John has semi-occasional email access down and is busy being bored in
Kuwait & plotting further DS2 OOBs. He said "Interesting point--my
company was attached to a tank BN that was attached to the 101st Airborne for
about a
month, so I _may_ be entitled to the puking chicken for a combat patch.
How's that for a knee-slapper?" Despite this, he said (heavily
paraphrased) that he is even more irritated with the Turks than he was to
begin with.
Anyone who wants to distract him from le cafard can email
> "Interesting point--my company
What's this? 6 degrees to 101st Airborne?
As to the puking chicken comment...
I hope some 101st Private overhears him say that and educates him just enough
to make him never want to say that again.
He'd be LUCKY to wear the patch, and ought to be darned honored. (Which he
probably is, but it just being himself.)
Hope he hits US soil soon, safely. (Minus the deserved thrashing from a 101st
Private... *grin*.)
--Tim
> At 3:40 PM -0400 5/14/03, Flak Magnet wrote:
More like 2 it seems.
> As to the puking chicken comment...
Feh. I agree with John A on the Value of the Airborne in a modern environment.
Mechanized Warfare (and the Zoomies) won the Gulfwar, WWII, Korea (if that's a
win) and this latest scrap. It wasn't airborne drops. But good old fashioned
driving up the highway with tanks and trucks and APCs, with an occasional
driving over the
beaches activity. Sure, the para-heads make and take bridgeheads, but
you can't exactly exploit a breakthrough on foot.
To armor (and especially the No-War-4), para's are just a softer kind
of crunchy, bravado and fisticuffs not withstanding.
> He'd be LUCKY to wear the patch, and ought to be darned honored.
(Which he
> probably is, but it just being himself.)
Is John A that much of a ticket puncher? I'd expect not.
> On Wed May 14 2003 03:48 pm, Ryan M Gill wrote:
> >I hope some 101st Private overhears him say that and educates him
No disagreement there. Market Garden definitely drove that point home.
I was using a less "Gulf War: Take Two"-centric view of the issue. If
the 101st Airborne isn't to be respected, then the history of 101st means
diddly squat then? The patch is a symbol of the unit and a tie to it's past.
> To armor (and especially the No-War-4), para's are just a softer kind
Bah, any type or arms, armor included, can lose to any other if the conditions
are right. Combined arms win wars.
> >He'd be LUCKY to wear the patch, and ought to be darned honored.
(Which
> > he probably is, but it just being himself.)
Not sure what you mean by "ticket puncher"...
Your Airborne private better bring some help, John DOES NOT fight fair:) Of
course, JA is an NCO, the private better have good legal counsel.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 4:07 PM -0400 5/14/03, Flak Magnet wrote:
Market Garden shows an example of 2 mauled and hardly combat worthy Armored
Divisions beating the snot out of a single full strength infantry division in
urban warfare. The Airborne unit gave a splendid accounting of themselves, but
their situation was tenuous from the start. Airborne units can be very fragile
things. To think of them as just as combat capable as a Mechanized Ground
force ignores many key points in their usage and especially their
disadvantages.
Issues with past US Army war game rules (real stuff in the military) where the
Airborne units when para dropped were 'protected' from
artillery bombardment in the first 12-24 hours also drove it home.
Airborne units can't be dropped with any significant opposition in the
vicinity of the drop zone. If they are, their ability to consolidate their
forces and gather their combat power is severely degraded. Especially if the
red forces have artillery. An determined bombardment of the drop zone or
assembly areas would severely kneecap the airborne types.
Now, in a light conflict where the opposition can't find it's own arse in the
dark let alone a drop zone in their backyard, Para's are great. Even so, they
can get in over their heads quickly due to their low horsepower to weight
ratio when it comes to beating feet or pushing through an blocking force.
HMMWVs and Mk19 GLs just don't cut it in all the combat situations.
> I was using a less "Gulf War: Take Two"-centric view of the issue. If
It's certainly not be be spat upon. But it doesn't make it more valid than say
a patch from the 4th ID.
> Bah, any type or arms, armor included, can lose to any other if the
Granted, but the light infantry types are more vulnerable than most to counter
attack's by the other combat arms.
> Not sure what you mean by "ticket puncher"...
TICKET PUNCHER: A career military officer whose primary concern is personal
advancement. A common practice was to temporarily leave a rear area job and
spend a few weeks in the field with the troops for the sole purpose of gaining
decorations and awards such as the such as the coveted CIB (Combat Infantry
Badge)
Nit Picking but the 101st is Airmobile, not Airborne, since shortly after WW2
(IIRC.)
Difference?
Airborne jump out of perfectly goods planes, secures zone for Airmobile or
Mechanized linkup and, if it has to move tactically walks (or commanders
"temporary supplemental tactical transportation.").
