|
HEY GAL posted:speaking of, we can go into combat in the US armed forces now Don't leech images. Also, don't post really dumb images. This would be more important if the U.S. military was conscripted, rather than volunteers. I appreciated the USSR's actions re: female personnel in WWII, doing things like replacing rear area logis and tech personel with the new rounds of drafted females, and then putting that "recaptured" manpower to use forming fresh infantry armies. That's loving nice micromanagement and attention to detail. Somebody fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Dec 15, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
Keldoclock posted:This would be more important if the U.S. military was conscripted, rather than volunteers. also some feminists have been agitating for us to also have to do selective service for a while
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Can you at least put "timg" tags while posting something obviously  ?E: Beaten by HEY GAL.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Can you at least put "timg" tags while posting something obviously
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:in a modern nationalist nation-state, either serving in the military or the ability to potentially serve in the military is often seen as the price of participation in the public sphere, so it's still important, imo I guess I don't see that- in my eyes politics, even international politics, and nationalistic fervor are not necessarily things that must or even should go together. I don't see the point, if there is a manpower shortage sufficient enough that the first wave of drafts is insufficient, they'll come after the women at the same time they come after the college students, workers and people with light disabilities (i.e. something like sclerosis, that would disqualify from frontline service but not rear echelon support). IMO at that point you are basically squeezing blood from a stone, militarily speaking, so I can't say it seems like the best idea. Are there even any figures on what percentage of a population you'd get like that? You'd only be able to take 1. single or married without children healthy women of the correct age, who didn't try to dodge the draft but hadn't enlisted to start with 2. Healthy women with children who's partner had not already been drafted who didn't try to dodge the draft but hadn't enlisted to start with And those 2 groups have to not already be spoken for by some sort of militarily necessary function at home. e: I only use timg tags to prevent breaking tables. That comic is officially sanctioned by the U.S.M.C. , so it has at least some relevance in a military discussion. We don't have to be serious all the time, buddy. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:I don't see the point, if there is a manpower shortage sufficient enough that the first wave of drafts is insufficient, they'll come after the women at the same time they come after the college students, workers and people with light disabilities (i.e. something like sclerosis, that would disqualify from frontline service but not rear echelon support). IMO at that point you are basically squeezing blood from a stone, militarily speaking, so I can't say it seems like the best idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Shut up Keldoclock.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:While French soldiers didn't literally have to forage like in Napoleon's days, they were expected to cook their own food from whatever ingredients they were given by the quartermaster, just like they were expected to find their own way to the rear if they were given leave. OK, so what exactly is your source on this? I'd really like to get into the detail of this sort of thing because on the face of it, from what I've been reading, the situation doesn't seem too different. In the line, Louis Barthas's food is prepared by a field-kitchen and brought to him ready to eat by his mate Terrisse the rationer, whether he's in a quiet sector or in the middle of a major offensive; Tommy's food (and letters; the British army postal service was explicitly designed to send mail up with the rations) arrives with a carrying-party in the same way. Sometimes that means they get a hot meal with tea or coffee. (Barthas expects coffee brought to him; Tommy generally brews his own tea in a dugout.) More often it means that someone arrives with tins of bully beef, dumps them in a dugout in front of the sergeant, and advances quickly to the rear before they can get shelled; so it's eaten cold with bread or hard tack biscuit, and jam if you're lucky. Louis Barthas literally complains about everything else. If he was being brought ingredients and told to turn them into food, I'd expect him to never shut up about it. He's never mentioned it. He does frequently mention the coffee arriving cold and the bread arriving covered in mud; and he does mention when he gets a chance to, ahem, unofficially supplement his diet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:(Barthas expects coffee brought to him; Tommy generally brews his own tea in a dugout.) 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:it is symbolically important. a healthy woman isn't a disabled person and shouldn't be treated like one. if she has the same rights as her male counterpart she should have the same obligations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Shut up Keldoclock.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:29
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
