[Rockrivr1]

Due to the bad weather over the past long weekend, I got the chance to watch a good amount of war movies. (To my utter enjoyment I might add)

One of the things I noticed is that in WWII the officers where shown as the solid, reliable types. Someone you can put your life in their hands and they will know what to do.

On the other hand, movies about later conflicts had the officer core shown as useless idiots who couldn't find their way out of their own back yard. Good examples are movies like Platoon, Hamburger Hill, Heartbreak Ridge etc. Basically these movies indicated that if it wasn't for the NCOs, we'd have been screwed.

Ok, I know we're talking about Hollywood and they generally take liberties. BUT, I found it interesting that depending on the war / conflict, the steriotypes of officers during that period were pretty much the same.

With that said, I'd like to find out from you vets in the know. Was the officer core that good in WWII and then they went to pot in Korea/Vietnam? How about in todays military? Is the officer core back up to snuff, or is it the NCOs keeping everything together?

I was in the Navy onboard an aircraft carrier in the late 80s and early 90s. We weren't on the front line so I'm interested to see what people think on this. In my squadron their were some officers I really looked up to. Then again, there were a few that must of had dirt on someone to become an officer. Completely useless.

[mattk]

Just like manufacturing everyone turns out a lemon once in awhile. Are most military incompetent? NO. Most of the young men and women that junior officers are squared away, competent, brave individuals. But some bad ones slip through.
Unfortunately the bad ones stick out like a sore thumb and thats who you remember.

[RevDisk]

Only the 2Lt's. :D

In reality, very few officers are extremely wise and experienced, most are "good enough" and a few (too many) are complete morons. It's a bell curve kind of thing.

[Rebar]

The simple answer is, in WWII the media was on our side, starting in Vietnam they decided they they weren't.

[heypete]

Well, I've seen my shares of "know-it-all" officers and humble officers who are willing to listen to their men.

Unfortunately, many modern officers do not serve as an enlisted soldier before they go to OCS, so they frequently are unaware of "how things work" at the platoon/company level...which frequently differ substantially from "how things are supposed to work". This leads to many officers leading "by the book", which might not be how things are handled best.

I was blessed with a lieutenant who generally deferred most things to the SFC in charge of our platoon. He basically said "This is what our end goal is...", and left it up to the NCOs and enlistedmen to get it done. Worked out perfectly.

[Sean Smith]

Bottom line, it is mostly Hollywood.

In World War II, the quality of junior leadership in the Army was actually pretty poor, simply because the Army went from about 100,000 to about 10,000,000 in a couple years. Both the officers and NCOs were, as a group, very short on experience and training... there just wasn't time, especially when trying to whip up infantry replacements in 1944-45. Also, the ground combat units killed and wounded infantrymen at an astounding rate; 100% casualties in a unit after 1 year were not uncommon. Tankers weren't much better off, given the fact that the Sherman was so under-guned and under-armored. The overall casualty rates in WWII only seem bearable in relation to the total troops committed (300,000+ killed) because so much of our military consisted of support troops.

The upshot is that experienced leadership is hard to cultivate when (a) you don't have time to adequately train the new guys, and (b) it keeps getting killed off. This applied about equally to junior officers and NCOs alike... 2LT's got killed very fast indeed. There weren't enough "lifer" sergeants to fill an army 100x bigger, anymore than there were enough West Point-trained LTs to fill the junior officer slots.

On the other hand, there were alot of WWI vets who fought in WWII, but due to their age they were at the higher ranks. And in elite units, the overall quality of leadership at all levels tended to be very high from the sergeants to the generals (e.g. 82nd & 101st Airborne divisions).

Bottom line is, we tend to romanticize everythig about WWII because we fought for higher stakes and won a clear-cut victory. You could make a very good argument that the troops fighting in the Ia Drang in 1965 had better small-unit leadership than they did in 1945.

[jason10mm]

I see a similar trend in books as well, both fictional and "biographical". Contrast Ambrose's "Band of Brothers" with the deification of Winters and the minimizing of the faults in some of the other officers to "Generation Kill" which almost universally panned the officer leadership. For some reason the WW2 "citizen soldier" gets a lot more respect than a career officer in Vietnam forwards. Some of it is the writer trying to inflate themselves at the expense of the officer corps, guys like Marcinko are extremely harsh on brass, as was Hackworth. They go out of their way to mention screw-ups.

[Sean Smith]

guys like Marcinko are extremely harsh on brass, as was Hackworth.

Well, those guys were drummed out of the service by said brass. So yeah, they'd have a chip on their shoulder. Consider the source. ;)

Contrast Ambrose's "Band of Brothers" with the deification of Winters and the minimizing of the faults in some of the other officers to "Generation Kill" which almost universally panned the officer leadership.

Ambrose is, sadly, a borderline-propagandist at this point. He's selling a cartoon version of the war. As for the current war, a better account is "In the Company of Soldiers" by Rick Atkinson, which points out alot of mistakes (as does his book about WWII "An Army at Dawn," by the way), but also gives credit where it is due.

[Vern Humphrey]

In general, the quality of leaders in any Army is a function of how fast that Army expands, and what casualties it experiences.

I was commissioned from OCS in '63 and had a little enlisted service and a good period of seasoning before my first tour in Viet Nam in '66. By '68, we were turning out "shake and bake" NCOs (men who went through basic and advanced training, then through NCO school) and had a lot of equally green officers.

After the war, we went through an agonizing period in the '70s with drugs and race problems, and emerged in the '80s with a solid foundation of good junior leaders and a sound training plan for both individuals and units. Our current Army is the best we've ever fielded, and the officers and NCOs are the most professional I've ever seen.