Airmobile gets in chopper, rappels down, fights, gets back into choppers,
repeats process. Not quite so fragile as Airborne but much less
strategically mobile (You need a safe base - or at least secured for an
interval - to land the Cargo planes with the men, choppers, and other
equipment.) Tactically more mobile, strategically significantly less mobile,
not as fragile * but still "infantry" in nature. TOWs on
not-tanks (Choppers or other non-tank AFV - see below) is better than
notational mobile TOWs but not as good as a M-1 or even a M-60. Dragons
and LAWS (and their replacements) are a sign that things are "not going well"
if they are being used a lot to knock out an armor attack.
* (Although Choppers, even today's models, are NOT tanks! As in Zumbro's story
about a fight in Vietnam where a Cobra dropped into the line while one of the
Tanks was temporarily knocked out. After a bit he bailed out saying
(paraphrased) that this too dangerous when compared even to a hot LZ)
For a while the 101st has the Not-Tank Sheridan IIRC, at least on paper.
That was a candidate for most misunderstood and misused AFV ever (it was
designed a "recon" AFV (think egg armed with hammer - and not a
particularly good hammer at that.)
Gracias, Glenn
R.I.P. Triphibious@juno.com and Dwarf_warrior@juno.com
6 mm miniatures rule! Well, anyway in my mind they do!
On Wed, 14 May 2003 16:36:44 -0400 Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
writes:
> At 4:07 PM -0400 5/14/03, Flak Magnet wrote:
Been lurking here for a while.
Actually, the 101st is Air Assault. The rest of your description is correct
(heliborne, etc.). Airmobile means that it's equipment is (often) moved by
air, which includes flying into an airfield by transport plane, but may not
include jumping out.
Jay
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> Nit Picking but the 101st is Airmobile, not Airborne, since shortly
> diddly
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> On Wed May 14 2003 04:36 pm, Ryan M Gill wrote:
+++SNIP+++
> start. Airborne units can be very fragile things. To think of them as
Short version: Airbornes don't have the "staying power" of line units, and
shouldn't be expected to. It's not their role.
> Issues with past US Army war game rules (real stuff in the military)
+++snip+++
I have a lot of qualms about the rules OpFor is forced to follow in
wargames... It flies in the face of "train as you fight" and leads to
inflexibility.
> Now, in a light conflict where the opposition can't find it's own
No arguments there.
> TICKET PUNCHER: A career military officer
Ah. Thanks. No, that's not what I was implying, not at all.
> At 10:23 AM -0400 5/15/03, Flak Magnet wrote:
BAsically what I'm saying. They also don't have the tactical mobility over
great distances that a mechanized unit does. They're cheaper on logistics
though.
So, the basic conclusion I have for this is that a Puking Chicken trooper
should be just as respectful of the 4ID grunt who's helped his team change the
tracks on his Bradley in the muddy field as the 4th ID trooper is of the
Airborne trooper who's jumped out of some planes and earned his wings.
> On Thu May 15 2003 12:51 pm, Ryan M Gill wrote:
> BAsically what I'm saying. They also don't have the tactical mobility
Yup, pretty much, likewise vice-versa.
It sounds as if the 4 ID trooper has some professional jealousy. If you are
afraid to jump just say "I am scared." The bottom line is a riding soldier is
a lazy soldier. They are both on the same team and both are very important.
However to say that a line grunt is the same as the man who volunteers to be
dropped from an aircraft miles behind enemy lines is ridiculous.
So are you trying to start a flame war? The soldiers in the APC/tank/
mobile bridge vehicle are lazy????
> It sounds as if the 4 ID trooper has some professional jealousy. If you
I take it you don't know what John does for a living?
> At 2:22 PM -0400 5/16/03, SKEITH439@aol.com wrote:
Try the line grunt willing to ride in a thinly armored target through
artillery fire with a very good chance of burning to death is equal
to that man who could die from a fall/crash at altitude.
You can't say that units like the 1st ID or 4th ID that went ashore at
Normandy are less heroic than those that dropped on St Mere Eglise. It just
doesn't wash. Combat arms is combat arms is combat arms. They're all equally
hazardous.
> So are you trying to start a flame war?
Possibly, and you may have fallen for it... ;->=
> You can't say that units like the 1st ID or 4th ID that went ashore
I could mention Unterseeboot or B-17, or, hell, Battle of the Atlantic
merchant marine crews...
You're right, though, endlessly silly conversation possible, and probably
should be dropped here.
However, I've no illusions about having the last word. ;->=
The_Beast
> It sounds as if the 4 ID trooper has some professional jealousy.
The idea of John having professional jealousy for *anyone* is a bit
mindboggling. From John's POV, the combat engineers are the people that
everyone else is, or should be, jealous *of*.