MikeCrotch posted:It's more ingrained in military culture than purely the fact that the French were defending their own soil, although that did come into it. A lot of it was the fact that since basically the end of the Napoleonic wars the French were always fighting the last war. In the case of troops, supply and morale the French were still very much in the vein of harsh discipline, strict border between officers and enlisted and leaving the soldiers to fend for themselves in terms of comfort and food. While French soldiers didn't literally have to forage like in Napoleon's days, they were expected to cook their own food from whatever ingredients they were given by the quartermaster, just like they were expected to find their own way to the rear if they were given leave. Err...you realise 'the last war' for France was 1870, not 1815, right?  I mean I assume you mean Napoleon I and not III there.Edit: and as for the British remembering Crimea, uh, the French were on our side in that one too! feedmegin fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:it is symbolically important. a healthy woman isn't a disabled person and shouldn't be treated like one. if she has the same rights as her male counterpart she should have the same obligations. I guess I don't think at the metaphorical level. Obviously a woman who is not disabled isn't a disabled person. But infantry aren't chosen based on their personhood, infantry are like machines made of meat employed to capture and hold land. Required to slog poo poo, fiercely resist attacks, maybe an assault or two without combined arms support if the situation is desperate. Like, here's a guard, right?  This guard's primary job is not to shoot poo poo, although she's armed because there's no reason not to arm your guards, the primary job is to stay alert. You have to choose the right tool for the right job. But again, this is either a rear echelon role or some sort of desperate manpower shortage- no uniform (or it's a PT uniform being worn on duty, so there's no expectation of danger? Forget about ammunition carried on the person of that guard, is there even ammunition in the Uzi? What if this is just a propagandist's photograph?), no armor. Even in the IDF, which has had a long and storied history of female service alongside a long and storied history of manpower shortages, women make up 3% of the IDF's combat soldiers. Since they are conscripts and there is no de jure ban on service, I only see 3 possibilities. 1. There is a de facto prohibition on female service in certain combat roles (probably true, but if there was a severe manpower shortage again this would probably stop being true, if is now) 2. Only 3% of conscript-able women are fit to serve in combat roles (Might be true, but I would wager that more probably it's #3) 3. Both of these, with #1 causing an artificially low number for #2 (but still considerable) Essentially my argument is the obvious one, sex is a very good gross selection metric for quickly eliminating ineligible conscripts. Therefore female conscription should be second-wave, to reduce in half the size of the recruitment and training apparatus needed to provide for these fresh soldiers, permitting the resulting training to be of higher quality or freeing up resources for another task. Indeed this approach seems to have been the one taken by most groups which have had high mobilization rates (North Korea, Israel in A-I and YK wars, USSR in WWII, Polish AK in WWII) In all of those 4 examples, female officers were prevalent at about the same rates as male ones. That's totally fine, and in fact is probably an improvement; if you have twice as many cadets to draw from, you can raise your cutting scores and have a higher quality officer corps for the same money. That's pretty sweet, and it is regrettable that social factors such as institutional sexism are impeding it. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:1. There is a de facto prohibition on female service in certain combat roles (probably true, but if there was a severe manpower shortage again this would probably stop being true, if is now)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:women were prohibited from serving in combat roles in the idf until 2000 Yes, I know, but the normal length of compulsory service in the IDF is currently three years for men and two years for women. It's been 15 years, so these would have cycled out long ago and the statistics would be in their "natural" state. Are there other possibilities I did not consider? Are you suggesting that there are institutional effects that lasted 15 years? It's not unlikely but how much of an effect would there be? Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
They reintroduced the draft last year where we are. One of my former classmates was touting it as the best thing ever and oh how the men who get called are heroes and all, and she'd go if the constitution let them draft women. ...totally ignoring the fact that volunteer service is open to everyone no matter what dangles between your legs. That's the only time I cared at all about women not getting drafted (what, how would that make me getting drafted less bad for me?). I'll shut up about women in the army before I keldoclock myself. If some lady wants to live out her tank girl fantasies, she's more than welcome to an Abrams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
I think a woman started a court case recently to try and get women added to the US draft, no idea if anything has come of it though. And I think that the IDF found that mixed men and women units had higher casualty rates than single sex units, so now they have "amazon" brigades. I support this idea, because we need throw backs to older history/mythology at every opportunity. While we're on women in combat, is there any possible basis for Amazons? I've been thinking that perhaps some Scythians had women fighting on horseback and the legend goes from "these barbarians had women fighting" to "these barbarians had only women fighting" when nobody sees the nomads for a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
