Wusssifying the Army Rangers??
- Thread starter Zebo
- Start date
Boots have been prohibited for PT for a LOOONNNNGGG time. No reason to wear boots during PT as it just encourages injury, of course you still wear them in the field.
And the old image of the swearing, abusive DI is outdated. DI's can accomplish thier function without resorting to out and out abuse although petty harrassment is still quite prevalent. They are really professional teachers and mentors now partiularly with units such as the Rangers where the candidates are generally older than in basic infantry school etc. And trust me, Ranger Intructors are not pansies/PC/dumbed down no matter what that idiot Hackworth says.
Running in sneakers instead of boots? Are you going to change your shoes on the battlefield?
If they were there solely to function as teachers and mentors, then that's fine. They are there to break down and remold, however, which is far different. They are also charged with instilling the ability to work under stress, and an abusive environment is certainly stressful. No one in the combat arms such as the Rangers should ever complain about stressful or abusive training environments since the "real thing" is unforgiving and won't care whether or not you are sensitive to "abuse".
BTW: Here is some good info on that hack Hackworth. He isn't worthy to be called a professional soldier. more like a professional whiney, corrupt, bi%^#. The only reason he didn't get a dishonorable discharge was because he lawyered up with a damn civillian attorney.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2381/sidebar/51012/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2381/sidebar/51012/
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Running in sneakers instead of boots? Are you going to change your shoes on the battlefield?
Yes. PT is just that PT, it is meant to improve your physical condition. Wearing boots, even the most modern boots during intensive PT particularly running is a sure path to a bunch of injured worthless soldiers. Knee injuries anybody??
Of course, during your 20 mile hump with full gear you are going to wear your boots, but wearing them all the time doesn't make any sense with what we know about sports injuries.
I don't particularly like the guy, but he certainly has a background which entitles him to address military matters. How many Purple Hearts do you have? That article noticeably ignores the fact that Hackworth is one of the most decorated combat soldiers around and had an exceptionally impressive leadership record in Vietnam.
Here is a partial list of his military decorations. Judge for yourself whether or not he has any experience.
Distinguished Service Cross (with one Oak Leaf Cluster)
Silver Star (with nine Oak Leaf Clusters)
Legion of Merit (with three Oak Leaf Clusters)
Distinguished Flying Cross
Bronze Star Medal (with "V" Device & seven Oak Leaf Clusters)(Seven of the awards for heroism)
Purple Heart (with seven Oak Leaf Clusters)
Air Medal (with "V" Device & Numeral 34)(One for heroism and 33 for aerial achievement)
Army Commendation Medal (w/ "V" Device & 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Good Conduct Medal
World War II Victory Medal
Army of Occupation Medal (with Germany and Japan Clasps)
National Defense Service Medal (with one Bronze Service Star)
Korean Service Medal (with Service Stars for eight campaigns)
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
Vietnam Service Medal (2 Silver Service Stars = 10 campaigns)
Armed Forces Reserve Medal
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I would never do such a thing and I don't think hackworth is either. He seems the be very concerned about thier rediness and life during real combat situations and is blaming the "leadership". Or perhaps you think he has some other modivation?Like he's saddist/masochistic? I'd like to hear it. And I'd say he did pretty well going from private to Col with two battle field commisions and being the most decorated soldier ever. But hey everyones entilied to thier opinion. Did you have any problems with the students "tagging" hummers?
What does that mean exactly?? Most decorated soldier ever? Says who?? Does he have a Medal of Honor?? No, you don't just add up the number of medals and have some credible measure of a man. Most of those decorations are awarded just for being somewhere regardless of what you did and how you conducted himself.
Personally, I think Hackworth has this vision of the rough and ready gung ho, general Patton type warrior who sees fit to bend the rules or make them up as he goes along. Professionalism and ethics do not seem to be at the top of his list, while bluster seems to be his main attribute. Professionaliism and ethics is the basis of our modern armed forces and people like Hackworth are symbols of the past not the future. And Hackworth hasn't been in the Military since Vietnam so hea really has no idea what our current forces and their training are really like.
I also don't see a lack of skill, training, or readiness in our armed forces. Do you?? We just took apart the Taliban and the Iraqi's and are conducting operations around the globe at a tempo unmatched even during the Cold War. Our armed forces are universally regarded as the best equipped and best trained in the world with perhaps only the Israelis having a comparable training regimen and we routinely kick thier ass at Ft. Irwin. Right now we have the best educated, best trained, most disciplined, and most deployable military in our history and in the history of the world and I don't think "the most decorated soldier" can deny or diminish that. Obviously something is working.
"only the Israelis having a comparable training regimen and we routinely kick thier ass at Ft. Irwin. "
they aren't fools..
they aren't fools..
