An Officer....... [Archive]

ArtKramr

February 23rd 04, 04:05 AM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 2/22/04 7:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Art, did you know Al Briggs in the 344th? I am wondering if he is still with
>us or not. We had a conversation once about a "Flak Hotel" and he gave me
>some
>photos of the place - he said his crew was sent there for a short rest after
>a
>particularly difficult mission but never gave me any details. Wondering if
>you
>are in contact with him?
>
>v/r
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR
>
The name does have a very familiar ring. First I will check the casualty
list.If he isn't on it I will then go to the Membership list of the 344th Bomb
Group association. If he's not on it I'll cal the headquarters of the 344th
and make inquiries there.. BTW, do you know what squadron he was in or who he
flew with? Was it the flak hotel in Stansted, Pontoise or Florennes? That info
can be useful. At any rate I'll get back to you as soon as I know anything We
must never forget absent friends. I get nervous when somone aske me a question
about a familiar name that I can't quite place. I am always afraid I'll find
it one the casualty list. So I look there last. (sigh)

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr

February 23rd 04, 05:14 AM

Krztalizer

February 23rd 04, 07:16 AM

>BINGO. Got a hit. There is an I.E. Biggs listed (496 squadron) of Silbee
>Texas. Now I gota check where and how he is now. Get back to you. I dont
>want
>post his address but if you want it lemme know and I will e-mail it to you.

That's gotta be the guy. I sincerely hope his health has improved since the
last time I saw him in San Marcos.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

ArtKramr

February 23rd 04, 01:37 PM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 2/22/04 11:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>BINGO. Got a hit. There is an I.E. Biggs listed (496 squadron) of Silbee
>>Texas. Now I gota check where and how he is now. Get back to you. I dont
>>want
>>post his address but if you want it lemme know and I will e-mail it to you.
>
>That's gotta be the guy. I sincerely hope his health has improved since the
>last time I saw him in San Marcos.
>
>v/r
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR
>
>Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
>reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.
>
>

I'll check with the 344th bomb group Association and see what I can find. I
never really knew Biggs since he flew with the 496th and I flew with the 494th
squadron. We occupied opposite sides of the airfield and my only chance to meet
him would have been in the pre- mission morning briefings.. Do you know what
his MOS was; pilot, bombardier or gunner? The search goes on.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Ed Rasimus

February 23rd 04, 02:51 PM

On 22 Feb 2004 19:22:38 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>An officer never complains.

Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
morale problem.

>An officer never explains.

Show me an officer who won't explain to those he is leading the why of
the issue and I'll show you a poor leader.

>And an officer never allows himself to be put on the defensive.

If you don't find yourself on the defensive occasionally, you are
little more than a caretaker and not being either innovative or
aggressive. Reaching beyond the horizon will occasionally put you on
the defensive. How you deal with it is the measure of how good you
are.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

ArtKramr

February 23rd 04, 03:10 PM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/23/04 6:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 22 Feb 2004 19:22:38 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>An officer never complains.
>
>Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
>morale problem.
>
>>An officer never explains.
>
>Show me an officer who won't explain to those he is leading the why of
>the issue and I'll show you a poor leader.
>
>>And an officer never allows himself to be put on the defensive.
>
>If you don't find yourself on the defensive occasionally, you are
>little more than a caretaker and not being either innovative or
>aggressive. Reaching beyond the horizon will occasionally put you on
>the defensive. How you deal with it is the measure of how good you
>are.
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

We learned our jobs at a different time and in a different war. And we didn't
do all that badly in the process. I guess we learned to something right. Show
me an officer who complains and I'll show you a whining wimp. How an officer
behaves always trickles down to his men and his complaining can demoralise
troops and result in defeat. Be strong, always be strong. When an officer's
decisions are challenged by those below him explanations are signs of weakness
and make for poor leadership.
And when challenged he need only be secure in his decisions and demand his
orders be followed. That is a strong leader. Once troops qustion a leaders
decisions, he has lost both the control and faith of his troops. But I was
trained in the army. You were trained in the Air Force. That may be the
difference. No offense of course.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Ed Rasimus

February 23rd 04, 03:33 PM

On 23 Feb 2004 15:10:55 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>We learned our jobs at a different time and in a different war. And we didn't
>do all that badly in the process. I guess we learned to something right. Show
>me an officer who complains and I'll show you a whining wimp.

There is a difference between "griping"/complaining and whining.
Flying units are inherently comprised of officers, some in leadership
roles and some in subordinate positions. I'll bet there was a lot of
griping in your unit, regarding the weather, the chow, the mail, the
headshed decisions, etc. That generally isn't whining, it's healthy.

>How an officer
>behaves always trickles down to his men and his complaining can demoralise
>troops and result in defeat. Be strong, always be strong. When an officer's
>decisions are challenged by those below him explanations are signs of weakness
>and make for poor leadership.

We've got a disconnect there. Strength and confidence don't equate
with arbitrariness and dictatorship. Leadership isn't simply giving
orders, it's establishing the rapport with those being led that you
know what is required. You won't get them killed and you will do the
job. You'll lead from the front and share the risk, but you won't
waste your men.

Talking with Robin Olds last spring in Las Vegas, someone mentioned a
legend about a propaganda drop of leaflets over N. Vietnam airfields
in which Robin challenged the infamous Col. Tomb to an air duel. Robin
responded quite clearly that it never happened. He then went on to
explain that his job as commander of the 8th TFW was to bring his guys
home. His task was not to gain personal glory killing MiGs in general
or Col. Tomb in particular. It was to hit the assigned targets as
efficiently as possible and take care of his men. That's leadership
and it isn't done without explaining to your men what is going on and
why.

Hard to characterize Robin Olds as "weak" in any terms.

>And when challenged he need only be secure in his decisions and demand his
>orders be followed. That is a strong leader. Once troops qustion a leaders
>decisions, he has lost both the control and faith of his troops. But I was
>trained in the army. You were trained in the Air Force. That may be the
>difference. No offense of course.

I'm not suggesting toleration of insubordination. That's a whole
different ball game. I learned that the value of a subordinate comes
from being willing to question the leader. Debate, discuss, argue if
you will in the staff meeting, then when the decision is made and the
door opens come out with a solid team in support of the agreed upon
policy.

If you see significant errors in the decision, you must raise the
questions. You don't do it to demean the leader and you do it in the
appropriate venue, but you must do it. A leader who refuses to be
questioned is going to sacrifice his men and will most assuredly lose
their confidence.

Simply gaining an "A" prefix (commander) does not suddenly imbue the
holder with papal infallibility.

>
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Mike Marron

February 23rd 04, 03:42 PM

> (ArtKramr) wrote:

[snip snippity]

>Once troops qustion a leaders decisions, he has lost both the control
>and faith of his troops.

Don't look now "Autocollimator," but you done lost both the control
and faith of your troops. Credibility is not unlike virginity -- you
lose it only once...

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I am the great and
powerful OZ!"

George Z. Bush

February 23rd 04, 04:17 PM

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2004 19:22:38 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> An officer never complains.
>
> Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
> morale problem.
>
>> An officer never explains.
>
> Show me an officer who won't explain to those he is leading the why of
> the issue and I'll show you a poor leader.
>
>> And an officer never allows himself to be put on the defensive.
>
> If you don't find yourself on the defensive occasionally, you are
> little more than a caretaker and not being either innovative or
> aggressive. Reaching beyond the horizon will occasionally put you on
> the defensive. How you deal with it is the measure of how good you
> are.

We've had our differences but, as Nappy used to say to his paramour, "Not
tonight, Josephine!". You're right on the mark, Ed. (*-*)))

George Z.

Krztalizer

February 23rd 04, 06:13 PM

>Do you know what
>his MOS was; pilot, bombardier or gunner? The search goes on.

Pilot, got his B-26 start at Lake Charles, then went over to the same locations
you did, apparently. The photos he showed me of the "Flak Hotel" were at
Southport, I think.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

D. Strang

February 23rd 04, 10:45 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> When an officer's decisions are challenged by those below him
> explanations are signs of weakness and make for poor leadership.

