SHP Forums

OK, sorry. I've never seen SPR (I know, shock horror, naughty me).

I just thought a real private's life would be like that (especially to start with). Is it more or less accurate?

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:12 am I just thought a real private's life would be like that (especially to start with). Is it more or less accurate?

Mostly, no, and especially not during WW2 which is the entire setting for SPR.

The real issue with what you wrote (and I know you were attempting to be funny) is that what's important in peace time, during training, or on an official military base is a lot different than what's important in the field, as many were during World War 2.

Also, five-star generals (aka "General of the Army") were extremely rare seeing as how the rank was created in 1944* and only ever issued to five officers. Five-star admirals (aka "Fleet Admiral") were also created in 1944* for the US Navy and issued to four officers.

Both ranks were created so that the top commanders of US forces would be on equal footing — as far as rank was concerned — with the British ranks of Field Marshal and Admiral of the Fleet.

* General of the Army and Fleet Admiral had been used before WW2, but were either the same in name only or had unusual circumstances attached to them.

Hmm. But then, what do privates (especially new ones) do during peace-time on a military base? I thought new soldiers learned the basics: cleaning their boots, learning how to assemble and disassemble a rifle, tidying their beds, doing a shift on guarding the gate, and so on. Right?

I'm fully aware it's not the same, but I've read about life as as a legionary in ancient Rome's military camps. The ordinary legionaries did a lot of marching, a lot of road-building, and a lot of fort-building. Even while in enemy territory, an ordinary legionary in a fort (by "ordinary legionary", I mean a non-specialist like a scribe or a ballista operator) could expect to shine his armour, do a spot of gate guarding, haul lumber/stones for building the fort, help in the kitchens etc.

Obviously armies have changed considerably since those days, especially in regards to armour and weapons. But what does the daily routine of soldiers involve these days? Just curious.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:25 pm Hmm. But then, what do privates (especially new ones) do during peace-time on a military base? I thought new soldiers learned the basics: cleaning their boots, learning how to assemble and disassemble a rifle, tidying their beds, doing a shift on guarding the gate, and so on. Right?

What you're thinking of is basic training. While it's true soldiers do need to do those things, it's not how they spend the majority of their time, on or off a base.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:25 pm But what does the daily routine of soldiers involve these days? Just curious.

It really depends on a soldier's military occupation specialty (MOS).

DeadPoolX wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:06 pm

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:25 pm Hmm. But then, what do privates (especially new ones) do during peace-time on a military base? I thought new soldiers learned the basics: cleaning their boots, learning how to assemble and disassemble a rifle, tidying their beds, doing a shift on guarding the gate, and so on. Right?

What you're thinking of is basic training. While it's true soldiers do need to do those things, it's not how they spend the majority of their time, on or off a base.

All right, then. How do they spend most of their time on-base? *shrug* I understand that once a soldier becomes a specialist, he (or she) would spend most of their time in their specialty: a gunner would mess about with artillery, a tank-driver would learn to drive and maintain tanks, a driver would learn to drive and maintain cars, a cook would learn to cook, etc. etc. Fair enough.

Am I right i thinking, though, that most soldiers would do basic training before anything else? Strength/endurance training, cross-country runs, etc.?

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:27 am

DeadPoolX wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:06 pm

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:25 pm Hmm. But then, what do privates (especially new ones) do during peace-time on a military base? I thought new soldiers learned the basics: cleaning their boots, learning how to assemble and disassemble a rifle, tidying their beds, doing a shift on guarding the gate, and so on. Right?

What you're thinking of is basic training. While it's true soldiers do need to do those things, it's not how they spend the majority of their time, on or off a base.

All right, then. How do they spend most of their time on-base? *shrug* I understand that once a soldier becomes a specialist, he (or she) would spend most of their time in their specialty: a gunner would mess about with artillery, a tank-driver would learn to drive and maintain tanks, a driver would learn to drive and maintain cars, a cook would learn to cook, etc. etc. Fair enough.

Am I right i thinking, though, that most soldiers would do basic training before anything else? Strength/endurance training, cross-country runs, etc.?

Like I said before, their time is primarily spent within their MOS. They also eat, sleep (usually junior enlisted), exercise, read, learn, and even play games in-person or on computers.

Before all of that, yes, soldiers go through basic training, which is why it's referred to as... basic training. Soldiers CAN go through additional training depending on other factors. For instance, a soldier who proves to be an exceptional marksman might get sniper training. Soldiers who have experience and have excelled in the field might get to go special operations training, and so on.

