June 3, 2008
Someone You Should Know: Corporal Jessica Ellis
[Kat]
I was looking over the information regarding casualties in May. Nineteen soldiers lost their lives last month, the lowest in the war. Somehow, though, that makes it harder. In fact, in this war, the reason it may feel so personal to many is that there are not so many that we cannot read a story about each of them somewhere on the internet. They become more than names and faces, they are known to us.
When I looked at May's list of casualties, I noticed something that isn't broadcast very often and, to some degree, shows that everyone sacrifices: men and women. And, everyone of them is a great loss to somebody. Three of the casualties in May were women.
Here, though, is Corporal Jessica Ellis, 2BSTB Airborne Medic. She wasn't given a medal for valor though she earned the last medal, the Purple Heart, in the hardest way. She didn't pull anyone from a burning vehicle or save 10 Marines from an ambush, but reading the comments from her legacy guest book, Corporal Ellis was the kind of medic every unit wishes they had. She went out of her way to care for her "troops" even when technically "off duty", stopping by one tent nightly to take the blood pressure of a soldier who had just been diagnosed with high blood pressure among the many. Everyone who speaks of her, who served with her, mentions how she was always smiling, brightening their day and always saying "I got it" when something came up or something needed to be done.
The people she served with and her family said best why, sans Silver Star or Medal of Honor, we should know Corporal Jessica Ellis, veteran of two tours in Iraq and a great American:
My name is Sergeant Matthew Engel and I am a team leader in 1st PLT A Co 2BSTB 2BCT 101st, Corporal Ellis was are platoon medic. Corporal Ellis has worked on me every time that I was injured on mission, she was a person that you knew could fix you up no matter what the problem was. There hasnt been a day that I think about that night out on mission. The times that Ill miss the most is her coming over to Goats and my room just to talk and hang out. Also Ill never forget here smile and positve [sic] outlook on everything. I will miss her and never forget what she has not only done for me but my whole platoon.
I am in 2 BSTB and knew Corporal Ellis, I wish I would have been able to get to know her more, but from the times I went to early sick calls to when I would go to Liberty and saw her walking around she always had the best attitude and had a friendly face. Her smile and her kindness will forever be remembered. Thank you Corporal Ellis for fixin me up all those times from shin splints to the common cold and not to forget your friendly hello's and smiles that would brighten anyones day. You are the nicest person I have ever met and I will never forget you. And to the family of Corporal Ellis I am truly sorry for your loss and you are all in my prayers. And again thank you Jessica Ellis for just being you!
Jessica Dubee (FOB Justice, Iraq)
Another said, "she was a friend to all she met."
I never appreciated the finer things in life, like old SNL episodes or Country Music sung off key. It wasn’t until I met an amazing soldier. Young Private Ellis, though seemingly unsure at first. . . was ready to take on the world. I trained her on the ways of the military, or just ran around the Cav Hills at Campbell with her. However, Ellis taught me that, with enough Mousse, gel, hairspray, and clips. . . . you still could tame her hair for more then 5 minutes. Her greatest quality. . . . you weren't able to have a bad day, when Jessica was around. Her smile, made everyone near her, grin. The sunny disposition was there to brighten, even the worst days. If all else failed, Jess would have sour gummy candy or peach-Os to help lift your spirits. I will never forget the can-do attitude, and her true compassion for others. She truely is an inspiration. I cannot express in words just how much Corporal Jessica Ellis will be missed. For she was a true angel. . . who finally has been issued her halo and wings.
Bernadette Hartman (FOB LIBERTY)
So many comments started out:
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Ellis,
I want you to know what an honor and privilege it was to serve with your daughter. I always thought of her as a sister and will never be able to forget her.
Read many more remembrances of Corporal Ellis here
There is really no way to estimate the true positive effect, the value of such a young woman to so many troops and to the war effort over all.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I strongly doubt that all three female casaulties were Jessica Ellis.
TL;DR You triple posted this.
by DoesNotMatter on June 3, 2008 1:48 PM
Heh. Kat may have suffered the greatest single attack of "Great Hall Echo" ever suffered by a post.
And then there was the other version of it that was still (thankfully) unpublished.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 3, 2008 2:03 PM
Yeah. kept denying me. and I couldn't see it when I refreshed. In fact, it's missing her picture that I tried to post.
Oh well, still someone to know.
by
kat-missouri on June 3, 2008 2:43 PM
Will this help?
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/3526801.html
by
BillT on June 3, 2008 4:30 PM
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 06/05/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
by
David M on June 5, 2008 11:28 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 1, 2008
Gone Stupid: Get Medal, Go to the Back of the Bus
[Kat]
So, a few weeks ago we were all agog at the silver star medal pinned on Spc Monica Brown's DCUs for running through enemy fire to save her fellow soldiers.
They gave her the medal and then the Army got stupid.
From Small Wars Journal comes this link:
Woman Gains Silver Star -- And Removal From Combat
Vice President Cheney pinned Brown, of Lake Jackson, Tex., with a Silver Star in March for repeatedly risking her life on April 25, 2007, to shield and treat her wounded comrades, displaying bravery and grit. She is the second woman since World War II to receive the nation's third-highest combat medal.
Within a few days of her heroic acts, however, the Army pulled Brown out of the remote camp in Paktika province where she was serving with a cavalry unit -- because, her platoon commander said, Army restrictions on women in combat barred her from such missions.
"We weren't supposed to take her out" on missions "but we had to because there was no other medic," said Lt. Martin Robbins, a platoon leader with Charlie Troop, 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, whose men Brown saved. "By regulations you're not supposed to," he said, but Brown "was one of the guys, mixing it up, clearing rooms, doing everything that anybody else was doing."
The pragmatic side of me says that there is probably some other legitimate reason to keep her off the front lines now. Like, you know, she is now out in public and the Taliban/AQ types would probably make her target #1 in the AO. Beau Coup Propaganda Coup.
On the other hand, that's just retarded because that is the danger of being on the front lines, period. That is the essence of signing that little contract. That is the reality of equality in the military. Share in Equal Rank, share in equal danger.
So, what is the deal here? Give the chick a medal, but now that she's officially "out", as in "known to be in combat situations", she has to go to the back of the bus?
And, what is the army going to do every time somebody gets a whiff of women soldiers on the front line, they are going to yank them? And, replace them with whom? And, Why?
In a military where 30% of forces are women and appx 15% of those serving in Iraq are women, are we going to cut off our right hand in order to serve some bizarre, antiquated notion that there is a) some place safe in an insurgency or b) that women cannot hack it in the field or c) that they are a danger to the men due to some unknown accomodations that apparently have not kept women like Leigh Ann Hester and Monica Brown from being out there (among the unsung many).
US Army - gone stupid.
And, yes, I know, they are just trying to quietly operate through the loop holes in the antiquated, restrictive laws that an equally, if not more so, ignorant congress had put in place almost 2 decades ago. Reality has long since past these folks by.
Please read this entire story because it gives much more background on Brown and the actions that got her the Silver Star.
At dusk on April 25, 2007, Brown's platoon had just finished searching for a Taliban leader near the village of Jani Khel. The convoy of four Humvees and one Afghan National Army pickup truck had turned into a dry streambed when a pressure-plate bomb exploded under the rear Humvee.
"Two-One is hit!" Staff Sgt. Jose Santos yelled. Looking back, Brown saw the Humvee engulfed in a fireball as its fuel tank and fuel cans ignited. Insurgents about 100 yards to the east opened up with machine guns and AK-47 semiautomatic rifles, as Brown and Santos ran without cover to the burning vehicle.
PS...she earned the coveted title every respected combat medic earns:
"I didn't want to leave," Brown said, after being pulled from the platoon. Robbins said he and his men, who called Brown "Doc," also wanted to keep her as their medic.
"Doc"
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
"We weren't supposed to take her out" on missions "but we had to because there was no other medic."
Do they *have* another medic, now?
If so, pulling SPC Brown out makes sense (unless, of course, her replacement is also female).
If not, then I'd like to take a peek at the RAM the Chain fills out for a patrol...
by
BillT on May 1, 2008 10:43 AM
Do they *have* another medic, now?
If so, pulling SPC Brown out makes sense (unless, of course, her replacement is also female).
why does it "make sense"? Why should they have to pull her out? My point, really, is why are those rules still in place? And, if she fits in with the unit, performs well, saves lives like any other medic, why is she being pulled?
You know, I read a book recently called "band of sisters". Any idea how many female medics have been injured or killed doing "non-combat"?
Bill, this is just stupid.
by kat-missouri on May 1, 2008 10:56 AM
I salute "Doc" Brown for her service, courage and commitment. Damn fine soldier, as are her patrol mates.
The wussy chain of commnad, not so much.
by John S. on May 1, 2008 11:02 AM
I thought the F.U. of the day was going to go out to Mayday protestors, but now it's going to the US Army! What are they thinkin'!
by
LT Nixon on May 1, 2008 11:06 AM
Oh, What Are They Thinking? Trying to follow the law, which the breach when they have to.
Bad laws with bad enforcement lead to bad decisions.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 11:36 AM
So, a female medic going out with an infantry unit is against the rules, but a female MP on convoy patrol can earn (rightfully so) the same medal as a shooter and that's OK because that is an MP unit and not a combat arms unit. You know, a bullet doesn't know the MOS of the soldier it's heading towards, but when it comes to females in the military, congress can't find its collective a$$ with both hands.
by Oldloadr on May 1, 2008 1:12 PM
Sorry, I said infanty instead of Cav... zoomie mistake...
by Oldloadr on May 1, 2008 1:15 PM
Full disclosure: I am the proud yet concerned father of a female GI curently serving in Iraq.
by Oldloadr on May 1, 2008 1:28 PM
Kat, as you pretty much said, the US army can't avoid being stupid if the governing laws are stupid. If there is now no medic i guess that's compound interest.
I guess one could draw parallels with gays and race. It's a jarring disconnect with what is otherwise a fairly meritocratic system.
However I don't think kicking a stink about it is much use without also targeting the rules and laws that are making it hard for commanders to do what might make the Army better. If there are no rules then one needs to make the commanders better.
And none of that will change until enough are aligned with the idea women on the front lines isn't a bad thing. Then the rules and laws might be altered.
Well then let me open the can of worms.
What is the problem with women on the front lines/in combat roles?
by
Argent on May 1, 2008 1:58 PM
If a woman can do the job, she should be allowed to do the job. Period.
If the laws don't allow that, I say the laws are bad ones and should be changed.
by
Damian on May 1, 2008 2:26 PM
"There's no good reason for it, but it's policy."
How many times have I heard that (or the equivalent,) in the last thirty years?
It just makes perfect sense to take a highly effective medic, who has demonstrated in the most concrete way the ability to function under the worst possible conditions, and reassign that medic to somewhere other than where that medic is needed most, and other than where the unit the medic is supporting WANTS that medic to be, solely because the medic is female.
I was in the infantry as an enlisted soldier, and the 19D cav scouts in the RSTA squadrons are cut from the same cloth. The platoon medic generally doesn't start getting called "Doc" until he or she has demonstrated that he/she has it together and can be counted upon when things get hot and nasty. The fact that "her" platoon called her "Doc" tells me all I need to know about where she really belongs.
by Blake Kirk on May 1, 2008 2:33 PM
What is the problem with women on the front lines/in combat roles?
So far, all of the physical objections that I know of have been put to bed because there many women who are doing so.
there are a bunch of "cultural" and psychological questions that are meandering around the edges. Most of which are about our own angst:
Mothers in combat (my mom once karate kicked my bedroom door off the hinges; I am thinking that OBL should be afraid)
Children left without mothers (I don't know if this is any worse than missing fathers, either temporarily due to deployment or permanent due to death)
Women more likely to suffer PTSD (I'm not sure that one has been settled, but certainly could be proven or disproven statistically).
Sex
But, like I said, we are already there. I don't know why we haven't crossed the line.
Oh...one more thing. we can't seem to wrap our minds around "selective service" for women. The draft.
I guess those are the top grumbles that I can recall.
PS...and some of you folks thought I was a conservative. ;)
by kat-missouri on May 1, 2008 2:39 PM
If the laws don't allow that, I say the laws are bad ones and should be changed.
Amen
The fact that "her" platoon called her "Doc" tells me all I need to know about where she really belongs.
Double Amen
by kat-missouri on May 1, 2008 2:43 PM
Have a care when making sweeping generalizations about things - such as extrapolating combat performance of women in the roles they now play vice the needs of a more generalized infantry combat.
There really are still some strength issues we've not yet fully examined - such as if we had 1/4 female-manned (heh) leg platoons doing the fighting in Fallujah how would that have gone?
What we have empirically shown is that in most roles in the current war, the gender exclusions are virtually meaningless - and the "cannot be deployed forward of the Brigade" and other nonsense should probably be scrapped - though it will take Congress to do that, the Services shouldn't just start ignoring it completely, if only for that whole "civlians are in charge" thing we hear so much about.
As has been discussed in this space and many others prior to this - much of the sex-related sorts of norm issues this fighting generation is already making moot, to include the issue of gays, though I still think *no one* has given me an adequate answer on why we keep boys and girls separate because it oft-times makes the women uncomfortable to be around the men in very personal situations the same sensitivity is blown aside for men made uncomfortable by the implicit sexual questions underlying the tension over gays.
Somehow, that just makes the men homophobic, but it's okay for the girls. I'd just like someone to tackle that one head-on without pretty much having to come to a "unisex" conclusion.
As I said, the younger generation may well be leading us down that path, regardless.
Given that it's a volunteer Army, I don't think we're going to see huge numbers of women applying for the infantry, and if we set (and uphold for men, too) serious physical standards that are relevant to high-intensity infantry combat requirements, then I say let's test it.
But thus far, every major Army that has tested it hasn't really been very satisfied with it, which says something.
Damian, CAPT H - I know the women have pretty thoroughly spread themselves through the Canadian artillery community - how do they fare in the Armor and Infantry communities?
I believe the Israelis have fewer restrictions on where women serve than we do - but are there significant numbers of women serving in line infantry units?
by
John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 3:57 PM
why does it "make sense"? Why should they have to pull her out?
First, because women are excluded from serving in positions that *require* them to engage in direct combat, i.e., as line infantry or tankers or artillery crews -- which we all know is Congress' sop to the feminists, pure and simple.
Second, because John's right. She's now a prime target, not for any military advantage the terrs would get, but from the propaganda value they'd derive from killing her: "See? The Americans can't even protect the women they honor as heroes from us."
Don't overlook the caveat I added, Lady Kat -- if they *don't* have a replacement medic, I want to see their Risk Assessment and the level of approval.
by
BillT on May 1, 2008 4:14 PM
such as if we had 1/4 female-manned (heh) leg platoons doing the fighting in Fallujah how would that have gone?
Not good for the jihadists? The marines have the "lioness" program. How about the Army Amazon program?
Given that it's a volunteer Army, I don't think we're going to see huge numbers of women applying for the infantry,
Actually, I agree with you there. This isn't exactly the business world where a 50% female work force is going to translate into 50% female military force (though, it is at 30%, so...?)
and on the other point about being a different kind of war, per se, but it has been this kind of war since 1960 something. Patrolling out, coming back to base, etc.
by kat-missouri on May 1, 2008 4:19 PM
Heh. The guys who fought at Hue or Hamburger Hill might have some disagreement with you on that.
I haven't looked lately - but the special programs that were designed to get the women to equivalent strength status, IIRC (and I could be wrong) took a lot of specialized training and extra effort/time, and didn't integrate well with what the boys were doing. But I admit my knowledge on that is old and weak - whyncha look into that and see what's up?
But, as I see it, you are essentially positing that there is no difference, it doesn't matter, and we should bull ahead.
Even though, thus far, every army that's tried it as far as I know, has pulled back from putting the women into the line infantry units.
But that doesn't matter, it's different somehow now.
All I see is that this war thus far has validated the Israeli and Canadian models of women integrated into the units less likely to spend their time "in the assault" such as artillery and armor, and yes, women assignable to infantry units... but I don't think we've answered the question on the issue of sustained infantry combat.
I think there is utility to studying that issue rather than just waving your hand saying "all we do is patrol anymore and they're good at that..."
Except we haven't really been putting women into those roles in a sustained fashion, have we? Outside of mounted units doing convoy escort (like Sergeant Hester) and the elements integral to the convoys the bulk of the patrolling activity you describe is being undertaken by all male artillery, Engineer, armor and infantry units.
I could be wrong, feel free to school me on that.
We've clearly shown women can defend themselves, and with the examples of Sergeant Hester, can take the fight to the enemy when attacked.
That doesn't lend itself to saying that infantry companies should throw open the doors.
I say let's test it, rather than just say, lookit Leigh Ann Hester! That settles the question!
by
John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 4:45 PM
That doesn't lend itself to saying that infantry companies should throw open the doors.
Sure it does. They should throw the doors open wide.
But only the women who can hack the requirements - mental, emotional, and physical - should be allowed to walk through.
Of course, you could say the same thing about the guys: only those who meet the standard should be allowed. Which is pretty much what I was trying to say with my shorter comment above.
As far as the CF is concerned, it's not easy for the women in the Combat Arms, but those who can truly hack it are accepted. Look at the tributes Capt Nic Goddard got from her peers, from the soldiers she fought and ultimately died with - they said she was the best FOO around.
The problems come when somebody - usually not somebody in uniform, mind you - decides that just because we've opened things up so that women can be in front-line positions, that some arbitrary quota should be in those positions. That's a recipe for disaster. Because those who can hack it are automatically tarred with the "quota" brush, and those who can't hack it don't get washed out like they should be.
The key is setting and enforcing standards - realistic and functional standards.
by
Damian on May 1, 2008 5:12 PM
the elements integral to the convoys the bulk of the patrolling activity you describe is being undertaken by all male artillery, Engineer, armor and infantry units.
I could be wrong, feel free to school me on that.
First, I'll look up the PT thing, but, as far as I know from last reading (about 1 1/2 years ago) the training and final testing were the same. for instance, the Marine female boots have to do the three day crucible, just like their male counter parts and complete it in the same time frame, etc, etc, etc in order to earn their globe and anchor. That's what I recall off the top of my head, but I'll look up the rest.
In regards to "are there anymore out there?" and am I pointing to anomalies? I think there are a huge number of anomalies like this. I did the book review on "BAnd of Sisters". I didn't list out every woman, but two female marines, essentially part of the long patrol to "search women" during cordon and searches, were kicking doors, clearing rooms, etc like the male counter parts. There are many women medics who are part of PSDs and combat units, etc.
In the case of Cpl Priscilla (don't call her "prissy") K..., they ended up being tasked to find someone and stayed on patrol for five days. Eating and sleeping and...well, you know, everything, with the men.
There are so many "one here", "one there" reports of women going with the patrols. I think the way the stories are written and the way the stories are released lets people think that these ARE anomalies, that these women are going out on an hour long patrol and get to come back to base to wash their hair and paint their toe nails.
Somewhere out in Afghanistan last year, a woman Captain was leading her unit on patrols. Let me repeat - Leading. On long patrols in hostile territory.
I'll go and link these stories, but they exist to the degree that, to believe they are anomalies that add up to hester or brown seems, well, kind of purposefully blind.
then again, part of me thinks "quiet, quiet" because, if we make too big a stink, congress or the army will go on some sort of hunt and a bunch of women will be yanked from where they are which is not what is wanted or needed.
On a final note, I am always interested in the "be able to do what men do" aspect of this argument. Have you seen our army lately? Seriously...
by kat-missouri on May 1, 2008 5:23 PM
Clearly, I can't communicate. And apparently I don't understand.
I give up.
Do what ya want. To hell with it.
I surrender.
Women everywhere, all the time! No more studies, nothing.
Just throw it open wide.
What the hell.
Because clearly I cannot communicate my ideas, and I keep getting shuffled into the "doesn't get it" corner.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 6:58 PM
It's not a good idea to have women in combat where they can be seen for the same reason that you don't wear the shiny rank emblems there-- draws attention, of a violent sort.
That would be basic tactics-- you KNOW women are hugely more likely to be weak, so it's *logical* to attack them first. Given who we're fighting right now, you can be sure they'd aim for the "weak" and "evil" women.
Unless you can totally disguise the fact that they're women-- ie, Navy pilots, maybe tank operators?-- frankly, John of Argghhh is right. This *should* be studied, preferably by people who are NOT trying to "Equalize" things.
It's the military; it's supposed to be effective, not fair.
by
Foxfier on May 1, 2008 7:35 PM
Hence, why I used the 11' pole to escape, Kimosabe. ;)
by ry on May 1, 2008 9:04 PM
What a load of bull...
Why in the HELL would the Army train women to be MEDICS, put them in a Cav unit... and NOT expect them to come under fire??? This is just plain stupid, like you said John. The US Army has gone STUPID.
My cousin is a Blackhawk pilot who has been under fire. Are they going to pull her out of her slot just because she's a woman who, in the line of duty, got involved in a firefight?
EVERY position in the Army has the potential of coming under fire with the way the current regs read. Pulling women from their slots just because they actually DID come under fire is a train wreck, and completely shuns the admirable performance of our women in uniform.
by AFSister on May 1, 2008 9:40 PM
Full disclosure. My son is a Marine, combat veteran of Fallujah, MOS 0311. While women in certain roles is okay with me, for them to be in combat infantry roles is a line too far for me. My views are colored by my son's experiences as he has been Marine infantry, but based on what I know, women would have a hard time doing what he did.
Um, let's see: four days without sleep or food, 120 degree days, 35 lbs body armor with full SAPI plates, full backpack and hydration system, three SAW drums hanging on his body, a SAW, etc., etc. More than 100 pounds when fully outfitted, and then to take this on satellite patrols, jump off of house roofs, etc.
Sorry folks. If you want to put women in combat, you are going to have to address this little thing called testosterone. God made it, not man. It ain't my fault. We're different by design. Celebrate it.
Also, if you want women in combat infantry, then make them do the same quals as men at Parris Island. There is still a HUGE difference.
Facts is facts. Now, as I say this, my daugher is going to go into Navy nursing, and so I will have two serving. But they are serving where God gave them the skills, gifts and physical capabilities.
One more thing. The Russians used women in infantry in Afghanistan in their campaign, and found a disproportionate high number of lower extremity injuries: feet, ankles, knees. Out of commission for protracted periods, affecting the unit.
Best,
HPS
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/09/01/mos-0311-a-young-mans-work/
by
Herschel Smith on May 1, 2008 11:59 PM
Sorry, but as a followup to my previous comment, don't rely on stupid, whitewashed, glossed over published comments about boot camp at Parris Island. My son was there. There is, and forever will be, a difference in the PT requirements to pass. Again, testosterone.
by
Herschel Smith on May 2, 2008 12:16 AM
Hey John, it sounds like you're frustrated, but not convinced. Maybe we're just not listening well enough. Care to have another go explaining your concerns to us?
by
Damian on May 2, 2008 9:15 AM
I've been an infantry squad leader, and a TOW section leader, and a tank commander and platoon sergeant in an armored unit. After thirty years of being around soldiers, it's my considered opinion that some women can successfully serve in front-line combat assignments.
Not all women are suited to be infantry, but then not all men are, either. If they can't move out and march carrying 90+ pounds of gear, they shouldn't be there. A woman in an M1 tank crew had damned well better be able to load that 68-lb HEAT round in the same seven seconds that her male counterpart is given, or she shouldn't be there. A woman crewing on a 155mm howitzer had better be able to hump rounds with the boys, or she shouldn't be there. We need to norm the PT standard to MOS, not to gender. Or simply make the whole Army meet the infantry standard...
Not all women can do that. But some of them can. Or they could, if they were given the opportunity. A lot of the guys I knew who were loaders on M1's spent a lot of time pumping iron to build upper-body strength, so that they could beat that seven-second standard by a significant margin. Some of the guys loading during 73 Easting were doing it in rather less than five seconds. Somewomen could learn to do that.
But a more serious problem is that the current society in the US does a lousy job of preparing young men and women to live together in the conditions of forced intimacy that one finds in an infantry fire team or a tank crew. We can learn to solve that one, too. But it's entirely possible that many people won't be happy with what we have to do to do so.
by Blake Kirk on May 2, 2008 9:40 AM
It just might be time to remind everybody *how* this whole kerfluffle started -- remember the Department of the Army's Commission On Women In The Service?
DACOWITS was formed, in good part, in answer to the feminista outrage (both in and out of the Howls of Congers) over the fact that *male* ossifers had a considerable promotion advantage over *female* ossifers because men could serve in the Combat Arms and women *couldn't*.
None of the parties involved had a clue that rapid promotions occur in the Combat Arms because that's where most of the *casualties* occur...
by
BillT on May 2, 2008 12:33 PM
It may not be commonly known, but women have been in combat areas for some time. Consider these decorations recieved by my mother, Cora Defibaugh. From her seperation certificate information:Classification-Flight Nurse3434. Battles and campaigns: LuzonWDGO 58-45, Southern Phillipines WDGO 58-45,New Guinea WDGO 58-45, Western Pacific WDGO 48-45,Bismark Archipelago WDGO 33-45. Decorations: AP Campaign Medal with 1 Silver Service Star and one Bronze Service Star. Philippine Liberation Campaign Medal, Air Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster Per GO"266 Hq13 AF22 Dec 44& GO FEAF 3 May 45, 3 Overseas Service Bars, American Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal. During her service she was in a C-47 with wounded which was forced to ditch at sea, Flew into airfields where Japanese fire was a very real risk,came under fire and was in harms way many times. She was just one of numerous women who served in USAAF air evacuation. She has never talked much about her service period, probably because when they shipped out to return to the States they were told not to talk about what they had done. To those women in service today who may go in harms way, I say this. God bless you and keep you. You are serving in the tradition of those who have gone before you. You are all a part of what makes up the American Spirit, and a part of what makes the future of our country.
by John Luntz on May 2, 2008 9:16 PM
There was a female Marine who commented here a time or two, and then left and didn't come back.
I took the trouble to look up her blog and found that she was invalided out of the Corps, against her wishes, for stress fractures in her leg bones.
She struck me as a rather tough and earnest person, capable of ignoring pain (she claimed to have run a mile or so in training with a cracked pelvis)
but, ah, sometimes the spirit is willing and the flesh is weak.
by
Justthisguy on May 3, 2008 12:07 AM
Thought this was how it was.
Spc. Brown aquitted herself admirably. God bless her, and well done soldier.
She should never have been placed in that situation.
by Dave in Texas on May 3, 2008 12:57 PM
who put the "c" filter on?
by Dave in Texas on May 3, 2008 12:59 PM
As I have read this whole story, there has been this one glaring omission. There seems to be this fixation on the sexuality of those who are serving this Nation in the Military. I will not argue there are differences, just like their are differences in personality. I believe as we move forward in time, we will hopefully, learn a great deal. This question about sexuality is not central. What is getting lost is the "actual-mission", we need to be "mission-centered." Then we find the best people, regardless of their sex, to fulfill the "mission". The U.S. Constitution states if we are going to put our troops in harm's way, we need a formal Congressional Declaration of War. The War Power Act, which allows our leaders to circumvent the Constitution, should be repealed, as bad law. It is at this point, the "mission" is stated in writing and verbally to the Nation. Then, the whole Nation goes to war, not just the Military. Every American finds his/her place in the mission.
This is my two cents on this issue.
As always,
Grumpy
by Grumpy on May 3, 2008 1:59 PM
I've quoted you and linked to you here.
by
Consul-At-Arms on May 4, 2008 1:46 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
April 16, 2008
In War: The More Things Change...
[Kat]
Reading this story from Bob Krumm, his last paragraph brought a little story to mind:
Actually, I have heard several people complain about one thing: the food in the mess hall. Even with new Soldiers some things never change.
In March, while attending the Vets For Freedom event at the World War I Museum, I met vets from several eras including Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm. I spoke to several of these gentlemen about their service. One gentleman, Mr. Oelklaus, told me a story that sounded utterly familiar.
It was 1967 and his was stationed on a forward operating base, responsible for the repair and maintenance of vehicles. The base had many other units on it including Airborne, artillery and the like. Each unit had their own area with hooches, showers and latrines.
As is apparently customary in the military on such a base, people would seek out the closest, cleanest or most operational showers and latrines. In this case, members of the 101st would return from 3 to 14 day patrols and scatter to the various latrines and showers on the base, using up all the hot water. The BC (battalion commander) for the maintenance unit was the recipient of several cold showers and finally got a bug up his rear echelon. He ordered a guard be put on the showers 24/7 and no one that was not part of the mechanic's unit was to be allowed to use the showers.
Pvt Oelklaus was assigned to the exciting post of guard of the latrines and showers. On his first day, he observed a group of weary, dirty, insect bitten, stinking grunts approaching his station. It was a squad that had just returned from seven days in the bush. The designated spokesman for the group asked Oelklaus what was up with the guard post. After Oelklaus explained his duty, he noted some serious unrest among the group. Also, he said that his "esprit d'corps" was eating him up because he knew these men had been out for a long time and shouldn't be barred from getting a hot shower. Who could turn such men away? He repeated to me several times, "all they wanted was a hot shower. They deserved it."
So, he noted to the group that he did not see any unit patches (as they were in shorts, t-shirts and flip flops) and that there were so many people on the base, who could possibly know if they were actually members of his unit or not? He stepped to the side and opened the door, admonishing them to be as quick as possible and that, if "someone" was coming, he would bang on the wall and they would need to vacate immediately.
All went well and the troops were able to get their hot showers. But, that night, the BC had an unexpected visitor to his hooch. Namely, a CS canister that took up residence, with unknown assistance, just as he was nodding off to sleep.
Apparently, the message was received. After some jumping up and down and screaming for somebody's head, the guard was taken off the showers the next day.
I've read similar stories from today's war from both sides of the "conflict". Those that were mad because their showers never had hot water due to utilization from others not assigned to their areas and those that were ticked off that there was never enough hot water to take shower in their own areas after days on patrol so they were forced to tromp a mile or two over to another area to use the showers.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Theoretically, we had hot showers back in the day.
Because -- theoretically -- the sun beating down on the 55-gallon drum "water heaters" would warm the water. Theoretically.
Also -- theoretically -- there were no US combat troops in the Mekong Delta after August of '69. Just us helicopter pilots, assorted SEALS and SeaWolves, Green Beanies, Mikes and Swifties, Air Force Black Hats, and Marine Tiger Teams. No *combat* troops, though.
And he's right -- the food was *awful*...
by
BillT on April 16, 2008 12:14 PM
Yeah....Love that whole "theory" of war stuff.
by
kat-missouri on April 16, 2008 12:33 PM
I'd probably side with the guys outside the wire who wanted to use up all the hot water. They're the ones keeping the showers from getting blown away with rockets. A small nuance.
by
LT Nixon on April 16, 2008 1:43 PM
Heh. I was thinking the same thing and resisted writing anything about the rear echelon being often as far away from the grunts pounding dirt as any civilian far away from the battle field.
I think I gained a new appreciation for that after reading Bellavia's book wherein after ten days in Fallujah, they came out, dirty, tired, sick and barely able to move while they watched all the clean, spiffy uniformed guys line up and eat all the hot chow that had ostensibly been laid out for the guys coming out of Fallujah.
Gave a whole new perspective on REMFs v. ground pounders.
by
kat-missouri on April 16, 2008 2:02 PM
Thanks Kat! Today you made fat old man smile.
Martin
by Martin on April 16, 2008 6:18 PM
Hey, Martin! Glad to see you. I was hoping I had waited too long to put it up. We are fans around here of war stories so feel free to pop in once in a while to leave us a gem or two.
by
kat-missouri on April 16, 2008 6:26 PM
I think it was Bill Mauldin who coined the word, "Garri-troopers."
It was always thus, I reckon. I betcha the Legions had to put up with similar stuff.
by
Justthisguy on April 16, 2008 10:39 PM
Yeah...some centurion probably ticked off at the dude who ate the last of the gruel and woebil(?) laden bread.
by
kat-missouri on April 16, 2008 11:16 PM
My Old Man told me a couple of times about when meeting up with Yanks in WW2,the Canadians would gladly trade with your guys,the tinned mutton for the C-rats of yours......He hated the mutton as much as you guys hated the c-rats and swore the Aussie ranchers used to roll the carcasses in the fleeces to get that special flavour.....And he never ate mutton to the day he died ,either.
by big al on April 17, 2008 1:25 AM
TINS: there i was, in north Ft Hood, on AT with an Evac Hospital.... late 80's(11H10, serving as the 54B, pending final school, which never came.)
after the better part of two weeks of fun in the garrison, the line troops we were supporting came back to the area and began washing vehicles.
there was much whining amongst the troops in my AO: "i went to take a shower at lunch and there was no water pressure."
a discerning eye could see the hose sprays over the building, and a blind man could see why water pressure was down.
i offered to escort the various whiners over to the wash racks where the 11's, 13's and 19's were finally getting a bath, albeit informally, so that they could ask that them to stop so the REMF's in question could get their additional daily showers.....
unfortunately, they were just smart enough to *not* take me up on the offer. %-)
/Harmony Church rules
by redc1c4 on April 17, 2008 5:12 AM
From "Murphy's Laws of Combat" -- If the REMFs have new uniforms and boots, the troops in the sticks *don't*."
by
BillT on April 17, 2008 6:08 AM
Kat - "weevil" Easy to tell the differences - weevils are insects that infest food and cotton... woebils on the other hand, well, they wobble, but they don't fall down!
by
John of Argghhh! on April 17, 2008 6:56 AM
Heh...John. I thought that looked wrong. I even had "woebils" when I was a kid with a little woebil tree house. they could fall *out* of that tree, though.
by
kat-missouri on April 17, 2008 10:28 AM
Memories from a trip to Fort Irwin in 1985:
1. The light infantry battalion completes its participation in the light/heavy NTC rotation and pulls back to its bivouac area in a picturesque portion of the Ft. Irwin reservation which rejoices in the name of "Lizard Gulch."
2. The ground surface in the bivouac area consists of a random assortment of rocks and stones ranging in size from stones the size of your head to boulders the size of a Chrysler minivan. Flat surfaces large enough to accommodate an individual soldier in a sleeping bag, let alone tents and parking areas for vehicles are conspicuous by their absence, with the exception of a large, very flat sandy area which is fenced off and marked with signs indicating that it is a breeding area for a nasty species of biting fly, that the fly is on the Endangered Species List, and that the fine for killing one of these rare creatures is $5,000 per bug.
3. In order to insure that the portable toilets can be serviced efficiently by the civilian contractor, all portable toilets have been set up adjacent to the hard-surface road 700 meters to the east of the bivouac area.
4. After a 24-hour rest and recovery period, all of the battalion's vehicles, including the mobile kitchen trailers, are moved to the railhead and entrained for return to the unit's home station. Battalion draws 10 superannuated 5-ton 6x6 trucks from prepo stocks to provide troop and baggage transport for the five days remaining until the unit is scheduled to fly back to its home station.
5. The heavy brigade and combat support group whose rotation the battalion is supporting informs the battalion that due to personnel shortages in MOS 94B they cannot provide hot meal support to the battalion, and that the battalion should prepare to assume a C-C-C ration cycle until it redeploys to home station.
6. The brigade sergeant-major informs the battalion sergeant-major that a shower point has been established in the brigade support area. The light infantry battalion is assigned a block time for use of the shower point from 1400-1600 each day. Many soldiers in the battalion greet this announcement with enthusiasm, as many have not had an opportunity to bathe in nearly four weeks, there being more important uses for water than bathing while fighting a war in the desert.
7. The following day, several hundred soldiers from the battalion climb into the fleet of decrepit 5-tons and set forth for the shower point. After 15 minutes of bumping across the large and larger rocks that make up what is alleged to be the "road" leading into the bivouac area, two of the seven trucks assigned to the mission have broken down, and their passengers are distributed among the five remaining vehicles, which are now about as crowded as a Tokyo subway car at rush hour. Having now reached the more-or-less-level desert floor, the convoy spends the next 30 minutes driving across said desert floor to the brigade support area in a cloud of dust.
8. Upon arriving at the shower point, the troops dismount from their vehicles and are amazed to discover that not only is there water left at the shower point at 1400 hours, there is LOTS of water available. Everybody gets a LONG hot shower, after which, with damp skin and damp hair, they climb back into their ancient trucks and drive 30 minutes across the desert floor in a cloud of dust before bumping over the boulders back to their bivouac area, arriving there feeling for the most part rather dirtier than they had been before they left.
9. Repeat, with suitable variations, until the buses arrive to take them to the airport.
by Blake Kirk on April 17, 2008 4:06 PM
Hey, Blade, at least it built character! [runs away, dodging and jinking]
by
Justthisguy on April 17, 2008 8:53 PM
Sign just up on the latrine door:
Water Conservation Now In Effect -- Combat Showers (3-Minute Limit!) Mandatory!
Bear in mind, I'm living with Air Force guys. Cap'n Chris asked me my thoughts on 3-minute combat showers.
"Great idea! I get an extra two minutes!"
by
BillT on April 18, 2008 5:13 AM
It could be worse, Bill. I can recall one expercise in northern Honduras when we were bathing with canvas shower buckets and water shortages limited us to 1 gallon per man for showers.
It let us believe we were clean, anyway.
by Blake Kirk on April 18, 2008 10:30 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
April 11, 2008
Bellavia On Glenn Beck: I got my Ph.D. from the university of Fallujah
[Kat]
Bellavia was attacked the other day for an innocent comment during an introduction of Sen. John McCain. He said, (I paraphrase) "you can have your Tiger Woods. I want my two sons to look up to men like John McCain." That after noting that McCain had spent five years in Hanoi Hilton being tortured and refusing to come home before any of the other men who were there before him.
That set off a storm of scurrilous accusations of racism. Glenn Beck had Bellavia and the other Vets for Freedom on his show Wednesday night.
I introduced John McCain at this rally and what I basically said was, was that I was making a comparison of heroes, that all ages and races can look up to, referring to Senator McCain as more -- someone that, you know, should be on a pedestal for my two little boys to look up to, someone like Marcus Luttrell, Michael Mansoor. These are American heroes, compared to professional athletes or entertainers. I looked in the audience. I saw a guy with a Callaway golf hat on and I automatically thought of the most famous golfer who is Tiger Woods and I said, you can have your Tiger Woods as your heroes. We have men like Senator McCain. That's who my boys will look up to.
As usual, the nut bags got Bellavia's personal information and went crazy:
The first response I thought was ridiculous and then it just got more and more absurd with these bloggers getting my personal information out there calling me a bigot. In my world, I have an 8-year-old and a 1-year-old and I'm raising these kids to know that a man who sacrifices.
and...
They have been not only the e-mails that come pouring in but someone leaked, you know, phone numbers and everything else and locations of where people attend school and how they want to educate my kids and save them from their bigoted father. It's just absolutely ridiculous.
Bellavia has often noted in his speeches that there is no place for political persuasion on dog tags and also often noted that he has fought along side of every representation of America:
We are fighting as Americans. We're bleeding next to African-Americans. I fought with Muslim Americans, Glenn, in Iraq. This was never about religion or ethnicity. It's about Americans defending our culture and our way of life and I am proud to say that our legacy, we are the greatest humanitarian organizations ever lived in the United States military and we have nothing to apologize for...
My favorite line, when Glenn is asking him about his upcoming announcement about running for congress and how he'll fair or keep his principles:
my whole thing is, look, man, I faced down six guys in a house. That's my -- you can have your Princeton degree. I got my Ph.D. from the university of Fallujah and to me it's like if I'm not going to back down from Islamo terrorism, I'm certainly not going to back down from a special interest group.
Watch out, David. You keep making comparisons, next thing you know they are going to call you an anti-education troglodyte. ;)
JD Johannes writes about Olbermann's slandering of Bellavia on MSNBC.
Others, stung by their own fears and failing and whose ego will not allow them to acknowledge they are wanting, will ignore and marginalize the hero.
They find the comparison too unsettling.
Many, if tortured the way John McCain was, would not have chosen fortitude--and they know it and it hurts them.
Get JD's movie, Outside the Wire '07 and learn about the real war in Iraq.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Morning Kat,
Just finished House to House on your recomendation and had already read Survivor a few months ago when it first came out. Wow...of all the books I've read about what is going on in Iraq this is deffinately the best. I'm passing it along to freinds. Anyone reading it should keep tissues handy.
by Fishmugger on April 11, 2008 5:01 AM
Olbermann is loathsome, and MSNBC is even more so for providing a forum for him to spew his hate speech.
by fdcol63 on April 11, 2008 7:48 AM
I will never be convinced that a good chunk of those people harassing Bellavia are paid Tu**knockers.
Soros and company have the bucks to do it.
I also know that David might be surprised by all the nutcases .... but he would never be intimidated by them.
by
jim b on April 11, 2008 3:55 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 21, 2008
Thing, Thing a Thong
Thanks *loads* for that particular ear worm, Capt JMH.
Heh.
From the responses in yesterday's comments block, I may have an untapped fiduciary resource I have not previously considered (although I *have* appeared in some -- thankfully -- short-lived ARNG recruiting commercials). BTW, Pat, if your offer still holds, I figure you owe somebody a scad of cash for all the be-thonged appearances I *haven't* made to date.
Call it an ounce of prevention. Or extortion.
Eh -- puh-tay-to, po-tah-to.
Meanwhile, back in WhatzissStan, here's another clue for you:

