Sharpest naval engagement of WW II...

sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high

eatthis wrote:

sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high

Great nomination...I always cringe when I think of guys going into the cold waters of the North Sea in WW2...at least in warmer waters, men knew if the were sunk they had a fighting chance to survive long enough to be picked up...in most of the Atlantic and North Sea, they knew if they lost their ship they would die of exposure in minutes...

Mansteins revenge wrote:

eatthis wrote: sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high Great nomination...I always cringe when I think of guys going into the cold waters of the North Sea in WW2...at least in warmer waters, men knew if the were sunk they had a fighting chance to survive long enough to be picked up...in most of the Atlantic and North Sea, they knew if they lost their ship they would die of exposure in minutes...

There is another point of difference between the risks of naval forces over land forces. One hit to a ship could possibly result in the loss of the entire crew of thousands of men all at once, where it is extremely unlikely that that type of situation could happen to an army unit. Nuclear weapons aside (which in either case would probably have the same catastrophic results), on a ship, you are literally "all in the same boat", in the field, you've got your own hole to hide in.

Yup, but of course, these days naval battles are pretty much things of the past.... Hasn't been one since WW2, though there was a bit of a dustup at the Falklands.  Doesn't mean there won't be one in the future, but my guess is such time as it does occur, it will be on such an alien basis it will be almost unrecognizable from what has occured in the past (except for the swimming sailors part!).  Back in the day when I was deciding which branch of the service to join, my first inclination was towards the Navy, but then I started thinking about all that time at sea, while an Army base was usually near things like booze and women, and of course, if there was going to be another war, it would be WW3, and it wouldn't matter where you were, or what branch, as everyone would be looking at Armageddon (civilians too).  So in the end, I tossed a coin, and the Army won (of course, Armageddon never came, but three other wars in jungles, deserts, and the Balkans instead!  Go figger!).

searat12 wrote:

Yup, but of course, these days naval battles are pretty much things of the past.... Hasn't been one since WW2, though there was a bit of a dustup at the Falklands.  Doesn't mean there won't be one in the future, but my guess is such time as it does occur, it will be on such an alien basis it will be almost unrecognizable from what has occured in the past (except for the swimming sailors part!).  Back in the day when I was deciding which branch of the service to join, my first inclination was towards the Navy, but then I started thinking about all that time at sea, while an Army base was usually near things like booze and women, and of course, if there was going to be another war, it would be WW3, and it wouldn't matter where you were, or what branch, as everyone would be looking at Armageddon (civilians too).  So in the end, I tossed a coin, and the Army won (of course, Armageddon never came, but three other wars in jungles, deserts, and the Balkans instead!  Go figger!).

I think the main reason that loss of life is so great in naval warfare is that the troops are so concentrated, and weaponry is usually bigger in one form or another. Then even if 90% of the crew gets off safely; then they have to deal with the elements (cold water, sharks, etc.). I sorta looked at it this way when I was kinda young; "how long can you swim boy?" That plus I always knew they wasn't ever gonna be foolish enough to let me drive the thing!

   Back to loss of life a second. There is weaponry that can cause a catastropic loss of life without ever going to a nuke. Most of it wasn't there in WWII, but the ideas were there. A 2,000 lb. bomb in the right place is gonna dispatch a lot of people just like a 16" round from a battleship. But the guys in an infantry unit at least have the ability to spread out a little bit. I came within a hair's breath of joining the Navy more than once, and the only reason I didn't was because of the ocean itself. At the sametime I was offered a place in the Air National Guard, and the same basic thought came up again; "just how well can I fly?" Still I liked the idea of flying inside a plane at the time, but just not having to leave against my own will! Lastly; I think I'd have never fit into the Navy lifestyle. Even in a combat unit it was too much like stateside. I just can't see me fitting into that regime, and know I'd have never made it in the regular Army as well. I too much of a missfit all the way around (that and nothing I hate todo worse than swinging a paint brush). But on the otherhand I think Navy life was a better lifestyle.

