Military Experts on FOX & CNN?
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
MILITARY EXPERTS ON FOX & CNN?
Beware of the information coming from the talking military heads
on FOX and CNN.
Digging the enemy out of caves and tunnels is not a mop up
operation. It is not easy, it is dangerous and it takes a very
long time to complete. Especially if the caves are interlocked
and full of right angles, false doors and booby traps like the
tunnels were in Vietnam. I have yet to hear a talking military
head on FOX or CNN describe in detail what a "tunnel rat" really
needs to do to dig an enemy out of a tunnel or cave.
Probably because they really do not know.
I guarantee you a senior NCO knows.
Obviously FOX and CNN do not understand the military hierarchy.
Starting with Vietnam, Field Grade officers do not *ever*
directly participate in any fighting.
Captains and above are not leading patrols, cleaning out caves
and tunnels, nor spotting for artillery and air support. They are
usually located far, far, far in the rear or high in the air
giving orders via their radios.
In the American Military, (back during the Vietnam era) a 2nd
Lieutenant makes 1st Lieutenant in one year, and a 1st Lieutenant
makes Captain in one year. Once a commissioned officer achieves
the rank of Captain, (two whole years in the military) he is
generally never located forward in any battle, and he is
typically located in the rear and involved with tactics for a
company level (about 200 troops or four platoons.)
So who actually does and directs the real fighting?
It is the Sergeants, the lower ranks, and the lower rank 2nd and
1st Lieutenants that does the majority of the real fighting.
(The Lieutenants are mostly kids that need to listen to the
senior Sergeants so they can live long enough to make Captain and
get the hell out of the fighting.)
Make no mistake about it. The NCO's (Sergeants) are the
backbone of the military. They fight all the time 24/7, and they
actually *lead* their men into battle. The best comparison of an
American Army Platoon Sergeant or a Marine Gunnery Sergeant
would be a Roman Centurion. They lead by example.
Moreover, when I was a Platoon Sergeant (before I went to OCS
..Officer Candidate School) I and my other senior NCO's would
*never* blindly follow a battle plan contrived by G-3 or S-3
(figured out by Majors and up). If we had, I and all other teams
I know would be dead.
We almost always "modified" the battle plans coming from these
"field grade officers" into a realistic plan or tactic that could
be carried out with the minimum amount of casualties on our part,
yet accomplish the mission simultaneously.
I cannot remember a single instance in which the battle plans
coming from G3 were operable as they were delivered. They always
had to be modified, and most of the time simply discarded and my
team and I would create a plan that was workable without getting
us all killed.
So that is how it works in real life. The Colonels and Generals
sit in G3 and S3 and produce inoperable battle tactics, hand them
down to the Captains, the Captains hand them down to the Platoon
Leaders (the Lieutenants) the Lieutenants hand them down to the
Platoon Sergeants, and the Platoon Sergeants alter the plan's
details to make them work, and then the Platoon Sergeant leads
the mission and accomplishes the mission.
Yet when the mission is accomplished the higher ranks would get
the credit, and sometimes promotions and medals for their
incredible ineptitudes.
(For those that have never heard of the "Alamo Conspiracy" . . .
in which a committee of senior NCO's actually determines which
commissioned officers they believed were qualified to lead, and
"other edicts in respect to some officers" you really have no
idea who actually runs our wars.)
Once on FOX news they interviewed a Marine Gunnery Sergeant.
Just once.
His input was a much different from the Colonels and General's
all parroting the same "military mantra" we hear from the Joint
Chiefs. (Keep in mind in our Military, if you want to make
General you had better be (1) a good politician, and (2) a *very*
good politician. These generals would *never* break the mantra
code of the Joint Chiefs, or counter anything their brethren
generals said or did.)
If FOX and CNN want to hear the truth about the war, they should
be interviewing Senior NCO's but not reveal their identity to the
Military.
FOX and CNN should be interviewing some Senior NCO's instead of
retired Generals if they want to air the truth about this war.
