Categories
Allies Soldiering

This is why a ‘senior lance corporal’ is absolutely a thing By David Grove

Marine Corps photo

Lance corporal is the most common rank in the Marine Corps. It’s the upper-most junior-enlisted Marine; the last step before becoming an NCO. It’s at this rank that you truly learn the responsibilities that come with being an NCO — and it’s when you start to shoulder those responsibilities. But Marines can be lance corporals straight out of boot camp. But how can someone with no experience possibly be ready to lead others Marines? This is why we created an unofficial rank — “senior lance corporal.”

Lifers everywhere will tell you that there’s no such thing. They’ll say something along the lines of, “being a senior was a high school thing and it ought to remain there.” But the truth is that there are very valid reasons for the distinctive title.

No matter your reason for stating otherwise, one thing’s for sure: senior lance corporals exist. This is why.


Marine Corps photo

This Lance Corporal still has a lot to learn.

(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Catie Massey)

The “junior” lance corporal

The “junior” lance corporal is the guy who picked up rank during boot camp because they were an Eagle Scout or some sh*t. Regardless, they didn’t earn real Marine Corps experience while waiting for that rank. Hell, the only experience they have in the Marine Corps is with marching — which is important, sure, but there’s a lot more to being a Marine than marching.

There are exceptions, of course. You could have spent time in the service prior to deciding that whatever branch you were in was a group of weaklings compared to the Marines. In that case, you do have experience, but this is pretty rare. The majority of “junior” lance corporals haven’t led Marines yet — not really, anyway — nor have they been to any leadership courses.

Marine Corps photo

They spent a lot of time doing things by the book, which isn’t typically how things go in a real unit.

(U.S. Marine Corps photo)

They spent their time learning the basics which, if we’re being honest, are great building blocks, but your unit’s standard operating procedure may render a lot of what you learned basically useless.

Anyone who’s reached NCO before their first term and has led Marines knows that you can’t trust a junior lance corporal to clean their room the right way on their first attempt. How could that lance corporal possibly be the same as the one who went through leadership and/or advanced schools and has a deployment under their belt? Hint: It’s not.

Enter the “senior” lance corporal.

Marine Corps photo

These guys have been around a minute.

(U.S. Marine Corps)

The “senior” lance corporal

When a junior Marine gets to their unit, even if they’re a lance corporal, this is the guy they refer to as “lance corporal.” The junior will quickly come to understand that, while they may hold the same rank, they are not the same. The difference, in fact, is rather large.

A senior lance corporal has been on a deployment. Regardless of whether that deployment was into combat or not, that lance corporal has real leadership experience. They went to a foreign country and they were responsible for leading Marines to success. Then, before you got to the unit, they went to leadership schools. These Marines have a lot more experience than a greenhorn fresh out of boot camp.

Marine Corps photo

So ask yourself, are you treating your Marines a certain way based on experience — or rank?

(U.S. Marine Corps photo Cpl. Aaron Patterson)

Realistically, there are plenty of senior lance corporals that don’t give a f*ck anymore. But for every one of those, there are ten who strive to be good Marines and great leaders. To diminish their hard work and reduce them to the same level as some fresh boot does nothing but destroy their spirit.

The fact is, a “senior” lance corporal could be a squad leader — a job that is meant to be held by a sergeant, but is more commonly held by a corporal. You could not take a “junior” lance corporal and say the same. The difference is clear.

Categories
Born again Cynic! Soldiering

Can Normal People Survive WW2’s Toughest Military Training?

Categories
Soldiering War Well I thought it was neat!

Leave No Man Behind- Implications, Criticisms, and Rationale by Charles Bausman

“Leave No Man Behind” is a creed and ethos often repeated and adhered to by various units and soldiers. The interpretation of the phrase is applied to the treatment and extraction of the seriously wounded, the recovery of the body of military members killed in action, and the attempts to rescue or trade for prisoners of war.