gary

The best lifestyle is with the Airforce by far.  Hardly anyone in the Airforce actually flies around in a plane, and about 80% or more stay on the ground doing logistics, maintenance, intelligence, Radars, etc, etc, etc.  You might also note that virtually every airbase is in a lovely location, like Hawaii, Florida, the UK, Guam, Samoa, Japan, Germany, Italy, etc, etc.  Yes, they have a couple 'hardship posts,' buit they are nothing compared with the places the Army is stationed, not to mentione the constant field training (and by that I mean out in the middle of some horrible jungle, Death Valley, and any number of other charming places), exercises, etc.  In comparison with the Navy, sure, a lot of people are likely to die if your ship sinks, but last time I checked, the Navy hasn't lost any ships lately (20 years?  30 years? More?), while the Army and Marines have been taking casualties in the thousands over the past seven years.  It just biols down to one thing.  If you are an infantryman in the Army, or the Marines, every single weapon system on the battlefield can kill you!  If you are on some big ship somewhere, it is going to take a lot of effort on the part of someone somewhere just to get at you, let alone hurt you!  And of course, if you are like 80% of the people in the Airforce, you might never leave 'home,' and even if you are a flier, you fly your mission, and then go home.  So what are you in danger of?  A nuke maybe, but nothing less.......

The old story goes like this...... Congress gives the Army a big wedge of money to build a base somewhere.  The first thing to go in will be training areas, firing ranges, motorpools, mess halls and barracks.  When they run out of money, and then ask Congress for more to build things like a PX, a movie theater, commissary, family housing and the like, Congress will ask 'Do you have training areas?  Firing ranges?  Motorpools?  Barracks?  Mess halls?'  If the answer to that is 'Yes sir,' then Congress won't cough up any more dough because you have a functional Army base.  

Now we look at the Airforce.  Same scenario, Congress gives them a bunch of money to build a base.  The first thing to go in will be the golf course, then the 'dining facilities,' then the clubs (officers, NCO's and enlisted), an 'all-ranks disco,' theater, then landscaping, a shopping mall, 'dormitories,' and family housing.  At this point, the Airforce runs out of money and goes back to Congress for more... 'Do you have hangars and an airstrip?' No? Then you are not functional as an airbase, so here, have a bunch more money!!'

Yes, the Air Force certaily has far differant mentality when it comes to the welfare of its' people. I have heard from airmen I ran into over the years that they recieve "hardship" pay when having to stay in Army billeting as opposed to Air Force ones. And while the Air Force ahs their people who also do the sneaky pete/snake eater routine, most of them do not. They do not need the spartan conditions because their likelyhood of encountering such is slim.

All that aside, casualty rates in all our combats since Vietnam and before have been on the decline. In all services. While US forces have taken occasional "bloody noses" in combat since then, they are proportionally far lighter than in past combats. Even when modern Navy ships have been hit such as USS Stark or USS Cole, the casualty count has been smaller than when comparable WWII era ships took hits from similar sized weapons. I would venture that this is due to the greater automation and smaller crews of modern vessels.

Does the possibility for great loss of life still exist? Of course. Against a determined, competent foe, who has effective weapons, it is still posbile to cause those casualties. We are just quite lucky that it has not happened in awhile. Our country became used to "bloodless" (at least for our side) quick easy victories.

    after my first flight in the back of a C130, I knew I had been given the correct direction by the man upstairs. What with all that moaning and creaking and just plain loud scraping noises going on I knew that I'd either gotten in the back of somekind of a haunted airplane or I'd best be praying that it lands in one piece (we all here now know the C130 is one of the very best airplanes to ever grace this planet, but the noise just scared me to death.

    But alas it only gets better from there. My second flight was to a place called Phu Bai, and once again in the back end of one of those haunted boxes. We landed in one piece and the new local reception committee came out to greet us in a duce and a half. Well evidently these guys on the plane must have made them mad while I was back there just praying that it didn't fall apart before it landed. Cause they came out shooting a fifty at us. Holes creating windows everywhere, and I can't find the head to puke in. (I didn't know I was riding in a bullet magnet!) We get outta there and go back home with plenty of ventalation inside. I told "top" that "I ain't ever gonna ride in a plane again ever!!!!!" He thought it was funny.

