Curious about high ranking officers in war

[Aculaud 0]

I was just curious. In movies like saving private ryan, you hear about a Brigadere General who died in a plane crash, and a Colonel rounding up men to go on a mission and whatnot. I was just wondering if that kind of thing really happens in situations like that. What is the extent of actuall battlefield activity of higher ranking officers like that? I was under the impression that most of the fighting was done by the lower ranks. Not entirely true?

[Guest]

What officers do depends highly on where they are stationed. During my (basic and command) training on the island of Rindö, the base commander, commanding the entire Amphibious battalion was a colonel. He was really a figure of authority and all the other officers were afraid of him. He used to drive around the island in his jeep and we always had to salute him when he passed. He actually court-martialed two guys who didn't. Nobody really knew what he was doing. From time to time  he made a general inspection.

When I was later stationed at the HQ in Stockholm, the situation was entirely different. There was a shitload of colonels there, and they were the errend boys of the generals. They had basically the same status as us (NCOs). We called each others by first name, ate lunch together and so on. That would have been unthinkable on Rindö.

Then it also depends on which country we are talking about. In some countries the officers would never come down from their high horses (for ex. UK) while in other countries the officers have no problem getting their hands dirty (for ex. USA). There was a whole shitload of problems with that in Kosovo. We send a corporal to pick up some documents from some british captain-dude and he refuses to cooperate since he thinks that it is insulting to have to deal with enlisted men.  So we had to send a lieutenant and then it was no problem.

The Russians on the other hand only sent officers and senior NCOs to Kosovo. This in turn enraged the Americans "What! You have a lieutenant driving a f**ing supply truck?? What the hell is wrong with you people?"

[ChickenHawk 0]

Then it also depends on which country we are talking about. In some countries the officers would never come down from their high horses (for ex. UK)

Thats not always the case.

In the Falklands war we actually had the CO of 2 Para killed in action whilst charging an enemy trench.

If thats not leading from the front and getting your hands dirty I dont know what is.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ChickenHawk @ April 06 2002,13:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then it also depends on which country we are talking about. In some countries the officers would never come down from their high horses (for ex. UK)

Thats not always the case.

In the Falklands war we actually had the CO of 2 Para killed in action whilst charging an enemy trench.

If thats not leading from the front and getting your hands dirty I dont know what is.<span id='postcolor'>

Very possible. I am just talking about my experience with them in Kosovo .. and all they seemed to do was to have social gatherings amongst themselves.

There is however another difference between British and American soldiers. The British are aware of the fact that they have chosen a dangerous profession and count on the fact that they can be killed. They consider it to be an acceptable professional hazard. The US soldiers were like "Oh my god! They have guns! They could hurt us - I never signed up for this". The same goes with the officers - they are highly unwilling to put their soldiers at risk.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Depends on the outfit. SF and Aviation units tend to have higher ranking personnel. In SF, a company commander is a major, while in conventional units. He would be a Captain.

Here's a conventional breakdown.

2nd Lt: (Company Grade Officer)Platoon commander, will see lots of combat. Will also last about ten minutes in a firefight. (LOL)

1st Lt: Same, might hold Company XO position.

Cpt: (Company grade officer) Company commander. Will still be in the field with unit, but only goes on missions involving Company sized plus elements.

Major: (field grade officer) Usually Majors hold battalion staff positions. (i.e. S-1,S-2,S-3,S-4...etc) admin only. Battalion XO is a major. Signature box life support.

Lt. Col: (field grade officer) Battalion commander. Will be in the field only when involving Battalion+ sized ops. Alot more admin. Brigade/Regimental XO is a LTC.

COL: (field grade officer) Brigade/Regimental Commander. Rarely in the field. Will hold various staff positions throughout Division, Corps, and Army commands. Most general staff officers ar COL's.

Brigadier Gen: Commands smaller posts and divisions. In the field during envasion sized manuevers.

Major Gen: Commands primary posts and first tier divisions. Can hold lots of different Corps and Army positions. Adjutant General positions.

Lt. Gen: Commands Corps, Armies. (i.e. I Corps, II Corps, SOCOM, TRADOC, U.S. Army South........

Gen: Will hold JCS positions, Army Chief of Staff position, Supreme Allied Commander positions in combat.

General of the Army: None since WWII. Named only during an official war. (Declared by Congress) Will basically lead all of the forces of the free world.

[Guest]

I just remembered a question I had. USSoldier (or anybody) do you know whos patch this is:

I traded it with some Yanks down in Kosovo for our patch. They told me what it was, but I don't remember... and I think that I have seen it somewhere else..

[USSoldier11B 0]

THAT'S MY PATCH!!!!! The "Siagon Electric Company." Special Forces.

[Guest]

Hehe.. cool Then I have met some of your friends

[Bordoy 0]

Denoir u american soldiers came over to england and wouldn't even do the course at Chilwell army base saing "its to hard, we mite get injured" and we british do the course everyday. So i wonder whos getting the hands dirty?

We british soldiers are better then u amrican crap.

[KingBeast 0]

Bordoy im a Brit too and i would say denoir is well within his rights to say what he said. So stop getting hostile and giving the rest of us a bad name.

Its pretty well known that most squaddies just do NOT get on with the higher ups.

He wasnt criticising British soldiers, he was criticising British officers, at least those he has had experience with.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir u american soldiers came over to england and wouldn't even do the course at Chilwell army base saing "its to hard, we mite get injured" and we british do the course everyday. So i wonder whos getting the hands dirty?

We british soldiers are better then u amrican crap.<span id='postcolor'>

Wow.

I hope they dont let ignorant git's like you into the army, even in the UK.

First you should be ashamed at mangling the english lanuguage as badly as you are. Secondly you obviously have zero reading comprehension. Denoir is not an American.  From his posts, I suspect he's a swede.

Try not to embarass yourself anymore, ok??

[Bordoy 0]

Soory warin, i'm to fast. Denoir if ur not amrican then i'm sorry. if u r well........ um............

[scout 0]

while i was in south lebanon we got a call that there is a pursuit after 3 hezbullahs, and ive got an order "wait for the regiment CO"

here we go again.........

well the CO arrived (cause he wont miss a good chase) and with him....... some kind of senior officer from the US army.

so these two trigger happy folks just humped hills with us.

in the end, we didnt catch a thing but the two of them had a great time, cause all u could see of them was their teeth, open in a wide grin, everything else was smeared in mud.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir u american soldiers came over to england and wouldn't even do the course at Chilwell army base saing "its to hard, we mite get injured" and we british do the course everyday. So i wonder whos getting the hands dirty?

We british soldiers are better then u amrican crap.

<span id='postcolor'>

Really!!! Then why did we have to save you from the Germans twice you fucking limey. Unless you are in the 22nd SAS, you need to shut the fuck up you slack jawed faggot.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">11 April 1988<span id='postcolor'>

Bordoy's DOB off of his profile. You are a fucking snot nosed little 14 year old brat. You can't even join the army yet. You disrespect us had working American troops. No offense to other Brits. Just a little pissed that's all.

[scout 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ April 06 2002,20:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir u american soldiers came over to england and wouldn't even do the course at Chilwell army base saing "its to hard, we mite get injured" and we british do the course everyday. So i wonder whos getting the hands dirty?

We british soldiers are better then u amrican crap.

<span id='postcolor'>

Really!!! Then why did we have to save you from the Germans twice you fucking limey. Unless you are in the 22nd SAS, you need to shut the fuck up you slack jawed faggot.<span id='postcolor'>

temper, temper

if it were censured all u would read is a big *BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP*

[rpc007 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ April 06 2002,20:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">11 April 1988<span id='postcolor'>

Bordoy's DOB off of his profile. You are a fucking snot nosed little 14 year old brat. You can't even join the army yet. You disrespect us had working American troops. No offense to other Brits. Just a little pissed that's all.<span id='postcolor'>

Hah! hes not even 14 yet, 5 more days till he hits the big 1-4!

[KingBeast 0]

USSoldier11B that was a pretty rash thing to say

Myself and most people i know arent openly hostile against Americans... until one of you says something like:

"Really!!! Then why did we have to save you from the Germans twice you fucking limey"

That kind of thing makes me physically sick and really boils my blood.

Even if your attack was directed at Bordoy for his ill thought out comment, what you just said was really really stupid.

[ChickenHawk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Really!!! Then why did we have to save you from the Germans twice you fucking limey. Unless you are in the 22nd SAS, you need to shut the fuck up you slack jawed faggot.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yea, I hate it when they say that, saw it in 'Friends' and have seen it a lot since.

The reality is, if we had lost world war 2 YOU would be speaking german or jap because you wouldnt be able to invade Europe from Britain and the Russians prolly would have lost because Hitler could use all his troops from the Western front. You would be left with Japan in the East and a Europe under Germany in the West.

I doubt you would win.

If yer gana flame at least do it with historical accuracy.

Signed Major Bitch

[scout 0]

little correction:

if the us wouldnt enter the war, whole europe would be red.

the russians started to win before us came into the war.

[ChickenHawk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Russians prolly would have lost because Hitler could use all his troops from the Western front.<span id='postcolor'>

[KingBeast 0]

Well if the RAF hadnt defeated the Luftwaffe, Hitler would not have invaded Russia immediately. He only decided on that plan of action after realising that Britain could not be invaded.

And as for saving our limey asses from the germans "twice", I dont think one years intervention in world war one can be considered as "saving" us

[scout 0]

after hitler invaded russian the situation was this:

he was complicated fighting the brits in north africa,

he was afraid of any british action in france so he had to hold troops there too, occupation of norway?

any way as u know the germans werent ready for winter warfare, and the fact that the japanese didnt intend to attack russia just freed 1.5 million seasoned troops from the siberian front. thats what toppled germany in the end.

the partisans added to the mayhem of course.

in the end, the additional troops that the germans could throw in would only stall, not prevent the russian victory

[scout 0]

as for WWI the american troops actually ended the stand-off cause by then both sided were suffering heavy losses and couldn't mount any serious offrnsive, what tipped the balance WERE the amount of troops and tanks the US supplied.

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok...this is getting into flamewar....

first, a 14 yr old kid(who seems to be a british) mocks a US soldier, calling him a 'looser'. Then even b4 anyone states something US soldiers reacts, and now all british ppl think that US soldier is an a-hole.

is it just me thinking that none of Brits here who are reacting to US soldier's comment is angry at What he said, but don't bother to scold that 14yr old for starting this flame war?

[ChickenHawk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">after hitler invaded russian the situation was this:

he was complicated fighting the brits in north africa,

he was afraid of any british action in france so he had to hold troops there too, occupation of norway?

any way as u know the germans werent ready for winter warfare, and the fact that the japanese didnt intend to attack russia just freed 1.5 million seasoned troops from the siberian front. thats what toppled germany in the end.

the partisans added to the mayhem of course.

in the end, the additional troops that the germans could throw in would only stall, not prevent the russian victory<span id='postcolor'>

he was complicated fighting the brits in north africa,

North Africa would have fallen because we wouldnt get any supplies through if mainland brit fell.

he was afraid of any british action in france so he had to hold troops there too, occupation of norway?

Wouldnt have to if we had fallen.

any way as u know the germans werent ready for winter

Maybe, but he would have better logistics and a far greater number of troops from the whole of the Western front to throw at the Russians.

and the fact that the japanese didnt intend to attack russia just freed 1.5 million seasoned troops from the siberian front. thats what toppled germany in the end.

If the Japs never attacked Pearl I think they would have sided with Germany in attacking Russia in the East. They owned China and the Pacific by 1941.

Hitler could also have used his troops from North Africa, Rommel etc.

Burma and India would have fallen and probably Australia and New Zealand.

You would also have the whole might of the German Navy, the Scharnhost, Bismarck and all the U boats. You would'nt have the code cracked to track them either.

Hitler could also use the Luftwaffe and the bombers from the battle of Britain in the Eastern front.

Russia was stretched to breaking point in world war 2, the line just, only just held.

I'm pretty sure that the German troops from the Western front combined with the troops from North Africa would have been enough to break them.