First I want to say that thanks to all the threads about that show I finally went out and rented the entire serious on DVD. I was amazed that I had taken so long to do that. It was defiantly in the same league as saving private ryn and black hawk down. I was very moved by the whole serious and have now a better appreciation of what these boys(u.s. troops) went through in that horrific war. They were truly heroes.

Now the questions........
As some of you know already I was in the Israeli military (paratrooper) and thus have a few questions about the u.s. military from which we have a close link to(in terms of the same western doctrine and technology). I remember that we were always (unofficially amongst ourselves) comparing how we do something the same and others differently and questioning if what we do is better or worse. I say this because there was a scene in the movie which highlighted to me a major difference and I am hoping to after this post have a better understanding of why it is the practice of the u.s. armed forces.

In the idf(Israel defence forces) all higher up(no matter if you are talikng about an NCO or Lt. or even higher ups) all started from the ground up. Meaning they went to boot camp with everyone else, then from there they were selected to go to squad commanders school, then after about a year (of which they actually led a squad in training and in duty) some are selected to go to officers school and then after  being an officer for a while some of them get selected for higher positions  and this goes on and on. What I am getting at is when the soldiers take an order form his commander he knows that this commander went through everything exactly as he went through. In the series (in the middle) there is a scene where a new Lt. comes straight from west point and is not greeted to well for he has not gone through what they have. Why does the u.s. have that system??? To us it just seems strange that you can go straight from a civilian to officer’s school.

Another question: what is the whole points system? How does it work? (If you recall in the series, there was a whole discussion of where someone has 81 points and he gets to go home but 75 points you cant)

All I want is to have a better understanding of some of these practices. I am asking  that people see it that way and not as me disrespecting the u.s. army for that is the farthest thing from the truth for I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for the u.s. armed forces and those that go in VOLENTARLLY to make the ultimate sacrifice.

i hate to be an ass..
but when i was in China, i got the whole black market boxed set complete with extra features and all 10 dvd's for $10 american dollars...

It is the practice in the United States Armed Forces to select [most of] our officers from the ranks of recently graduated college students, both civilian and military academy.  There are certain exceptions:  In wartime, the Army does promote sergeants to officer grade by battlefield commissions.  Many fine Army officers have come from the ranks.

Army helo pilots are often selected as enlisted men to become warrant officers.  In this case their inherent skills as pilots are more valuable than a well rounded college education.

Experience has shown that our military leaders, the senior admirals and generals require a deep well rounded education.  Officer career paths in the United States military don't just end with the college or military academy.  Officers are in training throughout their career.  All career officers attend post-graduate school, either at a military school like the Navy's PG school in Monterey or at another university.  Following that, they often attend a staff and command college for another year or so.  They usually do at least one and most likely two or more tours of duty in Washington, often working on a congressional staff.  Many go on to teach at a university.

The Navy also has a program where they select especially skilled senior enlisted personnel to promote to junior officer.  The selection process is especially stringent.  These persons are commissioned as warrant officers or Limited Duty Officers (LDOs).  They are technical specialists that normally do not succeed to command at sea.

Marine Corps officers, regardless of their future jobs (infantry/armor/aviation, etc.) always attend the Marine Corps Basic school at Quantico, VA where they learn to lead Marines in ground combat.  EVERY marine is a rifleman first.  They are taught by the toughest Drill Instructors the Corps can find.  At the same time, Marine enlested personnel are training in basic and advanced infantry training at Marine Recruit Depots in San Diego or Parris Island.

American enlisted training, from basic through apprentice and journeyman is usually kept separate from officer training.  When they come together, to form the teams, they then train together.  For example, tankers train separately but come together as crews.  In the Navy, shipboard team training is where the officers and enlisted men come together.  Prior to that, the enlisted men learned their skills in the schoolhouses and aboard ship as apprentices under the tutelage of senior enlisted personnel.

As far as I know, once Army enlisted personnel arrive at their ultimate unit, such as an infantry regiment, they then train with their officer leaders on a daily basis.