Oh, man, if that's not a dead giveaway...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Don't make me hunt down the pic of a guy in thong,gas mask and M4, and burn everyone's retinas.
Pat
by Pat on March 21, 2008 5:43 AM
...thong, gas mask and M4...
Huh -- and here I figgered you for a SAW kinda guy...
by
BillT on March 21, 2008 6:21 AM
Since I still don't have a clue what that dataplate is stuck on - I think I'll just retaliate with this little illustration.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 21, 2008 9:23 AM
... don't worry if it's not good enough... for anyone else to FREAKIN SEE BECAUSE IT'S SO DAMN OBSCURE EVEN A DEAD GIVEAWAY DOESN'T HELP... just thing... thing a thong......
BAH.
HUMBUG
by AFSister on March 21, 2008 10:56 AM
Thanks, John. There went lunch. LOL
by fdcol63 on March 21, 2008 11:31 AM
The Object in Question was manufactured by Russki Enterprises a wholly owned subsidiary of Stalin Incrumbrenated.
This 450th petrol tank, engineered to precision Soviet standards was found by the Soviet military to be the first which didn't leak. Realising something terrible was afoot, it was decided to convert it into an ammo holder in case the подполко́вник inspected it and suspected Capitalist pigdog manufacture.
After invading Afghanistan to conquer the valuable pet rocks of the region the Red Army decided to beat a hasty tactical withdrawal when 4 dusty men with Soviet made AK47s defeated three quarters of the Soviet tank arsenal. Apparently no resistance was offered until an errant tank (well let's say vodka driven) accidentally ran over a tea house.
In a case of rare military equipment misplacement, The ammo container was left behind.
Then of course the Americans came just to prove they could do better, and because the untapped pet rock resources of the region were still up for grabs.
Finding this sterling piece of Soviet manufacture it was decided private UselessLazyWorthlessScum must be ordered to paint it because the wholly undesirable Soviet poo brown must be converted to the glorious gloomy grey standard. Said private either rolled the tank in the dust or sneezed the paint on it enough to hide the brown and thus earn him the accolade of having actually done some work. Of course in another extremely unusual case of military misplacement the cap was lost. Mission accomplished, the container was donated to the Afghani military.
Today this Soviet manufactured petrol tank is serving the Afghani military being a store of ammo having only moderate chance of blowing up in your face when used. It was attached to a scooter in a high powered initiative of the logistics Department.
This is a true story, it happened to a friend of a friend of mine.
by
Trias on March 21, 2008 11:06 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Mar 21, 2008
March 17, 2008
Lt Cdr Heidi Kraft - More Than a Movie Star
[Kat]
In response to John's Major Movie Star post and as it is Women's History Month, Carrie sends me this link about someone who knows how to wear her uniform right:

Lt Cdr Dr Heidi Kraft will be donating 10% of her book sales to the Marine Semper Fi Fund:
Dr. Heidi Kraft, Navy Psychologist and Graduate of the SDSU/UCSD JDP in Clinical Psychology, Writes a Memoir About Her Experiences in Iraq:
"Rule Number Two: Lessons I Learned in a Combat Hospital"
Former Lieutenant Commander Kraft spent nine years as a U.S. Navy Psychologist, and over seven months at a remote air base in western Iraq. The title for her new book, "Rule Number Two: Lessons I Learned in a Combat Hospital", comes from an episode from the first season of the M*A*S*H television series, "Sometimes You Hear the Bullet." In this 1973 episode, Hawkeye, a surgeon, realizes he cannot save an underage Marine. Henry says to Hawkeye: "In war Rule #1 is that young men die. And Rule #2 is that doctors cannot change rule #1."
Read an excerpt of the book here
Dr. Kraft held the hand of a dying marine, Cpl Jason Dunham, who was later awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for throwing himself on a grenade to save his friends and comrades. She wrote a rather famous piece that made its way around the blogosphere: Memories of Iraq: Good and Bad
The Good...
"Meeting a young sergeant, who had lost an eye in an explosion ... he asked his surgeon if he could open the other one ... when he did, he sat up and looked at the young Marines from his fire team who were being treated for superficial shrapnel wounds in the next room ...
"He smiled, laid back down, and said, 'I only have one good eye, Doc, but I can see that my Marines are OK.'
The Bad
"Ushering a sobbing Marine colonel away from the trauma bay while several of his Marines bled and cried out in pain inside. Meeting that 21-year-old Marine with three Purple Hearts, and listening to him weep because he felt ashamed of being afraid to go back.
A mother of two children, Dr. Kraft currently splits her work-time between two positions, as the Deputy Program Coordinator for the US Navy's Combat Stress Control Program (on a contract with SAIC) and as as a Clinical Psychologist, specializing in combat trauma, at the Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
COOL COOL COOL....
I'm adding this to my summer must-read list!
I remember her good/bad list very vividly, and am glad to see she took that, ran with it, and came out with a book.
Ironically, I'm listening to the audio version of "The Long Road Home", which is the story about the Sadr City ambush that killed 8- including Casey Sheehan- and wounded over 50 of our guys. It tears my heart out every time I turn it on.
by AFSister on March 17, 2008 12:43 PM
I'm going to read that book. I just found it while looking at Lt Cdr Kraft's book. I have a full reading list actually.
Just got to get some time to do it in.
by kat-missouri on March 17, 2008 1:13 PM
LtCdr Heidi Kraft is truely resplendent. She is an angel of mercy. Her beauty transcends worldly.
I learned to have special affection for Navy Doctors and Nurses waaaaaaaay back.
by
jim b on March 17, 2008 1:28 PM
Um, editorial note. The money is being donated to the Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund. There is a difference.
Jus' sayin'.
0>;~}
by Sly2017 on March 17, 2008 2:47 PM
Thank you Sly...sorry it took so long to notice your comment.
by kat-missouri on March 17, 2008 5:05 PM
Kat, all jokes aside, this is truly an OUTSTANDING member of our military. She is also beautiful on both an inner and outward ways. She even has a brain that fuctions, YEAH! I figrure she is extremely intelligent, like the top 1,2,3,4% for an I.Q. I had a Father and a Brother who were tested and were found to be in the top 1%. When they talk of high IQ, The one thing that really stood out was how close all three were in my view was their sense and type of humor. It speaks volumes.
Grumpy
by Grumpy on March 17, 2008 5:14 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 15, 2008
Doing COIN Since 1066: William the Conqueror To Iraq
[Kat]
As a semi-history geek, it has been interesting watching the evolution of COIN in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most people in the know relate our modern COIN techniques in Iraq to more modern wars and successful or unsuccessful leaders. These wars and leaders are most often within the last two centuries.
Whether it is Vietnam and Westmoreland or Gulula in Algiers and occasional comparisons to both World Wars (TE Lawrence WWI), the Civil War and our own Revolutionary War, we seek comparison and continuity through those wars and leaders we can most relate to. We compare or dispose of those leaders and battles as we see fit in order to enhance our understanding of COIN.
Yet, modern COIN isn't so modern.
In fact, it compares favorably to a number of historical precedents. Take, for instance, the invasion of England in 1066 by William, Duke of Normandy and its eventual subjugation to the Conqueror's rule. William won the Battle of Hastings in 1066 through the strategic use of mounted heavy cavalry or "knights", the medieval version of the tank. First, he rained down arrows (artillery and air power), then he used his armor to break the line of the enemy.
Through both daring and the luck of battle, a group of mounted cavalry charged the line of huscarls then retreated, drawing them away from the main line to be decimated. William took advantage of the opening created and charged with his knights into the opening, destroying a number of forces and killing Harold Godwinson. That is after Godwinson had been forced to go north to defend against the invading vikings before making a hard march south after learning that the Duke was preparing to invade near Dover.
In Iraq, a feinted armor attack to the east and the potential of an attack from the north kept some forces stationary while others, the elite "Republican Guard" (huscarls?) maneuvered to defend Baghdad and the main forces stayed in their trenches. Then an armored column drove straight into the heart of Baghdad, causing the government to collapse.
Even William can't lay claim to having invented modern "armored cavalry" tactics since Alexander the Great had used a similar tactic to defeat Darius and the Persian Army.
Like Iraq, William's success at Hastings did not mean that the Anglo-Saxons were just going to roll over and hand him the kingdom without a fight. Neither could he rely on staying based in Dover or London, putting down rebellions through a mobile force that could route the enemy, but not control the land.
What William did next closely resembles COIN in Iraq.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
After conquering London, William effectively had control of England. While international trade was relatively limited, goods and food would come from France and other Mediterranean nations through the Thames to London ports for distribution. Coastal English ships, carrying fish, mussels and other English commodities would wind their way to the markets of London. Even marble and other rocks to build homes and defensive walls would come from Wales and other parts of the country to London Town. Controlling London effectively controlled a large part of English commerce as well as the reins of political power. A veritable "green zone".
Still, the "tribes" of England were not ready to submit. William had to contend with a dedicated insurgency and multiple uprisings around the nation, often simultaneously. In 1067, Dover (Najaf) was attacked from Kent and Hereford from Shropshire with an alliance between Saxon Earls and Welsh princes (Anbar). Various rebels took refuge in neighboring countries from which they launched attacks, raided villages, stole food and cattle, killed any supposed collaborators, harassed Norman garrisons and attacked patrols with hit and run tactics.
It should all sound very familiar, including the involvement and assistance of various neighboring nations, up to and including viking raids and whole sale invasions. In reflection even of the current conflict, the most determined resistance came from the north where Saxons from Europe had pushed back the Anglos and controlled the area nearly autonomously with approval from then rulers in London for several centuries (Ba'athists, Tikritis-Saddam's tribe, Sunni's in Arab Joubar, etc).
To put down the rebellions and control the land, William pushed out from his main holds and castles, establishing castles and garrisons in the effected areas. These castles were largely "motte and bailey" or earthworks and wooden defenses (hesco barriers?) that later gave way to stone walls and keeps. This took on some renewed and determined energy, three years into the conquest as William threw up more and more "forward operating bases", establishing "liege lords" to hold the garrisons and control the area.
These liege lords, holding land and castle in William's name, would then establish combat outposts or smaller castles and demesnes with smaller garrisons pulled from the main FOB to patrol and control roads, establish a "presence" in remote areas and let the general population know that they were there to stay. The commanders or "barons" owed allegiance to the liege lord and so on up to the King (commander MNF-I).
Most historians tend to focus on the somewhat brutal, post Hastings military activities of the Norman conquest and give but passing recognition to three of William's most important and effective counter-insurgency strategies. Adopting local governance, establishing local relations and developing a complete census, commonly referred to as "the Domesday Book".
In the early days, William used the medieval equivalent of "total war". Wherever he met resistance, he would confiscate the lands, displace the local lords, destroy crops and burn down villages. He felt that this would destroy the insurgents' ability to survive and their areas of rest and re-supply from which they could attack. He also felt that, if the peasants were busy building shelters and scrounging for food, they wouldn't have time to foment rebellion. While this was true in many cases, it also led to large scale revolts. Particularly after the killing of some local notable.
William's local liege lords soon discovered that the survivability of their FOBs depended on the economic survival of the local citizenry. Of course, the survival of these entities was much more closely intertwined in William's day because the local garrisons depended on food, textiles, minerals and metals from the surrounding areas to maintain their own defenses, weapons and people. If the peasants weren't growing food and tending their cattle, the castle garrison would go hungry. Feudal grants of land and other economic ties began to weld the local population to the new lords who were called upon to settle disputes, control crime and punish the offenders.
Life as a peasant or serf was certainly no picnic, but it is difficult to believe that even the all powerful lord would not have developed an understanding and appreciation for their mutual survival. A survival that included caring for and defending the local population, up to and including bringing whole villages, their stores and cattle into the castle's bailey to defend against attacks. Continuous wholesale slaughter or driving off of the local population was barely an efficient, popular or proper way to ensure survival.
Many of these connections were sealed with inter-marriages with local Saxon nobility, adopting local laws and practices, while simultaneously overlaying them with Norman law and culture. While some contend that Saxon culture and language was all but wiped out under the Normans, English, an adaptation of Anglo-Saxon and Norman language, is the prevailing language of England today. Even the term "England" (Angle Land) is a reflection of an earlier name. Other cultural practices, modes of dress and foods, for instance, were adopted by both cultures. Of course, the Saxons had to learn Norman French to communicate with their lords, but somebody had to learn enough Anglo-Saxon to communicate with the locals or find a good interpreter. Resulting in modern English, spoken all over the world.
Second, William adopted the existing English form of governance over the multitudes of shires. The English system invested in "shire reeves" (sheriffs) the power to administer the shire, collect taxes and carry out the king's law among the citizens. Through strengthening various reporting mechanisms and appointing the "shire reeves" from the central monarchy, William tied these administrative areas more closely to the central government. Reducing some of their autonomy but strengthening over all governance. In fact, turning England from a loose confederation of minor principalities and petty kingdoms into a nation.
Something else that is often overlooked in the rather propagandistic history and military focus of the total Norman Conquest, is the recognition that, in order to administer this existing system, knowledgeable technocrats and bureaucrats had to be retained. While Normans were given control of much of the offices, existing technocrats and bureaucrats would have been handy in ensuring continuity. Particularly since the English type of governance and reliance on written documents would have been unfamiliar to even the most established and educated Norman lord.
Most of the Anglo-Saxon nobility and bureaucrats were able to read and write much better than their Norman counterparts. They could also speak the local language. This made them rather invaluable employees in the new government as administrators, clerks and the medieval version of the accountant.
Like the Marines in al Anbar, William recognized that, in order to control and administer his new, wide spread nation, he had to know "who, what, how many and where". William sent out men to take down the first large scale census since the rule of Rome. The event was essentially a "walking tour" of England with various clerks sent out all over England to count people, take down names, identify the land and quantify its worth (as well as possibilities) in a book called "The Domesday Book".
By knowing who and where, William could understand the relationship between people, places and the rebels. He could identify local leaders and their families. He also knew the wealth and potential wealth of the various areas, could establish taxes and make general economic plans with this knowledge of the current and the future possibilities. The book also codified some of the laws of the land and gave a fairly decent description of the local people, their language, mode of dress and eating habits.
These codified laws eventually became the basis for administrative and criminal law in England that eventually led to Henry II creating a strong legal administrative system and "trial by jury". The eventual basis for the American legal system.
Again, Anglo-Saxon law and culture did not simply disappear. It was "assimilated". So much, in fact, that the original idea of confederated states and consultative government (along with the growing economic and political power of the individual and confederated lords) led to the writing of the Magna Carta. This in turn led to the multiple attempts to force the various kings to recognize this document and power through multiple rebellions (King John, Henry III, James I, James III, Charles I, Charles II, etc, etc, etc).
One of these multiple rebellions (the Roundheads or Parliamentarians led by Cromwell v. the Royalists) that led to the writings of Locke, Hobbes, Burke, etc on the rights of the citizens, the divinity of kings (or lack thereof or, at least, shared by the people who were also the children of God), power deriving from and invested by the ruled people and, finally, their right to rebellion against an unjust ruler.
These writers influenced our own founding fathers who eventually rebelled and wrote various treatises, pamphlets, essays, books, the Declaration and the Constitution that formed the basis of modern concepts for freedom and democracy. They fought off numerous invasions, fought the first Barbary Pirates to protect their commerce (and their existence), fought amongst themselves over the definition of freedom and the reservation of rights to government and the people, fought various tyrants world wide and, eventually, has brought us here where we still fight the enemies of democracy and freedom, still fight amongst ourselves and still believe in the supremacy of those ideas to the degree that we still feel able to have those discussions without any real fear of imminent destruction or disintegration.
Almost 1000 years later, the Norman Conquest of England is still reverberating across our politics, our ideology and our conduct of war, both large and small.
[For the record, I do not discount the military counter-insurgency tactics that William employed nor their brutality. Medieval warfare and politics were particularly brutal and violent. Yet, anyone can read about those battles, but few focus on the very mundane aspects of developing control of disparate kingdoms and principalities to form a nation. Those mundane aspects being the creation of government, administrative offices, codifying law, establishing political and economic bonds and establishing the basis of security and control through the building of castles (FOBs) or their smaller garrisoned COPs (combat outposts).
All of this should look and sound very familiar to anyone that has followed the counter-insurgency in Iraq.
By the way, it took William over six years, 1066 - 1072, to finally subdue the island with a small force, largely outnumbered by the indigent population. He also eventually experienced two of his own "surges" of Norman and various other European lords and their armies. All this while contending with multiple rebellions, economic and political problems back in the home country of Normandy. Technology, it seems, has not made it any easier, shorter, less bloody, particularly for the civilians, or politically risky.]
� Secure this line!
March 13, 2008
Vets for Freedom "Heroes Tour" Kick-off
I should've put this up earlier, but things got busy.
Vets for Freedom is kicking off the "National Heroes Tour" in San Diego tomorrow (Friday) to draw attention to their mission as they travel to Washington, DC to meet with legislators ahead of General Petraeus' expected testimony in April. Events will include appearances/speeches by heroes like Bud Day, Marcus Luttrell and David Bellavia, as well as local heroes. There will be a book signing in Pendleton in the morning, then a party on the deck of the Midway Museum at 6:30 p.m., including a parachute team landing and F-18 flyover, and music and food until 10:00 (Hugh Hewitt will be broadcasting from the ship starting at 3:00).
All events are free. Uncle Jimbo of Blackfive and I will be there to cover the news for the blogs.
Hope to see you there!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
GOE did a demonstration of support at the Recruiting Office in Times Square that got bombed the previous day. I took the train up from Philadelphia. Great group of people. Rained on and off all day but, they had a party tent without sides set up for us. I can finally say "we played Broadway". We spent the day on that traffic island the Recruiting Office is on. NYPD &FD did a show of support with their cruisers, about 15 went down each side of the island. Cool.
by John Cunningham on March 16, 2008 4:29 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
Denizens
on
Mar 13, 2008
March 6, 2008
All the Military News That's Fit To Print
I thought I'd throw together some links to some interesting military and GWOT news. A little too much to put in H&I Fires. To save on space, etc, I've put them in Flash Traffic.
To whet your appetite, a quote from Lt. Gen. Odierno:
“Their sacrifices were (not) and will not be in vain,” he said. “And because of them, Iraqis have the right to choose their own destiny. Let us forever remember our noble and gallant warriors who gave everything so others can enjoy life and liberties of a truly free people.”
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
The Last Ball: Lt. Col. Gadsdon, double amputee, inspires Giants to win Super Bowl, receives last ball thrown by Favre in the NFL.
Little by Little, One Word At A Time: Marine earns Bronze Star for using self taught Arabic and cultural information in Ramadi
They Don't Grow on Trees: Spec Ops Increasing by 5% Yearly
Navy Awards Contract for New Walter Reed Facility
Don't lose site of some important congressional issues during the inundation of all politics all the time: War-Funding Delays Harmful Within Months, Deputy Secretary Says
Aufweidersen: 1st Armored begins to leave Germany Ft Bliss is going to be HUGE.
They'll Make You Famous: Soldier's who drink and drive on Ft. Drum will have their names published
The British Are Coming, The British Are Coming! To Kansas?
So are the Russians, but the Navy does not consider them a concern or a threat.
They Don't Grow On Trees II: Trying to build Iraqi Army NCOs
Military Working Dogs and Their Handlers in Mosul are checking for explosives and denying the enemy the tools of their trade (shocka: one of them is a woman, on patrol, outside the FOB, not driving a truck or humvee).
USACE: The Longest Road
Mosul, the Center of Al Qaeda Terrorism
Lt Gen. OdiernoOdierno emphasized that gains made in Iraq have come with big sacrifices in injuries and lives lost.
“Their sacrifices were (not) and will not be in vain,” he said. “And because of them, Iraqis have the right to choose their own destiny. Let us forever remember our noble and gallant warriors who gave everything so others can enjoy life and liberties of a truly free people.”
Video: Brig. Gen. Huggins, 3rd ID on the Surge "More room for optimism here than I've seen in ever before here in my three times (tours to Iraq)"
The truth is in the pudding: Gate Way Pundit Posts Latest Brooking's Institute Numbers on Attacks and Casualties. One word: shocka!
Long War Journal says Al Qaeda leader target of bombing in Somalia
To Die or Not To Die? That is the question. Chemical Ali in the cross hairs.
Not to Die: Iraqi Girl Get's Help From Marines and Surgery at Vanderbilt
SoI leader still concerned about the deployment of the al Muthana Iraqi Army Brigade to their area. Both sides thinks the other is bad.
The Forgotten War: Not So Bad After All?
No Taliban Spring?
Taliban swears to keep fighting "foreign forces". Of course, their friends in Pakistan are a little busy fighting the "near enemy" and getting blown away by the "far enemy".
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.-Sun Tzu
Protesting MPs from Logar demand Afghanistan government break ties with Netherlands and Denmark.
There are about 1,500 Dutch troops and 630 Danish soldiers in Afghanistan as part of the multinational NATO-led force fighting Taliban militants and rebuilding the war-shattered country.
Those few troops have led a considerable
number of operations against the Taliban in their region. AQIZ tried similar tactics of discrediting coalition forces in Iraq by fomenting protests against the concrete walls that separated the neighborhoods and provided secure crossing points that limited AQIZ's ability to move freely about the city. That protest eventually died and peace essentially broke out.
US Airmen (women) spearhead ANA (military) women's seminar
The general (Khotul) also encouraged the women to look and behave as soldiers and look to the American females as role models. She thanked the Airmen for their part in the seminars.
‘I offer thanks to our sisters for having left their families to come here and help us,” said Khotul. “We very much appreciate them.”
Teaching people to build things and not blow them up in Afghanistan.
A Dirge For the Fallen Comrade: 79th Canadian Soldier dies in Afghanistan. God bless the Canadian Soldiers.
� Secure this line!
December 29, 2007
Snipe Hunt!
A different kind of whatziss today.

This is a sprocket for a tracked vehicle. The question is - which tracked vehicle?
You'll notice it's marked "Graf BOQ WC Key" meaning it's the key to the water closet, or latrine, of a Graf BOQ.
At Grafenwoehr, Germany, a large training area (for Germany, it would be lost on Fort Irwin) the cantonment area has blocks of barracks, arranged in open horseshoes configuration. At least it did, I have no idea what it looks like now, my last trip to Graf having been when it was used as a Redeployment Assembly Area for REFORGER '88.
Anyway, the barracks formed the sides (they were just open bays, you brought cots, etc) and the latrines were at the end. I don't recall ever using a key - but apparently, at some time, the 6th Battalion, 14th Field Artillery did. As in, they attached the key to this sprocket, so that you wouldn't use the facility and then walk away with it.
I got this thing because it tickled me, I've got many days at Graf (more in the field than in the barracks, but, hey...) and I shared a kaserne with the 6-14FA, back when I was in the 1-22FA of the 1st Tank.
I've shown this to my buds I still have contact with who were in the Warbonnets (note the unit crest on the right side of the sprocket) and they don't remember the sprocket, nor LTC Anckaitis.
The legend that comes with the sprocket is that it was taken from a German sefl-propelled artillery piece destroyed by the 6-14th as they went across France in 1944 as an armored artillery battalion of the 4th Armored Division. It putatively came from the estate of Colonel Anckaitis, recently deceased (that part I'm not sure of, either).
So, here's your challenge - what vehicle did that sprocket come from? I've done some looking and I'm not sure myself, yet. Remember that the Germans used a lot of French, Czech and some Russian chassis to mount artillery on - so don't limit yourself to German sprockets only.
I'd also love it if someone shows up who *knows* the story... Below I've provided two larger front and rear views, to aid you. One of the reasons I provided the rear view is for those of use who have broken down more modern vehicles (I'm not ruling those out) that side may help eliminate some possibles. The inner diameter of the sprocket is 14.75 inches.
Front view. Rear view.
Go forth, ye hordes of Argghhh! and scour the 'net! Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia er, pics of candidate vehicles!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
M578 Drive Sprocket.
Heath
by heath on December 29, 2007 1:26 PM
Ahhh - 'Tis good to see my own sprocket proudly featured at The Castle. Though I may remind everyone that its provenance is not from the Graf Spee, but from The Moat's Sand Pebbles.
BOQ
by Graf-Spee-Boquisucio on December 29, 2007 3:54 PM
To be fair, it can also be found on the M107 175mm or M110 8" self-propelled gun.
Definitely the inside view, judging by the bevel cut where the bolt holes are.
My money is on the M110 since the clues point to "WC" for latrine designation. ;)
by OlafTheTanker on December 29, 2007 3:56 PM
no idea what vehicle it came from, but your post brought back somf graf flashback-nightmares...
i was an air force weather observer attached to the 2nd acr out of nurenburg from 1982-1985. one night some of the rocket scientists manning the artillery battery walked their rounds across our bivouac area. lot's of heads rolled on that one from the battery commander on down. fortunately nobody was killed or injured. but hey, it was good training. got me ready for the experience of scud and patriot pieces raining down on us in riyadh during the great unfinished gulf war! lol...
hey, still love you arty guys though...
by dave on December 29, 2007 6:49 PM
Methinks there is an exciting and not necessarily positive explanation behind this "key fob". My salty sailor friends would be likely to present such a trinket to a hapless comrade as a memento of a misfortune.
Can't you all envision some tank (or other tracked vehicle) driver/commander/or unit commander breeching a new entry into the outhouse/latrine (whatever you mud dwellers call them) with said tracked vehicle? Bet there was a whole lot of explaining going on after something like that.
Meanwhile I will check out the sprockets on M41, M47, M48, M60 tanks and the 8 in SP when I get a chance next week.
by John on December 29, 2007 9:03 PM
Never made it to Graf. I was a Wildflecken guy. Plus I was a combat medic so I don't know shite from apple butter when it comes to machinery. Still...good times, good times.
by PaleoMedic on December 29, 2007 11:59 PM
Info on LTC Anckaitis, he was the commander of 1/75 FA BN in the 1986 time frame..
http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/1986/JUL_AUG_1986/JUL_AUG_1986_PAGES_18.pdf
http://www.lvmac.org/VetLibrary/Flashbacks.htm
He is apparently the Township Secretary of Palmer Township in Northampton County, PA
ranckaitis@palmertwp.com
Drop him an email and ask him....
(note all information from a Google Search of Public websites)
by Old Soldier on December 30, 2007 12:00 AM
replaceable sprocket belongs to a M60A3 tank or M88 recovery vehicle as these have many common drive train components. By the way, I have changed many of these. requires much bolt twisting and bouncing on 'T' bar-cheater bar-tanker bar assembly. Most fun when accomplished at 0100, knee deep in mud wile snowing
by Eric on December 30, 2007 9:23 AM
There's only one problem with thinking the sprocket is from an M60/88 series.
The one shown has 11 sprocket teeth and 11 bolt holes, the M60/88 hull series drive sprocket has 11 sprocket teeth and 10 bolt holes and was a heck of a lot thicker. ;)
by OlafTheTanker on December 30, 2007 12:24 PM
Boq - shouldn't that have been Graf's Pee?
by
John of Argghhh! on December 30, 2007 12:35 PM
If you look at the sprocket in a certain way, it almost reminds you of ...... a ship's helm.
And what would that remind you of, eh, John?
Maybe .. 2nd BDE ("Helmsmen"), 1st AD ("Old Ironsides")? LOL
by fdcol63 on December 30, 2007 9:58 PM
personally leaning more towards Olaf's response than towards Eric's.... one would think that i would be able to remember how many knuckles get busted on each sprocket change for each vehicle type; but in any case, the teeth are too small for the M60 series.
btw, John: don't get target fixation. this may NOT be the key retention device for the latrine at one of the regular camp sites (Aachen or Normandy). the label on it clearly declares it to be the BOQ key, so now you would have to expand the possible sites to include the German style barracks (with bunkage included) that are over by Normanday, as well as including the BOQ near the old Officer's Club.
by MajMike on December 31, 2007 8:33 AM
Graf von Boquisucio, mebbe?
by
BillT on December 31, 2007 9:04 AM
Re the suggestion to email the Lt Col. I don't think the Colonel will reply. If I googled correctly it appears he is no longer with us. Not in the physical sense, anyway.
His obit notice is scattered about the web. The one I distinctly recall was at one of the schools he taught at, Virginia State University.
by Gun Trash on December 31, 2007 11:27 AM
I've seen that, too. I tried, anyway, in case it's a different fellow.
You'd think the Township would have updated its website by now, though!
by
John of Arghhh! on December 31, 2007 12:29 PM
I was permanent party at Graf, until I found myself headed for VN. Last there in 1967, so the sprocket in question may have still been part of Mother Gia when I was there.
Woody
by Oran Woody on January 1, 2008 10:53 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 28, 2007
And the Winnah Is...
...OldSchool, who tagged yesterday's Whatziss as an SPS-141MVG ECM pod.
The nose-on view is kind of a giveaway that it's *not* an aux fuel tank

and the view from behind home plate

cinches that it ain't a missile (note to BCR: okay, okay -- there *could* be a gravity repulsor in there, but the tail cone is the wrong shape for that particular app).
What really piqued my interest about this beastie was that, unlike the other SovStuff (a *huge* number of 57mm rocket pods live here) I poked around, the exterior assembly / warning / access stencils were locally-applied and in English, not Rooshian.