[jason10mm]

Sean, that's exactly my point. For whatever reason, WW2 and earlier seems to be viewed through rose-tinted glasses, while Vietnam forward is all written by angry malcontents :)

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Rockrivr1, you question is a good one.. with no clear-cut answers. My military experience (Navy) somewhat parallels yours, albeit as an officer... and during the Vietnam War.

Then, as now, there were 3 roads to officer-dom: (1) as an Academy grad, (2) ROTC (via college), or (3) OCS. The last one (OCS) became extremely competitive by the mid-'60's as young college-grad males sought alternatives to being drafted. All branches had the luxury of being very selective, and the subsequent OCS grind filtered out most "mistakes" and misfits. For the most part, this system produced a solid cadre of junior officers (including pilots) in a relatively short time.

Nevertheless, I knew a few pretty mediocre junior Navy officers... and fewer mediocre senior officers. The weak junior officers weren't dumb. They were just lost in "the real world" and acted "scared"... as well as doing just enough to "get by." I think it took about 1 1/2 years for a young ensign or 2nd lt. to get squared-away and figure out starboard from portside. However, after that period, I think their pride kicked in and generated good leadership and professionalism. I doubt if modern times have changed that syndrome.

To a considerable degree, the young dudes today (probably a bit more than 40 years ago) come out of college with "skulls full of mush" as Rush Limbaugh might say. It's tough for any OCS type program to fix that in 90-120 days.

In my own case, I believe I was fortunate in that I held a series of tough, blue-collar jobs while working my way through (pre-OCS) college. That helped me immensely, later, when working with junior enlisted and salty old chiefs (whom I could out-curse and out-drink, when necessary).

I had 4 squadron C.O.'s, and all were outstanding men. Any of 'em coulda played the wise C.O. in "Top Gun", but none were anything like the grouchy, flaming-jerk squadron C. O. who berated Tom Cruise in the same film. As I departed, an incoming C.O. seemed to be one of the openly-careerist ticket-punchers (hence, demoralizing), however, so I was glad to be moving on.

Hollywood has never fully understood the military (well, since WWII) and it shows in their products' subtext. With my own dealings with 'em (via scripts, etc.) it's clear that producers/agents/directors not only have zero knowledge of war and political history (or care about factual accuracy) but overlay that ignorance with a pacifist/cultural elitist political agenda. That agenda almost automatically makes any corporate executive OR military officer a lying, cheating, conniving sleazoid. And, regrettably, that "sells" to a dumbed-down 15-25 yr. old youth market who thinks Saipan is a Chinese dish, Omaha Beach is a surfer movie, and Phuc Yen is a hooker.

[Arc-Lite]

again ...... Sean hit it right on the head, the world changes, and how things are seen and understood change as well... I never ordered anyone to do, something I could not, or would not do.... and if something made more sense... then that idea was implemented. lessons are learned best threw experence.... just theory and lack of the ability to adapt..usually ends in disaster. West Point has finally realized the need to develope warriors who think on their feet.... and multi task. T.V. and the movies are funny...see them as anything but T.V. and the movies....is not seeing reality.

[Sean Smith]

Bottom line is, I noticed I say "bottom line" too much. :o

Just so my biases are clear, I'm an ex-Army officer by way of West Point from 1995-2001. I've seen officers from all institutions run the gamut from saintly geniuses to mentally retarded criminals, and everything in-between.

I'd rank the quality of training like this: West Point > OCS > ROTC. Not surprising, there is so much more of it during 4 years at West Point. That doesn't make it efficient by any stretch, however.

As far as the quality of the 2LT produced?

Generally, I'd say West Point > OCS >> ROTC. But since both West Point and OCS get prior service enlisted guys, the line is blurry there. A super trooper who then goes to OCS will probalby better out of the blocks than a guy who went from High School to West Point, on average. But some guy with some time in mosquito wings, not so much. Prior-service West Point guys are theoretically the best, and often are in actual fact. Realistically, if you take some stud E-5 with a Ranger tab and an 180 IQ and send him to West Point, you are going to get a hell of a good officer (and these were NOT unheard of, either).

The wierd thing is, I can speak in generalities, but sometimes you never know. A ROTC guy from the crappy ROTC program at Dirty Hippie U can still be an awesome officer if he has the aptitude and is self-motivated to learn his job. Conversely, there are guys who are great on paper that crap the bed... I'm talking guys with more medals than the captains that were their instructors at West Point just flunking out, or acting stupid and getting the boot.

[Hawkmoon]

On the other hand, movies about later conflicts had the officer core shown as useless idiots who couldn't find their way out of their own back yard. Good examples are movies like Platoon, Hamburger Hill, Heartbreak Ridge etc. Basically these movies indicated that if it wasn't for the NCOs, we'd have been screwed.
Basically true, in my experience. Here's an example:

1968, Vietnam, 4th Infantry Division, Pleiku. One day someone decided they were tired of the division base camp being mortared every night, so they were going to have a huge sweep & clear mission around the entire perimter of the camp, extending out for (if I recall correctly) 10 klicks. This was a top secret operation, of course, which meant that we first learned of it from the hooch gals when they told us they weren't coming tomorrow because we were all going to out beating the bushes. We didn't get any official confirmation until a couple of hours later.

So bright and early the next morning everyone who could walk (including cooks, clerks, supply and support personnel -- EVERYONE) loaded up onto about every wheeled vehicle in the division and got trucked out to various staging points 10 klicks out. The idea was to spread out into a huge circle and then walk in toward the camp, clearing the terrain as we proceeded.

