Ask a Soldier

[JollyRoger]

But if your intent is to label a career veteran with service connected disability with 'welfare queens' then we dont really have to continue this conversation, as thats more than a bit insulting.

As it is contract-based, I would not consider it welfare queenary - just maxing out on the contract. As a taxpayer, I am concerned about an overly broad scope for "service-related" and "disability" (in general, not necessarily in your specific case). "Career veteran" is certainly honorable and I understand compensated for post-service in and of itself. I have no problem with that as a taxpayer.

 

[Flying Pig]

As it is contract-based, I would not consider it welfare queenary - just maxing out on the contract. As a taxpayer, I am concerned about an overly broad scope for "service-related" and "disability" (in general, not necessarily in your specific case). "Career veteran" is certainly honorable and I understand compensated for post-service in and of itself. I have no problem with that as a taxpayer.

I think the point is that Mobby would be able to live his life much more fully had he not served in the distinctly unsafe workplace that he did, and the Government is essentially paying him the monetary value of htat lost fulfilment - I don't claim for it, but my knees recently have been awful, at least in part due to parachuting.

 

[cav scout]

I understand that. But do you know why those are the rules?

I'm pretty sure he does get it, but apparently you don't. Perhaps you should start a "resent a soldier" thread?

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm pretty sure he does get it, but apparently you don't. Perhaps you should start a "resent a soldier" thread?

How often should a soldier be resent to a war zone?

 

[cav scout]

How often should a soldier be resent to a war zone?

As often as necessary of course. Presumeably less often than currently though if more Americans were willing to serve...

 

[JollyRoger]

As often as necessary of course. Presumeably less often than currently though if more Americans were willing to serve...

Should an American war supporter that is the appropriate age and health sign up during a war he supports?

 

[cav scout]

Should an American war supporter that is the appropriate age and health sign up during a war he supports?

That is for the said individual to decide as we currently have an all-volunteer force.

 

[JollyRoger]

That is for the said individual to decide as we currently have an all-volunteer force.

In your opinion, should that war supporter volunteer? Especially once it becomes evident that the war will be long term and many of those who have volunteered are getting multiple deployments?

 

[cav scout]

In your opinion, should that war supporter volunteer? Especially once it becomes evident that the war will be long term and many of those who have volunteered are getting multiple deployments?

I believe that anyone who volunteers to serve their country in either war or peace has shown they are willing to place their life on the line for their fellow citizens. I think this is a form of civic virtue that is recognized and understandable at a very basic human level.

I think that most people feel this as a tug on their conscience when they reach the age of service. Many choose to ignore this tug nowadays though and this would presumeably lead to a cognitive dissonance that could manifest itself in various ways.

 

[Flying Pig]

In your opinion, should that war supporter volunteer? Especially once it becomes evident that the war will be long term and many of those who have volunteered are getting multiple deployments?

Once society declares that anyone 'should' volunteer, we cease to be a volunteer army. No, thank you!

 

[Smellincoffee]

Are you sure you didn't accidently misread minumum as maximum on the Navy webpage? There are minimum weight requirements as well.

I found the problem. The weight chart lists the height in inches, and I mistook that to mean inches as opposed to meters, not inches as opposed to the feet-and-inches convention. I was looking at "62" and reading it as 6'2, when I should have been looking at the 73/74 inches mark. The US Navy and my doctor now agree.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

I think the point is that Mobby would be able to live his life much more fully had he not served in the distinctly unsafe workplace that he did, and the Government is essentially paying him the monetary value of htat lost fulfilment - I don't claim for it, but my knees recently have been awful, at least in part due to parachuting.

What's the injury rate for paratroopers compared to other infantry? I can't imagine smashing into the ground while loaded with a tonne of equipment is good for one's body. When planning operations, do leaders set aside a certain casualty amount just for the drop itself?

 

[dosed150]

What's the injury rate for paratroopers compared to other infantry? I can't imagine smashing into the ground while loaded with a tonne of equipment is good for one's body. When planning operations, do leaders set aside a certain casualty amount just for the drop itself?

do the paras even do much jumping these days, think one operation in afghanistan involved a para drop but apart from that it seems most jumping is done in training and the paras are just treated as an elite light infantry unit most of the time

 

[kochman]

What's the injury rate for paratroopers compared to other infantry? I can't imagine smashing into the ground while loaded with a tonne of equipment is good for one's body. When planning operations, do leaders set aside a certain casualty amount just for the drop itself?

