This is coolbert:
Torpedo bombers!
Attacking naval aviation, land-based or carrier-based, dropping aerial torpedoes against capital ships, torpedo bombers doing from the air what a submarine does from below the surface.
Those instances from the Second World War [WW2] of successful torpedo bomber attacks upon capital ships occurring under ONLY certain specific circumstances.
Instances of successful attack to include:
1. Taranto. Attack against moored warships in harbor.
2. Bismarck. Attack against capital ship not having friendly air cover.
3. Pearl Harbor. Attack against moored warships in harbor.
4. Repulse and Prince of Wales. Attack against capital ships not having friendly air cover.
5. Yamato. Attack against capital ship not having friendly air cover.
The torpedo bomber of the era [WW2] generally successful only when the "conditions were just right".
The torpedo bomber against much more robust, agile, and prepared opponents, NOT so successful.
WW2 instances of unsuccessful torpedo bomber attack against capital ships to include:
1. Battle of Rabaul.
2. Battle of Midway.
Torpedo bombers, heavy and somewhat ungainly aircraft when loaded with an aerial torpedo, not able to maneuver with alacrity when attacking, in particular too susceptible to shoot-down by combat air patrol [CAP].
* That group of Japanese torpedo planes so successful when attacking and sinking the Repulse and Prince of Wales uniformly UNSUCCESSFUL in combat against the American Lexington aircraft carrier battle group during the Battle of Rabaul.
"The Genzan Air Groups would attempt a torpedo attack on USS Lexington on 20 February 1942, losing seventeen aircraft to the carrier's combat air patrol and anti-aircraft guns"
* American torpedo bombers successfully attacking the Japanese battleship Yamato doing so as part of a coordinated attack in concert with dive bombers and strafing fighter escorts. Overwhelming numbers alone able to defeat the organic air defense of the Yamato!
[the concept WAS for a coordinated attack by all air elements simultaneously! Dive bombers, torpedo bombers, horizontal bombers, escort fighters acting in concert, as a team, again, coordinated, synergistic!!]
* To what extent torpedo bombers were successfully employed by the Japanese during the Indian Ocean Raid of 1942 is unclear.
Torpedo bombers when used in combat under the right circumstnaces were effective - - otherwise NOT so effective!
coolbert.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Phelps.
This is coolbert:
Let me weigh in on a major issue, a case being heard just today before the Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS].
A free-speech issue with a military dimension to it.
The person of Reverend Fred Phelps and his controversial behavior is at question here.
Phelps and the congregation of his church picketing, demonstrating at the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghan. Phelps and his congregation voicing their apparent approval at the death of an American serviceman.
Odious, unwanted, and unwarranted behavior - - an egregious violation of all that is decent.
From a legal standpoint, under CRIMINAL LAW - - constitutionally protected free speech. Phelps and his congregation - - gadflies, nonetheless, behavior, however provocative - - protected.
"gad·fly - – noun, plural -flies. 2. a person [presence unwanted] who persistently annoys or provokes others"
Phelps having lost A CIVIL JUDGMENT for $5 million [the original decision reversed in favor of Phelps], the litigant appealing all the way to the Supreme Court.
This case is a major news item today. And will remain so for some time I would have to think.
Some observations about the Reverend Phelps: [this all needs to be made abundantly clear!!]
* The "church" of Phelps is his home, his abode, his place of residence, and nothing more!
* The "congregation" of Phelps is himself and his immediate family members, and no one else!
I am not even sure if Reverend Phelps is an ordained minister or anything of the sort. He is what is called a "lay preacher" without significant credentials, no divinity degree or graduation from a seminary?
[he is reputed to in his youth to have attended Bob Jones University?]
Reverend Phelps is NOT a "reverend" or is the "pastor" of a "church" or has a "congregation" as those terms are normally, generally, ordinarily, and commonly understood!!
I might even so far as to suggest that Reverend Phelps and his "congregation" are FALSE FLAG! Something is just not right here with this bunch. Creating controversy and stirring up trouble to make OTHERS look bad?
