RoR: Forum

Post 0

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 7:07pm

Link

Edit

The man was exceedingly brave and a piece of metal doesn't seem to do his actions justice, but this bit makes me sad: "His upper torso and head were exposed as he manned the gun."

Why did the army take the gun shields off their vehicle-mounted machine guns? They paid the price for not having them on M113s in Vietnam! Dammit! Why do peace time armies make the same bloody mistakes time and again? Please tell me they weren't doing it to cut costs. Men like this are too few on the ground.

Sigh.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 4/04, 7:08pm)

Post 1

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 8:06pm

Link

Edit

I've heard from reservists who served in Iraq that some of their vehicles arrived there, not in combat configuration but in parade configuration - no armor so the gun and gunner will look impressive on parade. The armored pieces were sent separately and could not be located before the vehicles were sent into combat.

Post 2

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 3:53am

Link

Edit

Yes, usually, this happens if a nation or better the military does not anticipate a war. It seems that the military was as unprepared as the rest of the world, when the war got started. It seems that this was more a logistical problem and timing problem than a fault by decision.

I think the pentagon underestimated the time frame, they'd have to operate the equipment and the size of the operation big times.

I can fully understand the problems behind that, because if you ever tried to manage and organize a facility with 500 works, you know the complexity of the invovled problems and variables. Now, take that for 200000 soldiers and their thousands of equipment and add a coefficient for government-beaucracy and you will come to the conclusion that I have.
Either the military has planned the operation month and years in advance, or problems like misconfigured vehicles, ammo-problems and else are turning up and slow down the whole operation.
I think this was exactly why the US military had to slow down the operation, otherwise the Republican Guard would have been between weeks early.
I am still surprised about the speed of the whole operation, if you compare it to other military operations.

Sadly, for both mistakes, the lives of US soldiers will be in risk needlessly.

(Edited by Max on 4/05, 3:59am)

Post 3

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 8:18am

Link

Edit

Perhaps the military should have a new regulation that combat vehicles can be modified for parade/review, but must be restored immediately after.

Post 4

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 10:27am

Link

Edit

I think there are such rules, but the Iraq War demanded spontaneous adaption out of necessity (how often that happens is another story) and in regard to the situation.

I can only guess, here, because I haven't had any experience in the US army, only what I observed in the German and French military..

Post 5

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 10:30am

Link

Edit

Max said: "...French military."

That is an oxymoron.

Post 6

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 2:55pm

Link

Edit

> Why do peace time armies make the same bloody mistakes time
> and again?

Because there's often no *immediate* incentive to train properly in peacetime, and there are many associated costs, including deaths in training, which for some reason are treated as far worse than deaths in combat by the majority of the population.

Consider the R.A.F. training prior to WWII - fighter pilots practised three-abreast formation attacks against bombers. That worked very well until they tried it against real bombers which were evading and shooting back, often with fighter cover too.

Sometimes, too, it's a case of not properly anticipating future requirements. The USAF didn't fit guns to many of its fighter aircraft prior to Vietnam, as it envisaged they'd be used in bomber-intercept roles with missiles, as opposed to mixing it with MiGs.

Post 7

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 4:17pm

Link

Edit

I want to point out that the Army put together a good site about Sergeant First Class Paul Smith. The Marine Corps also has a contender for the Medal of Honor: First Sergeant Brad Kasal. The last two Americans to receive the Medal of Honor were two Delta Force sergeants who served in Somalia (their actions were in the book and movie "Blackhawk Down"). It has always been said that the sergeants are the backbone of the infantry. These men are proof of this (I am an E-5 so I may be biased).

Post 8

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 1:25pm

Link

Edit

Quoth Doc Garcia:

"It has always been said that the sergeants are the backbone of the infantry. These men are proof of this (I am an E-5 so I may be biased)."

It's not biased -- although you are, by definition, Petty ;-).