Despite being widely known and repeated in the U.S. Military, “leave no man behind” is not represented in any official military doctrine or publication. It is a culture of the armed services, which carries significant risk.

A recent article reported the Air Force’s recommended upgrade of Tech. Sergeant John Chapman’s Air Force Cross to the Medal of Honor for his actions during Operation Anaconda, an attempt to rescue Neil Roberts, a SEAL who had fallen from a helicopter after being struck by enemy fire.

The article highlights the decision of a Navy SEAL Chief, serving as the leader of the team that Sergeant Chapman was supporting, to withdraw from the mountain top position while under heavy enemy fire. The Chief believed that Sergeant Chapman had been killed, and made the decision to withdraw his team, which already had multiple wounded members.

The basis for this upgrade is drone imagery, improved by new technology to show a clearer feed of the actions occurring on the ground. The Air Force reports that Sergeant Chapman, despite being left behind and seriously wounded, can be seen continuing to provide suppressive fires for a helicopter attempting to insert a quick reaction force of Rangers, as well as engaging in close quarters combat with Al Qaeda fighters before ultimately being killed in action.

In total, seven troops were killed in this engagement, now referred to as the Battle of Roberts Ridge. Much of the criticism of this decision revolves around the principle of “leave no man behind.” Should troops go to such lengths to rescue fallen comrades, pulling additional resources and risking additional casualties?

The X’s and O’s Perspective – Rescue Mission with Strategic Implications

“Leave No Man Behind” is not based on the tactical necessity to recover the wounded or missing. It is a dangerous task to those troops undertaking it, potentially exposing themselves to ambush from an enemy who understands our cultural necessity to recover a comrade.

Once that soldier is wounded or missing, he is no longer an asset to accomplishing a mission. In fact, he or she is a significant hindrance that takes combat power away from mission. Even more so, the decision to conduct a rescue or recovery mission can change policy and the face of a conflict.

There are numerous examples of the dangers associated in following “Leave No Man Behind.”

The Battle of Mogadishu is a well-known engagement, in which a Task Force was directed to capture an associate of the warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. The shoot down of a task force helicopter and ensuing recovery efforts led to the death of eighteen U.S. soldiers, seventy-three wounded, and the capture of Warrant Officer Michael Durant following the crash landing of his helicopter.  The loss of life led to a policy change by the Clinton administration and the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. forces in Somalia.

In 1972, Captain Roger Locher was shot down over North Vietnamese territory during a major aerial operation to slow the transport of North Vietnamese Army troops and supplies into the south. Captain Locher was able to escape and evade capture for twenty-three days despite being far behind enemy lines.

All units under the command of General John Vogt were ordered to stop operations (to include major bombing campaigns of Hanoi,) and focus on the rescue effort. Captain Locher was successfully recovered, after approximately 150 U.S. aircraft were redirected to find and rescue him

From a foreign military perspective, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) once utilized the “Hannibal Directive” as a policy for units and commanders when IDF soldiers have been captured or abducted.  It consisted of a massive procedure to bomb all possible escape routes, assuming the risk of killing the abducted soldier. Reports of the use of “Hannibal Directive” are controversial due to the high probability of collateral damage and IDF assumption that a soldier should rather be killed than captured.

The last use of the directive is reported during the 2014 Israeli-Gaza incursion, when Lieutenant Hadar Goldin was believed to be captured, pulled into a Hamas tunnel system in the Gaza Strip. The use of the directive was criticized by the Israeli public and international community, and was heavily publicized by media outlets.

The implications of these examples have been significant in foreign policy (Somalia), operational objectives (aborted Hanoi bombing strike), and media coverage (Hannibal Directive) leading to public criticism.  They all stem from the reallocation of combat forces to aid in the rescue or recovery of personnel, despite the costs, under the culture of no man left behind.

Why It Matters

It is important to note what “Leave No Man Behind” means to those in uniform.

While not captured in doctrine, there are few things more reassuring to a soldier about to enter combat that his brothers and sisters in arms would spare nothing in attempts to get him back. To the families of those fallen, the catharsis of being able to bury their own cannot be overstated or even understood by those who have not been in that sad and unfortunate position.

