an entire town of hostiles. It wasn't planned, it wasn't expected, it wasn't prepared for. I mean, when you prep your personel for a "routine" patrol supposed to last for four hours or so, do you outfit them with enough ammo and other gear to sustain them for a week? But, as they say, shit happens.

The point, just because it is possible, though not likely, do you prepare for it?

To be specific, a hour boots on the ground op. Do you equip them to have enough to sustain them for several days unsupported? Of course not.

As for me and officers, some are stellar, some are less than stellar. Do you have a thing against Marines?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While I see a lot of passion in Eddie's responses at times that may come across a little aggresively (I don't mean that in any derogatory sense) I do agree with his sentiments.
It's all fine and well to say you should place your trust in the people you command so that they can step up to the task and prove themselves reliable but how do you actually establish that they can be trusted to be reliable?
You check on them, just like Eddie said.
On the issue of packing lists for equipment, I remember one NCO saying that packing lists were for the benefit of the Section (Squad in the US), not for the benefit of the individual. He went on to say something along the lines of (paraphrasing badly) "Sure you can pack your spare socks where ever the f*ck you want but your ammo better be in the same place as everyone else in case we need to grab it fast if you get your fool-arse killed"

[Eddie]

Huh? When have I slighted or personaly or even intentionaly attacked you?

You never attacked me personally. But in post #27 (http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=22639&postcount=27) you took a distinctly condescending tone about officers trying to do the right thing and likened it to micromanagement and not knowing their place. Then in a subsequent post, you lumped me into that category by asking how I was preparing my men to survive without me. Singly, either one is not bad and both are written in an dual-toned mannerism.

I even prefaced ALOT of what I said and tried to so in a comical manner using terms like "in the olden days." Lighten up! Don't take out whatever it is on me. If I were to attack or make infrences I would be direct. I haven't and never intended so please don't jump to conclusions.

You generalized a group of people of which I'm a part of. How does that not pertain to me? That's like me saying all NCOs are lazy or all Marines are robots.

You posted choke, gasp etc about putting words in your mouth. Don't do so here. Marines landed first. We were there for some time on two occassions before it went political and the UN went in. My unit alone had four drafts for personel to ship over. And I requested mast after the second. Please knock the chip off your shoulder. I was using that as an example of the times, to have been in uniform at that time, and be held in check. But also at a time when equipment was not being replaced or maintained, numbers were reduced and folks were having to do more with less. A freind of mine put it, "I served when clinton was in office, I've used duct tape to hold my equipment together." But, you failed to post the context in which the post was made as well, and then throw out names. Remember, freshman debate class. When you attack the oponenet directly you loose credibility. I have not started any venom, I asked some questions and you feel threatened? Dude, CHILL!

My pedigree was what? Huh? You asked if I was a Marine, I responded I was. I posted a time frame when I was in. As was posted earlier, different strokes for different folks. And that applies, different times and different units. Again, when did I prompt such an agressive response? Chill


And my point was that for you to spectate and speak about Mogadishu is about as potent as me to speak about it. I was in the Ranger Battalion that was involved in that incident. I name-dropped to point out to everyone that if we want to debate the BHD Incident, I can get the personnel involved in it on here. I speak to a bunch of them almost every day on Armyranger.com.

And I served in the Clinton Years as well, brother. I remember what it was like to go do a PLT LFX with 1000 rounds of live ammo for the whole PLT.

You misunderstood the point! Anything can happen. Can you plan and have your personel hump every item of kit for each and every possible situation that may go down? You know, the more you load your troops the slower they go, the more a chance of injury of your personel etc. And that is why I made an almost absurd example of cold weather gear in the desert, or a zodiak because there is a river in the area.

For the record, I was in Iraq and got snowed on. My point is that your strange variables don't exist in a vacuum. Other conditions have to be present for your crazy stuff unless the enemy has captured the HAARP Array. A Gore-Tex jacket isn't an anti-snow jacket, it's a cold weather jacket. If it's cold enough to snow, that means it's below freezing, right? Or at least close. Mitigate the risk.