    My third ride was much better. This time I got to ride in an antique DC-3 that was very quiet and smooth (was not haunted). Besides me and the crew, there were two or three pigs, a cow, and a bunch of chickens in there to mask any odors caused by fumes from the engines.

    after those first three flights I knew upfront that I didn't belong inside or around anything that wasn't glued to the ground. And while on the subject let me also tell you that those whirley birds were not anybetter, but at least the had a better window seat (on the floor of course to get you closer to the ground).

gary

stikpusher wrote:

Yes, the Air Force certaily has far differant mentality when it comes to the welfare of its' people. I have heard from airmen I ran into over the years that they recieve "hardship" pay when having to stay in Army billeting as opposed to Air Force ones.

They oughta give the Army guys hardship pay just for having to share the same fine accommodations with the Chair Force.....  LOL!

My old man was an Army brat, joined the Navy in WWII, went OCS afer the war and retired  with the Air Force (made me an Air Force brat). He told me that if I was interested in the military that I should join the Navy if I thought I would only join up for one enlistment but join the Air Force if I was going to make it a career. In the Navy you will certainly "see the world" in a short time, but the Air Force has the better life style. He was correct of course, but the enlisted guys in the Air Force have a tougher time going up in the ranks than the Navy does. After your first four years in the Navy, you have to be a real screwup not to be at least an E-6 by your second enlistment. I know guys that spent their entire career in the Air Force as E-5s and they were no dummies.

Well.... If you spend 20 years and only come out an E5, sounds like a dummy to me!

I saw quite a few of those high mileage E-5's in the LRS community. Not a "dummy" among them. Many took reductions in rank to get into LRS. and guys who tunred down promotion so they wold not have to leave. Now on the other hand a few years ago in '05 when they decided every EM over 2 years in service was qualified to make E-5 to make up a shortage in retention of NCOs, I saw many appear overnight. It all depends on time and place.

stikpusher wrote:

I saw quite a few of those high mileage E-5's in the LRS community. Not a "dummy" among them. Many took reductions in rank to get into LRS. and guys who tunred down promotion so they wold not have to leave. Now on the other hand a few years ago in '05 when they decided every EM over 2 years in service was qualified to make E-5 to make up a shortage in retention of NCOs, I saw many appear overnight. It all depends on time and place.

my how things change! When I was in the Army it was almost always expected to be a buck sargent at the end of 24 months, and then he'd reup for E-6 and six years with the bonus. If you were pretty good at what you did, and were in the "big four", you could make first sargent by ten or eleven years. I've seen that done so many times it'd make your head spin.

gary

Well there is certainly plenty of that quick advancement again today. Wartime Army = faster promotion. My point is that a guy can do lots of years as an E-5 and not be a "dummy". Back in the 80's fast rank was out. 14 years and an E-7 was "fast". But not anymore.

 Well in the Army it was kinda MOS driven, wasn't it? I mean I made SGT in a year. Never wore E-4 as they had Acting Jack in those days. I was a 19 year old hard stripe SGT. Not because I was some sort of hero mind you, but because the drug testing came into being and I was a good little boy. Made E-6 before the end of my 1st term. 4 years and E-7 in about 7-8. Slowed down after that. Really it was because of the Combat Arms specialty. A SSG was a squad leader. So there would be 25 slots per company for SSG. As oppossed to say a Supply SSG may only have 1 or 2 per Battalian.

I do remember those promotion points being very high in a lot of MOS for a long time though.

sfcmac wrote:

Well in the Army it was kinda MOS driven, wasn't it? I mean I made SGT in a year. Never wore E-4 as they had Acting Jack in those days. I was a 19 year old hard stripe SGT. Not because I was some sort of hero mind you, but because the drug testing came into being and I was a good little boy. Made E-6 before the end of my 1st term. 4 years and E-7 in about 7-8. Slowed down after that. Really it was because of the Combat Arms specialty. A SSG was a squad leader. So there would be 25 slots per company for SSG. As oppossed to say a Supply SSG may only have 1 or 2 per Battalian. I do remember those promotion points being very high in a lot of MOS for a long time though.

