---

"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!

---

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!

---

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!

---

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!

---

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!

---

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!

---

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!

---

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!