Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would you want to be in the rear, that is where the bombs fall. The Vietnamese called it "hugging the belt" staying so close to the enemy they can't get a shot at you. Why would you want to join the military to hide in the rear, go kill something. Write and tell us how it went
Bombs might fall in the rear and the supporting areas may be a primary target, however if you are in a NATO military then your rear areas have not been able to be reliably targeted and have been relatively secure compared to the forward combat units since 1944. Sure the single biggest US loss in the Gulf was a random hit from a Scud missile on a support unit's barracks, but it was just that a lucky random hit.
The damage done to the "door kickers" is also more than the chance of taking a hit from the enemy, it is also comes from what they must do if something is on the other side of the door. Something which they must deal with at that moment, and then live with for the rest of their lives.
"Hugging the belt" was a tactic coming from the realization that if you got closer to US forces your main danger no longer came from artillery and air strikes were the US far outclassed the NVA potential, but the danger only came from small arms fire in which you were more closely matched to US forces at least in the technology of rifles and machineguns. In Vietnam an enemy commander would hug so that the US could not use their air and artillery support unless they were willing to risk friendly fire casualties. When commanders were forced to call in fire on themselves or just "danger close" to deal with a hugging enemy it often resulted in awards for valor and heavy casualties among both forces hugging each other.
No, it is not. Only you say "safe to also conclude that only 1%".... You are just pilling a number out of who knows what.
The point is that many eligible citizens for service don't want to join, I think we can all agree with that. To what extent and percentage, official or unofficial, is debatable.
Quote:
Of those who are qualified, many don’t want to join. 85 percent said they would “probably” or “definitely” not join the military. This is an alarming trend for an Army that relies on volunteers.
As far as piling a number out of "who knows what," only 0.4 percentage of the American population is active duty so 1% of anything is not exactly a stretch of the imagination
Quote:
As of Jan. 31, there were close to 1.4 million people serving in the U.S. armed forces, according to the latest numbers from the Defense Manpower Data Center, a body of the Department of Defense. That means that 0.4 percent of the American population is active military personnel.
When the chaplains came out to the boonies, it didn't matter what religion they were.
It didn't matter what faith you were. Everyone tried to attend the services.
We could use all the help we could get!!!
Not a time to be making enemies, as Voltaire put it.
If you haven't, you should read "Quartered safe out here", George McDonald Fraser's book on the Burma campaign. (He fought as a private, it's a really interesting book. Very much how a soldier recalls war.)
Their chaplain would walk in along them as the barrage lifted, .38 on his hip. Some theological debate would follow - did Church of England frown upon a chaplain taking a shot at Japanese soldiers if fired at, or did it qualify as a work of necessity and mercy?
Military is an efficient machine
Those with the least skill or a liability to the unit could find themselves assigned to high mortality positions in a jiffy
Not a democratic process
Military is an efficient machine
Those with the least skill or a liability to the unit could find themselves assigned to high mortality positions in a jiffy
Not a democratic process
You got that backwards...……...we put those liabilities in the motor pool...……..they did the least harm there...…..
That's true up to a point (although, unless it's changed, every Marine is considered Rifleman as his/her primary MOS) but the reality is that the lower you score on the ASVAB the fewer specialties are open to you, increasing the likelihood of being Infantry/Rifleman.
I learned to study population statistics in public health. It seems the military also did a study on the "most dangerous officer's rank" of mistakes and found it to be "Major" rather than "2nd Lt." I know the stereotype during the Vietnam War was that the 2nd Lieutenant was error-prone. But more recent research seems to point to the major. I am not a veteran but have many relatives who are. I just thought the study was interesting from an epidemiological perspective. https://www.duffelblog.com/2012/12/a...d-lieutenants/
I learned to study population statistics in public health. It seems the military also did a study on the "most dangerous officer's rank" of mistakes and found it to be "Major" rather than "2nd Lt." I know the stereotype during the Vietnam War was that the 2nd Lieutenant was error-prone. But more recent research seems to point to the major. I am not a veteran but have many relatives who are. I just thought the study was interesting from an epidemiological perspective. https://www.duffelblog.com/2012/12/a...d-lieutenants/
Ehm - the duffelblog is not quite what one would call a serious news source...
Ehm - the duffelblog is not quite what one would call a serious news source...
Duffel Blog is an American military news satire organization featuring satirical articles reporting on national security and US military topics. It is often described as "the military version of The Onion."[1] It was founded in March 2012 by Marine veteran Paul Szoldra, originally as a way to drive web traffic to the now defunct website CollegeVeteran.com.[2]
Among their spoof articles is one suggesting a speech by the commanding general of Fort Benning resulted in a deadly riot, and another that said uncounted military absentee ballots would have resulted in Mitt Romney winning the 2012 US Presidential Election.[4][5] In November 2012, the site launched an online petition to the White House to lift the services’ bans on hands in pockets.[6]
Yet another article, about Guantanamo detainees getting GI Bill benefits, resulted in a formal inquiry by U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell.[1] The letter from McConnell's office to the Pentagon leaked in 2013, generating national headlines and subjecting the senator to mockery on cable news.[7]
Military is an efficient machine
Those with the least skill or a liability to the unit could find themselves assigned to high mortality positions in a jiffy
Not a democratic process
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffdoorgunner
You got that backwards...……...we put those liabilities in the motor pool...……..they did the least harm there...…..
This. People who get themselves killed tend to do so in a manner that endangers those around them, and they will probably leave an unaccomplished mission behind, plus who knows what the replacements will be like? Better to cycle them into some remote corner in the armory where they can spend the day opening crates and put supplies on shelves. Every unit will have one or two people who's best employed in carrying unbreakable objects across level ground under supervision.
Ehm - the duffelblog is not quite what one would call a serious news source...
It's the military equivalent of the The Onion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