That wasn't even true in WW#2. All I can say is that your unit was
really a SNAFU outfit.

In OCS we were taught that information saves lives, and creates
victories. How do you get that? You ask questions. When one of
your men challenges the plan, you listen. I've come out of the
commanders tent after hours of planning, only to be confronted by
a PFC who didn't agree with our tasking. The only reason I am
still here, is because my men challenged our orders. On the other
hand, I've listened, and I decided otherwise. Sometimes I got
casualties so heavy I doubted my decision, but once my men
agreed to go forward, we went forward, and we kept going
forward until we could no longer sustain the fight.

Cute little sayings, like you have here, are signs of immaturity.

Rick Folkers

February 24th 04, 01:25 AM

Art, that is just BS. There are times and ways to complain. And there
are times and ways to explain to subordinates. Anybody who thinks
they are above explanations was a sorry excuse for an officer. That was
what I used to call an "Imperial Officer", one who was more aware of the
privileges of being an officer than of the responsibilities.

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: An Officer.......
> >From: Ed Rasimus
> >Date: 2/23/04 6:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On 22 Feb 2004 19:22:38 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >>An officer never complains.
> >
> >Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
> >morale problem.
> >
> >>An officer never explains.
> >
> >Show me an officer who won't explain to those he is leading the why of
> >the issue and I'll show you a poor leader.
> >
> >>And an officer never allows himself to be put on the defensive.
> >
> >If you don't find yourself on the defensive occasionally, you are
> >little more than a caretaker and not being either innovative or
> >aggressive. Reaching beyond the horizon will occasionally put you on
> >the defensive. How you deal with it is the measure of how good you
> >are.
> >
> >
> >
> >Ed Rasimus
> >Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> >"When Thunder Rolled"
> >Smithsonian Institution Press
> >ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>
>
> We learned our jobs at a different time and in a different war. And we
didn't
> do all that badly in the process. I guess we learned to something right.
Show
> me an officer who complains and I'll show you a whining wimp. How an
officer
> behaves always trickles down to his men and his complaining can demoralise
> troops and result in defeat. Be strong, always be strong. When an
officer's
> decisions are challenged by those below him explanations are signs of
weakness
> and make for poor leadership.
> And when challenged he need only be secure in his decisions and demand his
> orders be followed. That is a strong leader. Once troops qustion a leaders
> decisions, he has lost both the control and faith of his troops. But I
was
> trained in the army. You were trained in the Air Force. That may be the
> difference. No offense of course.
>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

The CO

February 24th 04, 02:30 AM

"Rick Folkers" > wrote in message
news:AKx_b.1212$Ri6.512@lakeread04...
> Art, that is just BS. There are times and ways to complain. And
there
> are times and ways to explain to subordinates. Anybody who thinks
> they are above explanations was a sorry excuse for an officer. That
was
> what I used to call an "Imperial Officer", one who was more aware of
the
> privileges of being an officer than of the responsibilities.

There are several styles of leadership, and the style Art was taught was
identified at OCS as 'Autocratic'.

We were also taught that a good officer should be able to adapt his
leadership style
to the circumstances he was in. There are times when it *is* very
necessary to be autocratic
and there are times when its better to be rather less so. A good
officer should be able to alter
his style according to need without comprising his integrity, authority
or effectiveness.

Times change and so do the philosphies of leadership. It's worth noting
that the autocratic type of
officer historically came about when the OR's were uneducated and mostly
illiterate, ie dumb grunts.
(I'm not talking recent history here).

Consequently leaderships styles have had to become both more flexible
and less autocratic, as we
are dealing with rankers that are far better educated than many officers
were a hundred years ago.
It hard to drive such people, but they can be *led*.

The CO

ArtKramr

February 24th 04, 03:31 AM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 2/23/04 10:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20040223131354.20632.0000025

>o you know what
>>his MOS was; pilot, bombardier or gunner? The search goes on.
>
>Pilot, got his B-26 start at Lake Charles, then went over to the same
>locations
>you did, apparently.

Yup. So did we.

>The photos he showed me of the "Flak Hotel" were at
>Southport, I think.
>
>v/r
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR

OK that meant we were all flying out of Stansted at the time. One of my
favorite towns in the whole world.We must have flown an awful lot of missions
together.That helps. I'll check with my pilot Paul Shorts to see if he knew
Biggs. I'll get back to you when I get more info.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr

February 24th 04, 03:46 AM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: "The CO"
>Date: 2/23/04 6:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Rick Folkers" > wrote in message
>news:AKx_b.1212$Ri6.512@lakeread04...
>> Art, that is just BS. There are times and ways to complain. And
>there
>> are times and ways to explain to subordinates. Anybody who thinks
>> they are above explanations was a sorry excuse for an officer. That
>was
>> what I used to call an "Imperial Officer", one who was more aware of
>the
>> privileges of being an officer than of the responsibilities.
>
>There are several styles of leadership, and the style Art was taught was
>identified at OCS as 'Autocratic'.
>
>We were also taught that a good officer should be able to adapt his
>leadership style
>to the circumstances he was in. There are times when it *is* very
>necessary to be autocratic
>and there are times when its better to be rather less so. A good
>officer should be able to alter
>his style according to need without comprising his integrity, authority
>or effectiveness.
>
>Times change and so do the philosphies of leadership. It's worth noting
>that the autocratic type of
>officer historically came about when the OR's were uneducated and mostly
>illiterate, ie dumb grunts.
>(I'm not talking recent history here).
>
>Consequently leaderships styles have had to become both more flexible
>and less autocratic, as we
>are dealing with rankers that are far better educated than many officers
>were a hundred years ago.
>It hard to drive such people, but they can be *led*.
>
>The CO
>
>

Here are some more caveats from my training. When you issue and order to a
subordinate there are only three answers allowed. They are:
1. YES SIR
2. NO SIR
3. NO EXCUSE SIR

But when you are issued an order from a superior officer there are three
answers allowed. They are:
1.YES SIR
2. NO SIR
3. NO EXCUSE SIR

Remember that I wasn't in the Air Force. I was in the Army Air Corps, emphasis
on ARMY and went through a full schedule of combat infantry training as well as
flight school and as an officer as well.. Good thing too because during the
Battle of the Bulge we were all issued M-1 Carbines and thrown into the line
along with the XXX Corps. And I never ever heard any long discussions
involving diverse opinions on what we should do. Orders were issued and were
followed without question. We knew what we should do and we did it. And
remember we won that war so maybe we knew something back then that the military
has forgotten since.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Rick Folkers

February 24th 04, 05:09 AM

Note that I said there are times and places for explanations.
But read what you want, the units I was in were damn good
and I will fight with them and lead them again any day of the week.

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: An Officer.......
> >From: "The CO"
> >Date: 2/23/04 6:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Rick Folkers" > wrote in message
> >news:AKx_b.1212$Ri6.512@lakeread04...
> >> Art, that is just BS. There are times and ways to complain. And
> >there
> >> are times and ways to explain to subordinates. Anybody who thinks
> >> they are above explanations was a sorry excuse for an officer. That
> >was
> >> what I used to call an "Imperial Officer", one who was more aware of
> >the
> >> privileges of being an officer than of the responsibilities.
> >
> >There are several styles of leadership, and the style Art was taught was
> >identified at OCS as 'Autocratic'.
> >
> >We were also taught that a good officer should be able to adapt his
> >leadership style
> >to the circumstances he was in. There are times when it *is* very
> >necessary to be autocratic
> >and there are times when its better to be rather less so. A good
> >officer should be able to alter
> >his style according to need without comprising his integrity, authority
> >or effectiveness.
> >
> >Times change and so do the philosphies of leadership. It's worth noting
> >that the autocratic type of
> >officer historically came about when the OR's were uneducated and mostly
> >illiterate, ie dumb grunts.
> >(I'm not talking recent history here).
> >
> >Consequently leaderships styles have had to become both more flexible
> >and less autocratic, as we
> >are dealing with rankers that are far better educated than many officers
> >were a hundred years ago.
> >It hard to drive such people, but they can be *led*.
> >
> >The CO
> >
> >
>
> Here are some more caveats from my training. When you issue and order to a
> subordinate there are only three answers allowed. They are:
> 1. YES SIR
> 2. NO SIR
> 3. NO EXCUSE SIR
>
> But when you are issued an order from a superior officer there are three
> answers allowed. They are:
> 1.YES SIR
> 2. NO SIR
> 3. NO EXCUSE SIR
>
> Remember that I wasn't in the Air Force. I was in the Army Air Corps,
emphasis
> on ARMY and went through a full schedule of combat infantry training as
well as
> flight school and as an officer as well.. Good thing too because during
the
> Battle of the Bulge we were all issued M-1 Carbines and thrown into the
line
> along with the XXX Corps. And I never ever heard any long discussions
> involving diverse opinions on what we should do. Orders were issued and
were
> followed without question. We knew what we should do and we did it. And
> remember we won that war so maybe we knew something back then that the
military
> has forgotten since.
>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Krztalizer

