Ah now that is interesting! I recall speaking to a mate of mine in the Australia army about tradition, and he was talking about similar things: the unit he serves in has a proud sense of tradition and history. Knowing that another armed force uses it (the US marines) is valuable information. To your knowledge Monse is the practice you describe widespread? Do seperate units or sections have their own individualistic traditions and history that they install into new recruits? For example, you serve the Marines and you're given the history of the marines as a whole, but does your unit have it's own history that is, to your unit, just as important? Does the regular US army also follow this practice? Is there a "rivalry" between regular army and Marines? Do units have friendly rivalries with other units, perhaps seeking to outperform them?
It's great to get this info from inside sources <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Thankyou kindly for your time and contribution Monse and all other people who have responded in this thread. My gratitude to you all <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Good questions, I'm really warming to this now. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The other US armed force that follows similar traditions to some degree is the Navy - very big on tradition and such. In the Army, it's much more confined to individual units and their history. An Army Ranger, a Green Beret, or a member of the 4th Armored division (Patton's) tend to have the same mindset as the Marine Corps as a whole - tradition and honor-bound, tough fighting, and a history of not giving an inch despite the odds. The 20576th Supply Battalion or some such unit in the Army is not going to do anything equally impressive, usually.
Within the Marine Corps, I've been in a few units and each one had their own natural tendency to believe they were the best. In reality, the levels of training and types of individuals the Marines recuit meant that they ended up being pretty equal. Since the Corps is so small (only 3 divisions), all of its units have pretty long battle history at this point and they all balance out pretty well. WW2 saw to that...
There is definitely a rivalry between Marines and *insert your military here*. That's just healthy competition.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 25 2003, 07:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 25 2003, 07:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To your knowledge Monse is the practice you describe widespread? Do seperate units or sections have their own individualistic traditions and history that they install into new recruits? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd say yes. It's very important moral booster and that's about it. Every army to my knowledge uses it, and no doubt separate units have their own hero stories and traditions. Because I'm not very familiar with other countries army traditions, I have to take one from my own country. Old hero stories from ww2 are being out and open very often and it makes people more patriotic. And of course countries wouldn't work without patriotism and armies need it especially to keep moral high, soldiers in line and it also works as a nice recruitment trick: "Your grandfathers fought and died for this country. Now it's time for you to take a stand. Join military now!" etc. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 25 2003, 06:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 25 2003, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Old hero stories from ww2 are being out and open very often and it makes people more patriotic. And of course countries wouldn't work without patriotism and armies need it especially to keep moral high, soldiers in line and it also works as a nice recruitment trick: "Your grandfathers fought and died for this country. Now it's time for you to take a stand. Join military now!" etc. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unfortunately, that doesn't work very well in Germany. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--CrystalSnake+Sep 25 2003, 08:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CrystalSnake @ Sep 25 2003, 08:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 25 2003, 06:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 25 2003, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Old hero stories from ww2 are being out and open very often and it makes people more patriotic. And of course countries wouldn't work without patriotism and armies need it especially to keep moral high, soldiers in line and it also works as a nice recruitment trick: "Your grandfathers fought and died for this country. Now it's time for you to take a stand. Join military now!" etc. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unfortunately, that doesn't work very well in Germany. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Touch?. Ok, all but one <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
But I think even germans have some sort of traditions in their army. I kind of admire the German army history. If we forget the political stuff like oppression of the jews etc, I think Germans could be even proud of their grandfathers. Like MonsE said, they had _all_ the cool stuff back then first.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 25 2003, 02:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 25 2003, 02:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But I think even germans have some sort of traditions in their army. I kind of admire the German army history. If we forget the political stuff like oppression of the jews etc, I think Germans could be even proud of their grandfathers. Like MonsE said, they had _all_ the cool stuff back then first. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And like I said - they wrote the book on modern warfare, still employed by the US Military to this very day.
The other US armed force that follows similar traditions to some degree is the Navy - very big on tradition and such. In the Army, it's much more confined to individual units and their history. An Army Ranger, a Green Beret, or a member of the 4th Armored division (Patton's) tend to have the same mindset as the Marine Corps as a whole - tradition and honor-bound, tough fighting, and a history of not giving an inch despite the odds. The 20576th Supply Battalion or some such unit in the Army is not going to do anything equally impressive, usually.
Within the Marine Corps, I've been in a few units and each one had their own natural tendency to believe they were the best. In reality, the levels of training and types of individuals the Marines recuit meant that they ended up being pretty equal. Since the Corps is so small (only 3 divisions), all of its units have pretty long battle history at this point and they all balance out pretty well. WW2 saw to that...
