Ask a Soldier

[Bobbtjoe]

HOLY CRAP YOU'RE 68 YEARS OLD! Not to sound rude but, holy crap. Any way, my in my above statment, I ment to ask if amy part was fun.

 

[ecc]

I enlisted to go into the U.S. Navy for rating Missile technician for nuclear submarines. I am going to boot camp September 23! Hooyah! wish me luck

 

[Nobody]

Aren't we, in a way, a bunch of nerds?
Sorry for jumping at the question, Flying Pig.

Nerd for lack of a better word. The guys i'm thinking of probably couldn't play civ, Another trait of these people i am describing, they like to shoot out stupid military facts that are wrong. I remember one of them going on about New Zealand purchasing Stealth Bombers and having a few nukes up in Auckland. Such idiots.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Nerd for lack of a better word. The guys i'm thinking of probably couldn't play civ, Another trait of these people i am describing, they like to shoot out stupid military facts that are wrong. I remember one of them going on about New Zealand purchasing Stealth Bombers and having a few nukes up in Auckland. Such idiots.

Next thing you know, Andorra will take over Europe.

 

[Flying Pig]

All right, I will shoot.
Apparently, pre-WW2 USSR was absolutely obsessed with parachuting.

Spoiler :

While other countries were just beginning to experiment with military parachutists, the Soviets had already established a military parachute school by the mid-1930s. Even more important for training airborne troops, however, had been the absorption of all parachute clubs in 1933 into Osoaviakhim (loosely translated as the “Society for the Promotion of Aviation and Chemical Defense&#8221, a paramilitary group roughly similar to the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts and geared towards teaching skills applicable to the Soviet armed forces. In addition to parachute training, many young men and women were receiving training in flying both gliders and powered aircraft. By 1936, there were 559 parachute towers in the Soviet Union and 115 parachute training schools. In that same year members of Osoaviakhim and other civilians made 1,600,000 jumps from towers and 30,000 jumps from planes.

As a result of this intensive civilian training program, it is estimated that in 1940, over a million Soviet men and women were trained parachutists. Osoaviakhim had taught many of the most promising parachutists other military skills. Marksmanship, map reading, first aid, and physical training, for example, were included as adjuncts to parachute training. Mass jumps were made by groups who assembled after landing to undertake some “mission.” “Missions” included long hikes, “attacks” on communications objectives or factories, and what would now be called orienteering exercises.

As a result of this intensive preparation, most pre-war recruits into the Soviet airborne forces were already well grounded in basic skills when they commenced their military training. Female involvement in the Osoaviakhim parachute program also was the basis for the Red Army’s airborne doctors and nurses who jumped to give medical aid to the partisans during the war.

Since educational standards were higher for airborne recruits they normally picked up skills more quickly. Five years of schooling were required for airborne enlisted personnel and seven years for officers.
Training for enlisted men lasted four months and for officers six months. Most officer candidates had risen through the ranks and after the German invasion were usually proven combat veterans. Although jumps were made in training, and the fledgling paratroopers learned the quirks of the military transport aircraft they would be jumping from, the emphasis was on building toughness and initiative. The Soviet airborne forces were considered elite assault troops, and their training was tough enough to give them a strong esprit de corps.

Just as it is still a key ingredient in jump schools today, physical training took up a great deal of the Soviet airborne trainee’s time, and forced marches of 50 miles during training were not unheard of. Parachutists received intensive small arms training and learned to use all weapons up to and including heavy artillery and tanks. As the war progressed, Soviet parachutist training incorporated familiarization with German small arms. Since they would often be sent on sabotage missions, much time was spent during training on the use of explosives. Map reading and radio skills were also taught to all trainees. Specialized training was given to those men destined for airborne artillery, engineer, or other specialized formations, and a certain number of parachutists received training as ski troops who could be dropped into mountainous areas.

The extra two months of officer’s training was devoted to airborne tactics, command skills, and other problems of commanding airborne sections, platoons, companies, or battalions. Officers commanding brigades or corps were normally sent to the Zhukovsky (the Red Army War College) in Moscow.