In Vietnam 90% of the squad leaders were E-5's unless there was somekind of an emergency. I was in a squad that for awhile the ranking man was a Spec Four that had about two years time & grade. The next two were also Spec Fours that had about three months. The bottom guy was a PFC. They started snatching folks from all walks of life to fill it back up. We got a well seasoned E-6 that voluntered to step down to give a helping hand. The other three replacements were light infantrymen and one clerk that were waiting for orders in the replacement depot in Chu Lai. That gave us nine men with three still learning. I knew of several infantrymen that made six after 18 months in country, and a couple arty guys as well. I also know of one guy that made first shirt midway thru his third tour after making E-7 and E-8 with waivers for time. Myself I was locked on one track, and that was get to the state of Washington as fast that bird could get me there.

   Back in the seventies the really fast rank came thru the Reserve units. I was offered E-8 slots in four different units with one putting me on a fast track to First Sargent (M110 / M107 unit). I had the one thing they were in dire need of; combat experience.

gary

Yup.... And you know, the situation is not that much different right now, and there is no draft to get the warm bodies!  I got out as an E7 back at the end of 1996, even though I was offered promotion to E8 with a fast-track to SGM, but after almost 13 years, I had had enough.  Shortly after we seized Afghanistan, and were gearing up for Iraq, I ran into some recruiters in the supermarket, and just on a whim, I thought I'd see what they were offering at the time.... And even though I had been out on beat street for like six years, and was well into my 40's, they said they would give me my old rank back, a bonus of $30K, and promotion to E8 within a year if I didn't get killed or screw up!  By this time, I coulda made about $90K in bonuses, on top of combat pay, etc......!  That was my first clue just how hard-up the current Army is.  I have since found out they will take just about anyone these days, while I recall you had to have at least a high-school diploma or equivalent and no criminal record, and in fact, they were really looking for people with college, and I recall a PFC with a Doctorate in an ADA Battalion I was assigned to back in the 80's!  The PT test minimum requirements kept going up, and I recall when I got out in 1996, that my PT requirements for age were the same as what they were when I joined up in 1984!  Boy, has THAT all been thrown out the window!

My guess is that when all the current wars are done, it will take about six-ten years for the Army to get back to anything like the standards we had back in the '80's..... Just like after Vietnam!

what is PT test?

I don't recall what PT stands for, but I know it's the physical test.  Sit ups, push ups, pull ups (do they do those anymore?), running, ect.

 

searat12 wrote:

Yup.... And you know, the situation is not that much different right now, and there is no draft to get the warm bodies!  I got out as an E7 back at the end of 1996, even though I was offered promotion to E8 with a fast-track to SGM, but after almost 13 years, I had had enough.  Shortly after we seized Afghanistan, and were gearing up for Iraq, I ran into some recruiters in the supermarket, and just on a whim, I thought I'd see what they were offering at the time.... And even though I had been out on beat street for like six years, and was well into my 40's, they said they would give me my old rank back, a bonus of $30K, and promotion to E8 within a year if I didn't get killed or screw up!  By this time, I coulda made about $90K in bonuses, on top of combat pay, etc......!  That was my first clue just how hard-up the current Army is.  I have since found out they will take just about anyone these days, while I recall you had to have at least a high-school diploma or equivalent and no criminal record, and in fact, they were really looking for people with college, and I recall a PFC with a Doctorate in an ADA Battalion I was assigned to back in the 80's!  The PT test minimum requirements kept going up, and I recall when I got out in 1996, that my PT requirements for age were the same as what they were when I joined up in 1984!  Boy, has THAT all been thrown out the window! My guess is that when all the current wars are done, it will take about six-ten years for the Army to get back to anything like the standards we had back in the '80's..... Just like after Vietnam!

there is an Army Reserve training center about twenty minutes south of me, and this is one of the major training spots for all people going to Iraq and Afganistan. Some are going, and some are returning, but it's steady. There's also a SEAL team posted out in the middle of now where down there, and we happen upon them from time to time. Otherwise the place is dead. Used to be very busy place every weekend, and really busy during the summer months. Now the most activity during the week is bombing runs from F16's. Miss the A10's. Three years ago there was a waiting line to get in the National Guard and Reserves here, but with all of them heading overseas I doubt there still is. Still I see alot of upper NCO's getting their ticket punched.