I have never seen a commissioned officer receive a medal that
was not handed to him by the actions of his NCO's. And that
includes me. The decorations I received as a Platoon Sergeant
are real and were because of what I did. The ones I received
later I did not consider real or deserved, as they were not
earned directly by me, but earned because of the deeds of those
under my command.
Doug Grant (Tm)
--
De Oppresso Liber
Happy Birthday
qo|op
news:u249kfo...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> MILITARY EXPERTS ON FOX & CNN?
>
> Beware of the information coming from the talking military heads
> on FOX and CNN.
>
> Digging the enemy out of caves and tunnels is not a mop up
> operation. It is not easy, it is dangerous and it takes a very
> long time to complete. Especially if the caves are interlocked
> and full of right angles, false doors and booby traps like the
> tunnels were in Vietnam. I have yet to hear a talking military
> head on FOX or CNN describe in detail what a "tunnel rat" really
> needs to do to dig an enemy out of a tunnel or cave.
>
> Probably because they really do not know.
Of course not. Even as a 2nd Luei they never been in a tunnel.
>
> I guarantee you a senior NCO knows.
Some.
>
> Obviously FOX and CNN do not understand the military hierarchy.
> Starting with Vietnam, Field Grade officers do not *ever*
> directly participate in any fighting.
Whoop, don't say all military now. You are forgetting the Airforce and
Navy. Pilots are zips and they are the ones that man the planes - with the
exception of an E-man here or there. Enlisted ranks are relagated to
maintenance roles usually in these organizations. Of course this is a long
drop from a tunnel. But zips risk quite a bit in these services all the way
through Navy Captain or Colonel elsewhere.
This is just part delegation through the chain of command. Part of the job
and very necessary.
>
> I cannot remember a single instance in which the battle plans
> coming from G3 were operable as they were delivered. They always
> had to be modified, and most of the time simply discarded and my
> team and I would create a plan that was workable without getting
> us all killed.
>
> So that is how it works in real life. The Colonels and Generals
> sit in G3 and S3 and produce inoperable battle tactics, hand them
They also provide the logistics and integrate the support, etc., at their
appropriate level.
> down to the Captains, the Captains hand them down to the Platoon
> Leaders (the Lieutenants) the Lieutenants hand them down to the
> Platoon Sergeants, and the Platoon Sergeants alter the plan's
> details to make them work, and then the Platoon Sergeant leads
> the mission and accomplishes the mission.
>
> Yet when the mission is accomplished the higher ranks would get
> the credit, and sometimes promotions and medals for their
> incredible ineptitudes.
Certainly.
>
> (For those that have never heard of the "Alamo Conspiracy" . . .
> in which a committee of senior NCO's actually determines which
> commissioned officers they believed were qualified to lead, and
> "other edicts in respect to some officers" you really have no
> idea who actually runs our wars.)
>
> Once on FOX news they interviewed a Marine Gunnery Sergeant.
> Just once.
>
> His input was a much different from the Colonels and General's
> all parroting the same "military mantra" we hear from the Joint
> Chiefs. (Keep in mind in our Military, if you want to make
> General you had better be (1) a good politician, and (2) a *very*
> good politician. These generals would *never* break the mantra
> code of the Joint Chiefs, or counter anything their brethren
> generals said or did.)
LOL. Yep.
>
> If FOX and CNN want to hear the truth about the war, they should
> be interviewing Senior NCO's but not reveal their identity to the
> Military.
>
> FOX and CNN should be interviewing some Senior NCO's instead of
> retired Generals if they want to air the truth about this war.
Indeed.