And by the way...

1. The term "specialist" is a tricky one in the military, particular the US Army. The reason for this is that there is a junior enlisted rank called "specialist." A specialist is equivalent in pay grade to a corporal (both being E4), but lacks the same authority as one because a corporal is an NCO. Usually a specialist is someone who's skilled in a particular trade or area, and whose abilities can be put to better use behind the scenes rather than assisting a sergeant on the field. Having evolved from the Technician ranks in WW2, there used to be multiple grades of specialist, but today only the E4 specialist remains.

2. A soldier or officer assigned to artillery is not a gunner. Artillery units handle large weaponry and munitions, such as mortars, howitzers, rockets, missiles, etc. Go back far enough and artillery units would've manned cannons on the field. A gunner belongs in the infantry and and if an infantryman got caught "messing around" with artillery, there'd be serious repercussions.

3. Anyone who operates a tank in any capacity is assigned to an armor unit; the same is true for other armored vehicles, like APCs.

Fair enough - although, in Australia, an artillery operator is called a gunner. The Australian Army Reserve shows jobs for gunners. What are they called in the US Army? *curious*

Yes, I'm aware of the cannons of the 18th and 19th centuries that developed from the bombards of the 15th and 16th (like the ones that battered Constantinople in 1453). Heck, we could go back further to the trebuchets of the 1300s, or the catapults of the 1100-1200s, or Roman (or Greek) siege weapons before that -- ballistae and so on. The weapon changes, but the intention is similar: batter your opponent into submission.

Would I be right in thinking that, strategically speaking, tanks are similar to the heavily-armoured horsemen (e.g. cuirassiers in the 1500-1800s, or knights before them)? What I mean is, their function is to break through enemy lines by shock tactics. Then, the infantry can widen those holes and force the enemy to flee. Broadly speaking, tanks do the same (or at least, they did in WW1 and WW2). Am I right?

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:18 pm Fair enough - although, in Australia, an artillery operator is called a gunner. The Australian Army Reserve shows jobs for gunners. What are they called in the US Army? *curious*

There's no single term, since most depend on position with a battery, but some names included "artillery gunner" (to distinguish themselves from other types of gunnery positions), "cannon crewmember" or even "redleg." The latter is more of a nickname that refers to the red stripe down the pants of some uniforms in two specific batteries during the Mexican American War.

Interestingly enough, red is the color assigned to artillery units in the US Army. You saw this a lot during the US Civil War, when your unit specialty was denoted not just by rank, but also color.

A sergeant in field artillery would have three red chevrons as opposed to a sergeant in the cavalry who'd have three gold chevrons.

For officers, colors were shown on their shoulder boards. This got a little weird with the cavalry since their color was gold and that sometimes made it a little difficult to accurately see some officer rank pins, such as first lieutenant, captain, and major. First lieutenant and captain would later get changed from gold to silver, and second lieutenant wouldn't have a rank pin until WW1.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:18 pm Would I be right in thinking that, strategically speaking, tanks are similar to the heavily-armoured horsemen (e.g. cuirassiers in the 1500-1800s, or knights before them)? What I mean is, their function is to break through enemy lines by shock tactics. Then, the infantry can widen those holes and force the enemy to flee. Broadly speaking, tanks do the same (or at least, they did in WW1 and WW2). Am I right?

Yeah, cavalry units mostly became armor units. I say mostly because there is such a thing as air cavalry, which uses helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Originally, the cavalry designation was shared with aircraft when the US Air Force was a part of the US Army. After the USAF got separated into its own entity, the cavalry designation was dropped except for helicopters and later on, drones. The reason is that the US Army can only use helicopters and UAVs, since all other aircraft fall under the jurisdiction of the USAF.

As you might imagine, this creates some tension between the two services when the USAF is expected to provide CAS for troops on the ground, particularly when it comes to destroying enemy vehicles and tanks. The A-10 is the best aircraft to do this (helicopters can do this, but they're also extremely vulnerable when doing so and very fragile overall) and since it belongs to the USAF, the two services need to cooperate, which works out about as well as you might expect.

*looks up CAS* Ah, Close Air Support. Got it.

I can imagine the division creates some tension between the USAF and the troops on the ground. If the US Army can use helicopters, does that mean they (and not the USAF) fly them?

