Poor old George could have been made a case study. He left the UK in the 1950s in the army and then got a job in the oil industry. After 30 years in the middle east he didn't speak a word of Arabic or any other language, he didn't actually know much about where he was or what he was doing but he was an expert in protecting his own "job" which amounted to get everyone else to do his job. He had earned a fortune and was very wealthy, he had a small hotel in Bournemouth where pretty much owning a property of any kind means you are a millionaire. BUT, you couldn't speak to him about anything, his world was informed by Saudi TV, he always took less leave than he was entitled to and looked much happier coming back than he was when leaving. His life had been holidays in holiday spots for decades and a few visits to the family and the hotel. He lived on chicken wings and cup-a-soups so his wife could buy his daughters a new car every year. If ever one man summed up "money isn't everything" it was him. When I left it was March 1989, by the Summer I was in Paris working and had my wife with me. However Saddam had invaded Kuwait, where we worked in Al Khobar and what we did was no more. He will have been paid off and returned home, an exile from the 1950s into 1989 Bournemouth, like the guys who came back from India after their independence, completely disorientated.
Ticked off
- Thread starter billrunnels
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
mikewint
Captain
You'll get me my dratted soapbox.
First and foremost, US troops were not poorly equipped or trained. We had some of the best equipment and training in the world BUT unlike the media portrayals of the small ill-equipped VC farmer/freedom fighter we actually faced, more and more, well trained, well-equipped NVA regulars. China and the communist-block countries saw to it that they had equipment and training equal to ours. Plus because it was their country AND they had been fighting a war for 20 years before we got there, the country was honeycombed with underground complexes equipped with food, ammunition, dorms, kitchens and hospitals. Much like we did in WWII we underestimated our Asian foes and their determination.
The US policy of attrition isn't going to work in a country where your enemy has no where to go unless you want to pursue a policy of genocide. Time and time again the US would locate an NVA stronghold, attack, loose a 100 or so US lives, kill or drive off the NVA, and then simply leave. Ten minutes after the last helo left the NVA/VC were back rebuilding. US losses were a bit over 58,200 and estimated that about 300,000 NVA/VC had been killed. In 1995 the Vietnam government released the actual total NVA/VC KIA at 1.1 million troops.
The US consistently backed South Vietnamese governments that were corrupt, disliked and hated, and had no popular support unlike Uncle Ho who was a master politician, loved by the people, who only wanted Vietnamese freedom, the George Washington of Vietnam. However the governments we backed were in power only for themselves and cared less for and did nothing for the common people. We wanted a quick-fix war where ultra-superior American fire power was going to quickly zap the Commies and we could go home. The war was win-able but not easily or quickly.
The NVA at least pretended to care though they were a much an occupying force as the French. Tet was not about kicking out the Americans but getting the Americans to wipeout the VC so the north could take over the south. After Tet the VC were never again a fighting force. It was an NVA war against the South and the Americans. The NVA knew that they could not beat the US but they also knew that they did not have to, all they had to do was make the war costly in terms of US lives lost. The US media would take care of the rest. Because of US Media the "folks at home" especially the young men who would have o fight the war viewed it as lost and hopeless and no one wants to die in such a situation in a country not theirs.
First and foremost, US troops were not poorly equipped or trained. We had some of the best equipment and training in the world BUT unlike the media portrayals of the small ill-equipped VC farmer/freedom fighter we actually faced, more and more, well trained, well-equipped NVA regulars. China and the communist-block countries saw to it that they had equipment and training equal to ours. Plus because it was their country AND they had been fighting a war for 20 years before we got there, the country was honeycombed with underground complexes equipped with food, ammunition, dorms, kitchens and hospitals. Much like we did in WWII we underestimated our Asian foes and their determination.
The US policy of attrition isn't going to work in a country where your enemy has no where to go unless you want to pursue a policy of genocide. Time and time again the US would locate an NVA stronghold, attack, loose a 100 or so US lives, kill or drive off the NVA, and then simply leave. Ten minutes after the last helo left the NVA/VC were back rebuilding. US losses were a bit over 58,200 and estimated that about 300,000 NVA/VC had been killed. In 1995 the Vietnam government released the actual total NVA/VC KIA at 1.1 million troops.
The US consistently backed South Vietnamese governments that were corrupt, disliked and hated, and had no popular support unlike Uncle Ho who was a master politician, loved by the people, who only wanted Vietnamese freedom, the George Washington of Vietnam. However the governments we backed were in power only for themselves and cared less for and did nothing for the common people. We wanted a quick-fix war where ultra-superior American fire power was going to quickly zap the Commies and we could go home. The war was win-able but not easily or quickly.
