Officers..The Bridge at Remagen

When the troops of the 9th armored division reached the bridge at Remaagen on
March 7th they stopped undecided what to do. General William Hoge saw the
bridge standing aand ordered it to be taken with the East end of the bridge
secured. Lt. Karl Timmermann led the charge takig the bridge and setting up a
perimeter line of skernishers on the Eastern side.

When ordered to take the bridge troops obeyed the commands of their officers
instantly and obediently. No debates. No second opinions. Just immediate
action. It is how wars are won.


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
...
When the troops of the 9th armored division reached the bridge at Remaagen
on
March 7th they stopped undecided what to do. General William Hoge saw the
bridge standing aand ordered it to be taken with the East end of the
bridge
secured. Lt. Karl Timmermann led the charge takig the bridge and setting
up a
perimeter line of skernishers on the Eastern side.

When ordered to take the bridge troops obeyed the commands of their
officers
instantly and obediently. No debates. No second opinions. Just immediate
action. It is how wars are won.

And no higher orders from those above Hoge to carry out the maneuver--he
acted in accordance with his higher commander's intent. You just don't get
it, do you?

Brooks



Arthur Kramer

Subject: Officers..The Bridge at Remagen
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
Date: 2/26/04 11:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Apparently there *was* a debate -- at Bradley's HQ. Some staff
officer had the temerity to suggest that the 9th should not have
taken the bridge because it was not according to plan!


But that was after the fact. No debates on the spot.


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"
When ordered to take the bridge troops obeyed the commands of their
officers
instantly and obediently. No debates. No second opinions. Just immediate
action. It is how wars are won.

Art:
I have been following this discussion for sometime and think I should
jump in. Blind obedience of a direct command by an officer is sometimes NOT
the wisest choice! I site the event of March 16, 1968, the Mylai massacre!
Officers can be dead wrong at times! At the German War Crimes trials the
defence of saying, "I was ordered to do this", did not work.
Ed

ArtKramr wrote:


But that was after the fact. No debates on the spot.



You speak with authority - you were there?

Dave

Subject: Officers..The Bridge at Remagen
From: "Ed Majden"
Date: 2/26/04 12:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Zws%b.605494$JQ1.62940@pd7tw1no


"ArtKramr"
When ordered to take the bridge troops obeyed the commands of their
officers
instantly and obediently. No debates. No second opinions. Just immediate
action. It is how wars are won.

Art:
I have been following this discussion for sometime and think I should
jump in. Blind obedience of a direct command by an officer is sometimes NOT
the wisest choice! I site the event of March 16, 1968, the Mylai massacre!
Officers can be dead wrong at times! At the German War Crimes trials the
defence of saying, "I was ordered to do this", did not work.
Ed



We can always give isolated examples that prove the exception. But in an army
when the exception is the rule, we end up with a mob where everyone is in
business for themselves. Not a good way to go to war.


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "ArtKramr"

We can always give isolated examples that prove the exception. But in an
army
when the exception is the rule, we end up with a mob where everyone is in
business for themselves. Not a good way to go to war.

Unfortunately there are many examples! If an officer has the confidence
of his men and he has respect for the troops he commands in most cases his
orders will be followed without question. Just because a guy has bars on
his shoulders does not necessarily mean he is a good leader or for that
matter a knowledgeable one. In the British forces rank often came from
class distinction not whether you deserved the position. Remember Dieppe or
Hong Kong!

With respect:
Ed

Subject: Officers..The Bridge at Remagen
From: "Ed Majden"
Date: 2/26/04 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: W0t%b.621339$X%5.404706@pd7tw2no


----- Original Message -----
From: "ArtKramr"

We can always give isolated examples that prove the exception. But in an
army
when the exception is the rule, we end up with a mob where everyone is in
business for themselves. Not a good way to go to war.