My squad got dropped on a hilltop under the command of a captain from some other unit, but we had our own sergeant. So we get off the truck, and we can see the base camp away in the distance and everyone lines up facing the camp, ready to move out when we get the word. Then the captain shows up, tells us all to do an about face, and has us start hiking ... AWAY FROM THE BASE CAMP.

A minute later a chopper flies over, does a quick 180 turn, and a voice floats down from on high: "Captain, where in the hell do you think you're going!?!"

Next thing you know, the chopper lands, a couple of Jeeps pull up, we got officers all over the place with a map spread out on the hood of one the Jeeps and a compass laid down on top of the map, all these officer types arguing over which direction we should be walking ... AND YOU CAN SEE THE DAMN BASE CAMP FROM THE HILL WE'RE STANDING ON.

The original movie version of M.A.S.H. was sanity personified compared to Vietnam.

[Shovelhead]

Originally Posted By Sean Smith
The wierd thing is, I can speak in generalities, but sometimes you never know. A ROTC guy from the crappy ROTC program at Dirty Hippie U can still be an awesome officer if he has the aptitude and is self-motivated to learn his job

That's pretty much the problem in a nutshell.

Most come out of school believing that they know it all, and the "Underlings" that have been placed in their command are all ingnorant.

The GOOD ones come in and aren't afraid to ask "How should we do this".

17 years on an AF installation, (not enlisted).

[roo_ster]

All but one of the officers I spent any time with were top-knotch, though my sampling was quite biased as all potential line unit commanders had prvious command experience at that level. IOW, they already had done the job somewhere else before they got to my unit.

The three officers I had the most experience with were my successive XOs.

#1 ROTC
Was an enlisted (11B) Nat'l Guardsman in an airborne unit while in college on ROTC scholarship. Terrific guy and wonderful officer.

#2 OCS
Went OCS with only Basic & AIT under his belt. Competant, suck-up, back-stabbing, waste of oxygen who had problems with the truth.

#3 West Point
Worked his way up to E5 in an infantry unit (11M or 11B) & earned a West Point slot. A terrific officer.

[Sam]

Spent 27 years on the enlisted side, last 7 as a First Sgt..
Seen some really good officers, seen some bad.

Academy guys are easy to get motivated and capable of learning real quick.
On average they end up best.
OCS guys generally do OK. Those with prior service do better.
Generally are a bit older so they have more miles on them even if they weren't prior service. Experience living always helps.
ROTC guys are a toss up. Most don't seem to last too long, get shuffled to the junior staff stuff and out the door, seems like thay are all technicals anyway. I have spent some time encouraging a few to leave. There have been a few exceptions though and I won't count all of them out. BEst Lt I ever got my hands on was a female ROTC type. They'll never use her where she would be most effective but she is the best. (even came by to ask where she could pick up a couple gross of prophylacitcs for the troops before we sent her to Iraq :D)

Only 1 hard and fast rule that applies across the 3 modes of commisioning,
Prior enlisted troops never make average officers. They are either outstanding or they suck. No average prior service officers.

The latest crops of new LT's have been outstanding, and the CC and I spent lots of time tuning them, make them better than good. They are all there because they want to be and were all worth my time. I never felt that my kids would suffer from lack of effort on their part. Lack of skill maybe but that's what E6's are for. Always asked my Sgts how their Lt's are shaping up. Pass it on to the CC for action. CC passed to me what the Sgt's needed to teach from that end. We got some really good officers these days. Way better than what I had in the 70's.

NCO PME does need a block on the proper care and feeding of LT's.

I'm biased, been blessed with excellant commanders, 4 of my last 6 made full Col. and #5 isn't eligible for another year, he will make it first time out :neener: .

Sam

Sam

[Fred Fuller]

Any effort to make what Hollywood does bear any relationship to reality is utterly wasted. Do not, PLEASE do not, let Hollywood form/influence/modify your worldview about anything at all. It is a mistake.

Officers are mostly a reflection of the institution they serve, at the time in which they serve. It is pretty difficult to make blanket statements about them very much beyond that. Most seemed to me to be at minimum competent to do their jobs, the bell curve pretty much works here as everywhere else. Some are outstanding, some are incompetent to the point of criminality but most do a workmanlike job. Peacetime services are a painful place for genuine soldiers to be, and often for good combat officers too. Too many other things matter too much in peacetime besides the things that matter in war, and none of those things are necessarily good for warriors.

A couple decades ago when I started working with the green beanie crowd, a lot of grizzled senior SF NCOs had this quote on their desks or framed on the wall:

"I'd like to have two armies- one for display, with lovely guns, tanks, little soldiers, staffs, distinguished and doddering generals and dear little regimental officers, who would be deeply concerned over their general's bowel movements or their colonel's piles; an army that would be shown for a modest fee on every fairground in the country.

The other would be the real one, composed entirely of young enthusiasts in camouflage uniforms, who would not be put on display but from whom impossible efforts would be demanded and to whom all sorts of tricks would be taught. That's the Army in which I should like to fight."

Jean Larteguy
==========

We now have two armies...

lpl/nc

[joab]

The bad officer role started coming about in the anti-establishment 60s.

Officers = The establishment

Grunts =The poor and oppressed trying to find a way out or
idealistic all American types that have not yet seen the light

[Harry Paget Flashman]

In my 26 years in the Navy, 16 enlisted and 10 officer, my observation was that the same proportion of good to bad performers were in both ranks. The worst of both got weeded out after the first hitch and most who stayed for twenty improved.

[RevDisk]

My experience with West Pointers is limited. I've met three. Two scared me. Highly motivated, and dumb as a brick. I stopped one from leading a patrol into a minefield. A CLEARLY MARKED minefield. He apparently saw the signs EOD thoughfully stuck up, and didn't believe them. They didn't scare me because they were just stupid, but because they were idiots that thought they were geniuses and wanted to be Generals. The third West Point was bright, motivated and generally did an excellent good job.

