[WyldOne]

Okay. I was watching "Full Metal Jacket" the other day, and I just don't get it. So I need your help to understand, especially the soldiers who have actually been through it.

WHY do they completely knock people down and humiliate them and treat them like dirt? That's not how I get things done. I overcome obstacles with support, not with people treating me like crap. I need lots of "You can do it"s, not "You're stupid"s.

Of course, I'll be the first one to admit that I'm just not made for the military, and this is a large part of why that is the case. But I do want to understand the reasoning behind this kind of training.

Please? :)

[Greg L]

You tear them down so that you can rebuild them into the image that you want, in this case a group of young men who are willing to fight and die for each other. You give them a common enemy (in training the DI) to fight against and the only way that they can succeed (or at least appear to) is to band together against him. As part of a team they will work harder than they will as individuals and think of the team first rather than themselves.

Greg

[BigG]

Got to be there. Can't understand how individuals mold into a team otherwise.

[Carlos Cabeza]

I have never been through boot camp, but I would bet on the reason being we don't want a bunch of babies fighting our battles. And if you can't handle it, it will show during boot camp. I like Greg L's Team work explanation.

[Jeff White]

Wyldone,

Left on it's own any group will form it's own leaders. The military needs to take charge right away and establish it's own leadership.

The shock treatment is part of that. All of initial entry training in all of our armed forces is geared towards the goal of producing a basic soldier, airman, sailor or marine for ruther training. Greg is right that part of it is designed to strip away the individuality so that the recruits will learn to function as a team. Many career soldiers are horrified over the Army of One ad campaign as it's not what the Army is really about. You also have to instill the thought taht you must instantantly react to orders. On the battlefield, hesitation can be fatal not only for you but for others.

You can't form a total opinion of basic training from a movie like Full Metal Jacket. There is plenty of the "you can do it " motivation that you espouse in all services basic training. I suspect that Stanley Kubrick left that out of his film because he was trying to illustrate a different point.

Basic training is not a long hazing process. While the part so vividly portrayed in the film is accurate, it's not the total story.

Jeff

[Leatherneck]

Greg and Carlos have it: reduce the individualism typical of those seeking to be Marines with team spirit. Envision a "team" you'd literally die for and you've got it. Related goals are tough physical training, tough mental training (ability to think clearly when fatigued), demanding weapons training and the realization that proper discipline comes from within the individual, not from outside. Most people are miserable at first, then stressed for a while, and finally have a growing pride that comes from achievement. It lasts a lifetime. :D

TC
TFL Survivor

[NewShooter78]

GregL is pretty much right on this one. They object of bootcamp is to mold the recruits into soldiers; men and women who form a cohesive unit. You can't do this in 8-9 weeks by being "Mr. Niceguy" so they have to be rough. And don't confuse what you see in Full Metal Jacket for what happens in boot camp anymore. You can't talk to recruits in the same manner as they did then, and you can't beat them up or other such things. And drill instuctors do offer encouragement to their recruits, but they also offer a tough love.

[Drizzt]

Navy Boot:

We had what was called "1-5" day. This was the fifth day of your first official week. It was the first day after you had been officially given the OK from medical, dental, and whatever else they wanted to test you for. This meant that the Company Commanders didn't have to be nice to you anymore.

Summer in Orlando. They turn off all the air-conditioning in the barracks. Every CC with some spare time decides to come join in on the fun. Several hours of 'cycling' the recruits. Slipping in the puddle of sweat that has built up on the tile at your feet (those boondockers never had much traction anyhow).

After all this, then comes the motivational speech. Telling you tome come together as a team. 50 guys in a circle locking arms to do sit-ups.

Ah, memories......

[TarpleyG]

I accomplished more things in boot camp than I would have ever dared all on my own because of those Drill Instructors. They have a very unique way of motivating you. When I first got there, I hated every minute of it. After I discovered that I belonged to them and nothing I did would result in anything but getting recycled, I got right. Somewhere in the middle of Phase II, I guess, is when I started to take pride in what I was doing and the rest was pretty much painless.

I often look back now and wish that I would have selected active duty instead of reserve service. I probably would have stayed in until retirement which would have been sometime about now.

Oh, and BTW, those soldiers in FMJ were Marines, not soldiers.

GT

[DJJ]

Never served (but after the Clinton years, I feel kind of guilty for not), but here's some speculation...

I know a Vietnamese guy who's always cheerful, never loses his cool, etc. I commented on it one time, and he said he was one of the "boat people". The time on the boat was the worst hell he'd ever seen, and everything after was a birthday party.

Make boot camp the most miserable experience possible, and you know you'll be able to wheather any hardship after that. Jeff Cooper made a similar statement in one of his commentaries, something to effect that people have "reserves of endurance" they don't know they have, and must be shown.

[Bob Locke]

My dad was USMC '66-'68. He told me that "Full Metal Jacket" was as close to the real thing as he'd seen on film.

Drizzt, I hear ya! Poor guy next to me got told to do 8-count bodybuilders, and the CC (not ours; one of those "spares" you mentioned) walked off and forgot about him. I think the guy was at it for like half an hour or so. That CC must have realized that he didn't really mean to do that, 'cause I still remember the look on his face when he came back and told the guy to recover. I thought he was gonna pass out.

Then, the day before we were gonna leave, they called out a BUNCH of guys and had them gather in the little room right off our barracks. There was this one guy, Todd Salvido, who had been pretty well picked on the whole 8 weeks because he was overweight and not too bright. The CC's called him out, too, and had him preside over "cycling" those guys for about 45 minutes. The CC's had been keeping score, and were helping even it up at the end. :D

It's about helping you realize that you're part of team and no longer an individual working for your own interests. Has to be that way, too, IMO.

[Sean Smith]

Most people have hit on the big answers already.

Basic Training has changed somewhat since back in the 1960s... the physical violence has been pretty much outlawed, for instance. When I was a Drill Cadet (hee hee!) helping the real Drill Sergeants administer Basic Training back in 1993, the privates didn't get beat on or anything like that, but DID have to do stuff like push-ups or flutter-kicks as "corrective training." Stuff that would hurt their health is avoided (e.g. plenty of food and water, no really wacky sleep deprivations). By way of comparison, Cadet Basic Training ("Beast Barracks") at West Pont was stranger and a bit more, well, evil. :evil:

One other factor is the time factor... Basic Training needs to give people ALOT of life-or-death knowledge in a short period of time. The drill sergeants don't have time to fool around with explaining themselves and having long discussions about the validity of what they are doing. Privates simply must learn and obey, or else.