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I have to admit tnitsuj you can't argue with success. However this story was written today so who can say how these lastest developments will affect rediness later. Practicing for the toughest conditions will prepare one for these conditions when they arise in battle when lives depend on it. Thats' how I took this story. Simply as a failure in the leadership to fully prepare the rangers for the rigors of combat and also thier character and teamwork could suffer under Gen Eatons watch. What with the tagging and all.
I wonder how swearing and yelling at recruits and forcing them to do unnecessary pushups made them fight any better during time of war. Or better yet, how are not doing those things going to affect their fighting abilities. It shouldn't. I think ranger training is tough enough without the extra sadism.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
To tear you down, Weed out the weak physically, weed out the weak psycologically (if you notice only 50% pass rate), build you back up in a monolythic team fighting force with immese sense of pride, duty and accomplisment. Basically a lean mean fighing machine with honor and integrity to handle thier immese responsibities and weaponry they are given to carry out thier missions.
Two related stories of intrest Many Soldiers are dissatisfied with the way things are in the SOF community right now and are voting with their feet and leaving the ranks
and
The March of the Porcelain Soldiers
Read the Feedback from those in the know if you think hackworth is out-of-touchHere
Two related stories of intrest Many Soldiers are dissatisfied with the way things are in the SOF community right now and are voting with their feet and leaving the ranks
and
The March of the Porcelain Soldiers
Read the Feedback from those in the know if you think hackworth is out-of-touchHere
Carbonyl
Excellent points. Military service can result in many types of extremly stressful situations. Ironically, the greater the stress, the more demanding the level of performance required for an acceptable resolution. It would be hard to enumerate all such possible situatons i.e. ground combat, flight emergencies, fire on a ship filled with fuel and ammo. Many people recoil from stressful situations and have no idea how high a level of stress they can tolerate. Instructers have always relied on swearing, BS punishments, and psycological abuse to raise stress levels during training not only to weed out the less fit, but to demonstrate to those who succede that they can function beyond previous limits they imagined for themselves. Many times upon reflecting on particularly stressful training, guys have commented "Man, I can't believe I got through all that.". I've felt that way too. People who make this progression are more likely to do well in the field when things start to look too tough, too terrible, or too hopeless. The more stressful the training, the more you feel like you did something, are something when you complete it. It is also interesting to know that for decades we must have been crippling our forces by making them do PT in boots.
Excellent points. Military service can result in many types of extremly stressful situations. Ironically, the greater the stress, the more demanding the level of performance required for an acceptable resolution. It would be hard to enumerate all such possible situatons i.e. ground combat, flight emergencies, fire on a ship filled with fuel and ammo. Many people recoil from stressful situations and have no idea how high a level of stress they can tolerate. Instructers have always relied on swearing, BS punishments, and psycological abuse to raise stress levels during training not only to weed out the less fit, but to demonstrate to those who succede that they can function beyond previous limits they imagined for themselves. Many times upon reflecting on particularly stressful training, guys have commented "Man, I can't believe I got through all that.". I've felt that way too. People who make this progression are more likely to do well in the field when things start to look too tough, too terrible, or too hopeless. The more stressful the training, the more you feel like you did something, are something when you complete it. It is also interesting to know that for decades we must have been crippling our forces by making them do PT in boots.
The pussification of our soldiers may not lose us any battles anytime soon but Hack's concern, I think, is that it will cost many their lives. My guess is he's seen enough death for a few lifetimes and honestly wants to prevent unnecessary ones.
Of course he makes his living nowadays by being controversial but the jist of what he says is often truthful and valid.
Of course he makes his living nowadays by being controversial but the jist of what he says is often truthful and valid.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
There is another point I think needs addressing and thats the idea of americans as occupiers. Does a soldier without disapline have the disapline to control his trigger in a tense situation? Or is it shoot and ask questions later perhaps igniting new fighting or hostilites? If the only idea is, as the Raiders say, "just win baby" is see no probelm with having such a soldier but I think Hackworth is also tring to address this idea of virtual flunkies being bad for war and our image.
If someone chews me out, insults me, makes me do 1000 push ups in the mud during the rain while they stand there shouting profanities etc. then hands me an assault rifle... lets just say it won't end well for them. But then again, I'm not army ranger material. I guess the theory behind this method of training is that if someone can take that abuse they can handle anything. Carbonyl made some good points on the result if this method. The result is one badass dude.
But with the overwhelming technological advantages the US military has, is this really necessary? He claims the Iraqis were 'weak', but they weren't. The US went up against some of the meanest, nastiest people in the middle east in this last conflict. They had to fight the Republican Guard, Special Republican Guard, Palace Guard, Fedeyeen Militia, Jordanian Mercenaries, Iranian dissidents, and terrorist in addition to Iraqi regulars and a few gung-ho civilians. These guys were battle hardened, vicious killers and the US just steam rolled over them. How? Iraqi tanks were the best in the world in 1970 so they were useless in 2003 and RPGs and AK-47s do little to the US armor, and the US infantryman is quite hard to kill under all that kevlar and ceramic plate vest. The overwhelming air support and precision munition strikes also rendered the Iraqi defenders efforts useless.
