What do you think of war films?

I've never seen anyone refuse an order. In OSUT I saw a few privates refuse to train. They were intentionally kept on base for months doing area beautification until they were given Chapter 11s

 

I wasn't there, but the most recent example I can think of are those National Guard units who refused orders to confiscate weapons during Katrina.

Another obvious example would be refusing an order to massacre unarmed civilians.

 

I don't either. There's no reason for it. Starting another cold war is stupid. No one says we must appease Russia, but some mutual respect for what worries they have would be a start. We made an agreement with Gorbachev that if he let Germany unite peacefully, we wouldn't expand NATO beyond Germany's border. So who is at fault here?

 

It's obvious President Clinton, Madeleine Albright and others violated that promise.

The purpose of NATO was to kill commies in particular, Russians.

I seem to remember all of the debating that took place in America after the Cold War, should NATO disband ? Should America bring it's troops home from Europe and no longer be a member of NATO ?

If I remember correctly the vast majority of Americans wanted to bring our troops home.

 

Havnt seen it. Will check it out.
1- yes, but with the understanding and acceptance of consequences. Some orders are unlawful, but rarely are they clearly so at the moment. Would you rather have the death of an innocent on your conscience or be courtmartialed, or maybe the death of your whole squad if ur wrong...? Ultimately we are each responsible for our own actions, so choose wisely.
2- yes. leaders go up front. the ones in the back are administrators.

I really like Kelly's Heroes, Tears of the Sun, Seige of Jadotville... the rest just arnt coming to mind.

 

And those punitive wars are entirely ineffective at accomplishing any strategic goals.

 

We pretty much did. If I remember right we had some 500,000 plus troops spread across Europe with most in Germany and England. I always thought when the USSR broke apart and the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, NATO should have been too. Mission accomplished. NATO is a cold war relic and should have gone the same way SEATO and CENTO did.

 

It's a masterpiece, IHO. Released around same time as Saving Private Ryan, but made SPR look like an episode of a soap opera. Cheesy nonsense from Spielberg.

I was lucky enough to have worked with a good number of WWII vets, so have a special attachment to the few decent films on the era. Unfortunately few war films (on any war) depict the full horror of the experience for Infantry. Or they attempt to, but forget to zoom in on the psychological aftermath in their zeal for action. The Thin Red Line gave us very good look at the men, and how war impacts them. Far better than just about any other war film, I think. Unfortunately, because it's depicted somewhat poetically, with a strong Christ-the-Redeemer motif, not as many people appreciate just how real it is.

 

Really, they were ineffective ?

Care to list those punitive wars that U.S. Marines fought that ended up being ineffective ?

There is a long list of American wars you can pick from that were punitive actions. Just from 1800 to 1934 U.S.Marines have conducted armed landings on foreign soil kicking ass 180 times and most were punitive actions. The America's first Korean War of 1871 was punitive action.

May I suggest of instead of going to the library and reading 20, 30 or 50 books, pick up a copy of "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power" -> https://www.amazon.com/Savage-Wars-Peace-Small-American/dp/0465064930

FYI: America's first Korean War fought in 18971 was a punitive action war that we won very quickly and would lead too 8 years later America being the first Western country to sign a trade treaty with Korea's, Hermit Kingdom.

The Banana wars weren't punitive action wars but profiteering wars. These were the wars that Gen. Smedley Butler was referring too when he said "War is a racket."[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

Name a single punitive action post-WW1 that has accomplished long term strategic goals for the United States.

We've already established that you can't use Reagan's bombing of Gaddafi because that didn't even stop Gaddafi from supporting terrorism.

 

Name a single punitive action post-WW1 that has accomplished long term strategic goals for the United States.

We've already established that you can't use Reagan's bombing of Gaddafi because that didn't even stop Gaddafi from supporting terrorism.[/QUOTE]


Actually in the book "The Savgae Wars:..." Reagan's bombing of Libya is listed as being punitive action which resulted in Gaddafi not sponsoring terrorist for 2 years and keeping Gaddafi mouth muzzled for 12 years.

But you are very confused, punitive action wars have no really long term goals, if any, it's all about punishing someone or a country.

 

No, the invasion of Iraq and the idea that the US would overthrow the regimes of dictators who supported terrorism got Gaddafi to stop supporting terrorism.

Gaddafi supported terrorism for that entire time period.

 

No it didn't. Bombing Gaddafi did not shut him up or get him to stop supporting terrorism. He still supported terrorists in Ireland, Egypt, Lebanon, and across Africa throughout that entire time period.

So then punitive wars just exist to make idiots feel better?

 

Please forgive me for using Wikipedia.

 

So again, not a single punitive war since WW1 has achieved a single strategic goal of note.

They are useless wastes of men and material to small dicked idiots feel like big men.

 

For the last time, punitive action wars rarely have a strategic goal, it's about punishment.

 

And the only purpose of war is to serve the strategic goals of the state, so punitive actions have no purpose. They are useless wastes of men and material that exist only to make idiots who can't think of anything better feel like real men.

 

Generals Howland Smith, Vadergrift, MacCarthur and also Chesty Puller and Admiral Nimitz all said the lessons learned from all of the punitive action wars and wars of profiteering before WW ll is how we won the war in the Pacific and also the North African, Sicily, Italy campaigns and the Normandy landings on D-Day.

Close air support was invented by the U.S. Marine Corps and first used during the Banana Wars. German military attaches assigned to observe the U.S.Marines during the Banana Wars would observe how Marines controlled aircraft from the ground supporting the infantry that it was incorporated into Blitzkrieg.