Finally, the military learned long ago that real self esteem comes from overcoming adversity (in this case, in the shape of the Drill Sergeant), not hand-holding and group hugs.

Full Metal Jacket left out the positive side of the Drill Sergeant as a teacher, coach, mentor and positive authority figure. They don't just scream at people, they set the example in everything they do. They just happen to be scary as hell too. ;)

And finally, the "real" military experience is nothing like basic training.

[WyldOne]

*listening* (one of the few times that I don't even have follow-up questions!)


Oh, and BTW, those soldiers in FMJ were Marines, not soldiers.

:eek: Egads! Sorry. I always seem to do that. :o

[Oleg Volk]

Here's from the "never been there" corner, trying to verify a few impressions. From what I can tell, recruits are only handle weapons under close opbservation (and, at least in some units, just about at gun point). That may be to avoid accidents and may be to avoid homicides with the DI as the victim. Seems that eventually the equivalent of Stokhold Syndrome takes over and the hetherto-hated DI is suddenly best friend and mentor because he's no longer as mean. Is that an accurate impression or there's a better explanation?

[voilsb]

A lot of the big points were made already, as mentioned above. This one in particular stood out, however, and is very true. Jeff White and Sean Smith said it best, though.

I certainly had my share of Drill Sergeant Vanier shouting in my face that I was weak and couldn't hold my own. I also had my share of getting taught how to land navigate or how to work my way through the obstacle course, where I wan encouraged that I was knowledgable and capable to get through it.

Also note that this is how the military trains it's junior enlisted recruites. The schools for becoming an NCO are different (though I've never been), and certainly the Warrant and Commissioned Officer programs are different. In those, they are training you to become a leader, not a follower. It's still very important to be a team player, but they do it in a different manner.

I can assure you there is *much* more "you can do it" positive reinforcement in the Officer Commissioning programs (with the exception of OCS, which I hear is worse than boot).

[ojibweindian]

Naw Oleg, at least not for me. I always hated my CC's, even after bootcamp.

[voilsb]

That sort of supervision with the weapons is less to keep the trainees from flipping out as it is simply safety paranoia. With a group as diverse as basic trainees, with every possible background with firearms, the military plans for the worse-case-scenario.

As for the other, some people graduate and at some point decide they really respect their DIs for what went on, and others don't. it depends on the person and the DIs in question. what you have to remember, though, is that it is their JOB to act that way, and in most cases it is not the persons natural attitude.

case in point: about a week before I graduated, I was talking with Drill Sergeant Vanier, who was the most mean of the drills my cycle. He was rather good at that part of his job (and every other aspect, too). He was talking about how after this cycle, he got to go back to Ft. Lewis (where his family had already moved) and would get to relax a lot more. He also mentioned he got paid extra to be a drill sergeant, and that it was in his job description to be mean and nasty.

I'm one of the people who really respected my drills, and would love to serve with them sometime.

A friend of mine still wants to beat the poo out of one of his.

[Sean Smith]

Here's from the "never been there" corner, trying to verify a few impressions. From what I can tell, recruits are only handle weapons under close opbservation (and, at least in some units, just about at gun point).

While your impression is sort of true, it is also sort of full of crap. Not to be rude, but that last bit is just plain silly. We aren't talking about the Soviet Army here. :rolleyes:

OF COURSE recruits only handle weapons under close observation. 99.9% of them have NO CLUE about firearms of any kind. It is a function of nothing more sinister than safe training. And anyway, privates in basic training don't EAT LUNCH without being under "close observation." They are in a near-constant state of observation, period. It isn't done "at gun point" or anything like that, though. What stupidity! When I was a Drill Cadet (basically a West Point cadet temporarily assigned as a drill sergeant), I was never armed. Drill sergeant shootings are incredibly rare, actually, and almost all of those are negligent discharges on the range (mainly by the privates), not deliberate killings.

No private would shoot me, they knew they'd never live it down. :evil:

Bear in mind again that basic training is nothing like how privates are actually treated out in the armed forces once they graduate. I don't recall there being any particular "babysitting" when it came to handling of weapons out in the Army (1995-2001), aside from of course enforcing safety rules on live-fire ranges. Weapons are strictly accounted for, of course, but so are all kinds of things in the Army.

[Greg L]

Oleg,

We had our rifles with us most of the time after we managed to learn how to walk in a straight line and tell our left from our right. :) However the only time that there was live ammo for them was on the range. There it was tightly controlled as there was a huge amount of people that needed to be qualified in a relatively short period of time. With the wide range of backgrounds and level of gun knowledge there it was more a safety issue than one of being worried about someone blowing away their DI.

I think that once you realize that it is the DI's job to be a miserable sob you can start to understand what they are trying to do. The sadistic ones who seem to get off on abusing the recruits seem to be fairly quickly weeded out by their peers.

I don't think that it is as much the Stockholm Syndrome as it is the realization that you are becoming a part of a much bigger whole.

Greg

[Sean Smith]

About officer commissioning...

At West Point, Cadet Basic Training is a sort of wierd, satantic version of "real" basic training. Later on, when I saw "real" basic training, it seemed kind of sissified to me. But then again, it also made alot more sense and had less pointless mental torture than West Point had. ROTC is just plain candy-assed. (J/K :D )

Most peope have a totally goofy impression of what basic training is like, and an even goofier impression of what actual service is like. It's kinda hard to explain the pros and cons off the top of my head. West Point was like being with 4,000 of the coolest people on Earth... all of whom were totally miserable 90% of the time and subjected to regular mental and physical torture. Everybody pulls together, helps each other, learns alot about themselves and humans in general, and gains a whole ton of confidence and mental toughness compared to when they went in. But nobody with normal psychology LIKED it. :D

[BigG]

Oleg, Sean is right. The weapons are issued at a certain point and they are your baby. The Drill Sgts (Army) in fact try to steal them from you so you can be "punished." What they do control is the AMMO. You will not see a piece of live ammo except on the firing range.