The point is that technology wins the war these days, Hackworth's brain is stuck in the Korean War era where raw viciousness counted for something on the battlefield. Modern war is won with machines and computers, not through people. People just need to be trained in the use of the technology. Hackworth is a dinosaur who refuses to become extinct.
But with the overwhelming technological advantages the US military has, is this really necessary? He claims the Iraqis were 'weak', but they weren't. The US went up against some of the meanest, nastiest people in the middle east in this last conflict. They had to fight the Republican Guard, Special Republican Guard, Palace Guard, Fedeyeen Militia, Jordanian Mercenaries, Iranian dissidents, and terrorist in addition to Iraqi regulars and a few gung-ho civilians. These guys were battle hardened, vicious killers and the US just steam rolled over them. How? Iraqi tanks were the best in the world in 1970 so they were useless in 2003 and RPGs and AK-47s do little to the US armor, and the US infantryman is quite hard to kill under all that kevlar and ceramic plate vest. The overwhelming air support and precision munition strikes also rendered the Iraqi defenders efforts useless.
The point is that technology wins the war these days, Hackworth's brain is stuck in the Korean War era where raw viciousness counted for something on the battlefield. Modern war is won with machines and computers, not through people. People just need to be trained in the use of the technology. Hackworth is a dinosaur who refuses to become extinct.
Zrom999
Do you truly believe that there are no more missions for the various special forces? How do you use cruise missles to keep a bridge from being blown up by the enemy? How can F-15s do a prisoner rescue? Can smart bombs gather intel behind enemy lines from sympathic civilians? There are myriad other mission scenerios that that may require a small, independent force with finite supplies to evade or engage superior forces and have the ability to reformulate mission planning on the fly. Such forces can operate with speed and stealth that is unexpected by their opponents whereas an armored colunm is quite obvious.
Do you truly believe that there are no more missions for the various special forces? How do you use cruise missles to keep a bridge from being blown up by the enemy? How can F-15s do a prisoner rescue? Can smart bombs gather intel behind enemy lines from sympathic civilians? There are myriad other mission scenerios that that may require a small, independent force with finite supplies to evade or engage superior forces and have the ability to reformulate mission planning on the fly. Such forces can operate with speed and stealth that is unexpected by their opponents whereas an armored colunm is quite obvious.
Nitemare
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
Hackworth is a damn blowhard. It is his rules or no rules, plain and simple.
This article is from the same guy who removed the Ranger tab from HIS portfolio because former soldiers in his old unit complained about the BS. He never earned the tab.
Hackworth is 73, a fossil, and his glory days are over. Any combat vet who puts up a website stroking his own ego with a "me wall" full of awards is a POS - period. Talk about disrespecting your fellow soldiers from the same era.
I see he no longer toots his stupid horn about being "America's Most Decorated Soldier". Heh, I wonder why? He conveniently never mentions Mike Howard either. I wonder why? Hackworth knows why.
From the article:
I say BULLSH!T!!! I attended ANCOC with Ranger cadre. Hardened vets, my foot! More like clowns! OK, then why did this one RI in my class flunk out of land nav THREE TIMES (the rest of us had two chances) and get tossed out of ANCOC at Fort Benning? LOL, he takes his pin-on rank off, stabs his arm and then says a snake bit him before coming in late on the make-up exam! And another RI flunks mortar exams twice during the same cycle and gets canned. But heaven forbid if one of us regular grunts flunks out of ANCOC. Yeah, we would have been E-6s again. But no, not these clowns.
Believe what you want about Hackworth, Carbonyl. He hasn't worn a uniform in 32 years, unlike those of us who pulled ours off recently. That is all I'm gonna say.
This article is from the same guy who removed the Ranger tab from HIS portfolio because former soldiers in his old unit complained about the BS. He never earned the tab.
Hackworth is 73, a fossil, and his glory days are over. Any combat vet who puts up a website stroking his own ego with a "me wall" full of awards is a POS - period. Talk about disrespecting your fellow soldiers from the same era.
I see he no longer toots his stupid horn about being "America's Most Decorated Soldier". Heh, I wonder why? He conveniently never mentions Mike Howard either. I wonder why? Hackworth knows why.
