> Just found something I wrote up a couple months ago.
Actually the expansion of National Guard (NG) units in the US Army was not
done in WWII. Alot of the NG promotions were heavily based on political
decisions ( Officer X supported politician Y and so was promoted when
politician Y won). The US Army cloned regular divisions (split off Officers
and men and filled in with NG and new recruits) which forced the political
officers to perform or get relieved.
This caused problems with the US units being somewhat rigid (since no one
knows the next guy everyone goes by the book) but avoided a major problem that
the British army had with flexibility ( an infantry Regt. X is in same
division as armor Regt. Y (ex cavalry Regt.) and there are problems in swaping
companies between them to form combined arms teams).
> --- Scott Siebold <gamers@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Actually the expansion of National Guard (NG) units
Right. But with Brit politicians in charge, we'd start doing things in a
screwball hybrid of the US and Brit system, which is what I'm trying to go for
here.
> At 6:33 AM -0800 11/26/03, John Atkinson wrote:
The Tribalism of British units really seems to help their
esprit-de-corps quite a bit. So US units that can trace their
heritage back a long way is actually very NACish. I'd like to see more of it
in the US army, but it's so damnably bent on uniformity it's almost funny (in
a nation of very strong individuals).
I'm waiting on some Cavalry General to bring back Stetsons and ditch the black
berets (which are rightfully an Armored Formation head wear in spite of
anything the damn rangers claim.)
The Tribalism of British units really seems to help their
esprit-de-corps quite a bit. So US units that can trace their
heritage back a long way is actually very NACish. I'd like to see more of it
in the US army, but it's so damnably bent on uniformity it's almost funny (in
a nation of very strong individuals).
*Never understood that one either, think it's an aversion to within the ranks
competition......and the long standing fear of elite formations by the general
staff. Just look how the army fought the Ranger idea and how quickly the
sniper schools were disbanded after W.W.II. There seems to be a an almost
institutional plan for making everyone equal to the point of stupidity. The
need for elite units was really brought home during and since Nam........That
was not that long ago when you consider it as a basis for establishing
tradition.
I'm waiting on some Cavalry General to bring back Stetsons and ditch the black
berets (which are rightfully an Armored Formation head wear in spite of
anything the damn rangers claim.)
*LOL, 1st Cav has Stetsons, thing is we only wear them with dress blues.
> At 9:42 AM -0600 11/26/03, Don M wrote:
Don't most of those Generals have Elite/Airborne origins?
> army fought the Ranger idea and how quickly the sniper
Well, the weird thing is that with the British system you end up with elite
units all around (or at least better than average). The various light infantry
units (Highland Light Infantry, KOYLI, etc), the Parachute Regiment, the Royal
Green Jackets, the Various Guards units, the Household Cavalry, etc.
> *LOL, 1st Cav has Stetsons, thing is we only wear them with dress
The Berets are nice and useful for head wear when in an AFV (I wear a RAC
beret when I drive my Ferret or Dingo around) but US troops are big on their
CVCs and being safe over looking smart (something that hurts us on peace
keeping as it puts the locals off). Beret's are useful for AFV ops as you can
be comfortable and have head cover that still works with headsets.
I also can't stand the exacting way in which all the beret's must be set up.
(we'll after seeing nearly 50 years of photos of the Brits, it's funny to see
how my fellow countrymen wear them, there's got to be at least one chap
wearing it at a "jaunty" angle!)
Ryan, armchair military buff and Armored Vehicle Hobby-ist.
PS, the view of the current US Army trends from Mark Baker is rather fun in
spite of the oddities.
http://www.pvtmurphy.com/image_upload/images/style.gif
http://www.pvtmurphy.com/image_upload/images/loadbearingvest.jpg
PPS John, if you've not looked at updated Pvt Murphy's make sure yo do so
before you head back to theatre.
Ryan Gill wrote,
> The Tribalism of British units really seems to help their
For the British army success is measured not just in defeating the enemy but
out performing other British units.
One of the most extreme examples of this is the up-hill attacks,
outnumbered, against dug in enemy strong points, in the dark made by the
various british army and marine infantry units on the heights protecting port
stanley in the falklands war.
God help Blighty in the event of another civil war...