E-1s and E-2s are busy learning how to do their specific jobs. E-3s have mastered the functional aspects of their particular billets and are beginning to cross-train and maybe take charge a little. E-4s are learning what it _means_ to take charge.

E-5s _are_ in charge at the tactical squad level. The enlisted people above them are too busy getting beans and bullets, and holding an umbrella over the enlisted men to keep some of the bullshit raining down from above off their heads, to spend as much time in the dirt actually running ops.

Of course, you docs are exceptional in every way, especially when you're working with the grunts. There are only so many corpsmen for a unit, and that means that the E-3 is going to have to go out with a patrol ... led by a grunt E-5 who can lead troops in combat, but who is simply going to have to trust that E-3 sailor to make medical judgments. And that E-3 may or may not be able to get his chief on the radio to get advice. He has to count on it all being up to him.

You note a prevalence of Sergeants in earning Medals of Honor, but if I'm not mistaken, an even larger per capita category of Medal of Honor winners is naval corpsmen. There's a reason for that. Most docs I worked with in the Marine Corps would out-grunt the grunts, and patch them up, too. Corpsmen have a reputation for recklessly exposing themselves to hostile fire to save "their" Marines' lives. Y'all are crazy. And if you aren't personally crazy yet, no doubt 29 Palms is driving you in that direction. Gets awful busy when the 03-bulletstoppers forget to drink their water, doesn't it?

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 9

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 1:55pm

Link

Edit

Tom,

"It's not biased -- although you are, by definition, Petty ;-)."

Ha! I loved that. I guess that is another reason we try to "out-grunt" the grunts.

"And if you aren't personally crazy yet, no doubt 29 Palms is driving you in that direction."

After about 5 years with the Marines in Okinawa ("The Rock") and Twentynine Palms ("The Stumps"), it is too late for that! No wonder they're making me PCS to a Naval Hospital.

"You note a prevalence of Sergeants in earning Medals of Honor, but if I'm not mistaken, an even larger per capita category of Medal of Honor winners is naval corpsmen."

That could be. I read that the majority of enlisted Sailors who have received the Medal of Honor are corpsmen.

"Gets awful busy when the 03-bulletstoppers forget to drink their water, doesn't it?"

Yes, and even more so when those Devil Dogs forget to change their socks and take their Motrin. Weren't you a grunt in Desert Storm? You should know.

Semper Fi!

Post 10

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 12:02am

Link

Edit

Byron wrote: Yes, and even more so when those Devil Dogs forget to change their socks and take their Motrin.

I want the truth now, Doc. For once and all, I want the damn truth. Motrin does exactly nothing, doesn't it??? It's always been just a little sugar pill meant to placate the grunts, hasn't it?
"Doc, my ankle's busted!"
Take some Motrin.
"Doc, my liver's gone to shit!"
Take some Motrin.
"Doc, my head's blown off!!!"
Ummm....Motrin?

Really, I can't recall Motrin ever relieving any of the bumps and sprains I accrued in the infantry. I recall having a much better tolerance to swelling, sprains and bruises on a foot march if I'd had a couple beers a few hours' previous. It's all a lie, isn't it Doc?!?!

And another thing: why are medics so friggin' stingy with the good stuff?? (e.g. muscle relaxers, percocet, morphine, ketamine, horse tranquilizers, speed, methampheta....uhh...nevermind...: P)

edit: a funny little coincidence. I served in the 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment (Mech) for a little over two years. SFC Smith was attached to 2-7 Inf. during his final mission, the capturing of Baghdad International Airport. My old battalion commander, LTC Scott Rutter(Ret.)--whom I drove around in a humvee for a while and got to know pretty well--is the fellow that recommended SFC Smith be awarded the Medal of Honor. Small, small world. 'Course, if things had been slightly different and the Army hadn't sent me to Korea, I would have gone with 2-7 Inf. to Iraq. I also would probably never have found SOLO on the net. Strange how things work out.

