Category Archives: army

End of an Era

Since September 1943, with the amphibious landings at Salerno, Italy, the US Army has maintained armored formations in Europe. Until now.

The U.S. Army’s 69-year history of basing main battle tanks on German soil quietly ended last month when 22 Abrams tanks, a main feature of armored combat units throughout the Cold War, embarked for the U.S.

The departure of the last M-1 Abrams tanks coincides with the inactivation of two of the Army’s Germany-based heavy brigades. Last year, the 170th Infantry out of Baumholder disbanded. And the 172nd Separate Infantry Brigade at Grafenwöhr is in the process of doing the same.

On March 18, the remaining tanks were loaded up at the 21st Theater Sustainment Command’s railhead in Kaiserslautern where they then made the journey to the shipping port in Bremerhaven, Germany. There they boarded a ship bound for South Carolina.

When  I arrived in Germany in 1989, the principal US ground force was the US 7th Army.  It consisted of two corps, the V Corps, and VII Corps.  Each corps consisted of an armored division, a mechanized infantry division, a seperate heavy brigade, and an armored cavalry regiment.* Very roughly, that’s a little over 1500 tanks. That didn’t count the tanks of the German Bundeswehr, the British Army Of the Rhine (BAOR) or any of the other NATO nations. Then there were the POMCUS sites. Prepositioning Of Materiel Configured in Unit Sets- basically, if the US needed to reinforce Germany, the entire III Corps (headquartered at Ft. Hood, TX,  but with units also at Ft. Stewart, GA) would fly to Germany. Since getting all their equipment there would take time and shipping that likely wouldn’t be available, complete sets of the needed equipment were stored in Germany, just waiting for troops to draw them.  Call it roughly another 1000 tanks.

In addition, war replacement stocks were on hand, though I honestly don’t know how many there were. At any event, there were a couple thousand M1 tanks in Germany when I arrived.

With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, obviously much of the need for a strong forward US presence in Germany went away.

And so we find ourselves, for the first time in decades, without a forward deployed armor unit in Europe. If you’d told me in 1989 that we’d come to this, I’d have thought you crazy.

H/T to Jason for the Stripes article.

*These were merely the principal ground maneuver units. Each corps also had an array of combat support and combat service support brigades such as artillery, aviation, intelligence, engineer, military police and logistics.

About these ads

7 Comments

Filed under armor, army, ARMY TRAINING, history

Blogs. Why We Write ‘Em, Why We Read ‘Em.

milblogs2a

Those of us in this somewhat focused community of MilBlog writers and readers are often asked by people who haven’t any exposure to MilBlogs, “Why do you do it?  You put in a lot of time and work.  What’s the point?”

It’s a fair question.   Thinking of ideas, and putting together a cogent discussion starter, or historical summary, takes more time than people think.  Knowing that, and being somewhat of an analysis geek (which may turn out to be a very good thing soon), I have my list of half a dozen daily reads, at least.  This’n here.  Salamander’s Front Porch.  Ray’s Information Dissemination.  OP-FOR, The Castle, and a number of other places make the list, blended with traditional news sources domestic and foreign, plus policy and analysis outfits.

Why?  Well, my gracious host here gives me an outlet for expression.  Like anyone with a fair-sized ego, I believe just a little bit that everyone is entitled to my opinion.  But there is also the great opportunity for feedback.  To hear from a mostly very educated crowd, their opinions and takes on events and occurrences domestically and in foreign affairs.  But it extends into culture, literary works, certainly history, and other aspects that spark discussion.

But one of the most valuable reasons to read and write in the Military Blogosphere is to hear from people who are truly experts in their fields, who possess great wisdom, are extensively experienced, and are considered and well-spoken people.  I do miss terribly reading the thoughts and musings of Lex, which was a morning staple and often provided several day-long trains of thought.  And this is true of not just Bloggers, but commenters.  Byron, the ugly old shipfitter, could wax authoritative about steel, and aluminum, and hull flex, and do it in a way that, perhaps over beer, I am sure I could listen intently to for hours.     Grandpa Bluewater’s urbane sophistication and eloquent dissertation always is worth the consideration, whether one agrees or not.    And there are others who add insight and humor, and are enjoyable to read.

Another such commenter is Steeljaw Scribe, shepherd of a superb blog of his own.   I did something the last two days that I rarely do, which is to go back and re-read a comment he made in Salamander’s post of the IG investigation of Admiral Gaouette.  His explanation of the dynamics of the bridge of a CVN, and the personalities and cultures that must blend and not clash if the mission is to be accomplished.

The bridge of a CVN is a unique environment that brings together two communities that normally opt to keep their distances from one another – SWOs and Aviators. That the three senior officers that regularly spend time up there (CO, XO and Navigator) are also aviators can at times, exacerbate that standoffish environment. This clash of cultures evolves from one group that is brought up in a dynamic environment and is used to rapidly changing events, making intuitive decisions and being cognizant that their butt and that of the x-number of NFOs or aircrew with them will suffer the consequences of those decisions. SWOs that typically (and note I said *typically* – there are always exceptions) come to the carrier do not come from the CRUDES environment, but from amphibs and auxiliaries and tend to be methodical if somewhat conservative and deliberative in their decision-making and watchstanding. At least that was my experience as a CVN nav. My challenge was working across that divide – to show the aviators (from watchstanders up to the XO who would go on to his first deep draft after this tour) on the one hand, how a series of events can unfold where little things not readily apparent to the eyeball can bite you (case history of the Eisenhower hitting the Spanish freighter at anchor in Hampton Roads being one of my teaching points). The flip side of that was getting the SWOs to be more anticipatory (e.g., looking to the next 2x cycles for managing sea space for downwind repositioning) as well as coming to grips with the immediacy of fixed wing operations at sea.

I know of no other vehicle by which an audience can learn, and share the insights of men and women with such experience.   It is the gaining of understanding, at the end of the day, that makes all this effort worthwhile.   Brad’s rules here do not include “write only what I agree with” or “water it down so it couldn’t possibly offend”.   He trusts us to understand and abide by propriety, and we seem to, as do the commenters,  on the whole.  And that is appreciated.

So in the end, despite the trolls, and my own alarming tendency to follow links and wind up pissing away two hours looking at cool stuff, reading and writing is worth the effort.   Even if the pay isn’t great.

3 Comments

Filed under Air Force, army, Around the web, Artillery, guns, history, infantry, iraq, marines, navy, Personal, SIR!, Uncategorized, veterans

Graveyard of Peaches: How Tennessee Will Win Its War Against Georgia | Danger Room | Wired.com

The War Between the States ended almost 150 years ago, but the Georgia state senate is making threatening noises against its neighbor. It should think twice. Occupying Iraq and Afghanistan is a cakewalk compared to the hellscape that southeast Tennessee poses for an invading army.

Last week, the Georgia state senate voted to sue the state of Tennessee in order to claim a sliver of land that would grant Georgia access to the Tennessee River. Georgia, readers must understand, has mismanaged its own water resources to the point where it now struggles to supply enough water for the residents of Atlanta (and its sprawling suburbs and exurbs) to fill their above-ground pools and wash the TruckNutz on their mini-vans. Dangerously, the state is actually seeking to redraw a border that has kept the peace for over 200 years, and all over a crucial resource — a resource belonging, rightfully, to the Tennessee of my ancestors.