"While false flag operations originate in warfare and government, they also can occur in civilian settings among certain factions, such as businesses, special interest groups, religions, political ideologies and campaigns for office."
We have not heard the last of Phelps and his "congregants", regardless of how the Supreme Court rules! I fear this is so!
coolbert.
Let me weigh in on a major issue, a case being heard just today before the Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS].
A free-speech issue with a military dimension to it.
The person of Reverend Fred Phelps and his controversial behavior is at question here.
Phelps and the congregation of his church picketing, demonstrating at the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghan. Phelps and his congregation voicing their apparent approval at the death of an American serviceman.
Odious, unwanted, and unwarranted behavior - - an egregious violation of all that is decent.
From a legal standpoint, under CRIMINAL LAW - - constitutionally protected free speech. Phelps and his congregation - - gadflies, nonetheless, behavior, however provocative - - protected.
"gad·fly - – noun, plural -flies. 2. a person [presence unwanted] who persistently annoys or provokes others"
Phelps having lost A CIVIL JUDGMENT for $5 million [the original decision reversed in favor of Phelps], the litigant appealing all the way to the Supreme Court.
This case is a major news item today. And will remain so for some time I would have to think.
Some observations about the Reverend Phelps: [this all needs to be made abundantly clear!!]
* The "church" of Phelps is his home, his abode, his place of residence, and nothing more!
* The "congregation" of Phelps is himself and his immediate family members, and no one else!
I am not even sure if Reverend Phelps is an ordained minister or anything of the sort. He is what is called a "lay preacher" without significant credentials, no divinity degree or graduation from a seminary?
[he is reputed to in his youth to have attended Bob Jones University?]
Reverend Phelps is NOT a "reverend" or is the "pastor" of a "church" or has a "congregation" as those terms are normally, generally, ordinarily, and commonly understood!!
I might even so far as to suggest that Reverend Phelps and his "congregation" are FALSE FLAG! Something is just not right here with this bunch. Creating controversy and stirring up trouble to make OTHERS look bad?
"While false flag operations originate in warfare and government, they also can occur in civilian settings among certain factions, such as businesses, special interest groups, religions, political ideologies and campaigns for office."
We have not heard the last of Phelps and his "congregants", regardless of how the Supreme Court rules! I fear this is so!
coolbert.
Appleseed.
This is coolbert:
Here with an article, American infantry being instructed in the art of long-range rifle shooting. The Appleseed civilian shootist project at work!
This from only this last August, very recent. Troops in preparation [?] for deployment to Afghan, their marksmanship being stressed, techniques and methods for successfully engaging a fleeting enemy at long-range being taught!
American infantry, firing the M-16 .223 caliber rifle, NOT accustomed to firing at long-distances with carefully aimed and accurate shots. That M-16 rifle even not really capable of accurate shooting at such range?
[knock-down and "stopping power" of the .223 round at long-distance also questionable!]
"Most Soldiers learn how to shoot at maximum distances of 300 meters. Soldiers in the four-day course shoot at 400- and 500-meter targets."
“'(This helps) familiarize Soldiers with long-distance shooting,' . . . 'We are engaging targets up to 500 meters with just standard weapons. Nearly all the engagements that occur in Afghanistan are at 500 meters and beyond, so it’s important to be accurate.'”
"To help improve marksmanship, Soldiers learned how to shoot without being supported by any sandbags or rocks, just your weapon’s sling for support. Soldiers also learned how to analyze the shot and how to shoot."
The use of the sling as a "support" an integral element of Appleseed "doctrine" and instruction!
Read it all! Hooray Appleseed and good hunting Tenth Mountain!
coolbert.
“in Afghanistan (most of the) engagements are long distance,”
Here with an article, American infantry being instructed in the art of long-range rifle shooting. The Appleseed civilian shootist project at work!
This from only this last August, very recent. Troops in preparation [?] for deployment to Afghan, their marksmanship being stressed, techniques and methods for successfully engaging a fleeting enemy at long-range being taught!
