|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Register | Video Directory | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Games | Today's Posts | Search | Chat Room |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
To The Artillery Officers
I just recieved an e-mail from an infantry officer whom I served under. I was
wrong about not being able to get artillery because of the terrain. For that part I appologize. Y'all were right. This is his e-mail: Dean: I don't remember any occasions where we did not have artillery support. I know that I always looked for our artillery FO and he was there. Most of the time we moved as a company and had the FO with us. When we did platoon operations, we usually had the artillery recon sergeant to handle the artillery or a mortar FO who would do the same thing. We did not use mortars much as we could not get the overhead clearance to shoot them. Normally when we used F4s and other aircraft, it was simply that they were in the area. In a fight, you could not bring them in close which was usually what we needed. There were occasions when our artillery support was 155 instead of 105. They had longer range but we could not bring them in as close as the 105 because of the concussion and shrapnel. It was more concussion than shrapnel really. You remember the fight we were in that I did the write-up on and the artillery was only about 250 meters away. We took casualties but we survived. You remember the time we got artillery hitting the tree tops? It must have been August or September and one of the guys got wounded. He came back a month or so later and I believe he was killed on November 21. What happened was the artillery did not compensate for the height of the trees when they fired the mission. The map may have said hill 325 and of course that meant the top of the hill was 325 metes above sea level. But there were trees on that hill that were another 20-40 meters tall making hill 325 actually hill 365. On my second tour as a company commander, I had my 105 hand. I would put my thumb on the location of the artillery on the map and then stretch my hand to its fullest. Where my middle finger hit was the max range of the 105. On one occasion, the new battalion S3 (operations officer) gave me a mission that was out of 105 range. I checked the map found this out and called him and told him that we weren't going. He asked why and I told him that it was out of 105 range. He told me that we had 155 and I said no we could not bring it in close. He told me that I would have to talk to the battalion commander and I said put him on. He got on the horn and I explained the problem. He agreed and the mission was changed. |
Sponsored Links |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To The Artillery Officers
"Alligator Al" news:bk8nn402rf9@drn.newsguy.com... > I just recieved an e-mail from an infantry officer whom I served under. I was > wrong about not being able to get artillery because of the terrain. For that > part I appologize. Y'all were right. This is his e-mail: > > Dean: > I don't remember any occasions where we did not have artillery support. Dear Dean / Alligator Al, Admitting an error is a tough, but good thing. Might be good if everyone of us, worked harder to take less offense, and make fewer accusations. The vast majority of us who went to Vietnam, tried hard to do our best and to do the right thing. Just because things do not go well ("shit hits the fan") does not mean a leader was reckless and thoughtless and without feeling. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To The Artillery Officers
>I was
>wrong about not being able to get artillery because of the terrain. For that >part I appologize. Y'all were right. This is his e-mail: > dino, What else are you wrong about? I'm still curious about your Top Sgt being in the field. Did he hump with your unit? What was his job; rifleman, point, commander, flanker? Everybody had a job assignment. Where was he in the field chain of command? Greg |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To The Artillery Officers
In article <20030917125350.16681.00001361@mb-m02.news.cs.com>, GrgLnsctt says...
