Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/29/2004 10:31:48 AM EST
I am reading a book called "where the birds never sing" Jack sacco

anyways it talks about going through basic during ww2 it didn't seem very strict no drill sgt types.

I was just thinking maybe with the huge amounts of kids joining up during WW2 they weren't that tough on them possibly because it was the first time away from home?

I'm sure its probably different if you were infantry but they were signal.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:36:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2004 10:37:51 AM EST by TimJ]
It was different but it was a different climate-lots of older draftees, a fairly small professional military, etc. Generally the older types don't put up with the BS stuff very well and it would have backfired on them had they employed the "shock" tactics of todays Basic training.
But that doesn't mean they weren't tough and trained.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:38:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By TimJ:
It was differnet but it was a different climate-lots of older draftees, a fairly small professional military, etc. Generally the older types don't put up with the BS stuff very well and it would have backfired on them had they employed the "shock" tactics of todays Basic training.
But that doesn't mean they weren't tough and trained.



so your saying you have a bunch of 25 year old MEN and you start screaming at them and being a jerk all day they probably are going to get pissed off and just head home.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:40:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mak762:

Originally Posted By TimJ:
It was differnet but it was a different climate-lots of older draftees, a fairly small professional military, etc. Generally the older types don't put up with the BS stuff very well and it would have backfired on them had they employed the "shock" tactics of todays Basic training.
But that doesn't mean they weren't tough and trained.



so your saying you have a bunch of 25 year old MEN and you start screaming at them and being a jerk all day they probably are going to get pissed off and just head home.



Pretty much. A lot were older, too, but they weren't generally assigned to infantry units.
Even now the Drills treat the older guys differently. Not any more easily, but there's a tangible difference. of course, the older guys usually don't need a boot up their ass to get shit done, either.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:40:58 AM EST

Go watch Band of Brothers Episode 1.

I would not want to run Mt Curahee in 50 minutes, personally. Especially not in leather boots.

Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:42:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By AvengeR15:
Go watch Band of Brothers Episode 1.

I would not want to run Mt Curahee in 50 minutes, personally. Especially not in leather boots.




My dad was 31 when he was drafted into WW2; he said that the DI's didn't treat them all that bad.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:45:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2004 10:48:22 AM EST by Lightning_P38]
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 11:23:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2004 11:27:12 AM EST by JB69]
Not having been military , I may not know a damn thing.

Having said that, I do have to believe the times will have a lot to do with the different mentality of recruits.

Remember that the average age of a soldier in WWII was in the mid 20's.... Now thinking of it in terms of today, isn't really comparative. The average male was already married, had children, and a career by that age. Without much of a doubt, much more mature for their age, than people of today in the same age range... Times were a lot tougher back then having come out of the great depression only a few years prior. Even teenagers were working their asses off to get by and were much more mature, having lived through the depression and knowing the value of a dollar and hard work.

The mentality was very different than today' youth.....

Bearing that in mind, I'd hazard to say that draftees were much more responsible, motivated individuals than most 18+ year olds that enter the services today....

Now that's NOT to say today's recruits aren't matue, etc.... Far from it. It's just that in these times, things come a lot easier to kids, and it reflects in their maturity and life experiences, so please don't misread my feelings on this. I have the utmost respect for any service member and hold them in the highest regard as I have several military friends myself.

Also, you have to remember, we were attacked by japan, which brought us into WWII....

Any time you have one military power attack another, you're going to have a wave of angry, motivated patriotic individuals line up to sign on the dotted line, looking for blood...

I'd say that combination of patriotism and 'pissed-offedness' is what MADE so many outstanding soldiers, sailors, etc. And in that line of thought, would perhaps make it "easier" to get through tough situations... one of which would be basic training. Not to mention how much they busted ass after getting overseas and into combat....

Motivation is an interesting thing.... can make the toughest tasks seem trivial.......

But also you have to figure in the sheer numbers of men needed during the war... It really is unfathomable..... And the necessity to get those men trained adequately was also offset by the need to get them OVER THERE, in a usable time frame....

In times of war, priorities get shifted, and necessarily so... I'd be willing to bet that many WWII era veterans would agree that today's soldier has much more set on his plate in comparison with what they themselves, were required to accomplish before being tossed into the fire... The need back then was much more urgent, and on a MUCH larger scale when you think about it...