American infantry, firing the M-16 .223 caliber rifle, NOT accustomed to firing at long-distances with carefully aimed and accurate shots. That M-16 rifle even not really capable of accurate shooting at such range?
[knock-down and "stopping power" of the .223 round at long-distance also questionable!]
"Most Soldiers learn how to shoot at maximum distances of 300 meters. Soldiers in the four-day course shoot at 400- and 500-meter targets."
“'(This helps) familiarize Soldiers with long-distance shooting,' . . . 'We are engaging targets up to 500 meters with just standard weapons. Nearly all the engagements that occur in Afghanistan are at 500 meters and beyond, so it’s important to be accurate.'”
"To help improve marksmanship, Soldiers learned how to shoot without being supported by any sandbags or rocks, just your weapon’s sling for support. Soldiers also learned how to analyze the shot and how to shoot."
The use of the sling as a "support" an integral element of Appleseed "doctrine" and instruction!
Read it all! Hooray Appleseed and good hunting Tenth Mountain!
coolbert.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Long-Range!
This is coolbert:
Here thanks to the Small Wars Journal, American and NATO infantry, engaging an insurgent enemy in Afghan, confronted by a situation that is the opposite of what was encountered by the American soldier in Vietnam. Gun battles, rifleman against rifleman, mano-a-mano in many cases, gun fire at extreme long-range rather than the very close.
Gun battles - - firefights, occurring at distances over which the ordinary combat infantryman is neither trained or equipped to deal with.
* "52% of the fights in Afghanistan begin at 500 meters and go out from there."
* "a majority of the fights in Helmand Province are between 500 and 900 meters."
Ranges and a situation, counter-insurgency in the "tribal" environment - - for which automatic and heavy weapons fire is proscribed, prohibited!
"Because we are fighting a counterinsurgency campaign against a tribal warrior society we have and increasingly continued to limit the use of supporting arms."
[the tribal warrior of the Pashtun society. As encountered by the British on many occasions!]
The rifleman is the man of the hour. And again - - not having the training or the equipment for the most part. Combat as fought in the open and barren terrain of Afghan requires and mandates skilled shootists to deal with a wary and very skilled enemy!
"The result is that we must rely more and more on our riflemen to engage and defeat the enemy."
The American or NATO infantryman, the common soldier equipped with a standard infantry weapon of .223 caliber, the M-16 or SA-80 rifle, NOT capable of careful aimed and accurate shooting over long ranges at a distinct disadvantage here. NOR firing a round that has adequate "stopping power" for distant targets.
Comments:
* Rifles of larger caliber are needed for accurate shooting at such extreme long distances, in excess of 500 meters! Rifles firing the 7.62 mm NATO round and such. Rifles of the type M-14 and FN FAL! Rifles of the caliber as advocated by Appleseed! EVEN THE OLD-FASHIONED BRITISH SMLE RIFLE IS PREFERABLE IN SUCH A SITUATION!
* The extent of this problem has been recognized and been addressed to some extent by the American military? I am thinking of the Designated Marksman [DM] program and the adoption by the U.S. Marines of the Designated Marksman Rifle [DMR]!
* The American military has had to buy back from foreign nations M-14 rifles to equip those troops trained as part of the DM program!
* A possible alternative here is to use Dragunov sniper rifles as captured in Iraq? The Dragunov fires the same round [7.62 X 54R] as the PKM. U.S. units standardizing on Soviet weaponry?
There is no easy fix to this problem. There has to be an entire "sea-change" here! Ever since the era of World War One and subsequent to, the machine gun has been the primary weapon of the infantry squad, riflemen firing merely in the "supporting role" relying upon VOLUME OF FIRE.
That is not the case now!
coolbert.
"in Nam, the majority of firefights occurred at a range of twenty meters or less!" - - Bert.
Here thanks to the Small Wars Journal, American and NATO infantry, engaging an insurgent enemy in Afghan, confronted by a situation that is the opposite of what was encountered by the American soldier in Vietnam. Gun battles, rifleman against rifleman, mano-a-mano in many cases, gun fire at extreme long-range rather than the very close.