I have nothing against (most parts of) Georgia. Growing up, though, my mother would drive my sister and me south on I-75, ostensibly to watch a Braves game or visit our cousins, but really to show us the horrors of life beyond the green mountains and valleys of our native southeast Tennessee, where much of my family remains. Other parts of Georgia are lovely: I had the good fortune to be stationed in Savannah for several years while serving in the U.S. Army. But the greater Atlanta area is a horrible twisted mess of concrete overpasses and far-flung skyscrapers. Once south of Cartersville, it’s easy to understand why William Tecumseh Sherman thought it wisest to just burn the whole place down and start over.

via Graveyard of Peaches: How Tennessee Will Win Its War Against Georgia | Danger Room | Wired.com.

Andrew might just have had his tongue just a bit in cheek here. After all, it was published on April Fools Day.

On the other hand, it is a pretty apt metaphor for the responses our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan have used. And having had a couple of Tennesseans working for me, yes, they are a fractious bunch.

1 Comment

Filed under army, ARMY TRAINING, Around the web

1 April 1945: Love Day

B23487.83161428_std

Today is the 68th anniversary of L-Day, known as “Love Day” to the half a million Allied soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines whose mission was the conquest of the island of Okinawa.    An armada of 1,300 ships included 40 CVs, CVLs, and CVEs, and close to 400 amphibious vessels carrying 187,000 troops, thousands of trucks, artillery tubes, mortars, tanks, amtraks, and many thousands of tons of ammunition and all classes of supply to sustain the landing force of the XXIV Corps and the Marine III Amphibious Corps in the fighting ashore.

Battle_of_Okinawa_1

The Japanese, to the surprise and immense relief of the invasion force, barely contested the beaches.  Almost every unit came ashore without opposition, as the first night saw more than 60,000 ashore.   The Japanese 32nd Army’s 100,000 defenders and the locally recruited militia of Okinawan men would instead meet their American enemy inland, in expertly-prepared and defended positions on key terrain.   But all of that, the massive kikusui of the kamikaze aircraft, the drenching rains that turned the island into a reprise of the horrors of the Western Front in the Great War, the savage fighting for Naha and the Shuri line, the Half-Moon, Sugar Loaf, the sacrifice of the Yamato battle squadron in Operation Ten-Gō, the massed suicides of civilians, was yet to come.   On this day, casualties were negligible, and a lodgment established.   The question became not if, but when, Okinawa would fall.

2 Comments

Filed under Air Force, armor, army, Artillery, ducks, guns, history, infantry, marines, navy, planes, Uncategorized, veterans, war

No Purple Hearts for Ft. Hood Shooting Victims

The Army has formally stated that it does not wish to award the Purple Heart to the victims of a murderous rampage allegedly perpetrated by Army Major Nidal Hasan.

The U.S. Army on Friday formally declined to award Purple Heart medals to the victims of Major Nidal Hasan’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, saying the move would damage his ability to receive a fair trial.

The Army in a position paper said that awarding the medal to those wounded and posthumously to those killed in the November 2009 attack would ‘set the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist’ because the medal is presented to military members who are ‘wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States.’

Hasan, 42, an Army psychiatrist, opened fire on a group of soldiers who were preparing for deployment to Afghanistan, killing 13 and wounding 32 before he was shot and permanently paralyzed by two civilian Fort Hood police officers.

Many people are outraged that brave American soldiers gunned down in their own garrison won’t receive the recognition they would have if they’d been killed or wounded overseas.

But in this, the Army is right.

While I’m a strong proponent for recognizing our soldiers and their sacrifices, I’m an ever stronger proponent of forcing our government to follow the rules when it comes to the rights of anyone accused of a crime, particularly in a death penalty case.

Make no mistake, I’m pretty damn sure Hasan did the shooting, was criminally culpable in doing so, and deserves the ultimate sanction. I’ll shed exactly zero tears when he is eventually tried, convicted, and put to death.

But the process matters. In this case, it’s pretty clear cut. But precedent set here will affect later cases (and in criminal law and the UCMJ, there are always later cases).

If the Army were to award the Purple Heart to the shooting victims, it would be in effect declaring that Hasan was in fact a terrorist. And that would give any defense counsel a day out of law school grounds to move for setting aside any conviction on the basis of undue command influence. The Army and other services make damn sure of the integrity of the court martial process in not allowing commanders to push for a conviction of a soldier unless the court is fully convinced of guilt, regardless of the convening authority’s feelings on the matter.  So the Army isn’t going to give defense an easy option like this.

In addition to the issue of undue command influence, any award of the Purple Heart would almost certainly raise jurisdictional issues. Defense would argue that since the PH  is only awarded to persons injured or killed in combat, then Hasan by rights must be an enemy combatant, and the Army court martial has no jurisdiction to try him. Years and years could be spent trying the case up. Do we want federal courts deciding whether Hasan should be tried by Army court martial or by the military commissions in place at Gitmo for other enemy combatants? Since shipping him to Gitmo would prove to be a practical impossibility politically, where else to try him? Federal court? As I say, the process would take years.

And if defense was really outrageous, the could really make some twisted claims.  If the shooting victims were awarded Purple Hearts for combat, what about Hasan.  Major Hasan was alongside them, and wounded too. Would he not also qualify for the Purple Heart? After all, he was on active duty, and wounded too. Why not also award a Combat Action Badge?

The victims and their families aren’t doing themselves any favors suing the Army, either. Whatever goodwill existed at Big Army went away with the first filing. Big Army wants to take care of its people, but it must take care of Big Army, first. That’s the bureaucratic imperative.

5 Comments

Filed under army, Around the web

At Long Last, a Supreme Commander

ifochfe001p1

Ninety-five years ago, on 26 March 1918, at a conference in Doullens, the Allies, the French, British, and now the Americans, finally agree to appoint an Allied Supreme Commander for the Western Front.   For three and a half years, neither the British nor the French were willing to countenance placing their forces under command of a General from the other respective nation for any but the most local and temporary situations.   Differences in philosophy, national pride, individual ego, and centuries-old mutual distrust (exacerbated by the very lack of coordination such a situation made inevitable) created an environment where the alliance became, at times, highly contentious and all but hostile.   The result was most often a stunning lack of coordination of effort and vision that played into the hands of the Imperial German commanders, allowing them to defeat in detail discordant Allied offensive efforts that might have otherwise seriously pressed the Germans.

The Great War on the Western Front is a grim and maddening exposition of military incompetence with the most tragic of consequences.   There are myriad reasons for this seemingly endless phantasm which wasted an entire generation.  Elderly, ossified commanders who had neither the energy or mental flexibility to wage modern war.   Weapons technology that rendered a generation of tactics (and tacticians) dangerously obsolete.

To these shortcomings and failures must be added the lack of a single overall commander to coordinate strategy, impart mediation, and provide the vision for fighting the armies of the Western Front.   Unity of Command, one of the nine principles of war,  did not come until very late in the day, and that under extreme and compelling conditions as the German Spring Offensive threatened to break the British 5th Army and capture Paris.

So it would be Ferdinand Foch, erstwhile Chief of Staff for Marshall Petain, who would finally, at long last, command in the West.

3 Comments

Filed under army, Artillery, guns, history, infantry, planes, Politics, SIR!, Uncategorized, veterans, war

General Barry McCaffrey: Lauds “Marines’ Aversion to BS” On Women in Infantry

Soldiers with the US Army's 6-4 Cavalry walk down a mountain path during a patrol near Combat Outpost Keating in eastern Afghanistan

Time Magazine (of all places) carries General McCaffrey’s missive.  Well worth the read (which contains a link to Marine General Newbold’s superb “Seven Myths about ‘Women in Combat’”).