Now, that's just my take on it..... I've always been a bit of a WWII buff and like to think I have and make educated conclusions/opinions on the whole affair....

But again, I'm not a vet, So I may be way off....

Though I'll never admit it haha
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 6:49:22 PM EST
USMC training was supposed to be incredibly tough in WWII.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 7:01:03 PM EST
USMC trainning has always been tougher than the other branches... Maybe less so NOW, but it is still tougher.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 7:13:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By GunLvrPHD:
USMC training was supposed to be incredibly tough in WWII.

GunLvr



That is the word I got from my Grandfather...especially how they taught ppl. to swim.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 7:28:31 PM EST
War changes things......The last few years are bringing in an influx of combat hardened DI's to the drill field who know damn well most of thier recruits that graduate will be in comabt overseas within 6-12 months of graduation from Boot Camp (reservists included).They're going to do what they have to do to make sure they are ready.Trust me.

Semper Fi,
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 7:33:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
USMC trainning has always been tougher than the other branches... Maybe less so NOW, but it is still tougher.



More than 1 ww2 Marine has told me that he thinks the younger generation is trained a LOT better tahn they were during the war.

BTW, for a while, USMC boot camp was a lousy 6 weeks.


Remember, the every generation thinks they had it the roughest........
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 7:55:49 PM EST
Excellent post JB69,


My father is a former SF Vietnam Vet. He says the training they recieve now is much harder than it was during the Vietnam war. I think that there might be a little too much emphasis put on physical strength.

Do Navy SEALs or Delta need to be able to bench 400lbs or do they need to kill, train, speak languages and deal with the people?

Sure it's important to be strong and have good endurance but we don't fight hand to hand or with swords anymore. I think tactics and the ability to do the job is the most important.
We need smart soldiers able to deal with locals, know the culture train them win their minds.

This worked with the Montagnards in Vietnam and with the locals in Afghanistan. We don't need guys who could enter a powerlifting competition.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 8:37:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2004 8:38:35 PM EST by JB69]

Originally Posted By NightWatchman:
Excellent post JB69,


My father is a former SF Vietnam Vet. He says the training they recieve now is much harder than it was during the Vietnam war. I think that there might be a little too much emphasis put on physical strength.

Do Navy SEALs or Delta need to be able to bench 400lbs or do they need to kill, train, speak languages and deal with the people?

Sure it's important to be strong and have good endurance but we don't fight hand to hand or with swords anymore. I think tactics and the ability to do the job is the most important.
We need smart soldiers able to deal with locals, know the culture train them win their minds.

This worked with the Montagnards in Vietnam and with the locals in Afghanistan. We don't need guys who could enter a powerlifting competition.



Thanks

And I'd think that the 'bench pressing 400 lbs' bit of which you speak, is merely the guys' own thing, not a .mil standard... least not to THAT extreme.... Strength and endurance are VERY important, especially so in any manner of 'black ops' cadre, Hell, In ANY manner of combat ops...But you ARE talking about a buncha testosterone machines to begin with

I have NO doubt that these hard core sumbitches want to be as conditioned as they can possibly be !
After all, pretty much EVERYTHING is at stake if you cant hang....

Guessing I'd do the exact same if I was in their shoes... give me EVERY possible advantage over the BG's..


Link Posted: 9/29/2004 9:00:09 PM EST
Originally Posted By NightWatchman:
Excellent post JB69,


My father is a former SF Vietnam Vet. He says the training they recieve now is much harder than it was during the Vietnam war. I think that there might be a little too much emphasis put on physical strength.

Do Navy SEALs or Delta need to be able to bench 400lbs or do they need to kill, train, speak languages and deal with the people?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know who you have been talking to, but I have never heard of such a requirement. The emphasis is on endurance, stamina and mental toughness. Anybody who told you benching 400 is a requirement is pulling your leg. You need to bench about 70 lbs- hundreds of times. (pushups)

Seals and other SF types, are skinny wiry types- runners. The bulky Ahhnold guys tire out quickly.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 9:12:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By NightWatchman:
Excellent post JB69,


My father is a former SF Vietnam Vet. He says the training they recieve now is much harder than it was during the Vietnam war. I think that there might be a little too much emphasis put on physical strength.