Argumentatvie? I asked some questions simply that, and added "back in my day in the stoneage" Again trying to illustrate times and situations as well as organizations are different. As for officers, honestly, at this point, you are helping foster that idea. I am also thinking along the lines of obsesive and control from what you post here being so defensive, passive aggressive with me, and your posts about your control of your personel.

No, you didn't just start out posting simple questions. You posted how you browbeat and embarrassed officers into knowing their place essentially and now you are calling me obssessive and controlling for wanting to spot check and verify that my NCOs are doing the right thing. Why are NCOs above reproach? Can they not make mistakes and have bad days and just be idiots?

When have I said that I control my personnel? In combat? You never received orders to assault that building? You were never told to lay down a base of fire oriented from X to Y? Never assigned sectors of fire? Why is it an NCO's job, but an officer is micromanaging if he does it?

Dude, chill. I was really asking about the differences and such. I have not meant nor said anything as a personal attack. If it comes off that way, that was not the intent. Relax.

I've demonstrated with perardua that I'm not here saying one way is better than the other. But when I'm told that a guy bullies people into knowing their place because we have no business ensuring the safety of our people, and then that I hand hold and baby my people, yeah, I tend to get a bit defensive. I didn't realize I was being passive aggressive though.


No, I answered it above, but again the point and I am guessing it was missed. Clear the anger or idea I am attacking. I was trying to say, and you are a senior company grade, so you have a different view, so really I'd love to get a different perspective.

Alright, fair enough. I ask you to cease the snarky comments about LTs and officers knowing their place and sticking their noses where it doesn't belong until they get taught by an E.

An operation that was planned to last as a quick snatch and grab lasting no more than an hour in broad daylight, where it was not planned nor expected to turn into a long drawn out fight where you are surrounded and facing an entire town of hostiles. It wasn't planned, it wasn't expected, it wasn't prepared for. I mean, when you prep your personel for a "routine" patrol supposed to last for four hours or so, do you outfit them with enough ammo and other gear to sustain them for a week? But, as they say, shit happens.

Exactly. And the point is not to assume that anything is going to go smoothly and you'll be in and out in 10 minutes. Hope for it. But don't count on it. Because as a Senior Company Grade officer, it's my job to understand that the bad guy doesn't want you to accomplish your mission and he's going to find ways to take away the advantages that you have.

To be specific, a hour boots on the ground op. Do you equip them to have enough to sustain them for several days unsupported? Of course not.

What is the threat assessment? What is the enemy's historical pattern of attack? What kind of enemy am I facing? A group of hillbilly insurgents or the North Korean hordes waiting to cross the DMZ? What is their mission that requires them to "sustain for several days unsupported" if it goes south? A LRS team surveillance mission? A squad movement to contact? A platoon raid on a hajji house? Each one of those would be tailored to a different purpose, but all of them would have contingency planning involved. I can't say that it would be several days, a day, a week, or an hour without knowing more variables.

Do you have a thing against Marines?[/B]

Actually as a generalization, yeah, I don't get along with them well. As a generalization, Marines in my experience have tended to be loud-mouthed braggarts that would rather latch on to a fight like a pit bull than use their brain for more than a resting place for their high-and-tight.

I've been pleasantly surprised by the two Marine Captains that have been in my two small groups in the Career Course here. Had some good doctrinal debates with them and gotten a little insight into your doctrine as well as some of your pubs to go over and compare to ours.

But the groupthink of the Corp still irritates the shit out of me.

[HorseSoldier]

Wow -- maybe everyone should dial it back a notch or two.

[Eddie]

Don't worry, we took it completely off of the forums and went to email. We're both big boys and not here to mess up the forums.