Up to the beginning of World War II, Soviet military parachutists were probably the best trained in the world. The years of Soviet parachute experience had taught them the most effective training methods, and their huge pool of partially trained manpower allowed them to choose the top recruits.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-13947.html

"By the eve of Nazi invasion, Soviets had organized five divisional-sized airborne corps."
World War II Airborne Warfare Tactics (Gordon L. Rottman, Peter Dennis)

Some historians claim that this extensive training and use of parachutists is a telltale sign of a planned offensive war. Seems to make sense for me, but then I hardly have more than a layman's knowledge about actually using airborne troops in a war, so how would you rate this argument? Is training country's best soldiers to be parachutists anywhere near reasonable use of resources when its High Command is primarily concerned with defense?

The term 'airborne soldiers' is a little misleading - of the insertions I did, most were by boat. The reason the soviets trained many of them is that if you look at Parachute units around the world (the US 82 Airborne springs to mind) they tend to be elite soldiers as well as jump-trained. Indeed, during world war 2 the men of the Parachute Regiment and the Special Air Service spent most of their time as line infantry. I'm not really a strategist (I was born on a farm in west England) but I would also say that having lots of men who can parachute makes the army very versatile, which is probably good for a country like the USSR with a large frontier

When i was at school, there was always a bunch of guys who wanted to be in the army, they were in the cadets and always talked about the SAS and certain makes of guns ect. They were generally a bunch of nerds.

Do you get a lot of them in the army? can you tell who they are right away? do they make good soldiers? Versus the normal guys, probably rugby players who join because they want a job/education rather than just to wear a uniform.

Not in the Paras - you need to pass a fitness test to get in, so it's generally (again, generalising horribly) the people who play contact sports that get in, since you need to be fit and display 'controlled aggression' which is a fancy word for beating up a mate and being mates afterwards.

What did you think of NCOs?

I am one through-and-through, so this is a bit biased, but basically an army runs on its NCOs. It's all very well being lead by Wellington in Whitehall, but someone has to look after the 8-man section on the ground or you're never going to get anywhere. Also, the Warrant Officers (one or two steps above a Staff Sergeant) tend to be the ones who 'supplement' the training given to new Second-Lieutenants and pull their heads down a lot.

Hi flying pigs!

Since you were in the Falklands and I'm from Argentina, I'd like to know why you think the war was genuine...

I'm an open minded person so please don't feel afraid of telling what you really think, it's not that I'll insult you or anything... I'm really interested in knowing your opinion as there's been differentes approaches about the genuinity of the war...

As you may know, there was a military government here during the war (in fact, the goverment "de facto" gave up before losing the war) losing its image since tons of people were being killed (most of the accused of comunists, more that 20.000 young students at university)... Since people in the country started to feel uncomfortable with it, they sort of saw in the war a way to regain some power... you know, they wanted people to focus on other businesses...

When I was in the UK last january, I met some British who thought that the war was a great excuse for Ms. Tatcher, whose government was suffering from economic problems, to make people join forces agains the external enemy and keep em busy with other matters...

I've got also another question: how would you define our soldiers and our army?... It's widely known here that our army was (and still is) poorly prepared for battle and most of the soldiers were just young boys (between 18 and 20) that hadn't experience nor gear... what's your experience about our soldiers? did you directly fight them? were you in contact with them? (maybe when they surrendered... I've seen some video recording on the TV showing the white flag and our soldiers marching in line with their hands on their head while being watched by British soldiers)

I would say that, no matter what sort of government was in power, the Falklands are our territory and the people there support us (if you were there during our parade through Stanley, there were quite a few cheering crowds), and so for another country to invade was wrong. Seeing as we are a country built on international honour (we went into World War I to defend a treaty everyone had forgotten) I think the only thing we could have done was move to re-take them, and I think the way we did it was the best possible (there were talks about launching nukes on Argentina proper, IIRC).

Your soldiers, without being rude, were almost all a mess. With the exception of a few troops who were obviously some sort of commandos, most of them seemed barely trained (I learned from one POW that most had been called up) and I remember vividly one incident in the mountains towards the end of the campaign where about a platoon of men where standing there shivering, unable to use their guns, but their officer was threatening them and yelling 'no surrender', so I signalled my men to aim off (meaning to shoot the ground), took out the officer and about 25 men surrendered.

Tough to follow a question like that but I'll try. When I was in the 2d Armored Cav, border guards whose mission was to slow the WP advance for 24 hours we were told a few things I'd like to understand better about 'up north', the UK zone. I was there in '75 '76 and am interested in any time frame.