Do Navy SEALs or Delta need to be able to bench 400lbs or do they need to kill, train, speak languages and deal with the people?

Sure it's important to be strong and have good endurance but we don't fight hand to hand or with swords anymore. I think tactics and the ability to do the job is the most important.
We need smart soldiers able to deal with locals, know the culture train them win their minds.

This worked with the Montagnards in Vietnam and with the locals in Afghanistan. We don't need guys who could enter a powerlifting competition.



My father was also in the USMC during Vietnam and he has said from what they show on tv now of basic that it was MUCH worse back then. The DIs would literally beat the crap out of the recruits and PT was horrible as well. Marines still train harder than other branches today, but I dont think its as bad as it used to be. I think today's marines are probably trained better though.

For the special forces part look around at the pics of SF guys and most of them are not that muscular. They just have A LOT of endurance and mental toughness.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 9:50:52 PM EST
as far as special forces goes the boys are getting smaller and smarter. If you can manage your rifle and get to your destination decide what is a target what isn't and negotiate your way out of a target your are what the military needs. The idea is that the pardon but 'big dumb guys' are being left behind. Its great that you can lift a small car but as far as fast roping out of a helochopter and moving around size doesn't get you far.

My grandfather was in the service before ww2 seemed to be to huge of a problem he said hes training was pathetic. They weren't in war it seemed like a small euro problem to them and when in training it showed. The nazis where hardened at the outbreak of war. they had purpose our boys at home were sitting around. As the war ensued you started getting battle hardened...and tired di's in place who started a good amount of shock and awe just by walking into the room.

My great uncle served through korea again telling me that his training was pushed towards an occupational aspect they were afraid of the commie bastards but power was in numbers. Not much outa him

dad was in vietnam flew with soar. not a grunt but he was trained with some of the best. He says though that the moral of the troops was so piss poor that some of the di's literally gave up on these boys that didn't wanna be there in the first place. Not a place I want to be. I hate the idea of a new draft putting guys who hate the idea of serving there country next to men who posses honor and integrety.

uncle jim is my favorite. He served through the 80s and into the 90s finally reaching lt col in delta force. He has stories. But one thing is the change in training. They don't rely on numbers as much as mentally and physically preparing you.

I can't wait till I am off to basic I look forward to getting my ass kicked. But yea today is a totally different ball game. if you wanna be a rear enchalon mother fucker you can sit back and take college courses and drive a truck or cook or what ever your into but if you wanna be a soldier your the training is golden. Don't forget we put billions and billions into defense those dollars go into us at boot. oh yea and missles.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:12:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:22:24 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:42:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2004 10:44:45 PM EST by NightWatchman]

Originally Posted By BillofRights:
Originally Posted By NightWatchman:
Excellent post JB69,


My father is a former SF Vietnam Vet. He says the training they recieve now is much harder than it was during the Vietnam war. I think that there might be a little too much emphasis put on physical strength.

Do Navy SEALs or Delta need to be able to bench 400lbs or do they need to kill, train, speak languages and deal with the people?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know who you have been talking to, but I have never heard of such a requirement. The emphasis is on endurance, stamina and mental toughness. Anybody who told you benching 400 is a requirement is pulling your leg. You need to bench about 70 lbs- hundreds of times. (pushups)

Seals and other SF types, are skinny wiry types- runners. The bulky Ahhnold guys tire out quickly.



I know it's not a requirement but it may be encouraged. I t hink this might be a SEAL thing more than SF. There was a chapter in one of Marcinko's books (I know, I know) that explained how huge his men were, what they could bench and what he required I think it was 250 or abouts I have to dig it up.

Just a quick thought, look at the guys on combat missions, The younger guys were all huge, by huge I mean large framed not just in shape. The older guys were much smaller height wise. It's the same with cops around my area, they rarely hire anybody below 200lbs, average is probably 240. All muscle, I think the running is obviously important but is seems that too much time is wasted in the gym instead of in class learning arabic or pashtu.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:49:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By ctprelude:

Originally Posted By NightWatchman:
Excellent post JB69,


My father is a former SF Vietnam Vet. He says the training they recieve now is much harder than it was during the Vietnam war. I think that there might be a little too much emphasis put on physical strength.

Do Navy SEALs or Delta need to be able to bench 400lbs or do they need to kill, train, speak languages and deal with the people?