I've read a book or two about cooperation (or lack thereof) between various armies and their air-forces. There have been some major disasters when the USAF didn't/couldn't cooperate with the army: some aspects of Operation Cobra (1944), for instance, or in Sicily or Tunisia. Even at home during WW2, so many B-26s were destroyed by their own crew that in a Florida air-base, they used to say "One a day in Tampa Bay". The B-26 quickly received the reputation of a "widow-maker" due to the early models' high accident rate during takeoffs and landings.

The Germans were generally more efficient, though Hitler's and Goering's interference couldn't have been easy to live with. For sheer political incompetence in WW2, it's hard to go past Mussolini.

Have there been any very bad (i.e. "should never have been designed") war-planes in the past 10-20 years? I've read of some, but surely the worst must be the "pulpit" (aka RAF B.E.9) from 1915. Thank goodness this plane never saw action, and was scrapped just months after it was built!

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:47 pm If the US Army can use helicopters, does that mean they (and not the USAF) fly them?

The USAF can and do fly helicopters for search and rescue operations, and other utility functions.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:47 pm Have there been any very bad (i.e. "should never have been designed") war-planes in the past 10-20 years?

The only thing that's been designed within the last 10-20 years (2010 to 2000) that probably shouldn't have been is the F-35 Lightning II. Technically-speaking, there's nothing wrong with the F-35 and in fact, it should be an absolutely amazing aircraft. Unfortunately, the development of it has been plagued with problems and massive over-spending. I don't even mean the sort of lunacy that people joke about when it comes to government spending (i.e. "bullet-proof printer"). The F-35 project has been mishandled from the get-go and it's a great example of the sunk cost fallacy in effect.

I am not even sure how this happened - but was on Youtube (I know how that part happened) - but stumbled into the Youtube Movies.

Saw they had Night of the Comet (free with ads, or no ads, if you have an ad blocker and completely legal) and watched it. Man, I remember being in the theater seeing this and loving this movie when I was (what? 14?).

Super silly now - but damn, the 80s were a good time...

Ah, the 80s. An innocent time when The Enemy was well-defined (either the traitorous Soviets or the Imperialist Pig Americans, depending on which side of politics you happened to be). A time when MTV (remember that?) was just getting started, leg warmers and shoulder pads were "in", Michael Jackson was still black, and the cinemas were full of Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and Star Trek films. (And, sure, there were a lot of crap movies too).

A time when nobody (almost) had a mobile phone, and the mobiles that did exist were the size of a brick. Most people had rotary phones, and if you had a push-button phone, you were lucky. This was also the decade in which Atari and Commodore 64 made it big, and Apple hit the skids with their LISA computer, although they also hit it big with the Apple Macintosh. IBM was also making it big. On the negative side, a little-known company called Microsoft released DOS and then Windows 3.1. The writing was already on the wall.

A time when the Soviets boycotted the Los Angeles Olympics, simply because they were held in America and therefore "imperialist". And then, 4 years later, the Soviets decided to participate in the Olympics because they were held in Seoul. A time when Ben Jonson broke the 100m running record and went under 10 seconds, only to be stripped of his gold medal because he tested positive to steroids. A time when Maradona was king of the world (of soccer).

Not everything was so positive. A former B-grade actor who appeared with Bozo the Clown was now the President, and then later, his deputy became President. This was a time when one or two high-powered politicians seriously argued that trees caused pollution. But on the other hand, we also had Dan Quayle to laugh at. And, oh yeah, the Berlin Wall fell down, and the Russians sued the builder because he gave them a 100-year warranty. (And yes, I grew up in the 80s. A fun time for sure).

Have I missed anything?

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:16 am Have I missed anything?

The joys of '80s cartoons. Unapologetic 22-minute toy commercials.

Ah, yes! The Smurfs, the ... shudder ... Care Bears ... and He-Man! "By the Power of Greyskull!"

Lots of music around. Sting and the Police were just getting started. Same with Madonna. Same with Weird Al. Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, Huey Lewis and the News, REM, Dire Straits.

On the other hand, there was a lot of crap around too (e.g. Michael Bolton). Plus, lots of forgettable one-hit wonders (e.g. "I Think We're Alone Now" by Tiffany; "Never Gonna Give You Up" by Rick Astley; "Shaddup You Face" by Joe Dolce, etc.)

What do you think were the most overrated music artists back then? Feel free to share!

Of the 80s? Basically everything. Even Zappa turned poorly.

Still haven't seen any films I hadn't seen before since the Corona outbreak