> >>I was >>wrong about not being able to get artillery because of the terrain. For that >>part I appologize. Y'all were right. This is his e-mail: >> > >dino, > >What else are you wrong about? > >I'm still curious about your Top Sgt being in the field. Did he hump with your >unit? What was his job; rifleman, point, commander, flanker? Everybody had a >job assignment. Where was he in the field chain of command? > >Greg |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To The Artillery Officers
Gregg,
There were two different First Sergeants in our company while I was out in the field. I believe that you also were in 1/52, or at least the 198th. I would guess that these First Shirts spent 1/3 to 1/2 their time in the field. My first CO insisted that the Top spend time in the field. After that CO left, we had Commanding Officers who were very inexperienced, so the second First Sergeant spent as much time as he could in the field to help out the new COs and the inexperienced NCOs. Your Top evidentally "got over". Tom Dier Americal Division 1970 "GrgLnsctt" news:20030917125350.16681.00001361@mb-m02.news.cs.com... > >I was > >wrong about not being able to get artillery because of the terrain. For that > >part I appologize. Y'all were right. This is his e-mail: > > > > dino, > > What else are you wrong about? > > I'm still curious about your Top Sgt being in the field. Did he hump with your > unit? What was his job; rifleman, point, commander, flanker? Everybody had a > job assignment. Where was he in the field chain of command? > > Greg -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To The Artillery Officers
>There were two different First Sergeants in our company while I was out in
>the field. I believe that you also were in 1/52, or at least the 198th. > Tom, 1/52 is correct, C & D Co. Our Top Sgt was an older guy and carried quite a few extra pounds. I'm very sure he wouldn't have been able to keep up. Seems to me we humped from daybreak to sundown with a few breaks here and there. Our Battalion Commanders were gung-ho and kept us going at a quick pace. Best Regards Greg |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To The Artillery Officers
"Alligator Al" news:bkac450260g@drn.newsguy.com... > In article <20030917125350.16681.00001361@mb-m02.news.cs.com>, GrgLnsctt says... > > > >>I was > >>wrong about not being able to get artillery because of the terrain. For that > >>part I appologize. Y'all were right. This is his e-mail: > >> > > > >dino, > > > >What else are you wrong about? > > You agreed with me idiot! What else are you wrong about? > > >I'm still curious about your Top Sgt being in the field. Did he hump with your > >unit? What was his job; rifleman, point, commander, flanker? Everybody had a > >job assignment. Where was he in the field chain of command? > > > >Greg > > I sent this a few minutes ago and my reply did not go through? Anyway, Top did > whatever in the hell pleased him. What pleased him was going to the field and > humping and killing Charlie. He killed with a vengeance which I have never > witnessed in another man. Charlie couldn't be too dead - if you know what I > mean. There's a long story behind it but I'm too busy to type it all over > again. He was killed long after I left the Company. Sigh. After a brief window of lucidity, you revert to form. This is sad, Shultis. And I say it without sarcasm. ted |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To The Artillery Officers
"Tom Dier" news:3f68ea62_4@corp.newsgroups.com... > Gregg, > > There were two different First Sergeants in our company while I was out in > the field. I believe that you also were in 1/52, or at least the 198th. > > I would guess that these First Shirts spent 1/3 to 1/2 their time in the > field. > > My first CO insisted that the Top spend time in the field. After that CO > left, we had Commanding Officers who were very inexperienced, so the second > First Sergeant spent as much time as he could in the field to help out the > new COs and the inexperienced NCOs. > > Your Top evidentally "got over". > > Tom Dier > Americal Division 1970 Our direct support 105mm battalion batteries each had a first sergeant to keep things in good order at An Khe base camp, and a senior NCO "field first" who did a first sergeant's duties out in the LZ's. It worked for us, but there isn't anything ironclad about such a system. Some first sergeants could take field duty with no problem; others were good administrators but not at their best in the field. Actually our battalion commanders were in roughly comparable shape, where age and such were concerned, although I would guess that the first sergeants had things somewhat rougher, out there with the firing batteries. Our battalion CO had a hex tent, all to himself. What luxury. All of our battalion CO's went to the field, or at least to the operational LZs. Anything else would have been instant cause for loss of confidence in him. In Vietnam, "luxury" was definitely a relative term. At the bottom was the situation of those grunts who slept in their temporary holes, dug at last light. In the Delta, this might mean that they would be soaked, at high tide. In the