Sure it's important to be strong and have good endurance but we don't fight hand to hand or with swords anymore. I think tactics and the ability to do the job is the most important.
We need smart soldiers able to deal with locals, know the culture train them win their minds.

This worked with the Montagnards in Vietnam and with the locals in Afghanistan. We don't need guys who could enter a powerlifting competition.



My father was also in the USMC during Vietnam and he has said from what they show on tv now of basic that it was MUCH worse back then. The DIs would literally beat the crap out of the recruits and PT was horrible as well. Marines still train harder than other branches today, but I dont think its as bad as it used to be. I think today's marines are probably trained better though.

For the special forces part look around at the pics of SF guys and most of them are not that muscular. They just have A LOT of endurance and mental toughness.




No doubt regular boot camp was more abusive R. Lee Ermey mental style. Now they have time out cards and other PC stuff. But I doubt SF and SEAL physical training was more intense than now.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:50:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By NightWatchman:

Originally Posted By ctprelude:

Originally Posted By NightWatchman:
Excellent post JB69,


My father is a former SF Vietnam Vet. He says the training they recieve now is much harder than it was during the Vietnam war. I think that there might be a little too much emphasis put on physical strength.

Do Navy SEALs or Delta need to be able to bench 400lbs or do they need to kill, train, speak languages and deal with the people?

Sure it's important to be strong and have good endurance but we don't fight hand to hand or with swords anymore. I think tactics and the ability to do the job is the most important.
We need smart soldiers able to deal with locals, know the culture train them win their minds.

This worked with the Montagnards in Vietnam and with the locals in Afghanistan. We don't need guys who could enter a powerlifting competition.



My father was also in the USMC during Vietnam and he has said from what they show on tv now of basic that it was MUCH worse back then. The DIs would literally beat the crap out of the recruits and PT was horrible as well. Marines still train harder than other branches today, but I dont think its as bad as it used to be. I think today's marines are probably trained better though.

For the special forces part look around at the pics of SF guys and most of them are not that muscular. They just have A LOT of endurance and mental toughness.




No doubt regular boot camp was more abusive R. Lee Ermey mental style. Now they have time out cards and other PC stuff. But I doubt SF and SEAL physical training was more intense than now.



The time out cards are a myth.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:58:28 PM EST
Yes, the structure of the training was different. Through time and experience, the military units learned what it took to create a killer. You need to mold someone - preferably a young suceptible mind - by means of psychological stress and rebuilding of a confidence. A particular confidence, actually. If you'll notice some of the newer (1980's +) troops graduate Infantry school with a thirst for violence. Not random violence - but rage against all enemies of the U.S.

Those young Infantrymen come out of training wanting to fight...and have feelings of indestructibility.

Feeling superior to your enemy and having the will to kill is key in creating an effective fighting tool.

It just took a while to hone those training skills.

That is not to say, however, that we did not have many brave men in WWII - quite the contrary. The numbers of heroes were countless. I attribute that to exceptional personal characteristics and the proud American upbringings of that era.

We are, today, a better trained armed forces.

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 5:56:17 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 6:23:16 AM EST
Keep in mind also the poor physical condition of a lot of draftees in WWII. The depresion caused a lot of malnutrion. Eisenhower started the Presidential Physical Phitness Award in the 50's to try and get Americas youth in better physical condition than they were before WWII.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 6:49:26 AM EST
Post WWII, Basic Training in all services except Marines was horrible. Standards were low, discipline not enforced. We payed for it during the initial phases of the Korean War, TF Smith got jacked up. That is why Douglas MacArthur asked for the Marines. Training standards are somewhat cyclic, depending on world operations and conflict.

RLTW!
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 8:22:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By squeezecockerp7m8:

Originally Posted By GunLvrPHD:
USMC training was supposed to be incredibly tough in WWII.

GunLvr



That is the word I got from my Grandfather...especially how they taught ppl. to swim.



They also did true live-fire exercises, with men taking cover in foxholes as machine guns shot over them. There was an auther named Sledge who wrote a memoir of WWII called "With the Old Breed" and he was very critical of modern Army/Marine training. He felt that as dangerous as their WWII USMC training was it was better to lose a few men in training than many more on the battlefield.

GunLvr
Top Top