A brief contribution:
People talk about "training" as if it is one type of thing. There are a number
of historical incidences where training has killed people. They trained for
something and then were dropped
into something bad they hadn't trained for -
and then their training kicked in and they did WORSE.
Training is good if: 1) It is realistic (train like you fight, maybe throw in
1 live round in 100 to make people realize "this ain't a hobby") 2) It
emphasizes flexibility, initiative, and the ability to adapt to new tactical
situations 3) It is broad enough to cover as many possible scenarios as
feasible 4) It gives you a good appreciation for your own limits, your own
technology, your own logistics, and the same for the enemy
Training is bad if: 1) It blindly teaches you to be reactive (in X situation,
always do Y.... once I find out that is how you fight, I exploit that as your
adversary). 2) It isn't realistic (For example, never training in unarmed
combat with live steel means you develop a disrespect for a knife edge and
that can be very bad) 3) It isn't frequent (you get out of training quite
fast....). One of the main problems in the units I served in or with was a
puny training budget. Doing 1 trip to the rifle range per year isn't enough
for an infantry reserve unit. Everyone should shoot and engage in section
attacks and
other trade training at least 3-4 times
throughout the year in the reserves. Better yet, once a month! And the
training should be serious. 4) It trains you into inflexible ways of thinking
or it trains junior officers and NCOs not to display initiative but to wait
and wait for higher command to micromanage 5) If it trains you in your trade,
but with no appreciation for the other trades and branches
that produce the combined arms battle plan -
for example, having an infantry CO with no real clue about artillery
employment or fireplans coming up with impossible mission objectives for the
arty that is to support his infantry....
Experience is also something which comes in two varieties.
Good experience: 1) Teaches troops they can win (in the old days, commanders
conserved troops that they wanted to be "elite" and then set them loose on
weak foes - blooding them and giving them a
sense of their own power... combine this with real training and you eventually
have a confident powerful unit with traditions of not losing that become self
fulfilling) 2) Teaches troops what is important to their survival and a good
operation and what is important to have NOT happen 3) Teaches troops how to
appreciate the roles that other branches and other trades play within the
combined arms battle 4) Teaches troops how to pick themselves up and go on
after seeing their buddies blown up or shot 5) Conveys experience on how to be
better soldiers and get the job done faster, safer, and more cheaply (in terms
of life expended)
Experience is bad if it: 1) Teaches people that the key to survival is not
fighting to hard but instead finding a safe hidey hole or always being in the
back rank 2) Teaches people habits oriented entirely around personal survival
and not efficacy as a soldier 3) Destroys morale by inflicting huge casualties
which gut units 4) Teaches Other Ranks that their officers are willing to
spend their lives freely and that they aren't though of as being worth
anything 5) Teaches you that there was a certain way to be effective, and then
you try to apply that same dogmatic method in every case (even those where it
does not apply). This can be disasterous.
So, it isn't just a matter of training or experience. It is a matter of what
kind of experience, what kind of training, and what kind of future challenges
you face.
Add in doctrine of how armies fight wars, some
of which has been crack-inspired over the
years, technology (sometimes not appreciated, or appreciated by one side far
before the other
side figures it out - Germany, WW2, and fighter
planes as an example), and cultural issues (how much value is placed on a
human life? Do you get 72 virgins by dying a martyr? etc).
What do you get from all that? A very complicated mix that you can't hope to
quantify in any ruleset that isn't insane.
The best approach, IMO, is to look at each scenario or campaign and decide
what limitations or parameters should apply to the units involved in that
situation. Trying to accurately quantify all of these many and varied aspects
(and if you leave some out, you're screwed for any kind of worthwhile result)
is an effort foredoomed to produce a thick codex of rules (anyone for ASW with
all the supplements?) which border on unplayable without an AID or a
lawyer....
My 0.02.
Tomb.
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001 00:57:20 -0500 "Thomas Barclay"
> <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca> writes:
<snip ggod points>
> 3) It isn't frequent (you get out of training quite
Personal testimony.
Active time: 7 years 3 months, 12 days (they counted for me) in USAF as
medic and (last three in Orthopedic Clinic sh redout) fired M-16 ONCE
during basic in 1971 (four clips) - and they wouldn't even teach/let us
clean the things afterwards!!! - flight member next to me qualified top
category we could get because they shuffled us around at last minute and he
and I *both* hit target (39 centered hits for (officially) 20 rounds) because
we both thought we both were shooting at target number "9".
Never saw a M-16 again until I was in the Army reserve (college years,
round 2, via GI Bill) over ten years later.
While I was in the USAF I was moved to Hospital Central Supply and my NCOIC
was just back from a tour in Vietnam. What did they issue him as his personal
weapon? A.38 revolver, 6 loose rounds, 12 rounds in two speed loaders, and a
pamphlet on how to load, shoot and clean the thing.
Guess they figured medics didn't do base/hospital defense? Funny he
got
to hear a M-60 "used in anger" inside the hospital itself during a raid
on the base by the local VC.