When you graduate from your boot camp experience, the first guy to shake your hand and beam at you (like your mother would) is that "mean ole drill sgt." So maybe the Stockholm analogy is right. :confused:

[Greg L]

Thinking about it. It's been a while since I've read it, but IIRC Heinlien's Starship Troopers had a good section on basic training and the transition from raw recruit to trained soldier and also the realization that the DI's seemingly insane ideas were actually a carefully orchestrated act.

I'll need to dig it out and read it again. Any excuse for a Heinlein.;)

Greg

[MitchSchaft]

My dad was USMC '66-'68. He told me that "Full Metal Jacket" was as close to the real thing as he'd seen on film.

My friend's dad was in about that same time and went into Recon. After we watched it with him he said the same thing.

From my experience, it's the same thing except these days, you don't hear all that cussing and they're not allowed to hit you :mad:. I was kind of disappointed about that. They do it to toughen your butt up for a real life scrap.
I had one Drill Instructor yell in my ear so loud that it rang for 20 minutes. :evil:

[Hkmp5sd]

One thing it did was really bring home the "teamwork" idea. There are no individuals. If one person screws up, everyone suffers. After a while, you are trying your best not out of fear of getting yelled at, but because you don't want any of your buddies to suffer because of something you did.

From what I understand, that relates directly to combat. A soldier may be scared to death of being killed by the enemy. However, the fear of failing in front of his teammates is the worst possible thing on the earth. He concludes he might get killed by the enemy, but he is not going to fail no matter what.

[Drizzt]

During my Service Week, I was assigned to RIF, which is where the new recruit companies form up. I was working a night shift, so I got to watch the CCs come in, before they woke up the newbies. They would come in, laughing and joking with each other, just as calm as can be, then one would look at his watch and say, "You ready to do this?", at which point a change would come over them as they started screaming and throwing things to mess with the newbies heads. That was really the final confirmation for me as to how much of an act the whole CC thing was.

[Viking6]

A lot of good replies; one addition. Army Basic training doesn't make you a trained soldier; it makes you a trainible (sp) soldier. That's why they call it basic. There might be a more effective way to train but there is no more efficient way to train large numbers of civilians to a basic military standard.

[jmbg29]

Oleg, I think you are way off base on this one. The part in FMJ where Private Pyle kills his D.I. is a pile of :cuss: .

As said ealier, they don't let you have ammo for safety reasons along the lines of negligent discharge, rather than murderous intent.

Stockholm Syndrome? I don't think so. I look on my C.C.s* as I do the teachers I've had that were toughest on me. I thank God that I had them. They showed me the things that I could do that I hadn't thought possible of myself or anyone else.

Rather than waste my time hating or resenting them, I acknowledge the debt of gratitude that I owe them. The things they taught me saved my life.



*Company Commanders/Navy vs. D.I.s A.K.A. Drill Instructors/Army/Marines. I think the Air Force uses Camp Counselors <wink, wink..dig-dig>:evil:

[MitchSchaft]

That was really the final confirmation for me as to how much of an act the whole CC thing was.

I experienced almost the same thing while I was in RSP getting discharged. I was on a working party cleaning out a house to get it ready for new recruits.
The DIs and Company Commanders were practicing their whole speech for "Black Sunday". It was pretty cool to see how things ran on the other side of things. It's an act, sure, but when you're on the receiving end you can't treat it that way :D.

The part in FMJ where Private Pyle kills his D.I. is a pile of

Not entirely true. "Blanket parties" happen. Except they don't use bars of soap, they use their master locks. I have a friend who's platoon took part in one against a recruit. He never ratted them out and never had a problem with him again. The DI asked him how he got his face bruised. He told him he fell. That's as far as it went. When I was in, almost an entire platoon went to the brig because of that.

In the same platoon, a recruit snuck a few rounds from the rifle range, purposely left his rifle unlocked before lights out. Got up in the middle of the night and walked around the house with a loaded M16. He even popped off a round into the ceiling. That's when the DI came out, acted all calm and friendly towards him and even calling him by his first name:eek:. When the recruit let his guard down, he knocked his butt to the ground.

[rock jock]

A lot of kids, especially these days, come in with a real punk attitude. That attitude prevents them from obeying orders instinctively and working with others they don't like. It also thoughens them and makes them disciplined.

BTW, FMJ is right on. The DI's at Marine OCS talked and walked and yelled just like Mr. Ermey.

[rms/pa]

glakes boot,usn 1977, our CC was the most soft spoken,polite gentleman you ever met.
but he would become dissapointed with us from time to time.

then we would indulge in flower arranging.
problem, there were no flowers availible at glakes that i found.
there were 2 yard yellow steel dumpsters.

imagine 100 recruits physicley picking up yellow dumpsters
and arranging them in pretty flower patterns for our CC's
satisfaction. without dropping or sliding them... some were full.

teamwork,exhaustion,attention to detail ... all in one go.
the CC would stand on the roof to approvee our arrangements.

rms/pa

[Dannyboy]

West Point was like being with 4,000 of the coolest people on Earth...

Only from a ring-knocker. No offense but I don't think I ever got along with a West Pointer. They always acted like they had a stick up their rear. Not to mention they were uptight and didn't know how to salute.

[Blackhawk]

Military personnel in combat must obey orders from superiors without hesitation and with all of their attention. Might as well start by teaching them to do that.

[BigG]

Hi WyldOne,

A word about FMJ: FMJ is a MOVIE and like all movies, it has a POINT OF VIEW, in this case that of director Stanley Kubrick.

One of Kubrick's favorite themes is DEHUMANIZATION. You see it time and again in his small oeurve (less than a dozen films, IIRC). Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove, 2001, and FMJ are classic illustrations of this theme.

Given this bias, viewpoint, or message as you will Kubrick is going to stack the deck to reinforce this feeling in his audience. Like most of the respondents have mentioned this is a one-sided portrayal of how it really is. You get all the bitter, none of the sweet. Pvt. Pyle was Kubrick's construct in this case to show the dehumanization process. If you remember, nobody else had the same attention paid to him except Pyle. This was showing the paranoia that built inside him until the senseless act that ended part 1.