There is definitely a rivalry between Marines and *insert your military here*. That's just healthy competition. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Is it true SEALS are total hardasses? Where did the concept of leave no man behind really come from in the Rangers. And what the hell happened in Nam?
SEALS I saw in the field were physically some of the most 'in-shape' guys I ever met. They were crap with weapons and tactics though, pure amateur-hour compared to just a simple Marine rifle company. I trained at their school at Coronado Naval Station and they are some PT-ing muhs, for sure though.
The 'leave no man behind' concept is not exclusive to the Rangers - it is a mantra endlessly drilled into the minds of all Marines as well as most elite troops. Nothing makes a man fight harder than knowing that he's not going to be left behind in a withdrawl. It appears to be completely removed from the regular ideology of the US Army in general though, as they seem to constantly let their moron support troops get captured and abandon them in the most disgraceful ways.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Sep 25 2003, 08:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Sep 25 2003, 08:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I trained at their school at Coronado Naval Station and they are some PT-ing muhs, for sure though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What's a "PT-ing muh"? I'm European, I don't understand this strange language you speak...
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Sep 25 2003, 06:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Sep 25 2003, 06:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That set of traditions and history is part of what draws a particular kind of man to the Marine Corps, and leads to a self-fullfilling prophecy of tough, hard-fighting, elite, professional sea soldiers. It's also why no Marine commander has ever surrendered his troops, ever; a tradition to uphold where no one wants to be the first to disgrace the Corps.
That's the USMC take on things... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This self-less sacrificial spirit must rely heavily on the trust that the big brass won't just send the marines on ridiculously hard missions that they will die from with certainty, right? I mean if the US Navy had a habit of using their marines as expendible forces, that morale wouldn't go very far. I wonder if it isn't the safest place to be in all the armed forces combined, statistically <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This self-less sacrificial spirit must rely heavily on the trust that the big brass won't just send the marines on ridiculously hard missions that they will die from with certainty, right? I mean if the US Navy had a habit of using their marines as expendible forces, that morale wouldn't go very far. I wonder if it isn't the safest place to be in all the armed forces combined, statistically <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, this is backwards - Amphibious landings are the most dangerous large-scale operation any force can ever attempt, and Marines have (per capita) taken far more casualties than any other American armed force in the past 200 years.
For example, at the Battle of Tarawa in WW2, roughly 10,000 Marines invaded and secured the Betio Atoll over the course of 3 days. They had 1100 dead and 2400 wounded - that's more than 30% of your force being a casualty, over the period of 72 hours. They fought against 5000 Japanese marines who were so tenacious that only 100 survived the battle - the rest were all killed.
At Iwo Jima two years later, 60,000 marines invaded the most heavily defended island in the Pacific at Iwo Jima. 7,000 died, along with 20,000 US causalties. That was over the course of only a couple weeks, and 27 Medal's of Honor were awarded in that fight, more than any other US battle ever.
And these are just two battles out of hundreds, in just one war out of dozens. All that being said, having served alongside all the US armed forces branches, Marine morale is always the highest unless paired with an elite Army unit. Then they are equal.
(Edit: and here's an example of one such Medal of Honor winner at that battle, just to give you an idea of what the US Marines are made of. It's from the US Medal of Honor website <a href='http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm:' target='_blank'>http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm:</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->HARRELL, WILLIAM GEORGE
Rank and organization: Sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps, 1st Battalion, 28th Marines, 5th Marine Division. Place and date: Iwo Jima, Volcano Islands, 3 March 1945. Entered service at: Mercedes, Tex. Born: 26 June 1922, Rio Grande City, Tex.
Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as leader of an assault group attached to the 1st Battalion, 28th Marines, 5th Marine Division during hand-to-hand combat with enemy Japanese at Iwo Jima, Volcano Islands, on 3 March 1945. Standing watch alternately with another marine in a terrain studded with caves and ravines, Sgt. Harrell was holding a position in a perimeter defense around the company command post when Japanese troops infiltrated our lines in the early hours of dawn. Awakened by a sudden attack, he quickly opened fire with his carbine and killed 2 of the enemy as they emerged from a ravine in the light of a star shellburst. Unmindful of his danger as hostile grenades fell closer, he waged a fierce lone battle until an exploding missile tore off his left hand and fractured his thigh. He was vainly attempting to reload the carbine when his companion returned from the command post with another weapon. Wounded again by a Japanese who rushed the foxhole wielding a saber in the darkness, Sgt. Harrell succeeded in drawing his pistol and killing his opponent and then ordered his wounded companion to a place of safety. Exhausted by profuse bleeding but still unbeaten, he fearlessly met the challenge of 2 more enemy troops who charged his position and placed a grenade near his head. Killing 1 man with his pistol, he grasped the sputtering grenade with his good right hand, and, pushing it painfully toward the crouching soldier, saw his remaining assailant destroyed but his own hand severed in the explosion. At dawn Sgt. Harrell was evacuated from a position hedged by the bodies of 12 dead Japanese, at least 5 of whom he had personally destroyed in his self-sacrificing defense of the command post. His grim fortitude, exceptional valor, and indomitable fighting spirit against almost insurmountable odds reflect the highest credit upon himself and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correct. Actually, one of the Marine's proud moments in WW One while fighting the Germans at Belleau Wood. When the battle was won, they captured german intelligence documents where the Marines had been classified specifically as Shock Troops, which was the highest caliber of troops to the Germans. They also picked up the nickname of teufelhund, which is what Marines to this day call each other informally (the English translation is devil dog).
Not sure if this is OT at this point or not. But it goes to my earlier points, I guess. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well, my good deed for the day then. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Sep 25 2003, 09:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Sep 25 2003, 09:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They also picked up the nickname of teufelhund, which is what Marines to this day call each other informally (the English translation is devil dog).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's interesting, because "Teufelhund" doesn't seem to be part of the German language anymore. The closest word I can think of is "Höllenhund" (hell hound). Are you sure this isn't just an urban myth invented by an American who spoke German badly? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I can't see why it would be part of the language from day to day, as it's such an unusual and archaic word. However, it is in <a href='http://dict.leo.org/?search=teufel&searchLoc=0&relink=on&spellToler=standard§Hdr=on&tableBorder=1&cmpType=relaxed&lang=en' target='_blank'>LEO</a> if you're looking to check pure vocab. Teufel is an older german word for devil (or Satan), and hund is (understandably) dog. There are similar phrases like "Teufelsbrut - Satan's brood" and "Teufelsweib - devil of a woman" aka my wife.
Getting further and further OT here, rein it in folks. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Why do they fight when they get there? Someone of higher rank tells them to.
Who tells the higher officers to fight? Politics or a personal vendeta of the higher officers.
---- Why did knights joust? For the entertainment of a Noble/King
Why did they joust? Because their Noble/King told them to
Why did the Nobles/Kings tell them to joust? For fun. ---- Why did people join in WW1 despite massive casualties in Europe? They didn't know there were massive casualties in Europe, and they joined for a good cause. Either "Push back the Germans from France/Belgium" or "Conquer France through Belgium" for causes.
Why did they rush towards the enemies heavilly-fortified trenches? They were told to by their Sargeant. If they didn't they'd die from one of their own bullets. (SERIOUSLY!)
Why did the Sergeant order the men to go out there, including himself? Because the Generals told the Sargeants to otherwise the invading enemy would own their country. If the Sargeant didn't, he'd have a bullet in his brain as much as the soldier who didn't get out of the trench. (SERIOUSLY... AGAIN!) ---- Why do people join terrorist organizations? They belive in the cause of hate of the "enemy"/<b>fear</b>/nWo (new world order)/their own version of a religion, slightly or heavilly modified from the original.
Why do they shoot at civiallians/blow things up/etc when they get into a densely populated area? Their leader told them to.
Why did the leader tell them to do it? The leader hates/dislikes/etc whoever they're killing. Mainly for revenge on a "insult" of some kind... or the leader is a absolute nut. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
know that i did not mention anyones name! nor any names... course i could be entirely wrong in my thesis and this entire post was a waste of time. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Don't forget mercenaries. They made up a signifcant part of any army for eons. War was a profession very much back then, just as it is today. Except you don't get (formal) plundering rights. And there's really not that much war to be fought. Which is good because people die a whole lot. It was only in recent times that kings and earls figured out how to levy soldiers. It was when the peasantry entered wars that it got really bloody.
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Sep 25 2003, 10:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Sep 25 2003, 10:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I was worried it would just degrade into military bashing by certain people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Bah.