WW2 Data The 14cm shells have begun landing in the blog post. Interestingly, we see one projectile listed as "Common Capped" implying it is an armor-piercing naval round. However, is that because the common round is not armor-piercing or is it because it is only semi-armor-piercing? I'm not quite sure on which. It's also interesting to see that the 2 parachutes needed for the 14cm illuminating round weight slightly less than 1 quarter of the total weight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:And I think that the IDF found that mixed men and women units had higher casualty rates than single sex units, so now they have "amazon" brigades. I support this idea, because we need throw backs to older history/mythology at every opportunity. I'm sorry dude, I don't believe this without evidence. AFAIK there are only two combat battalions with female soldiers (and that's mixed) in the IDF and I have never heard of an all-female brigade. That would be something like at least 3,000 female soldiers with their own support units. I think I would have come across something like this in my searches relevant to this discussion. Perhaps you are confusing it with this study by the U.S.M.C., which did have such a finding?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:It's more ingrained in military culture than purely the fact that the French were defending their own soil, although that did come into it. A lot of it was the fact that since basically the end of the Napoleonic wars the French were always fighting the last war. In the case of troops, supply and morale the French were still very much in the vein of harsh discipline, strict border between officers and enlisted and leaving the soldiers to fend for themselves in terms of comfort and food. While French soldiers didn't literally have to forage like in Napoleon's days, they were expected to cook their own food from whatever ingredients they were given by the quartermaster, just like they were expected to find their own way to the rear if they were given leave. I was disappointed when I learned that the legend of Chicken Marengo being created by Bonaparte's chef by using whatever supplies were on hand after that climatic battle wasn't true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:While we're on women in combat, is there any possible basis for Amazons? I've been thinking that perhaps some Scythians had women fighting on horseback and the legend goes from "these barbarians had women fighting" to "these barbarians had only women fighting" when nobody sees the nomads for a while. I don't know about the original Amazons (though it doesn't seem beyond belief that some group of people, somewhere, had all-female military units at the very least), but there are these chicks from 19th century Africa - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Somewhere Angela Merkel is looking at a crown of 12 stars, and a single tear drops from her face. why aim low?  
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:OK, so what exactly is your source on this? I'd really like to get into the detail of this sort of thing because on the face of it, from what I've been reading, the situation doesn't seem too different. In the line, Louis Barthas's food is prepared by a field-kitchen and brought to him ready to eat by his mate Terrisse the rationer, whether he's in a quiet sector or in the middle of a major offensive; Tommy's food (and letters; the British army postal service was explicitly designed to send mail up with the rations) arrives with a carrying-party in the same way. Sometimes that means they get a hot meal with tea or coffee. (Barthas expects coffee brought to him; Tommy generally brews his own tea in a dugout.) More often it means that someone arrives with tins of bully beef, dumps them in a dugout in front of the sergeant, and advances quickly to the rear before they can get shelled; so it's eaten cold with bread or hard tack biscuit, and jam if you're lucky. It was covered in The Swordbearers which goes into detail on the reforms made to the army, which includes ones about food. Its an older work though and I haven't read many French primary sources, so I admit I might be full of poo poo on that point. feedmegin posted:Err...you realise 'the last war' for France was 1870, not 1815, right? When I was talking about Napoleon I meant more about the mentality that the French were invoking, since that was the last time the French were actually kicking rear end (until they weren't). What I meant about the 'last war syndrome' is that the French always seem to be one war behind at this period, and always taking away the wrong impression. Like getting their asses kicked in 1870 largely because of the Prussian advantage in fast fire artillery. Great! We will create the soixante-quinze, one of the greatest artillery pieces of WWI to make up for it...and totally neglect to make any piece of artillery larger than 75mm in what will be the greatest artillery war of all time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:What I meant about the 'last war syndrome' is that the French always seem to be one war behind at this period, and always taking away the wrong impression. Like getting their asses kicked in 1870 largely because of the Prussian advantage in fast fire artillery. Great! We will create the soixante-quinze, one of the greatest artillery pieces of WWI to make up for it...and totally neglect to make any piece of artillery larger than 75mm in what will be the greatest artillery war of all time. Everyone is always fighting the last war, and to think that's a uniquely French phenomenon is lazy at best. The Germans had extremely similar problems with the development of anything remotely heavy (pre-war) other than the 10.5 FH 98/09 or straight up 210mm siege mortars. Nobody had enough tubes at any point in the war, especially heavy stuff. The French got the L13S in to production very quickly, all things considered. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Tias posted:You know, things would still be pretty good if you people stopped reacting to him. Saving this for later. There's quite a few things that diverge from the norm or, at the very least, have projectiles/functions that diverge from the norm. Anti-air mortar projectiles being one of them. Some variants were fired from ground-based mortars, while others were fired from boats. Although, when you say "in the area" do you mean the Western Front? One thing that comes to mind, for the Western Front, was the use of the 2.8 cm sPzB 41 (schwere PanzerBuchse) which worked on the squeeze-bore principle (otherwise called a Tapered bore) where the projectile achieves a higher muzzle velocity as it travels down a barrel who's diameter gets progressively smaller the further out it gets. Squeeze bore guns are harder to manufacture and more expensive and, along with a short barrel lifespan, not worth the investment. The LittleJohn adapter, used on the Tetrarch, worked on the same principle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