Gun battles - - firefights, occurring at distances over which the ordinary combat infantryman is neither trained or equipped to deal with.
* "52% of the fights in Afghanistan begin at 500 meters and go out from there."
* "a majority of the fights in Helmand Province are between 500 and 900 meters."
Ranges and a situation, counter-insurgency in the "tribal" environment - - for which automatic and heavy weapons fire is proscribed, prohibited!
"Because we are fighting a counterinsurgency campaign against a tribal warrior society we have and increasingly continued to limit the use of supporting arms."
[the tribal warrior of the Pashtun society. As encountered by the British on many occasions!]
The rifleman is the man of the hour. And again - - not having the training or the equipment for the most part. Combat as fought in the open and barren terrain of Afghan requires and mandates skilled shootists to deal with a wary and very skilled enemy!
"The result is that we must rely more and more on our riflemen to engage and defeat the enemy."
The American or NATO infantryman, the common soldier equipped with a standard infantry weapon of .223 caliber, the M-16 or SA-80 rifle, NOT capable of careful aimed and accurate shooting over long ranges at a distinct disadvantage here. NOR firing a round that has adequate "stopping power" for distant targets.
Comments:
* Rifles of larger caliber are needed for accurate shooting at such extreme long distances, in excess of 500 meters! Rifles firing the 7.62 mm NATO round and such. Rifles of the type M-14 and FN FAL! Rifles of the caliber as advocated by Appleseed! EVEN THE OLD-FASHIONED BRITISH SMLE RIFLE IS PREFERABLE IN SUCH A SITUATION!
* The extent of this problem has been recognized and been addressed to some extent by the American military? I am thinking of the Designated Marksman [DM] program and the adoption by the U.S. Marines of the Designated Marksman Rifle [DMR]!
* The American military has had to buy back from foreign nations M-14 rifles to equip those troops trained as part of the DM program!
* A possible alternative here is to use Dragunov sniper rifles as captured in Iraq? The Dragunov fires the same round [7.62 X 54R] as the PKM. U.S. units standardizing on Soviet weaponry?
There is no easy fix to this problem. There has to be an entire "sea-change" here! Ever since the era of World War One and subsequent to, the machine gun has been the primary weapon of the infantry squad, riflemen firing merely in the "supporting role" relying upon VOLUME OF FIRE.
That is not the case now!
coolbert.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Hall.
This is coolbert:
Here from the files of the CIA, thanks to the tip from Jungle Trader, the Second World War [WW2] heroics of an OSS officer, Roderick Stephen Hall.
[OSS of course the forerunner to the CIA! ]
"Remembering OSS’ Heroes: Roderick Stephen Hall and the Brenner Pass Assignment"
An officer of the OSS, most famous for a sabotage mission during WW2, Hall a man most suited for the mission.
A mission in the Italian Alps. Those alps - - the mountainous terrain and the climate historically of themselves posing a more serious threat and danger to a military force than the enemy.
A mission by Hall, the object was to interdict the German supply route through the Brenner Pass. That arterial highway connecting northern Italy with southern Germany.
Hall, a man possessing that absolutely correct combination of "skill sets" that made him perhaps uniquely qualified for the mission.
Hall combining that proper combination of:
* Military skills - - "military demolitions, mapping, reconnaissance, communications".
* A man with a high degree of intellect.
* Young, physically fit, unmarried, an "Expert rifle and pistol shot"
* Accustomed "to living in the open under all conditions".
* Adept at winter sports, mountaineering, etc.
* "Familiar with the Val Ampezzo" and the surrounding countryside. Had actually traveled, hiked, and climbed the Italian Alps - - the vicinity of the Brenner Pass.
Hall envisioned the mission as a one-man enterprise. Himself being dropped by parachute with supplies and explosives - - leave the rest to him. Sabotage to the greatest extent possible bridges, roads, tunnels, etc, vicinity of the Brenner Pass, making the life of the German as miserable as possible.