Which told me something about the Saddam-era ground crew techies.
Just for grins, here's something to make Dusty go *eeek*!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Ooooo. Bring home one of those launchers! I can make a kewl mailbox out of one of those!
Oh, and don't tell me you didn't have some twitches when you saw it...
by
John of Argghhh! on December 28, 2007 8:54 AM
That's right, Chief- we never heard the 'trolling-for-flak' TINS... that 23-4 should jog the ol' memory cells!
by Neffi on December 28, 2007 9:20 AM
Oooh. Want that.
by
og on December 28, 2007 10:19 AM
The 23-4 just points out where the enemy is. Handy in a fight. What makes me go "eeek" are US Army ADA batteries. They're MUCH more lethal. (Ask the Navy and the Brits.)
by
Instapilot on December 28, 2007 6:32 PM
Put some Republican Guard troopers in the photo, then ring up Jane Fonda. I'm sure she would be happy to come out and pose.
by
Rivrdog on December 28, 2007 8:09 PM
The port fin is OBVIOUSLY not symmetrical with the starboard fin.
Cartoon Universe, I tell you!
That gizmo frightens me. I think it would try to eat me, if it were animated, and knew where I lived.
Trans-dimensional anomalous artifacts must be destroyed, as Atticus Finch shot the rabid dog with the Krag.
Bill, please tell us that it has been cut into itty-bitty harmless pieces, and said pieces burnt beyond recognition in a very hot fire, so that we might be spared from the consequences of whatever nefarious programs were built into its evil cognitive engine!
by
Justthisguy on December 28, 2007 10:13 PM
Looks like everybody needs some remedial Threat Recognition training -- the AA piece is a ZPU-4, featuring quad 14.5mm KPV heavy MGs. The ZSU 23-4 is self-propelled, mounted on a PT-76 chassis, because four 23mm guns suck up a *lot* of ammo and it wouldn't make sense to stick that configuration on a towed mount.
Bill, please tell us that it has been cut into itty-bitty harmless pieces...
Nope. But its teeth aren't fully-developed and it doesn't move very fast. Yet.
by
BillT on December 28, 2007 10:35 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Dec 28, 2007
November 26, 2007
Schizophrenic War Take 2
In Schizophrenic War on Sunday, I talked about reading two books on the war in Iraq and the different views of the war each presented. "Waging Peace" was about civil affairs in a war zone and Buzzel's "My War" is basically an infantryman's shooting war. The apparent inability to reconcile these two seemingly opposite views of "war" during an insurgency (global and localized) apparently paralyzed (and still does) our political, philosophical and strategic thinking.
Case in point. Sanchez's speech on the Democrat weekly address stirred up a conversation at Small Wars. Most commentors thought that Sanchez was basically trying to shun responsibility for the failure to identify and properly fight the insurgency. Two defended him. One basically stating that Sanchez was simply following orders of the infamous Rumsfeld and would have been fired if he tried to do counter-insurgency which he would have implemented "if only". Another claiming that the discontent with his statements was politically motivated.
(continued in flash traffic)
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
1) Just by Sanchez's statements on the Democrat address, it seems clear that he is a "'Powell Doctrine', post Viet Nam, we don't do counter-insurgency and nation building" kind of guy. Which I believe was reflected in his guidance of over all strategy and force posture. Something that afflicted his predecessors and many current commanders.
2) Attempts to absolve Sanchez of responsibility seem to damn with feint praise. He is seen at once as some sort of weak willed victim and a total butt-kisser as either unable to or unwilling to stand up to Rummy, Bush and Halib...er Rove, Cheney consortium. A complete political operative in fact. Which makes his Democrat address all that much more suspect if we believe this to be true rather than number one: he simply wasn't prepared to fight, by philosophy or strategy, a counter-insurgency. Neither was Abizaid, apparently.
In regards to the schizophrenic nature of the war, I am always interested in the idea that such generals have little or no authority or power to influence or control their area of operations. Or, that any of these generals were were not sending information up the chain of command that was being used in any decision making or public information besides information and orders flowing down.
In this war, while continuously stating that the war would only end with a political solution in Iraq, the domestic politics of the United States has succeeded in taking the blame off of any military commanders. Giving them full immunity and allowing them to return as political partisans.
Is it possible that, insurgencies being as they are and intelligence being the name of the game, we simply weren't in the right place or well organized to obtain and ascertain the nature of the insurgency? Or, were we gathering plenty of information, but weren't willing or able to decipher its true value and act on it based on either doctrine or political will?
The entire situation seems rather partisan. Not just politically, but doctrinally. The doctrine which seems to have split the military leadership into two camps: conventional war and counter-insurgency. With Petraeus being called back to help select the next round of BGs, it may be at least a nod to, if not "counter-insurgency", at least "un-conventional".
Will the military be able to take the promotion of "un-conventional" officers who might promote Petraeus' "unconventional" selection of leaders regardless of rank and not fall into disarray? Or, will it make officers sit up and stop relying on "the way things are" to get a promotion? Will this actually make the military more "flexible" or simply entrench the old guard who will hope this entire "unfortunate" period of transformation will pass away sooner or later and they can get back to planning a war with China or Russia?
And, wow, imagine with purchasing and procurement are going to look like while these two camps go to logger heads.
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Even if Sanchez had pushed for a COIN strategy early on, and the troops to implement it, he would have faced resistance from his immediate superior, GEN Franks, at CENTCOM.
Or does nobody else remember Franks quashing the ground commanders' requests (under guidance from Rumsfeld) for more forces for ANACONDA in Afghanistan the year before?
This after Rumsfeld quashed Shinseki's request for an invasion force of 250k troops.
by
Heartless Libertarian on November 26, 2007 9:30 AM
Doctrine ... Conventional or counter-insurgency?
In the aftermath of our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, and when we consider whether or not Rumsfeldian "transformation" should be further pursued, I think we need to keep a few things in perspective:
1) Instead of a military focused on a large-scale European-style conflict, we do indeed need a more mobile, rapidly deployable force capable of being projected to whereever we need it, with whatever organizational elements necessary to be self-sustaining. The reorg to a brigade and RCT based force, as opposed to a division-centric force, is a good start - along with continued integration of SOCOM and joint operations.
2) However, we've learned that we still need a force large enough to adequately hold the ground we seize, without allowing the enemy a chance to come in behind us and establish an insurgency. Funding and recruitment will remain a challenge, and we must not fall into the Rumsfeldian trap of believing that "technology" without adequate manpower will be a panacea. We've found the same to be true for intelligence gathering and analysis, also. And while smaller, regional conflicts will probably be the new norm, we must also still plan for larger, more massive campaigns against potential adversaries like Russia and China.
3) While we sought to rebuild Iraq in this case, this may not be true in other situations. While we may on occasion find it necessary to follow Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule, there may be scenarios where we are not obligated or feel it strategically necessary to rebuild the civil infrastructure or other institutions and security systems of our vanquished enemy. In Iraq, we sought to change the dynamics of the Muslim world in a key, strategic center, from which we hoped a pro-democracy movement would spread as we saw in the early days in Lebanon and elsewhere, thereby hoping to encourage the Iranians to overthrow the mullahs and avoid a larger, messier war there.
If we must move into Iran, we may hope to do so with as few civilian casualties and collateral damage as possible, but in any case, the Iranian people will most likely turn against us. In this scenario, I'm not sure we will find it necessary to fix what we broke, except to the extent necessary to prevent Iran from becoming a Talibanesque haven for terrorists and other Islamist enemies.
So, while we sent Public & Civil Affairs teams into Iraq, will this always be necesssary, and would we need to incorporate these elements and efforts into whatever "standard" doctrine ensues?
Conventional OR counter-insurgency? No. We must plan for BOTH as much as funding and personnel capabilities permit.
by fdcol63 on November 26, 2007 10:12 AM
Even if Sanchez had pushed for a COIN strategy early on, and the troops to implement it, he would have faced resistance from his immediate superior, GEN Franks, at CENTCOM.
Good question, but I think we are talking about Sanchez at CENTCOM. Franks was gone. What did Sanchez do with his year?
And while smaller, regional conflicts will probably be the new norm, we must also still plan for larger, more massive campaigns against potential adversaries like Russia and China
I'd agree, but it seems that, at least from the outside, there is still a serious struggle within the DoD and the military over whether they should plan for both or have to do both at all. And, it goes up and down the ranks. After reading several books this weekend on the war, you can see the split. There are officers who do both shooting and fixing, but there are a large number of officers who appear to be "name takers and a55-kickers". and that is all they want to be. maybe because their MOS is typically that, but MOS didn't matter in Iraq. They were all nation builders.
by
kat-missouri on November 26, 2007 12:00 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
Denizens
on
Nov 26, 2007
November 3, 2007
When Athens Perished
[Denizen Commentary - Kat]
Just a quick drive by today...I'm reading Victor Davis Hanson's "A War Like No Other". I'll give a review later if the Armorer hasn't done so in the past. "A War Like No Other" is a book about the Peloponnesian War between Athen's and Sparta. At the end of the Third Peloponnesian War, democratic Athens was defeated by oligarchic, militaristic Sparta, a city state that was smaller in land, people, money and arms. Reflecting multiple discussions here, Hanson wrote:
Second, Pericles gambled that the Athenians - a people that had once marched out to Marathon to beat an army three times its size and had sunk a numerically superior Persian fleet at Salamis in the sight of the Acropolis - could now sit idly by without damage to their national psyche while thousands of enemies swaggered in to challenge their martial prowess. [snip]
But the collective population at large would also have to stomach the even more odious idea that none of their men would dare to fight an enemy a few miles from the walls.
War is never nerely a struggle over concrete things. Instead, as great generals from the Theban Epaminondas to Napoleon saw, it remains a contest of wills, of mentalities and perceptions that lie at the heart of all military exegeses...
So once the Athenians had established the precedent that enemies could occupy their homeland with the near assurance that they would not or could not be forcibly removed, would not an inevitable sense of collective self-doubt and insecurity follow?
During the Third Peloponnesian War, Pericles had sought to mitigate the trouble Athens had experienced in other wars when they were forced to evacuate thousands from the city and surrounding country side. Instead, he decided to evacuate them into Athens. Largely because it had a nearby port and a walled access through which their maritime fleet could keep a besieged city well fed and its coffers still viable. He was hoping to avoid a war or greater bloodshed.
The Spartans and their allies marched in, ran the people from their homes and ate their crops and livestock, often within view of Athens itself.
Hanson is pointing out that, even though Athens was technically stronger than Sparta, the idea that, that strength could simply be held in check and the city state weather the attacks without significant damage to Athens, is wrong.
Physically, Athens could always have returned. But, psychically, Athens would never be the same.
War may begin over a myriad of material or economic means, but it is sustained and won or lost by the joining of passion and reason: the desire to fight and win, a cause or fire within, coupled with strategic thinking.
by
Denizens
on
Nov 03, 2007
November 2, 2007
Aw, Jeez...here we go again.
Jonah is goading me...it worked. My response follows to another potshot at an independent air force in The American Prospect...
Abolish the Air Force
What it does on its own -- strategic bombing -- isn't suited to modern warfare. What it does well -- its tactical support missions -- could be better managed by the Army and Navy. It's time to break up the Air Force
ROBERT FARLEY | November 1, 2007
In August of this year, reports emerged that British Army officers in Afghanistan had requested an end to American airstrikes in Helmand Province because the strikes were killing too many civilians there. Show me the report… In Iraq, the Lancet Study of Iraqi civilian casualties of the war suggested that airstrikes have been responsible for roughly 13 percent of those casualties, or somewhere in the range of 50,000 to 100,000 deaths. The Lancet study?!? Please.
Does the United States Air Force (USAF) fit into the post–September 11 world, a world in which the military mission of U.S. forces focuses more on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency? Not very well. Even the new counterinsurgency manual authored in part by Gen. David H. Petraeus, specifically notes that the excessive use of airpower in counterinsurgency conflict can lead to disaster. Let me address the second point first—the excessive use of any kinetic power can be counterproductive in a counterinsurgency. Airpower when used to deliver munitions can, however, be quite useful. Why was it employed against Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? As for the first point, this is a classic example of someone looking at a current conflict and extrapolating the experience to subsequent ones. We are focusing on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency at the present time in a specific place. Does it apply to all future conflicts? To quote the author, “Not very well.”
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
In response, the Air Force has gone on the defensive. In September 2006, Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr. published a long article in Armed Forces Journal denouncing "boots on the ground zealots," and insisting that airpower can solve the most important problems associated with counterinsurgency. The Air Force also recently published its own counterinsurgency manual elaborating on these claims. A recent op-ed by Maj. Gen. Dunlap called on the United States to "think creatively" about airpower and counterinsurgency -- and proposed striking Iranian oil facilities. Well, if you’re a general officer of one of the three main military services and you think there’s an effort afoot to marginalize your organization, you respond. The Army does it. The Navy does it. The Marine Corps (although technically a subset of the maritime service) has raised it to an art form. It’s what people do when they think they need to respond to a threat. It’s a kind of “policy wonk” behavior that all of us display, to one degree or another, in what is a constant tension among the Top Three generated by an environment where resources are scarce and the competition for them is fierce.
Surely, this is not the way the United States Air Force had planned to celebrate its 60th anniversary. On Sept. 18, 1947, Congress granted independence to the United States Army Air Force (USAAF), the branch of the U.S. Army that had coordinated the air campaigns against Germany and Japan. Point of order, professor. We didn’t “coordinate” the air campaigns…we developed and conducted them. How effective they were, especially the strategic bombing campaign, has been subject of much debate. However, there was no question the tactical employment of airpower in support of the overall campaign was crucial to success and in reducing friendly casualties by hastening the favorable outcome of the battles in which they were employed. Of extreme importance was a critical lesson learned in the early days of the war (Kesserine was a good example) that, to be truly decisive, air power had to be employed where it was most needed across the battle front. This could only be accomplished by central control that allowed limited assets to be employed across a large area where different ground commanders, had they controlled these assets piecemeal, would have attenuated their effectiveness.
But it's time to revisit the 1947 decision to separate the Air Force from the Army. While everyone agrees that the United States military requires air capability, it's less obvious that we need a bureaucratic entity called the United States Air Force. The independent Air Force privileges airpower to a degree unsupported by the historical record. I’m not sure what he means by “privileges” airpower. Land war is prosecuted by land war specialists—Soldiers. Maritime warfare is pursued by naval war specialists—Sailors and Marines. Air war is prosecuted by the people who have professionally grown up in an air war specialist cohort—Airmen. In fact, there is a lively debate going on right now as to whether or not a new Space Force should be formed…a discussion for another day. In any event, the good professor is about to erect his strawman: the dreaded “bureaucratic structure.” It’s not about bureaucracy, sir, it’s about experts in a medium of war concentrating their professional education, training and experience on that medium and thereby giving the Commander-in-Chief and the Legislature the best advice on what to buy, how to prepare and ultimately employ American military power in a three-dimensional medium. This bureaucratic structure has proven to be a continual problem in war fighting, in procurement, and in estimates of the costs of armed conflict. Indeed, it would be wrong to say that the USAF is an idea whose time has passed. Rather, it's a mistake that never should have been made.
Before 1947, aviation existed as a branch (if a large and privileged one) of the Army, alongside the infantry, artillery, and armor branches. To win autonomy, the Air Force needed to demonstrate that it could make a significant independent contribution to victory.
At the beginning of the U.S. involvement in World War II, Gen. Henry "Hap" Arnold, commander of the Army Air Force, decided that the Air Force would join Britain's Royal Air Force in the Combined Bomber Offensive against Germany. Over the next three years, American and British airmen would suffer appalling losses against German air defenses in a strategic bombing campaign designed to destroy German civilian morale and industrial capacity. The campaign expanded to Japan after Pacific bases became available. The USAAF also conducted a number of other missions, but its chiefs believed that strategic bombing would win the war for the Allies -- and independence for the Air Force.
This desire for independence drove the behavior of the USAAF during the war. The implication here is that the drive for independence was the sole driver of USAAF behavior during the Second World War. That does the Army Air Corps a disservice. Volumes have been written on the relative effectiveness—or ineffectiveness—of the strategic bombing campaigns in both major theaters. But the point is somewhat moot today. One must put how the architects of the WW II air campaigns conducted them in the context of the times. Air power thought was still in its relative infancy and the technology used to employ it was equally primitive. What they thought airpower could do and what it actually could do was still being worked out. To be fair, they worked out quite a bit (like Close Air Support as exercised by Generals Patton and Quesada—the ground and tactical fighter commanders, respectively, in the American sector in Germany. By late 1944, a submarine blockade had stymied Japanese war production. Because of the ineffectiveness of attacks on industry, and the flammability of Japanese cities, Gen. Curtis LeMay, mastermind of the strategic bombing campaign against Japan, decided that civilian areas would be the objective of his B-29s. Roughly 1 million Japanese civilians died from the fire-bombing of Japanese cities, though it was the incineration of so many square miles of Japanese city that the Army Air Force pointed to as it adduced clear, quantitative results in its fight for independence. LeMay would later head the Strategic Air Command, and serve as chief of staff of the Air Force during the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which he argued for a full set of airstrikes against Cuban targets. And therefore…what? The most famous bomber guy of WW II wanted to drop bombs on the enemy. How gauche.
During World War II, the USAAF also engaged in tactical air support and anti-submarine warfare missions, but these involved tight integration with either the Army or the Navy, and thus couldn't justify an independent service; only strategic bombing could do that. To use a technical attack pilot term, this is utter BS. In fact, the success of centralized control under a for-all-intents-and-purposes independent air commander and decentralized execution by the fighter flight leads at the front line was recognized by both George Patton and Dwight Eisenhower as the best argument for an independence of that air in fact…something that happened, and was supported by Eisenhower himself in the late Forties. In the immediate postwar years, the USAAF fought bitter battles with the Army, the Navy, and the Royal Air Force over the evaluation of the strategic bombing campaign. The campaigns had plainly failed to destroy German or Japanese morale, so the arguments turned to an assessment of Axis industrial output. Although academic disputes continue, the historical consensus is that the campaign inflicted damage on the Axis powers, but not to the degree expected prior to the conflict. Nevertheless, by emphasizing its strategic bombing mission, the Army Air Force managed to win independence from the Army and become the third military service. Actually, no. It was part of the argument but the core point was, and I paraphrase, “Why not put airmen in charge of air warfighting.” Novel concept, I know, but it’s seemed to work pretty well over the years…and even the adults in the Army, admit that.
After 1947, the USAF believed that strategic airpower could decide wars, whether global or local. This was a natural outgrowth of the advent of nukes—the Holy Grail of war is a quick, decisive strike that decides the contest with minimum cost in blood and treasure. No military man likes fighting wars, especially long ones, any more than firemen like fighting 4-alarm fires. But when they do, they want it over quickly. Back then, nukes seemed like the answer, especially to guys who had just fought a long, bloody and hugely destructive global contest. Nukes were sexy back then and the only delivery vehicles we had at the time were long-range bombers. Destruction of enemy will and industrial capacity through conventional or nuclear means would result in victory. Control over nuclear weapons passed to the Air Force because of the connection of such weapons with the concept of strategic bombing.
Ground support also fell under the purview of the new Air Force. However, the Air Force did not take to this mission with the same enthusiasm it exhibited for strategic bombing. This is true—back then, the bomber guys were supreme. However, in the ensuing years, the fighter guys have risen to prominence and CAS has regained some of the importance it lost in the early days following WW II. I will say that I think the Marines still take CAS more seriously than many USAF guys, but if strategic bombing is so central to USAF thinking, why do we have so many F-15s, F-16s, A-10s, and F-22s? Ground support inherently involved collaboration with the Army and consequently subjection to Army aims. Autonomy and the glory of victory would go to the Army, rather than to the Air Force. This attitude makes me completely nuts. To this civilian, it’s all about zero-sum games. Granted, there are service partisans in every service who chafe at “doing the bidding” of another branch but they’re (thankfully) rare. Supporting an Army on the ground is hardly “subjection,” it’s contributing to the fight for an overall aim—victory. I’m an A-10 guy. I’m happiest when I’m talking to a guy on the ground and putting steel on target so he doesn’t have to. As the senior commander of all Tactical Air Control Parties in the European theater…and having participated in an air campaign as such, thankyouverymuch, I swear to God, my #1 objective was making sure my Service masters knew what the Army needed, where they needed it and when. I was NEVER EVER, EVER told to go pound sand. In fact, as the subsequent Director of Staff to the commander of Air Combat Command, I watched the senior four-star general in charge of educating, training, equipping all combat air forces—fighters and bombers (not to mention UAVs, and all the other toys employed against the enemy)—pump buckets of money into the TACP career field. I also saw one of my successors in the field be promoted to general officer rank in a direct acknowledgement of the importance of USAF personnel aggressively supporting US ground forces in the field. Still, the Air Force ensured that it would have a role in ground support operations through the 1947 Key West Agreement, which mandated that fixed-wing aircraft would remain under Air Force, rather than Army, control. Less sinister than you might think…the Air Force wanted its turf better defined (horror of horros!) and didn’t want monies sucked out of the USAF budget to build a mini Army Air Corps that would have been a step backward, given the lessons learned in WW II.
The assumptions undergirding strategic bombing have changed since 1947. The Air Force no longer advocates firebombing enemy cities. Its strategic focus has shifted away from attacking the enemy's civilian morale and toward attacking industrial capacity and infrastructure. Most recently, the Air Force has embraced "Effects Based Operations," or military operations designed to produce political consequences.
Unfortunately, the Air Force has had a poor strategic record. In the Korean War, heavy strategic attacks on North Korean cities failed to reduce Communist capabilities. Operation Rolling Thunder -- the campaign designed to destroy North Vietnamese will, transport capacity, and industry -- went on for three years and had little noticeable effect on the course of that war. This is a sleight of hand. At that point, the course of the war was determined by the US will to fight to achieve victory—something that went away under Lyndon Johnson (if in fact it ever even existed in the minds of American political leaders). Rolling Thunder had significant effect on enemy morale and compelled them to at least return to the peace talk table. Once we started relaxing the ROE (a little…not nearly enough) to go after their warmaking capacity and the ability to defend their city, their minds focused a little better and they started talking again. Quite frankly, if you want to get an Air Force guy REALLY spun up, just tell him air power wasn’t effective in North Viet Nam. Watch the veins pop out as he talks about what was probably the most irresponsible, restricted and stupid application of airpower since the invention of the hot air balloon. The strategic air component of Operation Desert Storm failed to topple Saddam Hussein or dislodge him from Kuwait. Oi. That wasn’t their job, sir. It never was. It was to prepare the battlefield and assist in the ground campaign. One funny aside—the Corps commanders were livid that Schwarzkopf wasn’t “dedicating enough air” to their impending attack. He was (trust me) but they couldn’t see it. Thus, B-52s conducted large and visually impressive bombing runs close enough to the friendlies to convince them we were out there kicking butt. It helped fight our own internal psychological war. Even the 2003 "Shock and Awe" campaign did not destroy the Hussein regime, or reduce its capacity to communicate internally or externally. Again, this is, well, just silly. Kinetic activity will have a shock and awe effect on the enemy (that’s good, professor) but I can assure you that Air Force planners didn’t for a second think that the initial air strikes would topple the regime. Moreover, I don’t know how you come up with no reduction in capacity to communicate internally or externally. I’ll have to look it up, but if I remember correctly, Saddam’s ability to communicate with his conventional formations was in fact affected.
Arguably, airpower did succeed on its own in bringing victory in the 1999 Kosovo War. For 78 days, the NATO alliance bombed Serbian military and infrastructure targets in order to force Serbia's withdrawal from the province of Kosovo. After increasingly serious threats of a ground invasion and the end of Russian support, Serbia succumbed to the NATO occupation of Kosovo. Even acknowledging the decisiveness of the airstrikes, however, the ability of a small country to stand against the world's most powerful military alliance for almost three months does not speak well of the coercive capacity of modern airpower. Gaaaaah! I was there! Nonsense! This was not an air war run by airmen for the purposes of defeating an enemy state as much as it was political theater. The targeting process was a nightmare of legal analysis and political calculation unencumbered by strategic or tactical considerations. I’m surprised the day-to-day air campaign commander didn’t die of a stroke he was so frustrated. The senior overall military commander was an Army guy (Wes Clark) who was so clueless he tried to give tutorials about coordinating simultaneous artillery and air strikes to airmen with thirty+ years of experience doing that. (It never happened. And, yes, we knew how to do it…they just never were able to roll the Army missile batteries into the fight as it didn’t make any sense for both accuracy and collateral damage reasons.) I especially liked the idea to drop food from B-52s—get supplies to the suffering Muslims while staying out of SAM/AAA range as losing a jet would be politically unacceptable to the Administration. As we patiently explained to THE ARMY GUY, dropping Meals Ready to Eat out of a BUFF up in the stratosphere would turn food into frozen projectiles. Of course, they’d have to cull all the pork patty dinners from the pallets and pallets of MREs, but that’s another story.
In response to such critiques, Air Force supporters have blamed the constraints placed on strategic air campaigns by U.S. civilian leadership. Despite the fact that the United States dropped over 850,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam during Operation Rolling Thunder (some 350,000 more tons than were dropped on Japan in World War II), LeMay argued that the offensive failed because of inadequate use of force, and that the threat of an even more extensive strategic bombing campaign against North Vietnam in 1965 would have won the war. This echoed similar complaints about limiting the use of airpower in the Korean War to targets on the Korean peninsula. The same arguments were trotted out again in refuting the allegations of uncertain performance of airpower in Kosovo. At least in the cases of Vietnam and Korea, historians have not tended to back these arguments. I’ll say this slowly, so you can follow: IT’S NOT ABOUT TONNAGE, IT’S ABOUT TARGETING. If I drop 6 billion tons of bombs off the coast of Iran, I don’t think it will affect their warmaking capacity or will to fight. I have to disrupt their ability to bring power to bear against our forces (interdiction), I have to disrupt and destroy their ability to control those forces and kill their leaders (strategic attack), I have to harass, interrupt, damage and/or destroy the forces they are employing against friendlies (CAS). The best way to do that, as Patton proved was through the centralized control and decentralized execution of an air arm by airmen who have coordinated their air campaign with their ground and maritime partners. And we haven’t even talked about defensive counterair—shooting down their fighters, their SAMS, their ground-to-ground missile force, etc., etc. The Army has enough to think about…let us handle the air battle.
On the other hand, the United States Air Force has made important tactical contributions to U.S. war efforts. In the first Gulf War, American and British airpower destroyed roughly a third of deployed Iraqi vehicles prior to the advance of U.S. ground forces. In Vietnam, Operations Linebacker I and II, directed primarily against North Vietnamese military forces, helped stop their advance into South Vietnam and bring the North back to the peace table. The Air Force also performed very well in support of the Northern Alliance during the war in Afghanistan, and helped destroy much Iraqi hardware in the opening stages of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
This has created an odd situation. The Air Force is most effective when operating in support of the Army, and least effective when carrying out its own independent campaign. Another strawman. The Air Force is most effective when it’s allowed to employ its power by those who know how to employ it. Contradictory, too. Kosovo was purely an air campaign…it worked. Not well, but it worked. Would I want to do that again? Nope. I prefer joint operations where the experts in each medium put their heads together and come up with a plan that maximizes the effectiveness of each in pursuit of political goals. However, the Air Force dislikes ground support. So does the Navy. But the Marines don’t and neither do a lot of Air Force guys. Life is hard. But its harder of you’re stupid and the Air Force isn’t so stupid as to jettison CAS…if nothing else than to make sure it isn’t completely cocked up by well-meaning but experience-limited Army generals. Its antipathy to tactical missions, for instance, is at the root of its repeated efforts to shed itself of the A-10 Warthog. So I guess the new A-10C—completely rewired to employ our most modern munitions and guidance systems and projected to be fielded for at least another 20 years—is a figment of my imagination. BTW, I have a picture of one in my files, if you’d like one, professor. The A-10 is a slow attack aircraft, extremely effective against tactical enemy targets. The Army loves the A-10, but because the aircraft contributes neither to the air superiority mission that the Air Force favors nor to the strategic mission that provides its raison d'etre, the Air Force has always been lukewarm toward the aircraft. Sorry, can’t let this one pass. The strategic mission is not our “raison d'etre,” effectively employing air power, in all its missions, to achieve our military objectives is. I think this cuts to the heart of the professor’s argument—it’s based on a flawed premise—an opinion, really, by a man who has put very little effort into examining his preconceptions. Offers on the part of the Army to take over the A-10 have been rejected, however, as this would violate the Key West Agreement. Rejected…by the Army. Heh.
If strategic bombing won independence for the Air Force, yet strategic bombing cannot win wars, it's unclear why the Air Force should retain its independence. Um, because strategic bombing is only a fraction of why the Air Force exists today. To be sure, institutional inertia works in its favor. The efforts of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to force the services to compete against one another for procurement funds in the 1960s resulted, ironically, in a deep reluctance on the part of the services to question one another. One of McNamara’s most famous faux pas was his unsuccessful attempt to get the Navy to accept the F-111. This was a classic case of trying to leverage economies of scale by an automobile company accountant in charge of the world’s most effective military. The jet was totally inappropriate for carrier ops, but that didn’t stop Sideshow Bob. I love it when academics use McNamara as a “good” example of how to do things in the DoD. This interservice collusion persists to the present day, in spite of changes in the nature of the threats the U.S. faces. This has helped lead to such absurdities as the continued procurement of the F-22 Raptor, an aircraft whose sole purpose is the destruction of advanced enemy fighter planes, during the course of two counter-insurgency conflicts against low-tech enemies. I’m glad the professor is confident we will never face advanced enemy fighters in battle, ever again. Whew.
Moreover, the presence of the Air Force in the high councils of war and peace tends to provide presidents with predictions of quick and easy military victories. Advocates of airpower have been making such cases since the run-up to World War II. Though these prophecies have been proven false time and again, they nevertheless remain attractive to civilian leaders who fear public disillusionment with casualties, and who wish to go to war while resisting the dangers of full military involvement. Airpower advocates offer military power on the cheap; the wars they lay out entail few casualties and many spectacular successes. These advocates would continue to exist in the absence of the Air Force, of course, but situating them within organizations of broader strategic views would probably reduce the force of their arguments. This paragraph is delusional. This is a classic example of the cartoonish view assistant professors at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce have of military men. Air Force generals aren’t George C. Scott, no matter what they say at the Huffington Post or Daily Kos. This guy’s watched Dr. Strangelove one too many times.
He offers absolutely no proof and maligns people who have dedicated their lives to our national defense. Do they have a special love for airplanes and what they can do? Well, yeah. But do they consciously advocate for their own parochial prejudices, lie to their leaders and actively resist cooperating with their fellow professionals? Not the ones I’ve worked with. I am one of many Air Force officers who actually did sign up to lay down my life for my Army and Marine buddies. I wish I still could, but the bastards retired me.
Besides, having an independent Air Force requires using that independent Air Force, whether or not its mode of war-making fits the particular conflict. It does? So, a land battle 400 miles into Iraq’s interior requires the 7th Fleet, then. The existence of several separate services creates a competitive need to act during war. They may not be needed, but they are willing. That’s their job. Do they want the leadership to know what they can do to contribute to America’s success? Guilty as charged! Each service wishes to demonstrate that it can contribute, thus justifying future procurement. If something works…and works well, I’d like more of it. But I don’t make that decision…Congress does. Unfortunately, this produces a situation in which force is allocated to meet bureaucratic necessity rather than strategic need. Although we won't have a complete picture until full campaign histories are written, the need to produce work for the Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan has probably led to overuse of airpower. Well, if I had your preconceived notions, I’d be certain it did. Bureaucratic necessity doesn't fully explain excessive airstrikes, but it is likely a contributing factor.
There's a better way to use American airpower. The Army and the Navy can accomplish the jobs that the Air Force does well within their current institutional structures. Tactical airpower should belong to the Army. Although the Army and the Air Force have worked out credible systems of cooperation, reunifying the two would likely result in tighter collaboration between air and ground forces. No it wouldn’t. It would repeat the mistakes so frequently and painfully learned before the Air Force became a separate Service. Scarce assets would be parceled out to individual commanders, diluting effectiveness and prolonging battles. The airmen would be professionally advanced based on their understanding of land warfare, not air campaigns, stifling their ability to think creatively about employing a unique force in a unique medium. I have seen Army guys try to run an air campaign. They don’t know squat about it, at least not like an Airman does. And don’t get me started on Army aviation. They’re great guys, brave and true patriots who I consider national treasures (like all our military men and wpmen) but I have personally witnessed absolute buffoonery when they try to figure out campaign-level employment of air assets. Fact is, that shouldn’t have to think about it. That’s my job and I’m happy to do it. Not because I want more procurement dollars, but because I want the battle to be short, I want it to be boring for the ground guys; I want to kill the enemy so the enemy won’t kill my Soldiers. Again, Eisenhower himself thought and independent air arm was a good idea and said so.
What the Hell, let’s take this argument to its logical conclusion. Let’s put everything under Army control, including the Navy. After all, all the Navy does is protect sea lines of communication so the supplies needed to fight the land campaign can continue to flow. I’m sure the Corps Commanders can effectively deploy all the Navy assets to support their campaign plan. After all, it’s just a supporting entity, right?
The tactical mission would also include air superiority, which is necessary to prevent enemy use of airspace and to allow freedom of action for U.S. forces. Similarly, some tactical elements of airpower would pass to the Marine Corps.
To the extent that the United States requires a capability to punish other states militarily for political purposes, the Navy can handle the job. The aircraft carriers of the Navy already represent the most powerful concentration of mobile military power in the world. Navy cruise missiles, launched from submarines and surface vessels, can strike most of the surface of the Earth within a couple of hours. Adding certain elements of the Air Force portfolio to the Navy would neither transform nor hinder the Navy's power projection mission. So I guess those bombing missions over Iraq from Whiteman AFB in Missouri were not power projection. Moreover, if this happens, your sailors will never see shore until their enlistments are up. And don’t think carriers can’t be sunk (ask Navy guys). Then there’s planning an air campaign. Navy guys are good at naval campaigns—defending the fleet, projecting power in limited areas, supporting littoral ops, etc. They do not practice melding three services’ assets to support theater objectives. They don’t have the time, the equipment or the expertise. I guess you could jam that 10 pounds of sand into that 5-pound bag, but you wouldn’t save any money, and you wouldn’t be reducing any workloads. In fact, you’d be increasing it. Navy guys end up doing a lot of other stuff on carriers besides flying airplanes…this would just make their already overtasked lives a living hell.
The strategic nuclear capability of the Air Force should also go to the Navy. The USN already operates its own strategic deterrent in the form of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, armed with the Trident missile. The Navy could also operate the other two legs of the nuclear triangle (ICBMs and strategic bombers) without difficulty, especially since the latter would support the Navy's strategic mission. Wait! Wait! I thought strategic bombing was an anachronism? Then there’s this thing called the Triad. Um, that includes land-based ICBMs…another USAF mission. Sure, you could do that. But putting all your eggs in one basket increases strategic risk. It simplifies the enemy’s battle calculus.
We aren't likely to see the end of the United States Air Force anytime soon, however. The institutional structure of the Air Force would resist its absorption into the Army and the Navy; friends of the Air Force in Congress and the public would fight to prevent consolidation. Strong proponents of the "Air Force way of war" remain, and aren't convinced by "boots on the ground zealots." The Air Force would fight very hard to stay independent.
The consolidation of the services, of course, is no panacea for military difficulties. In spite of the formal unification of Israel's military forces, for instance, the Israel Defense Forces last summer embarked on a poorly planned strategic air campaign against Hezbollah and its Lebanese supporters. Israeli air attacks destroyed Lebanese infrastructure and killed Lebanese civilians without dealing serious damage to Hezbollah. That’s what you get when you put an air guy in charge of a ground war. Can you imagine what it would be like to put a ground guy in charge of an air campaign?
Nevertheless, the idea of an independent air force was not handed down on Mount Sinai. We have institutions because we've built them. Institutions are built for a reason. You may not believe this, professor, but sometimes they are built based on experience, not for procurement strategies. When these institutions outlive their usefulness or fail as experiments, we can take them apart. In a post–September 11 world, we live with threats quite different from those that the Soviet arsenal used to pose. We can and should devise uses and a bureaucratic structure for American airpower better suited to our current challenges than those set out in 1947.
Frankly, we have devised better uses for air power in only a few short years. Thanks to advancing guidance technology, traditional platforms—bombers—have already been very effectively employed in non-traditional roles—close air support. Unmanned aerial vehicles have come into their own as reconnaissance, communication and targeting platforms…even strikers themselves…in environments too hostile or politically off-limits for manned aircraft. These innovations were advanced and put into operation by airpower experts raised in an airpower culture. That can only be achieved by developing that culture in an independent and free service. A bomber pilot is still an airman, just like a fighter pilot or communications officer in the Air Force. A Soldier may be an armor officer or an artilleryman, but he’s still a Soldier and an expert in ground warfare because he’s a member of a land service. And I want him to be exactly that. In fact, I demand that he be exactly that. And I will never question his absolute dominance in a conversation about a land campaign. And if I am part of an American military campaign, my first and foremost mission is supporting the top commander—whether he be an Admiral, an Army/Marine general or an Air Force guy. I have one question in that fight: “How can I help?” And when he tells me what he needs, I’ll know exactly what I can do with my airplanes and my airmen because I’ve spent a lifetime thinking about it, preparing for it and practicing it as an independent service member. I firmly believe it’s served us much better than you think.
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
As soon as you made the point that Farley was projecting counterinsurgency-type conflicts into the future, you'd won the argument, IMO. However, the rest of the points are well made.
I might also point out that there are subtle, but significant, personality differences between the types who serve in the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force which leads to the branches having subtle, but again significant, cultural differences. These cultural differences between the services facilitate better performance by their members.
My dad never tired of telling the differnce between the Army Air Corps - in which he started out in WW II - and the USAF to which he was recalled for the Korean conflict. To be blunt, he liked the Air Force a whole lot better. Too bad he's not around to give Farley a piece of his mind... then again, it would be good for Farley: My dad could flake the paint off the walls when on a tirade.
by
Air Force Brat on November 2, 2007 11:39 AM
Hey, Dusty: The question is, why do liberals hate the Air Force more than any other branch: Here's the key:
Gen. Curtis LeMay, mastermind of the strategic bombing campaign against Japan, decided that civilian areas would be the objective of his B-29s. Roughly 1 million Japanese civilians died from the fire-bombing of Japanese cities, though it was the incineration of so many square miles of Japanese city that the Army Air Force pointed to as it adduced clear, quantitative results in its fight for independence. LeMay would later head the Strategic Air Command, and serve as chief of staff of the Air Force during the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which he argued for a full set of airstrikes against Cuban targets.
What it is really about? Hiroshima! Yes, this is another instance of narcissitic (and Soviet encouraged) liberal guilt, which I think explains most of the pacifistic cheese-eating that has gone on lo these last 60 years. Boomers of that ilk hid under their beds anticipating the end of the world. LeMay didn't encourage them to sleep better, so they especially hate him and the service that dropped the Bomb and had all those ICBMs. Everything that has happened since has been the bed-wetters trying to hand over the gun so they won't get shot, or going into "tomorrow we die so today we party" decadence mode (cf, the '60s and '70s.) Recently the Apocalypse has been shifted to global warming, but it's the same neurotic fear that drives them. In their eyes, the military, the country, and Western Civ itself was completely deligitimized and de-moral-ized on August 6, 1945.
by Mike T. on November 2, 2007 11:48 AM
.... and I don't. Specialists in surface warfare, submarine warfare, artillery, or armor also spend a career thinking about how they can help, and also have expertise in how their specialties can win wars. They don't deserve a separate service any more than airmen do.
Look, I can understand why you guys are paranoid. The Secretary of Defense seems to think that counter-insurgency is the next big thing, and Chuck Dunlap is terrified to his bones about that. He should be; it doesn't bode well for your service. But I think you're missing my larger point. I agree with Petraeus et al that the Air Force is a fifth wheel in counterinsurgency, but that isn't motivating this piece; I think that if China is to be considered the main threat, then the reasons for disposing of the Air Force as an independent bureaucratic entity are even more compelling. To put it simply, it is in the DNA of the Air Force to seek to fight wars in a manner than runs counter to how war is actually won; to seek to "affect" the enemy rather than disarm him. This genetic defect is not present in either the Army or the Navy, which is why they should take over Air Force assets. Your examples from World War II prove my point; the USAAF did a fantastic job at CAS (among other things) and a piss poor job at strategic warfare. It could have (and should have) continued to do a fantastic job at CAS, air superiority, and transport as part of the Army, not as its own independent organization.
by
Rob on November 2, 2007 11:57 AM
Mike T.,
In fact I was referring to the firebombing of Tokyo, not Hiroshima; while a compelling case can be made that Hiroshima compelled the Japanese surrender, the incineration of a hundred thousand or so Japanese civilians in a couple of hours in March 1945 mattered not a whit to the end of the war; you're right that I hold Lemay responsible for that. I don't particularly hold a grudge against him for the ICBMs, in part because he didn't want them (fixated on bombing as he was) and in part because I like ICBMs; you might want to check out the discussion of the article at the Prospect, where I suggest that keeping the nuclear triad together is appropriate...
by
Rob on November 2, 2007 12:02 PM
I could have sworn that several years ago the Air Force was trying to kill the A-10, or at least deemphasize it. I also thought I'd read that part of why the Army went so big into helicopters was because they wanted their own air power and weren't allowed to have stuff like A-10s.
Not that either of those questions takes away from the brilliant dismantling of that stupid article (#1 sign of its uselessness: taking that crappy Lancet propaganda piece seriously). Great work, Dusty.
by Brent Michael Krupp on November 2, 2007 12:14 PM
To put it simply, it is in the DNA of the Air Force to seek to fight wars in a manner than runs counter to how war is actually won; to seek to "affect" the enemy rather than disarm him.
Nonsense. That's semantics. When I kill a tank, I don't "affect" it. I kill it. The Airman understands that "affect" can have many meanings--catastophic destruction, damage, or just plain interference. Each can "affect" the enemy, but the ultimate objective is destroying either his ability or will to fight, or both. A classic example is the presence of a SAM hunter over the battlefield whose mere presence compels the battery to shut down to avoid detection. He has not touched the threat but he has affected it, allowing others to bring the fight to the enemy the SAM battery is trying to defend. Tell me how that differs from the other Services' use of similar phrases that refer to how actions change the behavior of a target group?
Again, this is an illustration, to me, of how little exposure you've had to the armed forces. Each service has all kinds of words for what they do that don't include "kill" or "destroy."
This genetic defect is not present in either the Army or the Navy, which is why they should take over Air Force assets.
Your "genetic defect" analogy is an interesting one, by the way. Revealing.
Your examples from World War II prove my point; the USAAF did a fantastic job at CAS (among other things) and a piss poor job at strategic warfare. It could have (and should have) continued to do a fantastic job at CAS, air superiority, and transport as part of the Army, not as its own independent organization.
Well, I failed to make myself clear. The reason they did such a fantastic job at CAS was because, after Kesserine, the theater commander realized that parceling out air piecemeal to the division commanders was a mistake. Air is a scarcer resource than individual infantry formations BUT it brings tremendous power to the field and can distribute that power to where it's needed most more quickly than anything else. So from a practical and operational standpoint, centralizing that control under an airman made sense then and it still does--airmen know airplanes, and how to employ them. Learning that skill is best accomplished when you grow up in that world. I know--I have personally witnessed, in a combat zone, Army folks try to run an air campaign with disappointing results. What the DoD did after WW II simply formalized and put into practice what Eisenhower recommended at the end of the war. Let the airmen concentrate on airpower and the soldiers on land power. If you are concerned about lack of proficiency in coordinating operations, that happens between wars--and between branches within services between wars. We're even getting better at that, though. Also, if you think all would be peaches and cream if we just had an Army and a Navy, I think you would find a study of how those two got along between both World Wars interesting (hint: not well). Besides, ALL services have their institutional prejudices that are beat down or disappear over time. Remember the days when the ultimate symbol of national power was the dreadnought?
One more time with feeling: the air force does best when it's allowed to operate independently. The Army saw that, the Navy saw that and the former helped make it happen.
by
Instapilot on November 2, 2007 12:43 PM
Instapilot,
You're trying to pretend that I think that the airplanes ought not to be used to destroy tanks and hunt SAMs; this project is called "building a strawman" and it is clearly refuted in the text of the piece I wrote. Of course I want aircraft to kill tanks and to hunt SAMs; what I don't want is a service that is designed, foundation up, to pretend that wars can be won without the direct disarmament of the enemy. Hunting SAMs and killing tanks is a critical element of disarming the enemy, but attacking enemy infrastructure and "targets of interest" in the hopes of "increasing the costs" for the enemy are not; notably, it is most often the Air Force that seeks to do these things, in no small part because the Air Force, being born from the argument that air power could win wars independently, remains wedded to that concept.
As for your point regarding Kesserine, I couldn't agree more, except to the extent that I don't see how it supports the idea of an independent bureaucratic organization called the United States Air Force...
by
Rob on November 2, 2007 1:07 PM
I know--I have personally witnessed, in a combat zone, Army folks try to run an air campaign with disappointing results.
Well, yes--the current Army doesn't have an Army Air Corps to direct an air campaign. An Army which had absorbed the current Air Force would have that expertise.
Let the airmen concentrate on airpower and the soldiers on land power.
In the end, airpower effects the ground, no? Soldiers already concentrate on all manner of technologies which affect the ground: guns; bazookas; rockets; artillery--why not also CAS?
by
Bob on November 2, 2007 3:02 PM
Bob,
By your logic, why have a Navy?
by
Instapilot on November 2, 2007 4:40 PM
Instapilot – Since they are ganging up on you, I’ll try to cover your 6.
1. As I have mentioned here before, in my time in Iraq (working for the Army) I was very unimpressed with the maintenance culture of Army Aviation and the supply culture that supported it. I had a CH-47 battalion commander tell me in 2004 that he was going to present a paper arguing to outsource most of the Army’s aviation maintenance due to continued mediocre performance. I’ve never heard an AF Squadron Commander complain about our maintenance efforts. In fact, I have heard it held up time and again that the professionalism of AF maintenance NCOs was one of the reasons for our standing as the premier AF in the world. In the early years of Viet Nam, both the AF and Army operated the C-123, the AF had a significantly higher MC rate. When all the C-123s were transferred to the AF; the AF’s average didn’t go down, the AF got those aircraft flying and in the fight as well.
2. Based on the above, I would argue that all current Army aviation assets be transferred to the AF rather than disbanding the AF. I believe that all of the joint duty assignments now being required of the officer corps of all services would make the previous concerns that ground commanders have expressed concerning responsiveness of the AF to their needs no longer valid.
3. In the all volunteer scenario all services now operate in; combining the Army and AF would have serious impact on recruiting unless the next “marriage” was kept as distinct as the Navy is from the USMC.
4. The culture required to provide mission capable aircraft to aircrews is the opposite of that to the culture of being a good rifleman. Whereas a good rifleman (E-4) needs to follow orders instantly without making a lot of decisions, a good maintainer (E-4) needs to be able to make a lot of decisions and troubleshooting analysis in order to quickly return an aircraft to the fight.
by Oldloadr on November 2, 2007 4:56 PM
Rob,
I’m not trying to pretend what you think. And I think you need to read my responses more carefully.
First, to think the Air Force “pretend[s] that wars can be won without the direct disarmament of the enemy” is, well, bizarre.
Alas, I think this exchange is going to go nowhere because you appear to be extremely unfamiliar with military doctrine and contemporary expression of common military concepts. To be fair, you may not be, but I can only go by your assertions about the various services and their roles in applying military power in their respective media of land, sea and air.
Each service pursues fairly similar objectives at the tactical, operational and indeed strategic levels. The tools they bring to bear often drive the focus of their operations to different levels—because it can extend its reach, the Air Force does spend a lot of time on deep strike operations. But that’s not to say they don’t execute tactical ops very well, much less ignore the needs of the tactical fight to strike deep because they think it better justifies their existence.
The US Army attacks the enemy’s infrastructure as a matter of course. Army artillery these days includes delivery systems that pass through the near-space environment enroute to very deep objectives. They are in every respect “infrastructure” assets—cantonment areas, bridges, lines of communication, critical supply points, etc.
Now, it would appear in your argument that the depth of the attack begins to lose its legitimacy if it occurs too deeply, i.e., at the ranges fixed-wing assets reach. Either that, and/or they are not directly associated with the immediate battle, or the enemy’s battle formations and thus, again, not legitimate.
Because they are not directly associated with the enemy’s tactical combat formations, they do not lose their legitimacy as important targets to the military operational planner.
Moreover, the nomenclature “targets of interest” seem to bother you as does the concept of increasing costs (the scare quotes give me that impression). Quite frankly, we're "interested" in a number of targets--their priority varies with the course and direction of the battle.
As far as specific targets are concerned, there are many that affect the enemy’s ability to fight and their attrition is important to Joint planners. Command and control nodes are a good example, as are supply depots, troop assembly areas, etc. The Air Force spends a lot of time thinking how to go after these in an attempt to shape the fight in our favor when all our forces—land, sea, or air—close on the enemy. Insofar as increasing costs are concerned, life is a series of cost benefit analyses. Increasing cost is just another way of describing what happens when you make life so miserable for the bad guy that he quits. Simple, really. The Air Force “seeks to do these things” because they can. It contributes to success and to not do it would be irresponsible.
But, you go off the rails when you assert we remain “wedded to the concept” that the Air Force “can win wars independently.” You offer no proof of that assertion because it does not exist in today’s air arm.
As far as Kasserine is concerned, I guess you simply ignored my point that the experience convinced Army officers that airpower should be directed by airmen. I say again, that experience and subsequent similar ones, the rapidly advancing technology that demanded a whole new skill set, etc., convinced veteran combat commanders that the mission mandated a separate service.
The “redundant bureaucracy” argument is an old one…one that few military professionals pay attention to anymore. Yeah, there are a few old heads out there who think the Air Force is the answer to everything, just like there are Army guys who think we should still have an Army Air Corps.
Quite frankly, to do what you propose would not save much money and the loss of capability inherent in pounding a square peg into a round hole would do the nation a disservice. I know you can’t be convinced of that and I won’t try.
It is curious, however, that you didn’t consider the converse: that ALL aircraft should be given to the service best suited to employing air power. Giving all the Army’s helos (and their utility fixed-wing assets) to the USAF would probably increase their mission ready rates, improve crew training and offer a better advocate for equipment improvements, weapons development, etc., etc., etc.
Then there’s the US Marine Corps. Why should they have airplanes? In fact, why shouldn’t they be subsumed under the Army in toto? It’s a land combat force, yes?
Ridiculous? Um, yes. But I'll let them fight that fight.
by
Instapilot on November 2, 2007 6:21 PM
I largely agree with you. However, a couple of things I think need to be pointed out. First, the USAF is very good at air to air and strategic bombing. So much so that, when the United States enters a confict, these guys tend to work themselves out of a job very quickly. Two weeks into the conflict, all the AF is getting is tactical air support missions because they have eliminated all the other threats. Two years in, this tends to lead to a "what have you done for me lately?" mentality with the other services. This is exacerbated by the Air Force's reputaion, largely of it's own making, of being less than cooperative with the other services. The best example I can give is a situation that arose recently with a detail sent to download Blackhawks at an airforce base. There apparently were a number of issues that caused problems but the one that sticks out in my mind is that the Army guys were not allowed to use the Air Force's latrines. That's just petty. It's the little stuff like that that makes the other services want to vote the AF out of the Pentagon. This would be short sighted. Just because we are fighting an insurgency now, doesn't mean there are not conventional threats on the horizon (China wants a high tech Air Force too). This being said, right now the Air Force's primary money maker is tactical air and logistics. While these are considered less than glamorous they are what's selling right now. If the Air Force doesn't want to see more articles like this, maybe they should try backing down on what they want to have and playing up what the other services need.
by James S. on November 2, 2007 7:45 PM
Having been a joint targeteer from the Army side, I'm with the Instapilot most of the way down his rebuttal.
I part company with him and Oldloadr at this point:
Giving all the Army’s helos (and their utility fixed-wing assets) to the USAF would probably increase their mission ready rates, improve crew training and offer a better advocate for equipment improvements, weapons development, etc., etc., etc.
If only because I believe in the attack helo mission (though I know the Instapilot has some internal gas about AH *doctrine* that has merit) and I don't trust the Air Force not to sacrifice it as a more peripheral task when the budgets tighten up as they inevitably will (and, in fairness, should when the situation allows).
I wonder if Bill will wander into this briar patch...
by
John of Argghhh! on November 2, 2007 8:52 PM
Some thoughts to ponder:
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume4/vol4ch01.pdf
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2443934711053674980&q=pentagon%27s+new+map&total=32&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/index.htm
by Cornfed on November 2, 2007 8:57 PM
John,
Cease fire, cease fire, cease fire! KIO! KIO! KIO!
Hint: Reductio ad absurdum has its uses...
by
Instapilot on November 2, 2007 10:56 PM
It would have been very interesting to sit in the room back in the late 40's when the Air Force and Navy were fighting for the strategic soul of the Armed Forces. Bombers versus Carriers. Subs versus Missile Silo's.
My guess is the Navy's new Maritime Strategy and the Marines new call for moving into Afghan theater of operations is a headstart over the Air Force and Army for the Budget after next. Navy and Marine Coprs is trying to get the empty seat at the table for the next administration. Air Force should take note, and show what the AF will do to "prevent war" through expeditionary engagement and humanitarian relief capabilities.
just sayin...
by MR. T's Haircut on November 3, 2007 1:38 AM
Ah, Dusty - for Reductio ad Absurdum to work, it has to be recognized as such by the target.
Remember the axiom that rests at the core of military comms (and is a basis for much military failure) - any message that *can* be misunderstood, *will* be misunderstood.
This one, written by Lieutenant Cooke, Custer's Adjutant, comes to mind:
Benteen. Come on. Big village. Be quick, bring packs.
W. W. Cooke.
(P. S. Bring packs)
Vice this one, written by a young sailor, Aviation Machinists Mate 1/c Donald F. Mason:
Sighted sub sank same.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 3, 2007 8:35 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 7, 2007
Give us *some* credit...
If there's one thing the general public has very little clue on, it's the corporate psychology, to say nothing of the internal mechanics, of the yearly budget process in the Pentagon.
Everybody concentrates on the $6 trillion dollar toilet seat (or whatever amount the NYT is ascribing to it this month) and, of course, the earmarking that has reached the level of low comedy.
In his recent post, John assumed the Army's sister services would not be happy with the new CJCS's comments about revitalizing the nation's Army. A few thoughts...
Historically, the three main services get roughly the same cut of the budgetary pie, about a third each, regardless of the impression left by the public sniping that occurs among our legislators, and the three dominant services, when the budget is being built. Most of our regular readers probably knew that...but most outsiders don't.
Occasionally, there's a bit of an adjustment, but the favoring of one Service over another doesn't skew the numbers that much. I think that happens for several reasons:
1) Congressional districts have an input
2) Everyone has a good reason to argue for money (just ask the tanker, cargo or bomber drivers flying 30, 40, 50 and almost 60 year-old airplanes...and the logisticians who have to keep them flying).
Now, that's not to say the air and naval arms won't complain, but that's kinda their jobs, dontcha think? That said, I don't believe you'll get people going to the mat over reconstituting the ground forces as much as you might believe. I could be wrong, but I hope not. But if we do, I wouldn't be totally shocked either...again, we're all driving/sailing/flying really old stuff. Oh, by the way, the navy should get some of that anyway, yes? (Hint: U-S-M-C)
I will say this...and I mean it in the best possible way: the Army could do a lot better in two areas:
1) Maintaining their equipment in the field, and;
2) Managing monetary accounts to lessen the impact on families.
The two go hand-in-hand.
Caveat: I'm sure in a lot of ways I'm the pot calling the kettle black, but I've lived with Army units long enough and close enough...AND asked senior Army general officers, "What up wi' 'dis, bro?!?" (I paraphrase), on why they have such problems with armored vehicle maintenance and complex aircraft maintenance and why their facilities are in such poor repair.
More caveat: My experience has been predominantly overseas, so maybe it's different in the States.
Still more caveat: My experience is dated, although I do cut myself some slack when I consider that the Army is more wedded to "tradition" when it comes to non-combat day-to-day ops and looking at other Service SOPs with a distinctly "not invented here" jaundiced eye. Like the rest of us don't do that either, heh.
Anyway, back to the two points above:
1) Maintenance...I know I can learn something from a Navy guy on designing life support equipment for air crews. We already have--the "horse collar" life preserver we wear that only opens when you hit sea water, for example. By the same token, I think the Army would do itself a great service if it explored how the Air Force maintains complex and heavy equipment. I'm not talking minute-by-minute stuff, but things like scheduling routine heavy MX (we call it "Phase" in the blue world), parts management, etc.
My MX officer knew instantly where every A-10 Inertial Nav Unit was in the world...and could order one from any bench stock account on the planet in seconds, from any point on the planet, as long as he had a phone line. We even gave squadron commanders FedEx (yessssss!) accounts to get stuff they eally needed even faster than we otherwise could back at the home 'drome. (Don't know if they still have to do that...)
Back to my life in V Corps...I was amazed at the down time on M1-A1s/A2s and how a lot of the machine was maintained. Sometimes they would just throw perfectly good stuff away. Sometimes they would ruin stuff just from abuse...and then there's losing things right and left.
Trust me...an Air Force crew chief losing a wrench is like a soldier losing his weapon. It is a Very Bad Thing for his immediate career prospects. Losing parts, not managing bench stocks, dicking up inspection schedules, etc., make life miserable for the managers, too. Of course, I'm generalizing, but my point is this: we (the USAF) took years to figure out how to take care of big, expensive and persnickety things in the field and at home and I would LOVE for the Army to at least send a couple of open-minded folks around the USAF to benefit--maybe--from all our growing pains...without having to go through it themselves...and thereby making current and future dollars go farther in the reconstitution (and, ultimately, the routine readiness) effort.
2) Managing the money pots...this blew my mind: unless things have changed, if an Army guy runs out of O&M money, he can raid the MWR pot. In the Air Force, that's a non-starter.
Talk about imposing discipline and motivating people to do things more effectively.
If the former is still true, and will remain the case, looking into Point 1 becomes even MORE imperative. The only thing that really chaps my a$$ when it comes to the "Army getting more" to fix itself is: spend it wisely, dammit. DON'T keep feeding the inefficiency/waste beast by doing things the "old" ways. If it were me, I'd tell the Staff,
"OK boys and girls, here's your one-time, big-a$$ budgetary plus-up. Spend it wisely because I'm not going to entertain robbing Peter to pay Paul...that will end up screwing our families back home even more...unless the reason is so dire AND THE CAUSE SO OUTSIDE OUR ARMY, that we can't avoid not to. I'll never say 'never,' but if you come to me for more dough, if your shite is not in one sock, I'll rip your lips off. Note the jar of lips on my desk." (Or words to that effect.)
Again, I love the Army. I respect the Army. My Army friends have lost children in this war. If the Army needs money, screw my annual IRS bill; I'll be happy to write a[nother] personal check. Just sayin'.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
All this goes back to leadership and attitude.
No matter if your taking care of a $200.00 item or a 2 million dollar item. As noted, the attitude, of "we have always done it this way" is present in not only the Military but the large corporations and all inbetween.
Sometime it does take a revolution in thinking brought about by threats (and by making examples) of those that disregard those threats).
But it will take time, and money and new leaders that can learn and learn to think out of the box or at least not fall into the old ruts and not know how to get out.
I didn't have any exposure to maintaining anything in the service, except my weapon and my gear. But in the corporate world, I had to fight the old guard almost every day.
It got tiresome until we got authority to punish those nonbelievers in change.
Now that I'm retired, I teach my grandkids the value of maintenance and the value of money. It's a hard thing to do in this new "throwaway" world.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
by Papa Ray on October 7, 2007 7:19 PM
Dusty's right- an AF Crew Chief losing a wrench is a very big deal. Reason #1? FOD. Lost tools end up in places they're not supposed to be, which sometimes gets them sucked into places they're not supposed to be.
"sucked into places".... hmmmm... wonder what WereKitten would have to say about that...
by AFSister on October 7, 2007 7:36 PM
I was going to state what AF sis did...my bro has been Air Force for 18 years. He was managing a crew that did repairs and stripped parts from the "bone yard".
He has some complaints also about not being able to manage the civilian end of that like a business in terms of promoting people, managing inventory and performing ahead of schedule. He felt that their system didn't really promote the idea of being an over achiever. Mediocrity with the "G" force was acceptable. That would irk him.
He did complain, however, about having to double and triple check work sheets, etc, but he also said that these systems did insure that nothing got "sucked in" to places it shouldn't have. In fact, there is an extremely high fear of failure. During the beginning of the shooting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, if an Air Force jet was reported "down to mechanical failure" he said everybody's butt holes would shrink to zero while they waited to find out if it was one of the jets they had performed maintenance on and the cause of the incident.
On to what other services need to do.
My bro is now a muckety muck with a fighter wing. He told me two weeks ago that his wing went TDY to SD for a little head to head war gaming with the USMC. Major malfunction: three days they couldn't fly because the USMC couldn't get enough jets off the ground.
I won't tell you the outcome once they did get off the ground but my bro's fighter wing is Air NG with a lot of old timers with actual combat experience. USMC, not so much. Guess what happened.
Still the important part was the maintenance aspect. He was shocked at the maintenance issues, though he tempered it saying that his maintenance guys did nothing but that and, as Dusty notes, other garrison duties appear to take away time from performing QM.
by
kat-missouri on October 7, 2007 11:24 PM
My old ARNG maintenance guru took a bunch of foam sleeping mats (which cost a couple of bucks, but are useless except when rolled up and used as pillows -- they're only a half-inch thick), cut them to fit the trays in the mechs' toolboxes, then cut templates for the tools. That immediately standardized everyone's toolboxes -- all you had to do was open a drawer and it would be obvious if a tool was missing or if one of the guys had brought "spare" tools to work.
That saved at least one engine from trying to ingest a wrench that had been left behind a FOD screen when the original mech got tapped for an area police detail to make the parking lot pretty for a visiting two-star. I'd love to say that it was the aircraft the MG was gonna fly on, but it wasn't.
I hate it when Real Life drops a shot at irony...
by
BillT on October 8, 2007 6:40 AM
1. Shadowing tool kits (called CTKs for consolidated tool kits) has been required on AF flightlines since 1975.
2. I too, have spent a lot of time observing the other services maintenance/parts control. One thing I see in the Army now (and I had an Army LC [CH-47 Battalion CC] tell me) is any Army maintainer that excels usually ends up in WO school instead of being promoted in the NCO corps to train/mentor the younger troops. I'm glad Army enlisted have that advancement opportunity that we in the AF don't, but maybe it should be more restrictive.
3. Another problem I noticed is the Army culture does not lend itself to quality maintenance at the journeyman level. Whereas the AF expects a SrA to troubleshoot and repair all but the most complex problems, the Army seems to be more cautious about allowing the younger folks to make maintenance decisions and there-by slow down the process, resulting in decreased MC rates.
So, if you don't let the young ones make decisions and you send the sharp older ones to WO school, you are not going to have an impressive MC rate.
by Oldloadr on October 8, 2007 7:19 AM
Never having served, I have no dog in this fight, except that as a private citizen, I want what's good for the Republic. You folks have had (supposedly) a unified Defense Department since before I was even thought of, and are still acting like territorial human monkeys.
Wait, that's normal...
Ok, we have to put up with some of that, just don't react against it and go all crazy in the rational direction like Mr. R. Strange McNamara did.
by
Justthisguy on October 10, 2007 6:33 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
September 3, 2007
Go read this...
I started a post with all kinds of embarrassingly florid prose about duty, honor and country after going to this link, but that's a waste of time these days.
FWIW, Col. Bud Day was kind enough to stop by our squadron when he was hosted by our wing in Germany many years ago. I still have an autographed copy of our squadron lithograph (a Hog flying cover over a convoy in Bosnia) signed by one of the Air Force's greatest heroes. I also remember standing in formation as a senior at the Academy when our as-yet-unnamed south dorm was dedicated Sijan Hall, named after a man whose actions never could be understood by the Bill Clintons or Markos Moulitsas of this world.
I'm glad people are still writing about that era, and what our fellow countrymen did then...in a positive way.
Then there's this...another example of the depths to which a society's "elites" can sink. -Instapilot
H/T: Instapundit and Stephen Green
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Oh, I think the odious smear by Cuban could have been balanced with a little Duty Honor Country. It's not like they or their kind pop in here to get all huffy about maligning their patriotism or anything.
Flip side, this is an "Information Operation" of just the kind that the government, and the military, is ill equipped to handle.
And plays right into the hands of our enemies.
Welcome to InfoWar.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 3, 2007 7:02 AM
Dusty, on the most part, in my humble opinion, the focus on "Rereading VietNam" was well done! In fact, I believe it should be required reading for all of our leaders. It would help them put things into proper perspective. There is an old saying, "He who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat it.
by Grumpy on September 3, 2007 9:29 AM
John,
If they thought a little outside the box, maybe the Bush White House COULD fight back. I detect a glimmer in the fact that their interest/acknowledgement of bloggers and talkshow hosts via meetings (witness the "summit" W had with Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham, et al.) indicates they at least are reaching out to non-traditional news conduits.
If the Left thinks Rush is so powerful, well, let's see.
by
Instapilot on September 3, 2007 11:53 AM
Here's something that should be known if you want to fight back in info wars. Know your enemy.
That's not even the disinformation part that the President could do. The real problem is that wars are won by taking the initiative so that the target is too worried about defending himself against what you are doing to him than thinking up nasties to do to you. Currently the US government, by adopting a "let's just sit around while they attack" stance, provides the advantage to the media, the leakers, and any other jackals sitting around asking themselves what they could cook up to grab some personal advantage.
They got plenty of examples to choose from. Sandy Berger. George Tenet. Valerie Plame. Wilson whatever.
by
Ymarsakar on September 3, 2007 2:09 PM
Ymar - gezackly. Not coincidentally, I'm studying some of this stuff, from both the inside and the outside.
It's been informative.
I *could* be a bridge, but the inside thinks it knows what it's doing... and needs no help from the outside. Especially in DoD.
Dusty - check yer email.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 3, 2007 4:40 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
February 25, 2007
Cool video and a Gloat
This is either a good example of taking off at an extremely high density altitude, a good way to build up energy for the climb in a MANPAD environment, or a crude attempt to discourage onlookers at the perimeter...probably a little bit of all three.
It's cold, wet and dark here...and the power's out. That happens a lot here in central Indiana farm country. So it pays to have an auto-switching 60Kw generator run by a small-block V6 chugging along on propane (luv ya Hank Hill) fed from two 1000-gallon tanks. Heh.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
So was the guy wielding the camera dumb or confident?
Cool video - I don't think I'd have stood there while the beast was blasting by above me!
by
Barb on February 25, 2007 3:31 PM
I think he was just surprised. That was a very unusual profile.
by
Instapilot on February 25, 2007 7:04 PM
Profile?? Looked head-on to me!
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on February 25, 2007 7:18 PM
I once had nearly as close a view of the bottom of an SR-71 as it approached the runway. I was in a truck on the access road around RAF Mildenhall and whover was responsible for turning the traffic light red must have missed that part of the checklist. I got to see the bottom of that big beast very close up!
That's a heck of a video of that hawg!
by
Nate on February 25, 2007 10:42 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
February 6, 2007
Friendly Fire = Good Copy
This is back in the news, the HUD tape now being broadcast on the MSM.
A couple of comments vis-a-vis the text of the article reproduced below:
The incident occurred just seven days into the war as two pilots were nearing the end of a two-hour mission to destroy rocket launchers and artillery from former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's 6th Armored Division. The pilots were flying "tankbusters," jets whose prime mission is to destroy tanks.
Well, no, the prime mission of the Hog is not to be "tankbusters" but I chalk that up to general reporter cluelessness...not a big deal, really, and certainly not surprizing.
The enemy rocket launchers were dug into positions 25 miles north of Basra. Meanwhile, a British convoy of four armored vehicles was making its way north to probe enemy defenses.
Circling at 12,000 feet, one of the pilots spotted the Iraqi vehicles 800 yards north of the target of their previous attack run, as well as the convoy about three miles away. A Marine Forward Air Command official, code-named "Manila Hotel," asks them to engage the targets.
Which targets? The rocket launchers? The movers? The "Iraqi vehicles 800 yards north"? Those are the questions that immediately come to mind. I have no idea what the "Marine Forward Air Command" is; I assume they're referring to the ground FAC..but he could be an Air FAC. No clue.
The pilot, identified by the call sign POPOV36, radioed back that the vehicles' roofs appeared to display orange painted panels used to indicate coalition forces to aircraft. The pilot asked Air Command to confirm that there were no "friendlies this far north on the ground."
"That is an affirm," Manila Hotel radioed back. "You are well clear of friendlies."
OK. I'm well clear of friendlies. Or not. Several things here, and I can't say much more since I haven't heard the tapes but 1) does the FAC (assuming it's a Forward Air Controller) have eyes on the movers, in this case the Brit convoy? 2) Does he have eyes on the target? 3) Has his info been accurate in the past portion of the mission, i.e., has he established his cred with the flight that he knows the area, the target set, locations of the friendlies and other data (like accurately describing the target area) that lends one to believe he knows what he's talking about on questions like, "Are there any friendlies in the area?" Another thing...did the pilot ask about the orange panels? ("WTF? That looks like a good guy...I'm gonna tell him I see orange, or think I do.") Maybe it was asked, maybe it wasn't. And I confess to a certain amount of subject matter expert arm-chair quarterbacking here.
POPOV36 then contacted the second A-10 pilot, codenamed POPOV35, to coordinate the attack on the vehicles with "orange rockets" attached to them. An apparently confused POPOV35, however, requested that Forward Command fire an artillery round at the target to clear up the confusion, then suggested that the pair should return to base due to time constraints.
"I think killing these damn rocket launchers, it would be great," POPOV36 replied before rushing in to strafe the convoy.
BIG question mark here. First, the odd-numbered callsign, Popov 35, is the lead's. Makes sense he'd be calling in arty to confirm they, i.e., whatever he's looking at--could be the convoy, could be the launchers--are bad guys. He's also the guy principally responsible for fuel management (and everything else, for that matter). The words, "...before rushing in to strafe the convoy..." leaves the reader with the impression that the wingman engaged without any further discussion, clearance or guidance. That's possible, but unlikely--big hole in the story here. What was said? Who gave clearance, if any? How is "rush" defined? Two seconds after 35 talked about fuel? A minute later after confirming the target and completing the in-flight attack brief? What?
Seconds after the circling for a second attack, American and British voices frantically call the A-10s to call off the attack — but the damage already had been done. Lance Cpl. of Horse Matty Hull, 25, died of injuries sustained as the A-10s pumped 50 rounds per second of armor-piercing shells into the convoy. Four other British troops also were injured.
"I'm going to be sick," POPOV35 radioed when Air Command broke the news. POPOV36 can be heard sobbing in the background.
Sounds like it was unintentional. And I don't mean to be sarcastic here. Friendly fire incidents are in the back of your mind every time you roll in. These guys are made to sound like out-of-control American air pirates (the impression I think was deliberately planted by the "rushing in" characterization) but they were probably anything but.
A British investigation into the 25-year-old's death was adjourned last week after a coroner said he "had no choice" but to delay his verdict because the United States refused to release the tape.
"A copy of the video was used as evidence by the Board of Inquiry's investigation into the incident. ... This recording is the property of the United States government and the [Ministry of Defense] does not have the right to release it without their permission," a U.K. Defense spokeswoman said.
I wonder who did?
The incident has been a sore spot with some British lawmakers who have demanded that U.S. soldiers involved in friendly fire incidents attend U.K. hearings. The United States has denied requests for servicemen to appear in court but does submit anonymous statements on each case.
Hull's widow, Susan Hull, said she was told the tape can help bring justice for her husband, the Sun reported.
"I'm very relieved this is being made public at long last," she said. "I can't believe these pilots can discuss what they're doing so casually when these are the last moments of my husband's life."
Don't see the "casually" in the transcript. Eager to kill enemy targets is casual? Their evident horror after the fact was anything but casual. Maybe these guys were different, but I cannot think of anyone I know who has been casual...at anytime...on a combat mission. The lady's anguish is certainly understandable and I can't fault her for the characterization, but I honestly don't think it fits. Again, my opinion only.
Sources last week said the tape, which the Ministry of Defense claimed did not exist, was "incriminating."
A senior U.S. military source told The Sun: "This tape needs to get out. The pilots need to be brought to account."
I'd LOVE to know who that was. I think he needs to be identified and asked to explain his position.
The Sun is owned by News Corp., which is the parent company of FOXNews.com.
Final thoughts:
1) Blue-on-blue incidents are horrid and the things that REALLY make you wake up in a cold sweat at night. It really is the scariest thing to contemplate. Getting shot down is bad, but killing your own guys is MUCH worse. But it will happen. In. Every. War.
2) It can, however, be stopped by just not doing CAS. It's an option.
3) Maybe no CAS with coalition forces is the answer.
4) Perhaps the money we spend on fixed-wing air should be restricted to counter-air missions, i.e., shooting down enemy jets and weapons and attacking airfields well behind enemy lines (the latter is more efficient, by the way).
But, bottom line, the only way to guarantee no mistakes is to just not do it.
-Instapilot
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I thought the worst part is when they wanted "justice" for the death. We aren't talkinga about civilians playing with guns and accidently shooting somebody or a trigger happy police officer or an outright felonious murderer wacking some innocent who stopped to gas at the local convenience store and ended up in the middle of a robbery.
We're talking about combat. Though I understand the need to hold officers accountable for neglect or failure of command, I don't understand how this is "justice" for a death that basically occured in combat.
by kat-missouri on February 6, 2007 1:27 PM
Maybe no CAS with coalition forces is the answer.
I think that particular solution is the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Many coalition partners of the U.S. haven't got CAS assets that can integrate with you guys. If you're going to have coalitions at all, everybody needs to support each other. Pull the CAS, and you're crippling your military coalition.
Btw, here's a link to the transcript.
by
Damian on February 6, 2007 2:38 PM
This sounds remarkably like a political shakedown - i.e., some Euro leftists in Britain upset about the war are going after our guys in this fashion because they know we can't possibly prevent every battlefield accident. Portraying Americans as out of control cowboys is a standard tactic of that crowd, as is generating fresh outrage about old combat realities.
by
J-P on February 6, 2007 2:53 PM
Comrades,
I think that a better solution is to return the Air Force to the US Army. There is no valid reason for the United States to maintain an Air Force as a seperate branch.
The Navy can handle the ICBM's, Space Command, etc. The Army can have all of the CAS it wants. They can have the Strategic Bombers forces as well. Sounds to me like a win/win all around.
Respects,
by Gwedd on February 6, 2007 6:12 PM
Heh. AW1 Tim just made the target list.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 6, 2007 7:19 PM
Instapilot. The video and transcript can clear up many of your questions.
by
Trias on February 6, 2007 8:48 PM
Trias - go ahead and fill in the blanks.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 6, 2007 9:12 PM
Trias,
Problem is, there are bits where you don't know who's talking to whom. The tape records everything you say into the mask. It does not distinguish between outgoing and intercom only and it does not distinguish between VHF-FM/AM transmissions and UHF. The radio you use is dependant upon which way you press the mic button and there are a couple of places where it may be that one party did not hear the other party's question/comment. I'll have to take a look at it tomorrow to try to clarify what I'm trying to say.
Not making excuses for 'em and Popov 36's attacks are made without final clearance, but I could be wrong...OR...the particular CAS type didn't require a final "Cleared hot." call (in some situations close control is not a requisite to employing weapons)...as I said, need to read it a little more closely.
by
Instapilot on February 6, 2007 9:34 PM
"it's clear they were trying to distinguish the bad guys from the friendlies"?!!!
They weren't trying very hard! They mentioned 'orange markings' several times but helped each other to come to the conclusion that they were 'orange rockets'!
Yet another instance of gung ho amatuer ANG american pilots not wanting to RTB with unexpended stores.
The US embassy spokesman said it was clear the pilots were 'contrite'; I couldn't hear it. Worried that they were in trouble 'we're in jail dude', quite possibly.
Although why? No inquiry (was there really one held?) has ever penalised an american for killing allied troops.
For those of you with short memories, the majority of British deaths in the first gulf way were caused by american 'friendly fire'.
The attempted withholding of the cockpit tapes, and the continued refusal of the american authorities to co-operate with the inquest just confirms our impression of cowardice and ultimate disrespect of the US military/political body.
by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:42 PM
"it's clear they were trying to distinguish the bad guys from the friendlies"?!!!
They weren't trying very hard! They mentioned 'orange markings' several times but helped each other to come to the conclusion that they were 'orange rockets'!
Yet another instance of gung ho amatuer ANG american pilots not wanting to RTB with unexpended stores.
The US embassy spokesman said it was clear the pilots were 'contrite'; I couldn't hear it. Worried that they were in trouble 'we're in jail dude', quite possibly.
Although why? No inquiry (was there really one held?) has ever penalised an american for killing allied troops.
For those of you with short memories, the majority of British deaths in the first gulf way were caused by american 'friendly fire'.
The attempted withholding of the cockpit tapes, and the continued refusal of the american authorities to co-operate with the inquest just confirms our impression of cowardice and ultimate disrespect of the US military/political body.
by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:42 PM
"it's clear they were trying to distinguish the bad guys from the friendlies"?!!!
They weren't trying very hard! They mentioned 'orange markings' several times but helped each other to come to the conclusion that they were 'orange rockets'!
Yet another instance of gung ho amatuer ANG american pilots not wanting to RTB with unexpended stores.
The US embassy spokesman said it was clear the pilots were 'contrite'; I couldn't hear it. Worried that they were in trouble 'we're in jail dude', quite possibly.
Although why? No inquiry (was there really one held?) has ever penalised an american for killing allied troops.
For those of you with short memories, the majority of British deaths in the first gulf way were caused by american 'friendly fire'.
The attempted withholding of the cockpit tapes, and the continued refusal of the american authorities to co-operate with the inquest just confirms our impression of cowardice and ultimate disrespect of the US military/political body.
by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:43 PM
"it's clear they were trying to distinguish the bad guys from the friendlies"?!!!
They weren't trying very hard! They mentioned 'orange markings' several times but helped each other to come to the conclusion that they were 'orange rockets'!
Yet another instance of gung ho amatuer ANG american pilots not wanting to RTB with unexpended stores.
The US embassy spokesman said it was clear the pilots were 'contrite'; I couldn't hear it. Worried that they were in trouble 'we're in jail dude', quite possibly.
Although why? No inquiry (was there really one held?) has ever penalised an american for killing allied troops.
For those of you with short memories, the majority of British deaths in the first gulf way were caused by american 'friendly fire'.
The attempted withholding of the cockpit tapes, and the continued refusal of the american authorities to co-operate with the inquest just confirms our impression of cowardice and ultimate disrespect of the US military/political body.
by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:45 PM
"This sounds remarkably like a political shakedown - i.e., some Euro leftists in Britain upset about the war are going after our guys in this fashion because they know we can't possibly prevent every battlefield accident. Portraying Americans as out of control cowboys is a standard tactic of that crowd, as is generating fresh outrage about old combat realities."
The old bollocks!
The fact is we in Britain are pissed off being involved in a war whose prime concern is US oil supplies, and the lining of Bush/Runsfeld/Cheney's pockets!
by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:49 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 27, 2007
Ohhh-TAY!
Here's the tank that's been giving everybody conniptions.