The argument for women at rifle battalion team level is unsound. Makes as much sense as mandating women on all-male professional contact sports teams.

Life in a rifle company is still incredibly brutal, filthy, requires enormous physical energy and upper body strength, and calls for a spirit of personal violence. There is zero personal privacy. Bodily functions take place in close proximity.

Troops are constantly injured from carrying heavy loads and crashing down hills in the dark. They dig like moles to stay alive.

Infantry units live like wild animals during periods of extended combat. Mostly it is a business of self-selected young men.  Most of these combat soldiers end up in these units because they actually want to fight.

One might think there would be some additional recognition of such opinions expressed by long-time practitioners of the craft of ground combat.   But alas.   Objective analysis gives way to activism and some other “isms” all too often.

As General Newbold rightly asserts:

Pity the truthful leader who attempts to hold to standards based on realistic combat factors, and tells truth to power. Most won’t, and the others won’t survive.

(H/T to Battleland)

11 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, army, Artillery, girls, guns, history, infantry, iraq, marines, navy, obama, Politics, recruiting, SIR!, stupid, Uncategorized, veterans, war

14 March 1943; Kharkov Miracle

Russland-Nord, Erich von Manstein, Brandenberger

Today is the 70th anniversary of the accomplishment of one of the most impressive feats of arms in the history of warfare.  On the heels of a disastrous defeat in the Ukraine, German General Erich Manstein’s counterstroke against the Red Army regained the tactical initiative just two weeks after the situation, and perhaps the war itself, seemed irretrievably lost.   On 14 March 1943, I SS Panzerkorps recaptured Kharkov after a savage fight.  For those who had endured the loss of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad, it seemed a miracle.

Historical examination of the Eastern Front tends to identify the catastrophe at Stalingrad as the beginning of the end of the Wehrmacht in the East.  Certainly, with the loss of more than 300,000 men, including 92,000 prisoners, and the virtual annihilation of the Italian, Hungarian, and Rumanian forces north and south of Stalingrad on the Volga, Stalingrad was an unmitigated disaster.  And worse looked likely, as the forces of Vatutin’s (Southwest) and Golikov’s (Voronesh) Fronts pushed south down the Don River basin aimed at Rostov.  The loss of Rostov would effectively pin the remaining German forces (Army Group A and the remnants of Army Group B) against the Sea of Azov and the Dniepr bend, almost guaranteeing their destruction.

But in their efforts to destroy the German forces deep inside Soviet territory, Vatutin’s Sixth Army and First Guards’ Army (along with Mobile Group Popov), and Golikov’s Sixty-Ninth and Third Tank Armies became badly overextended.  In addition, Soviet intelligence on German force disposition was almost non-existent.   When most of the Wehrmacht forces slipped out of the bottleneck through Rostov, and Hausser’s I SS Panzerkorps abandoned Kharkov (counter to orders, on 15 February 1943), what seemed like another major Soviet victory was actually a precursor to near-disaster.

Third_Battle_of_Kharkov_sector

On 18 February 1943, Manstein’s reconstituted Army Group South received permission for a counterstroke.  Led by 4th Panzerarmee (XLVIII Panzerkorps and I SS Panzerkorps), Army Group South struck on 19 February, and the poorly-disposed Soviet forces were thrown into panic.  When on 20 February 1st Panzerarmee and XL Panzerkorps began the destruction of Mobile Group Popov, a full-fledge disaster was in the making for the Soviets.

The counterstroke was a microcosm of the entire war in the East.  In open country, the German Army proved still infinitely superior to its Soviet opponent, even when significantly outnumbered. (Indeed, Manstein’s Army Group South was on the small end of a 1:1.2 force ratio when he launched his counterstroke.)  But in the defense, particularly within the built-up city of Kharkov, the Russian soldier’s toughness and determination made the fighting there a bloody affair.   Of 30,000 German casualties in this counterstroke, almost 12,000 were in the fight for Kharkov.

Kharkov-3-02

Nevertheless, Manstein accomplished a seemingly impossible victory, pushing the Red Army virtually back to their starting points before the attacks to encircle Army Group South.   It was a pattern that the Soviet Stavka would become all too familiar with.  The Wehrmacht retained until the last days of the war the capability to counterattack and retrieve what seemed to be hopelessly lost situations, while inflicting heavy losses.  In the weeks between 19 February and 15 March, Soviet casualties were enormous, with the loss of more than 100,000 men (including about 40,000 prisoners), some 1,100 tanks, and 3,000 guns.  Much of Vatutin’s and Gorlikov’s armies were shredded, and would not be combat effective again for several months.

battle_2kharkov7

To both the Germans and the Soviets, Manstein’s counteroffensive must have seemed like old times.  But, of course, they weren’t.  The Wehrmacht in the East, while still powerful and dangerous, was not the same as it had been in 1941 or even 1942.  And neither was the Red Army.

The squandering of the last significant German armored reserves against the Soviet defenses in the Kursk Salient in July of 1943 was followed by a devastating counteroffensive from Red Army forces staged to strike once the German Ninth Army and 4th Panzer Army had run out of steam at Kursk.  This counteroffensive was not the costly, awkward affair that had been evident in the wake of Stalingrad.  This was to be the model of the Soviet way of war until Berlin fell in 1945, and indeed, was the blueprint for Warsaw Pact tactics until the 1990s.   Massed artillery, attack aircraft, and highly mobile and powerful mechanized and tank formations would turn the Blitzkrieg tables on the inventors of the art.   Kharkov fell to the Soviets for good in August of 1943, and Army Group South would never again have any except very local initiative as it was pushed back inexorably toward the borders of the Reich.

But all that was yet to come, for on this date in 1943, impossible as it seemed, the Wehrmacht had regained the initiative, and had stopped, then routed, a massive Soviet offensive just six weeks after the surrender at Stalingrad.

8 Comments

Filed under armor, army, Artillery, guns, history, infantry, veterans, war

Danny and Peachy

man-who-would-be-king-03

Of course, I am referring to Danny Dravot and Peachy Carnehan, the two former Sergeants of Her Majesty’s Fore and Fit, who set out to rule Kafiristan, and in the process become the richest men in the Empire.

Among the treasure trove of goodies from Moe Delaun that I referred to in a previous post was the magnificent epic film The Man Who Would be King, the John Huston-directed adaptation of the Kipling tale.   The spectacular cinematography and beautiful (and authentic!) Edith Head costumes add to a brilliant performance by Michael Caine (Peachy) and Sean Connery (Danny), and an equally brilliant portrayal of Kipling himself by Christopher Plummer.   Saeed Jaffrey plays a long-lost Gurkha trooper, the lone survivor of a survey expedition killed in an avalanche some years before.

The Man Who Would be King was the first offering last evening in the new DVD player.   I last saw this movie some 35 years ago on network television, when, as a callow youth I knew Kipling only for Just So Stories, and The Jungle Book, and Rikki Tikki Tavi. But the film stayed with me, and very much was a factor in my adult appreciation of the brilliant work of that man.  And last evening, I enjoyed the movie immensely, once again.

While very much faithful to the original Kipling short story, The Man Who Would Be King has a few minor changes from the written tale.   All in all, though, I imagine Brother Kipling would be most pleased at the results of Huston’s direction and the performances of the cast. 