    When Carter was president (I guess that's what some folks called him anyway, but count me out) the place was completely dead. And this was the same on most regular Army bases as well. Then Reagan had to ramp up military spending just to make an attempt to catch up. Then we went into Kuwait and Iraq, and of course everbody knows what happened. The Bush Sr. promptly went to work on the military budgit, only to be followed by Clinton. Now you see a lot of canibalized equipment everywhere due to the lack of money for spares. I often wonder how well the Army would be equiped if those clowns in congress had one of their kids in and SPG! In 1997 there wasn't enough deisel to fuel each and every truck up at Ft.Bragg. There was less that two rounds per tube (155mm). There were canibalized choppers and C130s everywhere. Are you ready for that situation again? Or better said is your kid ready for that scenero again?

gary

Badger wrote:

I don't recall what PT stands for, but I know it's the physical test.  Sit ups, push ups, pull ups (do they do those anymore?), running, ect.

PT!  It stands for 'Physical Training.'  PT takes place five days a week at 0600 hrs in garrison (be there or be square, troop!). The standard when I started as a 24 year old was 30 situps in two minutes, 40 pushups in two minutes, and a 2-mile run in no less than 16 minutes, 30 seconds, plus a weigh-in.  This test is administered twice a year, and if you fail, you were barred from promotion and barred from reenlistment.  Your test of marksmanship at the rifle range was likewise cause for bar to promotion and reenlistment, if you fail (I shot expert ten years running). The last PT test I did, as a 38-year-old SFC, I managed 60 pushups in two minutes, 52 situps in two minutes, and a 2-mile run at 14 minutes, 30 seconds.  Too much for this old man, time for somebody younger to do all that running around!  Of course, these days, my guess is all you have to do is show up fer the blasted test (then again, all that hoofin' around in all that personal armor in the desert probably keeps you in pretty slim, and in good shape!).  Point is, I was not an infantryman, or any sort of 'Combat Arms,' but a 96B Military Inteligence Analyst (a 'weinie'), but was ordinarily attached to combat arms units, and thus had to go and do everything the combat arms guys did (like route march 20 miles with the Light Infantry under full combat load, rappel out of helicopters with the Airborne guys, and sweat in the desert with a tank with the Armor boys).  The same standards were in effect across MOS-types, and clerks and jerks as well as the infantry troops all had to meet the same standards.  God knows what the standards are now.......... 

squeakie wrote:

searat12 wrote: Yup.... And you know, the situation is not that much different right now, and there is no draft to get the warm bodies!  I got out as an E7 back at the end of 1996, even though I was offered promotion to E8 with a fast-track to SGM, but after almost 13 years, I had had enough.  Shortly after we seized Afghanistan, and were gearing up for Iraq, I ran into some recruiters in the supermarket, and just on a whim, I thought I'd see what they were offering at the time.... And even though I had been out on beat street for like six years, and was well into my 40's, they said they would give me my old rank back, a bonus of $30K, and promotion to E8 within a year if I didn't get killed or screw up!  By this time, I coulda made about $90K in bonuses, on top of combat pay, etc......!  That was my first clue just how hard-up the current Army is.  I have since found out they will take just about anyone these days, while I recall you had to have at least a high-school diploma or equivalent and no criminal record, and in fact, they were really looking for people with college, and I recall a PFC with a Doctorate in an ADA Battalion I was assigned to back in the 80's!  The PT test minimum requirements kept going up, and I recall when I got out in 1996, that my PT requirements for age were the same as what they were when I joined up in 1984!  Boy, has THAT all been thrown out the window! My guess is that when all the current wars are done, it will take about six-ten years for the Army to get back to anything like the standards we had back in the '80's..... Just like after Vietnam! there is an Army Reserve training center about twenty minutes south of me, and this is one of the major training spots for all people going to Iraq and Afganistan. Some are going, and some are returning, but it's steady. There's also a SEAL team posted out in the middle of now where down there, and we happen upon them from time to time. Otherwise the place is dead. Used to be very busy place every weekend, and really busy during the summer months. Now the most activity during the week is bombing runs from F16's. Miss the A10's. Three years ago there was a waiting line to get in the National Guard and Reserves here, but with all of them heading overseas I doubt there still is. Still I see alot of upper NCO's getting their ticket punched.     When Carter was president (I guess that's what some folks called him anyway, but count me out) the place was completely dead. And this was the same on most regular Army bases as well. Then Reagan had to ramp up military spending just to make an attempt to catch up. Then we went into Kuwait and Iraq, and of course everbody knows what happened. The Bush Sr. promptly went to work on the military budgit, only to be followed by Clinton. Now you see a lot of canibalized equipment everywhere due to the lack of money for spares. I often wonder how well the Army would be equiped if those clowns in congress had one of their kids in and SPG! In 1997 there was enough deisel to fuel each and every truck up at Ft.Bragg. There was less that two rounds per tube (155mm). There were canibalized choppers and C130s everywhere. Are you ready for that situation again? Or better said is your kid ready for that scenero again? gary

Well, a lot of people don't realise that it was Carter that actually started the re-arming and re-organization of the US military after Vietnam, got the funding, etc.  But it took close to six years for that money and reorganization to start to take effect, clear out the Vietnam dopers, etc).  Reagan kicked it up a couple more notches, and by the time the first Gulf War kicked off, we had the most professional and well-equipped military in the world, by a long shot!  Saddam was so stupid, as if he had just waited a year to invade Kuwait, the US military would only have been half as powerful (this was the military designed to fight WW3!) due to drawdowns.  We also expended the ENTIRE ammo supply for Europe that had been stockpiled to fight the Warsaw Pact for the previous 30 years, and who knows how much that cost?  Note, most of it wasn't used in combat (because the Iraqi Army wisely surrendered for the most part), but the Saudis insisted that when we came back from Iraq, we could not bring ammo with us, so EVERY unit, before returning across the line, had a 'mad minute' that lasted for an hour or two, burning off all the ammo they had carried into Iraq and Kuwait.... Talk about a waste!!

searat12 wrote:

Badger wrote: I don't recall what PT stands for, but I know it's the physical test.  Sit ups, push ups, pull ups (do they do those anymore?), running, ect.   PT!  It stands for 'Physical Training.'  PT takes place five days a week at 0600 hrs in garrison (be there or be square, troop!). The standard when I started as a 24 year old was 30 situps in two minutes, 40 pushups in two minutes, and a 2-mile run in no less than 16 minutes, 30 seconds, plus a weigh-in.  This test is administered twice a year, and if you fail, you were barred from promotion and barred from reenlistment.  Your test of marksmanship at the rifle range was likewise cause for bar to promotion and reenlistment, if you fail (I shot expert ten years running). The last PT test I did, as a 38-year-old SFC, I managed 60 pushups in two minutes, 52 situps in two minutes, and a 2-mile run at 14 minutes, 30 seconds.  Too much for this old man, time for somebody younger to do all that running around!  Of course, these days, my guess is all you have to do is show up fer the blasted test (then again, all that hoofin' around in all that personal armor in the desert probably keeps you in pretty slim, and in good shape!).  Point is, I was not an infantryman, or any sort of 'Combat Arms,' but a 96B Military Inteligence Analyst (a 'weinie'), but was ordinarily attached to combat arms units, and thus had to go and do everything the combat arms guys did (like route march 20 miles with the Light Infantry under full combat load, rappel out of helicopters with the Airborne guys, and sweat in the desert with a tank with the Armor boys).  The same standards were in effect across MOS-types, and clerks and jerks as well as the infantry troops all had to meet the same standards.  God knows what the standards are now..........