I qualified very high while in the Army reserves. I do okay with a rifle
(learned as a kid from some NRA instructor types) but it helps a ton when the
targets were pulled in the same order every year on the same range set up.
Like that's going to happen in combat.
> 4) It trains you into inflexible ways of thinking or
"LT, the White House is on the line!"
> 5) If it trains you in your trade, but with no
How about something simple like "what do you do if the Hospital is hit" (war
or mass disaster) we did that once in our monthly triage drills) but they
forbid us to do it again, the rest of the base (who were not
"pre-informed" of the nature of that month's drill) ranged from failed
to marginal success. Our was based on the scenario that the next door training
facility (IIRC, altitude chamber type building) for the Flight Surgeon's techs
'blew up' in a training disaster and took out both the functionality of the
Hospital to one side and the Hospital barracks on another side.
Ugly.
Lesson learned?
Don't run that scenario again. Sheesh.
Good post, Tomb.
Gracias,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> Guess they figured medics didn't do base/hospital
It also depends on who you're fighting. If you're going up against a civilized
army you don't need to issue medics with rifles.
> I qualified very high while in the Army reserves. I
Side note: The rifle tables (and any other qualification tables) in the US
Army is mandated in the FM as far as range to targets, order they appear, and
time they stay up. It's standardized across the board so that saying you shot
expert means the same thing no matter where you qualify (otherwise you'd have
Finance units where everyone shot expert because their qualification was
easier than, say, and infantry unit's qual).
Still beats shooting at stationary bulls-eye targets
like the Marines.
> "LT, the White House is on the line!"
My favorite is the US Army's approach to the pursuit phase of the battle.
We NEVER train on pursuit because the enemy fights to the last man (hence a
focus on attrition strategies) and after every fight there's nothing to
pursue. Plus we have to stop and hold an AAR. So if you defeat the enemy, you
are supposed to (swear to God) have a "tactical pause" (trying to figure out
what an LT meant when he said this took 20 minutes because I refused to
believe in something that stupid) while your chain of command writes a new
operations order
and you go through your by-the-book "troop leading
procedures".
Japanese are civilized people? Right? I think so, I mean, in spite of not
cooking some of their fish. (That was a joke, I actually like some sushi.)
During WWII during the island hopping part of the war, a Corpsman
(medic) heard someone call out "Corpsman!" (pronounced "Core-man" for
those who Hooked on Phonics). The medic (the guy telling the story,
incidentally) shoulder's his bag and runs toward the voice to see a japanese
soldier smiling and getting a bead on him from right where the voide HAD to
have come from. He was lucky in that a fellow marine saw this and got in
position to shoot the japanese soldier before he got his shot off. That
corpsman carried a carbine obtained from one of our fallen soldiers for the
rest of his service.
This happened when America was "taking the fight" to the Japanese... so the
japanese were losing ground and the war. When you're losing, and you believe
that you are on the "right side" of the war, everything seems okay if it will
help you win. Losing a corpsman was a hard blow to a fighting unit, because
even casualties had a higher potential of becoming casualties, and the
increased urgency of moving the wounded to the rear for stabilization
diminished the units fighting ability until the corpsman could be replaced.
It was not uncommon for medical support elements to be targetted directly. I
can't imagine why it would be any different today or in the future once one
side starts to lose and has the capability to selectively target those
resources.
--Flak
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 11:15:22 +1100
> Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> G'day,
G'day,
> It also depends on who you're fighting. If you're
Hopefully.
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> We NEVER train on pursuit because the enemy fights to
You're not joking, are you.
OK, here's an optimistic view: LTs who are stupid enough to follow the book
here are so stupid that the book may say the right thing for them. Chew Gum
THEN walk, don't try doing both at the same time.
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 11:15:22 +1100 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
Kinda depends on how you define "civilized" isn't it? 1943 Japan? 1951Chinese?
American militia during the Plains Wars? Roman Legion?
1942-1943 Russian Partisans? SS? All nations have had aberrant (by
modern western standards) practices during war.
Medics are (even under the Geneva Conventions (aka rules for wars without
reality in some circles) IIRC) allowed 'self defense' weapons in modern
conflicts.
Gracias,
G'day,
> All nations have had aberrant (by
That's what I meant Glenn;)
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 12:17:06 +1100 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
Then we agree that "civilized behavior" is an ideal (and I *do* believe ideals
are exceptionally to be valued despite the frequent appearance of otherwise by
moi) that is more often then not (ratio varying) practiced by most troops most
of the time? But that the failure to follow such standards is the reason so
many of the failures to obey the standards are known in military history?
(Chivington, Malmedy, etc.)
It is times of retreat, pending failure/defeat, morale (and moral)
breakdown, and extreme cultural clashes that such things tend to become
the near-norm in war.
Gracias,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> Kinda depends on how you define "civilized" isn't
No and no.
> American militia during the Plains Wars?
Undisciplined. And that's one instance.
> Roman Legion?
Depends on how chopped up your wounded are--frequently
they would just sell them into slavery. And at that time, chopping anyone with
an infection or a gut wound was an act of mercy. Besides which that was before
conventions.
