Well, that is usually prompted by a Russian Tank Battalion or 2 moving to the border. It is a cyclical disease that comes and goes with the winds of politics, or the arrival of the bad guys on the doorstep...

"...they didn't even have the right equipment, tools or spares, and when he ordered them, they turned them down saying "it would make us look bad". The command says they can deploy, but really they can't as they are missing 50% of the stuff then need. You cannot make this stuff up, it is real, and it differs from command to command depending on the quality of leadership,..."

This was happening to front line units in West Germany in the later 1950s and 1960......in 1961 it changed to rational......"you need it, you order it and you get it" and pretty quickly (thankfully).

"...in peace there is a lethargy that sets in, where people are more concerned about promotion and next assignment, than the routine day to day business."

Absolutely true! BT

++++++++++++++++++++++++'s BT

+++++++++++++++++++++'s BT

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++'s

Absolutely true! BT

" I think that it may be inescapable that the talents needed to secure rank and advancement in a peacetime military differ from those when war is declared."

Absolutely true! Politics as opposed to combat.
BT

Exactly so, the same issue was found in Submarines, the initial crop of CO's were "timid" according to the admirals, yet they were top performers in peacetime evaluations. That is the same issue that Patton complained about, and he said you have to train like you will fight. It is a complete package, which today is falling apart. They are recalling 1,000 retired pilots to active duty, because they cannot make enough and retain them.

As I said, the conclusion that the article makes - and which you have concisely restated - is likely to be correct. The article itself does seem to be deliberately manipulative in that it presents a conclusion as if it were evidence.

During WWII, my father went from Lt to Lt Col in 9 months because of the upward mobility caused by peacetime officers dying when they contacted enemy action. Once WWII was over, he remained a Col until he retired. I think that it may be inescapable that the talents needed to secure rank and advancement in a peacetime military differ from those when war is declared.

Jan

Well, I see it more as an indictment of a system that has pushed ships and men too far because of budget cuts, and people wanting to advance. If you recall your history, it is similar in many respects to what was well known in the Navy pre pearl Harbor and was ignored into it. It is a false framework of "what is real" to somepeople and what is "really real". Command Climate surveys are completely anonymous and will tell you the truth. While it is complicated in that we do have the snowflake contingent to worry about, it appears the Captain Queeg syndrome is also afoot

I read it - and reread it at your urging (it was a busy week and it has taken me long to answer). What I was referring to, and did not see, was a space where one of the ranking officers said, "Half of the crew are the trash and troublemakers from the other units and the other half is snowflakes who expect to be treated like celebrities. We are doing the best we can with what we have."

Now, this may not be the objective truth, but it probably represents what the captain and officers think and if there is no place in the article for 'the other side of the story' then I think it is manipulative. Take another look at the structure of the article: it is an officer sandwich. The first half and the last paragraphs are all 'crew', then there comes a bit on the officers, the the summation is all crew.

I kinda think that the article is more accurate than otherwise, but I also think that it intends to be manipulative and make sure that the 'stupid little people' who read it come to the correct conclusion.

My spidy sense is tingling.

Jan

Well, there are aspects to this that are just hard to fathom, as this is a standard process even business does, but the incentives to cut are greater. The military has no bonus, incentives to reduce costs, and the military industrial complex is never satisfied. The money wasted each year on stuff that is not needed, wanted or just doesn't work, is amazing but few people beyond active duty and retired pay attention to it, and understand what is real and needed, and what is BS and not.

Regarding the first part, I actually want very drastic reductions in the military and to replace it with something more like well-regulated militia of armed and equipped citizens. But we're having this discussion on such a stupid partisan level, with name calling and all, in way that I think even a child could see through. I think it's asinine. Maybe one day I'll learn that behind the crassness of it, there were real points about how the US can remain a democratic republic, stay solvent, and manage in a world where it's accepted as a fact of life that US is the only superpower and responsible for policing the world. Sorry for so much text just to say I do not get it.

Well, in pictures it looks pretty nasty with .50 cal and a 20 mm and grenade launcher. Of course, that implies you have ammo and the will to use it, and not afraid of ROE you can't file into a bucket exactly. They were right in the issue of navigation, it wasn't too hard to say "that way".

Exactly, I signed for 6, and got NO bonus, but they did have one for re-enlisting. It was all NEC driven and I had an ancient NEC (old, old handwheel sonars...)

They offered me nuke (8 years) too..they promised me a $60K signing bonus. When a red Porsche flashed into my mind I chose to stick with my College Program (2x6). I'm more of a jeep guy. Besides if I couldn't handle the math (possibility) I would have been on the hook for 8 years and have to refund the money.

