US Army Combat Medic loadout

[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]

Originally Posted by perardua

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Eddie

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]

Originally Posted by Eddie

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

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]

Originally Posted by perardua

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]

Originally Posted by perardua

I beg to differ

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]

Originally Posted by Eddie

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]

Originally Posted by perardua

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Apology accepted.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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]

Originally Posted by cavtroop

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!

[cavtroop]

Originally Posted by Eddie

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by jester

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]

Originally Posted by Eddie

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.

Originally Posted by cavtroop

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]

Originally Posted by jester

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.