By the way, I thought R. Lee Ermey was the whole show and the second half was a complete waste of time. I have a fuller review of FMJ and about 400 other movies on my website.

HTH

George:D

[TexasVet]

glakes boot,usn 1977, our CC was the most soft spoken,polite gentleman you ever met.
--------------------------------------
Great Lakes, '66, mine was the meanest, yellingest and most ornery man I ever met, until we earned Color Company with two weeks to go before grad. Then he stopped playing DI and just acted normal. Great guy, and we learned as much that last two weeks as the other troops.
I went to the Lakes able to do 20 pushups. I came out able to do 200 with no problem. I still hate to hear the word "DROP" yelled!

[Stetson_CO]

It is amazing...love them or hate them...you still remember their names(most people do). My dad can still name his Air Force D.I.s.

I was in boot, USN Jun-Aug '87 SanD. MCBM Boisvert USN SEAL and BTC Gladden UDT Diver are 2 of the most influential people to ever come into my life. Neither of them yelled at us after week 2 but we would have died trying not to disappont them. I cannot remember how they did it exactly but I remember waking up one day wanting to do EVERYTHING the EXACT way they wanted it done. Which was the entire goal...

I ran into them afterwards...and they did remember me, fondly(I wasn't a problem). They took me to dinner, but that may have been just a nice thing to do, Chief Gladden was going to be my diving instructor too......Master Chief Boisvert was a civvie by then and just stopping in on his way to a diving contract....heh, Im talking about these guys like they would recognize me now on the street.

Anyway, it's teamwork and training you to do what is needed EXACTLY when it's needed.

c):{

[EJ]

BLACKHAWK---

Military personnel in combat must obey orders from superiors without hesitation and with all of their attention. Might as well start by teaching them to do that.



That's the whole point---

[T.Stahl]

WyldOne, that's just the American way of doing it.
The US Army and Marine Corps don't want independent privates who think and act for themselves, they want men who follow orders to the point.
American tactics are based on orders. The battalion commander gives orders to his company CO, which in turn give orders to his platoon leaders. "B company, you will take hill 234. At ....hours move from here, over hill 123, approach 234 from the left, attack in ...formation at ....hours." Everything subordinates do is strictly prescribed, they are lead very tightly. And when you kill their leader they become sitting ducks. Not much different from Soviets.
German tactics are based on tasks or missions. You are given a task to perform. How you do it is up to you. "2nd company, your mission is to take hill 234 by ....hours. Questions?" The captain will rely this mission and his detailed plan to his platoon leaders to enable them to complete the mission on their own. They in turn will instruct their group leaders and "fill them in on the big picture". The next lower level of leaders have to be able to take over command at any time. And basically the lowest sergeant has to be able to lead his group in a way to complete the mission even if he loses contact to his platoon leader.
Of course this way of doing things requires more knowledge of the "big picture", which isn't that necessary when you lead your subordinates the American way. Then they don't need to know where the enemy is, because the battalion commanders does and he also knows where exactly his units are now and are going to be.

Q: What's the smallest, independent formation in the US Army?
A: A battalion.
Q: What's the smallest, independent formation in the German Army?
A: A corporal and two privates. ;)

[Deadman]

I'd give an Australian Army perspective on bootcamp, but its not surprisingly pretty much the same deal as American bootcamps. Especially teamwork being important. Did I mention teamwork is important?

"Ya don't go jack on yer mates!" :p


Oh and one thing I'll never forget - "Harden the f--- up dig..."

[Deadman]

T.Stahl -

U.S. Sargeant - " Private run into that brick wall! "

U.S. Private - " YES SIR SARGEANT! "

( U.S. Private runs into brick wall )

Aus. Sargeant - " Dig run into that brick wall! "

Aus. Private - " Get stuffed sarge. "


:neener:

[Sean Smith]

TStahl,

Actually, that's an inaccurate characterization of American tactical thinking. It would be more accurate to say we do a bad job of ripping off ideas that were often originally German, and then apply them with a complete lack of uniformity. Depending on what units you saw at what time, you literally could have seen ANYTHING; total devolution of tactical details to the lowest level of collaboration, or total micro-management with expectations of blind obedience.

At a higher level, our uber-doctrine of "Air-Land Battle" in the 1980s was basically a case of somebody re-reading Achtung Panzer and saying, "Wow, what a great idea! And we have so much more technology to do it with!" :D

[M1911]

WyldOne, that's just the American way of doing it.It's my understanding that boot camp is quite similar in many armed forces across the world. In his book War (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0517556154/qid=1044541201/sr=12-1/002-4088763-5126452?v=glance&s=books)
Gwynne Dyer discusses boot camp, what its goals are, and how it works. And it does, in fact, work.

[Rangerover]

T. Stahl opined, with regard to U.S. military tactics:
And when you kill their leader they become sitting ducks. Not much different from Soviets.
You sir, have obviously never been in combat against the United States Army. I can assure you that the "ducks" to which you refer, upon losing a company commander K.I.A., will do anything but "sit". I don't know how they do it in Germany (union vote, perhaps?), but the U.S. Army has what's known as a "chain of command". It's fairly self-explanatory, and it works.

Our "ducks" don't sit.

Sounds like a good tattoo to me. :p

You may have gotten your misinformation from some European source, which is understandable. I'd prefer that every foreign country were misinformed about our military. That way when we go to war against them our "ducks" can quack-quack in there and stomp the webfooted crap out of them as we always do and leave them wondering how those American waterfowl got to be so efficient.

The doctrinal differences between the U.S. and Soviet militaries were enormous, and I don't see how anyone who has actually studied the topic could come to the conclusion that they were remotely similar. One of the inherent strengths of the U.S. Army has always been that if a leader of any type is killed, there is always someone below him in the chain of command to take over. If it got to the point that only two Privates were left, I can assure you that instead of "sitting" one of them would lead and one would follow. A study of U.S. military history is replete with examples of Corporals leading what was left of shot up Companies, etc.

So, rest assured that your assessment of U.S. military doctrine is flawed. Knocking off the "head mallard" isn't going to leave our flock defenseless and squatting in the pond.