1) No matter how well we fought in the Fulda Gap we were going to be outflanked up north by the Russians running hard across the North German plain crushing by weight of numbers everything in their path. Do you consider this to be the case or could you guys stop them up there, how, and where would you have held?

I don't think we ever seriously expected the Russians to attack, so I think the plan was to hold them up while the rest of the army got together to reinforce us. I don't really know strategy (I was never in Germany as an officer) so I'm guessing.

2) Well this should have been #1 but did you serve on the continent? If so where you in one of the border reaction units or one of the heavy divisions? How was the border strategy figured? We were supposed to ambush and delay but we had terrain...

I'm a Para, which is light infantry. As for strategy, see above. To be honest, we were more of a deterrant than a fighting force.

3) What were your best defensive positions like up north? Was it all cities or did you have any hills and forests at all?

We tended to be based in cities and towns, but I don't know overall strategy.

4) What was the strategy for training, or, what did they expect?

We trained as light infantry, the idea being that we could do anything. We never got mission-trained (unlike Borneo) for Germany

5) How do you think the Centurion measured up to the MBTs of the Russians?

I'm not a tank-head, but it's a very good vehicle so probably would have been good.

6) Who was going to reinforce you, French/Benelux or Americans from Reforger?

I couldn't say. I really didn't know (or don't remember) grand strategy

7) When were you there?

Some time between 1965 and 1970, but I don't remember exactly

Was it fun?

Best job ever.

I enlisted to go into the U.S. Navy for rating Missile technician for nuclear submarines. I am going to boot camp September 23! Hooyah! wish me luck

Good luck!

^Remember the OP rules - this thread is on probation

 

[LuiGGi]

I would say that, no matter what sort of government was in power, the Falklands are our territory and the people there support us (if you were there during our parade through Stanley, there were quite a few cheering crowds), and so for another country to invade was wrong. Seeing as we are a country built on international honour (we went into World War I to defend a treaty everyone had forgotten) I think the only thing we could have done was move to re-take them, and I think the way we did it was the best possible (there were talks about launching nukes on Argentina proper, IIRC).

Your soldiers, without being rude, were almost all a mess. With the exception of a few troops who were obviously some sort of commandos, most of them seemed barely trained (I learned from one POW that most had been called up) and I remember vividly one incident in the mountains towards the end of the campaign where about a platoon of men where standing there shivering, unable to use their guns, but their officer was threatening them and yelling 'no surrender', so I signalled my men to aim off (meaning to shoot the ground), took out the officer and about 25 men surrendered.

This was the sort of answer I was hoping to get, even if we will have some remarkable differences (we aren't a nation based on internationa honour as we haven't been in many wars, with the exception of some regional wars, and never run an imperialistic race), you seem to be as sincere and open to talk about the matter as I am...

You consider Falklands as British territory, I have never met any kelper but I can tell they feel British from what we heard here... Yet, most of us are tougth that Falklands are argentinian since it's part from our country (geographicly)... What's more, personally the most relevant fact, colonization is said to be over now thus falkands should be either an independant country or part of our country, but they should be under control of the crown...

As of the nukes, what we usually hear here is that there were some discussions about nuking some of our big cities (Buenos aires or Córdoba), especially the "industrial chains" (don't know how to call it, but I mean the areas where there are lots of factories) and our national weapons factory in Río Tercero (near Córdoba)... As far as I'm concerned, that would have been pretty much an exagerated answer since there was no big danger, we weren't the menacing type of country that could show something extraordinary (as countries from middle east are considered now)... Have you heard why it was decided not to nuke us?...

Finally, you tell the same version we've got here about our soldiers... There were very young people that hadn't ever had training with weapons that may never work... As you were told, they were all called up for that war, and most of them are from poor parts of our countryside... AFAIK, the most trained guys were the ones from the air force, whose airplanes weren't really tech advanced yet they somehow managed to cause you some casualties... As least that's what you can hear here...

Just for your information, I'll tell you two things that show why this was an innecesary and unfair war from my point of view... First of all, people made a lot of donations (including chocolates, since it Falklands are very cold, and gold) to support our army there... None of all this items arrived... The goverment was so corrupt and cared so little for the war that never send anything... Secondly, newspapers used to tell that we were "winning the war" during the whole war until the very, very end when the surrender was close...

