Moral objections on warfare.

[plan_D]

Bringing it back to World War 2 for a moment here. The American NCO system seemed to work in the elite units of the American army, the Rangers and Airborne. Combat promotions gained from combat experience normally gave a good, if not great, NCO.

The Germans commented on the British and Americans about their NCOs. Their combat reports showed the British to be great at camoflauge and organisation. Their junior officers excellent in theory but clumsy in practice and their NCOs the carrying force in any combat action [these are good points]
The Americans were basically the same but no comment was made on camoflauge. They did say American troops were quick to destroy anything that was suspected of enemy presence (good thing in total war).

Yes, but anyway, the NCOs were the driving force in most conflicts in World War 2. It seems to me that in best units these NCOs were good...but that's probably why they were the best units.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

For the most part you are correct. During WW2 it tended to work that way. The most experience of the enlisted would recieve a field promotion to an NCO rank usually SGT. Due to his real combat experience he tended to be a great leader.

However during Vietnam the problem took into account is the fact that due to the draft there was no experience to field promote to NCO. Vietnam was a different conflict then WW2. In WW2 the soldiers knew what they were fighting for. In Vietnam, the good old hippie days the average soldier did not understand what he was fighting for nor did he want to be there. The average age of an enlisted soldier in WW2 was 26, in Vietnam it was 19. Overal experience was less in Vietnam. AFter Vietnam the NCO corps was dessimated and the Army realized that they needed to give formal training to soldiers before they became NCO's. Today it is know as PLDC (Professional Leadership Development School). It teaches you everything from how to lead troops in combat, to how to take care of them back home. A happy soldier will give you everything.

The junior officers still today are the same way. They have great theoretical technique coming from some great schools such as West Point but they have no practical experience. They are quite clumsy in the field and tend to get people killed (not literally) during field exercises more then often, but then again that is how you learn in the field so that it does not happen on the real battle field. A good junior officer will always listen to his NCO's.

 

[evangilder]

Very true Adler. The good officer listens to his NCOs and learns. Senior NCOs are seasoned professionals, and it is rare that a junior officer would question a senior NCO.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

One of the best things I ever heard was before we went into Iraq my Flight Sgt telling our Flight Leader that if he wanted to come home alive he will listen to him. He is now a damn good Cpt.

 

[evangilder]

Fortunately, he heeded the advice. Good man!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap I feel the same way.

 

[plan_D]

You can advance to Corporal without extra training in the British Army but you required Sergeant training to go any further. Basically teaching the same things as your PLDC, I imagine.

The RAF need to be tested at every rank.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Same in the US Army you dont need any school to become a Corporal but before SGT. Which the army has changed recently and you have one year after promotion to go to the school.

 

[Nonskimmer]

You can advance to Corporal without extra training in the British Army but you required Sergeant training to go any further. Basically teaching the same things as your PLDC, I imagine.

That's basically the same for us in all three of the services (we have no marine corps), as we're a unified military. That is, the army, navy, and air force all fall under a joint command structure as the "Armed Forces". The difference is that the extra training begins at the master corporal rank (master seaman for the Navy). It falls between corporal and sergeant.

However, the Army does receive a lot more leadership training all around. Three separate leadership courses must be passed in order to qualify as an Army master corporal, and then the qualifications increase with rank from there.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont know how it is in other branches of the US military.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In the US Navy you're tested in your "RATE" and you're promoted on how well you did on the exam. If there are 100 E-5s, Petty officer 2nd Class slots, the top 100 got promoted, if you scored in the top 10 or 20, you're paid for the new rank right away, if you're on the lower end, it may take 11 months before you're being paid for your promoted rank. Between 2nd Class and 1st Class you must go to an NCO academy.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I feel that is the way it should be. In the army you get promoted by promotion points and I really dont like this system

 

[GT]

War is Hell for soldiers and airmen, but sometimes there is no justification for what they do.

Regards
GT

 

[FLYBOYJ]

War is Hell for soldiers and airmen, but sometimes there is no justification for what they do.

Regards
GT

Civillians? I've seen this clip before. Those guys were hiding weapons and bombs along the roadside and were being followed during the whole operation. That's why they and their vehicles were wiped out.

I know Apache pilots who flew during the Gulf War and in Iraq. The last think they want to do is shoot civillians and will not take a shot until they know what the target actually is.

 

[plan_D]

They're not civilians! They were loading weapons into the ground! I've seen the whole gun camera footage of that incident, they're insurgents hiding weapons!

It's people like you that haven't a clue about military actions. The Coalition don't just go shooting civilians for a laugh!

 

[evangilder]

There is also no justification for making a claim like that without the facts. That clip is already up on this site in at least 2 other locations. It is NOT what you claim, these are enemy combatants.

 

[plan_D]

You watch the whole footage and Command order them to kill them after the Apache has been watching them for a good 5 minutes. Anyone with a bit of sense knows that the air crews can't open fire without confirmation of the order to do so from Command.

Even if the pilot spots a whole Iraqi armoured column, he'd have to report back and ask permission. Which, of course, would be given once they'd be identified as foe.

Then, Hellfires and Hydras rip the place to pieces.

 

[GT]

Peace man!

If you think that I don´t know about military ops so then I really have to tell you, I do. (more than I will disclose here).

The clip speaks for itself as they did not wear arms and didn't´t fire at the chopper and the second guy waves to surrender with some kind of clothing. The third guy hides and is wounded by the salvo and is crawling wounded on his back when he is killed.

What are the Rules of engagement for the Apache? Hardly to kill defenseless civilians.

Regards
GT

 

[evangilder]

These are NOT defenseless civilians. The entire clip is longer and shows what these guys are up to.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Peace man!

If you think that I don´t know about military ops so then I really have to tell you, I do. (more than I will disclose here).

The clip speaks for itself as they did not wear arms and didn't´t fire at the chopper and the second guy waves to surrender with some kind of clothing. The third guy hides and is wounded by the salvo and is crawling wounded on his back when he is killed.

What are the Rules of engagement for the Apache? Hardly to kill defenseless civilians.

Regards
GT

I could tell you that this circulated in the military community first. I happen to work for the military and served as well. These were very bad people and the only thing I have to say, if you think the guy waving is surrendering, fine, we gave him something better, a meeting with Alah!