As found by a study by the U.S. Army War College,  “Combat Motivation in Today’s Soldiers,” the motivations have not changed in war over time. They fight for one another, built through the bond of shared misery, loyalty, and love. It is not surprising then that soldiers would go to such lengths to never leave a man behind, despite the risks and possible failure.

In the case of the Navy SEAL Chief who made the decision to withdraw after believing Sergeant Chapman had succumbed to his wounds, his decision should not be controversial or criticized. He made a decision in the heat of intense enemy fire, with the knowledge at hand.  Gaining a birds eye view from a drone feed can be a significant asset, but it is a shameful prospect to criticize when enabled through replayed footage taken from thousands of feet overhead, many years after.

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the commander on what he is willing to risk to ensure no man is left behind. It is a heavy burden, and may not be worth the loss of others in terms of mission accomplishment. These are decisions made in seconds, and will not be perfect.  It is an unenviable position, and one he or she will undoubtedly debate for a lifetime. 

Sources:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub179.pdf
http://archive.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/2006_0925-Wong_critique.pdf
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA622819
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/hadar-goldin-hannibal-directive
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.608693
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1173/MR1173.chap2.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/world/asia/seal-team-6-afghanistan-man-left-for-dead.html?emc=edit_th_20160828&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=50217936&_r=0

 

Categories
Real men Soldiering War

Some more hard men at war art

Categories
Allies Soldiering War

Battle of Naseby | English Civil Wars | Instruments of Death

Categories
Soldiering War

The Khyber Pass in 1937 during the war in Waziristan

Categories
Allies Soldiering War

The Battle of Abu Klea

Categories
All About Guns Our Great Kids Soldiering The Green Machine

Story of the 2nd Chemical Mortar Battalion

https://youtu.be/Zb6-_ptbOL0

 

Categories
Allies Soldiering War

So true!

Categories
Soldiering War
During the Sack of Rome of 1527, Pope Clement VII was protected by Swiss Guards as he fled the Vatican. Illustration by Marco Heer

The darkest day in the history of the Swiss Guard

The Sack of Rome, or ‘Sacco di Roma’, by the leaderless troops of Charles V on 6 May 1527 ended in a bloodbath that also cost the lives of 147 Swiss guards. Traces of that dark day are still being discovered.

Thomas Weibel

Thomas Weibel

Thomas Weibel is a journalist and Professor of Media Engineering at the Fachhochschule Graubünden and the Hochschule der Künste in Berne.