February 24th 04, 05:10 AM

>OK that meant we were all flying out of Stansted at the time. One of my
>favorite towns in the whole world.We must have flown an awful lot of missions
>together.That helps. I'll check with my pilot Paul Shorts to see if he knew
>Biggs. I'll get back to you when I get more info.

Al Briggs - thanks for checking for me, Art.

v/r
Gordon
PS one of my next projects is to make a B-26 display for the museum; something
like a compact kiosk that would have displays on four sides. Our WWII area is
really dominated by the carrier display, to the point that there is very little
room left for other theatres or aircraft types. With space at a premium, I
figure I can probably get away with this sort of display, if I do it well. I
am going to have enlargements of my images (Midnight Marauder after its snowy
crash with a full bomb load, crew photos from Lake Charles, etc.) mounted on
foam and laminated for the kiosk, then I have some other items that would fit
in. What do you think?

George

February 24th 04, 10:01 AM

> Here are some more caveats from my training. When you issue and order to a
> subordinate there are only three answers allowed. They are:
> 1. YES SIR
> 2. NO SIR
> 3. NO EXCUSE SIR
>
> But when you are issued an order from a superior officer there are three
> answers allowed. They are:
> 1.YES SIR
> 2. NO SIR
> 3. NO EXCUSE SIR

Modern-day similarities: 5 responses in Air Force ROTC training
1.Yes Sir/Ma'am
2.No Sir/Ma'am
3.I do not know but will find out, sir/ma'am
4. May I ask a question, sir/ma'am?
5.May I make a statement, sir/ma'am?

And I never ever heard any long discussions
> involving diverse opinions on what we should do. Orders were issued and were
> followed without question. We knew what we should do and we did it.

Just because you are willing to discuss your plans with your troops
does not mean that it undermines your authority. Often the troops an
officer is commanding are more experienced than them. As cadets, we
are taught by our officers that our NCOs will know more than us, and
we would be stupid to ignore their advice. But the fact that you are
intelligent enough to use the experience available to you will often
improve confidence in you as a leader. The only real way to lose that
confidence is care more about yourself or "discipline" than getting
the mission done. You act with conviction and intelligence and your
men will follow you to the end. You act like a "candyass butterbar"
(one of the first sergeants at McGuire AFB told me this), you will be
having every problem in the book.

And
> remember we won that war so maybe we knew something back then that the military
> has forgotten since.
Sir, I respect you for your past accomplishments, but this is a
little over the line. It is not the military's management styles that
make a difference, it is the political leadership that has decided the
outcome of the past 50 years of military conflicts.

Bernardz

February 24th 04, 10:33 AM

In article >,
says...
> >An officer never complains.
>
> Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
> morale problem.
>

Soviet soldiers in WW2 did not complain. According to the Russian
authorities they had few if any morale problems.

--
On the free trade agreement between Australia and the US there is a big
difference between the heading of the agreement and the body states.

Observations of Bernard - No 47

Yeff

February 24th 04, 10:54 AM

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:33:36 +1100, Bernardz wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>>>An officer never complains.
>>
>> Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
>> morale problem.
>>
>
> Soviet soldiers in WW2 did not complain. According to the Russian
> authorities they had few if any morale problems.

I remember reading a report right before the Soviet Union broke up. A
delegation lead by a Soviet general was visiting American bases in Germany.
A US Army general was leading the tour and pointed out enlisted barracks on
one base. After pointing them out he also noted to the Soviet that the
majority of the enlisted personnel actually lived off-post renting their
own apartments and houses. The Soviet general thought about that for a few
seconds before asking, "How do you get them to come back?"

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

Keith Willshaw

February 24th 04, 11:05 AM

"Bernardz" > wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa5d38fc0183f9f98992b@news...
> In article >,
> says...
> > >An officer never complains.
> >
> > Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
> > morale problem.
> >
>
> Soviet soldiers in WW2 did not complain. According to the Russian
> authorities they had few if any morale problems.
>

Given that the Soviet Authorities had a a habit of sending anyone
found complaining to a Gulag this is scarcely surprising.

Keith

D. Strang

February 24th 04, 11:42 AM

"Bernardz" > wrote
>
> Soviet soldiers in WW2 did not complain. According to the Russian
> authorities they had few if any morale problems.

Hilarious! The reason so many Russians died in WW#2, was their
officers kept shooting them.

Kevin Brooks

February 24th 04, 02:27 PM

"Bernardz" > wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa5d38fc0183f9f98992b@news...
> In article >,
> says...
> > >An officer never complains.
> >
> > Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
> > morale problem.
> >
>
> Soviet soldiers in WW2 did not complain. According to the Russian
> authorities they had few if any morale problems.

And the little matter of those NKVD units to their rear had no
influence...right?

Brooks

ArtKramr

February 24th 04, 03:27 PM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/23/04 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 23 Feb 2004 15:10:55 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>
>>We learned our jobs at a different time and in a different war. And we
>didn't
>>do all that badly in the process. I guess we learned to something right.
>Show
>>me an officer who complains and I'll show you a whining wimp.
>
>There is a difference between "griping"/complaining and whining.
>Flying units are inherently comprised of officers, some in leadership
>roles and some in subordinate positions. I'll bet there was a lot of
>griping in your unit, regarding the weather, the chow, the mail, the
>headshed decisions, etc. That generally isn't whining, it's healthy.
>
>>How an officer
>>behaves always trickles down to his men and his complaining can demoralise
>>troops and result in defeat. Be strong, always be strong. When an officer's
>>decisions are challenged by those below him explanations are signs of
>weakness
>>and make for poor leadership.
>
>We've got a disconnect there. Strength and confidence don't equate
>with arbitrariness and dictatorship. Leadership isn't simply giving
>orders, it's establishing the rapport with those being led that you
>know what is required. You won't get them killed and you will do the
>job. You'll lead from the front and share the risk, but you won't
>waste your men.
>
>Talking with Robin Olds last spring in Las Vegas, someone mentioned a
>legend about a propaganda drop of leaflets over N. Vietnam airfields
>in which Robin challenged the infamous Col. Tomb to an air duel. Robin
>responded quite clearly that it never happened. He then went on to
>explain that his job as commander of the 8th TFW was to bring his guys
>home. His task was not to gain personal glory killing MiGs in general
>or Col. Tomb in particular. It was to hit the assigned targets as
>efficiently as possible and take care of his men. That's leadership
>and it isn't done without explaining to your men what is going on and
>why.
>
>Hard to characterize Robin Olds as "weak" in any terms.
>
>>And when challenged he need only be secure in his decisions and demand his
>>orders be followed. That is a strong leader. Once troops qustion a leaders
>>decisions, he has lost both the control and faith of his troops. But I was
>>trained in the army. You were trained in the Air Force. That may be the
>>difference. No offense of course.
>
>I'm not suggesting toleration of insubordination. That's a whole
>different ball game. I learned that the value of a subordinate comes
>from being willing to question the leader. Debate, discuss, argue if
>you will in the staff meeting, then when the decision is made and the
>door opens come out with a solid team in support of the agreed upon
>policy.
>
>If you see significant errors in the decision, you must raise the
>questions. You don't do it to demean the leader and you do it in the
>appropriate venue, but you must do it. A leader who refuses to be
>questioned is going to sacrifice his men and will most assuredly lose
>their confidence.
>
>Simply gaining an "A" prefix (commander) does not suddenly imbue the
>holder with papal infallibility.
>