It's certainly higher, but I don't have the numbers anymore... I did when I was active.

do the paras even do much jumping these days, think one operation in afghanistan involved a para drop but apart from that it seems most jumping is done in training and the paras are just treated as an elite light infantry unit most of the time

Myself and 958 others parachuted into N. Iraq 26 March 2003...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/173rd_Airborne_Brigade_Combat_Team#Iraq_War
Wikipedia has the number wrong. Also, we only jumped out of C-17s. No one jumped out of C-130s.
This is a perfect example of Wikipedia having incorrect "facts" by the way, and a prime example of why I rarely reference it.

There were smaller jumps into Iraq and Afghanistan. There was the jump into Panama by the Rangers and the 82nd Airborne Division, Grenada by the Rangers...

Once we hit the ground, we are elite light infantry... but yes, paratroopers still jump out of planes to get there.

 

[Flying Pig]

What's the injury rate for paratroopers compared to other infantry? I can't imagine smashing into the ground while loaded with a tonne of equipment is good for one's body. When planning operations, do leaders set aside a certain casualty amount just for the drop itself?

In combat, definitely, and that's one of the big reasons why we no longer do large-scale airborne drops - if you consider that we dropped the entire 1st Airborne into Arnhem, we now only really consider sending one battlegroup like that. Even in training that risk exists - I remember when I was first involved in a small capacity with helping plan a large exercise in Norway which would see two parachute battalions, two Royal Marine commandos, and a cavalry regiment (along with all their support troops) working together along with contingents from other allied countries. One of the very experienced officers intimated to me that "we're expecting about a dozen serious casualties across the board". In 2005 they actually lost the CO of the SBS - Lt-Col Richard van der Horst - during a very similar exercise.

It's certainly higher, but I don't have the numbers anymore... I did when I was active.

Definitely higher, but I can't provide any figures either.

There were smaller jumps into Iraq and Afghanistan. There was the jump into Panama by the Rangers and the 82nd Airborne Division, Grenada by the Rangers...

Once we hit the ground, we are elite light infantry... but yes, paratroopers still jump out of planes to get there.

Our 1st Battalion carried out a drop into Afghanistan in 2010, but we've mostly re-roled as 'air assault' - abseiling from helicopters - rather than 'airborne', for various reasons not least of which being the business I discussed earlier. Parachuting is sometimes more stealthy and certainly has a great propaganda value, and I'd say that parachute training makes for better soldiers, so we'll stil be doing it for the near future.

 

[Glassfan]

"abseiling" - what a cool word! It's not even in my dictionary.

I just wanted to mention that my stepson was a medic in Desert Storm - but dispite his parachute training, he drove across Kuwait. His only injury ever was a lightning strike on his tent at Ft. Polk.

 

[Cutlass]

Are there particular reasons that various armies take substantially different approaches to weapons choices? I'm thinking like the NATO nations done use an equivalent of the RPG7, even though it seems to be common in use throughout the world. Is it just that we can afford better?

 

[Flying Pig]

Are there particular reasons that various armies take substantially different approaches to weapons choices? I'm thinking like the NATO nations done use an equivalent of the RPG7, even though it seems to be common in use throughout the world. Is it just that we can afford better?

Different tactical doctrines require different weapons. We don't want an RPG equivalent, because its job - throwing explosive things around - we deem to be best done by mortars at long range or by UGLs and grenadiers at close quarters. If we want to engage a tank, we have the Javelin. Obviously, the Taliban can't get hold of Javelins or any equivalent, and so need the RPG to have a chance against NATO armour. To put it into perspective, a grand total of one British MBT has been taken out by an RPG (and that was with a very advanced round), while there's nothing currently serving that would have a chance against our own AT weapons.

 

[Patroklos]

Its also cost and training. Anyone can be furnished with an RPG given the smallest budget and anyone cand wield it semi competently (fire it in the right direction) after an hour of training.

The Soviets liked these type of weapons because they dealt with primarily conscripts and did not have non commissioned officer corps to retain knowledge of advanced weapons. They basically had boot privates and then junior officers, the Western notion of sergeants/gunnies didn't exist in the Red Army to any meaningful degree. Hence cheap, rugged, disposable weapons.

 

[Flying Pig]

Aye, but that's an argument for using the RPG - although now you mention it, we do have the LAW in the Infantry, which is a one-shot shoulder-launched anti-tank weapon, which I suppose fills most of the roles of the RPG except that we can't reload it. So perhaps the answer to Cutlass' question is that we do have an equivalent! The big problem with humping lots of them around however is weight - they are mostly plastic, but even so outside of the paratroopers (who need to be able to operate without the support of heavier weapons) you rarely see entire sections kitted out with LAWs.