Sanger finally found the thing and popped a bunch of links in, but technically didn't solve the whatziss 'cuz he never mentioned The Name.
From Rod Thorson: Looks something like one of the Marmon-Herrington USMC eval tanks, but some details are puzzling.
That's because it *is* a Marmon-Herrington. A Marmon-Herrington CTMS 1TBI, to be precise. The reason Rod's puzzled is because M-H produced four variants on the same piece of crap hull:
--CTMS 1TBI had a three-man crew and was armed with a 37 mm gun and two or three M1919 .30 caliber machineguns.
--MTLS 1GI4 had a four man crew and was armed with two 37 mm guns and four machineguns, probably on the theory that if the first popgun didn't stop the enemy, the second would. Yeah...
--CTLS 4TA(Y) and CTLS 4TAC had two-man crews and were armed solely with two or three machine-guns. 4TA(Y) had its turret offset to the left, the 4TAC had it offset to the right. My theory is that there was a fold in the blueprint that got unfolded during manufacture.
The M-H series were originally designed and manufactured for export to the Dutch East Indies. However, after the first 28 of a planned run of six hundred -- man, they *had* to have been cheap -- were delivered, Japan decided that the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere (aka Everything East of the Suez Canal and West of Whidbey Island) needed some oil reserves to round out the portfolio and the subsequent invasion of the East Indies made additional tank deliveries somewhat problematic. Seven CTLS 4TA(Y)s ultimately made it into combat, halting the Japanese onslaught for about a half an hour -- it took that long for them to stop laughing.
The US Army grabbed most of the M-Hs which were stranded stateside and used them for driver training, while the Marines actually attempted to use them during a couple of combined-arms exercises. The exercise participants concluded the M-H would be more useful as turreted pillboxes than combat vehicles.
A scad of them were exported to Guatemala, which still hasn't forgiven us.
Anyway, just to prove that I didn't PhotoShop the beast, I stuck Sanger's links (unbollixed) and some newspaper clippings in Flash Traffic...
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Hey, look at the post I make after the one you quoted. I did solve this thanks to R.P. Hunnicutt. Thats only because all this talk of links and goggles left me feeling blurry and gray around the edges. grin.
by Rod Thorsen on January 27, 2007 4:39 PM
(aka Everything East of the Suez Canal and West of Whidbey Island)
I'm just wondering how you know about Whidbey Island? I thought that was the Navy's best kept secret. I spent 12 years in the Army and never met a soldier who knew where it was!
by XBradTC on January 29, 2007 9:32 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Jan 27, 2007
July 21, 2006
The Whatziss Gizmo, continued.
You guys really have pretty much gotten it. This pic will prolly cement it for you.

