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.

"Alligator Al" wrote in message
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.

>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

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

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" wrote in message
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! =-----

>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

"Alligator Al" wrote in message
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

"Tom Dier" wrote in message
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" wrote in message
> 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! =-----

In article , Ted Gittinger says...
>
>"Alligator Al" wrote in message
>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?

"Alligator Al" wrote in message
news:bkb9ne0271a@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article , Ted Gittinger
says...
> >
> >"Alligator Al" wrote in message
> >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
>