The go-it-alone approach as advocated by Hall not transpiring. Hall leading a team of saboteurs in the Italian Alps, his mission having some success.
Hall as other before him finally succumbing in part due to the mountainous terrain and severe alpine climate - - that impossible to predict conditions of cold, snow, wind, blizzard-white-out, etc. Captured by the German, finally either executed or a feigned suicide.
"Tired, frostbitten, and hungry, he was caught in a blizzard and collapsed in the snow in Campo, a suburb of Cortina". [Cortina has been the site of the Winter Olympics!!]
Again, historically - - winter warfare in the mountains of Italy and the Alps in particular being especially dangerous for all participants. Consider the case of the Dulcinian partisans - - the year is 1305!!
"The winter of 1305 was particularly cold and the pressure from the Catholic troops and the inhabitants of the valley was particularly effective so Margaret of Trento [Margharita di Trank] decided to lead another march through the mountains to escape the siege."
That combination of cold, hunger, severe deprivation causing more casualties than enemy action! What the enemy cannot do the mountains and the cold can!
coolbert.
"During the war, the Brenner Pass was of vital importance to the Axis powers as a supply route to the Mediterranean."
Here from the files of the CIA, thanks to the tip from Jungle Trader, the Second World War [WW2] heroics of an OSS officer, Roderick Stephen Hall.
[OSS of course the forerunner to the CIA! ]
"Remembering OSS’ Heroes: Roderick Stephen Hall and the Brenner Pass Assignment"
An officer of the OSS, most famous for a sabotage mission during WW2, Hall a man most suited for the mission.
A mission in the Italian Alps. Those alps - - the mountainous terrain and the climate historically of themselves posing a more serious threat and danger to a military force than the enemy.
A mission by Hall, the object was to interdict the German supply route through the Brenner Pass. That arterial highway connecting northern Italy with southern Germany.
Hall, a man possessing that absolutely correct combination of "skill sets" that made him perhaps uniquely qualified for the mission.
Hall combining that proper combination of:
* Military skills - - "military demolitions, mapping, reconnaissance, communications".
* A man with a high degree of intellect.
* Young, physically fit, unmarried, an "Expert rifle and pistol shot"
* Accustomed "to living in the open under all conditions".
* Adept at winter sports, mountaineering, etc.
* "Familiar with the Val Ampezzo" and the surrounding countryside. Had actually traveled, hiked, and climbed the Italian Alps - - the vicinity of the Brenner Pass.
Hall envisioned the mission as a one-man enterprise. Himself being dropped by parachute with supplies and explosives - - leave the rest to him. Sabotage to the greatest extent possible bridges, roads, tunnels, etc, vicinity of the Brenner Pass, making the life of the German as miserable as possible.
The go-it-alone approach as advocated by Hall not transpiring. Hall leading a team of saboteurs in the Italian Alps, his mission having some success.
Hall as other before him finally succumbing in part due to the mountainous terrain and severe alpine climate - - that impossible to predict conditions of cold, snow, wind, blizzard-white-out, etc. Captured by the German, finally either executed or a feigned suicide.
"Tired, frostbitten, and hungry, he was caught in a blizzard and collapsed in the snow in Campo, a suburb of Cortina". [Cortina has been the site of the Winter Olympics!!]
Again, historically - - winter warfare in the mountains of Italy and the Alps in particular being especially dangerous for all participants. Consider the case of the Dulcinian partisans - - the year is 1305!!
"The winter of 1305 was particularly cold and the pressure from the Catholic troops and the inhabitants of the valley was particularly effective so Margaret of Trento [Margharita di Trank] decided to lead another march through the mountains to escape the siege."
That combination of cold, hunger, severe deprivation causing more casualties than enemy action! What the enemy cannot do the mountains and the cold can!
coolbert.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Retreat!
This is coolbert:
I am glad that Admiral Mahan is thinking along the same lines as I have been!