Huh. Mebbe *this* will help.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Looks like a trident, but I highly doubt that's what it is.
by AFSister on July 21, 2006 8:27 AM
Now *there's* some outside the box thinking!
by
John of Argghhh! on July 21, 2006 8:56 AM
is that the thingie what the Observer Controllers out at the NTC used to use to chunk out the air burst arty simulators?
by
MajMike on July 21, 2006 9:13 AM
Nope - we used pyro pistols.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 21, 2006 12:36 PM
Oh yea a gunner's quadrant and a panoramic telescope ... combining that with the pneumatic pressurized device we come up with a semi-automatic golf ball shooter rigged for high angle fire.
This devise was siezed from terrorists who were using it to confuse Tiger Woods with floods of decending golf balls and throw his entire game off.
Perhaps now that it is friendly hands, his game will improve.
by jim b on July 21, 2006 1:17 PM
...and the leveling bubbles use compressed air, so ya really really know that it's extremely very well exactly horizontal...
by
MajMike on July 21, 2006 2:47 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
July 12, 2006
Some tidying up of loose ends.
In case of Moonbats, break glass, and grab the Armorer's Cluebat! (Down, Denizennes, sheesh!) 32 inches Moonbat-thumping reach - with a nice, cannon-like touch to the, ahem, barrel of the piece.
Alrighty then, moving on. Remember this "Whatziss?"
Go below the fold, to the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry, and you can see it in context.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Ooooo! is that Red Oak 215, or Sedona Red 222 Wood Stain on The Castle Argghhh Cluebat?
by Boquisucio on July 12, 2006 9:36 AM
Um, neither. It's fake mahogany. I'd hafta go grab the can.
I need to practice my gold-leafing skillz, too.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 12, 2006 9:59 AM
Nice looking AAD there John!
(Attitude Adjustment Device)
Don't worry about the gold leaf - a little operational activity and it will look like it was perfect. ;)
by KCSteve on July 12, 2006 11:00 AM
32 inches, eh? I guess that trumps BillT's 27.
;-)
by Were-Kitten on July 12, 2006 1:08 PM
Nice bat, John! I'd make one myself, but then the stately bannister of Outpost Neffi would fall down...
by Neffi on July 12, 2006 1:22 PM
Hey, Home Depot for 12 bucks, something like that. Don't have to loot the digs man.
Geez, think outside da box whydoncha?
by
John of Argghhh! on July 12, 2006 1:32 PM
"In case of moonbats, break glass, grab the Armorer's Cluebat!"
Errr... won't we get in trouble with Beth if we do that, John?
*running away*
by
Cassandra on July 12, 2006 6:54 PM
Not if you follow the spirit of the caveat, Missy.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 12, 2006 7:12 PM
I'm sorry. A fog formed in front of my eyes when I read those words and...[fanning self] ah'm afraid ah just didn't read any furthah!
by
Cassandra on July 13, 2006 3:52 PM
I'm sorry. A fog formed in front of my eyes when I read those words and...[fanning self] ah'm afraid ah just didn't read any furthah!
by
Cassandra on July 13, 2006 3:53 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
July 7, 2006
A Firearms Whatziss!
Why not? You guys have been working hard on all the obscure stuff.
Not that this isn't obscure, in it's way.

The usual questions: Who used it, what is the whole item (not just the closeup portion), etc.
It's on the net, in several places, too - not a complete cypher.
Update: Okay, John S, the gun dealer who *sold* me the rifle, gets it correct.
Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield, No 1 Mk V. An experimental rifle that led to the No. 4 Mk1 of WWII fame.
Fuller view of the receiver here.

This is the rifle that usually holds the rifle-mounted barbed wire cutter. Which it *never* did in service I might add - I just have more stuff to stick on my No. 1's than I have rifles...
Jim B's crack about Australia is actually on the mark - many of these rifles *did* find their way to Australia - this one did. It sits in a No 1 Mk III stock (incorrect for the rifle, technically - the Mk V had an extra reinforcing band and one-piece upper handguard) marked to the New South Wales police.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
And here I was gonna say a 1913 Rossenfutz cypher. Drat.
by
Tim on July 7, 2006 7:55 AM
Oo easy :-/
I looks old. Pretty damn old. I'll vote WW1 old.
It's not German. Maybe British.
Maybe a rifle?
by
Trias on July 7, 2006 7:55 AM
Windage and elevation site.
On a... let's see...
A 19-oh-10 Turkobritsh Mauser, Mk2, w/ vertical bayonet mounting.
by
SangerM on July 7, 2006 8:02 AM
SMLE rear sight, maybe a shotgun conversion used by India or.......working..
by
AL on July 7, 2006 8:28 AM
Micrometer rear sight No.4 mk1. Fits on reciever bridge not barrel. maybe..
by
AL on July 7, 2006 8:47 AM
I'm guessing a bayonet mounting also, but that's the extent of the guess.
by AFSister on July 7, 2006 8:56 AM
Loks like the rear receiver bridge and rear sight assembly of a British SMLE number 1 Mk 3 of WW1 vintage.
by USMC Steve on July 7, 2006 9:17 AM
Actually, I assume that bump-thingy facing us on the right (forward of the receiver) is a charging handle of some kind (has slide marks on it, and depth is off). I would guess this is a carbine of some kind, and that the bolt is open?
by
sangerM on July 7, 2006 9:21 AM
If you mouse over the picture, you'll see some text... that is applicable to some of you.
It is not a bayonet mount.
Keep going - you're both closer and farther than you think.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 7, 2006 9:27 AM
Rifle No 4, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield. Sorry no serial number ...
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on July 7, 2006 9:50 AM
Volley-fire sight on a No1 MkIII SMLE... one of you're rifles, I presume?
by Neffi on July 7, 2006 9:53 AM
It is, indeed Neffi.
And no, that is *not* a volley fire sight.
I'll hafta post a pic of that.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 7, 2006 9:56 AM
Finally an easy Whatziss! Rear sight assembly of the British Mark V .303 rifle. About 20,000 of these rifles were made at Enfield 1922-1924. These were basically an improvement over the familiar No. 1 Mark III Short Magazine Lee Enfield of WW1 fame with the rear sight on the receiver instead of on the barrel, for better sighting. (Much like the relocation of the rear sight on the U.S. M1903 and M1903A3 rifles.) Everyone should have one! Maybe more than one..... I first saw one of these in 1960, in a barrel of .303 rifles at the John Wanamaker store in suburban Philadelphia, all priced at $9.95. My Mom wouldn't buy it for me. :-(
by
John S. on July 7, 2006 10:00 AM
Fortunately I watch Monte Python, so I know it is a beer bottle opener cleverly affixed to a WWI era Brit Enfield.
Unfortunately, no shipments of bottled beer made it to France. They did howeve make it to Australia, where little Bushmen devised Brit Enfields out of them and overthrew the Australian Women's Temperance League.
Up the British!!!
by jim b on July 7, 2006 10:02 AM
John, your "mouse over" clue sucks a$$.
meanie.
by AFSister on July 7, 2006 10:12 AM
.... and I mean that in the best possible way. You're collection is indeed very interesting.
(mouse over the picture to see if you can figger out why I misused "you're")
yeah. I'm being a smarta$$.
by AFSister on July 7, 2006 10:15 AM
John S, (I shoulda disqualified *you*) gets it right.
Lee Enfield SMLE No. 1 Mk. V - the interim rifle that led to the No. 4.
In fact, I think I *bought* this one from John.
(shakes head sadly)
No *wonder* he recognized it - it's in his Bound Book!
BTW, John - didja write this, channel this, or plagiarize this?
by
John of Argghhh! on July 7, 2006 10:27 AM
AFSis - *whatever* do you mean, dear?
by
John of Argghhh! on July 7, 2006 10:28 AM
heheh....... nice fix, John.
But at least I got you to giggle... cuz I know you did. Right after you let out a big sigh and a "JEEEZ! Denizennes...."
by AFSister on July 7, 2006 10:34 AM
I didn't do too bad considering I've never seen a gun.
Is the grippy thing a sight?
by
Trias on July 7, 2006 10:39 AM
Sis, you weren't the first to call John on it- note my comment above, eh? Perhaps I wuz too subtle... ;)
by Neffi on July 7, 2006 10:42 AM
Trias - the "grippy thing" if I'm guessing correctly, is the sliding rear sight. For long range shooting (vice "battle sight") you flipped up the ladder and then moved the slide to the appropriate range marking and started blazing away.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 7, 2006 10:42 AM
Neffi - I ignore grungy old men in favor of cute chix.
Really, like I should have to say that.
This is just a pathetic cry for attention on your part...
8^)
by
John of Argghhh! on July 7, 2006 10:45 AM
hahaha!
Neffi... I totally missed that. Good call!
Next time, perhaps you should flounce about with a bikini clad gurl to get John's attention.
by AFSister on July 7, 2006 11:19 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
July 6, 2006
Whatziss help.
You guys have *actually* hit all the component elements of the answer. You just have to figure out which ones from the clues.
I will acknowledge I inadvertently misled you with the scale referent. The artifact in question is at least 60 years younger than the grenade.
Here's another pic to help you on your journey.

Update:
Frank got it - Riot Control round, in this case a French "baton round" that fired a hollow rubber ball from a 37mm launcher - similar to this gun.
What's interesting about this one is that it's a 12 gauge blank inserted into a larger caliber plastic case, vice the aluminum cased more classic design of this Brit baton round in the Castle holdings. Fairly low velocity and hits with a sharp sting. I've been hit, in training, with a baton round from 50 yards. Not fun. Certainly, getting hit at close range in the wrong place can cause (and has) fatalities or serious injury. There are rules of engagement covering these weapons as there are any others.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
OK ... another WAG.
Something like a 1" or 37mm plastic, disposable "Shotshell" round for either a flare round, smoke, or maybe some other CS or riot control agent?
I haven't been able to find another pic elsewhere on the net, but it sounds like some kind of new-fangled, plastic, once-shot, non-lethal, riot control or crowd dispersal round or something like it.
by fdcol63 on July 6, 2006 8:22 AM
That's pretty much it.
It's a french baton round - in this case firing a round rubber ball.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 6, 2006 8:30 AM
A rubber ball? Now that's tennis.
Wouldn't it still be lethal?
by
Trias on July 6, 2006 9:16 AM
From close enough range, hitting the right place, yes. But these are very low-charge rounds.
by
John of Argghhh!!! on July 6, 2006 9:22 AM
oh... how very French.
by
MajMike on July 6, 2006 9:34 AM
WOW!
John actually found a spent FRENCH casing!
(ok.. snarky attitude off)
by AFSister on July 6, 2006 10:06 AM
Riot casing, AFSis. In other words, one they used against themselves...
by
John of Argghhh!!! on July 6, 2006 10:25 AM
I know- I'm just surprised they fired off a round at ANYONE.
by AFSister on July 6, 2006 11:35 AM
IIRC, the French could be pretty brutal, especially to their "colonials" in Algeria, Indo-China, and Africa.
Which is why the word "hypocrisy" comes to my mind whenever they call us Americans "imperialistic" and whine about the "atrocities" of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.
by fdcol63 on July 6, 2006 2:35 PM
The Sweety has one of the Brit rounds (projectile in fired case) sitting on the chest of drawers in her bedroom. It has been mistaken for, uh, something else. Hers seems to have a longer case, anodized black.
by
Justthisguy on July 7, 2006 10:53 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
July 5, 2006
Whatziss...

Go ahead, give it yer best shot. You guys with the right kinds of jobs (i.e., daytime surfing ability) are getting pretty good at this stuff.
Okay - here's a little bit of help for scale. That's a german "egg" grenade.
MajMike hits the closest - but isn't there yet.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
spent shell casing
by AFSister on July 5, 2006 11:31 AM
*Someone* (meaning me) left that too open.
You are correct. Round 1 to AFSis.
Round 2. What type and purpose?
by
John of Argghhh!!! on July 5, 2006 11:35 AM
Oh, and figuring out caliber would help, too.
I might give a size clue (though I've posted enough things where the picture was taken on that table you guys should about have the grain pattern memorized!
by
John of Argghhh!!! on July 5, 2006 11:37 AM
See? I toldja the next question would be "ok... but what KIND of shell casing?".
This is where I jump ship and let the real gun grognards take over.
That being said... I'm pretty proud of myself right now!
by AFSister on July 5, 2006 11:41 AM
"shot" glass, about 2.5 oz.
by
AL on July 5, 2006 11:48 AM
40mm Grenade?
That's my uneducated WAG....
by
Graumagus on July 5, 2006 11:50 AM
Comrades,
Hmmm... .52 calibre Spencer Rimfire. Or not... Perhaps a Maynard carbine round. Hard to tell without a scale for reference.
Respects,
AW1 Tim
by Gwedd on July 5, 2006 1:12 PM
i'll guess it's for a flare launcher of some kind
by
MajMike on July 5, 2006 1:25 PM
A spent casing for a 40mm illumination round?
by fdcol63 on July 5, 2006 2:45 PM
Which 40mm would that be, Frank?
No matter - no, it is *none* of these things (though the 40mm flare is moving in the right direction).
Al - you *could* use it as a shot glass, but it would take some serious cleaning up.
Not that I haven't got something similar.
by
John of Argghhh!!! on July 5, 2006 3:06 PM
Nuts late again, and I was gonna guess the tip off the leg of the folding table we used in the yard to support the neighborhood parade. But NOOOOOOOooooooooo I should be so lucky as to find that thing.
jim b moves on smartly
by jim b on July 5, 2006 3:13 PM
Illumination/flare round (case) from french artillery. I say french cause of the egg grenade time frame and the fact it was probably a white flare.
by
AL on July 5, 2006 3:42 PM
It looks very similar to the 37x122R plastic baton round here:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/grenade.jpg
by fdcol63 on July 5, 2006 3:46 PM
Ah, yes, Frank - like this one from the Archives of Argghhh - already covered.
It does, indeed look similar.
Except that it's made of a different material.
Has a different length.
But you are sniffing down the correct path.
Form follows function, some say.
That guy owes me for the traffic I send his way... 8^)
by
John of Argghhh!!! on July 5, 2006 3:56 PM
I have misled you. The egg grenade is solely for scale (it was handy when I took the pic) - time frame is 80's.
But Al *has* sniffed out a clue - if you can capitalize on it!
by
John of Argghhh!!! on July 5, 2006 4:01 PM
Maybe a round for a WW1-era Vicker-Crayford 1.59" (40x79R) trench gun?
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MCRel5.jpg
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MilRel.htm
OK .... that's it for my WAG's. LOL
by fdcol63 on July 5, 2006 6:35 PM
Cartridge case for the 1WW French 37mm cannon:
http://63.99.108.76/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t8992.html
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on July 5, 2006 10:13 PM
An early flashbang shell?
Not that i know much about flashbang.
by
Trias on July 5, 2006 10:52 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
July 2, 2006
Continuing the Whatziss from yesterday...
You guys haven't figured it out yet, but the random darts you're throwing into the underbrush have, in fact, produced a few yelps.
1. WWI
2. German
3. While not body armor, it was worn by German troops.
In service it would have had this orientation on the soldier - if he was right-handed.

Or like this, on a left-handed soldier.
And would have been found in the kit of certain members of Stosstruppen units.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
All I have to say is hecky-doodle. I found this definiton over at wikipedia and this
life-like action figure (click on image to enlarge) but all I can say about that hunk of metal there is hecky-doodle. Perhaps it is a small shield to ward off bayonet thrusts from the enemy.
~Human beings are strange animals.
by
Locomotive Breath 1901 on July 2, 2006 8:37 AM
There is at least *one* site on the internet where a photograph of this gizmo (and a description) can be found.
But you guys will have to connect at least one more dot to get there.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 2, 2006 8:43 AM
Another ring puller? This'n would be a hand-free device ('cause ya don't want to use both hands to operate the grenade while driving).
by
Eric Wilner on July 2, 2006 8:47 AM
Eric - almost. You are *so* close to the dot that you're almost there.
Now twist your thinking just a bit.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 2, 2006 8:54 AM
Hokay... little research here... WWI German grenades used friction igniters, not the pin-releases-lever percussion thingies. Um...
Looks like some of the potato mashers had belt clips. Clip the grenade to this thingy while unscrewing the cap and preparing to pull the little twisty wire? (I assume you'd want to unclip the grenade from the whatziss before actually pulling the wire....)
by
Eric Wilner on July 2, 2006 9:24 AM
Keep looking Eric. That's a dead end path there, but there's a nearly-parallel one nearby...
by
John of Argghhh! on July 2, 2006 9:43 AM
Lessee, now...
I'm assuming that "friction igniter twisty wire puller" would be covered under my initial guess of "ring puller," and I'm not coming up with any reasonable further guesses, so it's time to get unreasonable.
Anti-litter device for collecting the twisty wires? Can't go dropping 'em on the battlefield.
Clip for restraining the shoulder strap of a laptop computer bag? Having one of those steam-driven laptops flapping around is so inconvenient....
Alsatian insignia holder?
UHF radio antenna?
by
Eric Wilner on July 2, 2006 12:51 PM
Well, the Steilhandgranaten didn't use wires... they used strings with ceramic balls on the end of them, so no need for a twisty wire puller.
Keep looking... yer almost there.
Yer in the right neighborhood, but at the wrong address.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 2, 2006 1:00 PM
Support plate for a drum-fed LMG like the MG15? Very useful when assaulting a trench...
by Neffi on July 2, 2006 2:26 PM
Neffi - nope. Eric *almost* has it.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 2, 2006 2:57 PM
Bearing plate for a flame thrower? Strapped to the back and allowing the firer (unlucky SOB) to swing the tanks on and off more easily?
Hunter
by
Hunter on July 2, 2006 6:43 PM
Nope. Eric is still in the lead.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 2, 2006 7:27 PM
Its a carrier for something that an assult trooper would carry but only need intermittantly-wire cutting tool perhaps?
by Old Fat Sailor on July 2, 2006 8:13 PM
Its a carrier for something that an assult trooper would carry but only need intermittantly-wire cutting tool perhaps?
by Old Fat Sailor on July 2, 2006 8:14 PM
Sounds like Eric is on the right track with the "hands-free" bit, but seems like it's built so that you could use 1 hand to loop a stielhandgranate on this device, pull it over with the handle so that the grenade end is wedged in the "V" welded to the plate, then twist the base of the handle to release the ceramic ball to pull it and arm the fuze. All with one hand, so that the other hand could continue to utilize another weapon simultaneously.
Just another WAG, though. LOL
by fdcol63 on July 2, 2006 9:18 PM
Hmmmm. Let me make this clear.
*Forget* the woodhandled grenades with the ceramic balls on pullstrings.
That were made of string, not wire.
However, don't leave the street, just move down a block or two, so to speak.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 2, 2006 9:22 PM
Yes a carrier sounds good. Maybe something so that those grenades talked about in an earlier whatizit that fires off the weapon could be put on the weapon quickly.
by
Trias on July 2, 2006 9:39 PM
Comrades,
Well, my vote is for either a wire carrier for a field telephone system, or a carrier for the hose for a flame thrower.... either one's a good guess...
Alternately, it could be the backside of a sign...
Respects,
AW1 Tim
by Gwedd on July 2, 2006 11:29 PM
Still sounds, though, like it has something to do with grenades.
Perhaps not the fancy, factory-produced Stielhandgranaten, but the home-made, improvised ones that were held together by wire? I saw several WW1 photos showing Stosstruppen with them.
by fdcol63 on July 3, 2006 7:06 AM
It's hand-held fiddly bit armor.
DUH.
by Were-Kitten on July 3, 2006 7:21 AM
Nope. Go looking for WWI german grenades guys - the truth is out there.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 3, 2006 7:26 AM
OK ... I think I found something that looks very much like it here:
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/utah/894/militariaforsale/index56egggrenade.htm#
"This is an extremely rare plate worn on the breast and used to pul the egg grenade fuses."
by fdcol63 on July 3, 2006 7:44 AM
Bingo!
Mine is in much better shape than that one, obviously!
by
John of Argghhh!!! on July 3, 2006 8:46 AM
Bugger me $37 for a bit of rust.
by
Trias on July 3, 2006 10:16 PM
Ah - but it's *rare* German rust from France.
Makes *all* the difference in the world.
I paid $15 for mine...
by
John of Argghhh! on July 4, 2006 8:47 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
July 1, 2006
Whatziss for a Saturday.
This item is complete, less the straps that fit the slots.
For full credit: War, Nation, Purpose.
It's 9 inches across, measured diagonally.

Perhaps another view will help.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
For some reason it reminds me vaguely of a mortar base plate.
by
BloodSpite on July 1, 2006 9:30 AM
Because its... rectangular?
Pretty thin steel for that application, however.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 1, 2006 9:33 AM
A WW2-vintage US military vehicle HAZMAT placard holder?
by fdcol63 on July 1, 2006 10:04 AM
It's a holder for a 'Men Working' sign, circa 1768. They were used extensively in Pennsylvania to warn of highway construction. Oddly, highways weren't even around yet. That Ben Franklin sure had foresight.
by
Tim on July 1, 2006 11:47 AM
WW2, British, tie-down fixture for the notoriously flimsy "flimsy Tommy gascan".
I think, I guess.
by
TmjUtah on July 1, 2006 6:09 PM
It looks a bit like the backside of a sign but the strapping has me guessing.
by
Trias on July 1, 2006 9:04 PM
Part of a trigger for a mine of some sort? The dowell like part being the pressure sensor. German maybe? WW1?
by ry on July 1, 2006 11:09 PM
Another pic!. That helps a bit. It's not a sign perhaps some kind of trap or stabilizer. It looks like the middle prong moves sideways a lot.
by
Trias on July 2, 2006 3:32 AM
WW1 attempt at personal body armor? That's the only guess I can come up with.
by
Grimmy on July 2, 2006 6:37 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 30, 2006
Whatziss for the smarty-pantsed crowd.
This isn't as unfair as it looks.
1. It's been mentioned on this site, in conjunction with these kinds of posts, within living memory, even of those of you who slay brain cells with alcohol with reckless abandon.
2. It's been pictured on this site, in other contexts.
3. It's about 1/3 the size it appears to be in the pic.

Go ahead, impress me.
Oh, here. A hint.
Update: Okay, Monteith got it. Striker spring for the Mills bomb (this one a No 5). Was hazarded as a guess on this post, is seen here with the striker, and has been viewed before (in context) in this pic.
Okay. That was an easy one. Let's continue the adventure. Tomorrow I'll put up something a little more challenging.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
It's a coil spring! That *was* easy...
by Neffi on June 30, 2006 9:38 AM
Nuh uh!
That's the spring I borrowed from Tigger to help me bounce up to my chandelier perch!
by Were-Kitten on June 30, 2006 9:41 AM
Okay. Neffi wins! Heh.
Now to be a lefty media type and move the goalposts.
Purpose and application.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 30, 2006 9:47 AM
Damn.
He only wins because he said "spring" first.
hmmm.... wonder what I'll win if I say "JUNGLE ROOM... NOW".
by Were-Kitten on June 30, 2006 9:58 AM
You already get a prize for the first person to link to the Castle with a post titled, "Doggie Style" that leads to pictures of beastiality...
by
John of Argghhh! on June 30, 2006 10:05 AM
Finally something I recognize! It's a bed spring. You can't imagine how often I have to have these replaced. I don't exactly see how this fits in The Armorer's world. I wouldn't classify it as a weapon.
by
Maggie on June 30, 2006 10:19 AM
Spring from the bottom of a magazine? Pushes the plate to force the ammo up?
by ry on June 30, 2006 10:28 AM
Looks like a really small buffer spring. For what... no idea. Probably a handgun.
by
SGT Jeff (USAR) on June 30, 2006 10:31 AM
hehe... I knew you'd be proud of that link, John.
by Were-Kitten on June 30, 2006 10:35 AM
It's the firing pin spring for a Mills Bomb. I'm not certain of the No and MK, but the whole family is essentially the same. With a base plug, percussion cap ignitor, slow fuse, striker (the hint) spring (the questioned item), a lever which retains the striker on that ledge at the top of it, a cotter pin/ring which retains the lever, and everything wrapped in a cast iron body with a filler plug up on the side opposite of the cotter pin.
http://www.millsgrenades.co.uk/
I have two No 35 Mills bombs at home with empty explosives wells and drill purpose fuses (ie, non functioning). Neat piece of kit.
by
Ryan Gill on June 30, 2006 10:38 AM
That should read, two no 36 Mills bombs...(typo).
by
Ryan Gill on June 30, 2006 10:39 AM
Mainspring for a Tokarev?
by
Pogue on June 30, 2006 10:45 AM
torsion activated boot scraper?
by
MajMike on June 30, 2006 11:01 AM
Whats left over after making screw.
by
AL on June 30, 2006 11:19 AM
Heh. Sometimes, Mike - I think you don't take this seriously...
by
John of Argghhh! on June 30, 2006 11:24 AM
everything's a boot scraper, if ya really thinks about it....
by
MajMike on June 30, 2006 2:56 PM
Missed the boat again.
by
Trias on July 1, 2006 5:34 AM
Mike - No, not everything.
by
Maggie on July 1, 2006 9:52 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 27, 2006
What the heck.
Bill having snarked me today, and his Whatziss having been figured out pretty quickly - let's try another one. Following Bill's rule of showing the whole thing, sorta.
But while this has been alluded to in posts in the archives, it has not been pictured.

So, Grognards - whatziss? Purpose, nomenclature, etc.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
A "pre-plastics" GUMBY!
by fdcol63 on June 27, 2006 10:56 AM
Barbarian! YOU'VE FRIED GUMBY!!
by
cw4(ret)billt on June 27, 2006 10:56 AM
Heh--great minds think alike. And at the same time, too...
by
cw4(ret)billt on June 27, 2006 10:58 AM
LOL .... I'm humbled. But yours was much funnier! LOL
by fdcol63 on June 27, 2006 11:02 AM
I'm humbled. But yours was much funnier!
No, it just means John has to figure out how to whack us both with the same snark...
by
cw4(ret)billt on June 27, 2006 11:25 AM
Barbed wire cutter from the last great war?
by
Al on June 27, 2006 12:58 PM
Al,
Kinda like this?
http://www.cybershooters.org/Royal%20Armoury/Enfields.JPG
by fdcol63 on June 27, 2006 1:35 PM
Gezackly - though that guy's cutter is in a *lot* better shape than mine, mine being a Somme battlefield recovery.
Way to go Al - with follow-up by Frank!
Hey! I've got all those rifles on my walls, too!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 27, 2006 1:43 PM
Well that was shot down quick.
by
Trias on June 27, 2006 3:31 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 26, 2006
A hint! A hint!
For yesterday's Whatziss?
You guys are sniffing all around it - though many of you are *right* next to it - you are looking at it 3200 mils (180 degrees) off.

This hint is in keeping with that, in grammatical, if not rhetorical, terms.
I see Gwedd finally got it! Neffi knows his grenade butts, as he amply demonstrated.
This would have been clue #2 of the day, had it been needed.
But that's it - the ring puller used by Mills Bombers.

This one being a No 5.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Comrades,
OK, then... how 'bout that gizzee is the spring that pushes open the handle on the grenade when the pin is pulled?
Other than that... ya got me stumped...
Respects,
AW1 Tim
by Gwedd on June 26, 2006 8:16 AM
...and for a Mills Bomb!
by Neffi on June 26, 2006 11:52 AM
It's the safety pin to hold the safety pin in. Maybe it's French or Irish then.
by
Trias on June 26, 2006 12:01 PM
Damn Neffi beat me to it. Now if it had been a gammon sticky bomb.....
by Old Fat Sailor on June 26, 2006 12:18 PM
Damn Neffi beat me to it. Now if it had been a gammon sticky bomb.....
by Old Fat Sailor on June 26, 2006 12:19 PM
Comrades,
Actually, it's called a "bomber's hook" and may be seen here:
http://www.millsgrenades.co.uk/mills_grenade_accessories1.htm
Along with other accessories for the Mills grenades... very interesting site:)
Respects,
AW1 Tim
by Gwedd on June 26, 2006 12:33 PM
Toldja it was on the web...
Heh. And there goes a whatzit down the tube now that you've found that place. Snerk!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 26, 2006 12:40 PM
now that we know whatziss, is that the sproinger that makes the spoony go sprung, or whatzidoo??
by
MajMike on June 26, 2006 1:07 PM
I thought AW1 Tim's link covered that - it allowed the bombardier, in crappy weather, perhaps wearing gloves, as well, to pull the rather stout pin out of the Mills Bomb.
Hook two fingers around the vertical element (in the original picture), use the hook of the horizontal extension to snatch the pin, pull!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 26, 2006 1:11 PM
...no worries, John; I shall refrain from demonstrating my ample butt.
by Neffi on June 26, 2006 1:54 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 25, 2006
Otay - For a lazy Sunday while I paint...
...what used to be Prodigal Son's Crib, but will soon be the Armorer's Retreat, you guys can puzzle out this thingy.
Yes, it's on the web.
Last century, prior to 1950. This is a battlefield recovery.

Think expansively. Rapidly.
It's hard to see - but that straight part to the left ends in a hook.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Cowards.
Or yer busy.
I'll assume busy.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 25, 2006 2:19 PM
Comrades,
OK... I'll bite... how about a safety pin for a shell or fuse of some sort? Perhaps a German or Russian safety pin for a grenade or rocket? Maybe a mine?
Originally i thought it might be a "pull before flight" type of pin, but it's probably too small for that.
Interesting thingee, that.....
Respects,
AW1 Tim
by Gwedd on June 25, 2006 2:38 PM
Assumption "Busy" is correct. However, I've got time enough to guess that it's the safety pin that came with the old-style OD first aid kit slings. Must've been a real wet battlefield...
by
cw4(ret)billt on June 25, 2006 2:40 PM
You're actually dancing around it, kinda.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 25, 2006 4:14 PM
A broken-off blanket pin.
by
Justthisguy on June 25, 2006 5:14 PM
The other half of the tavern puzzle Montgomery was working on before D-Day.
by Cricket on June 25, 2006 5:35 PM
JTG - creative, but hardly Armorer-like!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 25, 2006 6:28 PM
Cricket - even more creative than JTG - because that *would* be Armorer-like!
You go girl!
Yer wrong, but you rock!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 25, 2006 6:32 PM
Comrades,
OK... What torques me is that I've seen that thing some where before.... oh well...
I guess I could guess that it's the pin from a friction primer? However, it looks over-engineered for that sort of thing. Which means it's likely English-made.. snerk...
Respects,
AW1 Tim
by Gwedd on June 25, 2006 7:11 PM
Could it be the release pin for a claymore-like device?
by
Mike in Chi on June 26, 2006 1:00 AM
Looks to me like some manner of linstock, but that's entirely the wrong century, not to mention being inconsistent with today's hint.
by
Eric Wilner on June 26, 2006 9:20 AM
I agree it looks like a pin or maybe a stabiliser for something. It looks disposable too.
by
Trias on June 26, 2006 11:39 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 23, 2006
The Whatziss from yesterday.
I was trying to catch that wily old tanker, MajMike, but uncharacteristically for a tanker, he wasn't willing to just rush into a trap.
He has potential.
I was hoping he'd run with an expectation he'd set the day before (the best deception plans work by manipulating your opponent's expectations) about what I might be trying to do.
Y'know, that he'd guess it was this, or this, or this
Caltrops.
Then, I'd whisk away the picture mask and reveal it for what it really is.