If you have never seen it, or it has been a number of years, The Man Who Would Be King is must viewing.   A poignant epic, with touches of charm and humor, and a revealing vision of the Empire of Victorian Britain.

The Son of God goes forth to war,
a kingly crown to gain;
his blood red banner streams afar:
who follows in his train?
Who best can drink his cup of woe,
triumphant over pain,
who patient bears his cross below,
he follows in his train.

Thanks again, Moe!!

****************************

And a wonderful insight from Billy Fish!

5 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, army, guns, history, islam, SIR!, Uncategorized, veterans, war

Desert Rats to Lose Their Tanks in Defense Cuts

desert rats

Seems deeper Defense cuts in Britain will do something that Rommel and his Panzerarmee Afrika couldn’t do.  Destroy the  7th Armored Brigade as a tank force.   Sad commentary on the times, decades of budget-busting socialism, and askew priorities.    Though the Ministry of Defense asserts that the additional cut of some 20,000 soldiers amounts to the British Army “configuring itself for future conflicts”, it is hard to imagine such truly being the case.

I hate to say it, but Elvis Costello was wrong.  Oliver’s Army isn’t here to stay.  It is mostly gone, and likely forever.

But yes, London is full of Arabs just the same.

6 Comments

Filed under armor, army, Around the web, guns, history, iraq, Lybia, veterans, war

Counterinsurgency Words of Wisdom from Pete Ellis***

7961_512

There is a saying among historians that the best place to find a new idea is in an old book.   Time and again over the years, I have cracked open long-forgotten volumes to find gems of timeless and timely wisdom, astute commentary, and unimpeachable good sense.  Contained on those yellowed pages are answers to problems and challenges not at all different from contemporary times, and appreciations of conditions and factors that are surprising for their sophistication and insight.

In the March 1921 edition of The Marine Corps Gazette, then-Major Earl H. “Pete” Ellis penned an article entitled “Bush Brigades”, which dealt with the deployment of US Marine forces into areas in the Western Hemisphere in which instability and violence threatened US interests and the safety of the native populace.  These interventions, known collectively as the “Banana Wars”, were the basis for the seminal 1940 Small Wars Manual.  Interestingly, nearly two decades before SWM was published, Major Ellis struck upon a number of maxims that fairly leap off the page, and would have been excellent counsel for US commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At the minimum, Ellis’s words would have permitted today’s Officers and NCOs (and politicians!) to understand that the challenges and issues faced in the decade-long counter-insurgency fights were not new or unprecedented, but rather something with which US military thinkers had had to wrestle and solve for a significant portion of the previous century.  And in those words and the words of others might have been lessons and cautions that aided in success on the battlefield and in the newspapers.

The mercurial Major Ellis expounded upon a number of topics from large to small, that military thinkers would find highly relevant today.   I will attempt to do justice to the more salient of those topics below:

  • The character of enemy operations:

a)      A somewhat disorganized attempt to prevent landings.

b)      More or less resistance in cities followed by a race to the jungle.

c)       The organization and operation of armed bands, at first risking open battle and finally waging guerilla warfare.

d)      The operation of outlaw bands (bandits, ladrones, cacos) who murder members of the forces of occupation and their own people indiscriminately.

In general, enemy operations will be those of irregular forces or guerilla bands with the usual series of surprise raids, ambushes, and assassinations.  The enemy will have moral support from most of his own people, material support from many, and will operate in their midst. 

Replace “landings” in a) with “invasion”, and “jungle” in b) with “desert”, and you have a pretty accurate description of the course of things in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • The role of the press/media and the “peculiar attitude of the American people themselves”:

The Marines are down in Jungleland!- and killed a man in a war!

And the oft-forgotten fact that

…the Marines are only doing their job as ordered by the people of the United States.

  • The usefulness of cash payoffs to the locals:

…it must be emphatically stated that a flying column should never be sent into the bush unless amply provided with CASH.  With it can be purchased knowledge of the terrain and movement of the enemy, and food.  It is safe to say that at least 50 percent of the so-called harsh measures used in bush warfare could be eliminated by providing troops with adequate information money.

  • Considerations in the location of a fortified  post:

The site of the post should have, if possible, the following characteristics:

a)      Be capable of defense by a small detachment.

b)      Be of sufficient extent to permit the bivouac of … one hundred men, with mounted detachment.

c)       Permit control of any town in the vicinity and all approaches, especially roads and ravines.

d)      Have sufficient elevation to generally observe the surrounding country.

e)      Permit control of a landing field for aeroplanes.

The main requirement for a fortified post, garrisoned as it will be by only a few men, is that it cannot be rushed.

The above would have been a helpful guide to the Officers who decided to emplace COP Kahler Keating in Wanat.

  • What is now termed “Lawfare”:

To enforce one’s will upon an enemy of the nature depicted without subjecting one’s self to undue criticism is one of the most difficult tasks that can confront a soldier.   The “Rules of Land Warfare” lay down certain rules which are to be followed, subject to military necessity during hostilities between regular forces of civilized nations.  The “Rules of Land Warfare” for the guidance of regular forces engaged in hostilities with irregular or guerilla forces have never been written; and it is doubtful if they ever will be written…

  • “Phase Four” operations and “Information Dominance”:

It is the final phase which is difficult because, owing to the policy pursued, the following conditions will prevail to a greater or lesser extent:

a)      Bands of murderers and other criminals base in thick, difficult country, and prey indiscriminately on the peaceful people in the production areas.

b)      These bandits have no property other than that which they carry with them or keep in hiding.

c)       Many bandits, having been captured and turned over to proper authority, have been permitted to escape and have rejoined their bands.

d)      The inhabitants of localities frequented by bandits keep them informed of the movement of the force of occupation

e)      The forces of occupation are at a minimum.

Major Ellis’ article was never officially published by the Marine Corps (the Gazette is as then an MCA publication), but nonetheless provides context and narrative which our current generation of Officers and NCOs would find startlingly familiar a century hence.   As it would be to Napoleon’s veterans of the Peninsula War a century previous.

Most famous for his prescient divination of the character and requirements of the Pacific War yet to come, Ellis was no stranger to the counterinsurgency efforts of the Marine Corps in the early 20th Century, nor was he unversed in conventional war.  He had been plucked from Quantico by General Lejeune and was a key planner for the successful Meuse-Argonne Offensive in France in 1918.   Ponder.

*** Milblog writer/reader/commentor “Moe DeLaun” was most gracious in his gift to me of the March 1921 Marine Corps Gazette (along with a wonderful collection of Kipling by Somerset Maugham and the DVD of The Man Who Would Be King!)  There is much more in that March of 1921 edition that I will be sharing and commenting on over the next several months, including articles on Russia, American Marines in Nicaragua, and the Aisne-Marne Offensive of the late war.  THANKS MOE!

8 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, armor, army, Artillery, guns, history, infantry, iraq, marines, navy, planes, Uncategorized, war

Barrage Rockets

Multiple Launch Rocket Systems are pretty handy. Our current MLRS and HIMARS have evolved from area suppression weapons into long range precision weapons with the Guided MLR round, and the ATACM long range guided missile. But for most of their history, rockets have been relatively short ranged, area fire weapons. They offer a massive barrage, but at the expense of long reloading times, and relatively poor accuracy.

During World War II, the Army used large numbers of 4.5” barrage rockets. At the very tail end of the war, the spin stabilized rocket was introduced to improve on the poor accuracy of the earlier fin stabilized rockets. The M16 rocket was fired from the T-66 launcher.