Regarding the topic of the thread, I can only repeat what my Drill Sergeant told a Private in my Platoon when I was in Basic Training back in the early 80's. When asked why everything had to be so stressful, his reply was, "You think THIS is stressful?! Get real, Private! I'm not allowed to shoot at you; the enemy IS. If you can't handle THIS kind of stress, how on earth are you going to handle THAT kind of stress?"

Made sense to me. My Drill Sergeant was a hellofa hardnosed, intelligent duck.

Quack-Quack! (That's "duck talk" for "Rangerover out!")

[echo3mike]

To quote from FMJ, boot camp and all it's trials are designed to weed out the slackers that don't pack the gear to serve in my beloved Marine Corps.

The loving care and attention of the DIs is designed to acclamate the recruit to the stress of a hostile environment, insure that orders be followed immediately without regard for self and instill unit integrity. Once the recruits start thinking as "we" and not "I", the DIs job is pretty much done. By being an "in your face" threat, the DI gives the recruits a directed target for their aggression and can create the sense of challenge him or her.

The same argument could be applied to drill. There's absolutely no need for any of the cerimonial drill on modern warfare. But the repetitve act of unison instills the "We".

It ain't pretty to watch, but my beloved Marine Corps has been creating the finest warriors in the history of the known world for over 200 years. My DI's are some of the finest men I've known, and I'm still honored to be associated with them.

S.

[Oleg Volk]

weed out the slackers

I thought that FMJ took place during the draft period...and getting weeded out was only possible through the shrink ward or prison?

[XLMiguel]

Overall, the general assessment and explaination fo the hows & whys of boot camp are right on. No disrespect to ya, Wyld, but the strategies and tactics necessary to build discipline and cohesion in the armed forces are necessarily more extreme than what you face in the civilian venue, i.e. I never faced a life or death situation during my business career.

Dannyboy - re: West Pointers - I spent 3 years (1971-73) at the Academy as a computer operator (enlisted) at both the AG and Academic Computer Centers. I met a lot of fine, dedicated people, with whom I was proud to serve, but I also met a large number of incredibly arrogant, abusive, proctologically-challenged elisitist misfits, in both the Corp of Cadets and officer corp (mostly ring-knockers) for whom fragging would be the utimate vote of "no confidence" once in the field. I don't know how it is today, but at the time, there was more than a bit of irony in the popular saying, "200 years of tradition unhampered by progress."

[Sean Smith]

Oleg,

Not really true. Lots of people who got drafted wound up not serving. The "Quality Control" of recruits was actually quite high circa 1960, though it steadily deteriorated until the early 1970s, when the Army was at its low ebb in terms of human quality.

In terms of every measurable index of human quality (intelligence scores, physical fitness scores, general health, criminal activity, drug use...) the current volunteer army is, on average vasty superior to the draft armies we've had. It ain't even close.

The only advantage of conscription is sheer volume of people, which becomes less relevant as time goes on. Especially if you want something beyond formless cannon fodder.

As for West Pointers... people dislike us because we are better. :evil:

[Viking6]

Sean Smith. "As for West Pointers... people dislike us because we are better. "

"some" of you are.

[SemperFi83]

1. Million dollar ezxperience, but I wouldn't give a nickel to do it again...

2. In retrospect, the most important and most beneficial 13 weeks of my life.

3. No ammo off the firing line, in fact we were "patted down" leaving the range.

4. Still remember Senior Drill Instructor Staff Sgt. Walker, Drill Instructor Sgt. Whittaker and Drill Instructor Sgt. Strowbridge after almost 19 years.

5. Being told you were acting like an "Individual" was an indication of terrible repercussions in the "rose garden" or "pit"

6. Still have nightmares of being yelled at to "gound your gear!" (an indication that a trip to the rose garden was imminent).

7. 80 individuals turned into 57 (after attrition) brothers.

SEMPER FI!

[bogie]

Here's from the "never been there" corner, trying to verify a few impressions. From what I can tell, recruits are only handle weapons under close opbservation (and, at least in some units, just about at gun point). That may be to avoid accidents and may be to avoid homicides with the DI as the victim. Seems that eventually the equivalent of Stokhold Syndrome takes over and the hetherto-hated DI is suddenly best friend and mentor because he's no longer as mean. Is that an accurate impression or there's a better explanation?

You darn near live with your rifle. The only time you get live rounds is when you're at the range. It wouldn't be difficult to sneak 'em, but hey, nobody did.

In my basic training platoon, our main DI kinda liked us, because we had a good mix of brains and muscles - The smart guys were actively tutoring the physical training maniacs, etc., and we finished at the top for the bn on all the tests.

However, we had one guy with a sub-room temp IQ who took everything personally... Big ol' boy too, from down in the swamps... After a coupla weeks, right at the start of rifle training, he started muttering about getting himself a DI. Due to some sorta stuff, they had to keep training him until they could get rid of him, and since he hadn't actively done anything to anyone, they were having to jump through hoops to get rid of him. So, the day came for more live fire, and the DIs had several recruits on the line discretely told to watch him. He didn't do anything, and they got rid of him before grenades. In the group that went through before us, one of the recruits froze on the grenade range, after pulling the pin, and the instructor broke his arm getting the grenade away from him.

[mothernatureson]

all i remember about army basic are pushups, running, shining my boots, and lots of screaming. it was fun though, wish i could do it again!

[Guy B. Meredith]

Hmmm. I was in the service during the Viet Nam period (1967 to 1971), but haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

Our DIs were not allowed to use derogatory terms with us let alone touch us. In my favorite activity, the obstacle course, the water hazards were shut down when the temp went below 60 degrees.

There IS quite a bit of psychological pressure put on "boots" in order to shock them out of their attitudes that come from thinking they are still on Mama's apron strings and protected, to get them to be part of a functioning team and in the headset to react immediately to commands. It is not a good idea to sit around philosophizing when the sergeant says "Incoming!" when on the battlefield.

The DI's aggressive "Get up, get up, get up!" at 5:00 in the morning was jarring and his rage when we took over wakeup call duty and our barracks guards started off the day with "Good morning, gentlemen. It is 0500 and time to rise and shine" was something to behold. Also, standing in formation at 12:30 am for not passing barracks inspection was annoying and cold, but survivable. By the way, we were conviced the inspections were loaded so that we never could pass.