A WWI British trench raiding tool. A locally fabricated trench maul.
Scale? You guys are *always* whining about scale. The white paper the maul is sitting on is a standard paper towel. There. Scale.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Congratulations MajMike.
by
Maggie on June 23, 2006 8:32 AM
I had trench maul once. Doc gave me a shot for it.
What the heck is a trench maul? Do you club the intruders with it?
by
Chuck Simmins on June 23, 2006 9:54 AM
Chuck, it's for playing Whack-a-Hun in the confines of a trench or dug-out... all sides used 'em and most are equally nasty.
by Neffi on June 23, 2006 11:53 AM
A mace. Or rather rusty metal wood and leather. Placed gingerly on the indicative scale ascertainer and given a highly revealing angle.
by
Trias on June 23, 2006 12:12 PM
heh... and here i was thinking it was going to end up being a ratchety-like gear for some kind of old torsion flinger thingie...
by
MajMike on June 23, 2006 12:15 PM
...and btw, nice caltrops ya got there too!
by
MajMike on June 23, 2006 12:16 PM
Ah, an elevation adjusting gear!
Used for adjusting the enemy's elevation from 90 degrees to zero.
by
Eric Wilner on June 23, 2006 12:18 PM
Eric - I'll have to remember that one.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 23, 2006 1:29 PM
That looks like a very ouchful cluebat. I think, Yikes! just looking at the image. (I also think, how would I wield that, and how would I defend against that. Cain't stop thinkin'.)
by
Justthisguy on June 23, 2006 9:16 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 20, 2006
Continuing from yesterday...
...who wants to step up to the plate and figure out what this is? Or at least make funny guesses?

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
No one yet? Well, here goes:
1. A mil-spec crayon sharpener (for marking the Armorer's fire templates, of course)
2. A Washington telescope (necessary to see the, well, [CENSORED BY PG-17z] of the average male politician
3. Sighting mechanism for the M-118 Smoke Dispensing System
Now seriously:
Some kind of spotting scope - but what's with the mirror on the narrow end?
by
UtahMan on June 20, 2006 4:12 PM
Ye Olde Mk IV Fielde Artillerie Sextant for ye purpose of determinynge batterie centre to ye nearest furlonge...
by
cw4(ret)billt on June 20, 2006 4:24 PM
collimating valometer for gauging the transit of rod grenade fired mud scrapers (French model?)
by
MajMike on June 20, 2006 4:37 PM
An early collimater?
by
Pogue on June 20, 2006 4:38 PM
The only lethal lawn sprinkler ever made.
"May I have 10,000 marbles please?"
by Toluca Nole on June 20, 2006 4:38 PM
Well a thingy on a tripod. Crystal clear too. You can swivel it and set it and a level as a bonus! And some glass on it's [censor]. It probably is a mirror. Some connector at top for what? a sight? a weapon? A chain for sick fantasies. And some kind of holder. Can I see a thread in there? Does something screw into it? Or is it glass?
It's looks very surveying to me. Telescope. The mystery is that glass angle. I think it's supposed to be at that angle but it's hard to be sure. The business seems to be the mirror end meaning we are magnifying here. Trying to look farther away. And the viewer is looking down?
I'm missing a lot here.
by
Trias on June 20, 2006 4:49 PM
Well, it looks like a milk bottle on a tripod with armor so you can have milk in the field and the tripod helps you drink it sans hands.
Or, it could be the device through which democrats view the GWOT.
Or, Kennedy's well used "booze and broads" finder.
by
kat-missouri on June 20, 2006 4:58 PM
Oh-oh - Cross-thread contamination! Toluca is trying to bring those dam*ed cowboys from the thread next door in here and ruin our dance number!
"Not in the face!"
by
John of Argghhh! on June 20, 2006 4:58 PM
I love watching a liberal brain free-associate...
8^D
by
John of Argghhh! on June 20, 2006 4:59 PM
Looks like a heliograph. Mirror reflects the sun and you send Morse code by opening and closing a shutter.
by
Mike on June 20, 2006 6:39 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 19, 2006
Ha! Bill only *claims* to have an easy Whatziss...
This one really is - and sets the tone for my theme this week (assuming my client doesn't flog me like a Brit sailor stealing grog by trying to get 6 weeks out of me in two weeks (we're going to have a one month break as this contract ends before the new one picks up where we leave off...)
So, to give yourself a break from Bill's conundrum - Whatziss?

There is a group among you (two, actually) who have a really unfair advantage.
And, as far as I know - this is the first picture of this type on the 'net...
Update. Wrong. Now there's two pictures. Y'all need some help. Bill's gonna slap himself when he finally sees the light. Unlike me, if we ever figure out what Bill's gizmo is...
Anudder update:
So, revealed! A Circle, Aiming, M1, of WWII vintage.
So, the Mistress of Argghhh! spanks the boys - and especially the two former artillerymen, Bill and Frank, who have *no* excuse. Bill especially. I *know* that Bill has 'Taken the azimuth of Fire Out of the Orienting Line' (TFOOL) and 'Subtracted the Azimuth of fire from the Declination constant' (SAD), taken the resultant number, applied it to the Upper (recording) motion, turned the Lower (non-recording motion) to either sight on the stake that marks the Orienting Line, or, in this case, 'floated the needle' to align the site on magnetic North, to then, using the Upper (recording) motion to sight on the panoramic telescope of base piece, while giving the command "Battery Adjust, this instrument, Refer!"
Frank might not have gotten that far, so we'll give him only a minor downcheck.
That's what a floating needle looks like through that little window as you are alinging your aiming circle (director, in Commonwealth usage) to magnetic north. The fact that the needle isn't level, nor aligned on the reticle is a function of how sensitive the needle is to my honking great big watchband.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Its a high altitude reconnaissance photo of the Death Star trench.
by
Brad on June 19, 2006 8:11 AM
centerline of somebody's deck looking straight down from a bolter....
by
MajMike on June 19, 2006 8:38 AM
The Akagi at rest.
Mmmmm--nah. Wrong shape, wrong markings.
The Yorktown.
by
cw4(ret)billt on June 19, 2006 9:30 AM
It is part of the DEATHSTAR that the Emperor and Lord Vader (or is it DARTH Vader) are building in orbit.
by LarryK on June 19, 2006 10:35 AM
Sorry ... should read the comments closer before posting. But great minds think alike!
by LarryK on June 19, 2006 10:37 AM
Larry's been reading too much NRO!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 19, 2006 10:41 AM
Some bit of Super Conductive material levitating above a magnet?
by
Ryan Gill on June 19, 2006 11:25 AM
Heh. Looks like a tracer making a beeline for somebody's optics...
by
cw4(ret)billt on June 19, 2006 11:37 AM
Nice image... Bill you gotta start hanging out in better bars.
by
jim b on June 19, 2006 12:06 PM
Zarqawi's Private Santum being violated?
(just guessing)
by Cricket on June 19, 2006 12:29 PM
Or, it could be a recently-declassified photo of a multi-aircraft NATO strike on a Serbian decoy.
*blink* What, nobody's ever caught sight of a tracer through the optics?
by
cw4(ret)billt on June 19, 2006 12:45 PM
High-res shot of one of the many crystals which dangle from my Chandelier....
by Were-Kitten on June 19, 2006 12:53 PM
It's the light at the end of the tunnel that people with near-death experiences see.
by
beth on June 19, 2006 1:20 PM
SWWBO - It's the light at the end of the tunnel that people with near-death experiences see.
Heh. You and I are on the same wavelength. I em'ed John "...it could be the last thing Pham Van PAVN saw of Cu Chi as Tunnel Rat Gumby came down the tube."
Great minds etc., etc., ...
by
cw4(ret)billt on June 19, 2006 1:46 PM
Eet ees thee teeny leetle casa een thee tequila thee warm leeves een...
by
cw4(ret)billt on June 19, 2006 1:53 PM
borescope picture looking down the muzzle of a fuzzy gun.
by
MajMike on June 19, 2006 2:37 PM
And I thought the others were hard. This picture is ... a new study in ambiguity.
I like the deathstar concept. Use the force!
Pulls out +1 shotgun of randomised pattern guesshauling.
It's really hazy but there is that circle around and to the left of the rectangle which might be water pushed by air flow like you see helicopters do in the movies.
er or RL for most of you guys.
So I think were looking at a top down view here. That stuff pushed is likely to be water. So that rectangle down there is some kind of sea going vessel.
Now this pic prolly is as clear as it gets so maybe that white stuff is the burn of a rocket/missile launched from said vessel which is pushing that water down below.
And then I run into a problem. What the hell is that antenna thingy jutting out. It has to be attached to the rocket. It looks kinda out of place and a drag maker. Maybe rockets communicate to control or something.
I have misgivings about the vessel idea but am stubborn on the water. Its too grey. Its too square. It has a great big black stripe dead down the centre a white blob and some cancer bitties on the left top. Maybe its a port dock. They often have transport things in the middle. Concrete is grey and if I twist my imagination more I could pretend those cancers a place to tie up vessels. But why launch from a dock? Im not so sure its water now. A dock would be relatively flat strong and clear of buildings etc making it a reasonable launch place I suppose.
So best guess is that its a view of a dock taken from a rocket in launch.
by
Trias on June 19, 2006 2:40 PM
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Trias- my sides are hurtin'.
Lessee. How to help here...
Something *is* floating in there, technically.
Lessee... this will prolly make it too easy for at least one of us...
TFOOL.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 19, 2006 3:14 PM
Sight picture of a TOW missile launch, aimed at a building?
Still can't figure out what the white thing is on the left, though.
LOL
by fdcol63 on June 19, 2006 3:44 PM
Of course, that is *actually* misleading.
I'll amend it: SAD.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 19, 2006 3:45 PM
I'll be a bit Occam's razorish and just say it's a bad picture of the back of a speed limit sign in a blinding snowstorm.
by Toluca Nole on June 19, 2006 3:51 PM
Frank, along with Bill, is another bubba who has no excuse.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 19, 2006 3:55 PM
Frank, along with Bill, is another bubba who has no excuse.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 19, 2006 3:56 PM
It has to be looking thru some kind of sight - an aiming circle?
A bomb sight?
is that sight the right spelling? or is it site?
by
Beth on June 19, 2006 3:58 PM
JoA - That's right--rub it in.
JoA - That's right--rub it in.
*love that echo...*
Wouldn't be a TOW shot--the reticle's wrong for hi-mag tracking.
by
cw4(ret)billt on June 19, 2006 4:00 PM
Jaw-dropping stunned silence.
The Mistress of Argghhh, in a flip comment, an easy aside, a tossed-over-the-shoulder fillip, spanks you all.
Yes, dear, "sight" is correct. Site is a place. Or, more technically in this realm, the representation of the height above or below the gun that the target sits at, but *that's* a different post altogether.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 19, 2006 4:04 PM
So, do I get an Argghhh!!! t-shirt?
by
Beth on June 19, 2006 4:05 PM
Why certainly, dear. (rummages through cards to find one of hers...)
Oops. Did I say that out loud?
How do I tell them my inner monologue -oh never mind.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 19, 2006 4:07 PM
How's that for miles out? I wanna aim to precision missles canicanicanihuhuhuh?
by
Trias on June 19, 2006 4:15 PM
Oh, fine -- a WWII aiming circle.
You *know* I ain't familiar with that new stuff...
by
cw4(ret)billt on June 19, 2006 4:29 PM
I think the guess people missed was... the scene from Close Encounters, where Dreyfuss, in his truck, sees the Alien at the road intersection...
by
John of Argghhh! on June 19, 2006 9:31 PM
LOL - sorry I missed all the fun yesterday! When I heard the word "azimuth", I had a sudden flashback and went looking for a bucket of mils. LOL
Yeah, John. Peons like me rarely got to see the view in the aiming circle itself. However, we did get a LOT of experience seeing the view at the OTHER end, through the gun's pan-tel into the collimator:
http://www.tpub.com/content/howitzers/TM-9-2350-311-10/css/TM-9-2350-311-10_252.htm
Ummm ... like sometimes after EVERY round when it was rainy and muddy, and the spades failed to hold during recoil. LOL
by fdcol63 on June 20, 2006 9:05 AM
You better have been checking the sight picture every round anyway, boyo!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 20, 2006 10:00 AM
Oh. That probably explains that little "incident" in the Graf Main Post parking lot. LOL
Of course, we checked it. I meant that whole "relaying the gun/battery"-on-the-aiming-circle thing. LOL
by fdcol63 on June 20, 2006 10:31 AM
Good. I *still* remember the 8" round on the mess hall...
And no, ladies, that's not a funny one to snark.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 20, 2006 10:49 AM
If you mean the one involving 12th CAV, no - not funny at all.
http://www.3ad.org/coldwar/coldwar_casualties.htm
May They All Rest In Peace
by fdcol63 on June 20, 2006 11:02 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 14, 2006
Whatziss, Part the 3rd.
Need to catch up? Part One. Part II.

Okay. Now you have a little scale.
All are components of the same item. Though one of them in a counter-intuitive fashion.
Update: Enthusiasm for the answers aside, Geoff is wrong (though cleverly trying to double-think the double-thinker) and MajMike is correct, though incomplete.
You actually have all the data you need to figure out more thoroughly which one it is, now.
But I'm feeling magnanimous, so here's another clue.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
rifle grenade.
by
MajMike on June 14, 2006 8:05 AM
rifle grenade.
by
MajMike on June 14, 2006 8:07 AM
rifle grenade.
by
MajMike on June 14, 2006 8:08 AM
rifle grenade.
by
MajMike on June 14, 2006 8:11 AM
Mike - repeating does not make it so, but I believe that you may be close. However, I am inclined (as John is right devious) to think that the case is actually an artillery ignitor, rather than a grenade-throwing blank.
Nope, I change my mind, the case is the primer charge for a mine, and the other object is the pressure plate ( or as us cultured Eglish-speaking folks would say, - the presser plate. )
by
SezaGeoff on June 14, 2006 9:08 AM
Mike - repeating does not make it so, but I believe that you may be close. However, I am inclined (as John is right devious) to think that the case is actually an artillery ignitor, rather than a grenade-throwing blank.
Nope, I change my mind, the case is the primer charge for a mine, and the other object is the pressure plate ( or as us cultured Eglish-speaking folks would say, - the presser plate. )
by
SezaGeoff on June 14, 2006 9:10 AM
Dammit - repeated too! Good thing these electrons can be recycled!
by
SezaGeoff on June 14, 2006 9:15 AM
Hmm well could be fun. Not in the military so ya gunna see a wild stab in the dark here.
Looks disposable and looks heat affected.
Activativing guess matrix.... Uhm a flare base?
by
Trias on June 14, 2006 9:51 AM
John,
Isn't that the base plate (if I'm using the correct terminology) for a grape-shot canister?
by
Casey Tompkins on June 14, 2006 12:03 PM
that's looking like the tooth what bit the groove just to the right of the red band.
i'm guessing .30 M3 or M6.
by
MajMike on June 14, 2006 12:43 PM
...for chunking out a star cluster.
by
MajMike on June 14, 2006 12:46 PM
Nope. Nada. Zilch. Not a base for either a stand of grape or canister.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 14, 2006 1:23 PM
Or a star cluster.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 14, 2006 1:42 PM
Viven-Bessiere HE (French cast iron model)
by
MajMike on June 14, 2006 3:34 PM
MajMike - how does that conform with the rod-grenade theory?
by
John of Argghhh! on June 14, 2006 3:38 PM
Bounding airburst rigle grenade?
by
Pogue on June 14, 2006 3:41 PM
D'Oh! I meant "rifle."
by
Pogue on June 14, 2006 3:42 PM
Nope - but an entirely logical conclusion, based on the information thus far provided.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 14, 2006 3:43 PM
doesn't conform in the slightest... grasping blindly for scraps of nothingness in the ether of Google.
by
MajMike on June 14, 2006 4:46 PM
Fair enough. So, has anyone googled 'rod grenade' and started looking for things which have parts that look suspiciously like those pictured?
Just sayin'
Yer doin' well, guys. And this isn't quite the nut-crusher Bill put up...
by
John of Argghhh! on June 14, 2006 5:23 PM
Yer doin' well, guys. And this isn't quite the nut-crusher Bill put up...
'Tweren't neither no nut-crusher--'twere a paperweight.
Hmmmpf. Snarks from a guy who posts pix of a 1914-ish Austro-Hungarian bayonet stud taken through an electron microscope and then flopped...
by
cw4(ret)billt on June 14, 2006 10:50 PM
Uhm what's left of an rpger after being bombed?
I need inspiration here. Ohmmmmmm
The base of an artillery piece?
How about if it's not military at all. An ashtray.. well it makes me think of ashtray.
by
Trias on June 15, 2006 2:11 AM
Trias - a bit small for an ashtray, but stranger forms of trench art are out there.
[slips into reverie]
Sigh. I *miss* that electron microscope.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 15, 2006 5:50 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 13, 2006
Whatzis, Part II.
Okay, MajMike got close, but CAPT H nailed it on Whatzis, Part 1.
Driving band. Your inspiration was supposed to be Captain Minie, whose famous bullet used expansion of the base to engage the rifling. For those who are clever, you've already deduced *what* the thing might be in toto.
Now, in order to drag this out and have some cool posts on miltech, (at least *I* think so) we'll work our way through figuring out which one of whatever it is.
I provide this:

So, what izzit?
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
That's easy! That's one of those Mediaeval Castle Argghhh's Stove-Pipe Helmets for the Interior Guard. I'm sure Barnacle looks fearsome in it.
by Boquisucio on June 13, 2006 9:14 AM
Heh. Boq - you got me wondering how to fit that on a cat for a picture...
by
John of Argghhh! on June 13, 2006 10:13 AM
hmmm.... scrapers?
by
MajMike on June 13, 2006 12:51 PM
Looks like the bit to go under loose shot, say before they started bagging grape shot.
by KCSteve on June 13, 2006 12:59 PM
Cover of a bagged charge container.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on June 13, 2006 1:09 PM
MajMike - scrapers of what, I am intrigued.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 13, 2006 2:04 PM
A really small footstool?
As you may have guessed, I never have a clue with your Whatzis posts. They're fun, but not a clue.
by
hdw on June 13, 2006 2:50 PM
Wanderer - if they were *easy* it wouldn't be fun.
For me, at least!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 13, 2006 3:10 PM
Hockey puck with a mullet?
by Toluca Nole on June 13, 2006 4:31 PM
scraper for the mud stuck up in my tanker boots if ya turn it upsides...
or (flailing wildly) if it is actually one of the aforementioned driving bands, and it was mounted at the base end of a projo with the flange-y looking things pointed down range, i could see where they could get pressed into the rifling and scrape some fowling out...
or i could just clean my boots.
by
MajMike on June 13, 2006 7:34 PM
but now i'm trying to reconcile two whazzis into some kind of a piece with a rifled bore slightley larger than a pencil which would fire loose shot or bagged grape using less than optimal powder...
still stumped, but now at a theoretically higher level of fantasy.
by
MajMike on June 13, 2006 7:38 PM
Ah, I see I have some clarifying to do in tomorrow's post.
This is part II. Part I (the driving band) and Part II are components of the same item.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 13, 2006 7:40 PM
pls, and i hereby retract my spelling "fowling" (unless it really is a piece for a birding gun, in which case that is exactly what i meant)...
by
MajMike on June 13, 2006 8:50 PM
It could be used for fowling, I suppose.
But not terribly efficiently.
But the soldier would have fun, definitely.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 13, 2006 8:55 PM
It's the helmet worn by Yosemite Sam when he disguised himself as Don Quixotic to pursue the lascivious Rosenadabugsy.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on June 14, 2006 7:06 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 23, 2006
A new Whatzis?
While we wait on some more clues from Murray for his offering, I"ll give ya this one.
1. The scale is off, on purpose.
2. It is a quintessential Castle Artifact.
That'll get ya started. More clues standing by as needed.

I won't be surprised if this one gets figgered out pretty quick, actually.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
A bullet stuck in kevlar or spectra cloth, viewed from the front as a guess. I'm presuming it hit something at low speed where the camera is and didn't go right through.
by Fred on May 23, 2006 8:38 AM
A mummified nipple.
(sorry... that's the first thing that came to mind, John)
by Were-Kitten on May 23, 2006 9:44 AM
Sigh. Geez. Yew chiks.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 23, 2006 9:53 AM
An igniter & bagged charge.
by bc on May 23, 2006 12:36 PM
An ordinary housefly on your (or someone else's) hand
by
Phil Drew on May 23, 2006 1:32 PM
Heh. Okay, that scale isn't *that* small!
by
John of Argghhh! on May 23, 2006 1:35 PM
When I'm checking to see if my bottle of Chianti is truly empty, it looks something like that!!
by
V29 on May 23, 2006 2:15 PM
The bundled parachute of a flare or other round?
by
Gunner on May 23, 2006 5:19 PM
Yarn, ball of, for cats, amusement of, No. 2 Mk. I.
by
Eric Wilner on May 23, 2006 7:15 PM
A shrouded stand of grape shot?
by Old Fat Sailor on May 23, 2006 7:16 PM
Emergency bayonet wound plug?
;-)
by
Bad Cat Robot on May 23, 2006 10:52 PM
Egyptian hand grenade.
1. The weave of the papyrus casing identifies it as late Early Upper Middle Kingdom, probably from the armory at Abydos.
2. The camel hair twine securing the casing and fuze further identifies its source of manufacture as the west bank of the Nile.
3. The clincher is the use of a mummified nipple as a fuze.
by cw4(ret)billt on May 24, 2006 12:41 AM
I think that Old Fat Sailor has it right: canvas wrapped case shot, held together by marline.
by
Patrick Lasswell on May 24, 2006 12:56 PM
See? Even Bill thinks it's a nipple.
WOOT!
(hey.. ya gotta give me some credit for imagination, eh?)
by Were-Kitten on May 24, 2006 2:22 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 21, 2006
New Whatziss? Challenge.
In the tradition started by Owen, another guest "Whatziss" this time provided by Murray, of Silent Running.
Mind you - I'm clueless on this. Murray is a former soldier of New Zealand, who now works on the worthy goal of eradicating Gnomelessness. He's also working on a new house plaque for Castle Argghhh! which we anticipate will be rather kewl. Ah, our ego knows no bounds!
Anyway - here's the object in question:

Another view.
The gridded background in the shots are 10mm squares, btw.
And the rather cryptic clue Murray provided...
What is it, why did it cost $15,000 to replace and what sort of "wings"
did I earn doing it?
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Looks to me like the brown thingy, which is 7 cm X 6 cm, is the lower lobe of someone's liver.
Maybe the replacement surgery cost $15,000 (but that's pretty cheap for liver transplant).
You don't get wings if your liver is damaged, but you could get a purpole heart if it's done in combat.
by
jeff B on May 21, 2006 10:03 AM
I'm guessing it is not a conch.
by JimC on May 21, 2006 11:41 AM
It's from a US made piece of equipment.
by
Murray on May 21, 2006 3:39 PM
The part of the tailhook that catches the cable on a carrier landing???
by
Mike47 on May 21, 2006 5:38 PM
Given Murray is a track lizzard, and its US equipment, its a broken expensive M113 thingie. When it broke the APC came to a sudden stop and Murray flew out ot the gunners hatch, over the Ma Duce hence the "Wings." Of course I could be wrong. OFS
by Old Fat Sailor on May 21, 2006 5:41 PM
Snerk! Nice snark, OFS! I put a fair number of miles on a M113, but I don't recognize that.
Of course, if it wasn't broken... it might be easier to recognize... and I always kept my M2 trained to one side or the other... for just that reason. Sudden stops.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 21, 2006 5:50 PM
There was no sudden stop, quite the opposite. And I never left my seat.
by
Murray on May 22, 2006 2:52 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
May 21, 2006
�
Stop The ACLU links with:
Sunday Funnies
February 12, 2006
Militaria Challenge.
Owen Dyer, a mildly leftish anti-Iraq-War contrarian who collects kewl stuff himself, dropped in yesterday and griped that I hadn't done a "teaser" contest lately. His interest? He sponsored our last one!
So Owen, this one's for you:

Rules - email your answers to johnbethd-at-yah00.com I'm turning comments off so you grognards don't spoil it for everyone.
I want to know what it is, what weapon system used it, and what is unique about this particular bit of kit. The answers are on the 'net, if your google-skills are up to it.
February 6, 2006
Fort Leavenworth Militaria Show
Saturday, SWWBO and I were off to St. Joe to do a little shooting. On the way out, we stopped at the Fort to put the horses out and muck the stables (we're back into poop-scooping because of a labor dispute at the Federal Prison. We hire inmates as staff at the stable - a good deal for both sides. I don't have to scoop poop, they get to spend their days at the stables doing work that is a little smelly at times, but hardly onerous.). Anyway, on our way in we see signs to a militaria show being held at the former Officer's Club, now grandiosely titled the Frontier Conference Center.
Not having been to a pure militaria show in a long time, we decided (yes, guys, with SWWBO's urging even) to attend.
Great show! Saw people I hadn't seen for a while, like Neil, the source of many of the bayonets and not a few rifles in the Arsenal, Jim Gebhardt, former co-worker who has provided many of the reference books in the Library - he has a sideline of translating russian books. Jim is also a gadfly of local media, like I am. And lots of cool stuff to look at and interesting people to talk to. A lot of re-enactors, too - more on that later.
One problem with militaria shows is they are *always* pricey. Mostly because it's collectors doing the selling... being collectors and not dealers, they tend to over-value their stuff, probably overpaid for it, and don't really want to sell it, anyway (like me!). But their spouse wants some of that crap outta the house.... "Gee, Honeybunch Snookums, no one was buying today, I don't know *what* the problem was..." is the usual line when they get home, and the stuff they *bought* gets snuck in later, under cover of darkness.
SWWBO had her usual good eye, and pointed out a 1999-2000 edition of Jane's Armour and Artillery for $35. Good price? You bet - take a look at Amazon for the current edition, or the same one I got. eBay isn't much better - though it *is* better. Thanks, sweetie!
If anyone wants to earn the Armorer's gratitude, snag a relatively recent Jane's Infantry Weapons (oh, heck, old ones are good, too) and donate it to the Library of Argghhh!
But that wasn't the best part. Besides seeing all the kewl stuff and running into old and current friends - I ran into two young Lieutenants just back from Iraq.
They were dressed out in WWII kit (and these gents were all of 10 days back from the Sandbox) one as a 35th ID troop (on the left), the other as a 1st ID troop (in the center). Both are artillery Lieutenants in the Kansas Guard who served as advisors to the Iraqi Army. And they got to see some really cool kit that is just sitting around in warehouses over there. Not too mention go on patrol with their Iraqis, arming themselves with a STEN gun... too cool, the Armorer's head almost exploded from envy.
They found lots and lots of old WWII era Brit stuff, some WWII German, and lots of more modern stuff as well. I helped them identify much of their kit they weren't sure of, showed them how some of it (like the WWI Brit artillery plotters) worked, and mostly listened to their tales from Iraq.