Shortly after the end of the Korean War, the US pretty much got out of the barrage rocket business. But the Soviet Union, who’d had great success with theirs in World War II (and were always big fans of artillery), used the 122mm Grad rocket launcher, primarily as a counter-battery weapon, but also for suppressive fires. The BM-21 is much longer than contemporary US rockets, giving it much greater range.  Simple, cheap, and easy to use, the BM-21 Grad is mostly gone from Russian service, but is still used by a lot of former client states.

Since the 122mm rocket is still so popular, some folks are even now making launchers for it. And this might be the ultimate evolution of that concept.

1 Comment

Filed under army, Artillery

Chinook

(Repost from 2009)

We’ve covered helicopters here before, such as the Huey, the Blackhawk, the OH-58 Kiowa and of course, Cobra and Apache gunships. Let’s talk about the big boy on the block. The Chinook. Or as it became known almost instantly in the Army, the Shithook. The CH-47 is the Army’s largest helicopter, used to transport critical logistical items, troops and artillery around the battlefield.

ch47

The Chinook has been around for a long time. It’s first flight was in 1961. But the issues surrounding its development deserve a little attention. In the late 1950s, the Army and helicopter designers began to realize that piston engines would never become a very efficient way of powering helicopters. Gas turbines (jet engines that provided power through a driveshaft, rather than thrust) were finally becoming a practical option for military use. With the advent of these new engines, the Army took a long look at what the next generation of helicopters should look like. Just how big should they be? At the same time, the concept of “air assault” or landing troops directly on the battlefied started to form. What was the best way to move troop unit? Should you use a smaller helicopter that could lift a squad? Or would the better bet be to use somewhat larger helicopters that could lift 15-20 men?  Smaller helicopters would cost more in the long run, but losing one helicopter in the assault wouldn’t result in as many casualties. The Army first decided to go with the larger helicopter, of about 20 men. The Vertol Company (later bought by Boeing) provided the Model 107. But the debate in the Army over helicopter size raged on. Some thought that the new UH-1B Huey could be scaled up to carry a full squad. That would handle most air assualt requirements, and still have a relatively cheap helicopter. The Model 107 would be larger than was needed. The other half of the problem was moving artillery and supplies. The Model 107 was just a bit too small for that job. The ideal was to move a 105mm howitzer, its crew, and a load of ammunition all in one lift by one helicopter. Boeing went back to the drawing board. The Model 114 was the result, and was soon bought by the Army as the CH-47 Chinook. And it wasn’t very long before the Chinook found itself in Vietnam, as part of the airmobile 1st Cavalry Division.  With Hueys to conduct the initial assualt, and Chinooks bringing in the follow-on elements and moving artillery, the Army’s pattern of air assault missions was set so soundly that it is relatively unchanged 40-odd years later.

But don’t feel bad for the Model 107. Even though it wasn’t selected by the Army, its development continued. Largely because the Marines didn’t have a lot of space on the Navy’s helicopter carriers, they were forced to go with  a somewhat larger helicopter. And the Model 107 fit the bill perfectly. They bought it as the CH-46 and operate it to this day.

Early Chinooks had engines of about 2,200 horsepower each. This was very quickly upgraded to about 2,600hp each. And improvements didn’t stop there. The rotor blades, rear pylon design, and transmission were all upgraded through the A, B, and C models to improve performance.  In the 1980s, the design was again refreshed, with attention focusing again on more horsepower, but also greatly improved avionics and better reliability, resulting in the CH-47D. Many “D” models were conversions from older models, but there were also quite a few new built airframes. These were delivered up until 2002.  And right about the time the last “D” model was delivered, the work on the latest model moved into high gear.

The newest model, the CH-47F is really an old model. While there will be some newbuild airframes, most will be remanufactured CH-47Ds. And since most of the “D” models were remanufactured earlier models, there will be some airframes well over 30 years old that will be expected to soldier on for another 20. Because of this, a large part of the program will be rebuilding them to make them easier to maintain, reducing vibration, making sure the components don’t have any fatigue issues, and making any issues easier to detect. Improvements in the avionics will include updating the instruments to the latest common “glass cockpit” standard, as well as building in the cabapility of operating in the Force XXI digital environment, which is the Army’s version of a battlefield internet.  Not surprisingly, the Army is going with more powerful engines as well. The latest version of the Chinook engines put out almost 4,900 hp each. The Chinook has gone from a useful load of 7,000 pounds in its early days, to over 21,000 pounds in the “F” modeland the new models are faster. Think about that. How many of us are faster and stronger now that we’re over 40?

By now, you ought to have figured out that the ‘hook is a pretty capable helicopter. Lots of other folks have reached that conclusion as well. Very few other nations have the same air assault capability that we do, but having a few heavy lift helicopters around is handy for them as well. Several other nations, notable Great Britain, the Dutch, and the Japanese have bought various versions of the Chinook. When Great Britain attacked to recapture the Falklands in 1982, they lost several Chinooks aboard the Atlantic Conveyor. Their one remaining Chinook was put to work, doing the job of several helicopters. In one instance, instead of carrying its normal load of 55 troops, the sole Chinook lifted 105 fully loaded troops. There are several tales of Chinooks in the Vietnam war carrying over 100 people (though usually lightly loaded Vietnamese civilians). I’ve been in a Chinook with about 40 other people- I can’t imagine just how crowded it was with over 100.

It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say that without  the Chinook, the Army in Afghanistan would be crippled. Many of the smaller outposts can only be reached by helicopter. Given the high elevations and hot weather there, Blackhawks, normally very capable birds, struggle to carry a useful load. The Chinook, with its greater power, is able to support these high/hot outposts.

With the new “F’ models just beginning to come into service, we can expect this long serving veteran to serve for as much as 30 more years.

Mind you, we’ve scrimped on discussing the gunship version, or the several special operations versions. But here’s  a last look at the bird for you.

Comments Off

Filed under Afghanistan, army, ARMY TRAINING, infantry, iraq

From the Castle: There are Many Ways to Break an Army

Brilliantly stated.   Both the latent but still virulent anti-military sentiment that has been at the core of the Progressive Far Left since before World War II, and the rapidly growing focus on the supposed internal threat which law enforcement has used as justification to become increasingly militarized.

Because, in their heart of hearts, they don’t like the whole concept of an Army, and want to change it into some sort of fluffy-bunny simulacrum. That and because DoD is the one institution they can play with that will just do what it’s told. Oft times reluctantly, but in the end it does what it’s told.

While, ironically, they make domestic law enforcement, especially on the Federal level, more and more like… an Army.

Give it a read.  Damned little of the “change” in the “Hope and Change” era has been progress.  In fact, the cascading effects downstream will likely be catastrophic, for our Armed Forces and our nation.   And if our fervent hopes that things turn out otherwise are dashed, why, there will be internal “threats” aplenty for the army of Law Enforcement to take care of.

8 Comments

Filed under Air Force, army, Around the web, guns, history, marines, navy, obama, veterans, war

Army PFC Roosevelt Clark Laid to Rest after 62 Years

s-ROOSEVELT-CLARK-RETURNED-large

The Bakersfield Californian tells the tale.

“My aunt and uncle are up in heaven, ecstatic that their son is home now,” said Leticia Maiden Carter, Clark’s cousin. “It’s a blessing from God.”