As I said, typically during recruit/basic training officers and enlisted men train separately...There is ONE notable exception:  Navy SEALS ALL train together right from day one in basic underwater demolition training.  They learn and graduate together completely as a team.  There may be more special organizations like that...but I'm not aware of any.

The "Points System":  Ok...that was a grading system whereby a deployed serviceman was awarded points for certain deeds or combat time or exceptional circumstances.

At the end of WW II, all the troops wanted to get home NOW...but SHEAF couldn't possibly send all the boyz home right away.  Someone had to watch the Germans, keep an eye on the Sovs, catch, try and imprison the SS bastards and the rest of the Nazi assholes, and basically just occupy Germany and help Europe rebuild.  In order to be fair, a points system was begun to let let those guys what had seen more combat, been wounded more times, or were big heros, go home first.  My dad was awarded lots of points for flying thirty missions over Europe in a bomber and being awarded the DFC for shooting down an enemy night fighter...so he came home a bit earlier that his crewmates.

It was really simple...build up enough points, and you go home!  In BoB, those guys who had been awarded decorations for valor and purple hearts for getting shot...they came home first.  There was a cutoff...a threshold.  You had to hit that to make it on the go-home list.

While I recognise that you have a bit more of an understanding of the idf then alot of ar15”s here I must say though, that you lack any true understanding and are indeed not in possession of the facts.

You are totally wrong about the officers in the idf. Firstly what you stated above is an outright fallacy (I hope unintentionally). An idf officer goes through basic training and then serves for about a year with his fellow comrades till he is then selected to squad commander training this is a 4 month specialized course where he is then sent back to another unit to where he is now the squad commander and leads them through basic and then the year duty. Only after that (which is by now two years) he can be selected to go to officer school. If he goes he must sign on for another year for the officer training is now 9 months(used to be 6 months). Then he goes back and serves as an officer. Most Lt are 21, 22 and not 18,19.

Another thing is that a gibbush is the term that is used to describe the three day to a week test period that some units have as a selection process to get into the unit. So you are totally confused about that.

As for some officers coming to the states for university. What happens is that at some point to achieve a higher rank ( I don’t know how to translate the rank into English)the army gives you time off to get a degree(which is now a requirement) most go to school in Israel which also boast some great schools while others go to schools in the states. All this schooling does is to give someone a better understanding of the world but it is not directly tied to military attitudes or performance. In fact one of my next questions that I was going to post was why if university is important, doesn’t the u.s. do what  the idf does and send them at a later time when they are more engaged in the intellectual part of the army that higher rank gives you. For in the lower ranks, when you are actually in the field with your troops you want them to have the feeling that yes you have the added training but that you have also have had the same experiences that they had gone through. You must admit that is makes sense to get better use out of your soldiers when they have a higher respect for your commands for they realise and internalize that you as an officer have besides the added training and schooling have gone through the exact same shit as you have gone through.

I have clearly shown you how some of your statements are totally false for an idf officer has much more strenuous training (LIKE THE U.S.)  then the average soldier in fact its an insult to imply that the idf just throws ranks at these officers without giving them the qualified training. It is simply false and disingenuous to imply what you have implied.

As for your arragnce comment. All I can say is that if as a result of this arrogance you have come to have sympathy for the Palestinians then you probably would have had that sympathy anyways and you just hide behind that arrogance banner to disguise that. Of course some officers have arrogance. How can you not when as a small country you have fought five wars against the combined forces of the Arab countries and defeated them. Too much arrogance is a problem (as we had seen in 1973) but some arrogance is a good thing for If they weren’t, then the message that would be sent down to the troops is that we are in trouble for Israel is still today surrounded. Seeing my officer go around like everything will be ok inspired us to perform that way and not wither under the odds that Israel faces. I believe that the u.s. military goes on about with the same arrogance as the Israeli military and I don’t see you having sympathy for the Iraqi military or the taliban.

