An Officer.......

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

Subject: 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

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

Subject: 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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: 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

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

(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.

Subject: 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

"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" 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.