first of all everybody in the military is an 11B10 first! I don't are if your a full bird col. or a cook. In Vietnam most artillary units furnished their own F.O. and radio men; plus a couple others on many occassions. Samething for guard duty and listening posts. So everybody really does need to be fit. I well remember when two squads if infantry were encircled on the far north end of the Hiep Duc ridge, and the only thing keeping them off their backs was a near constant barrage from 155's; 24/7. The guns rapidly went thru a lot iof ammo and they couldn't just drop it off by air to the gun pits. So there was line of folks that looked like ants humping rounds to the guns (24/7). In that line you saw every rank imaginable, as well as every MOS. There were at least two Majors from that infantry unit in that line as well as anybody they could find back in the rear. That unit's Col. went so far as to bring in a platoon to help carry ammo the two hundred fifty yard trek thru the mud. Took 72 hours to get them outta there. Rank has no priviledge when in dire straits.

gary

This is something I got years ago from a recruiter-

 

This here is, if you wanted to know what the Standards are for these three events.  To help you to stay fit through-out your life.  o stay heathy.


Here it is:...............MALES ONLY CHART
--------------------
PUSH-UP EVENT, 2 minutes

17-21 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 42
Max. requirement - 100% at 71

22-26 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 40
Max. requirement - 100% at 75

27-31 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 39
Max. requirement - 100% at 77

32-36 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 36
Max. requirement - 100% at 75

37-41 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 34
Max requirement - 100% at 73

42-46 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 30
Max. requirement - 100% at 66

47-51 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 25
Max. requirement - 100% at 60

52- older then dirt year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 20
Max requirement - 100% at 56
----------------------------

SIT-UP EVENT, 2 minutes

17-21 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 53
Max. requir. - @ 100% 78

22-26 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 50
Max. requir. - @ 100% 80

27-31 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 45
Max. requir. - @ 100% 82

32-36 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 42
Max. requir. - @ 100% 76

37-41 Y.O's
Min. requir. - @ 60% 38
Max. requir. - @ 100% 76

42-46 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 32
Max. requir. - @ 100% 72

47-51 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 30
Max. requir. - @ 100% 66

52-older then dirt
Min. requir. - @ 60% 28
Max. requir. - @ 100% 66
-------------------------

2 MILE RUN EVENT

17-21 Y.O.'s........TIME
Min. requir. - @ 60% 15:54
Max. requir. - @ 100% 13:00

22-26 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 16:36
Max. requir. - @ 100% 13:00

27-31 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 17:00
Max. requir. - @ 100% 13:18

32-36 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 17:42
Max. requir. - @ 100% 13:18

37-41 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 18:18
Max. requir. - @ 100% 13:36

42-46 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 18:42
Max. requir. - @ 100% 14:06

47-51 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 19:30
Max. requir. - @ 100% 14:24

52- older then dirt
Min. requir. - @ 60% 19:48
Max. requir. - @ 100% 14:42
-------------------------------
I HOPE THIS WILL KEEP YOU HEATHY AND FIT.
HAPPY TRAINING.

Not sure what the current chart is like these days.... I'd look it up, but it is sure to be filled with so many waivers due to the current wars that it is probably next to useless.... Try to find one from about 2000, and compare it with one from about 1980, and you will see what I have been talking about......!  I think this is one of the things that always upset me about women in the military.  I have no problem with women being in ANY position, and any MOS, as long as they can do the same job to the same standards as the men!  For years there has been all these excuses 'well, women just don't have the upper body strength, blah, blah, blah...'  But that's the whole point!  If the job entails picking up a 122mm sabot round and shoving into the breech of a cannon, then you had best be able to pick up the bloody thing as well as the next guy, and there is just no room there for double standards!  Same goes for the infantry, and every other combat arms branch as well (and even the non-combat arms folks get in positions where they suddenly ARE combat arms more often than you'd care to think about).  Yes, there ARE a few women who CAN do the job to the same standards, and for them, there should be no bar, but this is a very small proportion of women, and really doesn't rate all the exceptions that must be made for them in terms of tentage, barracks, latrines, medical, etc, etc, etc.  It's just that simple; if you can do the job, then you can have the job, otherwise******off!