OCS. Met plenty of those. Generally good guys. Nearly all of the OCS guys I knew were prior service, so they generally knew what they were doing.

ROTC. Went either way. I only noticed lot of 'em didn't stay in very long.

[Sean Smith]

Prior enlisted troops never make average officers. They are either outstanding or they suck. No average prior service officers.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but it seems to fit what I saw from my end now that I think about it. I can remember prior service studs and duds, but none that were just average. I wonder why that is? Do the crappy ones see getting a commission as a way to make more money and goof off, maybe?

:confused:

[Jeff Timm]

Ancient wisdom from a former Cav Officer, with one kid in the Navy and one out of the Army as an Officer, Jerry Pournelle, of Science Fiction and Byte Magazine Fame, (and it was OLD when he heard it.)

"There used to be a conventional wisdom among military people that officers could be differentiated by two variables, brilliant and stupid, and by active and lazy. The active and stupid (these are relative terms, and it's assumed that all of them are smart enough to be officers, but some aren't as bright as others) are to be eliminated. Active and stupid is dangerous. Stupid and lazy are the heart of the army, the usual officers who work their way up from platoon to batallion command, who often lead by example. Brilliant and active make good staff officers, but they want to DO things, and drive the men crazy and are never to be given supreme command, but should be promoted: the perfect General Staff Officer to be sent out as Chief of Staff to important units. Brilliant and lazy are the commanding officers."

But the Army gave Eisenhower Supreme Command anyway, and it worked fairly well.

Geoff
Who saw some of the worse of the US Army 1972 - 82. Sigh..

[bill2]

I was in the Army 74 - 78, made E5 as a buck sgt in combat engineers. Most of the ones I served under and/or knew were okay to poor. One or two were great, and some were just complete idiots - their mothers should have been slapped for successfully giving birth to them.

I had one LT in Germany who was great; and one company commander who was an arrogant sob - he would never look at you when talking, just turn away and give you his profile while he spoke; and the worst of the worst was a punk LT in Fort Ord who dumped on us NCO's while kissing up to anyone who outranked him. One time he set off a smoke bomb in his field jacket while we were on a road march. He once threatened that he was going to "take some stripes" if we didn't square ourselves away. I was going to tell him that 2nd LT's can't bust NCO's, that it takes a field grade officer to handle a field grade article 15, but I decided it would be a waste of time. Just above him was a company commander, west pointer, who when I was introduced to him as one of his new squad leaderswhen I transferred to Fort Ord looked at me, nodded and then went back into his office.

I would say overall I was not impressed with officers back then, I don't know how they are now. I would like to think that they are better, not in the least because there is a war going on and war time military folks are more motivated to do a good job than peace time, especially in the 70's.

[Sam]

bill2,
I am definatly going to agree that the cropI had from the 70's were real honest to god Hoovers.

[George Hill]

ARE.

During the attack on Abu Grab prison in Iraw on APril 4th, while the soldiers were scrambling out of their bunks to face the attack and defend the base... there was a First Sergeant who was ordering all the men to get back inside and get into proper uniform before coming out.
During the attack.
I have seen video of the attack... the truck full of explosives that ran the gate (but detonated too early) and RPGs firing at the guard towers...
And this IDIOT is telling the soldiers to go get into full uniform?

He was resoundedly ignored and subsequently reassigned for being a total idiot.
But still.
:banghead:

[Relayer]

You did say you got this impression from the movies, right?

I think you'll find the answer to your actual question right there.

[Trebor]

You did say you got this impression from the movies, right?

I think you'll find the answer to your actual question right there.

I concur.

Read some personal accounts from WWII, Korea and Vietnam written by the guys who served. You'll see good and bad officers in each war. The troops aren't usually shy about saying who was who afterwards.

I'll try to think of a reccomened reading list in the next day or so. I'm too brain fried right now.

[c_yeager]

Its the movies that are different, not the people.

In fact, considering the quantity of draftees and the poor state of the pre-war US military I would be willing to bet that there were more incompetant officers in WWII than in any later conflict.

[JDThorns]

Strictly speaking from my own observations I have noticed that most officers in W.W.II were the type that weren't afraid to lead their men and genuinely cared for their safety. While most and notice I said most officers in Vietnam in the 70s had only one thing in mind. they looked out only for themselves (look at John the traitor Kerry he staged fire fights to further his career. Most would send their men out into what was a known ambush without a care in the world, they were safe in their bunkers while we were getting massacred some of them even resorted to counting our dead for their body count to further their agenda. The only exception that I know of is Gen. Hap Moore, he refused to leave his men while in combat. I had the privilege to work under him as a military civilian after the war and let me tell you he cared about the civilians just as if you were still in the military. He was the type of military officer that the services need more of to set the example for the enlisted and some of the other worthless officers.
My CO in Vietnam would send us on convoys with minimal ammo and no fire support.
My first one started with 115 trucks and a butter bar in charge, where was the CO you ask? Why he was in the company area with his hooch maids and didn't stick his head out of his room till we came limping back with 88 trucks I might add.
So in answer to your question most were worthless. I could go on and on but I won't bore you with the details.

note: sorry about the run-ons but my meds are making it hard to see the keyboard.

Jim T

That is strictly my opinion for what it is worth :p

[Rockrivr1]

"Quote:
You did say you got this impression from the movies, right?

I think you'll find the answer to your actual question right there."