I would like to think if the British army did influence ex-US forces in
the NAC in any way it would be to instill the individualism of the regimental
system, or put it this way, as one of John's NG might say, "Not only do we
gotta be better than any other american unit, we gotta be better than any
kanuck or limey unit!"
Regards,
Don't most of those Generals have Elite/Airborne origins?
*From the last 25 or 30 years yes but, before that no, also Airborne isn't
really considered Elite as much as an extra qualification (other than by the
people in the units that is). Rangers and SF are considered the Elite. We even
have presidental guards unit (called the Old Guard) that has a more or less
Elite status as well. But nothing compared to other nations in number and
history etc.
Well, the weird thing is that with the British system you end up with elite
units all around (or at least better than average). The various light infantry
units (Highland Light Infantry, KOYLI, etc), the Parachute Regiment, the Royal
Green Jackets, the Various Guards units, the Household Cavalry, etc.
*There is something to be said for tradition.
The Berets are nice and useful for head wear when in an AFV (I wear a RAC
beret when I drive my Ferret or Dingo around) but US troops are big on their
CVCs and being safe over looking smart (something that hurts us on peace
keeping as it puts the locals off).
*Prefer my kevlar CVC to a bullet in my Beret!
Beret's are useful for AFV ops as you can be comfortable and have head cover
that still works with headsets.
*See above......)
I also can't stand the exacting way in which all the beret's must be set up.
(we'll after seeing nearly 50 years of photos of the Brits, it's funny to see
how my fellow countrymen wear them, there's got to be at least one chap
wearing it at a "jaunty" angle!)
* Wont survive we NCOs........)
> At 10:35 AM -0600 11/26/03, Don M wrote:
Granted, but in some sitiations it's not really warranted. I've heard of
several instances where our guys have shown up looking ready for battle and it
changed the situation. Whereas the Brits (who have more than a few bits of
experience in that sort of thing) showed up in lighter kit with berets (armed
still) and were able to calm the situation down.
Now, in combat, sure. Wear that CVC or Kevlar, but in peacekeeping it might be
better. Same thing goes for road marches.
> Beret's are useful for AFV
See above as well. :-)
> I also can't stand the exacting way in which all
That's the funny thing about WWII. THe NCO's and officers were the ones
leading the way on deviation from norm. But then the British army as a non
regular army at the time (many citizen soldiers) had more wiggle room for how
you wore your beret or Fields service when walking out.
Note the inspection by Montgomery himself and the various angles the berets
are in.
http://www.freakchylde.net/~15recce/photos/scotslionphotos/15rpic06.html
Note, 15 Recce was a fighting unit that was on the sharp end of the
stick from the Odon Battles to V-E day.
Granted, but in some sitiations it's not really warranted. I've heard of
several instances where our guys have shown up looking ready for battle and it
changed the situation. Whereas the Brits (who have more than a few bits of
experience in that sort of thing) showed up in lighter kit with berets (armed
still) and were able to calm the situation down.
Sounds good in theory but do you want to write the letter home to some kids'
mom that we thought this area was pacified.....I don't.
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Granted, but in some sitiations it's not really
Hey, you can go ditty-bopping downtown Tikrit in your
skivvies. I like body armor.
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hey, you can go ditty-bopping downtown Tikrit in
It's hard to argue with experience... I'm not going to argue with the man
who's there.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:56:30 -0500 Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
writes:
> At 10:35 AM -0600 11/26/03, Don M wrote:
Seems to my benighted mind that a hell of a lot of 'peacekeepers' are shot at
the last 50 years... Please excuse the language, Beth... As someone once
observed about women in 'combat support' jobs, "Well, that's fine and dandy if
we were fighting someone civilized like the Canadians But we haven't done that
in a long time, just barbarians."
Gracias,
> At 2:23 PM -0800 11/26/03, John Atkinson wrote:
Tikrit is kind of a different animal. Things there are close to the boiling
point all the time. I'm thinking more of the Balkans area where it could be
nice and calm or close to boiling depending on how troops and their officers
handled things (ROE being sometimes a problem). It's not an all or nothing
thing mind you.
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
Yup, and Kosovo and Bosnia do wear soft caps on patrol.