Ed,

My purpose in posting this material is to share history with the NG. This is
the way we were trained in 1943. These were ideas that were drilled into us.
Arguing the point doesn't change history. It changes nothing and is pointless.
What I have gotten for sharing history are flames. arguments and insults. Not a
thank you in sight. But I must admit it gives me a lot to think about.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Kevin Brooks

February 24th 04, 04:24 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: An Officer.......
> >From: Ed Rasimus
> >Date: 2/23/04 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On 23 Feb 2004 15:10:55 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>We learned our jobs at a different time and in a different war. And we
> >didn't
> >>do all that badly in the process. I guess we learned to something right.
> >Show
> >>me an officer who complains and I'll show you a whining wimp.
> >
> >There is a difference between "griping"/complaining and whining.
> >Flying units are inherently comprised of officers, some in leadership
> >roles and some in subordinate positions. I'll bet there was a lot of
> >griping in your unit, regarding the weather, the chow, the mail, the
> >headshed decisions, etc. That generally isn't whining, it's healthy.
> >
> >>How an officer
> >>behaves always trickles down to his men and his complaining can
demoralise
> >>troops and result in defeat. Be strong, always be strong. When an
officer's
> >>decisions are challenged by those below him explanations are signs of
> >weakness
> >>and make for poor leadership.
> >
> >We've got a disconnect there. Strength and confidence don't equate
> >with arbitrariness and dictatorship. Leadership isn't simply giving
> >orders, it's establishing the rapport with those being led that you
> >know what is required. You won't get them killed and you will do the
> >job. You'll lead from the front and share the risk, but you won't
> >waste your men.
> >
> >Talking with Robin Olds last spring in Las Vegas, someone mentioned a
> >legend about a propaganda drop of leaflets over N. Vietnam airfields
> >in which Robin challenged the infamous Col. Tomb to an air duel. Robin
> >responded quite clearly that it never happened. He then went on to
> >explain that his job as commander of the 8th TFW was to bring his guys
> >home. His task was not to gain personal glory killing MiGs in general
> >or Col. Tomb in particular. It was to hit the assigned targets as
> >efficiently as possible and take care of his men. That's leadership
> >and it isn't done without explaining to your men what is going on and
> >why.
> >
> >Hard to characterize Robin Olds as "weak" in any terms.
> >
> >>And when challenged he need only be secure in his decisions and demand
his
> >>orders be followed. That is a strong leader. Once troops qustion a
leaders
> >>decisions, he has lost both the control and faith of his troops. But I
was
> >>trained in the army. You were trained in the Air Force. That may be the
> >>difference. No offense of course.
> >
> >I'm not suggesting toleration of insubordination. That's a whole
> >different ball game. I learned that the value of a subordinate comes
> >from being willing to question the leader. Debate, discuss, argue if
> >you will in the staff meeting, then when the decision is made and the
> >door opens come out with a solid team in support of the agreed upon
> >policy.
> >
> >If you see significant errors in the decision, you must raise the
> >questions. You don't do it to demean the leader and you do it in the
> >appropriate venue, but you must do it. A leader who refuses to be
> >questioned is going to sacrifice his men and will most assuredly lose
> >their confidence.
> >
> >Simply gaining an "A" prefix (commander) does not suddenly imbue the
> >holder with papal infallibility.
> >
>
>
> Ed,
>
> My purpose in posting this material is to share history with the NG. This
is
> the way we were trained in 1943. These were ideas that were drilled into
us.
> Arguing the point doesn't change history. It changes nothing and is
pointless.
> What I have gotten for sharing history are flames. arguments and insults.
Not a
> thank you in sight. But I must admit it gives me a lot to think about.

Because your "history" is often factually incorrect (like your repeated past
claims of PGM-like bombing accuracy each and every time you performed a
mission). *Real* military history of the US during WWII is replete with
comments from the players as to how the US soldier was often asking, and
being told, the "why" of the mission. There is a wide gulf of difference
beween a lot of your accounts and real, documented history--don't mistake
one for the other.

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

Dave Holford

February 24th 04, 08:31 PM

ArtKramr wrote:

> What I have gotten for sharing history are flames. arguments and insults. > Not a thank you in sight.
>
> Arthur Kramer

Art,

I have seen several, maybe even many, posters offer you sincere thanks
for your personal description of history as you remember it.

Maybe you could try to remember some of those "Thank you" comments.

Dave

BUFDRVR

February 24th 04, 10:23 PM

>so maybe we knew something back then that the military
>has forgotten since.

Yeah, we're in pretty rough shape right now (????).

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

February 24th 04, 10:27 PM

>Just because you are willing to discuss your plans with your troops
>does not mean that it undermines your authority. Often the troops an
>officer is commanding are more experienced than them.

And in some circumstances, the inexperienced guy may see a better way to plan
or execute a mission, simply because he/she sees things in a different light. I
had a co-pilot during ALLIED FORCE come up with a very simple solution to a
tactical problem that us more experienced guys were over looking. I had a bit
of a chuckle when we executed the bomb run as the co-pilot had suggested. But
our more complex plans would have been more fun to execute ;)

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

February 24th 04, 10:29 PM

>Soviet soldiers in WW2 did not complain. According to the Russian
>authorities they had few if any morale problems.

An armed NVD regiment assigned to *any* unit would keep the complaining
down....retreating too.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

February 24th 04, 10:57 PM

>An armed NVD regiment

I thin I need a new eyboard...make that N*K*VD...

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[email protected]

February 25th 04, 03:49 AM

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>
>My purpose in posting this material is to share history with the NG. This is
>the way we were trained in 1943. These were ideas that were drilled into us.
>Arguing the point doesn't change history. It changes nothing and is pointless.
>What I have gotten for sharing history are flames. arguments and insults. Not a
>thank you in sight. But I must admit it gives me a lot to think about.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

But the way that you wrote your 'officer's rules' made it appear
that you consider them appropriate now as well. You hopefully
realize that they're very much not the best way to lead troops I
hope. It seems strange that they'd appear appropriate even then
actually, WW2 wasn't in the dark ages after all.
--

-Gord.

[email protected]

February 25th 04, 03:57 AM

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>Just because you are willing to discuss your plans with your troops
>>does not mean that it undermines your authority. Often the troops an
>>officer is commanding are more experienced than them.
>
>And in some circumstances, the inexperienced guy may see a better way to plan
>or execute a mission, simply because he/she sees things in a different light. I
>had a co-pilot during ALLIED FORCE come up with a very simple solution to a
>tactical problem that us more experienced guys were over looking. I had a bit
>of a chuckle when we executed the bomb run as the co-pilot had suggested. But
>our more complex plans would have been more fun to execute ;)
>
>BUFDRVR
>
Sounds like CRM at work here...
--

-Gord.

ArtKramr

February 25th 04, 04:09 AM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>Date: 2/24/04 7:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>
>>My purpose in posting this material is to share history with the NG. This is
>>the way we were trained in 1943. These were ideas that were drilled into
>us.
>>Arguing the point doesn't change history. It changes nothing and is
>pointless.
>>What I have gotten for sharing history are flames. arguments and insults.
>Not a
>>thank you in sight. But I must admit it gives me a lot to think about.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>But the way that you wrote your 'officer's rules' made it appear
>that you consider them appropriate now as well. You hopefully
>realize that they're very much not the best way to lead troops I
>hope. It seems strange that they'd appear appropriate even then
>actually, WW2 wasn't in the dark ages after all.
>--
>
>-Gord.

I am simply reporting how it was in Cadet school in 1943. It isshow we were
trained. And for good reason. Let us siuppose we are West Point and a cadet
officer is marching a platoon of cadets across the parade ground. The CO is
watching. The cadet officer calls out. "To the right flank HARCH!" Instead of
doing a right flank motion, they all stop and say ," Sir can't we talk about
this? We have a better idea". I don't think so. Do you?