[perardua]

Glad I missed out on that! Anyway, I think this has been a very informative thread, even if I disagree with some of the points made, especially that US NCOs are unequalled in terms of education compared to NCOs of other first world armies, especially those based on the British/Commonwealth model - I think that's probably not an accurate statement. Of course, to get an accurate statement we'd have to ask someone who's had some experience of both, and then we get into the realms of anecdote and personal preference. Maybe we should agree to disagree on that one, rather than do what my first instinct was, which was to start comparing the length and content of training courses, etc. That sort of thing invariably turns into a 'my training is tougher than yours' penis length contest which doesn't get anyone anywhere.

[Abbott Shaull]

Wow what a civilizing thread. I find it both appalling and shocking that person who claims to be a Company Grade Officer material in the U.S. Army would take such offense and say such things in an open forum. You, Sir, and I use that term loosely, should be ashame for the public showing that you display today. It is one of the most disrespect of someone in your position can do. Surprise no one of the former NCOs didn't come up wipe you nose and tell you do shut up and sit down.

Surprise that none of the moderators closed this thread down either. Then looking at the time stamps, it could be one of the few times when they were all busy with real life.

Okay getting off my soap box now! *shakes head, just because you have the rank doesn't mean you will always get the respect that rank believes you deserve...It only goes so far, your actions and how you conduct yourself can earn or lose respect much faster than having commission.* Welcome to iggy...

I feel so much better now.

[Webstral]

Webstral, your thoughts? You were an officer as well.

My first time down the enlisted path taught me that as a lieutenant, the smartest response to almost any situation or challenge was to look over my shoulder and say, "What do you think, sergeant?"

When I first got in, the last of the Vietnam era guys were retiring. In general, I thought the Vietnam-era guys had the right attitude. I got some great wisdom on being a new lieutenant from a few sergeants major wearing on their right sleeves the insignia of units that did not fight in the Gulf.

The post-Vietnam senior NCOs were not as uniformly impressive. In my limited exposure to the combat engineering world, the officers expected the NCOs to do a lot. Some of them delivered. Some of them did not. The ones who don't deliver out themselves fairly quickly, but, as has been said, they can't always be gotten rid of. Following a six-week rotation to Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (Colorado), all of the master sergeants in the battalion headquarters rotated out to the line companies, and all of the first sergeants rotated in to the battalion staff. At this time, I was on battalion staff. I was not favorably impressed with the guys being rotated in. (Clearly, neither was the sergeant major.)

[Total aside: the leadership in the 4th Engineer Battalion did not give a damn who wore what or who carried what where, except for a few specific items. However, the division missed Desert Storm and Somalia; and this was before the real grind in former Yugoslavia started. It's hard to say how combat--or at least peacekeeping--would have changed the unit's outlook.]

I had some very good experiences with the drill sergeants in MI. They were smart, motivated, and capable. I'm thankful that I had my enlisted time before taking an XO slot in an AIT company. I knew just enough to know who to ask.

The other NCOs were a mixed bag. Some were excellent. Some were not. For the officer leadership considering how to get things done, I think it's a matter of judgment. The superior people make their presence known quickly enough, and they can be given more rope. The less-superior people are given less rope.

I can't talk to what other nations expect from their militaries' NCOs first-hand. I can repeat what I've read time and again from people who do know: Western nations have a long-standing tradition of high-quality NCOs; Russian-model armies generally don't have the same tradition. It's been a generation since the end of the Soviet Union, plus several military actions along Russia's periphery. Things may have changed for them. The Chinese have a long military history, although the benefits thereof seem largely to have been absent in WW2. How well the PLA did in Korea depends a good deal on whose accounts one reads. The older I get, and the more I read, the more I come to see that the exchange rate may not have been as favorable for the West as I grew up believing. The better the PLA did, given their circumstances, the better we must believe their NCOs performed.

I do know that we expect a lot from our platoon sergeants. I think these guys are even more important than the first sergeants, critical as good first sergeants are. Unless the squad leaders and platoon leader collectively are VERY strong or VERY weak, in my experience the platoon goes the way of the platoon sergeant. The platoon leader may lead in the field, but he leads the platoon sergeant's platoon. I've seen a couple of promising lieutenants face-plant because the platoon sergeant wasn't doing his job. I've seen more promising and not-so-promising lieutenants seriously get propped up by their platoon sergeants until the PL could learn to walk on his own.