From the Chicago Tribune yesterday more bad news regarding the main supply route [MSR] for the American military in Afghan:
"36 tankers for NATO torched in Pakistan"
"Afghan supply route stays shut after strike kills Pakistani troops"
"Karachi, Pakistan - - Suspected militants in Pakistan set fire to nearly three dozen tankers carrying fuel for NATO troops in Afghanistan on Friday, officials said, a day after three Pakistani soldiers were killed in a cross-border NATO air strike."
This "air strike" was a cross-border raid by MANNED HELICOPTERS AND NOT DRONES!! "Suspected" militants were the target but some Pakistani soldiers were killed instead!
The ire of the Pakistani is great over this. Drone strikes are OK, manned helicopters strikes are NOT!
These 36 fuel tankers had just fueled at the harbor in Karachi and were NOT EVEN EN ROUTE TO AFGHAN OR CLOSE TO THE BORDER AREA BETWEEN AFGHAN AND PAKISTAN - - NOT NEAR THE KHYBER PASS?
Ever since 2001 it has been my fear that U.S. and NATO forces could potentially find themselves in a situation - - untenable - - no retreat if required possible from the landlocked nation of Afghan, resupply becoming more or less impossible, the MSR severed!
"Free supplies and open retreat!"
Surrounded by unfriendly nations, where would the U.S. and NATO contingents go if the situation went from bad to worse? Fight their way out to where exactly?
Always keep in the back of your mind the British Christmas Day retreat from Kabul - - 1842!! 18,000 English troops and camp followers attempted a 90 mile march to the Khyber Pass - - ONLY ONE individual surviving!!
Worries and concerns about the Afghan MSR continue, and with good reason!
Post script: This attack against the tankers on Friday has been followed up by further "militant" violence directed against the Afghan MSR! Both on Saturday and today further "incidents" have occurred, with considerable damage in all cases. Three days in a row the MSR has been attacked! That cannot bode well.
coolbert.
"Free supplies and open retreat are two essentials to the safety of an army or a fleet" - - Rear Admiral [Alfred Thayer] Mahan"
I am glad that Admiral Mahan is thinking along the same lines as I have been!
From the Chicago Tribune yesterday more bad news regarding the main supply route [MSR] for the American military in Afghan:
"36 tankers for NATO torched in Pakistan"
"Afghan supply route stays shut after strike kills Pakistani troops"
"Karachi, Pakistan - - Suspected militants in Pakistan set fire to nearly three dozen tankers carrying fuel for NATO troops in Afghanistan on Friday, officials said, a day after three Pakistani soldiers were killed in a cross-border NATO air strike."
This "air strike" was a cross-border raid by MANNED HELICOPTERS AND NOT DRONES!! "Suspected" militants were the target but some Pakistani soldiers were killed instead!
The ire of the Pakistani is great over this. Drone strikes are OK, manned helicopters strikes are NOT!
These 36 fuel tankers had just fueled at the harbor in Karachi and were NOT EVEN EN ROUTE TO AFGHAN OR CLOSE TO THE BORDER AREA BETWEEN AFGHAN AND PAKISTAN - - NOT NEAR THE KHYBER PASS?
Ever since 2001 it has been my fear that U.S. and NATO forces could potentially find themselves in a situation - - untenable - - no retreat if required possible from the landlocked nation of Afghan, resupply becoming more or less impossible, the MSR severed!
"Free supplies and open retreat!"
Surrounded by unfriendly nations, where would the U.S. and NATO contingents go if the situation went from bad to worse? Fight their way out to where exactly?
Always keep in the back of your mind the British Christmas Day retreat from Kabul - - 1842!! 18,000 English troops and camp followers attempted a 90 mile march to the Khyber Pass - - ONLY ONE individual surviving!!
Worries and concerns about the Afghan MSR continue, and with good reason!
Post script: This attack against the tankers on Friday has been followed up by further "militant" violence directed against the Afghan MSR! Both on Saturday and today further "incidents" have occurred, with considerable damage in all cases. Three days in a row the MSR has been attacked! That cannot bode well.
coolbert.