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

D. Strang

February 25th 04, 05:38 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> The cadet officer calls out. "To the right flank HARCH!" Instead of
> doing a right flank motion, they all stop and say ," Sir can't we talk about
> this? We have a better idea". I don't think so. Do you?

During the wars I served in, the only marching maneuver we used
was the straggle march, and the firing retreat.

Marching has very little to do with leadership, and everything to do
with indoctrination. The drill Sgt's main task is to remove all
individuality, and make the men operate as a team. Marching is
the quickest way in Basic training to remove individuality, and it's
kind of neat to watch how peer pressure makes the Sgt's job
even easier. While he can threaten 50 push-ups for screwing-up,
the peer pressure can/does cause a lot of fist fights between the
soldiers. It takes about 2 weeks to indoctrinate civilians, and then
you can teach them how to kill more efficiently in "mass" exercises.

ArtKramr

February 25th 04, 05:55 AM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: "D. Strang"
>Date: 2/24/04 9:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <wxW_b.5646$m4.2088@okepread03>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>
>> The cadet officer calls out. "To the right flank HARCH!" Instead of
>> doing a right flank motion, they all stop and say ," Sir can't we talk
>about
>> this? We have a better idea". I don't think so. Do you?
>
>During the wars I served in, the only marching maneuver we used
>was the straggle march, and the firing retreat.
>
>Marching has very little to do with leadership, and everything to do
>with indoctrination. The drill Sgt's main task is to remove all
>individuality, and make the men operate as a team. Marching is
>the quickest way in Basic training to remove individuality, and it's
>kind of neat to watch how peer pressure makes the Sgt's job
>even easier. While he can threaten 50 push-ups for screwing-up,
>the peer pressure can/does cause a lot of fist fights between the
>soldiers. It takes about 2 weeks to indoctrinate civilians, and then
>you can teach them how to kill more efficiently in "mass" exercises.
>
>
>

Let me give you another example. We show up at our plane before a mission. I do
the mandatory pre-flight inspection and find that the arming wires in the bomb
bay are poorly isntalled. I turn to one of the gunners and say, "Sgt. Get in
that jeep and go to the ammo dump and get an ordnance man our here to
reinstall these arming wires properly." He says," I don't know sir, they don't
look all that bad to me.. And it is a long way to the dump.And those ordnance
guys really get ****ed if you bug them like that. Why don't we just fly the
mission. It will probably be OK".

Now that never happened. But if it did that gunner wouild be removed from our
crew. We wouldn't have him fly with us on Willie the Wolf. He would probably be
removed form the base never to be seen again. And when you inquired about what
happened to him, no one would seem to know. What do you think happened to him?
Any idea?

Want some more examples?

..

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

D. Strang

February 25th 04, 06:29 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Want some more examples?

No. I vote we let this thread die in peace...

QDurham

February 25th 04, 06:32 AM

>Let me give you another example. We show up at our plane before a mission. I
>do
>the mandatory pre-flight inspection and find that the arming wires in the
>bomb
>bay are poorly isntalled. I turn to one of the gunners and say, "Sgt. Get
>in
>that jeep and go to the ammo dump and get an ordnance man our here to
>reinstall these arming wires properly." He says," I don't know sir, they
>don't
>look all that bad to me.. And it is a long way to the dump.And those ordnance
>guys really get ****ed if you bug them like that. Why don't we just fly the
>mission. It will probably be OK".
>
>Now that never happened. But if it did that gunner wouild be removed from
>our
>crew. We wouldn't have him fly with us on Willie the Wolf. He would probably
>be
>removed form the base never to be seen again. And when you inquired about
>what
>happened to him, no one would seem to know. What do you think happened to
>him?
>Any idea?
>
>Want some more examples?
>
>.
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>Art, you are so damn right. Been there. Done that. Preflight Pensacola. You
are so correct. Sic 'em!

Quent
>
>
>
>
>

John Keeney

February 25th 04, 07:01 AM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >so maybe we knew something back then that the military
> >has forgotten since.
>
> Yeah, we're in pretty rough shape right now (????).

Let's look at this for a second.
Britannia ruled the waves for how long? Quite some time.
Kind of hard to make the case they do today, is it because
they forgot the Press-Gangs and flogging?

Naa, me neither.
Simply bad ideas that could be forced to work were replaced.
The change in Britannia's rule of the waves was unrelated.

Sunny

February 25th 04, 07:03 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> I am simply reporting how it was in Cadet school in 1943. It isshow we
were
> trained. And for good reason. Let us siuppose we are West Point and a
cadet
> officer is marching a platoon of cadets across the parade ground. The CO
is
> watching. The cadet officer calls out. "To the right flank HARCH!" Instead
of
> doing a right flank motion, they all stop and say ," Sir can't we talk
about
> this? We have a better idea". I don't think so. Do you?

Art, please don't act stupid.
There is one hell of a difference between informing your men what is going
on and why.
It helps, when men follow you because they are confident in your ability ,
not out of idle curiosity.

ArtKramr

February 25th 04, 08:08 AM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: "D. Strang"
>Date: 2/24/04 10:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <fhX_b.5649$m4.4917@okepread03>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>
>> Want some more examples?
>
>No. I vote we let this thread die in peace...
>

The better part of valor

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr

February 25th 04, 08:19 AM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: (QDurham)
>Date: 2/24/04 10:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Let me give you another example. We show up at our plane before a mission. I
>>do
>>the mandatory pre-flight inspection and find that the arming wires in the
>>bomb
>>bay are poorly isntalled. I turn to one of the gunners and say, "Sgt. Get
>>in
>>that jeep and go to the ammo dump and get an ordnance man our here to
>>reinstall these arming wires properly." He says," I don't know sir, they
>>don't
>>look all that bad to me.. And it is a long way to the dump.And those
>ordnance
>>guys really get ****ed if you bug them like that. Why don't we just fly the
>>mission. It will probably be OK".
>>
>>Now that never happened. But if it did that gunner wouild be removed from
>>our
>>crew. We wouldn't have him fly with us on Willie the Wolf. He would probably
>>be
>>removed form the base never to be seen again. And when you inquired about
>>what
>>happened to him, no one would seem to know. What do you think happened to
>>him?
>>Any idea?
>>
>>Want some more examples?
>>
>>.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>>Art, you are so damn right. Been there. Done that. Preflight Pensacola.
>You
>are so correct. Sic 'em!
>
>Quent
>>

On our crew any order given by our pilot was immediately carried out without
question. He was a good pilot and a good leader and knew what he was doing.
There were times when we came home from missions with battle damage and S/Sgt
Greigo engineer giunner (tail) would be up all night working with the crew
chief on the repairs. In the morning we would ask Greigo if Willie was ok. If
he said no, we wouldn't fly her no matter what the crew chief said. If he gave
us a thumbs up we would haveWillie in the air that day. So we worked together
as a crew. But no member of our crew ever once did anything less than follow
orders as they were given. It was the way we were trained and it was the way we
flew. And we did it with pride and professionalism.

Keith Willshaw

February 25th 04, 09:24 AM

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >so maybe we knew something back then that the military
> > >has forgotten since.
> >
> > Yeah, we're in pretty rough shape right now (????).
>
> Let's look at this for a second.
> Britannia ruled the waves for how long? Quite some time.
> Kind of hard to make the case they do today, is it because
> they forgot the Press-Gangs and flogging?
>
> Naa, me neither.
> Simply bad ideas that could be forced to work were replaced.
> The change in Britannia's rule of the waves was unrelated.
>

In fact the RN expected both officers and enlisted men to show
rather more initiative than was common for the period. Come
to that there was a greater degree of social mobility than
was normal as well. James Cook , the son of a farm laborer
joined the RN in 1755 as an ordinary seaman. Within 4 years
he had been promoted to Master and by 1763 he had been
commissioned and given his own command.