PFC Clark died when his company of the 35th Infantry was overrun by Chinese Communist Forces near Unsan in November of 1950.   His remains were identified in December, 2012.  Now, he is home and has been laid to rest with the honors befitting an American hero.  Most importantly, his family has closure, upon which no price can be placed.

You were not forgotten, and now your sacrifice can again inspire.

Hand Salute. 

Ready TWO!

2 Comments

Filed under army, Around the web, history, infantry, veterans, war

Thoughts on the Greywolves, OpFor, and NTC.

As Esli mentioned in the comments on this post,

In an interesting twist, our allies, the Atropians, are role played by OPFOR from 11th ACR, and actually roll in the same equipment as our common Donovian enemy. So the OPFOR not only fight us, but they fight each other.

It’s simply a fact of life that US units will operate alongside allies and coalition partner nations. The only truly unilateral action since before World War II that I can recall is Grenada.

As fractious as the US/British alliance was during World War II, in fact, it was a model of successful allied operations. Very few armies in history can claim such a level of cooperation and success. And since that time, the US and Britain have often operated side by side. Other notably successful partnerships include Australia, and Canada. Non commonwealth nations that we have close relationships with include counties such as South Korea, where for 63 years, Americans and South Koreans have served side by side.

The biggest, most obvious example of allied interoperability is, of course,  the NATO alliance, one so successful, it never had to fight to fulfill its original mission.

While the US has a good track record working with several friendly nations, the fact is, most actual combat alliances are extemporaneous.  And while other nations may well be willing to fight alongside us in any number of campaigns, it important to remember that they do so for their own reasons, not ours.

Aside from describing how our nation anticipates winning campaigns, doctrine exists primarily to provide a shared vision of how wars will be fought.  Every battalion and Brigade Combat Team in our Army fights under the same doctrine. When units that have never trained together before are thrust into combat together, they still have a great deal of interoperability built in due to a single doctrine.  But our allies in any given battle may have their own doctrine. And their own political objectives, as well. And few things are more likely to enhance the fog of war than divergent goals.

Battles make strange bedfellows. Don’t forget, Syria sent two armored divisions to fight alongside against Iraq during Desert Storm. Whether Syria genuinely wished to thwart Iraqi territorial ambitions, or just wanted to bask in the goodwill of other coalition nations, for whatever reason, a nation with historical enmity to the US, equipped as a vassal state of the Soviet Union, found itself fighting alongside the US, Britain, France and other nations that have historically been considered its foes.

Command of foreign forces is always more nominal than real. Just as we shudder that the thought of US forces under the command of a foreigner, so to would any ally. Further, no matter what the putative chain of command is for  an operation, allies are still sovereign forces, answerable to their own government. Further, it is a very rare foreign force that shares our current doctrine of Unified Land Operations.

So while theoretically, the OpFor in the Greywolves rotation was a net positive in the available combat power, differences in national goals, doctrine, and sheer bloody-mindedness can see a foreign force taking actions that can catch a US commander of guard. Foreign forces may not attack with the zeal US commanders are accustomed to. Or they may actually attack so fast as to find themselves far from support of US forces, and vulnerable to local counterattacks. Or maybe their attention to the laws of war and treatment of prisoners isn’t as fastidious as our own.

US commanders will have to learn to operate alongside foreign troops that vary wildly in their equipment, training, doctrine, support for the rule of law, and ability to operate on a decisive battlefield.

Now for the first time, US leaders are being exposed to the challenges of this in training, rather than having to devise solutions while actually upon the field of battle.

4 Comments

Filed under armor, army, ARMY TRAINING

More About Awards

Since there is no horse too dead, nor any cat too flat, let me suggest the following modifications to our Armed Forces awards chart:

Awards edits

Let’s have a look at the ones I would can, and why:

Defense Distinguished Service Medal- The same as the Distinguished Service Medal, except GOFOs get a separate one for doing something “joint”.  Rescind it, and either replace with the DSM, or the star for additional awards of DSM.

Defense Superior Service Medal- The “joint” equivalent to the Legion of Merit.  Another 0-6/GOFO bauble.  Get rid of it.  Award the Legion of Merit, or stars for additional awards.

Defense Meritorious Service Medal- You got it, the “joint” MSM.  Rescind.  Award MSM or stars for additional awards.

Joint Service Commendation Medal- Notice a trend here?  You have a service branch, presumably.  Make the Joint HQ convince your service branch that you rate your service branch’s Commendation Medal.  If they can’t, maybe you shouldn’t have one.   Certainly not some “joint” equivalent.  Rescind.

Joint Meritorious Unit Award- Precisely the same rationale as the JSCM above.  Except for the collective.  If your outfit was that good, your service branch should award as appropriate.

Global War on Terror Expeditionary Medal- Never understood creating an expeditionary medal for wars in which campaign medals were sure to be minted.  I might be able to see it for guys in the Philippines and elsewhere, not in IRQ or AFG.  BUT, we have the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for that.  Rescind, and replace it with the AFEM.

Global War on Terror Service Medal- This formerly held the position of “Dumbest New Award”, but has been overtaken by the Drone Medal.  Get rid of it.  They already have the National Defense Service Medal for those who didn’t deploy.  (Formerly known as the CNN Medal.  As in “You saw Desert Storm on CNN?  Me too!”)  Rescind without replacement with a current equivalent.

Armed Forces Service Medal- “Significant activity”?  Are you kidding me?  Rescind without replacement.

Humanitarian Service Medal- Another non-warfighter feel-good award.  Get rid of it.  After Hugo ripped through South Carolina, Marines from MCB helped out cutting and clearing trees, and delivering water, etc.  The base CSTAFF spent a formation droning (!) on and on about how they worked twelve hour days for two weeks to help out.   Meanwhile, the Drill Instructors continued their 140-hour work weeks for the entire two year tour.  So the Sgt from base motors was awarded this thing while my Sgt Senior Drill Instructor got zilch, and had his NCM downgraded to a NAM.

Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal- Makes the Humanitarian Service Medal look like the Iron Cross.  Away with it.

Overseas Service Ribbon- Another “everybody gets one” trinket.  You were PCS overseas, with all the concomitant bennies that the UDP bubbas pumping to WESTPAC didn’t have.   Want a ribbon for being OCONUS?  Ride a gator freighter for 200 days.  Or do Camp Hansen unaccompanied.

Recruiting/Drill Instructor/Marine Security Guard Ribbons- Wrong, wrong, wrong.  No “special duty” ribbons on a Marine uniform.  Lousy idea from jump street, let’s get rid of them most rikki tik.

These are, of course, in addition to the Distinguished Warfare Medal, hereby unofficially known as the “Stays in Vegas” Medal.

Before you ask, yes, at least three of these are ones I am authorized.   By comparison, my Dad came home from the Pacific, after eleven landings and almost three years, with four ribbons.  One was a Navy Good Cookie, and another was the Asiatic-Pacific Theater Ribbon with four battle stars.   Along with a PUC.  He got a WWII Victory Medal on his way out in ’46.  In 1991, we had people sit at Al Jubayl for two weeks and come home with five.

amin_dada_lgdownload

It would do us well to have senior Officers that look like warriors instead of Idi Amin, or BG McSoulpatch.   Just sayin’.  Any others I failed to mention that should go?

18 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Air Force, army, history, iraq, marines, navy, SIR!, stolen valor, stupid, Uncategorized, war

AC-130

A little 105mm to delouse a ridgeline.

Timber!