The NVA at least pretended to care though they were a much an occupying force as the French. Tet was not about kicking out the Americans but getting the Americans to wipeout the VC so the north could take over the south. After Tet the VC were never again a fighting force. It was an NVA war against the South and the Americans. The NVA knew that they could not beat the US but they also knew that they did not have to, all they had to do was make the war costly in terms of US lives lost. The US media would take care of the rest. Because of US Media the "folks at home" especially the young men who would have o fight the war viewed it as lost and hopeless and no one wants to die in such a situation in a country not theirs.
Tim Moore
Airman
Going back to the original story, there was an apocryphal tale, usually attributed to the Marine, "Chesty" Puller, who came across a lieutenant who was making an enlisted man stand in place and salute him 100 times for failing to salute him the first time. Puller acknowledged that the enlisted man had made an error, but reminded the lieutenant that each salute must be returned. Puller ordered them to start over and that the lieutenant return each of the 100 salutes.
- Thread starter
- #24
Great story
Thanks, Mike, for your service and your insight. I would expect you SF folks to have the best equipment and training, but what about the "straight leg" guys? The army I saw (we were pressed into service as "aggressors" weekends and school breaks because of the training our advisor, an SF Major returned from Laos, put us through) was mired in the concepts and equipment of a tank war in Europe and clueless about "any of that sneaky-poo stuff them snake-eaters do". The senior non-coms in charge of the training exercises were mostly alumni of Pusan and Choisin and the march to the Yalu, which framed their concept of war in Asia. The M16 was having issues at the time so the draftees were "temporarily" equipped with M14s hastily pulled from the discard pile (shortage of 7.62 blank ammo, they had to go "bang bang") but assured they would be supplied with new "Mattels" out in the bush. Those crusty old sergeants made no attempt to hide their contempt for the M16, nor for the "weak sisters", "Mama's boys" and "pinko commie hippies" they were prepping for combat. Supervision was so poor that the barracks next to us burned down at 2AM with the loss of 9 lives because the barracks fire watch (who was supposed to be on roving patrol) FELL ASLEEP IN A CHAIR AT THE SERGEANTS DESK WHILE SMOKING!! The only functional (out of 5) structural firetrucks on base died a quarter mile from the fire and one of OUR ROTC GUYS ran to the truck and came back with a hydrant wrench so we could have some water for a bucket brigade. The civil service firefighters from the truck (entire duty section, 3 guys!) at least got us organized and working together to save the adjacent structures. Those WWII "temporary" tar paper and pine tar buildings go up like a box of "strike anywhere" matches!
After a couple years of those kinds of experiences I was convinced our Army was our own worst enemy and that I didn't want to be "part of the problem". I could also see that it didn't seem likely to win us many friends and allies. Institutional incompetence seemed the order of the day.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #26
Wes.......What time frame are you talking about and where did all of this take place?
Bill, good to see somebody's awake this hour of the day.
Ft Devens, MA 1965-1967. We went there seven or eight times in each of my freshman and sophomore years. It seemed the deeper we got into 'Nam the more resource-starved Devens got. From what I've been told that was par for the course for the stateside Army.
Cheers,
Wes
- Thread starter
- #28
Thanks for the response. I can understand stateside military bases being assigned used and antiquated equipment. The same was true in the Air Force. The new and more advanced was needed in the battle zones. I didn't realize the equipment used in training was old until I reached the ETO. They had equipment on the B-17's I had never seen which I learned to use, on the job so to speak. Had you been assigned to Ft Devens full time I think your acceptance of conditions, including moral, would have been more positive.
Last edited:
Bill, did you you get some sort of formal training on the new stuff when you got in theater, or did they toss you a tech manual to read on your way to Berlin? Or just give you a "no sweat, you'll figure it out"?
Before our first trip, Devens was touted to us as "the big time", the "real deal" and "how they do it downtown". What we experienced was a rude shock.
Cheers,
Wes
- Thread starter
- #30
Not classroom type training but administrated by a seasoned crew member one on one - "this is how it is done". This method was quick and very effective. I learned how to use the GEE equipment from a seasoned Navigator while on an engine slow timing flight on the date we arrived at the 303rd. Fifteen days later when returning from our first mission, bad weather on return, I used the GEE to make a safe landing.
Last edited:
Bill how were you selected for bombardier training? Before or after commissioning, or did you start on preliminary flight training and then get switched to non-pilot aircrew? The old guy I worked for at the local flying service had been chief instructor at a military contract flight school, and he said his students were often yanked out of the course and "washed out" of the pilot track, not for any failure on their part, but because "needs of the service" had identified an impending critical shortage in some other aircrew specialty. He said the success rate for former flight students in completing aircrew training was far higher than for recruits from the general population. Did you observe this in action?
