Bravery: When was it rendered obsolete?

[Thugut]

Ok, the title is wrong, but the general idea is that individual bravery or espirit de corps, while it can still give an edge, it no longer holds the importance it once had in the battlefield. Unless dealing with small-scale engagements, it all comes down to air-superiority, firepower, and supplies.

For me the turning point was the napoleonic wars. The french empire's system of corps, the masses of artillery and the immense number of combatants turned warfare into a huge endeavour, the outcome of which depended more on proper preparation and administration rather than exceptional feats of bravery.

Discuss:

[arcadian]

It depends how you define bravery. For example, back in the Soviet days during the Afghan conflict I have heard a few reports of Hip pilots/crews providing supporting fire with FFAR's/rocket pods to friendly troops while taking enormous damage from RPG's and machine gun fire while refusing to leave until injured soldiers have been evac'd.
That to me is bravery...doing something at huge risk to yourself to save others...

[ferguson]

The premise is so outright absurd I can't come up with a rational answer.

You could do some research and read, say a few thousand award certificates from the last few humdred years to catch up.

You might then care to rephrase the question.

[digrar]

You can't hold ground with fire power, air superiority or supplies.

Without going into other gallantry awards there have been 1245 VC and 3,467 Medals of Honor awarded. They don't give them out for ****s and giggles, one has to turn the tide of the battle to get one. So there is over 4500 recognised feats of bravery to indicate that you're wrong.

[boone]

[QUOTE=Thugut;4689207 ........it all comes down to air-superiority, firepower, and supplies........

Discuss:[/QUOTE]
That's actually an extraordinarily ignorant statement. It all comes down to the bone-tired infantryman climbing out of his hole and doing the business.
How many QMs have won the VC?

[T3ngu]

Keith Payne VC was awarded his VC:


In May that year he was commanding the 212th Company of the 1st Mobile Strike Force Battalion when it was attacked by a strong North Vietnamese force. His company was isolated and, surrounded on three sides, Payne's Vietnamese troops began to fall back. Payne, by now wounded in the hands and arms and under heavy fire, covered the withdrawal before organising his troops into a defensive perimeter. He then spent three hours scouring the scene of the day's fight for isolated and wounded soldiers, all the while evading the enemy who kept up regular fire. He found some forty wounded men, brought some in himself and organised the rescue of the others, leading the party back to base through enemy dominated terrain. Years later, asked whether he was afraid, Payne replied, "My God yes, yes, I was." http://www.awm.gov.au/people/663.asp

Although available, the SV government would not release gunships or artillery (IIRC). The odd SF helo came in but all in all they did it themselves. In fact, when air support was availabe he called off a napalm run so he could go rescue members of his team.

Superior support doesn't win you anything without feet on the ground.

[Thugut]

I never said there aren't brave acts in today's military conflicts.

Just stating the theory that their impact is not as decisive as it used to be. (like say 300 men holding back an army of 100,000. That wouldn't happen in today's battlefield, no matter how brave those soldiers would be).

[boone]

Just stating the theory that their impact is not as decisive as it used to be. (like say 300 men holding back an army of 100,000. That wouldn't happen in today's battlefield, no matter how brave those soldiers would be).
You've been watching too many ****ty movies.
Individual initiative and courage is the only thing that carries the day.
Whether it's aircrew, Infantry etc.
Waterloo or Helmand.

[Smitty_Damitty]

Ok, the title is wrong, but the general idea is that individual bravery or espirit de corps, while it can still give an edge, it no longer holds the importance it once had in the battlefield. Unless dealing with small-scale engagements, it all comes down to air-superiority, firepower, and supplies.

For me the turning point was the napoleonic wars. The french empire's system of corps, the masses of artillery and the immense number of combatants turned warfare into a huge endeavour, the outcome of which depended more on proper preparation and administration rather than exceptional feats of bravery.

Discuss:


I never said there aren't brave acts in today's military conflicts.

Just stating the theory that their impact is not as decisive as it used to be. (like say 300 men holding back an army of 100,000. That wouldn't happen in today's battlefield, no matter how brave those soldiers would be).

Wow, way to step on the d*cks of us who are BTDT's dude...bra-vo!

-You know that bravery is of little importance in modern warfare because of personal experience, I
imagine.

-You can clarify this for me, I'm sure. When was war ever a "small" endeavor?

-If not 300 men vs an army of 100,000 (fan of the movie, I see), then how about two Marines vs a 2,000lb truck bomb: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=140&article=63233

Frankly, you can kiss my ass. Read more, post less...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEhDZN0RFjw

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Individual bravery or espirit de corps no longer important?:roll:

Are you even in the military?

[Thugut]

(fan of the movie, I see)

No, I was referring to the actual history




Are you even in the military?

Nope


Maybe if instead of amusing youtube clips people posted examples of victories against overwhelming odds... (are there any in modern history? comparable to those in the middle ages, or ancient times?) (and i am referring in general to large scale battles, not small scale, as also specified in original post)
All I can think of is the Winter War, though that was an example of extremes (great moral on one side, terrible on the other) plus it also had aspects of guerrilla warfare. And even then, the numbers engaged were not the one-sided.

[T3ngu]

Maybe if instead of amusing youtube clips people posted examples of victories against overwhelming odds... (are there any in modern history? comparable to those in the middle ages, or ancient times?) (and i am referring in general to large scale battles, not small scale, as also specified in original post)
Could it be that in a modern world, militaries have advanced so far as to avoid confrontations such as Rorkes Drift? 150 vs 4000. In the Payne example above, im pretty sure it was a similar ratio.

Or am i a little off target?

[Thugut]

Could it be that in a modern world, militaries have advanced so far as to avoid confrontations such as Rorkes Drift? 150 vs 4000

Or am i a little off target?


In that particular case it was technical superiority and organisation that gave them the edge in that battle. If they were armed with broadswords and pulled it off then it would be solely bravery. Pretty heroic battle nonetheless :)

[Smitty_Damitty]

No, I was referring to the actual history



Nope


Maybe if instead of amusing youtube clips people posted examples of victories against overwhelming odds... (are there any in modern history? comparable to those in the middle ages, or ancient times?) (and i am referring in general to large scale battles, not small scale, as also specified in original post)

So bravery has to equal victory in order to be counted as bravery now? Hahaha, wow! Yeah ok, I'll pull some clips of decisive battles off of YT for you, because everybody knows that a camera is always available to record the "sexier" parts of a battle. I I don't know how sacrificing yourself to stop a truck bomb from smoke checking your entire platoon, is an example of "underwhelming odds", but here are some examples of "large" scale battles, if you will: Nasiriyah, Tora Bora, FALLUJAH. Heard of 'em at all??? Read up about them, there are accounts of unbeliveable bravery throughout. Maybe not your Hollywood, war ****ish idea of bravery, but bravery nonetheless.

You sir are and idiot.:lol:

[Skutatos]

No, I was referring to the actual history



Nope


Maybe if instead of amusing youtube clips people posted examples of victories against overwhelming odds... (are there any in modern history? comparable to those in the middle ages, or ancient times?) (and i am referring in general to large scale battles, not small scale, as also specified in original post)

I would like to point out that Thermopylae was not as one sided as most believe. It was between 5,200-11,000 or so greeks vs 70-250,000 persians. They were able to cause so much trouble mainly due to the terrain. On an open field they would have most likely been annihilated on day 1.

This is a good example of what a little bravery can do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Longewala

[Skutatos]

In that particular case it was technical superiority and organisation that gave them the edge in that battle. If they were armed with broadswords and pulled it off then it would be solely bravery. Pretty heroic battle nonetheless :)

That technical superiority sure helped out at Isandlwana...not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana

Read up on the zulus. They were not stupid savages randomly charging with spears. They were highly organized and very very skilled. A good portion of the fighting was with bayonets it should be noted.

[Smitty_Damitty]

In that particular case it was technical superiority and organisation that gave them the edge in that battle. If they were armed with broadswords and pulled it off then it would be solely bravery. Pretty heroic battle nonetheless :)

What the f*ck is wrong with you?

[ggk]

Maybe if instead of amusing youtube clips people posted examples of victories against overwhelming odds... (are there any in modern history? comparable to those in the middle ages, or ancient times?) (and i am referring in general to large scale battles, not small scale, as also specified in original post)
.

depending how recent you want it to be..the gulf war can be a good example..and these battle and bravery of soldiers involved in the battle does not exclusively goes to the allied..unless you are really biased, you have to take into acount that the opposing force who have few sample of bravery against the might of american fire power.

More example can be found in Iraq and Iran war, or even the last Israeli operation in lebanon... do you implies that bravery can only be recognise if they were the good guys?


All I can think of is the Winter War, though that was an example of extremes (great moral on one side, terrible on the other) plus it also had aspects of guerrilla warfare. And even then, the numbers engaged were not the one-sided

The guerilla warfare in sri lanka which later become a full blown conventional warfare are one of the most recent warfare that have a lot example of bravery. Surely you take that into account.

[Gleipnir]

Ok, the title is wrong, but the general idea is that individual bravery or espirit de corps, while it can still give an edge, it no longer holds the importance it once had in the battlefield. Unless dealing with small-scale engagements, it all comes down to air-superiority, firepower, and supplies.

For me the turning point was the napoleonic wars. The french empire's system of corps, the masses of artillery and the immense number of combatants turned warfare into a huge endeavour, the outcome of which depended more on proper preparation and administration rather than exceptional feats of bravery.

Discuss:

Your idea that there is a 'masculinized' warfare- defined as being fought at a pre-determined open battlefield, 'face-to-face' as opposed to say a 'cowardly' skulking asymmetric variety is very out-dated.

[Thugut]

Your idea that there is a 'masculinized' warfare- defined as being fought at a pre-determined open battlefield, 'face-to-face' as opposed to say a 'cowardly' skulking asymmetric variety is very out-dated.

Interesting point, thanks. woot




This is a good example of what a little bravery can do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Longewala

The only post so far that makes me rethink my views. Thanks

[BloodyTalon]

Your idea that there is a 'masculinized' warfare- defined as being fought at a pre-determined open battlefield, 'face-to-face' as opposed to say a 'cowardly' skulking asymmetric variety is very out-dated.
It's not just outdated, its a complete fantasy with very little bearing with actual history.

OP: Its painfully obvious that you have never been in any military, LE, etc. organization or even left your Comfy Armchair of Generaling; bravery and morale has ****-all to do with a couple of ripped guys charging into thousands of enemies while screaming "SPARTAAAAA!", it's when individual soldiers have both the motivation and the courage to do their job and do it well despite the ever-present fear of death. That's ultimately what bravery is on the battlefield, and if you think that quality is no longer important at wartime just because everyone's now using UAVs and fires then simply put...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SHNJqvFqt4

[eskachig]

Wars today still require people to put themselves at harm's risk, and until that goes away bravery is very important. Even more so for the folks on the other side of the assymmetric equation, who must sustain much higher casualties to keep fighting.

[Thugut]

It's not just outdated, its a complete fantasy with very little bearing with actual history.


No, it's quite accurate. Big open field where armies met. The only parameters were:
Individual gear and training
some sort of leadership
morale (bravery)

Nowadays there are so many more parameters that, even though bravery remains one of those parameters, it's effect is diminished. Plus, it's not the same type of war that is being fought.

[wildcat]

Thugut, WTF are you on about, you have no idea about this subject, the only thing you are doing here is insulting those that have sacrificed they lives in defense of others. If you really want to know about bravery, I suggest sign up, and get deployed, then come back and talk about Bravery. Arm chair General.

[ggk]

No, it's quite accurate. Big open field where armies met. The only parameters were:
Individual gear and training
some sort of leadership
morale (bravery)

Nowadays there are so many more parameters that, even though bravery remains one of those parameters, it's effect is diminished. Plus, it's not the same type of war that is being fought.

how does the effect diminished? soldier still hack each others in hand to hand combat in the recent wars..that need courage and morale... you cant simply win if you are a coward.

[BloodyTalon]

No, it's quite accurate. Big open field where armies met. The only parameters were:
Individual gear and training
some sort of leadership
morale (bravery)

Nowadays there are so many more parameters that, even though bravery remains one of those parameters, it's effect is diminished. Plus, it's not the same type of war that is being fought.
Are you honestly that stupid?

The vast majority of battles have never been fought in a convenient open field where two armies smashed into each other until one ran out of cannon fodder. Every battle has always hinged on how each side manipulates terrain and the effective positioning and movement of units. The Battle of Crecy is a textbook example of how battles were won in the past and to an extent how they are won today. Superiority in equipment has always been a supplement to strategy and tactics rather than a replacement. The Zulu War is a perfect example of this, as the Brits where able to win battles decisively when they applied their technological superiority to sound overarching battle strategies, but were defeated in battle when they didn't.

And now for morale and bravery, which you clearly lack any understanding of whatsoever. This may come as a shock considering you have zero military experience whatsoever, but at war every soldier's life is on the line regardless of their branch, especially today. True bravery is when these soldiers accept the inherent dangers of being in the field and prevent the threats from deterring their willingness to complete their tasks. This is still one of these most important factors in war, because all of that fancy technology you seem to think is the be-all-end-all of warfare means jack shyte if the grunt/jarhead/digger/etc. is too afraid to use it effectively.

[Pandemonium]

Ok, the title is wrong, but the general idea is that individual bravery or espirit de corps, while it can still give an edge, it no longer holds the importance it once had in the battlefield. Unless dealing with small-scale engagements, it all comes down to air-superiority, firepower, and supplies.


Wait what? maybe because when we are talking about historical battles, your brave battles, we are talking about small-scale engagements, do you believe it takes more courage or bravery when you have a chance to die by a sword, then when you are facing death by bullet?
When your life is on stake, and you still fulfil your duty, that is bravery.
There is nothing more heroic about being cut up in pieces, then taking a bullet.
If I were you I would read some VC reports rather then sanctifying half -legendary/hollywood battles
I believe you confuse two concepts, first there is bravery, and second there is Technological adventage: fire support, air-superiority.

[KEEPER0311]

I never said there aren't brave acts in today's military conflicts.

Just stating the theory that their impact is not as decisive as it used to be. (like say 300 men holding back an army of 100,000. That wouldn't happen in today's battlefield, no matter how brave those soldiers would be).


I'm sure you heard of the Battle of Mogadishu.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

How about Army PFC Melvin Brown, if his Medal of Honor citation is to be believed his actions
was what made the difference, not the level of technology. As he ran out of ammunition and grenades, he resorted to using his entrenching tool to hold his section in the line.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_L._Brown


Like it has been stated before, you have absolutly zero experience on a battlefield. And you couldn't possibly begin to
understand how difficult it is to carry on with the mission after seeing death with your own eyes.

[valtrex]

I would like to point out that Thermopylae was not as one sided as most believe. It was between 5,200-11,000 or so greeks vs 70-250,000 persians. They were able to cause so much trouble mainly due to the terrain. On an open field they would have most likely been annihilated on day 1.

This is a good example of what a little bravery can do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Longewala

You numbers are greatly exaggerated. Before the battle, yes, the Greeks migh have been around 5-10.000 strong, but shortly before the battle the rest of the Greeks left, leaving the duty of defending the short Thermopylae passage to the 300 Spartans and 1.000 Thespians. And yes, a battle on open field would have been proven suicidal (although Marathon, 10 years earlier, proved that even on open field and outnumbered by the Persians probably 5-7:1, the joint Athenian-Plataean detachment performed brilliantly)

[JackTheRipper]

professionalism, training, esprit de corps and believe strongly in what you are fighting.

these are the most important factors in every battles in every year in history. Considering such factors explain every victories and every defeat

[JC0352]

No, it's quite accurate. Big open field where armies met. The only parameters were:
Individual gear and training
some sort of leadership
morale (bravery)

Nowadays there are so many more parameters that, even though bravery remains one of those parameters, it's effect is diminished. Plus, it's not the same type of war that is being fought.

So you have the audacity to say today's young warriors' acts of bravery have a dimished effect on today's battlefield? I guess individual acts of bravery didn't have anything to do with Operation Al Fajr... It was all air superiority and supplies, according to you, right? You don't even know what it takes to step onto the battlefield, much less anything about bravery.

Have you ever read anything about Audie Murphy?

[ISMilREP]

OP: Is your idea of bravery some dudes running around swinging swords and catching arrows with their teeth? Because to answer your question, THAT pretty much became obsolete with the advent of gunpowder. Warfare is about locating, closing with, and with and destroying your enemy. No matter what era. No matter what frickin' battlefield, weapons, technology. Soldiers, boots on the ground win wars; you cant raise your banner with fighter jets. You're such a history buff, you'll realize that Alexander the Great fought in Afghanistan, and Mesopotamia, and was nearly slaughtered. There are BTDTs on this forum who are, and have served there, right in the same AO. In your eyes, are they absent of courage just because they don't fight shirtless and with swords? Take that Michael Bay-Frank Miller-MW2 mentality somewhere else. try going up against VBIEDs and suicide bombers and tell these guys that their bravery is obsolete because "Airpower is the orgasmic ultimate future weapon". But if you really REALLY want examples (which is dumb, because bravery should be honored, not held in comparison like a school yard pissing contest):
>SF ODAs are 12 man teams. they constantly go up against enemy far superior to them in number (just an example. im not trying to piss anyone off)
>French Resistance
> Tienanmen Square
> June 2005, when that four man SEAL team fought off a Taliban ambush and attack, and one man survived.
> LZ X-Ray, Ia Drang Valley
>Okinawa (Americans, and the Japanese)
> and of course Randy Shugart, and Gary Gordon.
There, happy?
All against the greater backdrop of men and war, and definitely BRAVERY. Soldiers fight and die everyday. but it isnt about one-liners and killstreaks. To go into the unknown, and not only face it, but beat it, kill it, rise above it. that is bravery.
as was stated once, in a great piece of literature: "they went down not like heroes of Homer, but like commanders completing their last and dirtiest job. doing the common place in the most uncommon of circumstances."

[Atlantic Friend]

One has to admit the fate of battles hangs more and more on non-individual qualities, such as technology, organization, training, and rely less on the individual qualities of soldiers or officers. I am sure there have been plenty of acts of individual/unit bravery in WW2, for example. In the end, did victory go to the bravest army,or to the one presenting the best all-around profile and enjoying the best qualitative/quantitative advantages? I think the latter.

[California Joe]

Well this is one of the stranger theories I've ever seen anyone try and discuss here. Arguing a point with an arrogant attitude while having no actual experience in the subject area is always a recipe for win. For one thing you're completely discounting the motivations of the people involved, then and now. Combat is a constant. I've read letters and dispatches from the American Civil War during battles like G ettysburg. The men in Pickett's Charge were veterans, they knew they were marching into Hell before they even started, they speak of honor, and faith in their officers, but most of them would never have shamed themselves in front of their comrades by refusing to go. Now whether that equates to an extreme form of peer pressure, love of their brothers or suicidal bravery I don't know. I wasn't there. But I certainly wouldn't make flippant statements about the level of their comittment.

Do you actually think that you can pick a random period of time where "bravery" stopped being important to soldiers? That's absurd. Have you ever read about the defense of Hougoumont Farm at Waterloo? Lt. Col. Sir James Macdonell? The simple idea of doing your job while people shoot at you and try to end your life is bravery. Period. Going out on patrol every single day knowing full well that you may be driving over a 500 pound bomb and die takes guts. Full stop. Your attitude is insulting to men who are better than you and have every right to dismiss your smug postulating. Wind your neck in.

[SineJustitia]

Unlike Thugut's idea that masses and supplies have come to replace bravery, the both of them have always been important, and always will be. How else could the Persians have mustered that huge army at Thermopylae? And the Roman battle staff were masters in the 1, 4 and 5 sections.

Nihil nove sub solum, both for bravery and for logistics.

BTW: I actually think Thugut is rather brave, posting like that on a military forum... Most armchair generals would have stopped posting by now.

[LimaOscarSierraTango]

I can't believe I got sucked into this thread...

1st off, there are too many examples listed and not listed that counter your theory.

2nd, how can you think that morale = bravery? Some REMF's morale is sky high because he's at the Rec Center playing Modern Warfare 2 twelve hours a day, while some poor soldier has been humping it all day in the streets with his brothers battling an enemy he can't see in 140 degree heat dealing with bull**** decisions made by the flagpole that handcuff him (and his brothers) to the point he is afraid to defend himself for he may get courts marshaled for accidently killing a civilian. Tell me how morale is akin to bravery again?

Third, shut your trap. Read more, post less. Your **** massager is insulting not only me, but everyone else that has put on a uniform and actually understands what espirit de corps is all about.

[Thugut]

One has to admit the fate of battles hangs more and more on non-individual qualities, such as technology, organization, training, and rely less on the individual qualities of soldiers or officers. I am sure there have been plenty of acts of individual/unit bravery in WW2, for example. In the end, did victory go to the bravest army,or to the one presenting the best all-around profile and enjoying the best qualitative/quantitative advantages? I think the latter.

Yes, that was what I was trying to express.


The men in Pickett's Charge were veterans, they knew they were marching into Hell before they even started, they speak of honor, and faith in their officers, but most of them would never have shamed themselves in front of their comrades by refusing to go. Now whether that equates to an extreme form of peer pressure, love of their brothers or suicidal bravery I don't know. I wasn't there. But I certainly wouldn't make flippant statements about the level of their comittment.

Of course they were brave. They still lost that battle. I think that would support the point I was making?



Your attitude is insulting to men who are better than you and have every right to dismiss your smug postulating. Wind your neck in.

And somehow people just keep misinterpreting my post.
1) i am not referring to guerrilla warfare. Or any small scale engagement.
2) the soldiers of today are just as brave/cowardly as they used to be thousands of years ago, i never disputed that. my apologies if it seemed that i'm somehow trying insult any current soldiers

[solidarnosc]

Ok, the title is wrong, but the general idea is that individual bravery or espirit de corps, while it can still give an edge, it no longer holds the importance it once had in the battlefield. Unless dealing with small-scale engagements, it all comes down to air-superiority, firepower, and supplies.

For me the turning point was the napoleonic wars. The french empire's system of corps, the masses of artillery and the immense number of combatants turned warfare into a huge endeavour, the outcome of which depended more on proper preparation and administration rather than exceptional feats of bravery.

Discuss:

In my opinion the turning point was the "100" year war between France and England that was fought between a semi-professional "modern" army and an old style feudal army that was led by knights more concerned with honour on the battlefield than winning battles. The French army (considered the best and bravest at the time) were trashed again and again by much smaler armies (Grecy, Poitiers, Agincourt etc...) By the end of the 100 years war France was almost a wasteland and knights were by many people considered as a bunch of expensive idiots that had no usefulll purpose on battlefields. I mean how many battles did the French loose because some knights wanted glory on the battlefield? If you look at the battle of Grecy? Wtf where they thinking? Those Wales peasants armed with longbows are to to low on the social ladder to pay attention to? The "Englisch" knights even fought on foot (based on their "experiences" in Schotland) which was totally against the "rules" of chivalry. (Chevalier, French for knight means "man on horse)

That doesn't mean that after that there were no acts of bravery on the battlefields but the bravery for the sake of bravery ended there in my opinion.

PS. I want to apoligize to my french friends for mentioning those battles. ;)

[wildcat]

This thread is full of crap. Here is the definition of bravey


Bravery: courageous behavior or character.


Bravery has not ended, so STFU, stop insulting those that serve, with demeaning the term bravery.

to Thugut,

Today the military, still fight and take ground, it very asymmetrical warfare, so to declare that bravery end 100+ years ago is arrogance. so STFU, you insult, all those they died in the Great War, Normandy, Iwo Jima (and the many other island), Vietnam the current war in Afghanistan/Iraq and all those other wars/battles. You have a very naive view of what bravery is, today troops do missions, agains an unseen enemy. Trying to compare that to standing in a field 200 years ago, you cannot, technology has changed warfare, this has nothing to do with bravery, today troops are just as brave. So GFYS, when you faced what todays troops face, you can comment on this, but seeing you never been to Iraq, STFU, stop demeaning those that have and do serve.

[California Joe]

Of course they were brave. They still lost that battle. I think that would support the point I was making?

You seem to be stuck on stupid. "Bravery" has f*ckall to do with winning or losing anything.

And somehow people just keep misinterpreting my post.
1) i am not referring to guerrilla warfare. Or any small scale engagement.
2) the soldiers of today are just as brave/cowardly as they used to be thousands of years ago, i never disputed that. my apologies if it seemed that i'm somehow trying insult any current soldiers

Really? Cause plenty of current serving members here have a problem with your characterization, and in fact what you just wrote contradicts your initial poorly worded post. "Bravery" can't exactly be measured. Esprit de Corps still exists. An excellent example would be the Argylls in Iraq a few years ago that fixed bayonets and charged an entrenched enemy. I'd say their regimental pride and personal courage enabled that feat of arms...

[JCR]

I think in some ways he has a point.
Today's bravery is something different than the bravery required of soldiers in the old days.
In days of a "empty battlefield" bravery means doing the job despite being scared.
In the old days of line warfare, even with firearms, bravery meant sheer guts.
Advancing in face of a line of muskets, standing at attention while under artillery fire and stuff like that.
This sort of simple death defiance is obsolete. Today's soldiers have to sacrifice their lives sometimes, but no one requires them to simply defy death in the way people did in the Napoleonic wars or earlier.
And in those days, bravery wasn't the exception rewarded by higher authorities but rather the norm expected of soldiers.
There was more punishment for cowardice than rewards for bravery.
Modern (modern in the sense of post WW1) soldiering requires a smart soldier, because somebody who simply defies death usually simply dies before he can do anything heroic.

[ronnieraygun]

I think in some ways he has a point.
Today's bravery is something different than the bravery required of soldiers in the old days.
Modern (modern in the sense of post WW1) soldiering requires a smart soldier, because somebody who simply defies death usually simply dies before he can do anything heroic.

I don't think he has a point at all. I read that last sentence and think you were tonguing your English teacher when you should have been listening to her. As far as "today's bravery," I was hoping you might have been assed to read the pages of responses from military BTDTs.

[Hollis]

You can wrap BS in paper, maybe even chrome plate it, but it is still BS. Times and method may change, but the bravery is the same. Orders are still given knowing that soldiers will die and the soldiers know that. The bond that hold all combat soldiers together regardless of time and equipment is combat.


This thread is no different than talking about screwing to a bunch of virgins.

[California Joe]

I think in some ways he has a point.
Today's bravery is something different than the bravery required of soldiers in the old days.
In days of a "empty battlefield" bravery means doing the job despite being scared.
In the old days of line warfare, even with firearms, bravery meant sheer guts.
Advancing in face of a line of muskets, standing at attention while under artillery fire and stuff like that.
This sort of simple death defiance is obsolete. Today's soldiers have to sacrifice their lives sometimes, but no one requires them to simply defy death in the way people did in the Napoleonic wars or earlier.
And in those days, bravery wasn't the exception rewarded by higher authorities but rather the norm expected of soldiers.
There was more punishment for cowardice than rewards for bravery.
Modern (modern in the sense of post WW1) soldiering requires a smart soldier, because somebody who simply defies death usually simply dies before he can do anything heroic.

You're confusing the term "bravery" with "blind obedience" and ignoring "technical innovation" If I'm 300 yards away and someone is shooting at me with a Brown Bess, am I braver than a guy standing in the streets of Fallujah carrying an AK and yelling "F*ck you Marines"? Bravery is an amorphous term given to men that perform extraordinary feats on the battlefield. This argument is moot.

[SoftLion]

You can wrap BS in paper, maybe even chrome plate it, but it is still BS. Times and method may change, but the bravery is the same. Orders are still given knowing that soldiers will die and the soldiers know that. The bond that hold all combat soldiers together regardless of time and equipment is combat.



You're confusing the term "bravery" with "blind obedience" and ignoring "technical innovation" If I'm 300 yards away and someone is shooting at me with a Brown Bess, am I braver than a guy standing in the streets of Fallujah carrying an AK and yelling "F*ck you Marines"? Bravery is an amorphous term given to men that perform extraordinary feats on the battlefield. This argument is moot.

Well said, as usual.

[Zoomie]

I'd love to see Thugut try to make his arguement with men who fought in Shok Valley.

[LimaOscarSierraTango]

I think in some ways he has a point.
Today's bravery is something different than the bravery required of soldiers in the old days.
In days of a "empty battlefield" bravery means doing the job despite being scared.
In the old days of line warfare, even with firearms, bravery meant sheer guts.
Advancing in face of a line of muskets, standing at attention while under artillery fire and stuff like that.
This sort of simple death defiance is obsolete. Today's soldiers have to sacrifice their lives sometimes, but no one requires them to simply defy death in the way people did in the Napoleonic wars or earlier.
And in those days, bravery wasn't the exception rewarded by higher authorities but rather the norm expected of soldiers.
There was more punishment for cowardice than rewards for bravery.
Modern (modern in the sense of post WW1) soldiering requires a smart soldier, because somebody who simply defies death usually simply dies before he can do anything heroic.


You can't be serious... obviously you've never been out there and have no idea what kind of garbage is dribbling from your lips.

[Mordoror]

some recent history examples if you want large scale battles :
Verdun 1916
Bois de Belleau 1917
Gallipoli 1915
La Somme 1916.....etc
what about for the bravery for any average grunt to jump out of a trench, run several hundred meters through a DZ battered by artillery and machinegun fire, slice through barbed wire and attack the opponent with bayonnets and shovels ?


Stalingrad 1942
Bastogne 1944
Bir Hakeim 1942
Don't you think taht bravery was needed to fight against overwelming odds ?

Guadalcanal
Iwo Jima
Arnhem
Dien Bien Phu

No need of bravery to jump from a landing boat or an airplane against armored or well dug in forces ??

Battle of Chosin
Kunuri battle
battle of hearthBreak ridge

no need of bravery when surrended by superior forces ?? ask the turks that were exterminated to the last just to let the other UN forces the time to retreat at Kunuri

i can go like that with tenth of examples........
/thread

[JCR]

Hmm, looks like I could've stayed a philosopher by saying nothing
Sorry :)

[KEEPER0311]

I think in some ways he has a point.
Today's bravery is something different than the bravery required of soldiers in the old days.
In days of a "empty battlefield" bravery means doing the job despite being scared.
In the old days of line warfare, even with firearms, bravery meant sheer guts.
Advancing in face of a line of muskets, standing at attention while under artillery fire and stuff like that.
This sort of simple death defiance is obsolete. Today's soldiers have to sacrifice their lives sometimes, but no one requires them to simply defy death in the way people did in the Napoleonic wars or earlier.
And in those days, bravery wasn't the exception rewarded by higher authorities but rather the norm expected of soldiers.
There was more punishment for cowardice than rewards for bravery.
Modern (modern in the sense of post WW1) soldiering requires a smart soldier, because somebody who simply defies death usually simply dies before he can do anything heroic.

And breaking an ambush takes an less guts? Or kicking in a door and having no idea what's on the otherwise. There quite a few occasions on the modern battlefield were one must look death in the face and carry on.

[LimaOscarSierraTango]

To clarify my original response...


I think in some ways he has a point.

He is confused, and I think you may be a little confused also.


Today's bravery is something different than the bravery required of soldiers in the old days.

How exactly is it different?


In days of a "empty battlefield" bravery means doing the job despite being scared.

And you're saying there is no reason to be scared nowadays? Or soldiers don't do their job when they are scared? Please elaborate.


In the old days of line warfare, even with firearms, bravery meant sheer guts.

So it doesn't take sheer guts to patrol a street with an enemy that blends in with the general populace? It doesn't take sheer guts to drive around in a vehicle knowing the car you are coming up on may have 1500lbs of explosives in it ready to blow you up?


Advancing in face of a line of muskets, standing at attention while under artillery fire and stuff like that.
This sort of simple death defiance is obsolete.

Fighting on a mountain where the enemy has superior positioning, cover, knowledge of the area and conditioning for the environment doesn't fit in here? Assaulting a fortified trench doesn't count?


Today's soldiers have to sacrifice their lives sometimes, but no one requires them to simply defy death in the way people did in the Napoleonic wars or earlier.

Tell that to someone that has fought in Korea, Vietnam, WWII, and many people who have fought in the GWOT.


And in those days, bravery wasn't the exception rewarded by higher authorities but rather the norm expected of soldiers.

So soldiers now are expected to be cowards? You seem to be extremely out of touch with reality if you think bravery isn't the norm that is expected out of soldiers. I think it is apparent your "knowledge" or opinion comes from the media or some REMF.


There was more punishment for cowardice than rewards for bravery.
Modern (modern in the sense of post WW1) soldiering requires a smart soldier, because somebody who simply defies death usually simply dies before he can do anything heroic.

It saddens me that you hang out here, yet think so little of the "modern" soldier.

[JCR]

I think you got me wrong, I don't think "little" of anyone.
I just wanted to point out that the concept of bravery changed over time, but apparently it came across the wrong way and I'm sorry for that

[KEEPER0311]

I think you got me wrong, I don't think "little" of anyone.
I just wanted to point out that the concept of bravery changed over time, but apparently it came across the wrong way and I'm sorry for that

Bravery hasn't change any. The bravery show by troops in ancient Greece isn't and different then the fighting men and women today. The circumstances of the battles may have changed, but when everything boils down you have a kid with a club/spear/rifle pushing past his fears to do what he must.

[Skutatos]

You numbers are greatly exaggerated. Before the battle, yes, the Greeks migh have been around 5-10.000 strong, but shortly before the battle the rest of the Greeks left, leaving the duty of defending the short Thermopylae passage to the 300 Spartans and 1.000 Thespians. And yes, a battle on open field would have been proven suicidal (although Marathon, 10 years earlier, proved that even on open field and outnumbered by the Persians probably 5-7:1, the joint Athenian-Plataean detachment performed brilliantly)

The majority of the greeks actually left on the 3rd day of the battle, which was incidently the last. These numbers are not all Hoplites of course, it include helots and such, who were also present.

I was not attacking the quality or greek soldiery of the time, I think their record speaks for itself, However...Marathon was not an open field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Marathon_Greek_Double_Envelopment.png

[Mordoror]

the question is badly asked but it is still interesting though
can i ask it otherwise (and not be clubbed to death because i asked it ??)

is not bravery and courage actually more a matter of individual being as the modern combat mod is more individualy based (by individualy i mean at small platoons, squads and so on level but also at the personal level) rather than a matter of collective being (like when during napoleonic war, US independance war, US civil war, European "lace wars") or even before, when the soldierswere members of a line or column or square ?)

episodes of bravery were numerous in both case but when you read something about the previous wars, the bravery awards were often given to the whole unit (this regiment because it held the line, this other because it charged through hails of bullets....) whereas actually awards are given more to individual soldiers
just check at the "single man last stand" thread : most of the examples are WWII and after

is it because of the decentralized way of fighting (more autonomy given to soldiers) or of the moern equipment that gives the needed firepower for a single man to accomplish an incredible task (like a single serg stopping several panzers by serving alone an antitank gun) i don't know but i think the truth is somewhere in the middle

[PhillyMobster]

I think we can all just agree that Thugut is about as bright as a broken bulb who gets off to sword and sandal epics on his widescreen TV in his Mom's basement.

To address what Mordoror said, the idea of collective courage being outdated and in our era restricted to individual acts is likewise ignorant. Just because one person got an award for performing his duties in an exemplary manner doesn't make the actions of those around him less courageous. I'm sure you would have seen a likewise disproportionate distribution of awards had Medals of Honor been handed out to those who fought at Thermopylae. And being a wearer of the Naval Unit Citation for my Battalion's actions in Iraq, I can personally attest to the current presence of awards for collective unit bravery even today.

[Mordoror]

the idea of collective courage being outdated and in our era restricted to individual acts is likewise ignorant.

you got me wrong
we all know that a military task is individual (each soldier has his own specific duty and will do this duty, being a SAW, AT4 or M21 bearer) and collective/team work (that's where "esprit de corps" and drill and knowing well your squad mates is important)

of course today units can get awards (congratulation and respect for your) but if i still keep the comparison between ancient art of war and nowaday art of war, the fact that in ancient times, the soldiers were less individualized as opposed to today led to more "general award" than to individual ones
holding a line in front of cuirassier charge is not more or less brave than rushing with a grenade alone to destroy a machinegun nest

but to hold a line, you cant' be alone because by definition it is a regimental line
on the other hand rushing to destroy a machinegun nest could be done alone
so i don't think here it is a matter of who is the most brave or not but how (due to circumstances and way of fighting) is perceived the bravery by who gives the awards
(and of course to balance the things don't take my post as a all balck/all white way of thinking, things are always not in a single color)

[Mofreaka]

Ok... im way to lazy to think out a lengthy response, but to me your thesis is wrong. Your comparing apples to oranges here. Your comparing strategic operations in modern times to tactical battles in ancient times. Strategic operations in ancient times still required service and support, and relied on technology to provide the edge. Bravery has always and will always be important to warfare.

[LimaOscarSierraTango]

Mordoror, it appears to me that might be looking at different types of recognition of bravery in one of your posts? There are many things involved here. In the "ancient art of war", how was bravery recognized? Were there medals? Maybe a glass of wine and a hot meal? Maybe a hand shake? How about looting your adversary after you killed him? War trophies are prohibited these days, or a serious PITA to get approval for. A shower and nice meal may work. A hand shake? For sure, but types of recognition for actions change over time. 30 years from now there may not be medals, just cash.

This thread is lame and hurts my head. I'm going to go Wiki 'bravery' and learn how I can be brave like in ancient times.

[Mordoror]

Mordoror, it appears to me that might be looking at different types of recognition of bravery in one of your posts?

not at all, my friend, you see in fact mischief or bad intend where there is not
i basically disagree with the OP first post and especially with the way it is written
there is no gradation in bravery and no doubts that a lot of known and unknown soldiers were braves during the past 4000 years

i was in fact just asking myself why when you read history about battles during ancient times (like US civil war you may know better than me but also Napoleonic wars) the bravery action is awarded often and most of the time to whole units (like quotation on the flag) whereas you clearly begin to see more and more individual awards during WWII and after (even if medals existed before)
it was an honest question without any pun intended (and it is partly my fault, instead of talking about award i should have choosen the word Honor which suits better)

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

I think in some ways he has a point.
Today's bravery is something different than the bravery required of soldiers in the old days.
In days of a "empty battlefield" bravery means doing the job despite being scared.
In the old days of line warfare, even with firearms, bravery meant sheer guts.
Advancing in face of a line of muskets, standing at attention while under artillery fire and stuff like that.
This sort of simple death defiance is obsolete. Today's soldiers have to sacrifice their lives sometimes, but no one requires them to simply defy death in the way people did in the Napoleonic wars or earlier.
And in those days, bravery wasn't the exception rewarded by higher authorities but rather the norm expected of soldiers.
There was more punishment for cowardice than rewards for bravery.
Modern (modern in the sense of post WW1) soldiering requires a smart soldier, because somebody who simply defies death usually simply dies before he can do anything heroic.

Actually, nothing has changed in that regard. Example beng the threat of WMD during the invasion of Iraq. A threat that had to be collectively faced and regardless of hindsight was felt by those on the ground to be a clear and present danger. But still they stood to their tasks.

[LimaOscarSierraTango]

not at all, my friend, you see in fact mischief or bad intend where there is not

No, no, no. You come across as curious, not arrogant. I don't see bad intentions at all.


i basically disagree with the OP first post and especially with the way it is written
there is no gradation in bravery and no doubts that a lot of known and unknown soldiers were braves during the past 4000 years

i was in fact just asking myself why when you read history about battles during ancient times (like US civil war you may know better than me but also Napoleonic wars) the bravery action is awarded often and most of the time to whole units (like quotation on the flag) whereas you clearly begin to see more and more individual awards during WWII and after (even if medals existed before)
it was an honest question without any pun intended (and it is partly my fault, instead of talking about award i should have choosen the word Honor which suits better)

You are looking at the fact it appears that there was overall recognition in the past vs more individualized recognition in the present.

Let me try to explain it this way (I hope I can remember this correctly, I am sure someone can correct me if I am wrong). Different cultures hold different values, thus recognize achievements differently. Look at Japan's corporate beliefs and compare it to North America's corporate believes. In corporate Japan, the employee works for the well being of the company. They feel a personal satisfaction when the company is recognized. They really do not recognize individuals so much as the focus is on the group as a whole. In North America, the employee works more for the well being of them self and their family. When the company is recognized, they may feel some sense of pride or accomplishment, but most of the time, it is a team or individual recognition that is given, at least what I have seen.

Heck, my Unit as a whole was recognized in OIFIII, as well as many individuals. In fact, many whole Units were recognized at that time. You just tend not to hear about it these days.

[Thugut]

You seem to be stuck on stupid. "Bravery" has f*ckall to do with winning or losing anything.

You have got to be f*cking kidding me, You basically state the same argument I'm trying to make :cantbeli:(with the exception that I believe that was less so the case in earlier eras).
Maybe if people here paid more attention to what I write then there would be fewer cases of perceived insults?

Anyway, once again, I didn't mean to offend, just to start a conversation. Barring a few exceptions, I was expecting too much.

[JC0352]

To address your initial point, bravery and esprit de corps has as much impact on today's battlefield as it did before the Napoleonic Wars. How could you say it doesn't? Combat has evolved, but bravery is bravery, whether it's Spartans holding a line against insurmountable odds, or a young PFC kicking down a door of a Taliban stronghold. It's individuals moving past their fear and doing their duty.

You didn't mean to offend, but casually offering up your opinion when you know fvck all about it first hand, is what is rubbing some of us the wrong way.

[Smitty_Damitty]

You have got to be f*cking kidding me, You basically state the same argument I'm trying to make :cantbeli:(with the exception that I believe that was less so the case in earlier eras).
Maybe if people here paid more attention to what I write then there would be fewer cases of perceived insults?

Anyway, once again, I didn't mean to offend, just to start a conversation. Barring a few exceptions, I was expecting too much.

Heh, heh, you tell him!:lol: We paid attention to what you wrote ****head and we subsequently reached the conclusion that you shat on any of us who have ever worn our country's uniform. Maybe if you paid more attention to what WE wrote, then you would've realized why we feel that way.

Maybe you didn't mean to offend but, you sure as hell did. If you weren't expecting much out of posting a question like this, one should think to himself if it was a good idea to pose the question in the first place...ya think???

[California Joe]

not at all, my friend, you see in fact mischief or bad intend where there is not
i basically disagree with the OP first post and especially with the way it is written
there is no gradation in bravery and no doubts that a lot of known and unknown soldiers were braves during the past 4000 years

i was in fact just asking myself why when you read history about battles during ancient times (like US civil war you may know better than me but also Napoleonic wars) the bravery action is awarded often and most of the time to whole units (like quotation on the flag) whereas you clearly begin to see more and more individual awards during WWII and after (even if medals existed before)
it was an honest question without any pun intended (and it is partly my fault, instead of talking about award i should have choosen the word Honor which suits better)

Battle honors painted on Civil War flags and the capturing of an enemies colors in the Napoleonic era, capturing a French Eagle were important because of the style of warfare, the morale factor, it was important to the men to see it. The 8th Wisconsin Regiment carried a bald eagle into battle with them. There are numerous examples of Esprit de Corps in more modern eras, the British are brilliant at it, their Regimental traditions are alive today. The Paras at Arnhem, the American 101st at Bastogne, the examples are too numerous to list...In the Napoleonic era enlisted mens feats of bravery were usually "Mentioned in Dispatches" Their name was mentioned higher up the chain. That was it, that was the "award".

[California Joe]

You have got to be f*cking kidding me, You basically state the same argument I'm trying to make :cantbeli:(with the exception that I believe that was less so the case in earlier eras).
Maybe if people here paid more attention to what I write then there would be fewer cases of perceived insults?

Anyway, once again, I didn't mean to offend, just to start a conversation. Barring a few exceptions, I was expecting too much.

Look, asshole, the only reason I haven't banned you is I'm hoping English is your second language. Your entire premise is wrong, you have been provided with numerous examples of why you're suffering from rectal cranial inversion and you want to continue to say you're not being offensive?

[Opening Batsman]

Yeah this a ridiculous idea. I fail to see the difference between some angry Viking bloke standing on a bridge holding back an army, and a random soldier picking up a bren gun and charging into a wave of Japanese, turning the battle.

[Alfacentori]

What Auzzzie said, Mark Donaldson VC = End of Argument

Alfa

[Laconian]

In occifer school we spent about a million hours writing operational orders to maximize the principles of war to our advantage. We were told repeatedly that your plan was to emphasize a team concept, and that you shouldn't expect your plan to rest on some guy doing MOH stuff to make it work. But all you have to do is study ANY battle (from any time period) and you'll see those folks that somehow wind up carrying the day. I'm pretty sure SGT York's CO didn't brief everybody by saying, "We're all going to get separated. That'll make the Hun think we're confused. Then York, you're the bottle cap here, you're gonna pick off a German squad like you're turkey hunting and capture about 150 Germans. Any questions? OK hands in the middle 'All-Americans' on three."

Bravery hasn't been replaced by anything because it can't. Technology has made the battlefield more lethal, but the physical and moral courage to engage in combat has not changed. Both units and individuals will continue to be awarded for extraordinary performances that will continue to amaze and awe those of us on the sidelines.

[digrar]

I never said there aren't brave acts in today's military conflicts.

Just stating the theory that their impact is not as decisive as it used to be.

Personally I think that anyone who has endured the fury of an artillery/mortar/chemical bombardment, suicidally charged an MG or dug in Infantry, or walked through an area sewn with mines or IEDs day after day, month after month, waiting for the shock wave to hit, has just about the biggest set of ********s a man could possess and anyone who can work in that environment shows a degree of bravery that is incomprehensible to people who haven't experienced it. You for example.
Servicemen have worked in that environment for the last 200 odd years and that bravery has had a direct impact on winning and losing. You can't get any more decisive than that. Men haven't just dug holes and sat out the war, they have gone out and done the job required, regardless of the waiting mine, the regimental fire mission fired at them, or the dug in Company in front of them.

[ggk]

Bravery hasn't been replaced by anything because it can't. Technology has made the battlefield more lethal, but the physical and moral courage to engage in combat has not changed. Both units and individuals will continue to be awarded for extraordinary performances that will continue to amaze and awe those of us on the sidelines.


what he said. Logistic, technologies only makes killing your enemy more efficient... its not a substitute to bravery because you still face death (efficiently)

[Dwelm]

during the border war South African IFV (rattel) went head on with Cuban T55's, that out gunned them and could shoot on on the move (the Rattel can't do) only by leading the the tanks into smaller circled battles could the Rattel get behind the T55's to destroy it

[BloodyTalon]

during the border war South African IFV (rattel) went head on with Cuban T55's, that out gunned them and could shoot on on the move (the Rattel can't do) only by leading the the tanks into smaller circled battles could the Rattel get behind the T55's to destroy it
Yes, but according to Thugnut that doesn't matter anymore because we don't charge into eachother with broadswords and the Rattel clearly won cuz of technological superiority. :roll:

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

As CJ so eloquently stated, this is like trying to explain *** to a virgin.

[Dwelm]

Yes, but according to Thugnut that doesn't matter anymore because we don't charge into eachother with broadswords and the Rattel clearly won cuz of technological superiority. :roll:

not really the ratel was lighter armoured, armed (can't do a lot to a T'55 from the front) and can't shoot on the move (it did/does not have a stabilized gun), it was only faster. the T55 was a top tank at its time.
And South-Africa never achieved air superiority ether. We never had a high tech army only a well trained one... our MBT rolled out 1945 p-)

[Sand Man]

... you're suffering from rectal cranial inversion ...

Jeezus, is that even remotely possible?