Posted: 1/26/2003 7:06:40 PM EDT
|
An Army is a team; lives, sleeps, eats, fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is a lot of crap. -Patton I don't like the idea. If they think it'll get more people to enlist, go for it. I just don't like it taking away from the teamwork idea. IMO, an army of one is something reserved for movies. |
|
Quoted: I'm with Patton on this one.. I can kinda see where their going, but its sorta vague. best to cut to the chase.. [red]There is NO room for rambo types.[/red] At least they included [i]some[/i] sense of teamwork. I just hope they beat the rambo out of them in basic. I read in a letter that my grandpa wrote to my grandma (from Vietnam), "There's always some little brown guy with a machine gun that wants to kill everybody." He went on to say that these are the people who got killed. |
|
I was giving some Army guys sh-t at Camp Perry about that. I was, (In a loose R. Lee Ermey voice), saying things like: Army of one, what the hell is that? In my day we fought as a team. The general response is it is supposed to be An Army of, "One". Like the Borg from Star Trek. On the flip side the old motto was: "Be all you can be." That also hints of individualism. What the Army needs is a few good men; unfortunately that is reserved for the Marines. |
|
I think patton is overrated (although in this case he may be correct). Many of the old folks who were enlisted for WWII don't have one bit of respect for him or any of the other generals. The people who fought the war know most generals didn't care for the well-being of the common soldiers. In my opinion, Patton is quoted as gospel way too much, particularly among gun-shooting, war-movie-watching patriots (yes, I fit into that category). Patton didn't win the war. |
|
Quoted: I think the "Army of one" BS was aimed at the MTV raised, self-centered, slacker teens of today. Not working on me! [:D] But, then again, I don't like MTV... It is a crock of BS. I just wonder who actually falls for the Army of One stuff. Probably the same people who think you can engage targets at 300m from the hip with a shotgun. Or the people who the advertising is targeted to...but I repeat myself. PS: sorry for all of this being so incoherent. |
|
Quoted: I think patton is overrated (although in this case he may be correct). Many of the old folks who were enlisted for WWII don't have one bit of respect for him or any of the other generals. The people who fought the war know most generals didn't care for the well-being of the common soldiers. In my opinion, Patton is quoted as gospel way too much, particularly among gun-shooting, war-movie-watching patriots (yes, I fit into that category). Patton didn't win the war. I'm not preaching Patton as the gospel (I don't think you're saying I'm doing this). He did have a nice view of America, IMO and was definitely right in this case. But I do have a lot of respect for him. |
|
Quoted: At least they included [i]some[/i] sense of teamwork. I just hope they beat the rambo out of them in basic. If Ft Jackson is anything like i saw on the history channel we are in trouble. While I was on my 14 week vacation at the Sand Hilton not even the wiseasses and trouble makers dared to do any of the dumb shit I saw on TV. The infantry knows to work as a team hopefully the rest will follow |
|
Patton would not let his tank crews put sandbags and extra plate armor on their M-4 Sherman tanks because the extra weight tended to increase eventual transmission failure and result in more higher-level maintenance...that goes to show you that he didn't give a rat's ass about the welfare of his men... About the only American General who did care about the men was the MacArthur...if you examine his Pacific WW2 campains you will find he had the lowest casualty rates, because he used fast-moving maneuver warfare over the slow-moving massed frontal assault tactics used by most other Allied Generals...and of course never forget that his dismissal by Truman was a result of his rejection of a War of Attrition (the endless feeding of troops into the meatgrinder) rather than actually trying to WIN the war... |
|
The Army has long since quit trying to recruit SOLDIERS. Now, they just try to get people in to do their 2-3 yrs, get out, and get the college money. Edit: This "Army of one" bullshit was probably dreamed up by the same asshole who slapped the Rangers in the face by taking away their berets. |
|
Quoted: Many of the old folks who were enlisted for WWII don't have one bit of respect for him or any of the other generals. But the majority did. They are getting few in number but I have never met a solider that served in Pattons' Army that did not respect the man. |
|
LarryG, That is so insulting that I don't even know where to begin. Not all of us are raised like that, some of us know what honesty, loyalty, and honor mean, and some (very few) of us are Eagle Scouts. The only good things that have ever been on MTV are "Daria" and Stevie Ray Vaughan videos. And the SRV videos were way before my time. I can't stand to watch it, it's so stupid (which is true of most TV these days.) I am 19 and a God-fearing, moral, gun owning American citizen. The two cases are not mutually exclusive. Keep that in mind. Boomer, Boomer SOONER! |