The other relevant thing about 1870 though is that the cult of the offensive is a massive overreaction to the failings of the French doctrine of the time, which was to pack your regiments shoulder to shoulder in entrenched positions and use massed rifle fire to cut down the enemy. The French suffered heavily from Prussian artillery, which they learned from, but the other lesson they learned is that even the strongest defensive position in the world is worthless if the enemy aggressively manoeuvres around it. What they didn't count on was a solid line forming from border to sea so that all operational movement ceased.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Squeeze bore guns are harder to manufacture and more expensive and, along with a short barrel lifespan, not worth the investment. I thought it was the ammo that was the issue? Especially the need for tungsten.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I thought it was the ammo that was the issue? Especially the need for tungsten. Well, tungsten was in short supply, so both that and the added cost don't really make it worth using. *The lack of tungsten was more important in the gun's "demise" than the cost, to be more precise*
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I thought it was the ammo that was the issue? Especially the need for tungsten. Oh yeah, big time. The German Pak 41 needed one kilogram of tungsten per shot. I'm surprised any were manufactured at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
I always expected that the whole deal with the French was just that they were a way more classist society, although that's may just be my personal bias and conflating eras at work there. Keldoclock posted:This would be more important if the U.S. military was conscripted, rather than volunteers. While women are being allowed into combat roles, they still aren't eligible for conscription. That was the chief argument against the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70s. It's mostly academic right now, because the US government is doing its damndest to avoid resorting to another draft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I always expected that the whole deal with the French was just that they were a way more classist society, although that's may just be my personal bias and conflating eras at work there. More classicist than who? The Edwardian English? I don't think there is an adequate explanation to be found in national stereotypes; it's just that treating enlisted soldiers with a modicum of respect is a fairly recent concept.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I always expected that the whole deal with the French was just that they were a way more classist society, although that's may just be my personal bias and conflating eras at work there. Than Great Britain? Definitely not, at least as far as military hierarchy went. Until the Crimean War, the usual method of advancement in the British army was to purchase your commission. Even after that was removed, life as an officer in a combat regiment required a standard of living which was much more expensive than the wages allowed for. Possibly it was the other way round? During the 19th century a lot of regiments were majority Irish, or recruited in areas of Scotland that had revolted in '45, or were just made up of 'the scum of earth,' meaning that officers didn't have any illusions about the fact that their men would have no qualms about rebeling if they weren't given some quality of life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:While women are being allowed into combat roles, they still aren't eligible for conscription. That was the chief argument against the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70s. It's mostly academic right now, because the US government is doing its damndest to avoid resorting to another draft. If we had a war where a draft was actually a reasonable option that the public could support (as opposed to Vietnam, which was shoving kids into a meat grinder across the world for no good reason), volunteers would likely be mostly suitable manpower. While reading about World War II, I saw someone say that the "12 million of 15 million soldiers were draftees" number is actually misleading because the army stopped allowing enlistment of eligible draftees starting in January 1943, and potential volunteers could only list a preference for their service and wait to be drafted. Instead, enlistment was restricted to people who were normally not part of the draft like women and older professionals (like lawyers) and pre-draft high school students. Is this accurate? I can't easily find online sources corroborating it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
If the US ever gets in a war where they need to re institute the draft I suspect we'll be having bigger problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Not that I disagree with your main point, but strictly speaking didn't the Victorians start that up in the first place? The White Man's Burden and all that. The idea of going to war and doing 'orrible things in the short run to make things better for the people there in the long run isn't THAT new. The first two Roman-Carthaginian wars were officially kicked off by Rome supporting a nominal ally. The second war was actually instigated by the Romans signing a treaty with a city in Spain explicitly because they expected Hannibal to attack it soon. At the time Rome had no real interest or assets in the area and made exactly 0 effort to support their "allies." If you read Ceasar's writing about the Gallic Wars he uses this kind of excuse all the time. "Oh no! The vicious and skilled X are about to overrun Y. Y is (according-to-Julius-Ceasar) an ally of Rome. I must immediately raise more soldiers and march over the border to rescue Y."