Another thing that upsets me is the fact that women have a proclivity for getting pregnant at very inconvenient times.... When my unit was notified that we were bound for the First Gulf War, 50% of the women in my office (G2, 2AD(FWD) 'suddenly' became pregant, and therefore couldn't deploy (and another turned up pregnant as soon as we got there, and had to be sent home).  So what does that mean?  It means my unit was suddenly short 25% of it's staffing in a time of war, and these are positions which are not readily filled (good 96B weinies are hard to come by, and harder still to train up to standards)!  Yeah women are great in peacetime, but that's not what an armored brigade/division is about!  And when you multiply that figure for the rest of the military, it suddenly becomes very clear that A; these people have not only entirely wasted the military's money spent in training them, but B; have prevented the promotion and development of people (men!) who could and should have filled these slots that by definition must be deployable!  In other words, I am all for equality, but damn it, the standards must be met, and the job must be done!

eatthis wrote:

sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high

 Back to topic subject ...

This statement is absolutely right. Hood x Bismarck and Bismarck chase were such brutal episodes that British sailors didn't even commemorate it when the Bismarck was sunk; they were horrified by the vision of destruction and hundreds of dead German sailors floating. Everyone was shocked. The few German survivors had a very respectful treatment by the British due to their gallantry in combat.

3500 men lost in a single episode ... This is almost double the no. of casualties in Pearl Harbor. And this episode doesn't have half of the noise or so many films ... (Sorry).

Regards,

Nelson

Nelson Ott wrote:

eatthis wrote: sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high  Back to topic subject ... This statement is absolutely right. Hood x Bismarck and Bismarck chase were such brutal episodes that British sailors didn't even commemorate it when the Bismarck was sunk; they were horrified by the vision of destruction and hundreds of dead German sailors floating. Everyone was shocked. The few German survivors had a very respectful treatment by the British due to their gallantry in combat. 3500 men lost in a single episode ... This is almost double the no. of casualties in Pearl Harbor. And this episode doesn't have half of the noise or so many films ... (Sorry). Regards, Nelson

I watched an episode on the History Channel about the sinking of the Bismark, and after interviewing many of the British sailors I was sortta horrified! They refused to pick sailors swimming in that forty degree water, and left them to drown. They even admitted it on national TV.

gary

squeakie wrote:

Nelson Ott wrote:  eatthis wrote: sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high  Back to topic subject ... This statement is absolutely right. Hood x Bismarck and Bismarck chase were such brutal episodes that British sailors didn't even commemorate it when the Bismarck was sunk; they were horrified by the vision of destruction and hundreds of dead German sailors floating. Everyone was shocked. The few German survivors had a very respectful treatment by the British due to their gallantry in combat. 3500 men lost in a single episode ... This is almost double the no. of casualties in Pearl Harbor. And this episode doesn't have half of the noise or so many films ... (Sorry). Regards, Nelson I watched an episode on the History Channel about the sinking of the Bismark, and after interviewing many of the British sailors I was sortta horrified! They refused to pick sailors swimming in that forty degree water, and left them to drown. They even admitted it on national TV. gary

Let's be fair...they pulled away after a U-Boat periscope was sighted...no responsible Captain would risk the lives of his men to pick up enemy soldiers...They did stop and retrieve 135 survivors until the periscope was seen...

squeakie wrote:

Nelson Ott wrote: I watched an episode on the History Channel about the sinking of the Bismark, and after interviewing many of the British sailors I was sortta horrified! They refused to pick sailors swimming in that forty degree water, and left them to drown. They even admitted it on national TV. gary

The British cruiser Dorsetshire and a destroyer picked up some German survivors but stopped doing so and left the local after an alarm (later proven false) about the proximity of German U-boats. Actually an U-boat appeared on the scene much later that day (May 27, 1941), and also a Spanish ship. There were only two remaining survivors, if I remember well, but one of them died some hours later.

Nelson