>
> I have never seen a commissioned officer receive a medal that
> was not handed to him by the actions of his NCO's. And that
> includes me. The decorations I received as a Platoon Sergeant
> are real and were because of what I did. The ones I received
> later I did not consider real or deserved, as they were not
> earned directly by me, but earned because of the deeds of those
> under my command.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
One thing I have to say in defense of high level zips is that they generally
know the capabilities of their assets without necessarily actually knowing
how things are done. So they aren't completely blind so to speak.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"qo|op" <qo|o...@spamme.not> wrote in message
news:rAIU7.39698$va.18...@news2.rdc1.mi.home.com...
Of course you are right about aircraft. I was referring
exclusively to real combat, on the ground, digging the enemy out
of holes. Flying over a target, without the chance of being shot
down, dropping a load of bombs, and then flying back to a safe
ship or home with the Wife I do not consider the same as ground
combat. It is a type of combat of course, but not one that I am
referring.
Quite correct. But you would think that those in the command
positions would be able to produce at least *one* workable battle
plan without the need for it to be altered by the NCO's? What
they need is experienced NCO's in G3 and S3 to review the
sometimes "nutty" tactics produced by these "career officers."
That is a good point. They at least know enough that if they can
obtain some good NCO's they will be promoted. I guess my problem
is that I do not believe enough *experienced* NCO's are involved
in the formation of field tactics.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
>
>
qo|op
Certainly being on the ground all the time is a much different situation.
At the initial onset of hostilities, which is generally the most dangerous
time for aircraft, is when these guys really earn their pay. You know
before the SAMs are nuetralized and while there are still viable anti-air
threats. And you certainly don't want to be a shot-down pilot on the ground
with only your wits and your sidearm to keep you alive. But these guys
really make it all look easy. Even when the AA threats are gone, its not at
all that easy.
Joe S.
and his first sergeant more than one, Amen.
The Brits have an adage: A lieutenant's mission is to show how to die with
dignity.
--
- - -
Regards,
Joe S.
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u29ono9...@corp.supernews.com...
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Joe, the sad truth is the Brits are right. I went through three
Butter Bars during my first tour in Vietnam (as a SFC) then I
went to OCS and returned as a Butter Bar myself. Half of my
graduating class in OCS Ft. Benning ended up dead or wounded.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Joe S." <j...@schlatter.org> wrote in message
news:a03ho...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Professor Vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Of course you are right about aircraft. I was referring
>exclusively to real combat, on the ground, digging the enemy out
>of holes. Flying over a target, without the chance of being shot
>down, dropping a load of bombs, and then flying back to a safe
>ship or home with the Wife I do not consider the same as ground
>combat. It is a type of combat of course, but not one that I am
>referring.
Perhaps you should educate yourself a little further by studying the
air war fought over Europe, 1940-1945.
>I guess my problem
>is that I do not believe enough *experienced* NCO's are involved
>in the formation of field tactics.
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
>>
`Good, experienced' NCOs are not involved in the formation of
tactics,strategy, or logistics, they carry out orders.
Your correspondent is talking through his hat if he doesn't think
officers are not with the front line troops in the field. That is
Barbara Striesand.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:3c275549...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 11:48:15 -0800, "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN"
> <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Of course you are right about aircraft. I was referring
> >exclusively to real combat, on the ground, digging the enemy
out
> >of holes. Flying over a target, without the chance of being
shot
> >down, dropping a load of bombs, and then flying back to a safe
> >ship or home with the Wife I do not consider the same as
ground
> >combat. It is a type of combat of course, but not one that I
am
> >referring.
>
> Perhaps you should educate yourself a little further by
studying the
> air war fought over Europe, 1940-1945.
Things have changed since then Vonroach. Those men that flew
those bombers back then were almost as good as the men that faced
the enemy eyeball to eyeball. There was a time when flying
planes was as dangerous as ground combat. But those days are
past.
>
> >I guess my problem
> >is that I do not believe enough *experienced* NCO's are
involved
> >in the formation of field tactics.
> >
> >Doug Grant (Tm)
> >>
> `Good, experienced' NCOs are not involved in the formation of
> tactics,strategy, or logistics, they carry out orders.
