|
quote:I must strongly disagree with your assertion that the CIA is primarily responsible for precipitating unrest in chinese occupied Tibet. The Wikipedia article seems to be quite extensive and I dunno about "responsible" I'm not saying its certain but looking at the CIA and US activities in South America, it seems like dismissing it outright, and from what you implied about that you didn't hear of it when you wrote the article, is this really a complete picture? Does it not add some context to the events from 1958 to 1962? If its true it didn't start it, its involvement which Beijing would've undoubtably have known about, certainly would have had an influence on future events. Because the Sino-Indian border disputes are now within the context of the US wanting to be involved, which would certainly have (and afaik did) influence the PRC's views. quote:but i think it is very clear that Tibet regarded itself as once again an independent kingdom with complete control of its own affairs. quote:There had not really been a formal dedicated attempt to integrate Tibet fully into China before, its not Tibet is a part of China in the Qing era, its Tibet is a state over which China has Suzerainity, that is quite a different thing and gives China no real right or authority to rule the place directly as they decided to do in 1950, they have as much right to rule Mongolia. Im not slagging off China because its the PRC i would be equally slagging it off if it was the KMT as well in a situation where they did win the war. Again, not trying to justify the invasion or anything, going by the parameters in which I think you're aiming to go for; while they did declare independence in 1913, this doesn't change the fact that internationally how Tibet was seen as being under Chinese sovereignty. It just isn't the case that Tibet was both a de jure and de facto internationally recognized independent country that got invaded the moment once China was able to; there was this pre-existing context where the previous government claimed it, and other countries recognized it. It wasn't like it appeared out of no where, it isn't a post-hoc justification, it seems at the surface, to be well within mainstream geopolitical thought at the time. Whether the Qing had attempted to integrate it I'm not sure why this matters that this happened in the 1950's by the PRC instead of somewhere mid 1850 by the Qing for the purposes of our discussion; would this really make the PRC's claim stronger? Again, to stress this isn't about whether what China or India did were right or wrong, but if the context here, for the context of historical detached analysis, that imperial claims can make for legitimate claims for successor states, is it necessary to split hairs like this? Was it necessary for your analysis? What if Tibet was an independent state but allied to the USSR and the same war happens but this time its Tibet backed by some foreign power, would this change the analysis as to what started the war? quote:Indias sins, whatever they are do not obviate these facts, there is an argument to be made about Hydeberad and Kashmir but its hardly directly relevant to what im writing about which is why i haven't covered it, But here's the thing though, you made a decision to include events prior to the 1962 Sino-Indian War, but only what China did, and characterized it as aggression, this is what you led with. This, plus the way you offer your opinion at the end and conclude China was responsible for the conflict. Because one is inclined to read the events as an uninterrupted string of China invading people and of course Nehru would be described as foolish for not doing anything, it seems a little convenient. While India gets to basically appear ex nihilo fully formed with no history of aggressive actions towards its own neighbours. But if instead we do include India's own actions in the leadup, Operation Polo, the invasion of Gao, many aspects of the diplomatic situation, and India's own position, are recontextualized. quote:(In the post i nearly wrote but didnt i have a reasonably significant line of flak lined up for Indias behaviour in Kashmir particularly, ill get round to it one day). I would in brief contest that there is at least more ethnic and cultural continuity between Hydeberad and India than NEFA and Tibet for one and that Hydeberad had historically been part of India fairly uncontestedly as part of the Mughal empire and had indeed been cloven out as a seperate entity from that empire and that today India doesnt need to maintain the continuity of that area through the activities of the PRC we are all too familiar with. The thing is to me is reading this hurts my head just as much as Chinese claims about Tibet; this is just as much of a reach in terms of what justifies military and armed force to consolidate your borders. Like lets list the issues here, the Princely State of Hyderabad is not Hindi, its Telegu depending on the map? I don't think it can be claimed that there's a closer linguistic and cultural connection between Hyderabad and the Indian Union then between Han Chinese and Tibetan? Why does it matter for our purposes it was at one point hundreds of years ago a part of the Mughal Empire when just earlier you said that Tibet was de facto independent and didn't want to become a part of China, when Hyderabad equally declined to be a part of India? And the Moghul Empire was 500 years ago and the Yuan dynasty 700 years ago, if 500 years ago becomes good enough to justify India's claims, is an extra 200 years really that much more of a stretch? It's a lot of careful hair splitting. When I think you get to avoid having to do ANY of this. is to go back to what you originally wrote, if it had instead been: quote:"In broad terms the state of the various sides was thus, China and India were aggressively expanding their borders and trying to claim as much as they could in territorial terms after the conclusion of their civil war and independence respectively." I think its fair to criticize the way the presentation of events and how they lead on the reader towards a particular conclusion. e: Some Awful Snipe. e2: If you're specifically doing the Extra History thing for