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
LLSix posted:The first two Roman-Carthaginian wars were officially kicked off by Rome supporting a nominal ally. The second war was actually instigated by the Romans signing a treaty with a city in Spain explicitly because they expected Hannibal to attack it soon. At the time Rome had no real interest or assets in the area and made exactly 0 effort to support their "allies." Putin's got the universal Caesar playbook and he's running it step by step.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:If we had a war where a draft was actually a reasonable option that the public could support (as opposed to Vietnam, which was shoving kids into a meat grinder across the world for no good reason), volunteers would likely be mostly suitable manpower. This is correct, you can read the relevant executive order here. I think this has been sort of overlooked in the ongoing backlash against the "greatest generation" narrative of which I am an enthusiastic participant, and I have in fact used the "most of the force in WWII had to be conscripted, where's your patriotism now you old bastards" line despite knowing what actually happened. Bad form, I know, but I really hate Tom Brokaw. It made a lot of sense at the time; in WWI the huge surge of volunteers included a lot of "war essential" personnel which the military generally happily accepted, which then led to an assortment of minor headaches which again started to appear at the start of WWII. In addition, if they used the draft exclusively they could carefully manage the number of men taken in so as not to either overwhelm or underuse training facilities, plus it let them better manage the quality level of recruits across the services. That being said it would have been seriously weird to be a 20 year old in 1943, wanting to do nothing more than go fight Nazis, but the government just says WE'LL CALL YOU IF WE NEED YOU.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
anyone have an idea how many Americans fought in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam? veterans of all 3 wars, I mean. Googling various versions of the question, it seems like it wasn't totally impossible. Critiquing a short story for class where a character claimed to be a veteran of all 3 and it made me curious how realistic it would be. The character was black, as well, which made me curious what post-WW2 was like for black soldiers. Did many choose to stay enlisted? I read a little about "blue discharges" so it seems like many wouldn't have gotten a choice? A veteran of all 3 would likely have achieved a pretty respectable career, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:29
|
|
shallowj posted:anyone have an idea how many Americans fought in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam? veterans of all 3 wars, I mean. Googling various versions of the question, it seems like it wasn't totally impossible. Critiquing a short story for class where a character claimed to be a veteran of all 3 and it made me curious how realistic it would be. The character was black, as well, which made me curious what post-WW2 was like for black soldiers. Did many choose to stay enlisted? I read a little about "blue discharges" so it seems like many wouldn't have gotten a choice? A veteran of all 3 would likely have achieved a pretty respectable career, right? only 20 years separate the end of WWII and 1965 when the marines land at da nang. the ground war kicks off later that year in earnest for the americans, scaling up dramatically from the advisory role the us had assumed since the mid 50s.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
shallowj posted:anyone have an idea how many Americans fought in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam? veterans of all 3 wars, I mean. Googling various versions of the question, it seems like it wasn't totally impossible. Critiquing a short story for class where a character claimed to be a veteran of all 3 and it made me curious how realistic it would be. The character was black, as well, which made me curious what post-WW2 was like for black soldiers. Did many choose to stay enlisted? I read a little about "blue discharges" so it seems like many wouldn't have gotten a choice? A veteran of all 3 would likely have achieved a pretty respectable career, right? I think you found this forum discussion like I did. For the thread, some good posts: quote:A 30-year career could very well span '43-'73. I bet there are (or were, they are aging) a whole lot of retired Master Sergeants and Sergeants Major who were in all 3. quote:Thousands. Unlike today, the Armed Forces were huge during all three wars. Australians, Kiwis and Brits, too. quote:My dad did. He was drafted in WWII, fought in Italy, and got out of the Army after the war. He decided he didn't like civilian life back home so he rejoined, earned his glider pilot wings, went to OCS, served in Korea, went Airborne in the 82nd, then joined the Special Forces in 59 or 60. He taught at a jungle training center in Okinawa. He spent some time advising in Vietnam, but retired from the Army after 22yrs in 1967. I'm not sure if the advising counts as fighting in Viet Nam since he got out before things really escalated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:39
|
|