Keith

Stephen Harding

February 25th 04, 12:52 PM

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> In fact the RN expected both officers and enlisted men to show
> rather more initiative than was common for the period. Come
> to that there was a greater degree of social mobility than
> was normal as well. James Cook , the son of a farm laborer
> joined the RN in 1755 as an ordinary seaman. Within 4 years
> he had been promoted to Master and by 1763 he had been
> commissioned and given his own command.

I just read a biography of John Paul Jones and in the book
somewhere, it mentions the issue of "social mobility" in
the RN and England in general.

I've already forgotten the explicit time periods mentioned,
but it appears that the ability to be a "self made man"
waxed and waned over several periods in British society (and
the RN).

There were relatively greater possibilities for self
improvement despite birth, during the mid 1700s than during
the later 1700's, when birth reclaimed the ability to
dictate a person's future potential, above self.

Social rigidity in British society wasn't a constant,
dictated by birth at this time, as I had formerly thought.

SMH

Dave Holford

February 25th 04, 03:42 PM

ArtKramr wrote:
>
>
> Want some more examples?
>
> Arthur Kramer

Art,

Your 'examples' are in no way specific to the military.

The convoluted examples you give can be applied to any professional
group, be they airline crews, medical staff, police officers,
fire-fighters, air traffic controllers, or even snow removal crews.

There is nothing special about the application of common sense to team
work, especially when the lack therof can result in loss of life.

Dave

Howard Berkowitz

February 25th 04, 08:27 PM

While commanders do need to be confident, not every leadership style
fits every historic situation, or every type of unit commanded.

One classic on leadership is John Keegan's _The Mask of Command_.
Alexander the Great and Ulysses S. Grant were superb commanders for
their responsibilities, but it would have been disastrous if they were
switched. Alexander's armies needed a visible heroic warrior literally
leading them, while the grand strategy Grant executed required what
Keegan calls "unheroic" leadership in attrition warfare.

The commander of a combat wing has to give the impression that he won't
issue an order he wouldn't try to carry out himself -- and will also
know what specific things where a subordinate knows the techniques
better than the Head Honcho in Charge. A field hospital commander has
to have a different personality, especially when making triage or other
resource decisions to let a wounded man die. A very different kind of
leadership is going to be needed in a highly technical combat support or
combat service support unit, be it tactical transport or electronic
warfare.

Keith Willshaw

February 25th 04, 08:50 PM

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > In fact the RN expected both officers and enlisted men to show
> > rather more initiative than was common for the period. Come
> > to that there was a greater degree of social mobility than
> > was normal as well. James Cook , the son of a farm laborer
> > joined the RN in 1755 as an ordinary seaman. Within 4 years
> > he had been promoted to Master and by 1763 he had been
> > commissioned and given his own command.
>
> I just read a biography of John Paul Jones and in the book
> somewhere, it mentions the issue of "social mobility" in
> the RN and England in general.
>
> I've already forgotten the explicit time periods mentioned,
> but it appears that the ability to be a "self made man"
> waxed and waned over several periods in British society (and
> the RN).
>
> There were relatively greater possibilities for self
> improvement despite birth, during the mid 1700s than during
> the later 1700's, when birth reclaimed the ability to
> dictate a person's future potential, above self.
>

The problem in the late 1700's was the paranoia induced
by the French Revolution and the terror. A quite irrational
fear of the mob was the inevitable result. A secondary
cause was the long period of warfare with the French
that also resulted.

Keith

Paul J. Adam

February 25th 04, 09:43 PM

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>Here are some more caveats from my training. When you issue and order to a
>subordinate there are only three answers allowed. They are:
>1. YES SIR
>2. NO SIR
>3. NO EXCUSE SIR

I can see why that would work for your situation. That regime would be
moderately disastrous for the officer training I went through, however.

The overriding rule was "What would my CO want me to do if he was here?"
The classic example given (apologies for discourse...)

2Lt Rupert Smugly-Smoothly-Shaven is OC of 1 Platoon, A Company, Royal
Berkshires. He is briefed at the company O-group about the battlegroup
plan, the company's role within it and what his orders are.

Specificially, the Berks have been tasked to seize the bridge across the
River Etsway. A Company will provide fire support for a battlegroup
attack, with B and C companies assaulting the bridge and exploiting to
secure the far bank.

A Company's plan is to seize the two hills on this side of the Etsway,
which flank the road to the bridge and overlook the crossing. Intel
believes that the enemy has established a platoon on Hill Two to provide
observation and fire, but Hill One is unoccupied. Therefore 1 Platoon
will occupy Hill Two and provide fire support for the rest of A Company,
who will clear the position; A Company will then support the rest of the
Berks in the attack on the bridge.

All straightforward and clear so far, right? However, when 2Lt
Smugly-Smoothly-Shaven arrives at the ground in question, he finds
things very different. Firstly, his radios are being jammed, and he
can't raise even company HQ.

Secondly, there was a four-man OP on Hill Two, though one was killed and
the others driven off after a brisk firefight.

Thirdly, Hill One appears to be abandoned and unoccupied, and while
defensive positions on the far side of the bridge are visible they
appear to be recently abandoned.

Lastly, a team of a dozen enemy sappers are busy wiring the bridge with
explosives and preparing for a rapid retreat.

What do you do? Your orders are clear and direct: hold Hill Two, wait
for the rest of A Company to move up and take Hill One, then cover the
battlegroup's attack on the bridge. Will you disobey orders?

But is that what your commander would want if he knew what you knew?
Nobody will praise you for dogmatically obeying your orders if the
overall objective - to seize that bridge intact - is failed. If you obey
your orders to the letter you'll watch that bridge - the objective of
the entire operation - be destroyed under your nose by a dozen men.

Because Rupert knows what his overall mission is (to seize that bridge
intact!) he can ask "What would my CO tell me to do if he could see what
I see now?" and hopefully decide to lead 1 Platoon in a snap attack on
the bridge, driving off the sappers before they complete their
demolitions and hoping to be relieved before an enemy counterattack.

>Remember that I wasn't in the Air Force. I was in the Army Air Corps, emphasis
>on ARMY and went through a full schedule of combat infantry training as well as
>flight school and as an officer as well.. Good thing too because during the
>Battle of the Bulge we were all issued M-1 Carbines and thrown into the line
>along with the XXX Corps. And I never ever heard any long discussions
>involving diverse opinions on what we should do. Orders were issued and were
>followed without question. We knew what we should do and we did it.

Did you know what your unit was meant to achieve, or were you just told
just "sit in this hole and cover these arcs and shoot anyone in feldgrau
not waving a white flag"?

Seriously - we've worked hard to get to "mission command", which is
where on the one hand you have your orders but on the other you know
what you're meant to be achieving and what the Big Picture (typically
two levels up) is. You don't rewrite your orders but you _do_ understand
that the real world changes faster than your CO can keep giving you
updates.

Again, the key phrase: "if my commander was here with me now, what would
he want me to do?"

>And
>remember we won that war so maybe we knew something back then that the military
>has forgotten since.

We've been fairly successful over here since 1945.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

BUFDRVR

February 25th 04, 10:34 PM

> Sounds like CRM at work here...

It would have been, but we weren't in the cockpit, we were in the mission
planning room following our pre-mission brief. However, you are correct, CRM
works the same way. Perhaps if they had CRM during WWII we wouldn't have lost
more men in flight training then we did in battle. Sounds like Art would be a
CRM nightmare if you ask me.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

ArtKramr

February 25th 04, 11:59 PM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 2/25/04 1:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >

>Nobody will praise you for dogmatically obeying your orders if the
>overall objective - to seize that bridge intact - is failed. If you obey
>your orders to the letter you'll watch that bridge - the objectiv

Let me give you a true life example of what actually happened. I tis the first
time I actually went ballistic when an order wouldn't be followed instantly and
to the letter. We were comng out to Willie the Wolf. Usually Willie is loaded
and ready; ful; bomb load, tanks topped off, ammo belts full and strung etc.
But this time the bomb truck was late and they were still loading bombs as we
pulled up. They had the last bomb (of 8) hooked on the winch and were about to
haul it up into the bomb bays. I noticed tha it had a badly bent vane on it. I
said. " hold it sargeant. don't load that bomb. It is defective". The
Sargeant said, "SIr, I know its bent but not too baldy it;ll be ok". I said, "
get thaa bomb out of here, get bacl to the Bomb dump and bring us a replacement
in good condition NOW". The Sargeant said," its a long way back and as wehave
been working all night. My men are tired, this bomb will be ok". He was
confrontational with an attiutufe. No way were we going into the skies over the
Ruhr Valley with a bomb that would be useless. I blew. "get, get you ass back
and bring me a good bomb or I'll have your ass in the stockade". A bit of
fear rose in his eyes and he said "Yes sir on my way"

He came back later with 4 bombs to gsve me a choice. I chose one. He loaded
and that was the end of the story. We ;flew the mission. The hits were good.
Moral of the story?. Take no **** from any one ever. When you know your job,
demand that it be carried out to the letter. NOW.