> both are very important. However to say that a line grunt is the
John might say that "drops in behind enemy lines" doesn't hold a candle
to "executes a deliberate breaching assault--an operation in which 50%
casualties is considered light, 80% perfectly acceptable". Except he'd phrase
it a bit more pungently, I expect. Of course, our listers who earn their
living by operating behind enemy lines might disagree. As for *me*, I admire
the people who jump as well as the ones who defuse explosives for a living and
the ones who "just" carried a rifle.
You must be getting the hang of military acronyms!
Gracias, Glenn
R.I.P. Triphibious@juno.com and Dwarf_warrior@juno.com
6 mm miniatures rule! Well, anyway in my mind they do!
> On Thu, 15 May 2003 13:37:57 +1000 <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> writes:
From the peanut gallery
> Combat arms is combat arms is combat arms. They're all equally
Bomber crews suffered the highest casualty rate of any combat arm, including
infantry and amphibious assault troops, of the US in WW2 (10%
war-long average, some missions saw 50% losses, 30% fatalities).
Neither can hold a candle to German U-boat crews, who suffered a
war-long total 85% fatal casualties.
Jay
No, I am not trying to start a war. I have nothing but the greatest respect
for all who serve in our armed forces, as I myself did. I was simply poking
fun. It is always a great to here of people who are proud of what they do and
defend it with great vigor. Later Keith
Jon I hope you did not take personal offense to my comments. As I stated above
it is great to hear people speak with pride about their specific MOS.
> At 9:04 PM -0400 5/16/03, SKEITH439@aol.com wrote:
:-) I'm sure you'll get flamed by him when he gets back on list full
time. No telling when he'll be back on the net full time.
> It sounds as if the 4 ID trooper has some professional jealousy. If
Let's compare the 101st and 4th Infantry Divisions casualties For WWII 101st
Airborne Division: first battle was Normandy KIA: 1,766 WIA 6,388 Died of
Wounds 324 4th Infantry Division: first battle was Normandy KIA: 4,097 WIA
17,371 Died of Wounds 757 Source: World War II Order of Battle, Galahad Books,
copyright 1984
The problem is that the more dangerous job was that of the line grunt because
his job started with the landing and didn't stop until the surrender with very
short R&R breaks. The airborne soldier was in danger but was pulled back and
held in reserve on a regular basis which reduced the chance of becoming a
casualty. Another advantage for the 101st was that with less turnover in
personnel
they were able to keep a higher level of experienced personnel who would make
fewer mistakes and result in fewer casualties (vicious circle).
On Sat, 17 May 2003 01:40:00 -0500 Scott Siebold <gamers@ameritech.net>
writes: <snip stats>
> Another advantage for the 101st was that with less turnover in
War is a vicious cycle. War games are much more fun.
Gracias,
> On Fri, 16 May 2003 21:02:56 EDT SKEITH439@aol.com writes:
<snip>
> No, I am not trying to start a war. I have nothing but the greatest
Yes, this is a diversely knowledgable group.
And almost always very restrained even when in strong disagreement. This list
and the Lacewars list are two of the more pleasant lists to be on because of
that.
Sorry, I was unsure what was meant as was at least one other person (who
actually thought to ask....)
{light Bulb}
Body language, the web needs video streaming for body language clues... and
audio for tonal clues... and a built in 'emoticons' for clarity. <grin>
Bartender! Smiley faces for everyone on the list on me!
[pause]
Did anyone notice that John didn't actually have to be "on" the list to um...
"Increase traffic"? [chuckle]
Gracias,
> At 5:46 AM -0700 5/17/03, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
We couldn't very well go with out of quarterly quota now could we? I don't
think anyone's feathers were truly ruffled. I'm sure if someone prints out the
exchange and mails it to him he'll be touched at the gesture and wish he were
here...
;-)
You are exactly right. Airborne operations are very dangerous, however the
grunt who stays in for months on end faces a far more vicious cycle. The
Airborne forces one disadvantage is there is no retreat. I read an account of
Market Garden. It was over and some of the British Paras were standing by the
side of the after escaping across the river. As soldiers from one of the
British Infantry Divisions were walking by the para asked where the hell they
had been? The Infantry soldiers reply was fighting for the last four months.
Where have you been? It was great to see you all take up for John. I ment
nothing negative toward John or anyone else on the board. After reading what I
had wrote I realized my mistake. I apologize and know that John will give me
my due when he returns to the board. Thank you all.
> On Sat, 17 May 2003 14:04:14 EDT SKEITH439@aol.com writes:
<snip> know that John will give me my due when he returns to the board.
There's this list... we'll add your name <grin> but it may take him a while to
get to you.
Better add mine right after yours....
Gracias,
On Sat, 17 May 2003 12:26:22 -0400 Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
writes:
> At 5:46 AM -0700 5/17/03, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
LOL!
I guess the lack of feather ruffling was a reflection of being in John's CZ
instead of his KZ. <snicker>
(Beth - Concussion Zone versus Kill Zone)
Even __he__ has range limitations. <chuckle>
Gracias,