Yep, I know it's Hollywood in a nutshell. But over the years I've read a few novels about different wars / conflicts and they had the same spin as well. The question I asked though was after watching some of these movies. They seemed to steriotype officers depending on the conflict. I can see if it was one or two movies, but overall every movie that pertained to a certain conflict had the same officer related theme. So I figured I'd ask.

[BigG]

The military has a doctrine that "everything" can be taught. So they believe they can take any sow's ear and make a silk purse out of it. The older generation while paying lip service to that sort of nonsense weeded out the chaff better than the generation today which seems to lack common sense.

There are some born leaders and some who could never lead if you gave them a lifetime leadership course. YMMV

[TC66]

We had a few that I would not trust with anything but for the most part they were pretty good. Only ones that were pretty much useless were ring tappers. No one knew better than them since they had that West Point ring.

[HankB]

My late father - a WWII Air Commando vet - told me many stories about officers he'd encountered during the war, including the so-called "90 day wonders." Most officers were actually bright, or quick learners, and actually cared about their men . . . they put up with the officers who were merely annoying, but there were ways of dealing with the occasional officer (usually a replacement) who was downright dangerous.

Such as taking care to SALUTE him at every opportunity . . . with Jap snipers still in the area . . . well, connect the dots.

And there was a story about a Marine officer who, having lost a lot of his men in stupid frontal assaults, decided that he was going to "draft" Army Air Corps personnel. He showed up at the airfield, approached a group of enlisted men and ordered them to drop what they were doing, fall in with him and get moving for an assault. When they didn't, he pulled out a .45 and threatened to shoot them for cowardice . . . now these are men who'd seen plenty of combat, had earned at least a couple of battle stars by that time as well as assorted Purple Hearts . . . he found himself looking at the business ends of numerous M1s, Thompsons, and .45s. Uh oh. He left, mouthing threats, but NOTHING more was ever heard of him or this incident.

I believe EVERY war has had both good and bad officers, but considering that our downsized military has more generals today than we did in WWII, and many other senior officers who've never seen combat, it wouldn't surprise me at all if, on average there's a lower percentage of good officers today than in the past.

[Old Dog]

The older generation while paying lip service to that sort of nonsense weeded out the chaff better than the generation today which seems to lack common sense.
BigG, I certainly agree with your assertion that the military believes that everything can be taught to anyone. And I sure agree that in the "old days" the military was much better at weeding out the chaff (we're far too p.c. these days with the all-volunteer military -- and that's the crux of the matter right now -- we're all volunteers).

But I've gotta disagree with the notion that today's generation lacks common sense. With 25 years (and counting) in the service under my belt, I'm thinking that what today's generation really lacks is purpose, direction ... guidance. Most of the young people who work for me these days (and I'm heavily engaged in trying to train 'em) are much smarter than the average recruit we used to get when I first came in; with the proper amount of care and feeding, most of these young folks absolutely shine. They want to learn, they want to be successful in their chosen fields, and they want to be led. A big difference I see is that a lot of these young folks today can identify much better when they're not being led well than we could when I first came up.

A lot of the young folks entering the armed forces today really lack only the experience of having had to work hard; life for children growing up in this country today is simply not as tough as it may have been 50 or 60 years ago (with respect to having to learn a work ethic at an earlier age). That's the toughest thing I have to teach the kids these days -- how to actually work, to complete sustained jobs, face the possibility of sixteen or eighteen hour days, seven days a week for several weeks or months at a time ... A lot of the young folks, including the new officers, haven't had to do anything tougher than a modest amount of school homework before they enter the service ...

I don't know that today's military leaders (and I count senior enlisted leadership as important as officer leadership, since we've got an incredibly well-educated cadre of senior NCOs/CPOs in today's military) are any better or any worse, on average, than in the past. I do know we're far too top-heavy these days with the biggest officer corps the military's ever had ...

[Sean Smith]

Ultimately, action talks and bull????? walks. Look at the combat performance of our armed forces over the last 20 years. Nostalgia trips are fun and all, but they don't reflect objective realitiy. The tactical performance of our armed forces has been incredibly good. That simply doesn't happen without excellent NCOs AND competent officers, on average. Without good NCOs, you can't execute anything. Without good officers, you get so much overall stupidity that the execution doesn't do you any good.

Historically, you go fight in a city, even against poorly-armed irregulars, and the body count is stupendous and it takes forever. Conventional wisdom is that urban fighting negates all your technological advantages, and leaves you with what amounts to a blind knife-fight.

In the invasion of Iraq, we took out entire cities full of bad guys, did it FAST, and did it with extremely light casualties... without leveling entire cities like was SOP in WWII. Total combat casualties are on the order of 1,300 killed and 12,000 wounded to date. There is no historical precedent for casualties that low in any remotely similar conflict... except Afghanistan.

Of course, if you don't think the war is justified, then none of the casualties are. But that is a political question. As a matter of military performance, that few people killed in that much combat is simply unprecedented. And it can't really be reconciled with "all the ossifers are dumb stuck-up queers nowadays."

At the level of general officers, I haven't been terribly impressed. But you look at the "hero" generals of WWII, and most of them were mediocrities too. We had some great organizational minds and diplomat-politicians wearing stars (e.g. Ike), but you can count the really good "fighting" generals on the U.S. side on your fingers... hell, maybe one hand. But good PR and nostalgia can hide feet of clay from your casual war buff.

[pete f]

Let us look at what happend in WW2 vs Vietnam as far a raw material selection, First, college was a deferrement, so right off the bat the better educated of the draft pool was able to exclude themselves.

second, national will. There were very very few people in WW2 who were outspoken against the war and therefore Draftees were generally supported and honored. They were not spit on or approached with ways to get out of military service. Age of draftees, we drafted a wider range of men in ww2. In reading my WW2 books, I am amazed at how many younger and junior officers already had live experience as leaders in civilian life, foremen, cops, teachers, business people, all of whom had experience of looking ahead and trying to think as a person in charge of others. even the older guys who were drafted who had families, They already had been placed in a position of needing to think as a leader of a family to plan for the family. This did not always pan out, but it seemed to place people in the position of authority who had enough lie experience to make it work.