H/T: Weasel Zippers

4 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Air Force, army, ARMY TRAINING, Artillery

A Nuclear North Korea and Its Benevolent Protector: China

North-Korea-conducted-third-nuclear-test

70e11e0fjw1e1qg7cmmrij

News today that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has successfully tested a nuclear device.  This third test, again using plutonium, employed a smaller and lighter device than in previous iterations, yet it produced a yield roughly twice that of the 2009 test.  It is increasingly obvious that the DPRK is closing in on a warhead-sized weapon that can be melded with the long-range ICBM program that is developing apace under Kim Jong-Un.

The bright side would seem to be the universal condemnation of the DPRK nuclear test, and seemingly strong diplomatic language, even from China, regarding the most recent test.   However, with closer scrutiny, I am exceedingly skeptical of China’s supposedly sincere denunciation of the North Korea test.  When the history of China’s benevolent protection of North Korea is examined in detail, it becomes strikingly clear that such protection includes both encouragement and material and technical assistance.

Peking has deliberately and unabashedly thwarted each and every opportunity to contain North Korea.  The Chinese refused outright to live by UNSC Resolutions 1718 and 1874.  China continues her arms sales to Pyongyang, and her large economic (read: financial) aid to Kim’s government.   China aided materially in the testing of long-range ballistic missiles, even as Chinese officials publicly condemned the tests.  China provided launch platforms, and likely technical assistance, to include guidance technology (thank you LORAL, Bill Clinton, and Ron Brown).    The People’s Republic of China undoubtedly provided technical assistance to North Korea for a series of cyber intrusions in the United States and the Republic of Korea.  China publicly rebuffed US Secretary of State Clinton while ignoring the evidence of North Korean guilt in the sinking of the ROK corvette Cheonan, with the loss of 46 ROK sailors.   A short time later, China refused to condemn DPRK for the unprovoked artillery strike inside ROK sovereign territory which killed four and wounded 50.   China’s only comment was a demand for ROK “restraint”, and the condemnation of “escalation”, which Chinese comments clearly indicated would be blamed on the South and the US.

This latest nuclear test is no surprise to China.  China’s faux-outrage and seemingly strong reproof of the Kim Jong-Un regime is pure dinner theater, crafted and promulgated for the consumption of her Asia neighbors, the United States, and the world community.  But believe none of it, not a single word, nor a drop of the sentiment it supposedly conveys.   China has for sixty years understood the strategic value of an abjectly hostile and militarily capable North Korea behaving in a seemingly unpredictable manner.  This is especially true in the last four years, as US military power shrinks, and the US Navy in particular finds itself in an increasingly less favorable combat ratio in the western Pacific.

Platitudes about Peking wanting to be partners in maintaining stability in Asia are so much diplomatic flattery.  As of this moment and in this region, China is unquestionably an adversary, providing assistance,  diplomatic cover, and military protection for a sworn and aggressive enemy with nascent nuclear capability and seemingly little restraint.  The DPRK is a criminal regime, brutally oppressive, engaged in narcotics and currency counterfeit activity, responsible for shipments of arms and WMD technology to Hamas and Hezbollah, and possibly Iran.  But North Korea is what it is, and acts as it does, because China gives it a free hand to do so.  If we are going to deal meaningfully with North Korea in defense of our ally in the South, we must acknowledge that fact.     

If we hope to counter China’s not-so benevolent rise in the Pacific, we must not just acknowledge China’s ambitions, but plan and act accordingly.   Sequestration, which embraces the gutting of American military power for the symbolic but miniscule impact on rampant national debt, is the foolhardy artifice of bumbling foreign policy and national security amateurs.  But that is fodder for another post.

2 Comments

Filed under Air Force, army, Artillery, history, marines, navy, obama, Politics, space, Uncategorized, war

SSG Romesha, MoH, in his own words

H/T to This Ain’t Hell.

Esli and Outlaw gotta be lovin’ the Stetson.

4 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, army

A Medal of Honor, and a sad farewell.

I’ve spent most of my day having fun in the comments of today’s Load HEAT, but I’m fully cognizant that two events took place today, both of which remind us of the honor and courage, and yes, sacrifice that so many of our citizens display.

Former Staff Sergeant Clinton Romesha was presented the Medal of Honor today for his actions during the battle at Combat Outpost Keating.

Saluting Clinton Romesha for embodying the soldier’s creed of never leaving behind a fallen comrade, President Obama on Monday bestowed the Medal of Honor on him for courageously defending a remote American outpost in eastern Afghanistan from a ferocious attack by more than 300 Taliban fighters.

During the daylong attack on Combat Outpost Keating, the president said, Mr. Romesha, a 31-year-old Army staff sergeant, now retired, showed “conspicuous gallantry” in taking out an enemy machine-gun position, calling in airstrikes that killed 30 Taliban fighters, laying down covering fire to allow three soldiers to run to safety, and scrambling through a fusillade of enemy fire to recover the bodies of fallen American soldiers.

His bravery, Mr. Obama said, helped prevent the outpost from being overrun by Taliban fighters. He was wounded in the neck, shoulder and arms by shrapnel after a rocket-propelled grenade hit a generator he was hiding behind. Eight American service members were killed in the October 2009 battle, one of the most intense of the war.

The citation for his award reads as follows:

Staff Sergeant Clinton L. Romesha distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a Section Leader with Bravo Troop, 3d Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, during combat operations against an armed enemy at Combat Outpost Keating, Kamdesh District, Nuristan Province, Afghanistan on October 3, 2009. On that morning, Staff Sergeant Romesha and his comrades awakened to an attack by an estimated 300 enemy fighters occupying the high ground on all four sides of the complex, employing concentrated fire from recoilless rifles, rocket propelled grenades, anti-aircraft machine guns, mortars and small arms fire. Staff Sergeant Romesha moved uncovered under intense enemy fire to conduct a reconnaissance of the battlefield and seek reinforcements from the barracks before returning to action with the support of an assistant gunner. Staff Sergeant Romesha took out an enemy machine gun team and, while engaging a second, the generator he was using for cover was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade, inflicting him with shrapnel wounds. Undeterred by his injuries, Staff Sergeant Romesha continued to fight and upon the arrival of another soldier to aid him and the assistant gunner, he again rushed through the exposed avenue to assemble additional soldiers. Staff Sergeant Romesha then mobilized a five-man team and returned to the fight equipped with a sniper rifle. With complete disregard for his own safety, Staff Sergeant Romesha continually exposed himself to heavy enemy fire, as he moved confidently about the battlefield engaging and destroying multiple enemy targets, including three Taliban fighters who had breached the combat outpost’s perimeter. While orchestrating a successful plan to secure and reinforce key points of the battlefield, Staff Sergeant Romesha maintained radio communication with the tactical operations center. As the enemy forces attacked with even greater ferocity, unleashing a barrage of rocket-propelled grenades and recoilless rifle rounds, Staff Sergeant Romesha identified the point of attack and directed air support to destroy over 30 enemy fighters. After receiving reports that seriously injured Soldiers were at a distant battle position, Staff Sergeant Romesha and his team provided covering fire to allow the injured Soldiers to safely reach the aid station. Upon receipt of orders to proceed to the next objective, his team pushed forward 100 meters under overwhelming enemy fire to recover and prevent the enemy fighters from taking the bodies of their fallen comrades. Staff Sergeant Romesha’s heroic actions throughout the day-long battle were critical in suppressing an enemy that had far greater numbers. His extraordinary efforts gave Bravo Troop the opportunity to regroup, reorganize and prepare for the counterattack that allowed the Troop to account for its personnel and secure Combat Outpost Keating. Staff Sergeant Romesha’s discipline and extraordinary heroism above and beyond the call of duty reflect great credit upon himself, Bravo Troop, 3d Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division and the United States Army.

