gibsonm Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Well I suspect its a more lethal environment now with ATGW, attack helos, air launched precision guided muntions, copperhead, increased reliance on technology etc. than it was back in the “good old days”. Bit like saying AFV’s in 1945 were safer than 1939/1940. Sure they are more potent, but the threat has escalated too. (Maybe we will find out in CMX2). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Well I suspect its a more lethal environment now with ATGW, attack helos, air launched precision guided muntions, copperhead, increased reliance on technology etc. than it was back in the “good old days”. Bit like saying AFV’s in 1945 were safer than 1939/1940. Sure they are more potent, but the threat has escalated too. (Maybe we will find out in CMX2). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Well I suspect its a more lethal environment now with ATGW, attack helos, air launched precision guided muntions, copperhead, increased reliance on technology etc. than it was back in the “good old days”. Bit like saying AFV’s in 1945 were safer than 1939/1940. Sure they are more potent, but the threat has escalated too. (Maybe we will find out in CMX2). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I think the stat that is important here is that during WW2 East Front/West Front artillery caused about 80 per cent of the casualties, and everything else the other 20 per cent. The infantry obviously is the most vulnerable to shell/mortar splinters. I remember reading somewhere that more than half of tank crew casualties occured when the crewman had a part of his body OUTSIDE the tank. On the other hand it makes sense for tankers to fear shooting it out with another tank much more than walking around outside one's own tank; if you're in the tank when it gets hit light wounds usually are not an option. Frag on the other hand can be a ticket off the line for a while, if it hits you right. Butterbars and their ilk got hit far more often, the arguement goes, because their war job forced them to frequently stand up (to see, give orders, get some one's attention, point out a target) when the artillery/mortars were coming down. Further, their job obliged them to move around in places where there was a risk of being under enemy observation, and enemy observation = risk of becoming a target for indirect. There is a Willie and Joe cartoon that pretty much say it all on this topic: Willie and Joe are grubby and in their hole, and next to them standing up and looking intrepidly towards the enemy is a young lieutenant in a clean uniform. Willie says, more or less, "Scuse me lootenent but could you try and inspire us without attracting fire?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I think the stat that is important here is that during WW2 East Front/West Front artillery caused about 80 per cent of the casualties, and everything else the other 20 per cent. The infantry obviously is the most vulnerable to shell/mortar splinters. I remember reading somewhere that more than half of tank crew casualties occured when the crewman had a part of his body OUTSIDE the tank. On the other hand it makes sense for tankers to fear shooting it out with another tank much more than walking around outside one's own tank; if you're in the tank when it gets hit light wounds usually are not an option. Frag on the other hand can be a ticket off the line for a while, if it hits you right. Butterbars and their ilk got hit far more often, the arguement goes, because their war job forced them to frequently stand up (to see, give orders, get some one's attention, point out a target) when the artillery/mortars were coming down. Further, their job obliged them to move around in places where there was a risk of being under enemy observation, and enemy observation = risk of becoming a target for indirect. There is a Willie and Joe cartoon that pretty much say it all on this topic: Willie and Joe are grubby and in their hole, and next to them standing up and looking intrepidly towards the enemy is a young lieutenant in a clean uniform. Willie says, more or less, "Scuse me lootenent but could you try and inspire us without attracting fire?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I think the stat that is important here is that during WW2 East Front/West Front artillery caused about 80 per cent of the casualties, and everything else the other 20 per cent. The infantry obviously is the most vulnerable to shell/mortar splinters. I remember reading somewhere that more than half of tank crew casualties occured when the crewman had a part of his body OUTSIDE the tank. On the other hand it makes sense for tankers to fear shooting it out with another tank much more than walking around outside one's own tank; if you're in the tank when it gets hit light wounds usually are not an option. Frag on the other hand can be a ticket off the line for a while, if it hits you right. Butterbars and their ilk got hit far more often, the arguement goes, because their war job forced them to frequently stand up (to see, give orders, get some one's attention, point out a target) when the artillery/mortars were coming down. Further, their job obliged them to move around in places where there was a risk of being under enemy observation, and enemy observation = risk of becoming a target for indirect. There is a Willie and Joe cartoon that pretty much say it all on this topic: Willie and Joe are grubby and in their hole, and next to them standing up and looking intrepidly towards the enemy is a young lieutenant in a clean uniform. Willie says, more or less, "Scuse me lootenent but could you try and inspire us without attracting fire?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 If anyone is interested in a list of military slang I found this page and figured it might be a good start. (I only posted this because not all of us know what a butterbar is, BUT I do now ) -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 If anyone is interested in a list of military slang I found this page and figured it might be a good start. (I only posted this because not all of us know what a butterbar is, BUT I do now ) -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 If anyone is interested in a list of military slang I found this page and figured it might be a good start. (I only posted this because not all of us know what a butterbar is, BUT I do now ) -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 2nd Looey=ButterBar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 2nd Looey=ButterBar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 2nd Looey=ButterBar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.