Two things I hate:

1.Disobedience
2. Weak officers

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Kevin Brooks

February 26th 04, 12:08 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, ArtKramr
> > writes
> >Here are some more caveats from my training. When you issue and order to
a
> >subordinate there are only three answers allowed. They are:
> >1. YES SIR
> >2. NO SIR
> >3. NO EXCUSE SIR
>
> I can see why that would work for your situation. That regime would be
> moderately disastrous for the officer training I went through, however.
>
> The overriding rule was "What would my CO want me to do if he was here?"
> The classic example given (apologies for discourse...)

<snip good example>

> Because Rupert knows what his overall mission is (to seize that bridge
> intact!) he can ask "What would my CO tell me to do if he could see what
> I see now?" and hopefully decide to lead 1 Platoon in a snap attack on
> the bridge, driving off the sappers before they complete their
> demolitions and hoping to be relieved before an enemy counterattack.

Excellent example of why the commander has to explain his intent, and its
overriding importance compared to the actual ordered tasks, Paul. Art won't
admit it, but even during his day the "orders are orders" mentality was
generally eschewed (by good leaders) in favor of meeting the more important
intent behind the orders. Your example is a little bit remindful of a case
where US units did push forward to seize a bridge that they were no
specifically directed to gain...a little place called Remagen mught stir
even Art's faded memories.

>
>
> >Remember that I wasn't in the Air Force. I was in the Army Air Corps,
emphasis
> >on ARMY and went through a full schedule of combat infantry training as
well as
> >flight school and as an officer as well.. Good thing too because during
the
> >Battle of the Bulge we were all issued M-1 Carbines and thrown into the
line
> >along with the XXX Corps. And I never ever heard any long discussions
> >involving diverse opinions on what we should do. Orders were issued and
were
> >followed without question. We knew what we should do and we did it.
>
> Did you know what your unit was meant to achieve, or were you just told
> just "sit in this hole and cover these arcs and shoot anyone in feldgrau
> not waving a white flag"?
>
> Seriously - we've worked hard to get to "mission command", which is
> where on the one hand you have your orders but on the other you know
> what you're meant to be achieving and what the Big Picture (typically
> two levels up) is. You don't rewrite your orders but you _do_ understand
> that the real world changes faster than your CO can keep giving you
> updates.
>
> Again, the key phrase: "if my commander was here with me now, what would
> he want me to do?"
>
> >And
> >remember we won that war so maybe we knew something back then that the
military
> >has forgotten since.
>
> We've been fairly successful over here since 1945.

The one doing the forgetting in this case is not the US (or UK) military
establishments, that is quite obvious.

Brooks

Greasy Rider

February 26th 04, 12:19 AM

On 25 Feb 2004 23:59:06 GMT, (ArtKramr) disturbed the
phosphur particles on my screen with the following:

>
>Two things I hate:

>1.Disobedience
>2. Weak officers

I despised some officers for their arrogance so I suppose we are even.

In todays environment an officer who lorded it over the troops like
you would be sabotaged and find some defective equipment shortly after
takeoff. It's easier to get people to work with you than for you.

ArtKramr

February 26th 04, 12:29 AM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: Greasy Rider
>Date: 2/25/04 4:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 25 Feb 2004 23:59:06 GMT, (ArtKramr) disturbed the
>phosphur particles on my screen with the following:
>
>>
>>Two things I hate:
>
>>1.Disobedience
>>2. Weak officers
>
>I despised some officers for their arrogance so I suppose we are even.
>
>In todays environment an officer who lorded it over the troops like
>you would be sabotaged and find some defective equipment shortly after
>takeoff. It's easier to get people to work with you than for you.
>
>
You would have ytaken ithe bomb on the mision even though you knew you
couldn't hit a damn thing with i? Remember we risked our lives to get that
bomb over the target in the heavily defended Ruhr valley. If you
wouwd have taken that bad bomb, I dont think you had the stuff to make it on
our crew.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Greasy Rider

February 26th 04, 12:40 AM

On 26 Feb 2004 00:29:58 GMT, (ArtKramr) disturbed the
phosphur particles on my screen with the following:

> I dont think you had the stuff to make it on our crew.

The older you get , the better you were.

Pete

February 26th 04, 03:30 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote

>
> He came back later with 4 bombs to gsve me a choice. I chose one. He
loaded
> and that was the end of the story. We ;flew the mission. The hits were
good.
> Moral of the story?. Take no **** from any one ever. When you know your
job,
> demand that it be carried out to the letter. NOW.

He straightened out the bent one vane, and brought you 3 new bombs. You
couldn't tell the difference.

Pete

Dave Holford

February 26th 04, 04:01 AM

Pete wrote:
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> >
> > He came back later with 4 bombs to gsve me a choice. I chose one. He
> loaded
> > and that was the end of the story. We ;flew the mission. The hits were
> good.
> > Moral of the story?. Take no **** from any one ever. When you know your
> job,
> > demand that it be carried out to the letter. NOW.
>
> He straightened out the bent one vane, and brought you 3 new bombs. You
> couldn't tell the difference.
>
> Pete

He probably did, and then they had a good laugh over your inability to
notice it.

Dave

ArtKramr

February 26th 04, 04:11 AM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: "Pete"
>Date: 2/25/04 7:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
>>
>> He came back later with 4 bombs to gsve me a choice. I chose one. He
>loaded
>> and that was the end of the story. We ;flew the mission. The hits were
>good.
>> Moral of the story?. Take no **** from any one ever. When you know your
>job,
>> demand that it be carried out to the letter. NOW.
>
>He straightened out the bent one vane, and brought you 3 new bombs. You
>couldn't tell the difference.
>
>Pete
>
>

Not a chance in hell I guess you have no idea what it takes to get that job
done. do you?.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Keith Willshaw

February 26th 04, 09:32 AM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Britannia ruled the waves for how long? Quite some time.
> > Kind of hard to make the case they do today, is it because
> > they forgot the Press-Gangs and flogging?
>
> In very large part: Money. Every since Henry VIII, if not earlier,
> British governments simply spent more on their fleet than anyone
> else. Press-gangs were the sorry consequence of the need to keep
> that large fleet manned, but other nations used similar means.
>
> One can drive strict discipline too far, of course. I have long been
> wondering whether the cautious, slow action of British armies
> during WWII, which was so often criticised by the Germans
> and the Americans alike, and is usually blamed on the leadership
> of Montgomery, wasn't in large part the fault of the NCOs -- between
> July 1940 and June 1944 these perhaps got too much opportunity to
> drill every sense of initiative out of their soldiers. That may also
> explain why the less-disciplined Australian troops were valued
> so highly by Commonwealth commanders.
>

This is a odd reading of the situation

The NCO's in the British army fighting around Caen
were for the most part extremely experienced by that
stage of the war.My father was one of them having
been in the army since 1938 and fought with the BEF
in France then got shipped to North Africa. In the
western desert they fought alongside the Australians.

The problem around Caen was simply that they were
pinning down 80% of the Panzer divisions available
in Normandy and that the Germans had plenty
of time to dig in. When you have to advance across
pre-surveyed killing fields covered by 88mm AT
guns , machine guns and artillery progress tends to be slow.
Throw in the bocage and take way room for manoeveur
and you end with a nasty battle of attrition.

