Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer
I’d argue that unit identity, as against pure lineage, is a huge matter in the T2K world. Anecdotally, some units have immense levels of unit pride- Parachute Regiment, Armored Cavalry Regiments, 1st ID, etc. It stands to reason that this identity, built upon shared experiences prewar and in the war to date, has been one factor enabling units to hold together through nearly two and a half years of broken backed warfare. The patch on a soldier’s shoulder is a sign of belonging what has possibly become a surrogate family.
|
Agreed. Not to argue the point, but I think there are a couple of exceptions to this general rule.
The percentage of later war replacements in a given formation might have an adverse impact on unit morale and identity. I think it was in
Band of Brothers (the book, at least- but I've seen references to this phenomenon in other firsthand accounts of war as well) that many vets of D-Day decried the degree to which the 101st Airborne division (arguably one of the most prideful in the army, at the time) had "sunk" in quality by early 1945, mostly due to the loss of vets and the influx of green replacements. A lot of that shared experience you mentioned was lost as paratroopers who'd been with the unit since formation were killed or wounded. The FNG's either didn't arrive with the same sense of belonging or, in many cases, weren't allowed to feel it by the vets who resented the loss of their close buddies and didn't want to get to know the new guys since inexperienced troops' survival rate tended to be considerably lower.
And then there's the phenomenon of the "unlucky" formation (or ship) that, often unfairly, develops a reputation as being "cursed". This superstition/belief, when widely held by members of a unit, can contribute to its continued poor performance. It can become a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
-