|
I wish they had asked me before coming up with the "Army of one" business. I had an idea for a recruiting ad where a drill instructor stands in front of a tank or Apache helicopter or something, turns to the camera and says, "Hey! Your little candy-assed community college got one of these? I bet it don't!" |
|
Quoted: Patton would not let his tank crews put sandbags and extra plate armor on their M-4 Sherman tanks because the extra weight tended to increase eventual transmission failure and result in more higher-level maintenance...that goes to show you that he didn't give a rat's ass about the welfare of his men... About the only American General who did care about the men was the MacArthur...if you examine his Pacific WW2 campains you will find he had the lowest casualty rates, because he used fast-moving maneuver warfare over the slow-moving massed frontal assault tactics used by most other Allied Generals...and of course never forget that his dismissal by Truman was a result of his rejection of a War of Attrition (the endless feeding of troops into the meatgrinder) rather than actually trying to WIN the war... You're kidding, right? Are you talking about "Dougout Doug?" You know, the one who was relaxing and eating steak and eggs in Australia while his men were dropping like flies on the Bataan Death March? MacArthur was one of the most incompetent and useless generals of WWII. He was an arrogant prick. |
|
schapman43: That's the impression I got also. Everyone working togeather as one, as one team. Also my favorite quote from Gen. Patton: [b]"Use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction upon the enemy in the minimum amount of time."[/b] [heavy] Worked for me. |
|
Quoted: You're kidding, right? Are you talking about "Dougout Doug?" You know, the one who was relaxing and eating steak and eggs in Australia while his men were dropping like flies on the Bataan Death March? MacArthur was one of the most incompetent and useless generals of WWII. He was an arrogant prick. I used to think the same thing. Do more research and you will find out he was a genius. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: You're kidding, right? Are you talking about "Dougout Doug?" You know, the one who was relaxing and eating steak and eggs in Australia while his men were dropping like flies on the Bataan Death March? MacArthur was one of the most incompetent and useless generals of WWII. He was an arrogant prick. I used to think the same thing. Do more research and you will find out he was a genius. And I believe if you do even more research you'll conclude your original observations were correct. Read, for example, Gavan Daws' "Prisoners of the Japanese." There is also his brilliant attack against the civilian bonus marchers in Washington, D.C. and many other curious incidents. I'll give him Inchon, but he never did much else of significance, either as a general or as a soldier. |
|
Quoted: I was always under the impression that they were saying it with the meaning of "everyone working together as one". I guess I was wrong Maybe an underlying motive, but definitely not the main point. Pay some attention to the commercials and you'll quickly realize that they are referring to themselves as such, which I find dangerously Rambo-like. Blackmanta: I had an idea for a recruiting ad where a drill instructor stands in front of a tank or Apache helicopter or something, turns to the camera and says, "Hey! Your little candy-assed community college got one of these? I bet it don't!" That is a great idea. No, I am not joking at all. That is a freakin' great idea! Zardoz: The Army has long since quit trying to recruit SOLDIERS. Now, they just try to get people in to do their 2-3 yrs, get out, and get the college money. Exactly. I really liked the recruiting posters for WWII. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Many of the old folks who were enlisted for WWII don't have one bit of respect for him or any of the other generals. But the majority did. They are getting few in number but I have never met a solider that served in Pattons' Army that did not respect the man. I have not studied Patton much, but the reason I wrote what I did is because my grandfather (84 y.o.) said as much a few weeks ago. He was in the European theater around the time of the battle of the bulge, but he was not in a combat unit. He was attached to the MPs I think. Anyway, he was talking with another relative of mine, a korean war era paratrooper, and they both had harsh things to say about the generals of the time--and Patton was mentioned by name as being particularly reckless with the lives of his men. Neither served in combat under him though, so maybe his combat troops felt different. I just found it interesting that he said what he did, because I had thought more highly of Patton and it seems that most people around here continue to. |