I didn’t intend this post to get into an Israeli military vs. u.s. military so I will ignore you comparing Israeli officers to average nato officers for although I disagree with that I think it is better left for another thread. All I am dealing with here is the practice of have young u.s. soldiers being led by someone straight out of school without the same shared experiences.

I was a paratrooper in the Nahal birgade(green berets):-)

Having been an E-5 (SGT) inthe US Army I'll give you an NCO's perspective on this. From the beginning, the US officer class was selected from those with significantly more education than the masses. We had the luxury of producing our officers without the immediate death threats the IDF lives with every day. Remember that although the US was quick to throw off most of the European (i.e. British) traditions, the Colonial Army was trained by the French, Polish, and former English officers who were products of their countries military academies. After the revolution, the technical nature of the military ment that you had to be able to read, write, and do math. Most 'common' soldiers did not possess the education for this. Also remember that the US is the home of the assembly line and mass production. WWII pretty much set in stone how we 'build' a military. What we produce is a very large volume of 'compatent' officers, with the truly excelent at one end of the bell curve and the unsat's at the other. Since the end of the draft, most of our officers have been drawn to military service out of the desire to serve. This has allowed the military to be more selective in whom they comission.

We inherited that from the British.  It's a holdover from the British class system, their idea of a gentleman officer.  I think your system is better.

I hope you feel happy ripping off the producers who brought you Band of Brothers.

There was a odd thing though about US Parachute infantry companies and platoons in World War II, at least on paper. I found it here: [url]http://www.militarytablesoforganisation.com/Military/Airborne%20Units/USA/Infantry%20Parachute%20Regiment%20February%201942.pdf[/url]

And if these people copied the original documents correctly, US Parachute infantry rifle platoons were assigned [i]two[/i] lieutenants each, a 1stLT and a 2ndLT. I guess they expected casualties to be high or for there to be frequent instances of scattering in drops. But its very unusual, and the only instance of this I can find in the US Army at that time.

Indeed the only other reference two officers sharing such a small command in the US Army is with the SF A-Teams untill the late 1980s. They used to be led by a Captain and a 1st Lieutenant. Now though they are led by a Captain and Warrant, becuase they came to the conclusion that 1st LTs didn't really have the experience to be a assistant team leader.

Navy SEAL teams though are still led by a pair of Lieutenants (jg) I believe.

Granted a u.s. officer has more experience and that is an advantage but I don’t think you can easily knock the Israeli system simply based on that. Israel is in constant state of battle and one or two years is like five or ten years somewhere else. When a officer comes to his troops for duty they know that he has gone through at least a year and a half of constant battle or battle situations. Coupled with that is the intense officer training (one of the toughest in the world......heck even you were sent there:-) ) that an officer goes through. I will agree that both systems work but what I would add is that each works for its own needs and I would disagree with what you said, that the Israeli system hampers it. That is simply false and anyone who has any real understanding (plus most israelis) recognise that the only reason why Israel has won those wars was because of the great Israeli leadership by it commanding officers. I’m sure the saying "follow me" that Israeli officers made famous, sheds some insight into the amazing achievements that these officers have brought to the idf.

with the gibbush. What you have to understand is that there is not one overall gibbush (evaluation) but rather each voluntary unit (in elite combat units you must volunteer into unlike the rest of the army where it is mandatory that you go there if you are sent). Each unit has their own gibbush to evaluate for their own needs. lets say for example you try out for the Israeli navy seals("sheyatet") and you flunk it then you are given the chance to try out in a lesser unit.

You are correct to state that the Tzanzanim is the idf airborne brigade, but aside from that almost every elite unit gets jump qualification plus some (few) individual units in other brigades. I was in a paratrooping unit of the Nahal brigade.

Let me get this right...you spend $10 American currency, in a communist country, to buy an illegal copy of a movie, that tells the story of some of the finest soldiers in American history?

[:(!]

You hate to be an ass?  Then, why'd you do that, and why'd you post telling us all about it?