I was literally a bloodbath, something I hope that will be never repeated... I gave up hope that someday Falklands will be considered argentinian, even though the UN has an special comission for the descolonization of the world... There are some people that think at least kelpers are under the british goverment and they don't have to suffer all the economic and politic mess we live in our country, but although I'm not the revolutionary lefty critic type (this sort of guys that will always hate everything coming for US or UK, I must admit there are a lot of them in Argentina) it would be fair to have them back...

 

[Flying Pig]

You consider Falklands as British territory, I have never met any kelper but I can tell they feel British from what we heard here... Yet, most of us are tougth that Falklands are argentinian since it's part from our country (geographicly)... What's more, personally the most relevant fact, colonization is said to be over now thus falkands should be either an independant country or part of our country, but they should be under control of the crown...

I don't see where your claim comes from. If you take that viewpoint, Portugal 'should' be part of spain, Mongolia 'should' be part of China... I say that since they want to stay with us, they should be allowed to

As of the nukes, what we usually hear here is that there were some discussions about nuking some of our big cities (Buenos aires or Córdoba), especially the "industrial chains" (don't know how to call it, but I mean the areas where there are lots of factories) and our national weapons factory in Río Tercero (near Córdoba)... As far as I'm concerned, that would have been pretty much an exagerated answer since there was no big danger, we weren't the menacing type of country that could show something extraordinary (as countries from middle east are considered now)... Have you heard why it was decided not to nuke us?...

Mercy, I think. The Americans had some part in negotiations, and they probably spoke up for you

I was literally a bloodbath, something I hope that will be never repeated... I gave up hope that someday Falklands will be considered argentinian, even though the UN has an special comission for the descolonization of the world... There are some people that think at least kelpers are under the british goverment and they don't have to suffer all the economic and politic mess we live in our country, but although I'm not the revolutionary lefty critic type (this sort of guys that will always hate everything coming for US or UK, I must admit there are a lot of them in Argentina) it would be fair to have them back...

Again, I don't see what right Argentina has to them other than them being nearby, which to me doesn't sound like much of a claim.

BTW, new thread rule - no politics

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

All right, I will shoot.
Apparently, pre-WW2 USSR was absolutely obsessed with parachuting.

Spoiler :

While other countries were just beginning to experiment with military parachutists, the Soviets had already established a military parachute school by the mid-1930s. Even more important for training airborne troops, however, had been the absorption of all parachute clubs in 1933 into Osoaviakhim (loosely translated as the “Society for the Promotion of Aviation and Chemical Defense&#8221, a paramilitary group roughly similar to the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts and geared towards teaching skills applicable to the Soviet armed forces. In addition to parachute training, many young men and women were receiving training in flying both gliders and powered aircraft. By 1936, there were 559 parachute towers in the Soviet Union and 115 parachute training schools. In that same year members of Osoaviakhim and other civilians made 1,600,000 jumps from towers and 30,000 jumps from planes.

As a result of this intensive civilian training program, it is estimated that in 1940, over a million Soviet men and women were trained parachutists. Osoaviakhim had taught many of the most promising parachutists other military skills. Marksmanship, map reading, first aid, and physical training, for example, were included as adjuncts to parachute training. Mass jumps were made by groups who assembled after landing to undertake some “mission.” “Missions” included long hikes, “attacks” on communications objectives or factories, and what would now be called orienteering exercises.

As a result of this intensive preparation, most pre-war recruits into the Soviet airborne forces were already well grounded in basic skills when they commenced their military training. Female involvement in the Osoaviakhim parachute program also was the basis for the Red Army’s airborne doctors and nurses who jumped to give medical aid to the partisans during the war.

Since educational standards were higher for airborne recruits they normally picked up skills more quickly. Five years of schooling were required for airborne enlisted personnel and seven years for officers.
Training for enlisted men lasted four months and for officers six months. Most officer candidates had risen through the ranks and after the German invasion were usually proven combat veterans. Although jumps were made in training, and the fledgling paratroopers learned the quirks of the military transport aircraft they would be jumping from, the emphasis was on building toughness and initiative. The Soviet airborne forces were considered elite assault troops, and their training was tough enough to give them a strong esprit de corps.