Unfortunately there are many examples! If an officer has the confidence
of his men and he has respect for the troops he commands in most cases his
orders will be followed without question. Just because a guy has bars on
his shoulders does not necessarily mean he is a good leader or for that
matter a knowledgeable one. In the British forces rank often came from
class distinction not whether you deserved the position. Remember Dieppe or
Hong Kong!

With respect:
Ed



What you say is true. But an undiciplined army will always come out the loser.
And it is not reasonable to take the position that most officers don't know
their job. Or most sargeants for that matter. Is it?


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

When the troops of the 9th armored division reached the bridge at Remaagen on
March 7th they stopped undecided what to do. General William Hoge saw the
bridge standing aand ordered it to be taken with the East end of the bridge
secured. Lt. Karl Timmermann led the charge takig the bridge and setting up a
perimeter line of skernishers on the Eastern side.

When ordered to take the bridge troops obeyed the commands of their officers
instantly and obediently. No debates. No second opinions. Just immediate
action. It is how wars are won.

But I will have to chime in on this, with some agreements and disagreements.

Warfare has evolved past the stage, at least with Western countries, where it
was all about just generating maximum numbers of planes, people, etc to a
target and that meant the difference. In much of the history of warfare,
whether it was the Roman conquest of Europe, or B-26s over a bridge, it was
about putting maximum numbers of your side on or over a target for the best
chance of success. The tactics were not usually too specialized typically, nor
were the weapons. One person who questioned or disagreed could mean one less
warrior, or one less plane over the target whose bombs could have made the
difference.

However, warfare today is less numbers oriented, and more about having the
right plan and the right tactics when you go in, because often now we do
undertake operations in which our force, while being at a numerical
disadvantage, will have a huge techological advantage over the enemy, and the
right plans and tactics are going to make maximum use of that.

One B-52, equipped with JDAMs, utilizing highly training soldiers for targeting
and directing, and with the right tactics, can achieve things undreamed not
long ago.

And a special forces team, be it SFOD-D, SEAL, PJs, etc, doesnt just get a
command from the team leader and the rest just go do it without any thinking.
They are going to work out the plan beforehand, and probably each contributing
or adding to it. When fighter and bomber aircraft are doing CAS work, or
interdiction, the technology is best utilized when you properly employ the
weapons, instead of just generating large numerical sorties and hoping for the
best.
Special forces might have been a novelty during WW2, but now they and their
tactics are an integral part of modern warfighting.

But ironically, it is 3rd world armies that still rely on "just do as your
told", "no questions asked", and still fight with massed numbers, not much
technology, and do not coordinate or train solders much, lest they become a
domestic threat, especially Arab and Middle Eastern Armies. Against an
educated well trained army, who uses proper planning and tactics, those 3rd
world armies come up quite short.









Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:W0t%b.621339$X%5.404706@pd7tw2no...

----- Original Message -----
From: "ArtKramr"

We can always give isolated examples that prove the exception. But in an
army
when the exception is the rule, we end up with a mob where everyone is
in
business for themselves. Not a good way to go to war.

Unfortunately there are many examples! If an officer has the
confidence
of his men and he has respect for the troops he commands in most cases his
orders will be followed without question. Just because a guy has bars on
his shoulders does not necessarily mean he is a good leader or for that
matter a knowledgeable one. In the British forces rank often came from
class distinction not whether you deserved the position. Remember Dieppe
or
Hong Kong!

Hang on Ed, surly you can't pin Dieppe on British ineptitude - being an
Allied venture, it needed Allied ratification. If anything it was a Canadian
effort (something like 5,000 Canadian troops), the only British employed
were a number of commandos, IIRC about the same number of US Rangers were
also used. Plus what on earth did the Brits do to Hong Kong except turn it
into the prosperous place of commerce and business it is now?!
Can't argue with your stating that often British officers were born to it.
John E Johnson (sp?), the wartime spitfire ace, had his initial pre-war
pilot application turned down since he stumbled in the interview having been
ask for which hunt he rode! I can guarantee this is not the case any longer.

With respect:

Genuinely likewise,

Jim D

Ed