(Edited by Jeremy on 4/07, 12:09am)

Post 11

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 7:42am

Link

Edit

Jeremy wrote: "Motrin does exactly nothing, doesn't it??? It's always been just a little sugar pill meant to placate the grunts, hasn't it?"

That is classified. I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you.

"And another thing: why are medics so friggin' stingy with the good stuff?"

We save all the good stuff for us. We may not show it in those force marches but we are in a world of hurt too. The only difference between me and a grunt is that I know for a fact I am not malingering. It's a primacy of consciousness thing.

Post 12

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 7:47am

Link

Edit

Maybe because the 'good stuff' is Alieve.......:-)

Post 13

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 8:06am

Link

Edit

FYI, I think Robert meant Alleve. Alleve is the trade name for naproxen, another NSAID that medics and corpsmen like to give to whiners, uh, patients when they run out of Motrin (trade name for ibuprofen). Naproxen is a little less cheap (aha!) but at least you can take it twice a day vice 4 times a day for Motrin so I do like it better.

What Jeremy meant by the good stuff is the narcs. There's nothing in my med bag like the natural high of good, old morphine or percocet!

Post 14

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 8:37am

Link

Edit

Quoth Doc Garcia:

"[E]ven more so when those Devil Dogs forget to change their socks and take their Motrin. Weren't you a grunt in Desert Storm? You should know."

Yes, I was an 0341 (81mm mortars) and, as is usual with Marines in the infantry, often a de facto rifleman. We never had a problem with Marines forgetting to take their ibuprofen. Ate it like candy.

We did, however, have one Marine who was always trying to get the docs to just wrap both his feet in moleskin BEFORE a march. Made sense to me, but they weren't buying. Personally, my feet might as well have been made of cast iron for the first 8 years. I never had a blister until the time we spent 11 consecutive days in water and/or rain. 40% of the company ended up with fairly serious cases of immersion foot. I didn't, but my feet haven't been the same since.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 15

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 2:48pm

Link

Edit

George,

I have a natural aversion to reading about real life war stories (don't ask why - cause I don't even know).

But I was glad to have read about Paul Smith. I am wistfully sad about what happened to him. But I am extremely happy that I am once again back in the USA and around real people who not only normally think like that (stepping up and taking responsibility, competence, self-control in emergencies, etc.), they do something about it.

Paul Smith's family has every right to be proud of him. I know I am.

Thank you for posting that article.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/07, 2:49pm)

Post 16

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 3:05pm

Link

Edit

MSK, thanks and you're welcome. He was a real American hero.

It is men like that, men that I personally served with in the Army, that make me so terribly proud of the wonderful spirit and courage displayed by the so-called 'average' American; a spirit and courage that is so sorly lacking among it's Ivory Tower intellectuals.

To me, there is no greater distinction a man can bestow upon himself than to say the words, "I am an American".

Along with that, there is no greater honor I can bestow, than to tell someone that they are an American in the *best* sense of what that word *should* imply.

For example: there is a New Zealander running about this forum that is a better and truer American than "oh so many" that have roots that go back to the Mayflower. You see MSK, being an American in the best sense of what that word implies, is not a question of citizenship; but of having a great soul.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/07, 3:15pm)

Post 17

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 4:32pm

Link

Edit

The citation for this award of The Victoria Cross is worth reading. They are awarded very rarely now .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4360461.stm

Post 18

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 11:38am

Link

Edit

Reading this I felt sadness, anger and finally, pride. Thanks for posting it!

When I became a U.S. citizen I did so out of choice and conviction. I now consider myself an unhyphenated and proud American.

John

Post 19

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 2:59pm

Link

Edit

David,

Private Beharry sounds like one hell of a soldier! I've always been surprised more Victoria Crosses aren't awarded. British soldiers are, in general, some of the hardest, bravest, most dedicated soldiers in the world. (Kinda like US Army Combat Engineers--SFC Smith, and US Navy Corpsmen--Doc Garcia. : P)