Just as it is still a key ingredient in jump schools today, physical training took up a great deal of the Soviet airborne trainee’s time, and forced marches of 50 miles during training were not unheard of. Parachutists received intensive small arms training and learned to use all weapons up to and including heavy artillery and tanks. As the war progressed, Soviet parachutist training incorporated familiarization with German small arms. Since they would often be sent on sabotage missions, much time was spent during training on the use of explosives. Map reading and radio skills were also taught to all trainees. Specialized training was given to those men destined for airborne artillery, engineer, or other specialized formations, and a certain number of parachutists received training as ski troops who could be dropped into mountainous areas.

The extra two months of officer’s training was devoted to airborne tactics, command skills, and other problems of commanding airborne sections, platoons, companies, or battalions. Officers commanding brigades or corps were normally sent to the Zhukovsky (the Red Army War College) in Moscow.

Up to the beginning of World War II, Soviet military parachutists were probably the best trained in the world. The years of Soviet parachute experience had taught them the most effective training methods, and their huge pool of partially trained manpower allowed them to choose the top recruits.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-13947.html

"By the eve of Nazi invasion, Soviets had organized five divisional-sized airborne corps."
World War II Airborne Warfare Tactics (Gordon L. Rottman, Peter Dennis)

Some historians claim that this extensive training and use of parachutists is a telltale sign of a planned offensive war. Seems to make sense for me, but then I hardly have more than a layman's knowledge about actually using airborne troops in a war, so how would you rate this argument? Is training country's best soldiers to be parachutists anywhere near reasonable use of resources when its High Command is primarily concerned with defense?

Its also interesting to note that the Soviets were the first to try and make an air-deployable tank. Most of them failed miserably or were too light to be of any worth. They didn't have titanium back then, which is what we used in. for example, the Sheridan, which can be parachuted into battle.

 

[MobBoss]

Its also interesting to note that the Soviets were the first to try and make an air-deployable tank. Most of them failed miserably or were too light to be of any worth. They didn't have titanium back then, which is what we used in. for example, the Sheridan, which can be parachuted into battle.

Thats not quite accurate. It wasnt 'parachuted' so much as loaded onto a pallet and shoved out of the back of a very low flying cargo plane with a parachute on it to slow it down once it hit the ground and started skidding.

Very risky, and only meant for deploying in places with short/damaged runways with no way for the cargo plane to land. It certainly wasnt 'into battle' and the crew has to drive to where the tank lands to see if it made it ok....its not manned when it is tossed out the back of the C-130...hehe.

 

[LuiGGi]

BTW, new thread rule - no politics

Ok, back to the technical war stuff...

Thank you for sharing your point of view, anyway...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Thats not quite accurate. It wasnt 'parachuted' so much as loaded onto a pallet and shoved out of the back of a very low flying cargo plane with a parachute on it to slow it down once it hit the ground and started skidding.

Very risky, and only meant for deploying in places with short/damaged runways with no way for the cargo plane to land. It certainly wasnt 'into battle' and the crew has to drive to where the tank lands to see if it made it ok....its not manned when it is tossed out the back of the C-130...hehe.

Oh. I just knew it was light enough for an airborne stunt.

Some of the Soviet flying tanks were supposed to be manned when deployed, though. I don't imagine that was terribly fun.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Have you been on training exercises with troops from other nations? Can you tell me what the experience was like?

 

[Flying Pig]

I think we did a few - at my level, we didn't have to integrate too closely, so we often didn't bother. Most of the time, it's not much different to doing it with an all-British unit.

 

[Dumanios]

What wars did you participate in?

 

[Flying Pig]

The Falklands is the only one I think is usually called a war.

 

[Mowque]

Seeing as we are a country built on international honour

That made my day

 

[Cutlass]

What does the Army think of the Royal Marines? Do you do exercises together?

 

[Rossiya]

Why do you think British men today join the army?

 

[CaptainF]

What were your impressions of the soldiers from around the world that you no doubt encountered on your tour(s) of duty?

 

[Flying Pig]

What does the Army think of the Royal Marines? Do you do exercises together?

I'm unusual in this respect, probably because all three regiments deployed to the Falklands, but I think they're very good soldiers. Most of my regiment, especially those who didn't go there, have a bit of a rivalry with them, and I don't think we do many exercises together

Why do you think British men today join the army?

Same reason I did - it's a fun job and well paid, and doesn't need a lot of qualifications

What were your impressions of the soldiers from around the world that you no doubt encountered on your tour(s) of duty?

Generally they were decent enough people and good at their job, but without exception we got the feeling that we were the best there.