[stir up hornets nest]The only reason the IDF is any good is because of U.S. $$[/stir up hornets nest]

[}:D]

Nothing personel, but "follow me' is the rallying cry of the U.S. Army Infantry. Ever hear of Iron Mike? (No, I don't mean Tyson either). Or the poem, 'Follow Me'?

The IDF is very good at what they do, but they just don't have a need or use for the same level of staff planing that the U.S. and other NATO nations use. The IDF knows it's limitations and usually dosen't undertake operations that fall outside their capability.

"Follow Me" has been the US Army's Infantry offical motto well before Isreal was established.  You'll find it pretty hard to convince anyone that Isreal invented the idea.  Israeli leaders lead that way because that's the right way to lead.  But we'd have to go back along way in history (before written history) to find out who invented the idea.

I don't think anyone's really knocking the IDF, so calm down.  Your style comes off to many of us here in the States as abrasive, combative, and arrogant, even though I know that is not true.  It's a difference of culture that most people in the US aren't too well versed in.  The fact that the internet is text doesn't help much either.  Many will wrongly interpret your attitude as arrogant, when it really isn't.  Please keep that in mind in future posts.  Most Americans don't really understand what you're getting at, so expect to be misunderstood frequently.  Please bear with it and work with us to communicate better.

The difference between the two systems is because the armies are very different in scope, purpose, structure, size, funding, experience, makeup, and the biggest difference is conscription vs "all vol".  

The US Army commisions from four sources.  The first is the US Military Academy at West Point.  This is a university/academy similar to Sandhurst, etc.  You end up with a Commision and a bachelor's degree at the end of the four years.  West Point provides only about 20% of the officer corps in the Army.  

ROTC provides about 75% of the officer corps.  Cadets attend a conventional university, and additional military training (similar to West Point only MUCH MORE RELAXED!).  Probably about 30% of those folks are prior enlisted, going to college, and have decided to go back in to serve their country again as an officer.

OCS (Officer Canidate School) Provides the smallest number of officers.  They are enlisted folks who have to pass a variety of evaluations, etc then training that lasts some months (I don't remember how long, so I won't guess) and in the end they are commisioned.  They will need to have a BA/BS as well, as that's a requirement to hold a commission in the US Army.

The last source is Direct Commision, which is rare, and usually due to some highly technical field, like a doctor, etc.  They are directly commissioned, sent to an orientation, then off to serve.  These are not combat folks, but folks like lawyers, doctors, nurses, dentists, basically highly educated folks that won't be leading infantry.

Battlefield commisions happen only in wartime, and are usually temporary in nature.  After the war, the officer can revert to his original enlisted rank, or may be given the opportunity to go through a commissioning process and remain an officer.  Generally speaking, we don't have these anymore, and it's highly unlikely we ever will.

Now more directly to your question:

In WWII MANY enlisted, NCOs and Warrant Officers were commisioned on the spot.  The US Army had to expand from a few hundred thousand to several million in just a few months.  That's what mobilization in the USA means.  To meet this requirement many officers were "Shake and bake" or "90 day wonders", where a recruit that showed ANY promise was sent to OCS and stamped an officer.  Due to the high rate of attrition from "follow me", officer ranks tended to be vacant more often than not.  If a 2LT lived through his first three months, he had a good chance of actually making CPT.  If he didn't, another one took his place.  Remember that losses in WWII were far greater than any war since.  We lost many thousands in a day sometimes.  The disturbing thing (from a humanity point of view) is that our losses were light compared to the Russians.

So place the movie in the context of history.  These guys are going through a meat griner daily and fresh meat is being fed into that grinder on a daily basis.  How we did it in WWII was unfortunately what had to be done to win.  It's not the way we do it now.

As for points, they were for post-war rotation back to the states.  During Korea, a points ssytem was established to rotate people back.  In Vietnam, it was just a duration (i.e. 365 days).  You were awarded points as explained.  When you hit your points, you rotated back to the states.  It was a faulty system, and eventually dropped after Korea.  Simply put, nobody thought of a better way to do it back then.

Ross