Enfantes Terrible
Our friend Lurch at Main and Central suggested a comment on an infantry article at Armchair Generalist. This is a deviation from my usual commentary--which are deviations in themselves--but I reckon since I've seen Platoon and Gunner Palace, I now qualify as an expert, of sorts.
The article considers the promotion to Brigadier General of Lloyd Austen, and specifically the concern of his commanding officer about placing Brig. Gen. Austen, a paratrooper, at the head of a heavy mechanzied infantry division, and his surprise at how well it all turned out.
First, the idea of General officers is just that. Generals are generalists. In 1969, the 8th Infantry Division was commanded by an artillery officer wearing two bullets on his collar. This was not uncommon. In reality, all combat arms officers generally receive the very same training.
All combat branch courses up to Officer's Advanced (Career) Course are branch-specific. After that, Command and General Staff College and War College are branch immaterial. All branches receive the same training. As I see it, all officers are theoretically trained to employ the concept of the Air Land Battle or the Combined Arms Team Approach.
It is not uncommon for the branches to cross-fertilize. Further, the Infantry Division used to have six infantry and five Armor Battalions, and the Armor Division had six armor and five infantry Battalions. So the difference between Armor and Infantry Division is simply one battalion either way.
Speaking of the infantry as three communities is very misleading. There is only one infantry, and it has the mission to close with the enemy and destroy them with fire and maneuver. The only difference in light infantry, airborne, or mechanized is how they get to the fight. They an walk, ride or jump, but however you cut it, they are all infantry.
Further, the comment "a Marine, is a Marine, is a Marine" is also misleading.
Marines are branch-specific, just as Army officers are. They all have branch occupational specialties. A combat Marine officer could be Artillery, Infantry or Armor, and they traditionally serve in those roles. Marines don't wear branch-specific insignias on their uniforms as does the Army, but their utilization is branch-specific. The only difference between the Army and the Marine Infantry is their mode of transportation.
The Infantry adds class to what would otherwise be an uncouth brawl. Just ask an infantryman, and he'll roger that.
The article considers the promotion to Brigadier General of Lloyd Austen, and specifically the concern of his commanding officer about placing Brig. Gen. Austen, a paratrooper, at the head of a heavy mechanzied infantry division, and his surprise at how well it all turned out.
First, the idea of General officers is just that. Generals are generalists. In 1969, the 8th Infantry Division was commanded by an artillery officer wearing two bullets on his collar. This was not uncommon. In reality, all combat arms officers generally receive the very same training.
All combat branch courses up to Officer's Advanced (Career) Course are branch-specific. After that, Command and General Staff College and War College are branch immaterial. All branches receive the same training. As I see it, all officers are theoretically trained to employ the concept of the Air Land Battle or the Combined Arms Team Approach.
It is not uncommon for the branches to cross-fertilize. Further, the Infantry Division used to have six infantry and five Armor Battalions, and the Armor Division had six armor and five infantry Battalions. So the difference between Armor and Infantry Division is simply one battalion either way.
Speaking of the infantry as three communities is very misleading. There is only one infantry, and it has the mission to close with the enemy and destroy them with fire and maneuver. The only difference in light infantry, airborne, or mechanized is how they get to the fight. They an walk, ride or jump, but however you cut it, they are all infantry.
Further, the comment "a Marine, is a Marine, is a Marine" is also misleading.
Marines are branch-specific, just as Army officers are. They all have branch occupational specialties. A combat Marine officer could be Artillery, Infantry or Armor, and they traditionally serve in those roles. Marines don't wear branch-specific insignias on their uniforms as does the Army, but their utilization is branch-specific. The only difference between the Army and the Marine Infantry is their mode of transportation.
The Infantry adds class to what would otherwise be an uncouth brawl. Just ask an infantryman, and he'll roger that.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 11:03 PM
2 Comments:
While I take your point, not all generals are created equal. There's never been a three or four-star chemical corps general officer. Lots of ordnance 3-4 stars, 3 star engineers, etc, no chem 3 stars. Lots of combat arms general officers, not so much combat service support.
Yeah I overstated the Marine thing but not all infantry are alike. I was in the 10th MTN - I didn't see any treadheads there. And when I went to the $1.97 Inf Bde, just the opposite. No airborne experience past the five jumps it took to get the badge.
J.,
I have to be perfectly clear in the following comment: all Army inf. and Marine Corps Inf. are the same, in that they have the very same mission of closing with the enemy and destrpying them by fire and maneuver. The only difference is the manner in which they get to the battle.
The only distinction I can see is that light inf. does not have an organic ability to kill a large numbers of tanks. In the environment in which we're using our inf. today, that is not a detriment.
Marine Corp. inf. is simply amphibious, mech is clank-clank, and airborne is hit the silk. As for GO's, I'm discussing Green Tab, combat-types only. These are the only types I say are interchangeable. If you'll remember, Mannstein and Rommel were inf. officers, and they did tremendous jobs as armor tacticians and strategists.
There is nothing to keep an inf. officer from commanding an armor div., and vice versa. It would be bad form to put inf. or armor ofcrs. in chg. of artillery units, as that is a technical skill lacking in those branches. The airborne may manuever by making a deep penetration to secure an airhead, as may the Rangers or the air mobile. But once they get there, they all fight the same.
Thanks for reading, I enjoyed your comments. I always enjoy talking to an infantrymen. I was also in the 197, the Flaming Red Dud. Jim
Post a Comment
<< Home