Once the breakout was made British and Canadian troops
advanced just as quickly as anyone else. Few orders were
given during this phase and units down to company level
were expected to act on their own initiative to exploit
the situation. As my father recalled it they were given only
general information regarding the objective and simply kept
pushing on until they ran beyond their supply lines around
Antwerp.

Last but not least one of the reasons Montgomery was
like by his troops was that he made a point of letting
them know what the broad plan was and expected
junior officers and NCO's to use their own initiative.

Keith

Pete

February 26th 04, 05:47 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: An Officer.......
> >From: "Pete"
> >
> >He straightened out the bent one vane, and brought you 3 new bombs. You
> >couldn't tell the difference.
> >
> >Pete
> >
> >
>
> Not a chance in hell I guess you have no idea what it takes to get that
job
> done. do you?.

No, I guess not. 16 yrs in as an armament specialst (4 yrs as an
instructor/evaluator of such) conveys zero knowledge about fuzes, vanes,
fins, bombs, and how easy they are to bend and unbend....

Nope....I never touched one.

Pete

OXMORON1

February 26th 04, 06:24 PM

Pete wrote in reply to Art's:
>> Not a chance in hell I guess you have no idea what it takes to get that
>job
>> done. do you?.
>
>No, I guess not. 16 yrs in as an armament specialst (4 yrs as an
>instructor/evaluator of such) conveys zero knowledge about fuzes, vanes,
>fins, bombs, and how easy they are to bend and unbend....
>
>Nope....I never touched one.
>
Jeez Pete! You are over qualified to comment on Art's challenge of your
qualifications. Your training didn't take place during WWII and you should know
by now that WWII supercedes all other information.

Rick

ArtKramr

February 26th 04, 07:01 PM

>Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>From: "Pete"
>Date: 2/26/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: An Officer.......
>> >From: "Pete"
>> >
>> >He straightened out the bent one vane, and brought you 3 new bombs. You
>> >couldn't tell the difference.
>> >
>> >Pete
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Not a chance in hell I guess you have no idea what it takes to get that
>job
>> done. do you?.
>
>No, I guess not. 16 yrs in as an armament specialst (4 yrs as an
>instructor/evaluator of such) conveys zero knowledge about fuzes, vanes,
>fins, bombs, and how easy they are to bend and unbend....
>
>Nope....I never touched one.
>
>Pete
>
>

Bend it back in a matter of minutes so there was no tracxe that it had ever
been ben?t. Pure bull****.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Kevin Brooks

February 26th 04, 07:38 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: An Officer.......
> >From: "Pete"
> >Date: 2/26/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: An Officer.......
> >> >From: "Pete"
> >> >
> >> >He straightened out the bent one vane, and brought you 3 new bombs.
You
> >> >couldn't tell the difference.
> >> >
> >> >Pete
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not a chance in hell I guess you have no idea what it takes to get that
> >job
> >> done. do you?.
> >
> >No, I guess not. 16 yrs in as an armament specialst (4 yrs as an
> >instructor/evaluator of such) conveys zero knowledge about fuzes, vanes,
> >fins, bombs, and how easy they are to bend and unbend....
> >
> >Nope....I never touched one.
> >
> >Pete
> >
> >
>
> Bend it back in a matter of minutes so there was no tracxe that it had
ever
> been ben?t. Pure bull****.

....he says, ignoring the fact that he just got bitchslapped over calling the
credentials of someone who obviously has a heck of a lot more experience
with the subject at hand than he does.

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

Leslie Swartz

February 26th 04, 10:04 PM

Bull****.

Your irrelevant "example" was just plain silly.

Sometimes it's better to just let a loser ramble; it's more efficient, and
the cost of retraining him is way above the benefit.

Steve Swartz

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: An Officer.......
> >From: "D. Strang"
> >Date: 2/24/04 10:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <fhX_b.5649$m4.4917@okepread03>
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >>
> >> Want some more examples?
> >
> >No. I vote we let this thread die in peace...
> >
>
> The better part of valor
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Leslie Swartz

February 26th 04, 10:05 PM

But now *this* example goes totally against your "three rules of
officership."

Backpedaling now, are we?

Steve Swartz

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: An Officer.......
> >From: (QDurham)
> >Date: 2/24/04 10:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >>Let me give you another example. We show up at our plane before a
mission. I
> >>do
> >>the mandatory pre-flight inspection and find that the arming wires in
the
> >>bomb
> >>bay are poorly isntalled. I turn to one of the gunners and say, "Sgt.
Get
> >>in
> >>that jeep and go to the ammo dump and get an ordnance man our here to
> >>reinstall these arming wires properly." He says," I don't know sir, they
> >>don't
> >>look all that bad to me.. And it is a long way to the dump.And those
> >ordnance
> >>guys really get ****ed if you bug them like that. Why don't we just fly
the
> >>mission. It will probably be OK".
> >>
> >>Now that never happened. But if it did that gunner wouild be removed
from
> >>our
> >>crew. We wouldn't have him fly with us on Willie the Wolf. He would
probably
> >>be
> >>removed form the base never to be seen again. And when you inquired
about
> >>what
> >>happened to him, no one would seem to know. What do you think happened
to
> >>him?
> >>Any idea?
> >>
> >>Want some more examples?
> >>
> >>.
> >>
> >>Arthur Kramer
> >>344th BG 494th BS
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >>
> >>Art, you are so damn right. Been there. Done that. Preflight
Pensacola.
> >You
> >are so correct. Sic 'em!
> >
> >Quent
> >>
>
>
> On our crew any order given by our pilot was immediately carried out
without
> question. He was a good pilot and a good leader and knew what he was
doing.
> There were times when we came home from missions with battle damage and S
/Sgt
> Greigo engineer giunner (tail) would be up all night working with the crew
> chief on the repairs. In the morning we would ask Greigo if Willie was ok.
If
> he said no, we wouldn't fly her no matter what the crew chief said. If he
gave
> us a thumbs up we would haveWillie in the air that day. So we worked
together
> as a crew. But no member of our crew ever once did anything less than
follow
> orders as they were given. It was the way we were trained and it was the
way we
> flew. And we did it with pride and professionalism.
>
>

BUFDRVR

February 26th 04, 11:17 PM

>Once the breakout was made British and Canadian troops
>advanced just as quickly as anyone else.

According to the last book I read ("Operation Cobra" by Bill Yenne
ISBN:0-7434-5882-6) there really was no "break out" in the north and the
Canucks and British didn't move anywhere near as fast as the US First or Third
Armies. At one point, Third Army was advancing *90 miles* a day. Many of the
reasons the Canuck/Brit advance were slower, you've already mentioned.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

February 26th 04, 11:21 PM

>You would have ytaken ithe bomb on the mision even though you knew you
>couldn't hit a damn thing with i? Remember we risked our lives to get that
>bomb over the target in the heavily defended Ruhr valley. If you
> wouwd have taken that bad bomb, I dont think you had the stuff to make it
>on
>our crew.

With your CEP, it wouldn't have made a difference, in fact that weapon may have
been *closer* than any other due to compensating errors.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

February 26th 04, 11:34 PM

>"SIr, I know its bent but not too baldy it;ll be ok". I said, "
>get thaa bomb out of here, get bacl to the Bomb dump and bring us a
>replacement
>in good condition NOW"

I've no doubt that those were your exact words, I've also no doubt that you
were screaming them at him. I wonder why you couldn't have tried the following;
"I know you've been bustin' your back all night sarge, but our target for today
is XX factory in the Ruhr and its pretty well defended, I'd sure hate to get
all the way their and basically throw 1 of my 8 weapons away". (Violating Rule
#3 of Art Kramer's "Great officer rules"-explaining). Chances are the Sgt.
would have agreed with your assesment, headed back to the bomb dump and brought
you the newest, cleanest weapon there.

>I blew. "get, get you ass back
>and bring me a good bomb or I'll have your ass in the stockade".

Violating BUFDRVR's #1 "Great officer rules" by losing your composure in front
of a subordinate.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"