It's a complex picture.

Webstral

[Webstral]

Clearly, I missed an empassioned discussion. Thank you, gentlemne, for seeing that the passions work themselves out in a more private venue.

Webstral

[Targan]

Surprise that none of the moderators closed this thread down either. Then looking at the time stamps, it could be one of the few times when they were all busy with real life.

I was asleep. Glad it didn't get any more heated though.

I was only ever in the Army Reserve but I have to say that Commonwealth and British Army NCOs are given a hell of alot of responsibility. And promotion as an NCO seems to be slower than in the US Army. From what I've seen Sgts and higher ranked NCOs in Commonwealth armies are often given levels of command and responsibility equal to what the US gives its new LTs. The modern US military is obviously highly effective so its not like the on-the-ground US military (Army & USMC) is a complete cluster f*ck or anything, but I'd be very surprised if the average US Army Cpl or Sgt is better trained and/or more experienced than the average Commonwealth Cpl or Sgt.

Eddie I understand that you feel you may have been personally slighted by comments on this forum. Please keep posting here because as a source of current US Army on-the-ground combat thinking on this forum you are pretty much unique. Also, irrespective of whether I agree with all of your opinions I have the utmost respect for the amount of time you have spent on active combat duty.

[Eddie]

Wow what a civilizing thread. I find it both appalling and shocking that person who claims to be a Company Grade Officer material in the U.S. Army would take such offense and say such things in an open forum. You, Sir, and I use that term loosely, should be ashame for the public showing that you display today. It is one of the most disrespect of someone in your position can do. Surprise no one of the former NCOs didn't come up wipe you nose and tell you do shut up and sit down.

Surprise that none of the moderators closed this thread down either. Then looking at the time stamps, it could be one of the few times when they were all busy with real life.

Okay getting off my soap box now! *shakes head, just because you have the rank doesn't mean you will always get the respect that rank believes you deserve...It only goes so far, your actions and how you conduct yourself can earn or lose respect much faster than having commission.* Welcome to iggy...

I feel so much better now.

No, I don't feel ashamed and nor should I. My PM explains my reasons. I suggest you and I move all further communications off of the boards as well.

[jester]

Targan;

Having worked with several commonwealth troops, and their NCOs and operated as a liason for such more than once. Nope, they aren't better or worse, I feel most are pretty much equal, different, strange sure, but over all I considered them on equal terms with us in the MC. I must say this, I have often felt that the NCOs of the Army were not equal to us. Not being arrogant or ego or service centeric here. But in my view and expereince as well as discussions with others from the army.

One big reason is the US Army, is a larger structure with greater funding they have a larger manpower pool to draw from and this includes their NCO's and Officers. Whereas the MC <In my day> and the commonwealth forces are smaller, with smaller personel pools and budgets so they have to do more with less. And often that means people filling positions above their pay grade, so these people need to step up to the plate and preform. As well as promotions comming at glacial speed so again the personel often don't get the rank to go with the job but the task must be accomplished reguardless.


Again, I also say some of it is the organization structure the Army is in a mindset that is now going from Division to Modular Brigade, whereas for most Common Wealth and the MC the Regiment was the prime organization with some going to Brigade, so its a smaller closer organization.

I have often thought about allies and foes, and it is a fool who thinks they are less than they, this leads to under estimation and often a rude awakening. Just because your oponent grew up without plumbing or electricity and sleeps in a hut in the jungle does not mean he is not as smart or dedicated as us. I have never done that. Let the facts be shown, if they turn out to be inept then they get the label, some with allies, they don't operate like us, well thats cool because they aren't us. Let their actions and results determine opinions.

I was asleep. Glad it didn't get any more heated though.