Also look at the movie industry during the wars, WW2 you had the best and brightest of hollywood at the front lines or near it filming and seeing what was going on and doing the utmost to support the troops by showing
the home front the war effort in a good light.

Viet nam, had guys like Rather over there doing their very best to show what an unkind war it was on the peaceloving vietnamese. >> Gee that beastly officer demanded his company burn this village down after they only suffered two wounded and a KIA from the people living there, how cruel! <<

WW2 had some a hole commanders too. There was just a program on about MOH winners, and one was a black man who was in Italy. He was a 2nd LT and had a White captain as his superior, his company of black suppoort troops got caught in a counter attack by the germans and they fought back well and he was genuine hero, rescueing many and killing some germans and destroying a tank or two. He suffers wounds to his head and arm. The battle over he can not find his CC and heads to Batt. HQ to request more ammo and a new CC and finds out that batt HQ is suprised to find out they are still a unit as his CC had fled and reported his unit wiped out and said "oh and not to worry, it's a black outfit, no need to send reinforcements." The CC then berates the black 2nd LT for showing up without his steel helmet ( which had been blown off during the battle.) But the general in command did not want to give a medal to the guy becasue it would show poorly on his CC for running away.

this stuff happened more than was written about in the WW2 era. especially with regualr army types there was a lot of CYA going on

[No_Brakes23]

I think peacetime increases the number of idiots and combat causes good warriors to rise to the top, but that is a broad generalization.

I am sure that 60 years ago there were plenty of morons in leadership positions, but various factors cause that to not come to light. If you want a fictional account of idiot leaders from the past, then read any of Jeff Shaara's or W.E.B Griffin's books. They pepper their writing with idiocy, (some of it based on real examples, especially in Shaara's case.)

Likewise, I am sure there were plenty of good leaders in Viet Nam and all combat since then. Perhaps attitudes nowadays allow for more questioning of authority, which in turn turns up examples of incompetance.

In my experience, ('96-'05 Marine Air Wing,) Good officers and Staff NCOs were the exception, not the rule. I only ever had one CO, (Out of 6 or so,) who was worth a damn, and their XOs were petty, carreerist @ssholes to a man. Ringknockers (Annapolis grads,) were by far the most pompous and least worthwhile of the bunch.

I did notice a HUGE difference in attitude between F/A-18 pilots and AV-8B pilots. The fighter guys were mostly prima-donnas who would literally throw tantrums on the flight deck in front of hundreds of enlisted when small things did not go their way. They mostly let us in the ranks know our place, (We were the knuckle-draggin help that inconvenienced their lives.) There was a lot of talking out of both sides of the mouth. We had some jerks in the attack squadron, but the Harrier pilots were far more down to earth without being too buddy-buddy with the enlisted.

The SNCOs I served under were little better than the pilots, and sometimes worse. (Not much difference based on the aircraft with the SNCOs, however.) Brown-nosing and careerism all around.

But that was just my experience with less than 2000 people out of about a million or so servicemembers. So that represents one half of one percent of the armed forces. And this was also serving with units that did not come under fire, which I belived tends to purge some of the impurities, so to speak.

[BigG]

Old Dog, Sean, and others -

That's what I like about this site. Everybody can express their opinion without getting into a knock down drag out fight. My answer was partly off the cuff, I realize that, but my assertion that young people today, while technologically savvy above my generation, lacks the common sense of one who had to learn by doing. That's just experience talking and my generation, i.e., many of you reading this, had it easier than my Pop's - a product of the Great Depression and WWII infantry combat. Our physical challenges have been much less overall, while our moral challenges have been even greater. Who is to say?

[richyoung]

Look at the combat performance of our armed forces over the last 20 years.

Who have we fought? Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq twice (because we didn't finish the first time), and Somalia, (and we got run out of Somalia). Hardly an impressive list, or an impressive track record...



The tactical performance of our armed forces has been incredibly good.

The development of precision munitions, plus the advantage of not having to contest with the likes of the Luftwaffe for air suprememcy, as well as the palookah nature of the opposition, might have had a little to do with it. Not to mention incompetent leadership by the bad guys.

[Sean Smith]

Who have we fought? Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq twice (because we didn't finish the first time), and Somalia, (and we got run out of Somalia). Hardly an impressive list, or an impressive track record...

Easy for an armchair commando to pooh-pooh fighting in Afghanistan. But what happened to the last country that tried it? They wore their ass for a hat... 13,000 Russians were killed and they ran away at the end of 9 years, we've lost 184 lives and won in a matter of months. Conventional wisdom was that an invasion of Afghanistan was unwinnable. Oops.

In Somalia, a handful of Rangers fought off an ENTIRE CITY, and incidentally accomplished the mission they were sent to do. Clinton made a POLITICAL decision to run hide, because he has no balls... hardly a reflection on the performance of the armed forces in combat. But you are going to tell me that inflicting 25:1 casualties reflects poorly on the combat performance of the Rangers?

When in recorded history have two numerically similar armies, with hundreds of thousands of troops on each side, fought each other with such wild disparities in casualties as there were in the two wars between the US and Iraq? The Brits couldn't pull that kind of disparity in casualties off when using rifles and machine guns against enemies armed with SPEARS, folks.