These guys found 200 (yes, that's 200 out of the 11,500 total produced) PIATs. While they couldn't find a legal way to get any of them home (they could have had a good start on college money for their kids if they could have) they did bring home some parts... and most importantly for the Arsenal - they brought home original CANVAS! The Castle PIAT has been dressed in repro canvas... but is now *proudly* decked out in original canvas... and that with an OIF connection. As you know, that is exactly how the Armorer likes it - stuff with some history, rather than pristine, made, stored, and never used! It's also cool to have some more stuff in the Castle Collection that has dust from the Land Between The Rivers clinging to it.
Having spent all that time bloviating with the LTs, (I am not a journalist... I didn't get their names, much to my chagrin - but, hopefully, they'll visit the Castle and drop me a line) I decided to do more than talk the talk, but I would walk the walk, as well. I went home, got the PIAT and some of the more portable Vickers kit, and went back.
THAT attracted some attention - not just from the LTs, who were pleased to see some of their stuff appreciated and utilized, but the Brit Para re-enactors... well, let's just say no one had seen a PIAT in the flesh and the Castle PIAT got fondled. A lot.
And I made some new friends... and some of the Castle holdings may make a few road trips to regional re-enactment events. Especially the PIAT and Vickers.
And I think next year, I'm going to rent a table (hey, it supports the Fort Leavenworth Historical Society) and do a display myself. Because that was just fun last Saturday.
Thank you for your service, Lieutenants - not just to the Castle PIAT, but more importantly, to the state, the nation, and hopefully, the Iraqis. We'll close with a shot of the baby-faced Lieutenant, who managed to do what I specifically warned him not to do - get the propelling charge for the PIAT stuck in the bomb (which took the combined intellect of SWWBO and I to get back out! - Oh shut up, no 'intellect' snarks!)
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Boy, I havn't posted in a while, but it sounds like you had a great time. And some great pictures as well. Too bad those LT's were not able to get some more of that stuff back. But I remember trying to get home with just a few things, and the customs MPs were very hard on me and many of my soldiers. Ended up having to leave about half of the stuff back. Of course, when I left, there was no consistancy in customs. Some would allow bayonetts, others would not. Some wouldn't let any Iraqi Military kit out, some could care less. I hope there is more consistancy now... I bet the D20 that our BN captured to take back to Ft. Benning was never sent, even though we did all of the proper paperwork, need to check back on that.
Anyway, thanks for the great post and I'm glad you had a great time.
by Sarenyon on February 6, 2006 7:46 AM
I've got Jim's excellent translation of the SVD Manual to go with my PSL (the Romanin version of the SVD). I may even have worked with Jim back when I worked for BDM on post in 1982-1983. When I got the book his named seemed very familiar...
by KCSteve on February 6, 2006 10:25 AM
No kidding... that LT is VERY baby-faced!
Sounds like you had a great time talking the talk, and even went back to walk the walk.
Very cool!
by AFSister on February 6, 2006 2:14 PM
You better hang on to SWWBO, John. Any lady who encourages you to attend a show like this, AND is good looking, is definitely a keeper....
by klkk on February 6, 2006 5:23 PM
Jayhawk Guardsmen, huh? Think I'll go cue up "Kansas Wildcats" by J.P. Sousa, Royal Artillery Band, conducted by Keith Brion, Naxos 8.559058. Hey, the disc happens to be in the machine already. *Sigh*! I'm such a band nerd...
by
Justthisguy on February 6, 2006 6:03 PM
"who managed to do what I specifically warned him not to do..."
*rolls eyes*
Lieutenants.
*shakes head*
by Mike Z on February 6, 2006 8:44 PM
The building is probably called the Conference Center because O-Clubs are all but dead, with exceptions at places such as Ft Benning, where they're kept on life support by forcing LTs at IOBC to join.
My whole time there, I only went into the club when we had our formals. Now, if they still had strippers at the I-Bar, I might have been there more. Stupid prissy GOs wife...
Not that strippers at an Army club would survive in today's PC genderintegrated Army anyway.
by
Heartless Libertarian on February 6, 2006 11:42 PM
I left the whole history of the Death of the Clubs alone. Too geeky. It wasn't just the strippers, HL. In the early 80's, tired of alcohol-related problems, the clubs were required to raise their liquor prices to meet outside-the-gate prices, and to eliminate any specials.
The dolts-in-charge thought that would actually raise revenue (because they'd still go to the clubs, right?) while decreasing alcohol-realated problems.
Riiiiight. What it did was *kill* the revenue, and the clubs, as everyone went outside the gate to their drinking... because it was cheaper, and that's where the girls went when the clubs quit having those events that drew the local girls to the clubs...
Slot machines helped keep the clubs in Europe alive.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 7, 2006 6:50 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 29, 2005
More militaria stuff...
Yesterday's post having hit a chord with some, here's a follow-up...
Obviously, aside from eating, you have to drink. The Castle Collection has *several* items in it related to drinking... heavily, in some cases.
Since this is a photo-heavy post, I'm going to put the rest in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
For example - drinking vessels...
What you see here on the left is a US Civil War era ginger beer bottle, recovered from a union campsite of the Atlanta Campaign. To the right front of that bottle is a German WWI enameled steel cup, recovered from a Verdun dugout. Behind that one, the dark tin cup is a US Indian Wars era soldiers drinking cup, provenance unknown, but probably just surplussed out of the warehouse where the Ark of the Covenant is stored, among all that other stuff. The brown enameled cup in the center is Brit WWII, but just a simple release from surplus stock. Behind that to the right is a Shultheiss beer bottle, German WWI, recovered from, I think, an Ypres dugout. Shultheiss is still brewing, btw. The small glass in front of that is a WWI German schnapps glass, from the same dugout as the enameled cup. This is another shot of that glass - which is as clean as it gets - it's etched and deformed (note it isn't round) from the time it spent buried, and possibly heat damage. The last, shiny cup on the right is Victorian-era British, also a surplus release from some forgotten storage site. Released in the 90's, mind you. 1990's.
Up until recently, the Big Piece in the Castle Assemblage of Artifacts was the Brit WWI rum jug, shown here.
The initials "SRD" stand for "Soldiers Rum Depot" or, as the soldiers preferred - "Seldom Reaches Destination" or "Suddenly Runs Dry." There has long been a tradition in Brit service of the rum ration, a "tot a day". Attached to the jug, as you would find them in the trenches, is a slightly anachronistic drinking cup - this one being Australian WWII and recovered from an outpost line machinegun position at Tobruk. In this pic you can see the "D-Broad Arrow-D" mark of Australian ownership. [Alan - if you can find the wicker wrap for one of these jugs and send it our way - we'd be even on Silly Hats (though I think the RCMP wouldn't care if you were to send cannon, tanks, or firearms this way...)]
But! The Artifact Holdings have expanded by an even bigger item - one that might perhaps explain some historical results... Many armies have used wine as a substitute for water (see the Romans, among others) as a way around using nasty local water supplies and for other perceived health benefits (aside from morale - though I'm given to understand that the Roman wine ration wasn't all that tasty, nor terribly alcoholic). The artifact also shows that "boxed" wine isn't an invention of 'Murican West Coast mass-vintners. Nope. Leave it to the French.
Say hello to the 1955-dated French Army "Vin" jug. Still serviceable, and which will be dispensing cheap wine at the Castle Blogmeet...
No shite, people.
Update: CAPT H provides the following Canadian cultural referents for SRD, which offer the very plausible explanation of SRD standing for Soldiers Rum, Demerara (Demerara being a type of rum made from Demerara sugar.)
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Mmm'lay... Exactly where/when IS the Castle Blogmeet?
The LGAMs are asking me, so I have to know...
by
Sgt. B. on December 29, 2005 3:59 PM
Well, the *where* is... here. The *When* is, TBD, collecting the "no-go" dates from people.
Target is late April-May-early June.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 29, 2005 4:01 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 19, 2005
Wednesday Wandering
One of the more interesting aspects of being the Officer of the Guard is that you get to chat with the troops pulling duty in between their shifts. I operated on the assumption that everybody opens up, even to an officer, over a cup of coffee at o'geezitzdark in the morning--I was usually right. F'r instance, one Balkan February eve I was trading "What I do in Real Life" stories with a couple of fellow-sufferers after we'd gone into the Guard Shack to thaw out from the thirty-below-zero ambient atmosphere and got this gem....
"One of the jobs I interviewed for was a teaching position in the local grade school. The interview went well, but I had a few things I needed to get straight, so when the interviewer asked, 'Do you have any questions?' I answered, 'Let me see if I've got this right...
" 'You want me to go into a room full of kids and fill their every waking moment with a love of learning. I'm supposed to instill a sense of pride in their ethnicity, modify their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse and censor their T-shirt messages and dress habits.
" 'You want me to wage a war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, check their backpacks for weapons and raise their self esteem.
" 'You want me to teach them patriotism, good citizenship, sportsmanship, fair play, how to register to vote, how to balance a checkbook and how to apply for a job.
" 'You want me to check their heads for lice, maintain a safe environment, recognize signs of anti-social behavior, make sure all students pass the state exams, including those who don't even show up with any regularity or complete any of their assignments.
" 'You want me to make sure that all of the students with handicaps get an equal education regardless of the extent of their mental or physical handicap.
" 'You want me to communicate regularly with the parents by letter, telephone, newsletter and report card.
" 'You want me to do all of that with a piece of chalk, a couple of books, a bulletin board and a big smile and do it on a starting salary that qualifies my family for food stamps.
" 'You want me to do all that and you expect me not to pray?!?' "
Heh. H/t to "Shayla, the Double-Digit Midget."
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Eccellent post! and so very true.
Cheers
RobC
by
RobC on October 19, 2005 7:00 AM
Rob, you wouldn't be a Latin teacher, by any chance...?
by cw4(ret)billt on October 19, 2005 7:17 AM
Great post! I flamed out as a teacher for those very expectations. I was a *teacher* left behind by this holistic blather.
by Joe on October 19, 2005 7:23 AM
I started out as a PoliSci major, and switched to Education. After taking a few classes, I realized the error of my ways and switched to Liberal Arts- Communications/Journalism. The teachers of this world deserve sooooo much more respect and pay!
Of course, that means absolutely nothing in the whole scheme of things because I'm in Finance now, lol.
by AFSister on October 19, 2005 9:52 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Oct 19, 2005
October 6, 2005
Militaria, kewl stuff, 1 ea.
I see that the SCOTUS kerfuffle and the right-wing's bizarre melt-down (does the Left *ever* get this hissy in it's intramurals?) has driven the war from the media. Add to that the OPSEC restrictions on the deployed milblogs making them less compelling, and I see the milbloggers are sinking slowly in the Ecosystem, as Miers, et.al, sucks up the linkage. Greyhawk bucks the trend.
I've not taken a stand on Miers. I'm slowly, painfully learning that my sense of politics, etc goes beyond 'tin ear'. Besides that, I can't compete with the stuff that Cassie puts out, so what-the-heck, at the moment, why bother? I'll watch and wait for the hearings.
Flip side, I don't feel near as compelled any more, either. Hence the return to more root-like stuff from the past, and even if the linkage is drying up, the visits aren't, so we're not driving everyone away, even if we can't get Dusty to stick his nose in anywhere, lately.
So - as I noted before, the List of Arms at Argghhh! has been essentially frozen due to budget considerations... but we can still squeeze out a shekel or two for the 'other stuff' I like.
Arriving yesterday - a French M15 Adrian helmet. The French were the first to put steel pots on their soldier's heads, and many US troops wore them (mostly the black troops we had serving with the French) instead of the Brody-style pie-plate helmet from WWI we're generally used to seeing. Both those photo links are from this excellent website of WWI photos. I've got several flavors of Adrian brain-buckets, but not an early version, with the riveted skirt and plaited leather chin strap. One of the interesting things the French did after the war was provide veterans with a brass plate that could be riveted to the helmet on the visor that said, in french, "Soldier of the Great War, 1914-1918." I finally got one, on eBay in an auction where the normal collectors were absent so it was affordable. This particular veteran was, I'd guess, Catholic. The Crucifix is not standard equipment. The flaming bomb is the symbol of the Infantry.
Two other things are interesting about this helmet - the corrugated aluminum ring that is part of the sweat band, between the band the and helmet shell, and the fact that this is a tiny helmet. I have a huge melon, so all helmets, even the custom-made kevlar I was issued, look small on this head... but this one must be the absolute smallest sized one. I'd post a pic of it sitting on top of my head, but I'd get sued by someone who busted a gut laughing...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
FWIW, I like what you do, John. I don't comment much because I don't have anything worthwhile to contribute. I just read and learn. That's nice for me.
by
Cassandra on October 6, 2005 9:32 AM
Yeah, second that emotion, Cassandra. Not having any military experience myself, I just find this stuff interesting and sometimes fun.
by April on October 6, 2005 10:14 AM
In my opinion, other than the Picklehauber, the funkiest looking helmet of the period is the Portuguese Fluted Helmet
Thanx Boss
by Boquisucio on October 6, 2005 12:32 PM
Yes, what Cassandra and April said. I have to say that I like the helmet though. Nice find. :-)
by MyssiAnn on October 6, 2005 5:25 PM
Yup, militaria are always cool and froody, whether or not they go boom. They're, well, so *earnest*. That helmet's a prime example of that. Anyone who'd preserve the hat, and decorate it both officially and personally, was obviously a very earnest fellow.
Definition of "earnest", Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Second Edition:
1. serious and intense; not joking or playful; zealous and sincere; deeply convinced; as, *earnest* in prayer; an *earnest* appeal.
2. intent; fixed. ...
3. serious; important; not trivial....
by Justthisguy on October 6, 2005 10:53 PM
Cassie:
"I don't comment much because I don't have anything worthwhile to contribute."
Doesn't stop me, why should it stop you?
Oh, a helmet named after our ex-Governor-General? Neat-o!
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 6, 2005 11:25 PM
Try to be a bit more earnest, Capt. H. I know that you have it in you.
by Justthisguy on October 7, 2005 12:06 AM
Okay: two maggots were fighting in dead Earnest ...
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 7, 2005 12:37 AM
Ow! I shoulda seen that one coming!
by Justthisguy on October 7, 2005 12:40 AM
'specially seeing that it's at least a hundred years old.
Owhell, I should know better than to try to cross wits with you.
Though I must say, maggots are often beneficial in debriding wounds in live folks.
There might be a serious scientifico-spiritual object of study, here. If maggots eat dead folks, how do zombies manage to walk around uneaten and uncorrupted for as long as they are reputed to do?
Should we try to find out if zombies are attended by more, or fewer, flies, than other dead folks?
by Justthisguy on October 7, 2005 1:03 AM
"...how do zombies manage to walk around...uncorrupted for as long as they are reputed to do?"
Well, for one thing, they avoid this blog when certain Denizennes throw a chandelier soire...
by cw4(ret)billt on October 7, 2005 7:29 AM
Waitaminute....
Are you telling me that there are *still* uncorrupted zoomies around here? WHERE? I don't see any!
oh. zombies.
nevermind....
by AFSister on October 7, 2005 2:18 PM
There are obviously no flies on Chief(ret.)Bill.
by Justthisguy on October 7, 2005 10:52 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
September 30, 2005
The Militaria Bar of Argghhh!
Since the Castle Exchequer is busy funding universities and accelerated payoffs so that one day the Master and Mistress may actually, perhaps, stop doing the 7-6 drudge, additions to the Arsenal have been slight, as pretty much all the cheap firearms to be had already reside in the racks, and the remaining (plenty of 'em, to be sure) residents of the 'want list' are, well, not cheap.
This doesn't mean that the Armorer is totally bereft of new toys and gadgets. Rather, it means he's filling in the corners of the other bits and pieces of soldier-related stuff he likes to get.
Here is the Bar at Argghhh!
Its been featured before. It even drew an aghast email from a GFW! For the record, we took the GFW's warning to heart. The Bar is no longer in the kitchen. It's out in the living room, so the rifle is handy when I feel the need to shoot out the talking head on television. Of course, I don't do that very often anymore... see opening paragraph.
The bar is home to a Boer rifle captured during the eponymous war by New Zealand soldiers. The brass scope is a brit artillery sight from the same era. One the end of the bar, the rectangular thing on the overhead part is an Australian "Two-Up" game stick and coins. Hanging from the end there are two tin cups, one Brit, one German, similar to the ones these gents are sharing. We've got rum jugs, beer bottles, schnapps glasses (all legit, battlefield recoveries) and trench art.
This week, I got a new gizmo. More properly, two gizmos, nestled at the bottom of the ABCA bud vase there (which currently serves as a swizzle-stick holder) - the little bullet-looking things.
They're German-made, having "Bavaria" stamped on them. They were made for English-speakers - they have "Take a Shot" embossed on them. And they're cool, almost like a Babushka doll - one has 4 tiny shot glasses nested in it - the other is a lighter (needs a wick and flint, but it's otherwise in great shape).
I just knew you wanted to know. Oh, and SWWBO - they were cheep, too!
Update: Per BCR's request.
Now, you need to get the labs working on that matter-transference gizmo we've talked about!
This one is for SWWBO!
Both contain 4 shots of Especial, 2 shots Cointreau, 2 shots Grand Marnier, and by that time, a little mix. Prosit!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Nice bar! May I have a gargantuan Margarita, plzz? Only one more week before I de-Borg!
by
Bad Cat Robot on September 30, 2005 1:26 PM
Indeed you may - frozen, or on-the-rocks, w/salt, or sans?
by
John of Argghhh! on September 30, 2005 1:29 PM
Froze, with salt. Did I mention huge? ;-) Vielen Dank!
by
Bad Cat Robot on September 30, 2005 1:36 PM
Your wish is granted, Madam. There's a rocks, salt one up, as well.
Good thing the Armorer isn't going anywhere this afternoon.
Oh, wait, he's going to use Power Toolz!
Heh. Wonder if the police will follow me to the hospital again...
by
John of Argghhh! on September 30, 2005 1:56 PM
[The bar] even drew and aghast email from a GFW!
Didn't anyone ever tell you guns and booze don't mix?
It just gets them all wet and then they rust.
by Masked Menace on September 30, 2005 2:16 PM
I'll take one of those, partner. I'll even pretend not to look at your gun if you mix it just right.
by
kat-missouri on September 30, 2005 2:22 PM
*bellies up to the bar*
Hey bartender! Gimme summa dat too... pretty please? On the rocks, no salt and a lime? Don't make me beg... makes my knees hurt.
*grin*
by Were-Kitten on September 30, 2005 2:28 PM
*wanders in from hours spent blogging her fingers to the bone*
It's friday! I'll take one Cosmopolitan with vodka, please. *smiles sweetly and purrs*
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on September 30, 2005 2:32 PM
I like mine simple and unadorned. Could I just have a scotch on the rocks, please? I can't promise I won't look at the gun, though.
by April on September 30, 2005 2:35 PM
That Frosty Drink looks fantastic. Though I dunno about the use of Fantastik in it.
SNARK - SNERK - SNORK ;>
by Boquisucio on September 30, 2005 2:40 PM
*sluuuurp* Aaaah! My outlook on life is MUCH better now. Thanks, O Armorer!
by
Bad Cat Robot on September 30, 2005 2:42 PM
Ladies, the rifle is there for looking and fondling. For access to the gun, you'll have to go through SWWBO!
by
John of Argghhh! on September 30, 2005 2:43 PM
Oh, that's right--I meant the rifle! I married a Marine, I should have known better!
by April on September 30, 2005 2:52 PM
Um, Boq - Fantastik?
by
John of Argghhh! on September 30, 2005 2:53 PM
Yes'm Boss. The Fantastik that you dramed on right before Mr. Jos Cuervo. Then again, its surfactant qualities may be the best tonic to an upset tummy.
by Boquisucio on September 30, 2005 3:05 PM
Frozen, no salt fer me- make it a double, and hurry! Gotta go power up the sabre saw and cut some new porthole covers (don't ask...)
Later, kids...
by Neffi on September 30, 2005 3:20 PM
Ah! So Fantastik is *not* some slang term for Especial, Cointreau, or Grand Marnier. Whew!
by
John of Argghhh! on September 30, 2005 3:52 PM
Hey! Yes'm? Not Yessir?
by
John of Argghhh! on September 30, 2005 3:55 PM
Actually, Sweetheart, though I totally love your margarita's, I took great pains to teach the barboys here at the hotel how to make a proper margarita.
They squeezed fresh oranges and limes to make the mixer part - good young English boy-bartenders! I gave them a nice tip, and now everytime I walk by - which I must do whenever I go out or come in, it's Oh, Mrs. Donovan, how are you today? Or Mrs. Donovan, are you going to come have a margarita tonight? Or Oh, Mrs. Donovan, let me tell you this story.
Hee.
by
Beth on September 30, 2005 4:00 PM
John, I think maybe Boq has already reached his limit, huh? ;)
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on September 30, 2005 4:00 PM
Hmmmm. Mebbe I shouldn't let you go outta town so much... at least it's *Mrs*... heeheehee!
by
John of Argghhh! on September 30, 2005 4:17 PM
Hee! Time to cut me off, me liker.
by Boquisucio on September 30, 2005 5:13 PM
WOW! I never saw the Castle bar before... The Man will be quite jealous when I tell him about it!
Is it OK if I just have a beer... it doesn't look like it has dancing room and that's what mixed drinks always end up doing to me ;)
by
ALa on September 30, 2005 5:38 PM
ALa - ya don't dance on the bar... ya dance where the *pole* is...
But sure, you can have a beer.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 30, 2005 5:52 PM
HOH- yas, ALa- you come dance where Pole iz!!! Andre haz many zlotneys for luffly blond Yankee wimmens, you bet!
(Tinks) hmmm, she got pistols type guns; mebbe I bess play hard to get...
by Andre the Pole on September 30, 2005 8:18 PM
Can you have one of those ready in about 40 minutes, when I get home? (wouldn't want to drink and drive, would I?) On the rocks, with salt, pretty please?
by
Barb on September 30, 2005 8:21 PM
yesssssssssss
John's putting the poles up!
Grab on ALa.... wheeeeee!
by Were-Kitten on September 30, 2005 8:41 PM
Just lemmee sit over here in a quiet corner with a glass of India Pale Ale, and my screwdrivers and wrenches...
by Justthisguy on September 30, 2005 10:25 PM
We used to go to Tijuana and we'd order generic Jose Cuervo, the kind that still comes in a rectangular bowling pin-shaped bottle. This was because we discovered they didn't have 1800 in Tijuana. But, you know what? That generic Cuervo was 10 times better than the equivalent bottle in Los Angeles, and almost as good as 1800. And each shot was about 75 cents (this was 10 years ago). And the bottle itself was half what it cost 10 miles away in Chula Vista.
Don't miss Tijuana. We may not be able to party in Havana like they did 50 years ago. But, for a simple train ride from downtown San Diego, its pretty damn fun. And be sure to go downtown. Its a darn good place to have fun.
by Tom Burk on October 1, 2005 12:13 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Sep 30, 2005
�
Stop The ACLU links with:
Sunday Funnies
September 9, 2005
Since Boquisucio needs help..
...with his Rangefinder ID, here is the Castle's Barr and Stroud Rangefinder that is part of our Vickers kit. Also in the pic are a Carl Gustav 84mm recoilless rifle and a PIAT. The Gustav and PIAT are for use against people who drive tanks or hide in bunkers. People like that, well, they suck. Of course, the sorry jerks who gave the PIAT to the Brit soldier in WWII suck too. But that's a different story.
Next up is a sample of the Castle Argghhh! LRS, Looter Repellent System. Rabbit ears (German made, ex-Argentine) for target acquisition, sniper loop w/rifle for retail responses, Max the Maxim should a more robust response be needed.
The minefield sign doesn't hurt, either.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
... and Gunners BLOW, BIG TIME, like hurricane Ophelia!
Take that, you Arty person! I pick my nose at you!
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on September 9, 2005 7:30 AM
And this after I was nice to you Canuckistanians and posted pics of the Navy responding to Katrina.
Fie!
Tankers still suck!
by
John of Argghhh! on September 9, 2005 7:38 AM
Long Rod Penetrators!
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on September 9, 2005 9:52 AM
Feh, John. Ask any target you're trying to penetrate... they prefer width to length.
LRP's are definitely sub-caliber and arrive too quickly.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 9, 2005 9:56 AM
Ya'll need to uncock your pistols and put them back in their holsters.
the truth is, if you cananot deliver on target everytime for more than thirty minutes, penetrate the target, regardless of types of barriers, and insure less than 3% failure rate, you will not make it in this woman's army.
Might as well send you back to the mess as a baker's mate.
by
kat-missouri on September 9, 2005 10:08 AM
***PapaGulf-17 twitches into coniptions***
by Boquisucio on September 9, 2005 10:45 AM
What's wrong with talking about artillery and ammunition, Boq? *looking around innocently*
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on September 9, 2005 10:50 AM
Kat, 30 minutes Heh..not a problem.. and I can GUARANTEE 100% success rate, and then some... and multiple 'targets'.....
*i think the PG-17 just ran into a hole to hide...*
by klkk on September 9, 2005 1:14 PM
I agree K-MO, a long and sustained FFE Heavy Arty Barrage, is what is requied to fulfill the mision, no matter how reinforced the target may be.
FbL, there's nuthin' wrong about discussing Arty and Ammo. It's just that ol' PapaGulf-17 gets sparking too easily. ;)
Oh and Boss, that Barr&Stroud standing rigidly on that mount, is sure to find the range to any required target.
***BZZZZTZAAAP*** ***SNAP-SNAP***
"Down boy - DOWN"
by Boquisucio on September 9, 2005 1:46 PM
When we get to ramming the round to seat the projectile and then tossing in the powder, bending over, peering in the breech and saying "Charge 6 White Bag, I see Red!", the PG-17c will consult its glossary and just... *twitch*.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 9, 2005 1:57 PM
did i just hear the sound of an angel's wings getting clipped? LOL
you folks are just...just...BAD!
by
alix on September 9, 2005 2:04 PM
no, alix, we are very, very, VERY good.....
by klkk on September 9, 2005 2:09 PM
And humble, too! ROFL
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on September 9, 2005 2:15 PM
hehe.
by
alix on September 9, 2005 3:17 PM
*still here, quietly stirring the fire*
Ooop.
*brushes errant ember from 27" zipper*
by cw4(ret)billt on September 9, 2005 3:18 PM
*fans self*
Long Rod Penetrators; width; deliver on target; multiple 'targets'; standing rigidly; 27" zipper....
must...resist...POLE DANCING....
oh, SO hard to resist!
by MAWK on September 9, 2005 3:55 PM
Easy there MAWK. At this pace PapaGulf-17 MOD C will burn out a fuze before sundown. We do not want him to be out of commission for the rest of the week-end.
by Boquisucio on September 9, 2005 4:04 PM
Weekend... Do I hear the stirrings of a (careful now!) Castle Party?! Nahhh.... surely not. :)
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on September 9, 2005 4:22 PM
Acquiring the target requires extensive knowledge concerning positioning of the weapon and using the range finding equipment. You should know how to work the elevation screw in case of a system failure requiring manual override.
by
kat-missouri on September 9, 2005 4:28 PM
Before the inroduction of electronic equipment and contained ammunition, the gun captain would select appropriate elevation using an elevation screw. He would eye the target and, using calculations learned from long years of school and practice, adjust the proper angle of the gun. He would use a number of types of ammunition with the most effective being the explosive ball. Though, the ball and chain ammunition could cause extensive damage to the enemy's masts.
Keeping the powder dry in wet conditions was extremely difficult. The balls would be lit using a specifically measured fuse. Once the balls were seated and the gun was raised to the proper elevation, another fuse would be lit causing the large bore weapon to eject it's ammunition.
A gunner's mate would be standing by to swab the gun whenever it became overheated.
by
kat-missouri on September 9, 2005 4:49 PM
Speaking of mine warnings... here's a souvenior I brought back from my deployment to the Zone in the late 70s.
Hope nobody wandered into the field after I took the sign... heh
by Neffi on September 9, 2005 5:30 PM
Yep, counterfeit assignations.
by Justthisguy on September 9, 2005 5:45 PM
Ah, Boqui? That's Fuse with an Ess? The electrical kind, not the kind that sputters and makes yummy smoke and then causes something to go boom?
Pedantic, c'est Moi! Heinrichs ain't in it!
(He was normal enough that the docs let him join up. Well, he may have memorized the answers to the psychological tests...)
by Justthisguy on September 9, 2005 6:02 PM
Ah - I stand corrected JTG
by Boquisucio on September 9, 2005 6:23 PM
Scruffy The Scruple sez: DID SOME ONE SAY PARTAY!!!.
by Boquisucio on September 9, 2005 6:36 PM
Boq, that is one ugly kitty...
Looks like she could use a maragarita!
[kick] [kick] [kick] Oh... turns on gas valve
kick... sput pop sput varoomm............
...and the Harley powered Margarita-Matic purrs into life......
by Neffi on September 9, 2005 6:50 PM
Hi, Neffi! *waves*
Got any Cosmopolitans around?
*snuggles down in the couch*
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on September 9, 2005 6:55 PM
Damn..kat knows balls as much as she does oranges.....
by klkk on September 9, 2005 9:04 PM
oh...sorry..CANNON balls... just wanted to clarify that...
by klkk on September 9, 2005 9:06 PM
Not in the mood to Par-Tay, m'self, aged Daddy being in h'ptal and maybe leaving planet sometime soon, but will look in from time to time, for distraction, to keep from going completely batso.
Dang! That's a damper, ain't it! No, really, y'all have a good time, I'll stop by now and then, just to keep from getting too weird.
Whoops! Already too late for that.
by Justthisguy on September 9, 2005 9:22 PM
cannon balls, oranges...you're all a buncha coconuts! :oD
by
alix on September 9, 2005 10:49 PM
I'll be spending today in writing salacious proposals to the government in an effort to entice them to have their way with me... for money.
We know what I am... we're just negotiating on price.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 10, 2005 8:35 AM
Since the original theme of this was guns, thought I'd give you an update. Remember back in March, I went to the range and earned the German Schutzenschnur? Well, I finally got it in the mail yesterday, and they apparently awarded me the Gold medal. I thought they had said Silver at the range, but then again they were speaking German. So I earned the Gold, AND I get to wear it...(neener, neener...)
by msg keith on September 10, 2005 9:48 PM
Since the original theme of this was guns, thought I'd give you an update. Remember back in March, I went to the range and earned the German Schutzenschnur? Well, I finally got it in the mail yesterday, and they apparently awarded me the Gold medal. I thought they had said Silver at the range, but then again they were speaking German. So I earned the Gold, AND I get to wear it...(neener, neener...)
by msg keith on September 10, 2005 9:50 PM
Heh. Well, okay, we have the same one, you get to wear it... and I think I'll check my paycheck stub...
Plllppppttt!
by
John of Argghhh! on September 10, 2005 10:47 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 9, 2005
John Is Still Alive
And he still has my e-addy. I guess this means I'm *off* probation, cuz he sent the following my way:
In response to Damien Cave's essay in the New York Time, which asked the question "Where Are the War Heroes?", I've declared the week of August 7 through August 14 WAR HEROES WEEK on my blog. I will be featuring stories about the heroes of the War on Terror, some from my website AMERICAN HEROES, and some new stories.
Heroes like Paul Smith, Medal of Honor, do receive some publicity from the Old Media. But there are others, like Capt. Kellie McCoy whose only recognition may be in the press release issued by the military. I hope to change that, just a little, by featuring these men and women this week.
Chuck Simmins
You Big Mouth, You!
I like the way Chuck thinks...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
by
CW4BillT
on
Aug 09, 2005
July 27, 2005
Hmmm. Changing programs, checking guns, and surplus sales..
...when you rename a program, it's usually because it has garnered enough bad publicity that you are trying to drop the baggage. Which means, of course, as an analyst, you dig deeper to see what's being hidden.
Sounds like they do that elsewhwere, too.
I see that Gunner noticed, as well.
While we're doing this - let's link to Alphecca's Weekly Check on the Bias, too! (Worth it for the pics alone!)
Then there's this - calling all old farts! Remember those old Desk, Double Pedestal, Steel, that inhabited the Dayroom, CQ station, First Sergeant's and CO's offices?
Guess what! For Three Thousand Dollars - you can have a restored one! Yessireebob! Courtesy, Restoration Hardware! As observed in the email revealing this Decorator's Dream:
Remember the gray/cream colored steel "Desk, Double Pedestal" that furnished every Army Orderly Room? Restoration Hardware now refurbishes and sells them for $2000! And, you can get a recovered Army swivel chair for $1195!
$3300 for your den to look like a 1985 CQ dayroom. There's something ironically funny going on here. The DRMO staff are all driving Porsches.
Hee! I know better - my ratty unrefinished desk cost me $30 when I bought it at Fort Sill 10 years ago...
Yessir! I already got me a Tanker Desk! And better yet, it still has the markings on it from the old Pershing Missile PM office!
If you want one of your very own, just click here!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
You know, I would be willing to let our 'tanker desk' go for as low as $500.00. (hee hee)
Just contact me at my blog - you will have to come and pick the darn thing antique desk up from our house, though.
by
Beth on July 27, 2005 10:57 AM
Thanks so much, John, I really appreciate your mentions of my "Weekly Check". You're one of the few that still do. And yes! Robert Langham's (Blackfork6) calendar photos are things of beauties; I'm lucky he offered them to me to post.
--Jeff
by
Jeff Soyer on July 27, 2005 11:22 AM
Heh. Gee, Beth, I get the impression you are *not* impressed with my frugality...
by
John of Argghhh! on July 27, 2005 11:23 AM
I'm reading and laughing because I'm sitting in one of those swivel chairs right now! Everybody asks why I don't get a new one, but I ensist on sitting on a 'real' Army chair when I do Army work. I guess if civilians have accepted $22m for an airplane & $600 for a hammer, $1200 for a dumpy chair is not unreasonable...
by Mike Greene on July 27, 2005 1:38 PM
LOL!! In the civilian world, these are known as "Teacher Desks" and "Teacher Chairs."
"Everything old is new again..."
by Fuzzybear Lioness on July 27, 2005 1:41 PM
I have an old from the forties oak desk with the Indiana Oak logo in the middle drawer. That desk is where we stash the desk top PC, the bills and
I wouldn't part with it at all. It is the best desk we have ever had.
by Cricket on July 27, 2005 4:05 PM
I had one of those desk in college...got it for $10, just like you, only mine came from the Lawrence Livermore Lab's version of DRMO. I'll bet you can still get them there, too.
And some offices (like, say, the one I just vacated) still have them.
by
Heartless Libertarian on July 27, 2005 10:47 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
July 19, 2005
Taps...
...and our ranks diminish by yet one more.
Pax tibi, Westy.
H/T Bloodspite.
Jeff Quinton has more.
Now is the time at Castle Argghhh! when we dance: In Memoriam.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Thanks CW4 ^^
by
BloodSpite on July 19, 2005 2:33 AM
Thanks, Bill. I grew up in Westmoreland County - and during the Vietnam War, I assumed that the name was because of Gen. Westmoreland ... which of course wasn't true. Not being the history type, I've never run down the actual connection (if any) between the source of the county name and the General.
by
Barb on July 21, 2005 1:22 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Jul 19, 2005
May 3, 2005
Another good justification for capital punishment
Oh, crap...
I've heard of only one thing worse than this. The even-more-heinous act was middle-of-the-night phone calls to Air Force wives whose husbands were flying in Vietnam, callers masquerading as USAF casualty notification officers telling them their husbands had been killed over Hanoi. That happened to our next-door neighbor. Even though she knew this was a harassment tactic by the anti-war crowd (probably parents of today's average Daily Kos denizen), she was momentarily panicked...and who can blame her?
Now, most of the ladies knew that this wasn't how the process worked and it sounds like today's family members are savvy enough to not fall for this sort of thing, but what kind of mind dreams this shite up?
HT to BLACKFIVE
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
The prompt delivery of 9.41 pounds of DU is inorder. these two skivvie stains deserve to be mounted on a saub target lifter and be used as thermal pannels on the long range mover on Tank Table VIII
by mudpuppy1975 on May 3, 2005 3:57 PM
Heh.
by
Instapilot on May 3, 2005 4:13 PM
Went over there and left , I'm afraid, a rather hot-tempered and hastily-thought comment. I was so hasty that I misspelled the name of The Castle. Please forgive me, Sir.
by Justthisguy on May 3, 2005 4:36 PM
That is just plain evil - and while I am not sure what specific ordinance or technology MudPuppy1975 is describing, I am wholly in favor of delivering it in this case. Time to go leave a nastygram of my own...
by
Barb on May 3, 2005 5:09 PM
Barb
What I believe he is refering to is what's called a sabot round from a tank. It does wonders at defeating enemy armor and turning the contents of enemy tanks & armored vehicles into explosions & pink mist.
by James on May 3, 2005 7:52 PM
Depleted Uranium sabot... but too quick for those scumbuckets. For them, I'd go 'medieval'... Spanish Inquisition* style.
*wait for it...
by Neffi on May 3, 2005 8:25 PM
Um, Barb, I think that the mudpuppy fellow, in the second part of his message, may have been thinking about using the culprits as targets to shoot at, in some kind of automated shooting-at-targets system that the Army, or somebody, has.
Neffi: I did mention the strappado. I didn't get as far as to mention hanging, drawing, and quartering. Traditional English punishments for traitors were much harsher than anything those friars in Spain ever thought of.
Hey, we're the people who bred Pit Bulls, and laughed and drank while watching bear baiting. I may be mostly Celtic m'self, but I do have a streak of cold-blooded Saxon nastiness in the back of my head, somewhere. Compliance with my wishes will ensure that I don't have to rouse it out, and let it flow.
by Justthisguy on May 3, 2005 8:39 PM
Just Kiddin' about my Bad Saxon Traits! (Well, mostly)
by Justthisguy on May 3, 2005 8:54 PM
Tank Table VIII (Fort Hood or Graf?) = A place where tanks shoot real bullets at stuff.
Saub target lifter = device used to raise and lower targets on a target range (see above), I believe
DU = Depleted Uranium; a penetrator rod wrapped in plastic and stuck inside a big shell, (kind of like putting a .22 inside a .357 sheel). These are spent fuel rods, but still radioactive, safe until the paint is worn off--a few Italians died of radiation poisoning a few years ago after picking up and keeping these rods.
Skivvie stains = brown streaks on the underwear
Thermal pannels on the long range mover = 3-5 Klicks out, a moving target with a heat source used by the tanks to aim at (they can target heat signatures now too).
Basically, nail the bad guys to the target and shoot at them in the dark.
But Neffi's right. Way too quick, they'd be dead before they heard the shot. Velly, velly fast moving bullet...
A better punishment would be to take the bad guys to 29 Palms (or maybe Fallujah) and give them to the Marines.
~SangerM
by SangerM on May 3, 2005 9:43 PM
Barb - this will help, even though it will cause some denizens to twitter...
Long Rod Penetrator. Open link in a new window for best viewing.
by
John of Argghhh on May 3, 2005 11:20 PM
Oooh - I LIKE it, very kewl ;-)
Stimulating name, too - LOL!
by
Barb on May 3, 2005 11:58 PM
Actually, Tank Table VIII (and it's brother, Bradley Table VIII) only use semi-real bullets-training rounds instead of service rounds. With the HEAT/HE rounds, non-explosive rounds are used (less expensive, no duds downrange). With the sabot rounds (yes, Bradleys have them too), it's a matter of Surface Danger Zone-the area downrange where a stray round could, in theory, land. For service sabot Bradley rounds, I know, the SDZ was a whopping 14 km. I'd imagine with service tank rounds it's even bigger. Training rounds reduce that to something more manageable, like around 4-5 km for the Brads.
Still, I wouldn't want to get hit by one of the buggers.
I say put 'em downrange on a Vulcan range, and slowly chew off their extremities.
by
Heartless Libertarian on May 4, 2005 5:40 AM
No, we don't need to be so elaborate...
Put these yobbos to good use..
Send them to Iraq... after a quickie mine clearing course ;-) On the understanding that they will be shot out of hand if anyone is blown up in areas they had supposedly cleared.
If they survive, they will at least learn respect for their betters.
by LUCIUS SEVERUS PERTINAX on May 4, 2005 7:31 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
April 28, 2005
Off the dime.
SGT B. of The Gun Line had been pretty quiet recently, so the other night I visited his site to see what hed been up to, and to see what his collection of commenters had to say about his piping. While browsing the comments, I came across a familiar name: Huntress.
Huntress was the callsign of the AWACS bird patrolling off the East Coast. Id worked a couple of joint ops with the Eye-in-the-Sky crews during the eighties and nineties, and, wondering if Huntress might be a new milblog started by an old associate, I stopped by.
Whoops. Entirely too pastel for a milblog, even an Air Force one. Blogger chick, I thought, then started to read the post Id bumped into.
I was dead wrong. Not a blogger chick, a Lady.
And the Lady was hurt--shed just lost a friend.
Stream of consciousness. Sadness, anger, grief. Outright misery. And a kick in the butt that finally got me to do this
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Id like you, my new friends, to take a short walk with me to meet some of my old friends. Theyre waiting for us at Fiddlers Green. This way. Ill talk as we go, okay?