Cheers,
Wes
Cheers,
Wes
mikewint
Captain
Wes, I went to the University of Illinois in Sept 1961. At that time, as a Land Grant University ALL Fresh and Soph males had to enroll in ROTC and had to receive a passing grade in order to receive a diploma. College based ROTC is about as far from military as you can get. 2 to 3 times a week we were out on the Quad doing our Hup-two-Three-Four marching drills and taking classes in drills, ranks, command structure, etc. Our rifles sans any ammo were 1903 Springfieds. The 14s were front-line weapons. Carrying anti-war/military signs right next to us were the guys from the Student Peace Union. Guys who had had ROTC in high school were the sergeants and lieutenants. The few who stayed in ROTC as Jrs and Seniors were going career Military Service. In charge were a few Old-Timer Sergeants and Officers getting through their last few years before full retirement. They were mostly a joke and really did not give two sheets what went on with us clowns. There was a two week summer camp at a real Army base but it was voluntary for those in the first two years so very few went.
When I was drafted in '63 and sent to Ft. Ord in Calif. it was night and day different. The command structure there knew that we were most likely headed to Vietnam and combat so they took things seriously. Rifles were the M14 and the training was excellent as far as Basic goes. Depending upon your MOS there far more training in store. I went to Ft. Sam Huston and Combat Medic School and again we were serious and they were serious and the training was first class. They were even working on a mock-up Vietnamese Village that was very realistic to learn how to interact with the civilian population. Having had two years of Pre-Med at UofI I did very well and went into Expert Medical training. Arriving in Vietnam there was a further two weeks of acclimation and specific to Vietnam training. So IMHO I was very well trained though nothing can compare to the real thing and it still comes as a complete shock, it did to me. Assigned to the 9th Field Hospital I ended up as basically a glorified Orderly giving bed baths, emptying bed pans, cleaning operating rooms, etc. I absolutely hated it so when the chance came to join the "Hearts and Minds" aspect of our involvement I jumped at it. I was soon leading medical missions into the Highlands setting up clinics and providing the only medical care most had ever experienced. The military called Pacification and as time wore on and command structure changed the Hold and Protect nature of Hearts and Minds was being replaced by the Military strategy of firepower, mobility, and attrition pursued by Westmoreland
The biggest lack in my/our training was that we had been sent to South Vietnam with little more than a cursory understanding of the country's language, history, religious traditions, etiquette or politics. I had two translators with me one for English to Vietnamese and a second for Vietnamese into local dialect now add in the fact that Vietnam's population was highly diverse with a strong dislike even hatred for each other. Add to that the US - Vietnam political relationship, basically a patron-client relationship. The United States, the world's strongest country and still riding high off its victory in World War II, was confident in its power — and its virtue. It expected to lead, and to be followed. In contrast, the South Vietnamese, citizens of a fragile state newly freed from colonial rule and threatened by internal insurgency and external invasion, recognized their desperate need for American help, but they were also acutely sensitive to dominance by an outside power.
For some reason the US declined to establish a combined command structure with the South Vietnamese, as it had in Korea. It relegated the Army of the Republic of Vietnam to pacification, a task many Vietnamese considered demeaning. Americanization of the war also produced among South Vietnamese a "takeover effect," inviting them to stand by and let the Americans fight the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. With the ARVN forces reluctant to fight even refusing to at times American troops disparaged their fighting qualities. American troops expected the people they were defending to offer the sort of gratitude they believed their fathers had gained for liberating France in World War II. When instead they encountered indifference or even hostility, they grew resentful and for many Americans, the South Vietnamese became an object of contempt, even hatred. American troops also brought with them deeply entrenched racist attitudes that prompted the use of slurs such as "gook" and "dink," which they applied to enemy and friend alike.