Sadly, today was also a time to mourn the loss of former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, gunned down by a man he had extended the hand of friendship and brotherhood to.  Thousands turned out to Cowboys Stadium to say farewell to a man many had never met. Would that we could remember all our fallen in such a manner.

Thousands of well-wishers, including dozens of Navy SEALS, descended on Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas, on Monday to remember the life of a famed Navy SEAL sniper killed at a nearby gun range on Feb. 2.

The body of Chris Kyle, author of “American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History” — an account of Kyle’s four tours in Iraq, where he said he killed at least 160 enemy combatants — lay in state on the Cowboys’ silver and blue star logo at the 50-yard line, with an American flag draped over his coffin.

The stadium, designed for the fidgety loudness of an NFL game day, instead swallowed the echoes of tributes, scripture readings and country songs dedicated to Kyle, as well as the mournful silences between.

An estimated 7,000 people attended, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry issued a statement that said, in part, “Chris Kyle was the public face of an anonymous breed of American warrior who are handed the hardest missions and assume the largest risks. Chris was among the very best at what he did, and he saved countless American lives in the process. Our state and our nation suffered a profound loss with his passing.”

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, army, history, navy

Defense Department Hypocrisy Regarding Uniform Wear?

Well, DoD not only allowed, but encouraged service members to wear their uniforms at Gay/LBGT Pride events following the repeal of DADT.   The move was lustily (!) cheered by the Far-Left Progressives in whose ranks the activists and the advocates tend to fall.   Despite the regulations (DoDINST 1334.1) that forbid the wearing of the uniform when it “may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces”.

So, we are told, THIS:

2012sdpride09

is just fine with THIS:

2012sdpride76

And THIS:

2012sdpride53

It is encouraged, in fact.

Okie doke.  But there seems to be a problem.  Apparently some enlisted Sailors wore their dress uniforms to an Adult Entertainment convention in Las Vegas over the weekend.  A National Guardsman apparently took and posted several photographs, none of the compromising, showing the men in their uniforms.   And Navy Times’ Scoop Deck posts a most pejorative article regarding the incident.   Bear in mind that the Adult Entertainment Industry is perfectly legal, and that prostitution is legal in Nevada.   Yet, somehow, men in the company of scantily clad women instead of other (scantily clad) men is somehow “bringing discredit” upon the uniform?

So, THIS

021113nt_avn-1024x771

should be strictly VERBOTEN.

If there is the slightest condemnation from Navy leadership over the wearing of the uniform to the convention, or any kind of disciplinary or administrative action against these sailors, what little credibility is left among our senior Military leadership, uniformed and civilian, will have evaporated completely.     The quite understandable perception of caving into a politically-protected special interest group, and of becoming de facto advocates for such causes in order to gain political favor will be confirmed once and for all.

Whadda ya say, Ray Mabus?   I do imagine you are not nodding quite as enthusiastically at pictures of Sailors in uniform at this event…

1 Comment

Filed under Air Force, army, Around the web, latex, marines, navy, Uncategorized

Eighty Years Ago

Reichskabinett Adolf Hitler86145

On this date eight decades ago, the last gasp of Germany’s post-war Weimar Republic was heard.  Assailed from left and right, Communists, Spartacists, Monarchists, and National Socialists, the 14-year Republic fell amidst the torchlight parades in honor of Germany’s new Chancellor, Adolf Hitler.   Just three and a half weeks later, the burning of the Reichstag signaled a crisis upon which the new Reich Government would eagerly act.  The issue of the so-called “Reichstag Fire Decree”, properly titled Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat (“Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State”), quickly followed:

On the basis of Article 48 paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the German Reich, the following is ordered in defense against Communist state-endangering acts of violence:

Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Next, of course, came the dissolution of the Reichstag under Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, all but cementing Adolf Hitler as dictator of Germany.   Signed by the elderly Hindenburg, whose death in August of 1934 allowed Hitler to subsume the title of Reich President, the so-called Enabling Act began twelve years of virtual martial law inside Germany.    Hitler, of course, soothed those who were alarmed by promising restraint:

“The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures…The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one.”

A mania to act, to “do something”.   Taking advantage of a crisis for political gain.   Assigning collective guilt to a segment of society.  A state-controlled media eager to help make the case that political opponents represented domestic enemies.  An unchecked overreach of government power toward its people and the dissolution of civil liberties.   And, finally, in the late summer of the next year, complete subservience of the Army and its leadership, whose oath had previously been to the Constitution of the Republic now dissolved.

Eighty years ago today, it all began in earnest.

9 Comments

Filed under Air Force, army, history, navy, Politics, Uncategorized, war

Women in Combat Arms: The Perspective of a Warrior

The Late General Robert H. Barrow, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, winner of the Navy Cross, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Veteran of three wars, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, speaks on the notion of women in ground combat units.  Thirteen and a half minutes.  (The last three are dark screen.) Listen to it all.

Those who would dismiss General Barrow as hidebound, sexist, closed-minded, or any other of the various derogatory labels that tend to be employed by the feminists who push such agendas should feel a tinge of shame.  If they are capable of such, which I doubt.

Those who comprise the Joint Chiefs of Staff, particularly CJCS Dempsey, CSA Ordierno, and Marine Commandant Amos, should be ashamed of themselves.  They must know deep down that what a man like General Barrow asserts is the brutal truth.  Yet they have nodded their heads in enthusiastic agreement with their political masters as a sop to the feminists and progressives who despise our military and everything it stands for.  Gentlemen, you must do some serious soul searching.    You KNOW that General Barrow speaks an unvarnished truth honed by 41 years of wartime service and leadership of men in some of the most bitter combat of the 20th Century.   Are your current assignments and your careers so much more important than the lives of those you will unnecessarily risk to implement this corrosive policy?

The Commandant’s assertion that “we will maintain our high standards while ensuring maximum success for every Marine” smacks of the dishonesty of the “everyone gets a trophy” Left.   War, we damned well should know, knows no such considerations.   If we didn’t have such morally and intellectually bankrupt leadership spending so much time and money painting the Potemkin Village instead of training to win our nation’s wars, we would not find ourselves in the current fix.

4 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Air Force, armor, army, Artillery, girls, history, infantry, iraq, marines, navy, obama, Politics, recruiting, SIR!, stupid, Uncategorized, war

My Cup Runneth Over

…with steaming hot coffee.   A most gracious Christmas gift from our most gracious host.  I wasn’t able to retrieve it from our Montpelier Office until yesterday.

Here is the handsome BTHBTS kitchenware, in operation.  Note the jackass cat, left, for scale.

IMG00134-20130124-0905

Another view, on window sill.   Temperature outside this morning was reportedly -19.   (Sure glad we are making the economy-crushing Global Warming agenda so important.)

IMG00135-20130124-0906

Many thanks for the thoughtful gift, XBRAD.    Truly.

[UPDATE-XBrad]: If any of you readers out there are interested, I’ve got a Zazzle store to sell the mugs or travel mugs. And if you want it customized, contact me and I can gin something up.

6 Comments

Filed under army, Personal, Uncategorized