With the rules of engagement O had in place unilaterally and his DESIRE to tear down the US while helping his brethren I have no doubt that's exactly what happened.

Since when in potentially hostile waters does a naval patrol boat not have weapons on board.

I was on assault craft and in friendly waters we always had at least one rifleman and someone with a pistol. A patrol boat would have had to be armed not only with personal arms but something mounted as well, until ordered otherwise (in hostile waters that would constitute dereliction of duty from the local command and, if it was an order, TREASON. Considering Benghazi......

That is possible, but as I recall they were not that well armed. Also, it seemed the Navy whitewashed the whole deal in a typically democratic slanting of their report, to blame the leadership, although, it may well be accurate:

https://navaltoday.com/2016/07/01/riv...

Doc, you are right on the money.

Read the Navy Times article:

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-n...

Oh yea, here is the final piece:



Rick Hoffman, a retired Navy captain whose years in uniform included command stints on the frigate De Wert and the cruiser Hue City, said he was “flabbergasted” by portions of the surveys and how they were “uniformly focused on the Captain and his leadership style.

“Almost all were negative and suggested he was insensitive to the crew’s needs,” Hoffman said. “It certainly appeared he was increasingly toxic over time.”

The reports depict a poster child for bad surface warfare officers, he said.

“Long hours, no communication, CO is a micromanager, chain of command is not functioning unit,” Hoffman said. “Crew pushed to exhaustion with no end in sight.”

Not just snowflakes, but aholes in charge.

Also there was this nugget:

“The disrespect shown to Sailors in this ship was unforgivable,” said Wallace Lovely, a retired Navy captain and surface warfare officer who led Destroyer Squadron 31 after serving as the commander of the Frigate Samuel B. Roberts.

That seems pretty damning.

Nope, read the article and comments above from the Navy Times, this dude tossed people in the brig on bread and water. Not a good morale program. Also, while it may be some mellineal meltdown, poor leadership, dumb ideas, and the attitude of "Shut up, I am smart you are not" can permeate a command. I have 2 son's in the Army, both at 17 years or so, and they say the same thing about the crappy leadership, incompetent officers, and the need to get grades and awards, and hide failure. One son took over a battalion mechanic area in FT Lewis, and they didin't even have the right equipment, tools or spares, and when he ordered them, the turned them down saying "it would make us look bad". The command says they can deploy, but really they can't as they are missing 50% of the stuff then need. You cannot make this stuff up, it is real, and it differs from command to command depending on the quality of leadership, and how much they want to lie.

Every command is different, every story varies. It is driven by three people: CO, XO, and Command Master Chief. Any one of the three can be a douche, and just mess up the command, if all three are, you will have a "prison ship".

Did you read the Navy Times article:

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-n...

"These comments are not unique. Each survey runs hundreds of pages, with crew members writing anonymously of dysfunction from the top, suicidal thoughts, exhaustion, despair and concern that the Shiloh was being pushed underway while vital repairs remained incomplete."

"Frequently in focus is the commanding officer’s micromanagement and a neutered chiefs mess. Aycock was widely feared among sailors who said minor on-the-job mistakes often led to time in the brig, where they would be fed only bread and water."

"While government watchdogs have warned of such issues for years, the Navy’s problems have come back in to the spotlight in the wake of this summer’s at-sea collisions involving the destroyers Fitzgerald and John S. McCain, disasters that killed 17 sailors. The Shiloh belongs to the same chain of command as those two ships, where several top admirals were recently fired."

I have NEVER, in 20 years of service, heard of anyone going to the brig, or bread and water, for ANYTHING. If you got that far, you were discharged. There is something seriously screwed up, if that is what they are doing today.

This sounds like typical Washington BS crap: "

Navy officials declined to discuss survey details, but acknowledged that Aycock’s superiors at Task Force 70 were aware of problems after the first negative survey taken two months into his command.

Aycock’s bosses were tracking the dysfunction and counseling the captain, officials said, yet Aycock remained on the job and rotated out in a standard change-of-command ceremony on Aug. 30."
You do NOT have a CO show up, take command, and THEN get "counseling" on how to be a commander, and ruin a ships crew, and then be allowed to go away gracefully. That sounds a lot like all the crap from DC, where Hillary breaks the law, gets away. Comey lies to congress, gets away. Money is exchanged for half of our uranium, enriching Clinton's, gets away. No accountability, just the "good ol boy gang". The Command Master Chief must have been a puss.