"Back to the beginning" Topic

I have been trying to remember a famous quote by a senior officer of the 101st Airborne who, when asked by a reporter what he thought about General Patton's "rescue" mission made a simple reply something to the effect that they didn't need to be rescued, or words to that effect. Does anyone know who said it, and what, exactly it was that they said?

Are you perhaps thinking of this exchange from Band of Brothers?

quotes.net/mquote/680766

Yes, I remember that scene from BoBs … But I can't think of anyone who actually said the 101 didn't need rescued, if it was said at all? However is sounds like something a WWII 101 trooper would say.

I was in the 101, '80-'83 with an Air Assault Bn. Sometimes we could be a cocky, arrogant, lot ! 🤩

And we were not the only ones …

I thought it happened during an exchange with a Stars N' Stripes reporter.

Well, it's pretty easy to claim that you didn't need to be rescued after you've been recued.

An element of cockiness is de rigeur for elite troops. Any military unit has to believe in themselves or they're going to fall to bits under the stress of combat.

On the topic of the 101st Airborne division in WW2, Normandy was for most their first taste of combat. Why they did so well considering is an interesting question.

Besides the long, tough and more realistic training they underwent, there was the fact that they were all volunteers for paratroop training and had considerable esprit de corps.

But for me the overwhelming factor is that on the morning of June 6th, only those who were really spoiling for a fight made their way to their assembly areas and engaged the enemy. Anybody who was a little bit reticent could easily just hide out until dawn and have the excuse of being lost.

As such, the often tiny groups of troopers who were engaged in the early morning hours were made up of the most murderous, cocksure and motivated. The cream of the cream of an already elite unit. Thus, they punched well above their weight.

Thoughts anyone?

I'd say it's the Pareto Principle, 80% of the fighting is done by 20% of the men. Many of the 80% are followers or just targets. If you have a squad of 10 men your efficiency can stay pretty level as long as you don't lose the 2 doing the fighting. I think the difference between elites, training, and experience is that if a fighter is lost another one is more likely to move up and take his place in an elite unit.

It's the age-old question about elite forces: Do they recruit crazy guys and do they become crazy after enlisting? Some guys are natural musicians, some are natural record keepers and some are natural killers.

Wolfhag

Well, it's pretty easy to claim that you didn't need to be rescued after you've been recued.

Read what Skarper posted. I.e. :

An element of cockiness is de rigeur for elite troops. Any military unit has to believe in themselves or they're going to fall to bits under the stress of combat.

Yes … very true …

volunteers for paratroop training and had considerable esprit de corps.

Again very true …

often tiny groups of troopers who were engaged in the early morning hours were made up of the most murderous, cocksure and motivated. The cream of the cream of an already elite unit. Thus, they punched well above their weight.

Yes and that is similar with most elite units. E.g. Paratroops, Rangers, Commandos, SEALs, Marines, etc.

Thoughts anyone?

IMO you are spot on …

Do they recruit crazy guys and do they become crazy after enlisting? Some guys are natural musicians, some are natural record keepers and some are natural killers.

Yes a very good question … you need all types to fight a war. But I think, the ones that understand the dynamics of fighting, directly engaging and servicing targets, etc. And yes even those looking for payback/revenge … certainly play a part in "winning" the war.

I find it interesting that in peace time many militaries seem to seek to expel or 'ease out' their best fighters/combat leaders and add more docile 'order followers' and 'bean counter managers' as officers.

When war comes, there is a period when they have to scramble to find the mavericks and fearless fighters to provide a cutting edge to combat units – particularly in Special Forces type units.

This is purely what I observe from the outside looking in and reading autobiographies/novels etc. David Hackworth's about face being a case in point.

Opinions of those who have seen it from the inside and can confirm or refute this would be of interest.

Yes a very good question … you need all types to fight a war. But I think, the ones that understand the dynamics of fighting, directly engaging and servicing targets, etc. And yes even those looking for payback/revenge … certainly play a part in "winning" the war.

I knew this old WWII Marine that got out, enlisted for Korea and got out again after it was over. I asked him why he didn't stay in and retire. I won't write his reply as it will just get censored.

"Take me to the Brig. I want to see the "real Marines". – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC – while on a Battalion inspection

Skarper,
I agree with you. When my son got back from his last deployment and he had to decide on re-enlisting he was told he may not deploy again for at least 2 years. He decided not to re-enlist as he didn't want to sit around and be bored. He wasn't the only one. Many of the real fighters get out and the non-fighters rise in the ranks and become the "lifers" we despise.

Wolfhag

Fearless, ruthless and impulsive are great traits when the individual has a clear enemy to target.

the 101st was not rescued
it was RELIEVED

Opinions of those who have seen it from the inside and can confirm or refute this would be of interest.

My experiences were decades ago. Right after Vietnam. We had a good mix of bean counters and warriors. Of course many in our ranks were Vets of Vietnam and even a few from Korea. Plus my experiences were from serving in 4 Infantry Bns, a CBT SPT Bn[a number of bean counters there. But we know today how important beans, bullets, spare parts, etc., are!] And finally on the Mech Hvy Bde staff, as an assist Bde Log officer.

But I can say in those Infantry units, there were many that were "fighters". Qualified RANGERS, PARATROOPERS, Green Berets, former Marines and even a SEAL or two, etc. When training to go to war, we took it pretty seriously. But sometimes had a good time doing it !

The "fighters/warriors" had a tendency to stick together and hang out together, etc. As both a Rifle Plt Ldr and Mech Co Cdr. I saw very few who were not good at their craft.

Fearless, ruthless and impulsive are great traits when the individual has a clear enemy to target.

Agree !

the 101st was not rescued
it was RELIEVED

That sounds about right … 👍👍

Now after all I have said, e.g. about those troopers in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. I don't consider myself anywhere as badd as any of them … God bless'm !

There is an argument against elite units.

Let me stress if I was being held hostage in Princess Gate, moments before Operation Nimrod, I would not be presenting this argument.

Elite units concentrate the guys who would have made the best NCOs in line units. We all know it is the NCOs who determine who fires back instead of cowering in their foxholes and basically who determine the quality of any army.

Funny thing about that Embassy thing. Who were they rescuing and who were they killing all those years ago?
At the time, it made some sense. Now…..well get out the journalist and the PC, but the rest? UK govt handed them a multi million ransom today to free that poor woman.

Groan

Wish I could now delete that last bit. Turns out that was an Internet spoof basically (I fell for it and was horrified) and Iran is still waiting for that 40 million before they will release their hostage. The UK govt has shown more sense. Mea cupla.

TNE2300 – that may have been the quote I was looking for, thanks.

There is an argument against elite units.

Can't think of one.

The key point for me with the Elite versus line or regular troops is balance.

If the elites start to make up a significant proportion of an army their will be a lack of capable NCOs, Troops and also equipment for the line units.

The British Army tells everyone they are in an elite unit – with mixed results.

The US Army seems to have too many special forces which is inefficient but if you can basically get a blank checque every year to pay for it all then why not? Which SF unit would you disband now? I can see it's too late for that but better not add any more me thinks…

"The purpose of an army is to foster a uniform level of valour." I believe that's Sun Tzu or his gist anyway.

A friend of mine who served said the second worst place to be was stationed next to the paratroopers, even in peace time they were unrully and faught a lot. However those are the traits you need and in peacetime they come at the cost of big repair bills.

Monty was not in favor of elite units like the LRDG. Yes they were good, but he considered that those guys spread out as leaders would upgrade the general army to and even greater effect.

This aversion to elite/special units was not AFAIK confined to Montgomery.

While the argument is cogent, I suspect it may be somewhat disingenuous. I tend to think Monty et al were anti SF/SAS etc since they were not within his control and could grab headlines he so badly craved.

Not wanting to reopen that wound re Monty of course, just that the points against SF/Commandos etc are often in need of some additional salt.

The key point for me with the Elite versus line or regular troops is balance.

Today with all the insurgencies, etc. Spec Ops are worth it. And all Spec Ops are trained in both conventional & COIN. They actually do missions with much smaller numbers than conventional units and in many situations with great effect.

A well trained military has to be capable to do conventional & COIN. Spec Ops is just another "tool" in the box to be used properly for certain missions.

The paradigm of WWII as we know is a bit different today when it comes to SF.

next to the paratroopers, even in peace time they were unrully and faught a lot.

That was not my experience in the US Army. As well as when I worked with the USMC. So I don't know what is different in the UK ? As a Plt Ldr & Co Cdr. I can only remember my NCOs breaking up one fight between troops over $ IIRC.

The British Army is a very different beast to the US Army. And the Paras are nutters – tis well known.

I agree that when fighting guerilla war, special forces are more effective than regulars. You need both.

Each US SF brand has it's distinct role albeit with some overlap and if you can afford them all – why not?

Whether the US can really afford it's defence budget is another topic.

Every nation draws from the same talent pool (Gurkas are different). I wonder how much of it is psychological training and indoctrination? You train harder and longer so you "know" you are better and your leaders tell you that. Then there is the lineage of your unit or regiment whose honor you must uphold. Special ribbons and patches help enforce it and have lesser trained units might "lookup" to you. And then there are the dress blues.

I think "tribalism" (Gurkhas) can play a great role in small units with high standards too. However, "advanced training" like BUDS, Ranger School, etc are REALLY intense and if you make the grade and don't feel you are special there is something wrong with you. You are expected to lead, excel and do more.

I was talking to a junior USAF enlisted and I asked him why he joined the Air Force and not the Marines. He was honest as he smiled and said, "I didn't really want to fight". There's nothing wrong with that. The guy has some special talents that the Air Force was able to use as a Loadmaster on C-141's. He'll have a great job when he finishes his enlistment. We don't need a military filled with elites and natural-born killers, just people who do their job well.

The Marines have great psychological conditioning starting even before Boot Camp (books, movies, parades, honor guards, Hollywood, dress blues, etc). Physically, Boot Camp was not much tougher than American Football practice in high school. ITR was a little tougher. In Miami, we did two-a-day practices in 90+ degrees, 90% humidity in August. The harassment was pretty intense but if you kept your mouth shut and did as you were told there were enough screw-ups that always caught the DI's attention and leave you alone. My son told me the Recon training he went through, I don't think I could have hacked it.

Each training platoon needs to get a certain number through to complete their training and depending on the Corps needs, some guys are allowed to pass that normally would not make the grade. They become admin and cooks who are badly needed too.

The US Marines and Army always seem to be in competition, especially at the highest ranks because that's where they get their money. Even if the Army outperforms the Marines they have a much better PR machine to spin it to make them look better than the Army. Good PR = $$$.

I was stationed at Ft. Meade in the mid-1970s and we had Marine, Army, Air Force, and Navy barracks all next to each other. I'm a little ashamed to say that as a junior enlisted many of us were arrogant a-- -----. I guess it was bad enough for an enlisted Navy guy to put multiple rounds into the guardhouse I stood duty at and shoot up our mess hall and barracks. It turned out one of our guys had been taking "liberties" with his wife.

Monty was not in favor of elite units like the LRDG. Yes, they were good, but he considered that those guys spread out as leaders would upgrade the general army to an even greater effect.

You bring up an interesting point. In WWII the Marine brass was against special units too. They disbanded the Raider and Parachute units and used their experienced leaders to form the core of the 5th Marine Division. They had been training for 7 months when they landed on Iwo Jima with almost all of the junior enlisted seeing their first combat, they performed pretty well.

The Marines were also against Spec Ops/MARSOC units and don't normally refer to themselves as elites, just Marines. My son told me everyone looks up to someone who made it to a Raider (Spec Ops) unit.

When the GWOT was going hot and heavy the Marines had no problem filling the 03 (infantry) positions and many of these young studs wanted to go Recon or Scout Sniper and would not enlist unless that's what they could get. So Marine Recruiting came up with a devious recruitment incentive where you could enlist and be "guaranteed" Recon or Scout Sniper. It was actually a guaranteed "tryout" but of course, these young studs knew that was no problem. What they didn't know was that when they went to the "tryout" there were 20-30 guys who did not know that there were really only two slots available. So two guys went to the real training and the others were put in the "general pool" and assigned jobs according to the needs of the Corps and it was not infantry. That's how the Marines filled many of the jobs people didn't want to enlist for. The Corps is a cruel mother!

My son wanted to go that route too but fortunately, his recruiter told him he was too smart to be in the infantry and offered him a SigInt slot as an operator/collector in the field (not analyst). So he learned a real trade and got attached to all sorts of combat units from different branches and contractors and run his own independent team.

Whether the US can really afford it's defence budget is another topic.

Of course they can! When you have the world's reserve currency everyone needs and you can print as much of it as you want you can afford to buy anything, even if it doesn't work.

Wolfhag

Indeed – the US can always print more money if it runs out..

It might be better off printing money to buy something useful, but that's not how capitalism works…

Interesting post Wolfhag.

I think on a cost/benefit analysis the USMC would be disbanded. But you cannot put a price on 'elan'.

The UK have been disbanding regiments with outstanding records while maintaining the Guards regiments intact[?].

The Guards earned most of their battle honours fair a square [notable exception of the Grenadier guards at Waterloo] but they DO have connections so get special treatment.

The British Army is a very different beast to the US Army. And the Paras are nutters – tis well known.

You say that like it is a bad thing ! 🪂🪂🛩🪂🪂🪂😁

I agree that when fighting guerilla war, special forces are more effective than regulars. You need both.

Each US SF brand has it's distinct role albeit with some overlap and if you can afford them all – why not?

Agreed … our Elite units/SF, etc., also work well together. Overlap is a good thing. And on many mission the different units from the 4 branches operate in combined manner.

E.g. USAF CCTs with US Army SF …

One of the best examples was the rescue of US Army Sp4 Jessica Lynch in the 1st Iraq war. And the list goes on …

You train harder and longer so you "know" you are better and your leaders tell you that. Then there is the lineage of your unit or regiment whose honor you must uphold. Special ribbons and patches help enforce it and have lesser trained units might "lookup" to you.

Same in the US Army …

And then there are the dress blues.

We got'm too !

However, "advanced training" like BUDS, Ranger School, etc are REALLY intense and if you make the grade and don't feel you are special there is something wrong with you.