Now, for the benefit of you denizens and visitors who arent quite sure what--or where--Fiddlers Green is, Ill give you a quick briefing. Fiddlers Green is a waypoint, a rest halt for us military types who have stepped out of the Dance and started a longer journey.
Its a place where we can kick back and have a last beer or two before continuing to our final assignment--The Proprietor set it up as kind of a decompression chamber for us uniformed types after weve passed through the various hells
And, since Fiddlers Green serves only beer, and were only visiting, The Proprietor has allowed me to drag the rita-matic along for the Ladies.
Oooop--forgot to mention that General Order #1 is different here: No Tears. Mouring time is over--this is a party, not a weep-fest.
Heh. Were there already. Toldja it was a short walk.
See those low tables under the trees? The kids wearing those two patches? Well, mostly kidsand a couple of older guys who only got here bout a month ago
Please click on Extended Entry to continue...
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Pilots. Crewchiefs. Doorgunners.
My friends from a long time ago.
I flew with each of them...
Ladies and Gentlemen, Visitors and Denizensnew friends, I present to you, my old friends:
WO1 Paul Anderson
CPT Frank Brinson
CPT Steve Carr
WO1 Bob Colatruglio
SP5 Denny Dillon
WO1 Danny Hallows
SP5 Benny Halstead
WO1 Danny Herndon
SP5 Larry Jacobson
WO1 Bill Laurence
PFC Jim Lenz
SP4 Joe Lutz
WO1 Ed Melody
WO1 Larry Moore
WO1 Gerry OConnor
WO1 Alex Spence
SP4 Larry Susi
SP4 Wayne Tawney
CW2 Jim Thompson
Jake! Scout! Muffy! Drag that rita-matic over here! KCbring the cups!
Okay, Im gonna pull up a beer and go trade war stories. Lots of spare chairs, guys...and we're only visiting...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Thanks, John.
Pilot graphic courtesy of Walt Sharpes, who's good at that stuff.
And drop in to visit Huntress. She's one of the Good Guys, too...
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
The next round of beer or pink 'rita gets raised to the men of the 162nd -- those gone ahead, and those who are with us, and who keep their memory alive. Cheers, gentlemen!
by
Barb on April 28, 2005 12:24 AM
CW4BillT...I broke rule number 1. And I'm trying not be such a baby. Even tough gals with guns cry (shhh, please don't tell anyone!) Who would have thought a butterfly could try and parade as to be anything other than gentle?
I can't say enough about how heartfelt and thoughtful both, yours and Sgt. B's, posts were. And that's what makes me smile. Thank you.
by
Desult on April 28, 2005 1:03 AM
"entirely too pastel for milblog EVEN an Air Force one" ROFLMFAO! OMG...thats hilarious!
Huntress does seem like the perfect callsign for the AWACS, she is after all, a bird of prey!
But let's dispel one rumour before it makes it way too deep into the blogosphere...I have been called many things, some that would make a Marine blush, but even I'm not under any illusions about being a lady, my friend. ROFLMFAO! A blogger chick definately..but lady...well......You might want to check out the second comment of mine on a milblog by Ma Deuce Gunner, under a post titled: Are We Winning?
There is a reason why, I, in my four inch stilleto's, have been classified as a weapon of mass destruction .......................or was it distraction??? ROFL!
All kidding aside, I am honoured to be visiting Fiddler's Green with you.
*Throws back a tequila shooter*
Here's to old friends, gone...but never forgotten!
*Throws back another shooter*
Lets party!
by
Huntress on April 28, 2005 3:09 AM
[*sounds of beer mugs clinking 'rita and Tres Generaciones glasses*]
by cw4billt on April 28, 2005 5:54 AM
Darn it, Desult, turn off the waterworks--you're diluting your beer!
by cw4billt on April 28, 2005 5:56 AM
BillT: *Pass me a cold one*
by AB on April 28, 2005 6:03 AM
Billt, *gasps* I'll never DO that. LOL.
AB, we'll do that over the weeked, girl.
by
Desult on April 28, 2005 6:06 AM
AB and Desult - Here's to an early start on the weekend...
[*passes two iced mugs of molson's*]
by cw4billt on April 28, 2005 6:25 AM
Um, yer welcome, Bill, though I can't figure out what yer thanking me for. 'Course, I'm sicker'n a dog with this flu or whatever SWWBO passed me in New Orleans, so I may have missed something.
I'll take one 'o those shots, though. Got a few ghosts of my own.
by
John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2005 7:23 AM
To friends and comrades, and brothers who have gone before...
*clink*
by Fuzzybear Lioness on April 28, 2005 7:31 AM
John - Think e-mail. Think subject Irish Wake.
You were right. I needed it. Thanks again.
FbL, Ma'am - Allow me the pleasure of refilling that glass for ya...
by cw4billt on April 28, 2005 7:59 AM
[*passes john a double shot of tres generaciones with molson chaser*]
by cw4billt on April 28, 2005 8:01 AM
Ah. More than 24 hours ago. Brain not retain much past that.
You'll like the post above, too, I think. Cheesy, and I *did* let Neffi sneak into it.
by
John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2005 8:09 AM
What are ya trying to do, Bill--get me drunk? And before I even leave the house! :)
Ah, well...
To the 162nd!
by Fuzzybear Lioness on April 28, 2005 8:13 AM
Drunk, FbL Ma'am? Nope. The effects of anything imbibed at Fiddler's Green remain at Fiddler's Green.
The only effects that should linger are positive...
by cw4billt on April 28, 2005 8:41 AM
I have lifted my glass and toasted these brave men on many an occasion and will again in the future. There sacrifice was large, their lives short. But, should they have tarried long at Fiddlers Green and are still drinking their beer when, at last, I pass by, it will be my honor to drink with them once more.
STS! Vulture 29
by Jim Ewart on April 28, 2005 8:45 AM
Two-Niner, this is One-Five on Victor:
Thanks, Jim. Glad you made it over...[*clink*]
One-Five, Out.
by cw4billt on April 28, 2005 8:59 AM
I don't know what to say. I'll skip the pink-ritas today and lift my stein to all those who walk through the green. Thank you one and all.
by
Punctilious on April 28, 2005 9:26 AM
May a non drinker join in the salutes?
I lift my glass to the men and women who did
their duty unflinchingly.
I had more, but well, uh, thank you all.
*wipes a tear or several*
by Cricket on April 28, 2005 10:18 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen: To Absent Comrades, whether Air, Sea, or Ground... May we live life for them, and put some fang marks in the glass in their honor. And to US, the poor bast*rds left behind to spin the wild yarns and tell the tales of warrior gods, and revel in the privilage of having associated with them, as well as with the most excellent company as we drink with this day!
Ooh-Rah!
*hoists dram of f-i-i-i-ine Kentucky bourbon*
Okay, no maudlin crap here, tell me of the days when you swept in over the trees, catching tree top branches in your skids, to deliver a thousand highly motivated bad-a$$es, armed to the teeth, to the bad guys' back yard... Or screamed in like the hammer of GOD to put steel on target... Or generated the Thunder of the Gods as a battery of 155 millimeters performed urban renewal, Artillery style...
Yesterday was for gentle thoughts of warm and fuzzies... Today, tell me of hot steel, cold nerves, and pure, unmitigated FIREPOWER!
by Sgt. B. on April 28, 2005 10:32 AM
Sorry, Sully went to his therapy class today, and Godzilla is in the house...
*throws back another*
Gawd, my eyeteeth are itching... I wanna bite someone...
by
Sgt. B. on April 28, 2005 10:37 AM
Lunchtime: Refill needed of some Triple X
by
Desult on April 28, 2005 11:57 AM
Sgt. B, Godzilla is perfectly welcome here, of course! :)
by Fuzzybear Lioness on April 28, 2005 12:03 PM
Got me myself a cabinet full of 1820 & Trs Generaciones. Let the libations begin!
by Boquisucio on April 28, 2005 12:35 PM
*switching from bourbon to a nice Belgian Blonde Ale, cause I just got around to reading the rules of the Green - beer only...*
So, how about some remembrances of the good times? Tell us about the days when things weren't so bad, and there was more laughter than tears!
by
Sgt. B. on April 28, 2005 1:12 PM
Belgian Blondes? Where's my Orval?
by Boquisucio on April 28, 2005 1:14 PM
I got mine from a master brewer (former Sub-Qual'ed Corpsman)...
by Sgt. B. on April 28, 2005 1:17 PM
It has been ages since I've had me myself a good Geuze, Lambic or Wit....
Queue in Homer's ****Arrghghghg****
by Boquisucio on April 28, 2005 1:22 PM
Sarge B. - And so you shall hear such tales...
...of the times we faced fires rivalled by no other battles fought in such confined spaces as we flew...
...of the times we landed within knife-fight distance of bunkers pouring out cyclic rates of fire, and we unarmored...
...of the times we flew in and did not fly out, but assaulted with the troops because our helicopters were burning...
...I will show you the memories that scar my body and my mind...
Just not today.
[*grins*] [*pops another molson's*]
by cw4billt on April 28, 2005 1:55 PM
Just a Coke for me...And I'm buying the next round.
For the ones who dared and did, and the ones who still do.
by UtahMan on April 28, 2005 2:09 PM
(Hoists Glass)
To all our brothers and sisters who are "On the other side of Easter!"
*sound of breaking glass*
Test: Anyone know why you break the glass?
by
John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2005 2:14 PM
Sure.
In case of emergency...
(I can't believe I beat Punc to that one)
by cw4billt on April 28, 2005 2:35 PM
John - Not sure if this is what you're thinking of, but in wedding tradition, it means that the bond of marriage will never break.
by
Barb on April 28, 2005 2:36 PM
Tell us about the days when things weren't so bad, and there was more laughter than tears!
Amen. I will drink to that, gentlemen.
And these are damn fine days = we are so lucky. Good post Bill.
by
Cassandra on April 28, 2005 2:53 PM
Thank you, Cassie...refill on the 'rita?
by cw4billt on April 28, 2005 3:02 PM
Damn, Bill,
I know some of those names, and I for certain recognize those patches. The lady I'm married to is someone else you used to know, I think: a long time ago she was 1LT Carol Tyler. As someone said at VHPA convention in Nashville a while back "Oh, my God, it's Frank's nurse." You can e-mail her at lark@usitMUNGE.net (Don't forget to de-munge the address.)
by Blake Kirk on April 28, 2005 4:09 PM
Sorry Bill. I've been off-line most of today so I didn't even have a chance.
But since we're not in Callahan's...
by
Punctilious on April 28, 2005 4:29 PM
And we aren't saluting the sovereign (although that might be where it started)...
by
Punctilious on April 28, 2005 4:56 PM
sniffle... just something in my eye, I guess...
by Mary in LA on April 28, 2005 6:10 PM
Thankee kindly for the invite. I'll hoist one quickly [gluglugglurbAHH!], refill, and sit back here quietly, listening.
by Justthisguy on April 28, 2005 6:14 PM
[lifts foaming mug} Garry Owen!
by Neffi on April 28, 2005 8:58 PM
John are you going to tell us or are we all just going to sit here suds in our eyes wondering if we should follow suit and toss our glasses?
by
Punctilious on April 28, 2005 9:10 PM
When you make a toast that is, in effect, sacred, you destroy the glass so that it will not be sullied by lesser uses.
by
John of Argghhh! on April 28, 2005 9:18 PM
Thank you.
*Lifts glass one more time*
*Sound of shattering*
by
Punctilous on April 28, 2005 9:39 PM
OOOPAH!!!
I see people trinking for medicinal purposes. Alcohol has excellent antiseptic properties, specially when used against raw and inflamed epiglottis. Just what the good Doctor ordered.
Get well John.
by Boquisucio on April 28, 2005 10:03 PM
Beth-
I think your flu transferred through the airwaves to my keyboard, and travelled up through my fingers.
*throb* *sniffle* *hack*
by Were-Kitten on April 28, 2005 10:44 PM
Oh-oh! John's sick, Beth's getting over being sick, and the Were-kitty's getting sick! This is not good.
Boq - I'd better have some of that medicinal 'rita mix to stay healthy ;-)
by
Barb on April 28, 2005 11:57 PM
Bill:
re: refill on the 'rita, don't mind if I do. Sorry for bailing, I was determined not to disgrace myself by snivelling but your post was very moving. I thought about it all night. For some reason I think it will stay with me a long time.
by
Cassandra on April 29, 2005 7:50 AM
Cass-
So will I. I look over that list of names, people I've never met, and mourn their loss simply because I know Bill and can feel the pain in his words.
Bill-
I know you've been planning this for a while, and I'm glad you got it out on "paper". I've told you this before too: Thank GOD you came home...even though some of your friends didn't. *big hug*
by AFSister on April 29, 2005 8:41 AM
[*pours refill into fresh glass...*]
Cassie, *you* always have permission to go Kleenex Alert...
by cw4billt on April 29, 2005 8:45 AM
AFSis - Thanks, kiddo.
Ummmm--about the *awk* choke-hold, though...
by cw4billt on April 29, 2005 8:51 AM
*released Chief from choke-hold*
alright.....
by AFSister on April 29, 2005 9:31 AM
*whooof*
Thanks. Hugs are better right there...
*grinning like an idiot*
by cw4billt on April 29, 2005 9:58 AM
I'm such a dope.
And you all are silly. And wonderful.
*raising a glass*
by
Cassandra on April 29, 2005 10:47 AM
Hey AFSis - You deserve a hug, yourself! Nice post on Mr. Maupin.
*Hug*
Cass, surely you aren't suggesting you are a dope for allowing a little tear-flowing? In that case, I'm a dope, too! As Bill has pointed out before, understanding has a very high price.
by
Barb on April 29, 2005 10:50 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Apr 28, 2005
�
Righty in a Lefty State links with:
Getting off the Dime
�
Villainous Company links with:
The Enemy Within
April 23, 2005
Come Saturday Morning...
Hmmmmm--lessee what weve got in the box o trons
[*rummage*] [*rummage*] [*snap-crackle-pop*]
Hmmmpf. Did a TINS already. Havent done a Boz in a while
[*peers back downweek*] Heh. Got a lil religion, thereyeah, why not?
[*rummage*] [*blows dust off trons*]
Perfect.
Ive always gotten along well with our various chaplains over the last thirty-plus-years, although I have a suspicion that one or two thought Id been inflicted on them as a test of their faith
MAJ Ray ___, our chaplain in Boz, and I got along great--we were both Calvin and Hobbes fans and he was the only guy Id ever met who could drink more coffee than I can and not go into terminal twitches.
His coffee mug was an extension of his left hand. It held enough coffee to keep Rhode Island awake for a week.
Ray was in the habit of dropping in to check the Flight Status board to see who was already up and who was scheduled to launch later, so he could personalize the Insurance Prayers, then hed chat for a bit and bug me about hopping on the Butmir [the military airfield serving Sarajevo] Shuttle. If I was busy, hed leave his mug on the counter to indicate hed be back and then pop next door to see what the grunts were up to. One Friday morning, he dropped in, listened to me chatting with the Ops NCOIC in Taszar, put his coffee mug on the counter and wandered off.
Next morning, one of the Hawk drivers came in for his briefing and remarked, Whatd ya do, win a trophy?
Chappy Rays mug. Still on the counter.
[*light bulb*] Trophy.
[*light bulb*] The CG had just presented the Commanders Cup to one of the flag football teams.
[*light bulb*] Heh. The Chaplains Cup.
I opened up my dot-mil, plugged in some addresses and composed the following:
-----Original Message-----
From: Tuttle, William CW4
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 10:59 AM
To: DL-COMANCHE/CONNOR
Cc:
Subject: Chaplain's Cup Award
ALCON
The prestigious "Camp Comanche Chaplain's Cup" (an award regarded in some circles as being on a more exalted plane than the Commander's Cup) was presented to the TF Pegasus Flight Operations Section in a simple ceremony conducted yesterday morning. The Cup, according to tradition, was constructed at some time during the preceding millenium by a highly-trained artisan of the Aladdin Corporation in Nashville, Tennessee, who (some say miraculously) used only a single piece of extruded polymeric material in its creation--it did not evolve, contrary to popular belief.
The Cup, which is capable of containing the contents of an entire urn of DFAC coffee (regular or strong), is a simple clerical black in overall appearance, with a central motif which, also according to tradition, is an accurate rendition of the pattern of the cloak issued to St. Martin of Tours, patron saint of soldiers deployed to chilly climates. The Cup possesses the extraordinary capability of recognizing the temperature of whatever substance is placed within its central receptacle and of sustaining the appropriate level of molecular activity to maintain that exact temperature for an indeterminate, albeit considerable, length of time--how an apparently inanimate object possesses the ability to accomplish such a feat remains a mystery to this day.
The Cup was presented to Flight Ops personnel in recognition of:
their fortitude in enduring random bursts of static and miscellaneous side-lobe interference caused by demonic possession of certain FM radio frequencies and
having a collective patience of saintly caliber in dealing with questions such as, "Is there a flight going to Butmir tomorrow and am I on it?", "Is that local time or Zulu?" and "Is there a helipad behind the PX at Eagle?"
The Cup, with its tastefully-understated Post-It Note inscription, will remain on display in Flight Ops until such time as another TF Pegasus section can surpass the exceptionally high standards achieved by Flight Ops or the Chaplain remembers where he left it.
[*click*] Send.
Responses ranged from
Never, ever overload my Inbox with anything like this ever again. Ever.
(Our Maintenance Officer)
to
See me. ASAP.
(The Flight Surgeon)
to
Mr. Tuttle,
I will be over later this afternoon. Thanks for the laugh.
Ray
Knowing full well that all of MND-North would be on tenterhooks wondering about the fate of the Chaplains Cup, I toggled Reply All and typed:
Yea, brethren, upon this date there did appear unto the OIC of the Flight Operations a minion of the Lord, and in his appearance, the minion was like unto that of the Chaplain; like that of the Chaplain was the appearance of the minion of the Lord.
And the minion appeared before the OIC and spake thusly unto him, saying, "Hi, Chief--wherefore resteth the Cup which was given into thy charge?" And the OIC replied to the minion of the Lord, "Behold! Here it is before thee; the Cup resteth before thee upon this slab of polished wood which hath been hewn from the oak-tree."
And the minion of the Lord spake again unto the OIC, saying, "This is indeed the Cup; hast thou then introduced any abominations therein?" And the OIC replied to the minion of the Lord, saying, "Full well thou knowest, o minion, that I am of an age which is an age beyond the ages of the thirtysomethings, and so may not abide such things as is the drink of the thirtysomethings; decaf and caf latt are as naught within my sight. Verily, I say unto thee that here before thee upon this slab of polished wood which hath been hewn from the oak-tree, the Cup resteth pristine, as it was when first it appeared unto me."
And the minion of the Lord spake yet a third time. And the third time he spake, he spake thusly, saying, "Thanks, Chief. The Cup is now required of thee, that it may resume providing sustenance and comfort unto me." And the minion of the Lord took up the Cup into his right hand; with his right hand he took up the Cup. And, as the minion of the Lord took up the Cup into his right hand, he withdrew from the sight of the OIC.
And, as the minion of the Lord withdrew from the sight of the OIC, the minion of the Lord spake yet a fourth time, saying, "By the way, got anything going to Butmir tomorrow?"
[*click*] Send
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
ROFLMAO - That's classic, Bill!
by
Barb on April 22, 2005 11:44 PM
Thanks for the chuckles, Bill. Thine locuaciously composed Elizabethan Vulgus, makeths the Bard proud.
by Boquisucio on April 23, 2005 7:38 AM
Boq - whoyathink taught the Bard to write like that?
by
Beth on April 23, 2005 9:05 AM
Beth - Heh. Obviously someone who flunked their ENG104 - Freshman English Comp course at school.
I hear it's Crawfish season down in the bayou; enjoy. Last month I went down there and stayed in a hotel at St. Joseph St by the Convention Center. Such a pity that being only two blocks from the D-Day Museum, I couldn't even take a peek inside. Went there on urgent family matters in Metairie.
Oh and BTW - next time you are in Suburban MD. Let me know. At least I could spare you from such fine Scottish Cuisine.
by Boquisucio on April 23, 2005 9:58 AM
OMG, LMAO...Bill, I loveeee, loveeee, your sense of humor!
by
Desult on April 24, 2005 10:53 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Apr 23, 2005
April 12, 2005
And after the MRE?
Did things change? What lessons did the Staff learn? Well, about a week before we were to scheduled leave (but didn't--long story), the following e-mail appeared.
For Those Who Know, you're right. 'Way, 'way late...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BRS Eagle ISSO SUPV
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 10:32 AM
> To: DL-COMANCHE/CONNOR; DL-McGOVERN/MORGAN; DL-TUZLA
> Subject: Bunker SOP
>
>
> Attached you will find a presentation detailing bunker procedures. Please
> ensure all personnel in your organization has this information. Remember
> that you are not assigned to a bunker, in the event of an attack you go to
> the nearest bunker. There are chem lights inside the bunkers near the
> entrances, if you are the first person to arrive at the bunker, break open
> the chem lights and read the instructions in the bunker.
>
> [E-Signature Deleted by BillT]
> [Name Deleted by BillT]
> SFC, USA
> Force Protection NCO
> XXX-XXXX
> xxxxxxxxxx@email-xxxxxxx.army.mil
>
> <>
So, what did those souls curious enough to meander over to the bunkers and scope out the instructions find?
No chemlights, but the following instructions were posted:
"Ako ste upoznati ili imate bilo kakve informacije o mogucim prijetnjama SFOR osoblja ili objekata kontaktirajte SFOR predstavnika na broj 035-814-245. Predstavnik koji govori engleski jezik ce biti na raspolaganju 24 sata svaki dan. Predstavnik moze pozvati prevodioca ako je potreban, ali vi morate priloziti ime, broj telefona i vrijeme ponovnog kontakta. Hvala vam na vasoj saradnji."
English translation? Heh.
[click on Extended Entry]
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
"If you know or have any information about possible threats to SFOR personnel or facilities, please contact a SFOR representative at 035-814-245. An English-speaking representative can also coordinate for a translator as necessary, but you must provide a name, phone number, and time to re-contact you. Thank you for your assistance."
In other words, "In the event of an attack, kiss your butt goodbye."
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
That's so pathetic, it's depressing.
by Fuzzybear Lioness on April 12, 2005 9:11 PM
The bunkers were old MiG shelters, with only one way in or out. Death traps. I told my folks when we first got there that if we ever took indirect fire to go to ground under our building. They were plywood, with plenty of open space to channel the blast overpressure laterally, and the floors were thick and strong enough to stop most fragments. And there were enough support pilings to make a decent fighting position.
Heh. Two days later, half of Comanche was exploring underneath their buildings.
by cw4billt on April 12, 2005 10:35 PM
That's so close to Czech, I could almost understand it... And it's a lot more fun if you get the translation wrong because it just comes out even worse... FUBAR but funny in a perverse sort of way... For example, "ako je potreban" would be literally something like "how is needed" rather than as necessary.
Reminds me of a night in '84, when I was sitting in a restaurant in Munich, eating dinner, and eavesdropping on folks one table away who were speaking what sounded like Czech (but wasn't) all through dinner. When I was done, the waitress came, and I asked her how much dinner cost, but I had been thinking Czech so hard for 45 minutes that I asked in Czech, not German. Amazingly, she answered in something I understood, but wasn't Czech. Turned out she was Croatian, and so were the folks at the next table, she informed me. We had a long pleasant talk after that, in parts English, German, and Czech/Croat..... It was kind of like me listening to a Southerner speak English. I'm sure the language is the same, but the pronunciation is all kerupted and unda-eeeejekated....
***opps, I think that might have been offensive... But not to worry- the folks I was talking about wouldn't understand it, so if you got it, you ain't that kind o' bubba... :-)
And one has not lived till one has heard a true Southerner or Texan speak German or Czech with his or her native accent. Now THAT is a hoot.
~SangerM
by SangerM on April 12, 2005 10:40 PM
Sanger - I can't even imagine how that would sound, but I imagine it is hysterical!
by
Barb on April 12, 2005 10:55 PM
Well it is that!
by SangerM on April 12, 2005 11:03 PM
The Bosnian chicks *loved* our S'ur'n guys. Just something in the way they said, "Dobra dan, y'all"...
by cw4billt on April 12, 2005 11:06 PM
It's the y'all part - gets us every time ;-)
by
Barb on April 12, 2005 11:21 PM
Uh, first one in is supposed to open the container, and THEN read the instructions? With what, since it doesn't say to set off one - and just which box to open?
Hope everyone is carrying an issue flashlight - or non-issue lighter.
by John Anderson on April 12, 2005 11:25 PM
Lighters. A lot of the non-smokers even carried 'em.
by cw4billt on April 12, 2005 11:56 PM
Don't have to worry about the batteries going dead on a lighter.
by
Barb on April 13, 2005 12:05 AM
Yeah, Bill. It was the Y'all, as in Wie Ghets, Y'all. Or Jako se Mate, Y'all. Same stuff... :-)
And as for a lighter, well it may not run dead, but I've been places firing one up was NOT a good idea... Much better to have a small penlight handy, if'n you can get one.
And everyone though Catch-22 was based on fictional events... ha!
by SangerM on April 13, 2005 8:13 AM
A true southern gentleman says ya'll (ya all) not y'all (you all). :-) It's less proper that way.
by Masked Menace on April 13, 2005 8:50 AM
When we were stationed in West Germany, we bought a Panasonic television that could recieve US, British or European statellite broadcasting. You just needed the mega expensive dish.
Anyhoo, because we had rabbit ears, we got German television. I settled down to improve my German, but after watching "Gone With the Wind" in German, I don't think I ever recovered after hearing Prissy
say "Ich kenne nicht eine baby gebornen, Fraulein Scarlett!" in a southern accent.
I used to watch "Der Schwartzenwald Klinik", "Dallas" (in German Dallas is a scream!)"Na Sowas"
and "Falcon Crest."
Actually, I did recover enough to become somewhat fluent, and was on the verge of being bilingual when we left. I have forgotten so much because if you don't use it, you lose it.
by Cricket on April 13, 2005 9:45 AM
Masked Menace: A true southern gentleman
Well, that explains it... Being from Philly an' all, I'm just a damn yankee to the bone.
~Transplanted and fighting it...
:-O
Cricket, D'ja ever get to see John Wayne in German. The guy who did his voice most of the time was a tenor, which completely belied the frame and memory... I hated watching American TV and movies in German because the voices never matched up. I understand they are doing a better job of that now.
~SangerM
by SangerM on April 13, 2005 10:35 AM
SangerM, you misspelled damnyankee. One word. (According to my Texan relatives ...)
by Bad Cat Robot on April 13, 2005 10:53 AM
Not to change the subject, but I've always been partial to the old Japanese monster movies:
[*hero gesticulates frantically, mouth runs for eight seconds*] "No."
by cw4billt on April 13, 2005 10:56 AM
I did. You are right, because the voices have to match the actors.
You know what was also weird was walking through the local toy store and seeing a German version of Trivial Persuit's Baby Boomer edition. Uh, most Germans didn't HAVE television sets in the fifties.
We went to the Kino Centre to watch that classic film "Zuruck in die Zukunft." It had been released in the states as "Back to the Future" earlier that year, and it was a RUSH to translate the dialogue
and get it in the European market ASAP.
The scene where he is playing "Johnny B. Goode" is totally lost. Whoever did the film's translation totally left out the reference to Chuck Barry. It went right over their heads.
Skateboards in Europe are not unknown, but they aren't used because of those nasty cobblestone streets. Some of the other references to fifties
icons like Daniel Boone and the confrontation with the band (when they toss him into the trunk) were completely lost as well.
It is a shame, because when you know the culture or are familiar with it, you can get some of the nuances in the language.
And what you are describing about the Japanese horror movies is right in line with watching the Iron Chef. I never miss an episode if I stay up late.
The Chairman reminds me of a Michael Jackson wannabe.
by Cricket on April 13, 2005 11:24 AM
BillT:
[*hero gesticulates frantically, mouth runs for eight seconds*] "No."
My 12 yr old daughter loves those, and she loves to practice doing that herself. Pretty funny.
Of course, not only did I do Saturday matinees for years when I was young, but also my father and I watched late-late night movies when I was in JRHS & HS, so I have seen just about every black and white monster movie and Charlie Chan Movie and japanese monster movie that ever existed. My end-all favorite was a movie called Atragon. Review here:
www.scifilm.org/reviews/atragon.html
~SangerM
by SangerM on April 13, 2005 11:31 AM
SANG-e-e-e-r-r-r-r-r! Man, I thought I was the only one who remembered Atragon! A "grade A" hoot, rivalled only by the scenes in Mothra where the little toy TELs roll along the countryside--without any little toy drivers in the cabs...
by cw4billt on April 13, 2005 11:39 AM
BCR: you misspelled damnyankee
Yeah, I know. All my inlaws are TEXAN, and when we moved back here, the first thing I heard from them was: "So, hows it feel to be a Texan (hahahahaha)?", or "I thought you weren't EVER coming back here!", or "Now we need to get that bumper sticker that says "Help beautify Texas, put a yankee on a bus!" and so on....
yeah, yeah. :-(
~SangerM
by SangerM on April 13, 2005 11:41 AM
Sanger - I have a fairly complete collection of Charlie Chan movies. Several purchased - many more recorded (bless my Mom for capturing them all for me!). I love em all!
by
Barb on April 13, 2005 11:52 AM
Cricket: As you know, there is a LOT the Germans don't get about us, for a great many reasons. The interesting thing about them though, is that they THINK they do. They think they know us better then we do ourselves, they think they know how our laws work, how we eat, how we interact, and etc. and to many of them, we fit in a nice neat little box of a hundred wrong assumptions. I know that works both ways, but I think educated people here probably have a better idea bout European history and culture than they do of ours.
I had many, many conversations w/ Germans about our laws (they are amazed at the 50 states, 50 sets of laws issues); how we as individuals decide regularly whether to obey a lot of laws (that this is even possible amazes them); how our country is 60 times bigger than theirs yet it is much more homogenous than theirs (they hate to even discuss this, and cannot believe that we all speak the same language-yes we have accents, but very few very different dialects); how I think Americans are more courteous than Germans (this CANNOT be possible, we are all so crude!); how we really do have a much freer country than they do, and a much more racially and culturally tolerant country than they do (they never could accept this as valid, even the folks who wouldn't let GI's and Turks into their businesses); and so on for pages....
I really like Germany and Germans, but it took me 6 years to understand that although we have common ancestors, they are NOT us, we are NOT them, and we never will be the same.
As for their movies and TV, well, I tried to avoid German translations because they were so goofy, and my German girlfriend wanted to see them in English, so we went to the post theaters or to the local "art" theater in Erlangen that showed films in English!
And man was I EVER glad to get back here.
~SangerM
by SangerM on April 13, 2005 11:53 AM
Barb: I LOVE Charlie Chan movies, and I have been toying with the idea of collecting them, but hadn't got started. Maybe I will now that it's fresh in my mind.
BillT: And here I thought _I_ was the only one who knew about Atragon. You're the only other person in 40 years whose known what it was (and didn't laugh when I described it). It really is my favorite of all time Japanese Monster Movie, although, Godzilla vs. Mothra was a close second. I always liked Godzilla, and for some reason, Mothra was cool to me too.
BTW, I HATED Ultraman and all those stupid men-in-rubber-suits monsters he fought. What an insult to japanese monsterdom... :-D
~SangerM
by SangerM on April 13, 2005 12:04 PM
I remember a few Japanese monster movies, but my all time favorite and I can't remember the title was about the invasion of mushroom spores and turning people into shrooms.
I detest anime although my kids LOVE Yu-gi-Oh and for some reason "Totally Spies" has been a huge hit.
I loved the kung fu movies of the 1970s. Absolutely a guilty pleasure. Bruce Li duking it out in the Coliseum.
Sanger, I agree with you 100% about being back in the USA and about the Germans in general. The Engineer is PA Dutch and got along okay...up to a point. We lived on the economy and had a great time. I would go back to visit but I would never willingly live there again.
by Cricket on April 13, 2005 12:15 PM
Criket, don't like anime?! Dude! How can you dig moster movies at any level other than the hokiness and not like anime?
It could be that you're seeing stuff that's hacked to pieces or just fluff on WB and Cartoon Network.
Stuff that might change your opinion, and segregated into movies/series for adults, teens, and kiddies.
Adults(movies):
Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal. --The start of the Rurouni Kenshin series. Deals with suffering, loss, the morality of vengance and just war theory, love, forgiveness, and redemption. Gory though.
Macross Plus-- Just fun in many points. Has some very racy parts though. Deals with rivalry and self deception. Has a rape scence hence not really for teens or kids.
Ghost in the Shell-- Just phenominally drawn. You watch this and you'll call the guys who made The Matrix plagerists. Deals with existence, self determination, what is/isn't reality. Language, nudity, lots of violence.
(series):
Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. Well written crime stories.(violence)
Teens(both series and movies):
Princess Mononoke
Fushugi Yugi: the Mysterious Play(good adventure yarn. Love story. Aesopena in parts about what it is to be a good friend, the value of sacrifice, honor, redemption, and friendship. It has a cross dresser, and partial nudity. Lots of pecker and fart jokes so not really for the yung 'uns).
Gundam Wing: moderately intricate plot for the series. Good adventure yarn and very well drawn/animated.
Gundam Seed: A reluctant hero story of the Greek myth mold. Deals with just wars and the appropriateness of violence. The trials and tribulations of the near adult(constantly thrust into situations they don't understand). Anger. Regret. Loss. The backstabbing nature of slef centered individuals. Costumes may a bit racy(miniskirts with kneehigh socks. Seemed like they were pushing for the 'Catholic School Girl' schtick, which annoyed me). Violence(blood). Cursing.
Robotech(Macross)--it's a classic. Good for those who think they want to be zoomies as most of the fighting in the series isn't as big robots, but jet fights. Standard Good vs. Evil.
Rouroni Kenshin(an offshoot of the Samurai X movies). 'Why one fights'. That's the underlying element of the series. In every fight Kenshin engages in his has a monologue on the just vs. unjust uses of violence. Rarely the same message twice, and not just the cheesy 'violence bad' either. Decent and accurate portrayal Ex: 'It may be true that Miss Kagumi's words about a sword are overly idealistic, and that a sword is just for killing. But I prefer them to the truth. It gives me hope." Where Kagumi holds that the sword and a swordsmans skill is there to protect not be a prop to rule with an iron fist.
Neon Genesis Evangellion: Simply awesome. Tackles the confusion of struggles for identity of many teens head on. Could be a starting point for talking about serious issues like religion, self identity(especially if you've got amazons(girls)), self worth, and the unfortunate, but necessary, sacrifice of what one wants to do in favor of what one needs to do. I haven't finished this series yet. If you buy the Platinum re-releases you'll get commentary by comp lit profs on it. Excellent series.
For Kiddies:
Spirited Away: It's really pretty and is a story about the love a girl has for her parents.
THe Cat Returns It's pretty. Good adventure yarn. Sorta Narnian, but without the religion(if you want the religion, and I did as a kid, give them the CS Lewis books or LOTR. There are no substitutes).
I will admit though that anime really heavy on adolescence. But there's some really good stories out there. Better in many instances than what you'll get out of Hollywood.
Rant/Lecture over. We return you to your regularly scheduled snarking(Bill-take it away).
by ry on April 13, 2005 5:08 PM
Oy. Ry just posted the comment that *might* cause my son to read this blog... oddly enough, his best friend already does!
Andy however, I suspect, would read *only* that comment! 8^D
He's very determined to be himself, and not me.
Good on 'im.
by
John of Argghhh! on April 13, 2005 6:45 PM
Well, for kiddie anime I confess to liking 'Hamtaro.'
My sons love Gundums and Dragon Ball Z.
I don't do too well with the gratuitious nudity/profanity. If it doesn't advance the plot, it doesn't 'need' to be there.
However, for well written scripts and animation, Pixar is the best. That company alone might redeem Disney.
I was browsing in a school supply store, looking for good books on teaching the subject of writing, and now I have a hardball for all of you:
Many many years ago I was in AP English and I was taught about the bare bones of story writing with
the beginning, rising action, climax, resolution and denoument.
I tossed all my papers and there was no text, as the teacher was someone with an MA in Lit, but
I would love to find something good that discusses those things in detail and shows how to organize
a plot and sequentially tell a story.
So far, I have index cards. Not efficient but better than nothing.
I have only two stories that I am working on. I will never be published, but that is not why I am doing it. I am doing it because I want to finish them.
Thanks for the anime enlightenment. I don't watch much television anymore but like to hear about worthwhile things, so I will keep an eye on my tv guide for upcoming films.
by Cricket on April 13, 2005 7:53 PM
Hey Cricket --
Searching my shelves, I find "How to Write Short Stories" by Sharon Sorenson. Basic fundamentals. If your local bookstore doesn't have that it will likely have one similar. The one I like for the spirit of writing is "If You Want to Write" by Brenda Ueland. For immediate gratification, I recommend http://www.sfwa.org/writing/ which has many articles for various stages of writing. Slanted towards speculative fiction, but many of the principles carry over to all areas. Hope this helps!
by badcatrobot on April 13, 2005 8:29 PM
Cricket: Try these (no particular order). 1) You should find TONS of advice in a couple of these, especially the first three. 2) You might find a place to sell what you write, even though you don't intend it.
http://www.writersmarket.com/
http://www.worldwidefreelance.com/
http://www.zoetrope.com/
http://members.t r i p o d.com/~deepsouth/index-links.html
http://www.writerswrite.com/
http://www.fhsu.edu/~jkerriga/307shortstory.html
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/archive/index.php/t-11401
by SangerM on April 13, 2005 10:04 PM
Cricket, in the post above, the last URL is a good read about 5-part stories. Also, in the 4th, remove the spaces in the URl... The antispam software won't let that URL through, had to change it.
by SangerM on April 13, 2005 10:05 PM
I used to hang out with a guy who attended Huntsville, Alabama High school, and sat right behind either Iris or Margrit von Braun in German class. I betcha those gals could speak German with an Alabama accent, in such a way as to knock you down, gasping for breath!
by Justthisguy on April 14, 2005 12:00 AM
Well, I do try to be useful from time to time John. Not real good at it, but I try. If Andy's got some real favorites send 'em on along. I'm a grad student so I haven't got the time to look for real good stuff amoungst the new offerings.
Cricket: What's up with lady folk always loving Hamtaro? Ack. That's so sweet it crystalizes blood. The Grife has a collection of plush hamsters and the key chain charms of her favorite ham-hams. Nothing gets me ready to drive her to work in the morning than the theme song.
I'm not real big on gratuitous sex or violence either(note the knock on the "Catholic School Girl" costuming in Gundum Seed.). Remember, this stuff is Japanese. Almost everything has a symbolic significance. I didn't get it either 'til I hooked up with the Grife. Then it was like finally getting the double meanings in Shakespear. Whole new world.
The stuff I've talked about is stuff you either have to rent the tape/dvd of, buy, or get Anime Network on satellite. Of the ones I mentioned only Stand Alone Complex is currently shown on Cartoon Network, but if you've got nothing to do on a late saturday nite you might try staying up for SAC and Full Metal Alchemist(this weeks episode looks to be a real head bendeer on existence).
I have to disagree a little bit on Pixar. There stuff is great CGI. Great for family entertainment since the stories are multilevel--ala The Incredibles(simple stuff for kiddies, secondary messages for tweens and teens, and jokes only adults get). But if you want near lifelike drawings and complex stories you have to go for anime. American dramas don't do the character development, and Hollywood/Paris/Bollywood movies definately don't have, on avg., as much complexity or depth.
No real help on the lit I'm afraid. Only a semi-literate barbarian, and I wonder why the Grife puts up with me given that flaw.
by ry on April 14, 2005 2:24 AM
Aw thanks again. I have young children, which is why I like "Hamtaro." It is sweet and innocent.
But (ta dum) despite my announced liking for Harry Potter, I also LOVE the Lemony Snicket books, and right after his'n, Eoin Colfer's series about Artemis Fowl. You want some good tween literature, those two series I can highly recommend. And the Artemis Fowl series is better written, IMNSHO.
I have made some notes as to the editing of the Harry Potter series and there are a couple of mistakes, and some questions I would like to ask either Ms. Rowling or her editors.
I can't imagine a Brit publisher making this mistake, but from what I have seen in print, I can definately believe it came from the American side.
And there are a couple of spells that have gone awry in her books too...and so, there you have it.
One mystified fan.
by Cricket on April 14, 2005 1:12 PM
I'm of the opinion that Ms. Rowling (may all welfare moms do so well!) simply writes herself into corners, and uses the magic inaptly as a Deus Ex Machina to escape the trouble she's caused herself.
Would that I could write so spectacularly poorly!
8^D
by
John of Argghhh! on April 14, 2005 1:25 PM
In fact, I really liked the Potter Series (which we read together aloud at home) until the last book, which just d r a g g e d o n a n d o n . . . . . .
I even started to write to her, but figured it wasn't worth it after hearing her on TV--too set on her notions and a little defensive too.
She'd done good up to 5 but I hope the next book is a bit tighter and less outright silly AND actually closes out loose threads and doesn't make a lot of dumb excuses for things. Book 5 was just SOOOOOO disapointing.
~SangerM
by SangerM on April 14, 2005 2:36 PM
Hehe.
I agree too. And let's face it, Hogwarts is a lot of fun. My favorite of the five has been "The Prisoner of Azkaban," because she really did a nice twist and turn with the plot and laid her red herrings with a finesse worthy of Dorothy Sayers and Agatha Christie.
It has also been my favorite in the film versions, as they got rid of that pedantic Chris Columbus and got someone to have fun with it...even to including a bit of the Headless Hunt and more stage business with the portraits.
I just WISH they would get Carl Reiner to direct
at least one. Or Spielberg.
She created a wonderful world and we have all enjoyed it.
by Cricket on April 14, 2005 2:43 PM
I think the character I like the most is Snape. I think she was rushed with #5 and hadn't gotten her notes together.
The thestrals are ones I have issues with, as he couldn't see them after #4, but could at the beginning of #5. Her excuse was that he had to have time to absorb the impact of Cedric's dea