From the article:
I say BULLSH!T!!! I attended ANCOC with Ranger cadre. Hardened vets, my foot! More like clowns! OK, then why did this one RI in my class flunk out of land nav THREE TIMES (the rest of us had two chances) and get tossed out of ANCOC at Fort Benning? LOL, he takes his pin-on rank off, stabs his arm and then says a snake bit him before coming in late on the make-up exam! And another RI flunks mortar exams twice during the same cycle and gets canned. But heaven forbid if one of us regular grunts flunks out of ANCOC. Yeah, we would have been E-6s again. But no, not these clowns.
Believe what you want about Hackworth, Carbonyl. He hasn't worn a uniform in 32 years, unlike those of us who pulled ours off recently. That is all I'm gonna say.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Well Burnedour my time in was reserve but any PT we did was trivial and easier than two-a-days in HS football and basic was a joke (I also went to a military academy in HS). I thought it was too PC then and I know it is now, 14 years later, and I'm a democrat
. But when lives are on the line all bets are off. Just wondering how many good men are choosing not to go in and how many leave? I know that's why I did'nt commit and I work with literally hundreds of vets who feel hackworths rants hit the mark. Perhaps we are old "dinosaurs" but I'd rather have guys like Hackworth beside me in a firefight than Rumsfield
. But when lives are on the line all bets are off. Just wondering how many good men are choosing not to go in and how many leave? I know that's why I did'nt commit and I work with literally hundreds of vets who feel hackworths rants hit the mark. Perhaps we are old "dinosaurs" but I'd rather have guys like Hackworth beside me in a firefight than RumsfieldOriginally posted by: Carbonyl
Well Burnedour my time in was reserve but any PT we did was trivial and easier than two-a-days in HS football and basic was a joke (I also went to a military academy in HS). I thought it was too PC then and I know it is now, 14 years later, and I'm a democrat
Well, if those are your beliefs, then I will respect them.
One issue at a time.
1. Hackworth - great soldier who was popular with his men not so much with the brass. He's his own biggest fan. The career Army guys I know dismiss him as a rabble rouser. The junior enlisted and junior officers are his fan base.
2. Training - I don't know what they do at Benning but what I see them do at Ft. Campbell looks pretty intense to me. When thy're doing PT they wear PT clothes. When they're doing field exercises they wear whatever's appropriate. They do lots of running in boots. Every generation in the .mil scoffs at what the current generation calls training. Whether its boot camp, jump school, CPO initiation, etc. , etc. the old guys always had it harder. Some points are valid some are not. Training money in the '90's was very scarce and retention was down. There was a big push to reduce attrition. The guys I know at nucular power school were told specifically not to fail anyone. This is a program that historically fails greater than 50%. I would imagine this would be indicative of all services. As far as the cussing and push-ups go, the cussing thing is just PC and the push up part might be a mistake but I would counter that with we know a lot more about physical training and sports medicine in general than we used to. There is a point of diminishing returns. Train smarter not harder. I have noticed that there has been a concerted effort to remove the 'mental stress' aspects out of a lot of military training. I think it is a mistake. There are very few things more stressful than having an out of control fire burning in a convection oven that does not open (you call it a submarine). You have to prepare guys for that.
JMAO of course
1. Hackworth - great soldier who was popular with his men not so much with the brass. He's his own biggest fan. The career Army guys I know dismiss him as a rabble rouser. The junior enlisted and junior officers are his fan base.
2. Training - I don't know what they do at Benning but what I see them do at Ft. Campbell looks pretty intense to me. When thy're doing PT they wear PT clothes. When they're doing field exercises they wear whatever's appropriate. They do lots of running in boots. Every generation in the .mil scoffs at what the current generation calls training. Whether its boot camp, jump school, CPO initiation, etc. , etc. the old guys always had it harder. Some points are valid some are not. Training money in the '90's was very scarce and retention was down. There was a big push to reduce attrition. The guys I know at nucular power school were told specifically not to fail anyone. This is a program that historically fails greater than 50%. I would imagine this would be indicative of all services. As far as the cussing and push-ups go, the cussing thing is just PC and the push up part might be a mistake but I would counter that with we know a lot more about physical training and sports medicine in general than we used to. There is a point of diminishing returns. Train smarter not harder. I have noticed that there has been a concerted effort to remove the 'mental stress' aspects out of a lot of military training. I think it is a mistake. There are very few things more stressful than having an out of control fire burning in a convection oven that does not open (you call it a submarine). You have to prepare guys for that.
I'll assume you were kidding but if that is really your attitude then I would say you have no business being allowed in public let alone a professional soldier.
This is the attitude that gets your ass whipped. As we can see in Iraq and Afghanistan the technology only gets you so far. You have to put boots on the ground and they had better be prepared for tough times. In Iraq the supply tail had a hard time keeping pace and guys were sometimes measuring the time between meals in days. Think what would happen if we had faced a stronger enemy and had gotten bogged down.
JMAO of course
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter