tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post4696803480333296418..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: "U.S. Army unprepared to deal with Russia in Europe"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-26112089739325674232017-09-24T23:35:27.937+02:002017-09-24T23:35:27.937+02:00Vaguely related, but I suspect of some interest to...Vaguely related, but I suspect of some interest to you Sven is this post about Soviet military journals from the 62's, as provided by declassified CIA files: https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2017/07/28/histint-unearthing-declassified-soviet-military-journals-cia-archives/<br /><br />As an example of what can be found, here is an article titled "Radio Deception as a Means of Radio Counteraction"Rettawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-13752206260355713222017-09-06T18:07:58.768+02:002017-09-06T18:07:58.768+02:00There are lots of existing and imaginable superior...There are lots of existing and imaginable superior personnel systems. The U.S.army (if not U.S.military) personnel system(s) of today is/are accused of treating personnel as exchangeable like screws, as was almost suitable for feeding the meat grinding of 1917/1918 with warm bodies, but has been unsuitable for a long time.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-65484716743446353552017-09-05T23:31:25.631+02:002017-09-05T23:31:25.631+02:00Would they not benefit from more of a regimental-t...Would they not benefit from more of a regimental-type system, like the British and commonwealth armies? Soldiers and officers there spend most of their careers in one battalion or regiment, which does not seem like something that happens as much in the US Army.Evil Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02822636468230493479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-69110096296911596802017-09-05T18:18:30.576+02:002017-09-05T18:18:30.576+02:00It's widely considered to be a good thing for ...It's widely considered to be a good thing for officer development. It's good for the way HOW they think.<br />Some U.S. general who shall not be named here wrote about this but a few years ago. He had been used to giving orders, to can do and to hierarchical organisations and when he began to study alongside civilians he was at first at a loss because suddenly everyone expected proper arguments, logical reasoning, and so on.<br />Others emphasise that especially history, military history, economics, psychology, geography, mechanical engineering, slavic studies make a lot of sense for officers (in addition to the obvious medical studies for medical officers).<br />Also keep in mind that most officers serve but a couple years, such as 12 years in Germany. They need a civilian job qualification better than truck driving afterwards (except fixed wing pilots; their pilot's license should be good enough).<br /><br />Besides, yes, there were lots of very successful high ranking Wehrmacht officers who were doctors - particularly among the reserve officers who rose to ranks like Lt.Col up to two star during wartime.<br /><br />Uhle-Wettler, the most famous outside-the-box thinkers among Bundeswehr generals, had written his doctor thesis on socialism prior to joining the Bundeswehr (he was 150% anti-communist, which explains why his tolerance for brown BS was tolerated throughout his career and became troublesome only afterwards). He actually wrote an anecdote about this in one of his books; during some indoctrination course the teacher used his doctor thesis as source and asked the officer candidates for their interpretation. The teacher then insisted that Uhle-Wettler's interpretation was the wrong one. :-) The teacher didn't notice the issue because the book was published with an alias name.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-81800533204539624272017-09-05T17:28:58.529+02:002017-09-05T17:28:58.529+02:00Interesting presentation. I believe I've read...Interesting presentation. I believe I've read something by this guy somewhere else. <br /><br />Recently I read an article by an Air Force officer recommending a switch from the current enlisted/warrant/commissioned structure to one of position centric. https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2017/08/20/commentary-the-rank-structure-is-holding-us-back-its-time-for-drastic-change/<br /><br />Don't know if this is a U.S. thing, but this emphasis on officers attending civilian business schools, etc is the right focus. I'm not saying it bad, but I want these officers to be experts in their field of warfare. Did Rommel and other great German generals attend civilian universities for masters and doctorate levels of education? Same with Patton, Montogomery, etc. It seems to me, at least in the U.S. to have started in earnest during Mcnamera's time. Maybe you know?Packnavy2019https://www.blogger.com/profile/00259240999936072309noreply@blogger.com