 

Great so we learned tactics from those conflicts, yet those conflicts amounted to nothing of use in the long run and there is no reason to continue the utterly pointless "crush and bolt" strategy if we want to actually affect strategic goals in the world.

By the way, close air support was developed in WW1.

 

No it wasn't.

You are confusing Battlefield Air Interdiction with Close Air Support.

Two different things.

Don't argue with a former member of Sub Unit One 1st ANGLICO.

But even today I have seen field grade and flag officers make the same mistake.

FYI: In it's early days CAS was controlled on the ground by using signal flags. There were no field radios back in the day.

 

Close air support was definitely invented during WWI. There was an entire class of aircraft called Trench Fighters used for that exact purpose.

 

Unless someone is on the ground (FAC-g) is directly in control of telling the pilot where the target is, where the friendly troops are, from what direction to come in from, at what altitude, when to drop the bomb, at what direction to vector after releasing the bomb and the troops that the aircraft are supporting is within 1/4 of a mile of the target (Danger Close) and is directly in engagement with the enemy, it's not CAS.

Example:

A FO on a hill spots an enemy convoy or a column of enemy tanks maybe a mile or two away and calls in for an air strike. It's not a CAS mission.

An enemy artillery battery location is found and an air strike is called in to destroy the enemy artillery, it's not CAS but Battlefield Air Interdiction.


An A-10 pilot is flying over the battlefield and spots a target of opportunity maybe a tank or an enemy infantry platoon and attacks and destroys the target. It's not CAS but Battlefield Air Interdiction.

A FA-18 pilot sees an enemy infantry platoon with in close proximity of friendly troops but aren't engaged in a fire fight with the friendly troops. The FA-18 makes a strafing run on the enemy infantry, it's not CAS but BAI.

FYI: The U.S Air Force has just very recently dropped using the term Battlefield Air Interdiction.

 

excerpt:

It is important to understand close air support (CAS) and interdiction operations to understand how the battlefield interdiction concept developed. Close air support is conducted to blunt the enemies attack, assist friendly forces in the attack and allow friendly forces freedom of movement. Close air support is the use of airpower against hostile forces which are designated by the ground commander. It is flown against targets which are close to friendly forces, and must be totally coordinated with
ground fires and maneuver. 8 It is generally considered to include all air operations up to the fire support coordination line •FSCL). 9 There are two types of CAS missions: preplanned and immediate. Preplanned missions are requested through Army communications channels generally 24 to 48 hours before they are required. Immediate missions are requested by Army Commanders through a dedicated Air Force Request Net. These missions may be requested to meet emergencies or for operational changes not allowing time to use preplanned request channels. Interdiction is conducted to "destroy, neutralize, confuse or delay enemy ground forces. 10 Interdiction missions are executed by the Air Force Component Commander following general II. guidance established by the Joint Force Commander. 11 They are almost entirely preplanned although scheduled aircraft may be diverted to a more lucrative target or be forced to a secondary target for weather or fuel considerations. Interdiction missions are conducted independently beyond the FSCL. CAS missions and interdiction missions are differentiated by the requester and by where the missions are flown. 7 BAI is a combination of CAS and interdiction concepts. Tactical Air Command considers BAI part of interdictiun operations. 12 Air Force Manual 1-1 also considers BAI part of interdiction. 13 The Tactical Air Command and Army Training and Doctrine Command Air Land Force Agency (ALFA) also define BAI as a specific type of interdiction. However, ALFA goes on to say Army Commanders may request BAI by calling it CAS. According to ALFA, BAI can occur 4 Ll- on either side of the FSCI. using procedures and resourcee dedicate to either CAS or interdiction. 14 (See figure 1) This is confusing. It is the belief of this author that insufficient emphasis will be placed on BAI unless it is considered independently from either CAS or interdiction. BAI should be considered as a separate mission with its own allocations and procedures. THESIS STATEMENT The hypothesis of the thesis is that battlefield air interdiction should be considered as a separate and distinct mission of tactical airpower equal to close air support and interdiction. BAI missions should be preplanned in Air Force channels; but, should respond to "immediate" Army requirements. Fire control measures should be established to specify areas in which CAS, BAI or interdictions may be flown...

source -> http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b056508.pdf

 

My take at least try to be realistic lets take two movies We Were Soldiers and Enemy at the Gates both were gritty war movies but the first one very much a true story and the latter it was full of holes and serious flaws. For example it was never true they shot their own troops like which happened at the start of the movie they might shoot a soldier if his own men around him called him a coward beyond redemption. Usually they would be encouraged by the policing troops to run ahead and fight with some of them leading. The ones arrested would go into rehabilitation units scouting enemy positions, clearing land mines or being put in the worst part of battle to redeem themselves. And serving well could get you removed to regular units. And since they were not abandoning a fixed and secured position they were free to retreat. I can find lots of other issues like the Soviet Anthem was created in 1945 before that the national anthem was the International. The latter didn't really work hard to be accurate even the dates were off from the true story.

A great masterpiece war movie to me is Tora, Tora, Tora its largely dead on and there are other Master and Commander got all the little things right even if the movie was fictional but in the book the fight was between the Surprise and an AMERICAN warship which would have been better IMHO but not a deal breaker.

 

"Tora Tora Tora" is up there at the top of the list.

One thing they got wrong, Admiral Yamamoto never said "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." It's a myth that was started during WW ll, Yamamoto never said it.