When I was drafted in '63 and sent to Ft. Ord in Calif. it was night and day different. The command structure there knew that we were most likely headed to Vietnam and combat so they took things seriously. Rifles were the M14 and the training was excellent as far as Basic goes. Depending upon your MOS there far more training in store. I went to Ft. Sam Huston and Combat Medic School and again we were serious and they were serious and the training was first class. They were even working on a mock-up Vietnamese Village that was very realistic to learn how to interact with the civilian population. Having had two years of Pre-Med at UofI I did very well and went into Expert Medical training. Arriving in Vietnam there was a further two weeks of acclimation and specific to Vietnam training. So IMHO I was very well trained though nothing can compare to the real thing and it still comes as a complete shock, it did to me. Assigned to the 9th Field Hospital I ended up as basically a glorified Orderly giving bed baths, emptying bed pans, cleaning operating rooms, etc. I absolutely hated it so when the chance came to join the "Hearts and Minds" aspect of our involvement I jumped at it. I was soon leading medical missions into the Highlands setting up clinics and providing the only medical care most had ever experienced. The military called Pacification and as time wore on and command structure changed the Hold and Protect nature of Hearts and Minds was being replaced by the Military strategy of firepower, mobility, and attrition pursued by Westmoreland
The biggest lack in my/our training was that we had been sent to South Vietnam with little more than a cursory understanding of the country's language, history, religious traditions, etiquette or politics. I had two translators with me one for English to Vietnamese and a second for Vietnamese into local dialect now add in the fact that Vietnam's population was highly diverse with a strong dislike even hatred for each other. Add to that the US - Vietnam political relationship, basically a patron-client relationship. The United States, the world's strongest country and still riding high off its victory in World War II, was confident in its power — and its virtue. It expected to lead, and to be followed. In contrast, the South Vietnamese, citizens of a fragile state newly freed from colonial rule and threatened by internal insurgency and external invasion, recognized their desperate need for American help, but they were also acutely sensitive to dominance by an outside power.
For some reason the US declined to establish a combined command structure with the South Vietnamese, as it had in Korea. It relegated the Army of the Republic of Vietnam to pacification, a task many Vietnamese considered demeaning. Americanization of the war also produced among South Vietnamese a "takeover effect," inviting them to stand by and let the Americans fight the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. With the ARVN forces reluctant to fight even refusing to at times American troops disparaged their fighting qualities. American troops expected the people they were defending to offer the sort of gratitude they believed their fathers had gained for liberating France in World War II. When instead they encountered indifference or even hostility, they grew resentful and for many Americans, the South Vietnamese became an object of contempt, even hatred. American troops also brought with them deeply entrenched racist attitudes that prompted the use of slurs such as "gook" and "dink," which they applied to enemy and friend alike.
ARTESH
Chief Master Sergeant
Really Good, Bill !About a month after VE- Day I was transferred to the 358th Bomb Group, 548th Squadron. One day I had just finished a training flight and was walking back to the squadron area. A person from the sidewalk on the other side of the street yelled " Lieutenant, come over here". I did and he proceeded to chew me out for not saluting him. It was hard to take as he was a desk jockey 1st Lieutenant. I was put on report and had to spend an hour with others on report in close order drill. This is the only time while in the service that I was mad enough to kill.
I had experienced this, but on the other side!
That was good too.
- Thread starter
- #34
Wes,The Army Air Force Cadet Program entrance required two years of college until late 1942 then anyone who could pass the academic and physical tests would qualify. I graduated from high school May 7,1943. The following is a time line of my entrance and training:
June, 1943 Passed academic and physical Tests
July 8 Sworn in - Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (returned home)
August 2 Basic Training - Jefferson Barracks - St. Louis, Missouri
Sept. 8 CTD (college training detachment - Butler University - Indianapolis, Indiana
Feb. 7,1944 Classification Center/Preflight - San Antonio, Texas
More academic and physical testing for pilot, navigator or bombardier training. I scored highest for pilot but requested bombardier which they granted. I requested bombardier because a good friend wanted me to do so thinking we could continue training together. Unfortunately, he didn't make the grade and washed out of the program.
June 19,1944 Bombardier School - Midland,Texas
Sept. 30.1944 Graduation
Received my Bombardier Wings and commission at the graduation ceremony.
Hope the above answers your question.
Thanks, Bill. You definitely got serious training, and Uncle got a good return on his investment.
My old boss, Mr Roberti, had been chief instructor in a contract preflight/primary school attached to a College Training Detachment. They used J3 Cubs and gave cadets 30 hours just to "separate the sheep from the goats" and weed out the low aptitude candidates before they went to "real" AAF Primary Flight School. Sometime in 1944, the AAF determined that aircrew losses were less than forecast and abolished most of the contract flight schools. Mr Roberti's instructors all got orders to report to Marine boot camp before they even received their notices cancelling their draft deferments. Just in time for Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They all had civilian flight instructor licences, but few could pass an AAF or USN flight physical and none were allowed to apply. "We don't need aviators, we need infantry". At that time, I've heard, skilled male workers in war production plants were losing their deferments to feed the needs of the infantry. The women had learned to do the jobs, freeing up the men for combat. My mother in law was one of them.