In case you haven't guessed I was in the Air Force. :cool:

[ahenry]

As for West Pointers... people dislike us because we are better.

I beg to differ, good sir. ;)

“Give an army of West Point grads and I’ll win a battle, give me a handful of Texas Aggies and I'll win a war.” Gen. Patton

[Sean Smith]

Ah yes, another bunch of copycats and wannabes. :neener:

[ahenry]

Clearly those that had first crack at it got confused at some point along the way. Took us to show ‘em how to get it right. ;) ‘Tis a wee bit sad when the only defense available is "we were here first" combined with a :neener:.



Do you know what you call an Aggie after he graduates?


Boss.


:D

[M1911]

In case you haven't guessed I was in the Air Force.A friend of my was once a Captain in the Air Force. He referred to it as "the alternative to military service."

[jmbg29]

Everything subordinates do is strictly prescribed, they are lead very tightly. And when you kill their leader they become sitting ducks. Not much different from Soviets.Please point out the U.S.S.R. on a map for me. By the way, how is that "thousand year Reich" thing going? Oh, that's right, we stomped your :cuss::cuss::cuss: into the dirt with our inferior tactics.

You sound like our Demorats here at home. They call Bush an idiot and get relentlessly defeated by him every day.

Exactly how does it feel to be constantly defeated by one's "inferiors"? :p :p :p

[T.Stahl]

jmbg29, could you please, in return, show me a Sherman commander who singlehandedly took out a dozen Panthers or Tigers or even Pz IVs?

And how does it feel to be defeated by such technologically under-developed countries like North Korea and Viet Nam? :p

[MitchSchaft]

How are you going to say your military is superior to ours when we've defeated yours? :confused:. Vietnam was not lost on a military level. We lost because we did not continue.

[jmbg29]

And how does it feel to be defeated by such technologically under-developed countries like North Korea and Viet Nam?The pinko rats here at home lost those conflicts for us. The turd world folks were just hapless dupes. jmbg29, could you please, in return, show me a Sherman commander who singlehandedly took out a dozen Panthers or Tigers or even Pz IVs?Right after you point out the U.S.S.R. on a current map.

The Soviets died in the mud and the snow like the pigs that they were by the tens of millions. And some call that wining. Whatever.:rolleyes:

[MitchSchaft]

I believe we backed out of N. Korea due to China wanting to get involved in the scrap.

[T.Stahl]

That the Soviet Union no longer exists doesn't mean that the Soviet military doctrine is no longer practised or taught.

I doubt that the USA won WW2 by supreme tactics. They won because the US war industry was able to produce more tanks and planes than the German industry. Seven Shermans equalled one Panther and your industry was able to produce the eightth that killed the Panther.

[Destructo6]

Drizzt:
During my Service Week, I was assigned to RIF, which is where the new recruit companies form up. I was working a night shift, so I got to watch the CCs come in, before they woke up the newbies. They would come in, laughing and joking with each other, just as calm as can be, then one would look at his watch and say, "You ready to do this?", at which point a change would come over them as they started screaming and throwing things to mess with the newbies heads. That was really the final confirmation for me as to how much of an act the whole CC thing was.
No kidding? I went to Orlando's RIF for my service week, too. That would have been around September of 91. What you describe is almost exactly my experience. The CC said, with a crooked smile on his face, something to the effect of, "Watch this..." to the Work-Weeks standing near the office, then proceeded to lay into the sleeping new arrivals.

The first few weeks are like that, at least it was for my boot camp company, it's very disorienting. After a while, they let up a little, then a little more as you learn what's expected of you and you do it. By the time you graduate, you are a proud and happy member of the fraternity, feeling fine and looking good.

[Tamara]

Read Gates Of Fire, by Steven Pressfield, and maybe it will start making sense to you...

"What is the opposite of fear?" -Dienekes

[jmbg29]

That the Soviet Union no longer exists doesn't mean that the Soviet military doctrine is no longer practised or taught.Where have I suggested that the former Soviets wouldn't die by the millions in wave after wave of pigs that don't value their own lives, just as they did in WWII?

Panzers vs. Shermans supports your argument that American soldiers with a dead commander are helpless? What a laugh.

The most individually oriented people on the planet Earth are going to come unglued because their fearless leader is no longer there to order them around.:rolleyes:

It may well be that it takes 8 Shermans to kill 1 Panzer, but 1 American is worth a hundred socialists on the field, regardless of their ethnicity.

Why don't you folks get dressed up in those funny outfits of yours again, and we'll give it a whirl for a third time. It won't matter if our tactics don't meet with your approval, the outcome will be the same.

Here is the Medal of Honor citation for the man that we named our local American Legion Post for.



The President of the United States
in the name of The Congress
takes pleasure in presenting the
Medal of Honor
to

WILSON, BENJAMIN F.

Rank and organization: First Lieutenant (then M/Sgt.), U.S. Army Company I, 31st Infantry Regiment, 7th Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Hwach'on-Myon, Korea, 5 June 1951. Entered service at: Vashon, Wash. Birth: Vashon, Wash. G.O. No.: 69, 23 September 1954.

Citation:
1st Lt. Wilson distinguished himself by conspicuous gallantry and indomitable courage above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy. Company I was committed to attack and secure commanding terrain stubbornly defended by a numerically superior hostile force emplaced in well-fortified positions. When the spearheading element was pinned down by withering hostile fire, he dashed forward and, firing his rifle and throwing grenades, neutralized the position denying the advance and killed 4 enemy soldiers manning submachineguns. After the assault platoon moved up, occupied the position, and a base of fire was established, he led a bayonet attack which reduced the objective and killed approximately 27 hostile soldiers. While friendly forces were consolidating the newly won gain, the enemy launched a counterattack and 1st Lt. Wilson, realizing the imminent threat of being overrun, made a determined lone-man charge, killing 7 and wounding 2 of the enemy, and routing the remainder in disorder. After the position was organized, he led an assault carrying to approximately 15 yards of the final objective, when enemy fire halted the advance. He ordered the platoon to withdraw and, although painfully wounded in this action, remained to provide covering fire. During an ensuing counterattack, the commanding officer and 1st Platoon leader became casualties. Unhesitatingly, 1st Lt. Wilson charged the enemy ranks and fought valiantly, killing 3 enemy soldiers with his rifle before it was wrested from his hands, and annihilating 4 others with his entrenching tool. His courageous delaying action enabled his comrades to reorganize and effect an orderly withdrawal. While directing evacuation of the wounded, he suffered a second wound, but elected to remain on the position until assured that all of the men had reached safety. 1st Lt. Wilson's sustained valor and intrepid actions reflect utmost credit upon himself and uphold the honored traditions of the military service.