I don't have anything against military but I'm still sure that most of the people in WW2 would have been rather home than killing people. That means they don't want to fight but they have to because they are there. Not much else to do in war except to fight :/
i see soliders wanting to fight because of the excitment and glory when you can brag on how you were in a situation between life and death, it also proves if you survived during a hard battle that you were the "strongest", of course many are blinded by the hell of an intense battle when you lose fellow soliders and friends, thats why combat crazy soldiers in the world wars didnt try to make friends, becuase it is heart breaking and lowers your moral or sometimes increases it due to revenge but its sad to lose the guy enext to you, but its worse to lose a good friend. they are also driven by the action and excitment, and some people do it for the hell of the country or to kill and slaughter that the enemies type of people (ex. in ww2 there was a pole on who would u rather kill they asked the soldiers, i THINK around 25% said germans 75% said japanease and 5% said both or undecided, (thats off the sheer of my memory <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> ) so im sure its not all right, but the fact of the matter is most marines said the japanease.
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Sep 24 2003, 02:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Sep 24 2003, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I still stand by the statement.
We (coalition) fought the 4th largest army in 1991, and even though many ran, many still put up a fight.
We (US/brits) fought the remnants of this army in 2003, and they broke and ran largely without a fight. But now civilians are nailing us with RPG's in ambush tactics and car bombs. Something we have only recently (vietnam war and later) experienced on such a scale and we need to adapt to it, although it's difficult<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was Iraq really the 4th largest army in 1991? Or is that just a myth? I know I've heard before that it is a myth. Here is a site I found
And 4th largest army does not equal 4th most powerful, although it seems easy to associate the two. So thus, when an army is that large/powerful(?), it only seems logical to cut it down to size when it's headed by a crazed dictator. All in all, the whole idea seems like US propaganda to make the Gulf War seem more important.
it's disturbing how flawed many people's concept of fighting and mentality is. Many of you that have spoke so voluminously about fighting and historical "guns to the head" situations have had either very little contact with proper history books or with veterans, and most likely, both. It seems most of you have never been acquainted with any sort of closeknit brotherhood, either on a team, squad or in a cadet/military situation. Monse can vouch for this, but in a situation like the military, the members of your unit tend to turn into the men that will "marry and bury" you. In that, I mean, they'll be the best men at your wedding, and the pallbearers at your funeral. When you train with the same men day after day after day, your life depends on them doing their part and doing it <i>properly</i>, you end up fighting together because you want to. You don't waver and fold because the man next to you means more than people can understand. Mutual reliance on each other throughout your training and into battle plays a pivotal role in the performance of troops.
As for jarheads on the other hand (wvu monse :o), they are trained to understand that they're the first to deploy--with the exception of Force Recon, SEALs or Rangers/SF in some cases--and they're the first to bleed when the shooting starts. They are trained to have that <i>understood</i> from the beginning, and lessons are reinforced even to the point of moving in formation without permission. The level of <i>discipline</i> it takes to stand unwavering at attention for hours cannot be understood by someone who has never done it. That discipline, under any circumstances, is what makes marines so god damned scary in the first place. If you move in the field when you shouldn't, the human eye (which is attracted to light and movement above anything else) you just jeopardized your life and every other squad members life by drawing attention to yourself. The ability to go into a tear gas chamber unmasked, go through and have the clarity of mind to ultimately find and don your gas mask is considered essential enough that <i>every</i> marine recruit goes through it.
Additionally, there is the leadership that comes from the NCO and officer corps in every branch. The longer someone has been in the service, the higher the odds that at some point they've been deployed to a hostile area and possibly seen combat. Those that have seen combat are markedly different than those who haven't, and that unnerving calm and resolve carry over into their leadership when deployed. Any good NCO or young officer (O-1 through O-3) bolsters the morale and confidence of his troops, and their confidence feeds off of those below them, which feeds back into their men. Someone who has <i>been there</i> is trusted to a greater degree than a wet behind the ears butterbar straight out of Annapolis or the Point, and the trust their men place in them to get them through the rough parts builds that esprit de corps even greater. If you want to know what one man can do for a troop, look to the archives of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Read the stories of men who risked life and limb (some losing one or both) for the man next to him.
On the topic of officers, I wish to further look into the idea of a soldier fighting.
Formost, does a soldier obey his officers because they are his officers, or does he obey them because they have earned his respect? Do officers have to gain the respect of their men? If they don't, will their men still perform their duties?
