What is the highest rank in the military that one can possess and still expect to be out in the field and slugging it away with the enemy?
I understand that any rank may be caught here and there in a given fight (e.g. a position is overrrun) but I’m more curious about the guys who will be up front with the troops. Maybe not charging a position with the Privates but still at fair risk from getting attacked themselves and having to fight back directly.
In the movie When We Were Soldiers Mel Gibson plays Lieutenant Colonel Hal Moore and that character was most definitely in the stew with the rest of his troops. Contrast that to, say, General Patton in WWII who was with his troops on the battlefield but I doubt had much cause to ever personally shoot the enemy himself much less be under direct fire (comparatively…in the movie Patton they show him getting strafed by a German plane but that was the exception more than the rule).
I am more interested in ground forces here than naval or air forces but anyone can speak to those if they wish.
[sub]NOTE: I do not mean this question to be derogatory. Most Generals may not get shot at but in their rise to General they probably did at one time or another. It makes sense to keep your Generals out of harm’s way as much as possible. It may be callous but a General is worth more than a Private…anyone who plays chess or Stratego knows as much.[/sub]
There isn’t a rank in the military that can say without a doubt they’ll never personally grapple with ‘the enemy’. If it came down to it, a 4-star general would be expected to pick up a gun and shoot back.
At least, that was my understanding after 4 years in the AF. Granted, it’s extremely unlikely that your generals are going to be on the front lines.
Land forces: Division commanders (Major Generals - 2 star) will still be likely to be close enough to the action to ocassionally take direct fire, sleep in tents and get down in the mud. General Staff Major Generals , OTOH, would probably be back at Theatre HQ the whole campaign.
As for admirals at sea, the flagship is as likely as any other vessel in the fleet to come under direct fire.
The best answer is Captain. They lead their companies onto the battle field. Their job still is not to handle a rifle. For real action you have to go to the bottom of the barrel. Lieutenants lead their platoons into combat. Marine lieutenants are expected to lead their men in a charge on the enemy. Above Captains are Majors who may wander out in the field some, but mainly stick around a command base. It does depend on the individual and your example of Patton is a good one. He might not have been out there shooting at the enemy, but he made himself visible to his troops and that raised morale. His men knew he wasn’t sitting in a warm house, sipping brandy, while they risked their lives.
Ah, what was the line… something like “You will tell your commander that you are a rifleman before you are a radioman.”
I think the concept has changed a great deal since WWII, Korea, or Vietnam, though. Dopes “slugging it out” mean commanding a armored unit or batallion in the field, literally shooting with a weapon, or sitting at a command post exchanging missiles? Are we including Navy and Air Force?
I doubt you’ll see many 3 or 4 star Generals sitting in a jeep along a column moving through enemy territory any time soon, but that has a lot to do with how we changed how our army works.
My WAG is that you would still see colonels commanding troops in the field and air.
It’s not entirely uncommon in wartime. Notable examples include American Brigadier General Norman Cota, who not only paced Omaha beach under fire, but once inland gave his troops a personal demonstration about taking houses occupied by the enemy:
If you were the commander of an airborne unit in World War II, the chances of having to shoot it out were pretty good. Then-Brig. Gen. Maxwell Taylor once made a wry observation about his experience with the Normandy landings. Major General Roy Urquhart of the British 1st. Airborne had to shoot a German soldier in the face at point blank range on the outskirts of Arnhem, and personally fight (and sneak) his way back to his own lines.
And then there were the pilots, who often achieved high rank and still finangled combat missions. Adolf Galland, General of Fighter Pilots of the Luftwaffe (which I think equates to Major General with a sort of “in charge of everything” twist) commanded the first jet squadron, JV44. On April 26, 1945, General Galland shot down a B-26 Marauder with his Me-262 (hope it wasn’t one of David Simmons’ pals), was shot up by an American P-47 which was loitering around Galland’s airfield, and crash landed. (Additionally, almost all the pilots in that unit were bearers of the Knight’s Cross.)
On a more modern note, I have heard tell that it’s not uncommon to find Lieutenant Colonels flying helicopters for the US Army, often for our special forces. The story I heard goes that the Army doesn’t want to promote the fly-boys to flag rank, so they tend to retain active–potentially combat–assignments much longer than most other officers. You’ll need better confirmation of that, though.
Is there any official dictate from the military on this? That is, does the military strongly encourage certain levels of officers and above to stay out of harms way? I’m sure Generals and the like aren’t supposed to take overt risks and I wonder if General Cota got an earful for his actions in Normandy. Certainly brave and certainly leading his soldiers but I can’t imagine the 4-Stars being thrilled with a General doing house-to-house fighting.
More to the point I suppose my question on a military dictate applies to how it is viewed today and not back in WWII or earlier. Way back in the mists of time leaders often fought side-by-side with their troops. Today however some of the parameters haev changed. I think more value is placed on keeping the higher-ups away from harm and delegating authority down the line to do the dirty work. Todays weapons are so much longer range that troops can no longer feel they can protect a general in the midst with any reliability. Accurate, over-the-horizon artillery, missiles from planes, accurate laser-guided bombs dropped from the stratosphere, highly accurate and very long range sniper rifles…the list goes on. As a result it would seem that the Generals and such need to be kept even further away from the action than they once were to protect them and with modern communications and GPS and such a General might still have ‘reasonable control*’ over a battle.
[sub]*–I say ‘reasonable control’ with the understanding that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. Still, if the movie When We Were Soldiers is to be believed then clearly Lt. Colonel Moore’s presence on the field and using his experience to direct his troops turned a likely massacre into a victory.[/sub]
I’m not sure I’d sacrifice my privates to save a General.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Sorry couldn’t help it. <Ducks, get dope slapped anyway, and slinks from the room>
All Navy and Marine fighter pilots are officers, and I imagine the same is true in the Air Force. However, Army helo pilots usually are enlisted or warrant officer grades.
At least in the Navy, once they get their wings, aviators like to keep getting their flight time in no matter what their rank, right up through Adrimiral. Squadron leaders are usually Lt. Commander or Commander (equivalent to Major or Lt. Colonel in Air Force or Army). These are the guys who would typically be leading combat missions off a carrier. I can’t say that Navy Captains and Admirals don’t fly combat missions, but I doubt it’s routine.
My grandpa was in WWII as a Lieutenant Colonel and he saw combat - he was an ammunitions specialist.
My father was also a Lieutenant Colonel and used to go out in the field with his troops for training exercises - didn’t exactly get his hands dirty, but had to slog it out all the same (Albeit in his own private tent, with a cot and a mattress pad - the other fellas just got a sleeping bag.)
I had the good fortune to serve under/with a major general, two stars, the commander of a 20,000 soldier combat arms outfit, who was not above rolling up his sleeves and showing a private how to maintain a missile launcher by doing it in front of the kid. He was a hell of a soldier and a delight to work for despite being a demanding man with high standards for his people and a narrow tolerance for people who made the same mistake twice.
A rifle platoon leader, usually a junior lieutenant, has essentially one job. When his people come under fire and go to ground it is his job to run around getting them back on there feet and moving. While this is going on the young lieutenant is about the only guy standing up. The popular, though unverified, old saw during Vietnam was that a rifle platoon leader under fire had a life expectancy of 17 seconds. The conventional wisdom was to avoid all fire fights that lasted more than 10 seconds.
Remember that general officers get to be general officers because they were bang up lieutenants, captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels. Each promotion, especially above major, involves a substantial choke point and only the best get the next kick up the ladder. Admittedly the qualities that lead to promotion and command may not be the qualities that make a person a good dinning companion, but you can be sure that the guy who is a clean handed general spent a lot of time as a junior officer with dirt and blood under his finger nails.
You have a good point, Whack-a-mole. Losing high ranking officers in the midst of action can cause some very serious problems. Roy Urquhart’s temporary absence from command seems to have seriously curtailed the activity of the 1st Airborne at Arnhem during a critical time, and may have led to it being surrounded and cut off from the smaller unit which actually made it to the Arnhem bridge (that unit’s commander, Lt. Col. John Frost, was badly wounded in the battle there).
On the other hand, was it James Gavin who said something to the effect that it did the soldiers good to see a dead general once in awhile?
You may want to check out John Keegan’s The Mask of Command for a closer examination of the “in front always” phenomenon, and why such a thing is impossible on the modern battlefield.
Are we just talking about the US army? FWIW, Lieutenant Colonel H. Jones was the last member of the British Army to be awarded the Victoria Cross (UK equivalent of the CMOH) during the Falklands Campaign in 1982.
As a side note, I have met many people who served in that campaign who felt that his actions were verging on irresponsible (not to undermine his valour but with regards to his high rank).
Last night I was poking through Carlo D’Este’s biography on George Patton, and found a rather curious example of a “fighting general.” The important part is recounted here:
According to D’Este, Major General Ward, commanding the 1st Armored, was slightly wounded in the assault. Shortly thereafter he was the only general officer to be officially relieved of command by Patton. Perhaps just as interesting, Orlando Ward went on to become the U.S. Army’s Chief of Military History.
What I found most interesting was that Patton ordered a Major General to personally lead an assault. That seems like a rather rare occurrence.
I would generally say Captain, Company/Battery Commander is MUCH more likely to get in the mix than a Major or above. Major = Staff. Driving desks and whatnot. Planning, strategy, logistics. In the Marines, Company Commander is the last “fun” job on the ground. “Fun” is getting in the mix.