Citation Courtesy of www.HomeOfHeroes.com

Gee, good thing for the Koreans and Chinese that his Captain wasn't with him, otherwise with proper direction, he would have killed all of them.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your E-tool is your friend.;)

[T.Stahl]

I've read it. (Fittingly during my four weeks at the army's NCO school)
The question is whether that feeling can be established only in this one way.

(This was in response to Tamara's post)

[Pendragon]

The US Military is familiar with the concept of Aufstragstaktik.

I think that is what he was referring to.

[TexasVet]

Let's see, since the 19th century, the Germans have won wars against..?? Oh yeah, the FRENCH (AKA cheese eating surrender monkeys!). Period. Not a lot of real tactical (much less strategic) advice to be gained from there, one would surmise.

[M1911]

I believe we backed out of N. Korea due to China wanting to get involved in the scrap.Yup. The North Korean army was basically kaput after the Inchon invasion. We chased the remnants right up to the Yalu River. Then the Yellow Horde attacked...

We fought the Chinese to a stalemate at the 38th Parallel, but both nations suffered heavy losses (can u say Choisin Reservoir?).

[Sean Smith]

T.Stahl,

Surely you realize that it wasn't brilliant German tactical methods, so much as the vast hardware performance gap between the Pathers and Tigers on one hand, and the Shermans on the other, that resulted in such lopsided kill ratios? We made alot of Shermans all right, but they were crummy tanks... arguably even worse than later production models of the Panzer IV, which at least had a high-velocity 75mm gun. America didn't have a tank comparable to the T34, let alone any good German tanks, until 1945 with the Pershing, which arrived just in time to almost completely miss the war.

Nobody who has been in the U.S. military will argue that our hardware procurment has been consistently wise. But of course that's not what you were talking about.

It's hard to overstate what a crappy tank the Sherman was... it was middling in 1942, and by 1944 was barely combat-worthy. Sure, they were reliable, but between the thin armor, narrow tracks, tall shape, and underpowered gun, they were basically harmless targets to cutting-edge German armor. Really, they were the antithesis of good tank design.

I'm not really sure what the point of your counter-factual bashing of the U.S. military is. Germany's recent military accomplishments might be... :confused:

[mothernatureson]

wow, this is pretty deep stuff. you sofa warriors are too much for me. i thought this was a friendly site. later
you guys probably get all of your news and brain washings from rush limbaugh

[SIGarmed]

WyldOne, that's just the American way of doing it.
The US Army and Marine Corps don't want independent privates who think and act for themselves, they want men who follow orders to the point.
American tactics are based on orders. The battalion commander gives orders to his company CO, which in turn give orders to his platoon leaders. "B company, you will take hill 234. At ....hours move from here, over hill 123, approach 234 from the left, attack in ...formation at ....hours." Everything subordinates do is strictly prescribed, they are lead very tightly. And when you kill their leader they become sitting ducks. Not much different from Soviets.
German tactics are based on tasks or missions. You are given a task to perform. How you do it is up to you. "2nd company, your mission is to take hill 234 by ....hours. Questions?" The captain will rely this mission and his detailed plan to his platoon leaders to enable them to complete the mission on their own. They in turn will instruct their group leaders and "fill them in on the big picture". The next lower level of leaders have to be able to take over command at any time. And basically the lowest sergeant has to be able to lead his group in a way to complete the mission even if he loses contact to his platoon leader.
Of course this way of doing things requires more knowledge of the "big picture", which isn't that necessary when you lead your subordinates the American way. Then they don't need to know where the enemy is, because the battalion commanders does and he also knows where exactly his units are now and are going to be.

Did you serve in an American Army or Marine Corps infantry unit?

The American trooper is given a mission statement before a tactical operation begins, where questions and answers are given. Mission objectives, etc. are usually given within units up to and including the "fire team".
Q: What's the smallest, independent formation in the US Army?

A: A battalion.

Wrong answer!

Obviously you've never encountered the Marines Corps and I'm sure our Army operates in the same fashion. I guess I'll speak as a former Marine. Every Marine is a rifleman. Outside of that the smallest formation is a "fire team".

If the fire team leader is removed for some god foresaken reason the next senior man takes charge, on down the line up to and including the lowest ranking Marine. I'm not only saying it this is how Marines train. I can remember taking a 12 man squad consisting of 3 fire teams out on patrol while training in the field as a junior enlisted Marine, no I wasn't even a non-commissioned officer yet.


Q: What's the smallest, independent formation in the German Army?
A: A corporal and two privates.

Would you rather have three or four?

So much for the Soviet method.

Our method is called real LEADERSHIP.

[Frohickey]

George S Patton was born in California.


Military personnel in combat must obey orders from superiors without hesitation and with all of their attention. Might as well start by teaching them to do that.

Hmm... I wonder what military personnel would say to an order from their superiors to go door to door and confiscate weapons from American civilians in the United States. (If the Posse Commitatus act were ever to be repealed.)

[T.Stahl]

Pendragon, that was what I tried to say. That the German army utilizes the Auftragstaktik, while the US army (at least for a long time) used the Befehlstaktik.

TexasVet, you surely know why the German invasion of France was successful? At the start of the war France had the better tanks, but they were evenly distributed among fighting units and not concentrated. German tanks were massed in armored units and all of them were equipped with radios, so they could be better lead.

Sean, why was the Sherman inferior to even a Pz IV?
Surely it can't be that the US tank industry wasn't able to design a better tank. It was because the American doctrine said that tanks don't fight tanks. Tanks were fought with artillery and close air support. The doctrine simply said that a Sherman didn't need to meet the standards of German tanks, because that wasn't what they were designed for. Their intended purpose was only to support the infantry. That they actually had to fight against other tanks when no air support was available, well, that was bad luck.
(Read what Patton said about that topic and his opposition against the M26 Pershing)

SigArmed, no, as you might know by now, I served in the German army.