The point isn't that the Iraqi army was that great (it wasn't), but rather that the casualties we suffered were almost impossibly low even when taking that into account. I dare you to give me a remotely similar historical example where the winner's losses were as low as they have been in current operations.

[RevDisk]

Most of the young people who work for me these days (and I'm heavily engaged in trying to train 'em) are much smarter than the average recruit we used to get when I first came in; with the proper amount of care and feeding, most of these young folks absolutely shine. They want to learn, they want to be successful in their chosen fields, and they want to be led. A big difference I see is that a lot of these young folks today can identify much better when they're not being led well than we could when I first came up.

I'd say this is a very, very accurate description. As Sean Smith pointed out, today's young soldiers do an extremely good job. No offense to the old timers, but generals and other old timers do not win the wars. They can lose a war, sure. But wars are won by the guys on the ground with the rifles. Most of these grunts are in their 20's.

We're not just soldiers. We have to be small scale diplomats, technicians, clerks, etc etc. Being able to pick up a rifle and shooting at the bad guy wearing a distinctive uniform is no longer enough. Think of how much the average soldier in WWII had to know, and compare it to today's soldier.

Heck, for my job, last I checked there are 237 systems I am supposed to know how to use, maintain and fix if it breaks. I'm a commo geek. Not a flashy job, but I like it and I think it's a rather important one. I'm supposed to know how to work satellite communication equipment, tactical radios, MSE (think the Army version of a cell phone, weighing 84 lbs), field phones, computers, computer networks, running every type of wire under the sun, etc etc. That doesn't even get into cryptological stuff, understanding RF behavior, integrating all that fancy commo equipment and making it all work smoothly. I'm not complaining, I love my job. I'm just annoyed when I'm handed leaders that are incompotent.

I gave a class on the SINCGARS to my entire unit. Then I did a written and practical test. Two people failed. One guy that only got the class 3/4ths the way through and shouldn't have taken the test. I gave him a quick rundown, and within 3 minutes, had him pass the test.

The other guy to fail the test was my CO. Badly. On the written test, he got 5/20 right. The guy that missed nearly all of the class got 12 right. Mind you, no time limit and I allowed (encouraged) any notes/manuals/whatever. Then on the practical, he failed even though I provided a step by step set of instructions. As a brand new E2 private, how the heck am I supposed to respect my CO when he proved he was a complete idiot? Worse yet, how do I break the news to him that he's a complete idiot? I passed the buck and handed the matter off to my NCO.

The problem with my generation is not lacking ability or intelligence. It's proper direction and leadership. Lacking experience is just part of being young, and is rather hard to justify holding that against us. Part of that is our own fault. Part of it is the failure of those who proceeded us.

[No_Brakes23]

Today is the 87th anniversary of the start of the fighting near Chateau-Thierry in Belleau Wood. There would appear to be controversy surrounding the tactical decisions made there, especially the June 6th advance across the wheatfield versus enfilade fire.

http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/ct_bw.htm

Just fuel for thought.

Of course, the Marines and soldiers eventually took the wood and took a lot of steam out of Ludendorff's offensive, regardless of leadership skills or the lack thereof.

[Vern Humphrey]

Interesting that they use the term "Doughboy" as if it meant "WWI-era American Soldier."

A Doughboy is an American infantryman -- has been since the term was first applied to them in the War with Mexico.

[dpesec]

Well, when I got mine, my uncle who served with Patton, told me to work with my NCOIC and let him or her call the shots. My job was to be sure that the objectives were clear and to get the resources to make it happen.
Worked, had veru ORI scores. Plus, my unit wad happy

[dpesec]

This is a problem not only in the military, where the difference between a good leader and a poor one, often ,means the difference between life and death, but it's all over. Today, leaders believe that just because they have positional authority they are "leaders" that is far from the truth.
Just my two cents.

[Joey2]

I don't think that you can nail down which era, generation, war, etc. had the most incompatient officers or NCO's.

The bottom line is they all had them.

I had the privilege of being trained by WW2 officers and NCO's as a whole they had it all togather.

I enlisted in '63 so we were well trained when the Vietnam War started. The WW2 vets were at the Battalion level and higher.

We had Korean War vets at the platoon and company level. Some of our Company commanders were former NCO's, our Plt. Sgts were former Pvt., Pfc's etc. during the Korean War.

As the war progressed we slowly lost the oldtimers through rotations and casualties. The "new breed" took over and were just as good.

Now what we had down in the ranks was another story. We had the spectrum from the very best to the very worst scum you could imagine.

I was a Pfc. when this war started and was a SSgt. when it ended. I had 2 tours, my last as a Sgt. squad leader.

The majority of our officers were from OCS. I only served with a few Academy graduates.

I must say the the vast majority of these officers were equal to the "old breed".

I was in the same Battalion with James Webb, former Sec. of the Navy. He was in the 1st Bn. and I was in the 2d Bn. I was a witness to one of his purple hearts. Naval Academy Graduate by the way.

I served under "E-tool" Livingston, Medal of Honor winner
I believe he was from the OCS program.

When I got out in Dec.'74 we still had a good officer corps and senior NCO corps. The junior NCO's - E-5 and E-4 was bad, very bad.

We were plagued with racial problems and the beginning of the Political Correct mode of surviving until your retirement.

I elected to get out because I refused to sell out. I was a GySgt. (E-7) when I pulled the plug from the USMC and joined the army.

I retired with 26yrs. and 3 mo.

My #3 son is a career Marine, SSgt, with 1st Recon Bn. We talk and I can see the the "PC" generation has taken over.

[SnWnMe]

My take on the WW2 movie vs later conflict movie officer portrayal.