I was only ever in the Army Reserve but I have to say that Commonwealth and British Army NCOs are given a hell of alot of responsibility. And promotion as an NCO seems to be slower than in the US Army. From what I've seen Sgts and higher ranked NCOs in Commonwealth armies are often given levels of command and responsibility equal to what the US gives its new LTs. The modern US military is obviously highly effective so its not like the on-the-ground US military (Army & USMC) is a complete cluster f*ck or anything, but I'd be very surprised if the average US Army Cpl or Sgt is better trained and/or more experienced than the average Commonwealth Cpl or Sgt.

Eddie I understand that you feel you may have been personally slighted by comments on this forum. Please keep posting here because as a source of current US Army on-the-ground combat thinking on this forum you are pretty much unique. Also, irrespective of whether I agree with all of your opinions I have the utmost respect for the amount of time you have spent on active combat duty.

[Webstral]

Without making reference to any other idea in this thread, I agree that underestimating the enemy and/or overestimating ourselves is a constant danger to the US military and probably Western militaries in general. Misjudging the enemy and/or ourselves is a battle that must be fought constantly. Like the dark side of the Force, the temptation to underestimate the enemy's intelligence, determination, ability to adapt, and so forth exists at all times for all people at every level of command. While I'd feel safe putting down money that 90% or so of the rifles on the ground in Afghanistan understand that they are up against an enemy with some undeniable strengths on his side, I feel equally safe putting money down that folks much further up the chain have failed to take the challenge as seriously as it needed to be taken.

There was an article in Newsweek a little while back about the absence of a centralized, standardized, and properly-funded effort to build the Afghan police after a mere eight years of war. NPR and CNN commented on the President's reaction to the revelation. This is a failure of leadership at the highest levels, since efforts were being made on the ground to train Afghan police with whatever resources lower-echelon players could accumulate. Our leadership underestimated the challenge of putting together a proper police force, underestimated the importance of the police in fighting an insurgency, and overestimated the ability of conventional military forces to come to grips with the enemy at the force levels we were willing to maintain in Afghanistan.

Going along with your sentiments about the enemy's level of wealth and standards of living, Jester, we should remember that Western forces have been defeated or fought to a stalemate by poorer people who were willing to accept an unfavorable exchange rate. The French and the Americans failed to defeat the Vietnamese Communists, despite inflicting very serious damage and achieving a very favorable exchange rate. The Zimbabwean Communists eventually brought down Rhodesia, despite a very favorable exchange rate for the Rhodesians. The Taliban endure.

Of course, there are recent examples of triumph by Western forces--Malaya being salient. We need to do a better job at all levels of command in our efforts to learn the right lessons from Malaya, Kenya, Rhodesia, Korea, Vietnam, El Salvador, Columbia, the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, etc. Each of these wars has a distinct identity, but all have something to teach us about how those with technical inferiority fight enemies with more money and more flushing toilets.

Webstral

[Targan]

Having worked with several commonwealth troops, and their NCOs and operated as a liason for such more than once. Nope, they aren't better or worse, I feel most are pretty much equal, different, strange sure, but over all I considered them on equal terms with us in the MC. I must say this, I have often felt that the NCOs of the Army were not equal to us. Not being arrogant or ego or service centeric here. But in my view and experience as well as discussions with others from the army.

I've never served alongside soldiers from other nations but friends who have served in the Australian Army and have worked alongside US forces have said that the NCO structure of the USMC has more in common with the Australian Army than the US Army does.

[pmulcahy11b]

My first sensei said it best: "When you get in a fight, assume your opponent can defeat you."

[headquarters]

I am glad there seem to be grown ups debating here ,people who have the insight into themselves to know when to go PM /email and who manages to keep language civil eventhough opinions vary and the discussion is heated .

Several posters here got a little hot , but I dare say you reeled it in satisfactorily.As a moderator I was busy with RL and not up to speed,and possibly I would have acted at an earlier stage if I had been with it .But when that is said I think you have managed to cool off sufficiently.

But I would like to ask that everyone involved in the exchange here continue to ,or start to put their GOOD WILL into reading other peoples posts so that controversies that are not really there need arise.