But to make jmbg29 happy:
I was wrong and want to apologize.
The Armed Forces of the United States of America are the best in the world. They are equipped with the best high-tech, up-to-date technology and lead with highly supreme strategics and tactics that enable them to win any battle (unless politicians and peaceniks interfere). Satisfied?

[Khornet]

used to illustrate the concept with what went on during armored training at Ft. Knox ca. 1942. Climbing out of the M3 tank, the natural thing to do was to put one hand on the main gun and the other on the rim of the hatch and boost yourself out. There would always be an instructor standing by with a billy club. If you placed that hand on the main gun, he put his boot on it and mashed it there, and if you grabbed the hatch rim he smacked it with the baton. Painful lessons, but dad later saw men whose hands had been stripped of flesh from the hot gun after firing, and fingers amputated by the falling hatch cover. But fewer than would have been without that boot and baton treatment.

I'd rather have two sore hands and hurt feelings than intact dignity and no fingers.

[M1911]

America didn't have a tank comparable to the T34IIRC, the suspension design for T34 was created by an American, but rejected by the US Army.

[Tamara]

Pendragon, that was what I tried to say. That the German army utilizes the Auftragstaktik, while the US army (at least for a long time) used the Befehlstaktik.

The U.S. Army could have "used" whatever it wanted. The end result with the draftee citizen soldiers was an army that, on the small unit and individual level, was almost comically independent.

You forget that the personnel of this country's armed forces come from a culture very unlike the German one; a culture where "you ain't the boss of me!" is a mantra.

There is no word in English, especially American English, for Kadavergehorsamkeit, Herr Stahl. Can you picture the movies Kelly's Heroes or Three Kings being made about any other wartime army than the American one? Would they feel believable?

An old gag from U.S. Army R.O.T.C.: "You are a 2nd Lieutenant. Your mission is to erect a 100ft flagpole. To do it, you have two 50ft lengths of rope, a shovel, a 20ft ladder, a sergeant and two privates. What do you do?" The correct answer, of course, is you say "Sergeant, get that flagpole up."

In closing, an anecdote: Things were getting tough in one of the fortified cities along the Siegfried line. The Americans were having a hard time pressing forward, as the Germans had fortified nearly every block with a serious bunker. An american infantry company CO left, and returned with an 8" (203mm) gun, which the infantry company proceeded to use like an infanteriehaubitze, manhandling it into place, boresighting it down streets, and blowing bunkers to flinders. A German Captain decided this wasn't cricket, and actually came out under a white flag to protest. Isn't that cute? It wasn't "fair". ;)

[Don Gwinn]

My dad can beat up your dad. ;)

Mothernatureson, what was that tirade all about?

[BigG]

Didn't the Sherman have a French gun? (75mm) :uhoh:

[mothernatureson]

i have friends who listen to ruch limbaugh and believe everything he says, i don't. that seems to be rush's "schtick", this forum was beginning to sound like that. i'm sorry, maybe my statement was too strong, i apoligize to anyone offended. let me summarize my sentiments about this topic, "we were all american fighting soldiers, and were trained to take commands, and do our duty. peace.

[Greg L]

An old gag from U.S. Army R.O.T.C .... "Sergeant, get that flagpole up."

I didn't realize that it was a joke. I always thought that it was common sense. The best advice that I ever got was "LT, you just go do the paperwork the CO needs and let us do our job. When we are done you can come check on it to make sure that it was done the right way." A nice diplomatic way of saying "Get the hell out of here you young idiot. We don't need your "help" :D "

Greg

[Khornet]

"Doc, the first thing for you to understand is that the Chiefs run the Navy. Keep that in mind and you'll be OK."

They were right!

[jmbg29]

But to make jmbg29 happy:No need to make me happy. History makes me happy enough. I was wrong and want to apologize.No need to apologize (see above).Satisfied?Nearly always.

[Al Norris]

Ahhh, Boot Camp.

I have fond memories of that 12 week stay. 'Course, at the time, it was the absolute worst time of my life. That goes without saying. Back in the mid-sixties, Marine Corps Recruit Depot was not a fun place. The movie "Full Metal Jacket" was a joke. It was much worse than that.

Personally, I can't see why they succombed to the nanny state. The purpose as so many have said was to break you of your individualistic civilian habits and turn you into something that might resemble a fighting machine. That is something that takes effort. Effort on the part of the DI's and effort on the part of the recruits. The best Marines were turned out by the most ruthless DI's.

The proudest day in my life was when we graduated and I could call myself a Marine. The worst day was 3 days later when we reported to 4 weeks of ITR (Infantry Training Regiment). I found out that while I might technically be a Marine, I was still a long way from it.

Then there was Schools Batt. where you went to learn your MOS. For me, that was another 16 weeks of Radiotelegrapher School, where I learned to use every piece of communications equipment the Marine Corps had at that time.

Thoughout all of this, there was Close Order Drill, PT, Spit Shined Boots, Polished Brass, Orders that made no sense...in short, everything that a well rounded Marine needed to survive combat. 'Course, one doesn't think of all of this while it is happening.

But the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, the ability to be thrown together with unknown people and yet to instantly form a team all play their part. For a Marine, Boot Camp lasts until you are assigned your first true duty station. Only then, regardless of any rank you may have made getting there, are you treated as a real Marine. All that humiliation somehow morphs into Pride and behind that, is es spirit de Corps.

Oh maybe it's not as tough today as it was back then. But the methodology is the same. Ask any Marine.

[Frohickey]

There is no word in English, especially American English, for Kadavergehorsamkeit, Herr Stahl.

Don't you love it when Tamara talks dirty? :D

[XLMiguel]

God bless the US Marines. They're the only branch that has been reasonably succeessful in avoiding the 'feminization' of the military. They still understand the role of the armed forces , and it ain't 'social engineering' or 'nation building', it's overcoming your enemy as efficiently as possible.

NB: I'm NOT saying women don't have a role (many roles) in the military. I AM saying that that role is NOT combat.
edited for typos