Highlands, in the rainy season, it meant that they would be not only wet but damned cold. In either case, sleep deprivation was a constant torture. This is a truth that the combat infantry has always known, since the Romans. Such soldiers can fall asleep at the slightest provocation. They sleep when they can. The two guys I remember having it cushy were the battalion surgeon and his assistant, a Spec 6. They shared a hex tent, and unlimited access to medical alcohol, and often to Tanqueray, mixed with canned grapefruit juice. No, I never took part. ted who never lies > > > "GrgLnsctt" > news:20030917125350.16681.00001361@mb-m02.news.cs.com... > > >I was > > >wrong about not being able to get artillery because of the terrain. For > that > > >part I appologize. Y'all were right. This is his e-mail: > > > > > > > dino, > > > > What else are you wrong about? > > > > I'm still curious about your Top Sgt being in the field. Did he hump with > your > > unit? What was his job; rifleman, point, commander, flanker? Everybody had > a > > job assignment. Where was he in the field chain of command? > > > > Greg > > > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To The Artillery Officers
In article
> >"Alligator Al" >news:bkac450260g@drn.newsguy.com... >Top did >> whatever in the hell pleased him. What pleased him was going to the field >and >> humping and killing Charlie. He killed with a vengeance which I have >never >> witnessed in another man. Charlie couldn't be too dead - if you know what >I >> mean. There's a long story behind it but I'm too busy to type it all over >> again. He was killed long after I left the Company. > >Sigh. After a brief window of lucidity, you revert to form. This is sad, >Shultis. And I say it without sarcasm. > >ted The scuttlebutt at the time was that Top's wife had divorced him and he vowed to never to return to the US alive. Later one of our Company Commanders said that he had 3 wives in the US and refused to return home. When Top's tour was up, he took his 30 day leave in the Orient. He never returned home alive. He bragged about how he had been busted to Corporal for beating the shit out of an officer. I saw him threaten a Captain - and I mean threaten him! No one doubted that Top would carry out his threats, yet he was still distantly respected by some. Some sergeants said he was mean and didn't like him. Personally I never had any confrontation with him and we got along fine, yet there was an occasion when I shot a VC and was standing by his body when Top walked up and asked if the VC was dead. When I told him that he was dead, Top said, "Good!" The most heroic deed that I did was with Top by my side and I guess he respected me for that... Am I still reverting to form? Would you rather me lie? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To The Artillery Officers
"Alligator Al" news:bkb9ne0271a@drn.newsguy.com... > In article says... > > > >"Alligator Al" > >news:bkac450260g@drn.newsguy.com... > >Top did > >> whatever in the hell pleased him. What pleased him was going to the field > >and > >> humping and killing Charlie. He killed with a vengeance which I have > >never > >> witnessed in another man. Charlie couldn't be too dead - if you know what > >I > >> mean. There's a long story behind it but I'm too busy to type it all over > >> again. He was killed long after I left the Company. > > > >Sigh. After a brief window of lucidity, you revert to form. This is sad, > >Shultis. And I say it without sarcasm. > > > >ted > > The scuttlebutt at the time was that Top's wife had divorced him and he vowed to > never to return to the US alive. Later one of our Company Commanders said that > he had 3 wives in the US and refused to return home. When Top's tour was up, he > took his 30 day leave in the Orient. He never returned home alive. > He bragged about how he had been busted to Corporal for beating the shit out of > an officer. I saw him threaten a Captain - and I mean threaten him! No one > doubted that Top would carry out his threats, yet he was still distantly > respected by some. Some sergeants said he was mean and didn't like him. > Personally I never had any confrontation with him and we got along fine, yet > there was an occasion when I shot a VC and was standing by his body when Top > walked up and asked if the VC was dead. When I told him that he was dead, Top > said, "Good!" > The most heroic deed that I did was with Top by my side and I guess he respected > me for that... > > Am I still reverting to form? Would you rather me lie? Lie away, old boy. Whatever floats your boat. Your reputation is long established, and probably beyond your ability to repais. As for me, your chief value lies in your being able to post outlandish nonsense, which then gets thunderously refuted by everyone else on the NG. I need the amusement. ted > |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Officers/sargent/ E4 or less | 39mto39g | Vietnam | 47 | 10-23-2005 10:11 AM |
Artillery | catman | Military Weapons | 1 | 01-31-2005 04:48 PM |
Officers vs Non-officers | 39mto39g | Vietnam | 7 | 04-08-2004 07:21 AM |
Artillery Support | Alligator Al | General | 0 | 09-11-2003 07:21 PM |
|