Current Army members are serving 12-15 months in Iraq. Some have been back more than once.
How does that compare with battlefield tours in World War 2, Korea, or Viet Nam?
In Vietnam the Army had 12 month deployments and the Marine Corps had 13 month deployments. As for WWII, some units (and people) were deployed for years (“the duration” plus 6 months). I believe in Korea the length of time was 2 years.
W/regard to the Marine Corps and the 13 months, you are correct. However, I can’t recall if that was “per enlistment” or “per” some other factor, such as number of years. Back then, and w/regard to the enlisted ranks, all enlistments obligated you for 6 years of service with 2, 3 or 4 years of the 6 being “active duty.”
“for the duration”-during WWII-how did they avoid PTSD (“shell shock” and “battle fatigue” in those days) Were they made of “sterner stuff”?
My brother-in-law did 2 - 12 month tours in Viet Nam, but they were separated by 3 years at other non-combat assignments.
Who said they avoided it? Battle Fatigue or Shell Shock may have been what they called it, but I am sure it was not at all uncommon (conjecture here).
The 13 months (or 12) in Vietnam was your rotation, one would show up and get sent in to a unit, sometimes a unit in the field, and serve with that unit until their time was up. In the Gulf War, Episode I, what we were told was the way home was through the defeat of the enemy, no timeline, no rotation in and out. It was, in essence, like WWII, “for the duration”. Had that engagement extended for a much longer period (as I thought it should), perhaps a rotation scheme would have been developed, but in February 1991 there was no such published plan.
The only way to avoid The Thousand-Yard Stare is not to serve extended periods in a combat zone. Wiki has a good article on it…Google has some good images of it.
In regards to World War II: Howabout the guys who enlisted toward the end of the war, like in 1945. Would they get out after only six months, or would they be obligated to do a few years in the occupation zones?
I agree with this. Back in Gulf War I, there was a definitive end game and strategy: kick Saddam out, and destroy his threat. It wasn’t until we got into monitoring him a la OP NORTHERN/SOUTHERN WATCH that we got into a forward garrison mode with the rotations. Back then, that’s when the “Air Expeditionary Force Construct” came into being, initially to deploy air units as a whole for six months, and then bring them back. That had it’s own chaotic problems, which devolved the system down into ‘AEF ‘Buckets’’, which devolved further still into a ‘band system’.
My ramblings notwithstanding, we have no clear idea when OIF/OEF will be completed as this sort of warfare takes an occupational military. Thus, we’re gonna be there for a long, long time. You can’t just uproot a volunteer armed force and fling 'em out into the desert–eventually they’re going to want to come home. Thus, they’re keeping the rotational thing.
Currently (at least in terms of the Air Force) some folks are on a six month 1:1 “dwell” ratio for some jobs–six months home, six months deployed. The majority are, IIRC, a 2:1 ratio. Depends on the career field though.
Tripler
Hell, I’d love to go. I just found out I gotta run the shop while my boss is out. Damn.
The best response I’ve heard about the ‘sterner stuff’ concept was a boss of mine, Terry, who did some bad ass shit in 'Nam and was fucked up in the head over it. One day at work, our insurance broker, Frosty, a WWII Mustang fighter pilot, made a derisive comment about 'Nam vets being pussies for their “bullshit PTSD crap” and said the WWII guys didn’t have it. Terry got that 1000 yrd. stare and said something to the effect, “Frosty, the reason you guys don’t think you have it is because you came home heroes and it got buried in the mix and you ended up taking it out on your families instead of yourselves like the VN guys did.”
Having come of age in the 'Nam era and seen the effects on hometown boys after just one tour, I guarantee we will have an epidemic of PTSD related events in the next 4-10-20 yrs. It’s already started, as a matter of fact.
They didn’t, basically. But such things were not as understood then as they are now, and were indeed usually described as “Shell-shock” or “Battle fatigue”.
It is thought that most of the soldiers shot for cowardice or desertion in WWI were actually suffering from PTSD or shell-shock, AIUI.
In WWI weren’t frontline units rotated out for a few weeks?
When my dad finally talked to a VA doctor about his problems, some fifty years after their inception, the Vietnam-era doctor said, “You guys thought you were too tough for these problems. Welcome to PTSD.”
I count myself as one who lost his father in WWII, though I was born nine years later. He wasn’t there. He was self-medicating downstairs.
In theory, yes. According to Wikipedia, a British soldier would spend 25% of their time in the Front or “Support” lines, 30% of their time in the “Reserve” lines, and the remaining 45% of their time on rest, leave, travelling, training, or recovering from injuries. Assuming they survived long enough to get out of the “Front” or “Support” lines, of course.
RFC crews were, in theory, entitled to four week’s leave per year, but in reality (as far as I know) they were basically “at the front” until they either got killed or there was enough of a lull in the fighting for them to duck off for a few days. Having said that, they didn’t necessarily fly sorties every day, even if they were “at the front”- it all depended on the operations being carried out, equipment and supplies available, the weather, and so forth.
Another thing to consider is the nature of military service.
In the Napoleonic era, being in the Army meant you fought. But you only saw combat on one or two very bad days per season. The rest of the time was marching around and trying to avoid guard duty. In a modern war, a relatively small number of people see “real combat,” but they see it almost every day they are in the theatre.
It leads to interesting comparisons of the stress involved.
I remember reading a study that in the US Civil War a person who served 4 years (start to finsh) would have seen about 40 or so days of combat, while in WWI a US soldier who fought only from Sep to Nov 1914 would have seen about 70.
They were not in combat throughtout, units and formations would rotate outof active theatres to the rear after I think about 6 weeks. To take an example, of the US divisions in action on D-Day who had seen combat before, the 1st Infantry had not been in action since the previous August and the 82nd since the previous January. The British tended to do even more rotation and at regimental or battalion level, with units being sent to garrison (the middle east being a popular place) or back to England. As a result the 5th Division saw action in all theaters.
My grandfather was drafted right before V-J day. Right after V-J day he was deployed with a unit who’s job it was to go clean up stuff in Japan. He went over on a minesweeper. He was even injured, when a pile of junk they were burning (using aviation fuel…) blew up.
I’m sure there was plenty of work to be done in a year for the boys who were drafted last.
WW II in Europe had a points system. When the war ended you needed a certain number of points to get sent home. One way to earn points was how long you were in Europe.
My father went to Europe in Nov. of 44. The war ended in May of 45 but he stayed there until March of 46 because his point total was low. After the war was over he acted as a sort of MP for towns in Germany.
Isaac Asimov talks in various works about being drafted just after World War II ended. He only spent nine months in the army. He was almost sent with other soldiers to observe the bomb test at Bikini Atoll, but at the last moment he was shipped back to the U.S. to straighten out some bureaucratic problem with his military records:
At first the Army sent my father to get a degree at Georgia Tech. But then they realized the war was winding down so he got sent to fight in Europe. The Navy let their students finish their degree and then serve.