Cheers,
Wes
My old boss, Mr Roberti, had been chief instructor in a contract preflight/primary school attached to a College Training Detachment. They used J3 Cubs and gave cadets 30 hours just to "separate the sheep from the goats" and weed out the low aptitude candidates before they went to "real" AAF Primary Flight School. Sometime in 1944, the AAF determined that aircrew losses were less than forecast and abolished most of the contract flight schools. Mr Roberti's instructors all got orders to report to Marine boot camp before they even received their notices cancelling their draft deferments. Just in time for Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They all had civilian flight instructor licences, but few could pass an AAF or USN flight physical and none were allowed to apply. "We don't need aviators, we need infantry". At that time, I've heard, skilled male workers in war production plants were losing their deferments to feed the needs of the infantry. The women had learned to do the jobs, freeing up the men for combat. My mother in law was one of them.
Cheers,
Wes
Same was true when I went to the University of Vermont in 1965, except the law was changed between my freshman and sophomore years. I could have dropped out of ROTC, but I'd already been sucked into Pershing Rifles and was learning all that counter insurgency stuff I figured I might need in the near future, so I stuck it out for another year. Then the sheer absurdity of it all settled in, and I bailed. Figured of push came to shove I'd go into the AF, Navy, or Guard. When push did come to shove, my friendly AF recruiter was nowhere to be found, the Guard was backlogged, and the Navy guy was right there with an offer I couldn't refuse.
The Navy was night-and-day different from what I had seen of the Army. Stuff WORKED, people knew their jobs, and there was a sense of purpose and teamwork that felt good. Four years three months twelve days and four hours later, when they gave me my DD214, I felt like I had made a contribution and had some interesting experiences, but couldn't see it as a long term lifestyle choice. They even offered me a regular (not reserve) commission in Air Intelligence to stay in (they were that desperate in 1974), but I didn't want to be part of the Intelligence community. There was a reconnaissance wing of Vigilantes on base, so there were flocks of Junior Intelligence officers around who were treated like dogshit and couldn't wait to get out. The average squadron photo analysis or signals analysis shop was staffed with senior petty officers who had lots of experience, ran the shop and had way more expertise with the nits and grits of intelligence than the 90 day wonder or washed out aviator who was nominally in charge. This left the Officer in Charge feeling like a fifth wheel, as he caught flak from above for his shop's perceived shortcomings, but was unable to effect any changes. I didn't really want to be an officer, anyway. Leadership's not my thing.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #37
We received 10 hours in a J-3 from civilian pilots while at CTD.
mikewint
Captain
Wes, IF i'd have been more practical minded I would have Navied myself. But like the DA I am I fought the Draft Board (they actually had no right to revoke my student deferral but wanted to punish my anti-war activities) and, of course they won so Army it was. My friend Rick saw the writing on the wall a joined the Navy. After basic he went to Radar and then Subs. They based him at Pearl. The SOB used to send Hawaiian Christmas cards to us. He did so well the Navy sent him to Nuclear subs and reactors. Then to the Univ of Iowa to study Nuclear power. The Navy paid all fees and gave him half pay PLUS he had a Nuclear Power certificate so the Univ employed him as a reactor tech. The SOB live in a free off campus apt and drove a Corvette. From there he was assigned to the Patrick Henry missile sub as a full Commander in charge of the nuclear weapons. He took his 20 and retired.
While Vietnam scared the living crepe out of me and I fully expected to die any second (I lived in my flak vest for three months) you simply can't live in full terror mode for very long. The total weird foreign absurdity becomes Normal somehow. Getting out in the field helped tremendously and the country people, the Yards and Nungs were 180 from what I had experienced in the city and on base. The best idea I can give is that I felt like Lt. Dunbar in Dances with Wolves and the Yards were the Sioux. I really really felt good about what I was doing and made some very close friendships and actually ended up being "adopted" into two "tribes". Despite the war it was one of the best times in my life
While Vietnam scared the living crepe out of me and I fully expected to die any second (I lived in my flak vest for three months) you simply can't live in full terror mode for very long. The total weird foreign absurdity becomes Normal somehow. Getting out in the field helped tremendously and the country people, the Yards and Nungs were 180 from what I had experienced in the city and on base. The best idea I can give is that I felt like Lt. Dunbar in Dances with Wolves and the Yards were the Sioux. I really really felt good about what I was doing and made some very close friendships and actually ended up being "adopted" into two "tribes". Despite the war it was one of the best times in my life
Anti-war in 1963?? Man, you were ahead of the curve, WAY ahead of the curve! Most of us were so obsessed with Selma AL and freedom marches and Dr King, etc, we hardly knew Saigon and Hanoi existed.
Cheers,
Wes