I ask this because whilst a soldier may want to fight, and thus has the motivation, unless it is correctly applied and directed it is not a useful force. Hence I wish to look deeper into command elemants, finding out what drives a soldier to obey.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 29 2003, 09:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 29 2003, 09:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Formost, does a soldier obey his officers because they are his officers, or does he obey them because they have earned his respect? Do officers have to gain the respect of their men? If they don't, will their men still perform their duties? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In the army, it's a combination of both earning it and it being given simply because of rank.
My drill sergeant once said, "You have to respect the rank, Privates. You don't have to respect the person, but you gotta respect the rank."
I really took that to heart. True respect, like just about everything in the military, has to be earned. I've seen PFCs and specialists instructing 2nd LTs on what's what because they're more knowledgable about it. Correcting officers is very different from correcting privates. If the LT is all ate up, you pull him aside privately and tell him politely. If a private is boned up, you chew his **** out right there. The officers that I've really respected have been the ones who didn't detach themselves from the rest of the unit. They do PT with the unit, eat, sleep and suffer right along with you. It's not unusual for battalion commanders to listen to their sergeants over the new officers due to their experience and knowledge.
In my unit, we always did what the officers told us to do. If the officer was a real ****, we'd perform out duties less enthusiastically, but we'd still do them. Most of my commands came from my TC, a tobacco chewing, foul mouthed, sexist staff sergeant who's idea of a good time was doing PT and target recognition training.
<!--QuoteBegin--The Finch+Sep 29 2003, 01:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Sep 29 2003, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> target recognition training. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not the one where you send two guys out without lanterns or reflective gear or weapons about 2 klicks from the barracks and tell them to "infiltrate" the armed based safely is it? The "target recognition" being the part where the guards have to find, acquire, and then _not_ put holes in their buddies? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 29 2003, 09:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 29 2003, 09:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On the topic of officers, I wish to further look into the idea of a soldier fighting.
Formost, does a soldier obey his officers because they are his officers, or does he obey them because they have earned his respect? Do officers have to gain the respect of their men? If they don't, will their men still perform their duties?
I ask this because whilst a soldier may want to fight, and thus has the motivation, unless it is correctly applied and directed it is not a useful force. Hence I wish to look deeper into command elemants, finding out what drives a soldier to obey. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> For American servicemen/women, there's the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Most orders, soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen of lower rank are <i>required by military law</i> to follow, the exceptions being unlawful orders and a few other instances. Those are always present, but for good leaders, there is a dedication formed to him from within the unit. Although many are detractors of Colin Powell's autobiography, <i>My American Journey</i>, the work provides good insight and humorous anecdotes concerning the commanders he served under, all the way to the Reagan and Bush (elder) administrations. One of his maxims is "Morale is a force multiplyer." One of the best ways to boost morale as an officer is to endure every hardship your men are required to, only put them in situations you yourself would walk into, and always stand behind them. Nothing builds respect more than having a leader who will get down and dirty with his men and watch after them when other officers/NCOs/units run crosswise of them. If you wouldn't be willing to do something yourself, how could you expect them to do it for you? They have to at least believe you're sending them into a situation you would face yourself. That is one of the reason mustang officers (officers that started out as enlisted men or women) carry a lot of weight with their troops--they've been on the tip of the blade, and been through everything their troops have before, and now they're in a position where they won't let their men get hung out to dry.
Comments
It's great to get this info from inside sources <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Thankyou kindly for your time and contribution Monse and all other people who have responded in this thread. My gratitude to you all <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The other US armed force that follows similar traditions to some degree is the Navy - very big on tradition and such. In the Army, it's much more confined to individual units and their history. An Army Ranger, a Green Beret, or a member of the 4th Armored division (Patton's) tend to have the same mindset as the Marine Corps as a whole - tradition and honor-bound, tough fighting, and a history of not giving an inch despite the odds. The 20576th Supply Battalion or some such unit in the Army is not going to do anything equally impressive, usually.
Within the Marine Corps, I've been in a few units and each one had their own natural tendency to believe they were the best. In reality, the levels of training and types of individuals the Marines recuit meant that they ended up being pretty equal. Since the Corps is so small (only 3 divisions), all of its units have pretty long battle history at this point and they all balance out pretty well. WW2 saw to that...
There is definitely a rivalry between Marines and *insert your military here*. That's just healthy competition.