Forty-three men hurried breathlessly through the torch-lit barrel vault, of Rome’s ‘Passetto di Borgo’ – an 800-metre-long secret passage connecting the Vatican and Castel Sant’Angelo, which from the outside looks like an ordinary wall. Forty-two of the escapees were Swiss guards, under the command of Lieutenant Herkules Göldli from Zurich, and one was Pope Clement VII himself. The escape was successful: the guards and the pope reached Castel Sant’Angelo unscathed.
Pope Clement VII in a painting by Sebastiano del Piombo, circa 1531.The Getty Center
The Sack of Rome that took place on 6 May 1527 was to be a dark day. The unrestrained looting and pillaging by the mainly Lutheran mercenaries of Charles V – the elected but still uncrowned Holy Roman Emperor – was a long time in the making.  For six years, Spain, which was under Charles V’s rule, and France under François I, had been battling for control of northern Italy.
After the devastating defeat of the French army at the Battle of Bicocca in 1522, Pope Clement, who had previously sided with the Spanish-Imperial troops, saw an opportunity. He laid claim to Milan and withdrew from the alliance with Charles V. The Vatican, the Duchy of Milan, the Republic of Venice and other northern Italian city states believed the Holy Roman Emperor had become too powerful and so joined the pro-French League of Cognac in 1526.
Emperor Charles V, painting (sketch) by Titian and his workshop assistant Lambert Sustris, 1548.Alte Pinakothek, Munich
When the English king Henry VIII also left Charles’ alliance, and the Emperor could no longer pay his armies without any lucrative conquests, there followed a mercenary revolt in March 1527.  The German military commander Georg von Frundsberg suffered a stroke, and the leaderless Landsknechte (German troops), Spanish mercenaries and Italian Condottieri embarked on a siege of the city of Florence (which was held by the League of Cognac) to get their hands on its wealth.
The siege dragged on and since there was nothing left to take in the surrounding area, the hungry soldiers decided to wreak revenge on Pope Clement, whom they blamed for their desperate predicament. They abandoned their heavy artillery and marched on Rome.
The ‘Sacco di Roma’ in a painting by Johannes Lingelbach from the 17th century.Wikimedia
In view of the looming disaster, the Pope tried to bribe the imperial commander, Charles III, Duke of Bourbon, with a large sum of money, but it didn’t help: Bourbon refused and anyway the mercenaries were completely mutinous by that point. When they descended on Rome on the morning of 6 May, the few remaining troops in the city could no longer resist the rampant attack.
Helped by a thick fog that had fallen over the city, the attackers stormed the district of Borgo, stretching from the Castel’Sant Angelo to the Vatican. In the process, their leader Bourbon was killed, allegedly by the sculptor Benvenuto Cellini, who later worked for the Pope and boasted of having fired the lethal shot.
Forty-two Swiss Guards brought the Pope to safety, while the remaining 147 men took up position on St. Peter’s Square to protect St. Peter’s Basilica and the Vatican. Alone against the 20,000 attackers, the guards were completely overwhelmed and every single one was massacred.
The next day, the rest of the city fell into the hands of the mercenaries and the months-long sack spiralled completely out of control. Without a leader and on the rampage, the mercenaries roamed the streets, pillaging, raping and murdering.
The Vatican, churches and palaces were looted, noblemen were forced to pay huge ransoms, and citizens were tortured into handing over their valuables.  Even the papal tombs in St. Peter’s Basilica were forced open.
Swiss Guard from the Papal Guard in a print, circa 1850.Swiss National Museum
The Sack of Rome, which was soon reframed as an act of religious war in the wake of the Reformation, went down in history as an unprecedented war crime. The victims numbered in the tens of thousands and 90 per cent of Rome’s art treasures were stolen or destroyed.
The Pope was held prisoner in Castel Sant’Angelo for six months and was only released in exchange for the surrender of extensive territories, including the cities of  Modena, Parma and Piacenza,  and payment of 400,000 ducats.
All 42 Swiss Guards in the Castel Sant’Angelo were killed, and the Swiss Guard was only reformed by Clement’s successor, Pope Paul III, in 1548. To this day, the Swiss Guard commemorates the horrors of that day with the swearing-in ceremony for new recruits, which takes place every year on 6 May in Rome.
Swearing-in ceremony of the Swiss Guard at the Vatican on 6 May 2021.Alessia Giuliani / DUKAS/ABACA
A final trace of Charles V’s murderous band of soldiers only emerged centuries later. The fresco ‘Disputa del Sacramento’, which adorns the walls of the Room of the Segnatura on the second floor of the Vatican, is one of the most famous paintings by Italian Renaissance artist Raphael, and presents Catholic theology as ‘divinarum rerum cognitio’ (knowledge of divine things) through dozens of angels and cherubs, biblical figures, evangelists and church fathers.
When in 1999 restorers took a closer look at the fresco, which measures 7.7 by 5 metres, they discovered that during the Sack of Rome, hate-filled mercenaries had scratched the painting with the words ‘V[ivat] K[arolus] IMP[erator]’ and underneath, probably the worst possible insult for the Catholic Church – the name ‘Luther’.
‘Disputa del Sacramento’ fresco, painting by Raphael, 1509.Wikimedia / Vatican Museums
Scratched name ‘Luther’ in the ‘Disputa del Sacramento’ fresco.Photo: Thomas Weibel