contrast and narrative convenience like the way they covered Justinian the Great in a series and then explored how things looked from Khosrow's perspective in such a way that you could easily watch the series about Justin and come off of it supporting Justin, and then watch Khosrow and completely realize this completely different perspective that changes the way you looked at Justinian's actions and recontextualizes everything I'm all for that, but I want to make it clear that choosing not to cover certain events such as India's own expansionism prior to 1962, that absolutely does have an effect on shaping the reader's views and expectations; as Extra History shows us its very easy to do, just by what perspectives you choose to cover or what events to not go into detail of or ultra detail of. We don't need to know Khosrow's side of the story to learn about Justinian, but it so VERY changes how we see Justinian's actions and motivations when we do. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Jun 25, 2020 |
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
Regarding the depleted forces of the Soviet army in 1941:The Battle of Kursk posted:Anti-tank, anti-aircraft, armor, engineer and most field artillery units were centralized under control of the rifle army, a structure that often consisted of only four or five rifle divisions plus a few specialized support regiments and brigades. The rifle corps, which is most Western armies was a tactical grouping of three or four rifle division, was almost eliminated as a luxury the Soviets could not afford. What does this mean, why is it a problem? I can guess by the term "tactical grouping" that the "rifle corps" used by Western armies allowed more dynamic usage, but why is that? The groups look of roughly similar size, with Rifle Armies being four or five rifle division and Rifle Corps being three or four of the same. Is it because of the difference in usage between an Army a Core? Edit: I should have kept reading; by 1943 the soviets had more of all that neat wheeled equipment and so it was more evenly distributed throughout their command structure; so I'm guessing the 1941 Rifle Army is a tight-fisted husbanding of resources, where-as by the time Kursk was about to happen Soviet commanders at all levels had lore more, well, stuff they could call on. Do I have that right? Jack B Nimble fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jun 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
This India-China discussion is really interesting, a swan song to these dead gay woman beating comedy forums in case it all ends! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 04:43
|
|
|
That. And for the record Ensign Expendable is still the best name I've found. Stole it for self back in TF2 days. Forgive me. Out
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 08:05
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Regarding the depleted forces of the Soviet army in 1941: For the most part, the Soviets considered corps to be something closer to a Western division. In the western armies, corps were mostly administrative groupings of divisions without much tactical control. The divisions themselves were fully-featured and capable of independent action. When Barbarossa happened, the rifle division tried to be more like a western division, but the Soviets rather severely lacked in specialist personnel to have so many independent combat formations around, so they transitioned to rifle brigades and divisions being far less capable of independent action- they kicked a lot of the functions that would normally be division-level things to the army level(which is why the Red Army had so many armies running around compared to the Germans or Americans). Rifle corps kinda fell by the wayside for that reason- it just wasn't something they needed. They did use corps for tank, mechanized, and cavalry however, and these were something closer to independent divisions in the Western model(even the 1941 mechanized corps was supposed to be equivalent to western armored divisions). The Soviets were generally dealing with the problem of a lack of trained specialist personnel and especially logistical assets which informed their organization- after the war they went to a western-style divisional model based on combined-arms armored divisions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 08:19
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:For the most part, the Soviets considered corps to be something closer to a Western division. In the western armies, corps were mostly administrative groupings of divisions without much tactical control. The divisions themselves were fully-featured and capable of independent action. When Barbarossa happened, the rifle division tried to be more like a western division, but the Soviets rather severely lacked in specialist personnel to have so many independent combat formations around, so they transitioned to rifle brigades and divisions being far less capable of independent action- they kicked a lot of the functions that would normally be division-level things to the army level(which is why the Red Army had so many armies running around compared to the Germans or Americans). Rifle corps kinda fell by the wayside for that reason- it just wasn't something they needed. They did use corps for tank, mechanized, and cavalry however, and these were something closer to independent divisions in the Western model(even the 1941 mechanized corps was supposed to be equivalent to western armored divisions). To expand: every formation or 'group of people ready to do stuff' needs a headquarters of officers who can receive direction from higher levels, manage logistics, make plans, assess local intelligence, and issue orders. The lower down the chain the HQ is, the more nuanced the plan generated will be as the strategic concept that's floated down from on high can be adapted to the local circumstances. ie. the more HQs you have the more 'moving parts' there are in your army that can show initiative and react to events appropriately. (you can take this to a harmful extreme) When the Soviets lose vast swarths of their officer core trained to do this work they have to get rid of some of the intermediate HQ levels, which means that the amount of time that can be spent on the orders for each lower level unit goes down significantly. Options fall away and the army gets 'clumsier'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 08:52
|
|
|
Was reading about U boats today and remembered that post about S Class and how loving miserable they were and it got me thinking: What is the absolute worst job an enlisted man/women can get in WW2? All nations acceptable, please try to throw in a short reason why so we can get some interesting answers (or at least more than 1-3 word answers). Mazz fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Jun 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 09:49
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Was reading about U boats today and remembered that post about S Class and how loving miserable they were and it got me thinking: Direct physical danger or a more abstract "worst"? My quick answer would be combat engineers, since they're going to be clearing stuff while under fire or sent to take out fortifications with flamethrowers and satchel charges, and will also likely end up getting used as infantry and thrown into hot situations to plug gaps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 10:14
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Was reading about U boats today and remembered that post about S Class and how loving miserable they were and it got me thinking: soviet female soldier where the high command has not issued menstrual pads/belts. They left specks in the sand when they walked. Descriptions in Alexeivich make it sound godawful. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Jun 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 10:25
|
|
|
It's not exactly a "job" but I'm going to say Jewish soldier in an Eastern European country in 1939.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 10:51
|
|
|
WRT that wikipedia article i am always very suspect about them on the topic of anything to do with China, particularly Tibet, i think that the fact that it didnt come up in any of the reading i did would say that its a fairly small part of the overall picture and not something of import in this specific time period. Investigating further in other sources it seems that CIA support started in 1956 and flights and training were generally conducted from Pakistan and Thailand rather than India and that in total they trained and dispatched about 50 people and 250 tonnes of supplies by the time that Eisenhower stopped flights after Gary Powers was shot down in 1960 which isnt that much in the grand scheme of things. Post this there would eventually be a fairly large effort with the consent of India but that doesnt really begin until 1964 well after the scope of this particular war and is part of the aftermath of it. (Incidentally it has very little success and would largely fizzle out by 1975). The fact that the Qing never tried to integrate it gives the lie to the PRC justification that they had the legal right to roll it into their country, China had many Suzerainities that we would consider ludicrous today were they to try and re-establish control. Vietnam, Myanmar, Korea, Mongolia etc. It would be somewhat akin to Turkey marching into Romania in tyool 2020 and just putting a fence around Wallachia and going "mine". They historically treated not as an integral part of China, which is relevant if those are the claims you are using to say its yours. Its not a reclaiming of lost land or that which was stripped away by colonialism its straight territorial expansion into the land of people who largely dont want you there. The reason i have included a lot of what China did is because its the only bit thats actually relevant to the war, in my view i havent actually gotten to the part where i say who is responsible for the conflict, at least not mentally but with regards to that particular border and this particular war the people that started the encroachment Strictly in the territorial sense were the PRC, dont think Indian behaviour elsewhere obviates that and i cannot view their territorial ambitions with anything but disdain. The question of who starts the border tussles is more complicated yes but we havent yet chronologically gotten there. Nobody should take these posts as a wholistic summary of the moral character of a state, its not what they are written to do. I believe you have not quite got my point in the hydeberad area as im not referring to the annexation of Tibet in that instance i am referring to PRC claims upon the NEFA area that they justify on the grounds of very thin documentation from Tibet, the NEFA tribes and Tibet (not China) are dramatically not the same area geographically or culturally, the Chinese have pushed their claim there flying in the face of all reasonableness, i would say its fairly unarguably the case when you are comparing the inhabitants of the NEFA where China is pushing its claim and Tibet are not even remotely culturally or geographically contiguous. This is plainly in my view egregious and very clearly demonstrates the PRC's territorial ambitions and i dont neccesarily see why i have an obligation to try and soft pedal that by pointing out that India did bad stuff in another area of the globe. China i do not think can argue to find itself threatened in any way by Indian activities whereas India very much did find itself threatened so i would defend the characterisation of Chinas attitude towards India as aggressive and Indias attitude towards China as non-aggressive within the context of this particular war. Especially given the fact that the PRC showed itself unwilling to negotiate in good faith on the topic of borders many times and instead chose to take what they wanted by force as a fait accompli. (Offering to trade a ludicrous claim on the NEFA for Aksai Chin is very much not acting in good faith). India as a state has a lot of questionable actions in its past, and i mean A LOT, but not in this case ones i regard as relevant. Its not the case of two expansionist nations trying to expand into the same area which that characterisation you suggest would i think imply. Polyakov fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Jun 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 10:59
|
|
|
Pretty much everyone involved in that war had a lovely time and I cannot really pick a worst job, but I really wouldn't envy the poor dudes who had to clean out the interiors of tanks, planes or shattered sections of ships of their former comrades in arms.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 11:40
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:soviet female soldier where the high command has not issued menstrual pads/belts. They left specks in the sand when they walked. Descriptions in Alexeivich make it sound godawful. The job that struck me as the worst one in Unwomanly Face of War was the woman who rode the outside of a tank in order to help evacuate the crew if it got destroyed. Either that, or something on a Japanese-occupied island in 1945 would probably be the worst non-enslaved job in the war. Imagine being a quartermaster in a situation where everyone's ration is 100 grams of rice per day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 11:52
|
|
|
Kamikaze drafted. In literally any other service there is at least the hope that if you fight hard enough and get lucky you might survive. These guys were told that it's their job to fly out and kill themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 12:25
|
|
|
Wasn't that strangely resulting in lower casualty rates due to the change in doctrine? I'm imagining one of the contenders being an Indian Soldier during the famines in India. Since you need lots of food, everyone is starving around you, either you starve too, or you watch it happen to everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 12:32
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Was reading about U boats today and remembered that post about S Class and how loving miserable they were and it got me thinking: I would say that the worst job an enlisted man could get in the American army would be someone slotted into a unit as a replacement JUST as they go into some sort of bitter, desperate fighting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 12:43
|
|
|
Mazz posted:What is the absolute worst job an enlisted man/women can get in WW2? Soviet penal battalion. How do you feel about clearing minefields?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 15:20
|
|
|
How common are penal units
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 15:21
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Kamikaze drafted. Weren't they (nominally) officers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
How was service in the penile battalions
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 15:29
|
|
|
zoux posted:How common are penal units It's hard to know exact numbers for sure, but there were Penal platoons, companies, and battalions attached to higher headquarters (Battalions to Divisions, etc). If you have jstor access there's a really good article called Penal Units in the Red Army by Statiev on the subject. There's also a memoir from a Penal Company commander called Penalty Strike by Pylcyn, whose name I can not pronounce. It's widely available. I should also point out that the Wehrmacht (and even the SS) also used Penal units (Strafbattalion) and almost nominated them, but gently caress any sympathy for the Wehrmacht or SS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 15:32
|
|
|
Cessna posted:It's hard to know exact numbers for sure, but there were Penal platoons, companies, and battalions attached to higher headquarters (Battalions to Divisions, etc). If you have jstor access there's a really good article called Penal Units in the Red Army by Statiev on the subject. There's also a memoir from a Penal Company commander called Penalty Strike by Pylcyn, whose name I can not pronounce. It's widely available. Oh sorry, I meant across history and service. Does/has the US use penal units?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 15:41
|
|
|
zoux posted:Oh sorry, I meant across history and service. Does/has the US use penal units? They sometimes used elite mixed units of convicts on suicide commando missions. Here is a picture of one such unit 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 15:45
|
|
|
Those men are filthy!
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
bewbies posted:They sometimes used elite mixed units of convicts on suicide commando missions. Here is a picture of one such unit Hey, it was the integrated unit in the U.S. Army! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:Wasn't that strangely resulting in lower casualty rates due to the change in doctrine? It increased their K/D ratio from almost zero to inflicting serious losses on the US navy. Well before the Kamikaze groups were formed, attacking an American or British task force resulted in 80-90% casualties for few or no hits. The August 7/8, 1942 attacks on the invasion force at Guadalcanal was badly hurt. A level bombing attack with 27 bombers and 18 fighters lost 5 and 2 for no hits on ships and a handful of USN aircraft shot down. Nine dive bombers then hit a destroyer but did not sink it, all 9 Vals were lost. The 27 bombers came back on the 8th with 15 escorts. They scored one torpedo hit on a destroyer, which also didn't sink, and a bomber crashed on a transport. That attack cost 17 bombers and 2 fighters. 63% casualties for two hits and nothing sunk was completely unsustainable. This was before the introduction of the VT fuse for 5" AA fire and improvements in CAP direction techniques. Kamikazes at least got more hits on bigger ships 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Weren't they (nominally) officers? The guys flying the planes, yes. Not so sure about the various other special naval attack units. Also at least from what I can tell they were mainly volunteers. Now, they were certainly pressured by society and coerced by their superior officers, but most accounts I've read indicate that most were asked to volunteer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:02
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:How was service in the penile battalions Usually, long and hard
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
zoux posted:Oh sorry, I meant across history and service. Does/has the US use penal units? There are (were) penal/disciplinary units throughout history, but they seem to have been most common in WWII. Napoleon's army had a unit called Régiment pénal de l'Île de Ré, made up of criminals, that was part of the 1812 invasion of Russia. Wikipedia link. As I mentioned above, the German used them in WWII. There were some real oddities; for example, the SS had a paratrooper unit (SS-Fallschirmjägerbataillon 500) that was made up of half volunteers, half SS penal inmates. (This also begs the question, what do you have to do to end up in an SS Penal unit? NOT commit atrocities?) This unit was used for action movie missions that tended to fail spectacularly. Most famously, in 1944 they did Operation Rösselsprung (Knight's Move) where they tried to capture Tito. The first wave of penal-paratroopers landed in the open right next to Tito's troops and were slaughtered. The second wave landed miles away and Tito just - left. About 800 out of the 1000 penal-paratroopers were killed or wounded. The SS also had other penal units. The utterly despicable Direlewanger Brigade, a unit responsible for an utterly grotesque record of depraved atrocities including a litany of horror in the Warsaw Uprising, was a Penal unit. Be warned, even reading about this unit is utterly soul-crushing. Edit: Link here for a brief bio of their CO. Cessna fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jun 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
Safety Biscuits posted:Usually, long and hard 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:06
|
|
zoux posted:Those men are filthy! The filthy uh...fruzzen. Dammit.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
zoux posted:Oh sorry, I meant across history and service. Does/has the US use penal units? No. To my knowledge, such units were employed (at least in WW1 and onwards) only by Belgium, China, France, Italy, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:How was service in the penile battalions Hard, as you would expect edit: wow i probably should have finished reading the page before posting my wicked burn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
Appearance and performance degraded greatly by cold weather.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The SS also had other penal units. The utterly despicable Direlewanger Brigade, a unit responsible for an utterly grotesque record of depraved atrocities including a litany of horror in the Warsaw Uprising, was a Penal unit. Be warned, even reading about this unit is utterly soul-crushing. Other SS officers thought Direlewanger should tone the atrocities down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Probably just a million, whereas during Barbarossa around 5 million were mobilized. Soviet Union had 2.9M military personnel in the west and 4.8M all together when the Barbarossa started. Can't find quickly the numbers they had in -39 and -40.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
Roumba posted:Appearance and performance degraded greatly by cold weather. Their appearance is much more warlike if you prune away any hedges and bushes around their location.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
Tias posted:No. To my knowledge, such units were employed (at least in WW1 and onwards) only by Belgium, China, France, Italy, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Never heard before about the Belgian, Chinese, French, and Italian penal units. Could you post more about them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:It increased their K/D ratio from almost zero to inflicting serious losses on the US navy. Well before the Kamikaze groups were formed, attacking an American or British task force resulted in 80-90% casualties for few or no hits. The August 7/8, 1942 attacks on the invasion force at Guadalcanal was badly hurt. A level bombing attack with 27 bombers and 18 fighters lost 5 and 2 for no hits on ships and a handful of USN aircraft shot down. Nine dive bombers then hit a destroyer but did not sink it, all 9 Vals were lost. The 27 bombers came back on the 8th with 15 escorts. They scored one torpedo hit on a destroyer, which also didn't sink, and a bomber crashed on a transport. That attack cost 17 bombers and 2 fighters. 63% casualties for two hits and nothing sunk was completely unsustainable. This was before the introduction of the VT fuse for 5" AA fire and improvements in CAP direction techniques. Kamikazes at least got more hits on bigger ships What were the death rates on the Italian explosive boats, and were they used successfully?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
Tias posted:No. To my knowledge, such units were employed (at least in WW1 and onwards) only by Belgium, China, France, Italy, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Okay, this is NOT combat use, but from direct personal experience the USMC had (and still has) punishment units. We aren't talking WWII "clear minefields with a spoon," but they still are not good. I'm not talking about military prison (Leavenworth) where troops are sent after conviction at a court martial for a real crime; instead, this is a unit where you could be sent if you were a persistent problem for the command - getting "office hours" (Article 15s), mouthing off to your platoon sergeant, etc. It was called "CC" - Correctional Custody - and was billed as a rehash of the less fun aspects of boot camp. There was/is one of these per Division. I'm pretty tall, in good shape, and did martial arts, so I got assigned the unenviable job of being one of my company's "Chasers." It was our job to drive a guy being sent to CC there and drop him off, then pick him back up 30 days later. I only did this a couple of times, but I will never forget how wrecked they looked when I picked them up at the end. They went from being the unit jackass to just exhausted and staring, not speaking beyond saying "yes SIR" to me even though I was just a sergeant. It can not have been a good time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2020 16:32
|
|