You are right. That is the problem. Not using all that on-hands
experience in the planning and development of tactics is
downright stupid. Moreover, all of the NCO's I knew either
changed the orders and accomplished the mission, or did not come
back. The plans were incompetent and the NCO's certainly did not
simply "follow orders" Vonroach. They improvised, adapted and
changed to the circumstances, altered the orders and completed
the mission.
>
> Your correspondent is talking through his hat if he doesn't
think
> officers are not with the front line troops in the field. That
is
> Barbara Striesand.
Vonroach, I *know* that Field Grade officers and above are not
with the front line troops in the field. I spent a long time in
the Military. Now I cannot speak for WWII as that was long
before my time. But I can speak for Korea, Vietnam and South
America and the Gulf War. No field grade officers are in the
field with the troops Vonroach..Only Captains and below....and
then very few Captains.
Doug Grant (Tm)
qo|op
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2cnb61...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> message news:3c275549...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
> > On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 11:48:15 -0800, "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN"
> > <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Of course you are right about aircraft. I was referring
> > >exclusively to real combat, on the ground, digging the enemy
> out
> > >of holes. Flying over a target, without the chance of being
> shot
> > >down, dropping a load of bombs, and then flying back to a safe
> > >ship or home with the Wife I do not consider the same as
> ground
> > >combat. It is a type of combat of course, but not one that I
> am
> > >referring.
> >
> > Perhaps you should educate yourself a little further by
> studying the
> > air war fought over Europe, 1940-1945.
>
> Things have changed since then Vonroach. Those men that flew
> those bombers back then were almost as good as the men that faced
"Almost as good?!" Those guys had a virtual death sentence being assigned
to a B-17. They had 25 missions to do and they could rotate out. Very few
made it to 25 missions initially. Then later, when fighter cover could
accompany them, too many started making it to 25, so they upped the damn
number on them. That had to be pretty fucked up.
Professor Vonroach
Ah, yes the South American War, I remember it well. Always thought
Marching Thru Peru would have made a good line for a song. As to
Korea, MacArthur spent most of his time riding the lines in a Jeep
before he was fired for being too aggressive (perhaps you don't know
that he was present and went ashore with Puller - a `field' grade- and
the 1st Marines at Inchon. As to the comment in general, I would only
note that all of the conflicts you note, except for the ludicrous
reference to some imaginary South American adventure, had
unsatisfactory outcomes - stalemate, loss, and blunder.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"qo|op" <qo|o...@spamme.not> wrote in message
Catch 22. You are of course correct about those flights in the
beginning. The initial daylight raids were almost suicide. But
then later, they became a cake walk. The men on the ground never
had a "cake walk." There are exceptions, but you cannot compare
flying an airplane to ground combat overall.
Professor Vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>...garbage...
Kid, you are as full of crap as the well known Christmas turkey. A
bigger turkey than the has-beens posing as experts on tv.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
I am glad you appreciate my posts so much Vonroach. I notice
that you read them all. They must fascinate you. And BTW,
thanks for calling me a "kid." Your complements keep coming
Vonroach.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Professor Vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message news:3c2b23c5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:59:52 -0800, "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN"
>> <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >...garbage...
>> Kid, you are as full of crap as the well known Christmas
>turkey. A
>> bigger turkey than the has-beens posing as experts on tv.
>
>I am glad you appreciate my posts so much Vonroach. I notice
>that you read them all. They must fascinate you. And BTW,
>thanks for calling me a "kid." Your complements keep coming
>Vonroach.
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
>
Your intoxication with NCO's and comic book warfare amuses. Not as
threatening as Bev's proterrorist propaganda.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
NCO's run the military Vonroach. I know. Comic Book warfare?
What are you talking about VonRoach? Certainly you have some
understanding of modern weapons? Some understanding? Even a
little? If not, I will be glad to provide you with some links so
that you can bone up on what is really going on out there
Vonroach. No charge for the lesson.
Doug Grant (Tm)