Lets keep it a forum and not turn it into an arena .

As for the debate NCO vs Officers -well I have to chuckle a bit .No doubt both sides have a point in my HUMBLE opinion .( served as both myself)

Now,remember this is just one guys opinion and shouldnt really be enough to rile anybody ?

[headquarters]

We give them a lot more professional education than anyone else.

I'm just saying.

Your opinions may vary.

Not that the US NCOs arent put through a good education - but that it is better than ANYBODY elses..

I think this vary greatly .From branch to branch ,nation to nation and changing situations regarding funding etc etc .

As you said -different opinions are bound to be aired about this one .

All in my humble opinion of course

[Eddie]

Not that the US NCOs arent put through a good education - but that it is better than ANYBODY elses..

I think this vary greatly .From branch to branch ,nation to nation and changing situations regarding funding etc etc .

As you said -different opinions are bound to be aired about this one .

All in my humble opinion of course

Just to be honest, I'm beyond the point of caring about this. I'm not an instructor at any of the NCOA Courses, nor have I been to any foreign courses in that realm. I've talked to other personnel who were, I was told that in PLDC, I've talked to graduates and students of the Sergeants Major Academy, even talked to my old BN XO who taught at West Point for three years. Whenever the subject came up, I was told the same thing. However, I didn't care enough then to ask why or how. I can't answer it now. I'll publicly admit that and let you go on believing what you guys want to.

[perardua]

I am suddenly reminded of something that is repeated endlessly in British NBC training - "British NBC equipment is the best in the world." I have no idea if that's true (and don't wish to be put in a situation where I can truly find out), but it's been relentlessly drummed into me by instructors.

I suspect most militaries have a similar thing with regard to being told that "our x is the best in the world", and most people probably won't ever be in a position to objectively judge otherwise.

[jester]

I am suddenly reminded of something that is repeated endlessly in British NBC training - "British NBC equipment is the best in the world." I have no idea if that's true (and don't wish to be put in a situation where I can truly find out), but it's been relentlessly drummed into me by instructors.

I suspect most militaries have a similar thing with regard to being told that "our x is the best in the world", and most people probably won't ever be in a position to objectively judge otherwise.

That is quite common, it builds confidence and Esprit De Corps and all of those other cool words. But in the end it is simply a tool to help your troops/organization build on. And honestly I doubt the instructor has compared every other "system" in use by other nations to really see. Kind like how I posted earlier,

"doing/saying things because they have always done/said it that way withouth thought." In turn, it is kinda like being robots or simply parroting the training manual automaticaly reguardless of it being true or not. Heck, we all do such things at our jobs.

[headquarters]

Just to be honest, I'm beyond the point of caring about this. I'm not an instructor at any of the NCOA Courses, nor have I been to any foreign courses in that realm. I've talked to other personnel who were, I was told that in PLDC, I've talked to graduates and students of the Sergeants Major Academy, even talked to my old BN XO who taught at West Point for three years. Whenever the subject came up, I was told the same thing. However, I didn't care enough then to ask why or how. I can't answer it now. I'll publicly admit that and let you go on believing what you guys want to.

OK. Same ;)

[Webstral]

I am suddenly reminded of something that is repeated endlessly in British NBC training - "British NBC equipment is the best in the world." I have no idea if that's true (and don't wish to be put in a situation where I can truly find out), but it's been relentlessly drummed into me by instructors.

I suspect most militaries have a similar thing with regard to being told that "our x is the best in the world", and most people probably won't ever be in a position to objectively judge otherwise.

The US Army landed in North Africa in 1942, having been told the same sort of thing. While there were some areas in which the US Army performed better than the Germans, even at this point in time, the Germans in North Africa were a better force. Experience counts for something. History has taught us to be suspicious of claims to the effect that our force has the best/is the best in any broad area. Sun Tzu teaches us to be aware of ourselves and our enemy, so it's important to make an honest assessment.

Webstral