MoH.
This is coolbert:
Here from the Chicago Tribune today info on the grumblings, the protests, the complaints - - the Medal of Honor [MoH], not being awarded as it has been in the same approximate numbers - - for acts of heroism as has been the case in previous wars.
"Pentagon pressured over few recent Medals of Honor"
"Some experts point to battlefield changes; other cite politics"
The highest award for heroism on the battlefield only having been awarded "eight Medal of Honor citations have been announced for actions in Iraq of Afghanistan." [in a ten year period now!]
Without question, the awarding of the MoH, the criteria, the back ground checks of potential recipients, has become much more exhaustive than in the past.
Even after being recommended - - criteria and background checks for potential recipients includes: [and is potentially not limited to]
* "disciplinary actions" [none allowed?]
* "messy divorces" [none allowed?]
* "questionable personal habits" [alcoholism?]
* "immigration violations" [no illegal aliens?]
* "other background issues" [?]
" 'stand-off' weapons such a drones, coupled with modern surveillance techniques, produces fewer 'individual combat actions' most likely to produce heroic actions"
I recall very well that during the Vietnam War, the criticism was THAT TOO MANY MoH WERE BEING REWARDED! DURING AN UNPOPULAR WAR THE TENDENCY WAS TO AWARD TOO MANY FOLKS FOR HEROIC ACTIONS!!
NO! The very nature of the combat in Nam produced situations, close-quarter combat [most fire fights in Nam occurred at a range of 20 meters or less], of a nature that required battlefield valor. Either you acted instantly with bravery or you died!
It is important to remember that the CRITERIA for awarding the MoH is CONSTANTLY CHANGING and has always done so. Prior to World War One [?] the MoH was the ONLY decoration for bravery on the battlefield that could be awarded. The DSC, the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, did not exist.
The MoH should not be an object of politics. But politics is a component undeniably of the award process, in varying degrees, depending upon the war, the tenor of the times, the criteria, the protocols. Always has been and perhaps always will be to some degree!
coolbert.
Here from the Chicago Tribune today info on the grumblings, the protests, the complaints - - the Medal of Honor [MoH], not being awarded as it has been in the same approximate numbers - - for acts of heroism as has been the case in previous wars.
"Pentagon pressured over few recent Medals of Honor"
"Some experts point to battlefield changes; other cite politics"
The highest award for heroism on the battlefield only having been awarded "eight Medal of Honor citations have been announced for actions in Iraq of Afghanistan." [in a ten year period now!]
Without question, the awarding of the MoH, the criteria, the back ground checks of potential recipients, has become much more exhaustive than in the past.
Even after being recommended - - criteria and background checks for potential recipients includes: [and is potentially not limited to]
* "disciplinary actions" [none allowed?]
* "messy divorces" [none allowed?]
* "questionable personal habits" [alcoholism?]
* "immigration violations" [no illegal aliens?]
* "other background issues" [?]
" 'stand-off' weapons such a drones, coupled with modern surveillance techniques, produces fewer 'individual combat actions' most likely to produce heroic actions"
I recall very well that during the Vietnam War, the criticism was THAT TOO MANY MoH WERE BEING REWARDED! DURING AN UNPOPULAR WAR THE TENDENCY WAS TO AWARD TOO MANY FOLKS FOR HEROIC ACTIONS!!
NO! The very nature of the combat in Nam produced situations, close-quarter combat [most fire fights in Nam occurred at a range of 20 meters or less], of a nature that required battlefield valor. Either you acted instantly with bravery or you died!
It is important to remember that the CRITERIA for awarding the MoH is CONSTANTLY CHANGING and has always done so. Prior to World War One [?] the MoH was the ONLY decoration for bravery on the battlefield that could be awarded. The DSC, the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, did not exist.
The MoH should not be an object of politics. But politics is a component undeniably of the award process, in varying degrees, depending upon the war, the tenor of the times, the criteria, the protocols. Always has been and perhaps always will be to some degree!
coolbert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