I'd say yes. It's very important moral booster and that's about it. Every army to my knowledge uses it, and no doubt separate units have their own hero stories and traditions. Because I'm not very familiar with other countries army traditions, I have to take one from my own country. Old hero stories from ww2 are being out and open very often and it makes people more patriotic. And of course countries wouldn't work without patriotism and armies need it especially to keep moral high, soldiers in line and it also works as a nice recruitment trick: "Your grandfathers fought and died for this country. Now it's time for you to take a stand. Join military now!" etc. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Unfortunately, that doesn't work very well in Germany. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Unfortunately, that doesn't work very well in Germany. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Touch?. Ok, all but one <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
But I think even germans have some sort of traditions in their army. I kind of admire the German army history. If we forget the political stuff like oppression of the jews etc, I think Germans could be even proud of their grandfathers. Like MonsE said, they had _all_ the cool stuff back then first.
And like I said - they wrote the book on modern warfare, still employed by the US Military to this very day.
The other US armed force that follows similar traditions to some degree is the Navy - very big on tradition and such. In the Army, it's much more confined to individual units and their history. An Army Ranger, a Green Beret, or a member of the 4th Armored division (Patton's) tend to have the same mindset as the Marine Corps as a whole - tradition and honor-bound, tough fighting, and a history of not giving an inch despite the odds. The 20576th Supply Battalion or some such unit in the Army is not going to do anything equally impressive, usually.
Within the Marine Corps, I've been in a few units and each one had their own natural tendency to believe they were the best. In reality, the levels of training and types of individuals the Marines recuit meant that they ended up being pretty equal. Since the Corps is so small (only 3 divisions), all of its units have pretty long battle history at this point and they all balance out pretty well. WW2 saw to that...
There is definitely a rivalry between Marines and *insert your military here*. That's just healthy competition. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it true SEALS are total hardasses? Where did the concept of leave no man behind really come from in the Rangers. And what the hell happened in Nam?
Last one can be disregarded as a joke : P
The 'leave no man behind' concept is not exclusive to the Rangers - it is a mantra endlessly drilled into the minds of all Marines as well as most elite troops. Nothing makes a man fight harder than knowing that he's not going to be left behind in a withdrawl. It appears to be completely removed from the regular ideology of the US Army in general though, as they seem to constantly let their moron support troops get captured and abandon them in the most disgraceful ways.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's a "PT-ing muh"?
I'm European, I don't understand this strange language you speak...
That's the USMC take on things... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This self-less sacrificial spirit must rely heavily on the trust that the big brass won't just send the marines on ridiculously hard missions that they will die from with certainty, right? I mean if the US Navy had a habit of using their marines as expendible forces, that morale wouldn't go very far. I wonder if it isn't the safest place to be in all the armed forces combined, statistically <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Makes sense though, every description I have ever gotten of SEAL training has always been incredibly brutal compared to others.
Did any of those SEALS challenge you to a blindfolded footrace MonsE?
...dirty SEALS deleted my post : P
Unfortunately, this is backwards - Amphibious landings are the most dangerous large-scale operation any force can ever attempt, and Marines have (per capita) taken far more casualties than any other American armed force in the past 200 years.
For example, at the Battle of Tarawa in WW2, roughly 10,000 Marines invaded and secured the Betio Atoll over the course of 3 days. They had 1100 dead and 2400 wounded - that's more than 30% of your force being a casualty, over the period of 72 hours. They fought against 5000 Japanese marines who were so tenacious that only 100 survived the battle - the rest were all killed.
At Iwo Jima two years later, 60,000 marines invaded the most heavily defended island in the Pacific at Iwo Jima. 7,000 died, along with 20,000 US causalties. That was over the course of only a couple weeks, and 27 Medal's of Honor were awarded in that fight, more than any other US battle ever.
And these are just two battles out of hundreds, in just one war out of dozens. All that being said, having served alongside all the US armed forces branches, Marine morale is always the highest unless paired with an elite Army unit. Then they are equal.
(Edit: and here's an example of one such Medal of Honor winner at that battle, just to give you an idea of what the US Marines are made of. It's from the US Medal of Honor website <a href='http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm:' target='_blank'>http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm:</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->HARRELL, WILLIAM GEORGE
Rank and organization: Sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps, 1st Battalion, 28th Marines, 5th Marine Division.
Place and date: Iwo Jima, Volcano Islands, 3 March 1945.
Entered service at: Mercedes, Tex.
Born: 26 June 1922, Rio Grande City, Tex.
Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as leader of an assault group attached to the 1st Battalion, 28th Marines, 5th Marine Division during hand-to-hand combat with enemy Japanese at Iwo Jima, Volcano Islands, on 3 March 1945. Standing watch alternately with another marine in a terrain studded with caves and ravines, Sgt. Harrell was holding a position in a perimeter defense around the company command post when Japanese troops infiltrated our lines in the early hours of dawn. Awakened by a sudden attack, he quickly opened fire with his carbine and killed 2 of the enemy as they emerged from a ravine in the light of a star shellburst. Unmindful of his danger as hostile grenades fell closer, he waged a fierce lone battle until an exploding missile tore off his left hand and fractured his thigh. He was vainly attempting to reload the carbine when his companion returned from the command post with another weapon. Wounded again by a Japanese who rushed the foxhole wielding a saber in the darkness, Sgt. Harrell succeeded in drawing his pistol and killing his opponent and then ordered his wounded companion to a place of safety. Exhausted by profuse bleeding but still unbeaten, he fearlessly met the challenge of 2 more enemy troops who charged his position and placed a grenade near his head. Killing 1 man with his pistol, he grasped the sputtering grenade with his good right hand, and, pushing it painfully toward the crouching soldier, saw his remaining assailant destroyed but his own hand severed in the explosion. At dawn Sgt. Harrell was evacuated from a position hedged by the bodies of 12 dead Japanese, at least 5 of whom he had personally destroyed in his self-sacrificing defense of the command post. His grim fortitude, exceptional valor, and indomitable fighting spirit against almost insurmountable odds reflect the highest credit upon himself and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure if this is OT at this point or not. But it goes to my earlier points, I guess. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I was worried it would just degrade into military bashing by certain people.
That's interesting, because "Teufelhund" doesn't seem to be part of the German language anymore. The closest word I can think of is "Höllenhund" (hell hound).
Are you sure this isn't just an urban myth invented by an American who spoke German badly? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Getting further and further OT here, rein it in folks. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
For a cause.
Why do they fight when they get there?
Someone of higher rank tells them to.
Who tells the higher officers to fight?
Politics or a personal vendeta of the higher officers.
----
Why did knights joust?
For the entertainment of a Noble/King
Why did they joust?
Because their Noble/King told them to
Why did the Nobles/Kings tell them to joust?
For fun.
----
Why did people join in WW1 despite massive casualties in Europe?
They didn't know there were massive casualties in Europe, and they joined for a good cause. Either "Push back the Germans from France/Belgium" or "Conquer France through Belgium" for causes.
Why did they rush towards the enemies heavilly-fortified trenches?
They were told to by their Sargeant. If they didn't they'd die from one of their own bullets. (SERIOUSLY!)
Why did the Sergeant order the men to go out there, including himself?
Because the Generals told the Sargeants to otherwise the invading enemy would own their country. If the Sargeant didn't, he'd have a bullet in his brain as much as the soldier who didn't get out of the trench. (SERIOUSLY... AGAIN!)
----
Why do people join terrorist organizations?
They belive in the cause of hate of the "enemy"/<b>fear</b>/nWo (new world order)/their own version of a religion, slightly or heavilly modified from the original.
Why do they shoot at civiallians/blow things up/etc when they get into a densely populated area?
Their leader told them to.
Why did the leader tell them to do it?
The leader hates/dislikes/etc whoever they're killing. Mainly for revenge on a "insult" of some kind... or the leader is a absolute nut. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
know that i did not mention anyones name! nor any names...
course i could be entirely wrong in my thesis and this entire post was a waste of time. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Bah.
I don't have anything against military but I'm still sure that most of the people in WW2 would have been rather home than killing people. That means they don't want to fight but they have to because they are there. Not much else to do in war except to fight :/
We (coalition) fought the 4th largest army in 1991, and even though many ran, many still put up a fight.
We (US/brits) fought the remnants of this army in 2003, and they broke and ran largely without a fight. But now civilians are nailing us with RPG's in ambush tactics and car bombs. Something we have only recently (vietnam war and later) experienced on such a scale and we need to adapt to it, although it's difficult<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was Iraq really the 4th largest army in 1991? Or is that just a myth? I know I've heard before that it is a myth. Here is a site I found
<a href='http://www.vestedowl.com/editor_june.htm' target='_blank'>Iraq's army</a>
And 4th largest army does not equal 4th most powerful, although it seems easy to associate the two. So thus, when an army is that large/powerful(?), it only seems logical to cut it down to size when it's headed by a crazed dictator. All in all, the whole idea seems like US propaganda to make the Gulf War seem more important.
As for jarheads on the other hand (wvu monse :o), they are trained to understand that they're the first to deploy--with the exception of Force Recon, SEALs or Rangers/SF in some cases--and they're the first to bleed when the shooting starts. They are trained to have that <i>understood</i> from the beginning, and lessons are reinforced even to the point of moving in formation without permission. The level of <i>discipline</i> it takes to stand unwavering at attention for hours cannot be understood by someone who has never done it. That discipline, under any circumstances, is what makes marines so god damned scary in the first place. If you move in the field when you shouldn't, the human eye (which is attracted to light and movement above anything else) you just jeopardized your life and every other squad members life by drawing attention to yourself. The ability to go into a tear gas chamber unmasked, go through and have the clarity of mind to ultimately find and don your gas mask is considered essential enough that <i>every</i> marine recruit goes through it.
Additionally, there is the leadership that comes from the NCO and officer corps in every branch. The longer someone has been in the service, the higher the odds that at some point they've been deployed to a hostile area and possibly seen combat. Those that have seen combat are markedly different than those who haven't, and that unnerving calm and resolve carry over into their leadership when deployed. Any good NCO or young officer (O-1 through O-3) bolsters the morale and confidence of his troops, and their confidence feeds off of those below them, which feeds back into their men. Someone who has <i>been there</i> is trusted to a greater degree than a wet behind the ears butterbar straight out of Annapolis or the Point, and the trust their men place in them to get them through the rough parts builds that esprit de corps even greater. If you want to know what one man can do for a troop, look to the archives of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Read the stories of men who risked life and limb (some losing one or both) for the man next to him.
Formost, does a soldier obey his officers because they are his officers, or does he obey them because they have earned his respect? Do officers have to gain the respect of their men? If they don't, will their men still perform their duties?
I ask this because whilst a soldier may want to fight, and thus has the motivation, unless it is correctly applied and directed it is not a useful force. Hence I wish to look deeper into command elemants, finding out what drives a soldier to obey.
In the army, it's a combination of both earning it and it being given simply because of rank.
My drill sergeant once said, "You have to respect the rank, Privates. You don't have to respect the person, but you gotta respect the rank."
I really took that to heart. True respect, like just about everything in the military, has to be earned. I've seen PFCs and specialists instructing 2nd LTs on what's what because they're more knowledgable about it. Correcting officers is very different from correcting privates. If the LT is all ate up, you pull him aside privately and tell him politely. If a private is boned up, you chew his **** out right there. The officers that I've really respected have been the ones who didn't detach themselves from the rest of the unit. They do PT with the unit, eat, sleep and suffer right along with you. It's not unusual for battalion commanders to listen to their sergeants over the new officers due to their experience and knowledge.
In my unit, we always did what the officers told us to do. If the officer was a real ****, we'd perform out duties less enthusiastically, but we'd still do them. Most of my commands came from my TC, a tobacco chewing, foul mouthed, sexist staff sergeant who's idea of a good time was doing PT and target recognition training.
That's not the one where you send two guys out without lanterns or reflective gear or weapons about 2 klicks from the barracks and tell them to "infiltrate" the armed based safely is it? The "target recognition" being the part where the guards have to find, acquire, and then _not_ put holes in their buddies? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Formost, does a soldier obey his officers because they are his officers, or does he obey them because they have earned his respect? Do officers have to gain the respect of their men? If they don't, will their men still perform their duties?
I ask this because whilst a soldier may want to fight, and thus has the motivation, unless it is correctly applied and directed it is not a useful force. Hence I wish to look deeper into command elemants, finding out what drives a soldier to obey. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
For American servicemen/women, there's the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Most orders, soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen of lower rank are <i>required by military law</i> to follow, the exceptions being unlawful orders and a few other instances. Those are always present, but for good leaders, there is a dedication formed to him from within the unit. Although many are detractors of Colin Powell's autobiography, <i>My American Journey</i>, the work provides good insight and humorous anecdotes concerning the commanders he served under, all the way to the Reagan and Bush (elder) administrations. One of his maxims is "Morale is a force multiplyer." One of the best ways to boost morale as an officer is to endure every hardship your men are required to, only put them in situations you yourself would walk into, and always stand behind them. Nothing builds respect more than having a leader who will get down and dirty with his men and watch after them when other officers/NCOs/units run crosswise of them. If you wouldn't be willing to do something yourself, how could you expect them to do it for you? They have to at least believe you're sending them into a situation you would face yourself. That is one of the reason mustang officers (officers that started out as enlisted men or women) carry a lot of weight with their troops--they've been on the tip of the blade, and been through everything their troops have before, and now they're in a position where they won't let their men get hung out to dry.