In the old days, the good guys were portrayed as just that, good guys. They had no life outside the main story. They are always morally upright and can do no wrong. They didn't have any issues. They were one dimensional so to speak.

In the new movies, the film makers explore the more human side of the heroes. Kinda like noir. They have issues, conflicts and problems. This is not just in war movies. The old superhero moobies are the same. If you watch the old Superman and Batman shows, you'd think that their caca don't stink because they are portrayed as very wholesome.

[Moondoggie]

My observations/opinions from 26 yrs in the Marines...I retired in '99 as an E9.

A primary difference between WWII & Viet Nam was attitude. In WWII we were saving the world from fascism...Viet Nam was no threat to anybody we cared about. Also, in WWII we had profound respect for the German Soldier...they were tough, well trained, well equipped, and extremely well led and our folks KNEW it. In Viet Nam we, especially the senior leadership, held the NVN/VC in disdain...they were "rag tag", "irregular forces", guerillas; we were also racially prejudiced toward them..."Gooks", "Gooners", "Rice Propelled Zipperheads", "The Little People". Militarily, we didn't consider them a worthy adversary. Ooops! There's a lot more to it than that, I know.

I think there was much more of a "We're all in this together" attitude at the battalion level & below in WWII. I haven't read/heard about too many WWII officers getting "fragged".

As far as officer quality is concerned, I saw it decline after Viet Nam and increase dramatically beginning in the mid-80's. As far as academy types go, I knew 3 ring-knockers from CanoeU in my career. One was a great officer & had a stellar career, the other 2 were duds...just something about them that was "off", nobody was ever "comfortable" with them. I came to notice that amongst pilots, the smaller & slower their aircraft the closer to the dregs of humanity they were on the evolutionary scale. One Huey/Cobra Squadron I was in saw 2 CO's relieved/court-martialled for sexual misconduct, on sqdn pilot exposed himself in the bar in the O Club (to show everybody the ravages of his incurable STD), and 2 sqdn pilots were convicted of padding their logbooks in an effort to get hired by airlines when they left acdu. This all happened in ONE year in the mid '90's! I saw more officer misconduct in this one year than I did in the balance of my career.

IMHO, the Navy has the best "system" for JO's.....(usually XO or Bull LT tells Ensign FNG), "this is Chief Schmadogotz, he runs your department and will teach you everything you need to know." It's a smart JO who watches and learns from "his" CPO. Chiefs have more "power" than the other senior enlisted in the other services.

I concur with what others have said about the quality of current folks in the military. Although I retired waaaay back in '99, I had 25 Sgt & below in my shop and 24 of them were striving to be 5.0 Marines in every aspect of performance. They were smart, resourceful, and highly dedicated. Much better than I saw at any other period in my career. The other one was working his own program & I made sure that he left our employ as an E-1 after 3 yrs of service with his medical discharge.

[entropy]

I was enlisted 86-89, Ft. Ord. Had a year of ROTC under my belt, so I kinda had a feel for both sides of the fence. The S-4 I worked for 2 of my 3 years there was a Green Beanie, OCS, from being a SF E-6 medic. Best officer I ever worked with; Got the job done, did so without getting mired in the 'office politics' of the BN, cared about his people. The CO of the dust-off DET. was a West Pointer, and while usually strac-butt, knew when to back off
and let his people get things done. The CPT that replaced the SF CPT was a ROTC grad, and a total jerk. The 2LT below him was also ROTC, but had the good sense to say, "Here's what we need to do. I figured we could do it this way, but how do you usually do it?" Our BN Cdr. was ROTC (I believe so anyway) a 'Nam chopper pilot, and a very down to earth Okie who respected everyone whether they wore stars or 'skeeter wings. He earned my respect by nicely asking me if I would clean his pistol, instead of assuming I would like his predecessor. Overall, we had good officers in my unit, despite the dunderheads like my CO; fortunately I rarely saw the guy, and could BS my way out of any problems with him.

I'd rate them thus: West pointers-Either top of the tops, or most likely to be fragged in combat.

OCS- Prior service were usually right up the with the best, some looked upon their commision as a dotage, to mark time til' retirement, without doing any sort of work at all. Non-aviator Warrants seemed to develop this entitlement attitude more often than LT's.

ROTC- The best ones were good decent officers, the rest a waste of good oxygen, and most likely to die from self-inflicted wounds in combat. :p ("Pull pin, let spoon loose and then what did the TM say?" :what: )

[Texian Pistolero]

I think that, statistically, the best officers are those whose fathers were officers. They are so much ahead on the bellshaped curve on how the military works, and the warrior ethic.

Face it, in the '70's, the average American knew far more about Martians than the professional military culture.

I was ROTC in Europe in 74 - 78. As a "butter bar", I often sucked, but as first LT something clicked in, and I started to do some righteous stuff.

I still got out after four years, the Army was still in the toilet under Ford/Carter. I wish somebody had given me a biography of Chesty Puller.

Given the amount of resources thrown at them, I'm appalled that West Pointers have as many duds as they have. And WP duds DO get protected for a few extra rounds. But statistically, they are the best.

Based on a limited sample of OCS, they didn't seem to treat EM any better, in fact, the opposite. It was like they needed to "distance" themselves from their former status, had a hangup WP or ROTC didn't have. But that was a limited sample.

I agree that ROTC is tossup, but consider where they are coming from.

I also agree that our troops in Afgan and Iraq are SUPERB! They have at least five times the combat effectiveness of the "Volar" Army of the '70's. But they may be in the process of being attrited down.

[mattk]

Remember in Desert Storm all the Brigade and Divison Commanders and up were Vietnam vets. Most with mulitple tours. Probably the best set of upper level commanders the US Army has fielded at one time. Almost all those guys are retired now.