> 1942-1943 Russian Partisans?
No.
> SS?
Why don't you ask a Jew?
> All nations have had aberrant (by
Really? The only time I recall Regular US or UK troops shooting prisioners and
wounded as a policy is against certain SS units. You deliberately picked some
of the worst scum on this polanet. Oh, and undisciplined militia with
political appointees for officers. There are breakdowns of discipline in any
military--but some do make a serious effort to follow
the rules. And a very few actually try their own screwups.
> Medics are (even under the Geneva Conventions (aka
Obviously not among people who might have to observe them on occasion.
> IIRC) allowed 'self defense' weapons in modern
Sure. Which is usually interpreted to be a 9mm pistol.
--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au>
wrote:
> You're not joking, are you.
Nope. I'd have to look up what the book says our doctrine is, but...
> OK, here's an optimistic view: LTs who are stupid
Thing was that this one was bright by normal LT
standards (ex-supply sergeant, actually).
> LT's who have both 2 neurons to fire together and
> is best under their own special circumstances,
That would be good--if our higher chain of command
weren't so heavily into micromanagement. Which tendency FBCB2 only enhances
due to it's ability to let everyone in the brigade know exactally where
everyone else in the brigade is.
> --- Flak Magnet <flakmagnet72@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Japanese are civilized people? Right? I think so,
Nonsense. Civilization implies a certain amount of
value on human life--at a minimum, those who adhere to
the same values. Japanese culture puts absolutely NO value on human life other
than Japanese aristocracy, and minimal value on that. For illustrations, see:
Koreans, Ainu, Allied POWs, Chinese civillians (esp those living in Nanking).
> It was not uncommon for medical support elements to
Even at the end, Whermacht units didn't resort to atrocities. Those were the
province of SS, Hitlerjugend, and Werewolf.
From: "Glenn M Wilson" <triphibious@juno.com>
> Active time: 7 years 3 months, 12 days (they counted for me) in USAF
Bloody Hell. I got more training than that in the school cadet corps in the
early 70s.
4 mags (120 rounds) with a Bren on moving targets, and 100 rounds with a.303
Lee-Enfield date-stamped 1918 on static ones per year. I did rather
better with
the Bren, "every shot a coconut" with usually a 3-round group in a
dinnerplate-sized
area of a mansized target exposed for 2 secs at 200 metres. There was also
training in 9mm Berettas at 25m, and 9mm Patchett (silenced SMG) at the same
distance, but I didn't fire either. We also had demos of the L2A1 (Bipod Auto
Rifle version of the SLR) and a.50 cal MG. Which was a BRUTE to carry, even
with 4 men.
Heck, I can still remember "check-chop-check-chop-check" gas Stoppage
and Immediate Action drill on the Bren, and used it on the range too, in a 30
second gap between target exposures. Far too accurate and slow-firing
for a squad automatic weapon, really too heavy for issue as a standard rifle,
but for reliability, sniping and stopping power even against light armoured
vehicles with AP ammo, it was brilliant.
Also cammo-and-concealment, map-reading, night-movement exercises,
platoon
and company attacks, contact-and-ambush drill, but mainly lots of
fieldcraft,
"battle handsignals", formations etc. 3-day patrols without re-supply,
where
we had to locate an enemy company-sized force, prepare and execute an
ambush while evading detection (and with a 5km x 10 km area to cover with only
a squad, a compass, and a map). I learnt quickly that you cannot possibly
carry too much water when operating in an Australian Summer. And that "light
infantry"
is likely to carry 60+ pounds of equipment, even on a short patrol like
this.
Fortunately Australian involvement in Vietnam ended 3 years before I came of
an age to take part. I would have been silly enough to volunteer. As it was, I
transferred after my compulsory 2 years in the school army cadets to the
strictly-voluntary air force cadets, where I learnt about CBW,
Relax, John.
Yes I purposely selected the worst examples.
But they are not the only ones.
A lot of the answer to this part of the thread depends on who you look at in
*any* war, who writes the history afterwards and how much you accept the idea
that war is not noble but corrupts a generation (and to what degree) in the
process.
A lot depends on how you define civilized, also.
Gracias,
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 22:43:17 +1100 "Alan and Carmel Brain"
> <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au> writes:
Why do you think we 'prissy USAF types' hire people like John to be the
muscle?
Not that we don't have security types designated to defend the bases
(AP's - Air Police - and such) and that guys/gals don't fight to protect
their planes/hospitals/etc. (I knew an LT who claimed she got unofficial
'hands on' experience using a M-60 in a ward during her tour in Vietnam
because the guy using it went down and she had no where to run.) Seems the
locals were a little better prepared to hit the base then our side thought.
She said she was rather fond of the Army after the rest of the 'cavalry'
arrived to stabilize the situation...
Seriously, when I was in the USAF (August 1971 thru November (?) 1978) it was
kind of scarey sometimes since I had been a war gamer since 1951 and
knew that sometimes bases weren't 'behind the lines' - can we say
'Spetnatz'? (even if we can't spell it.)
Gracias,