FirstSpear TV

Archive for the ‘History’ Category

One More Time…It’s Pogue

Sunday, January 12th, 2025

Can we just cut it with the “POG” usage? The backronym “POG” was created by infantrymen who were Pogues, but didn’t want to be called Pogues anymore. You know it’s true, there are loads of Infantrymen who are Pogues.

This photo was taken during the Vietnam war and it clearly uses the term “Pogue” which dates back to World War I and possibly as far back as the Civil War.

Oddly enough, this “POG” nonsense seems to have started with the Marines during the GWOT which explains quite a bit since they were handing out ASVAB waivers like candy. If “POG” actually stood for “Persons Other Than Grunts” then where is the “T”? Wouldn’t it be “POTG”?

And another thing, who the hell wants to brag about being the “Queen of battle?” I realize it’s a chess reference but nobody plays chess anymore. They do however, know what a drag show is.

Either way my grunt friends, have fun cleaning the barracks while the REMFs do their day-to-day jobs.

The Lowe Alpine Systems Vector 1 Pack

Saturday, January 11th, 2025

Chuck Taylor wrote a lot of great stories for gin magazines in the 70s and 80s. One of my favorites was published in SWAT magazine in 1984 regarding the Lowe Alpine Systems Vector 1 pack which combined a large main pack with an internal frame and a combination waist belt / rappelling harness which could be separated quickly from the pack to create a relatively lightweight pack solution.

The Lowe brothers, Greg and Mike, were members of Reserve Special Forces and used their experience to build packs.

The LOCO, Vector 1, and LCS-84 were all procured by SOF units via local purchase and the LCS-84 design ultimately became the Field Pack, Large Internal Frame of the Individual Integrated Fighting System issued in the early 90s.

This link shows the full catalog from the mid-80s.

Scans by Andy’s Gas Works on Instagram and are intended solely for historical preservation.

7 Soldiers from Korean, Vietnam Wars receive Medals of Honor

Tuesday, January 7th, 2025

WASHINGTON — At a White House ceremony on Friday, January 3, 2024, President Joe Biden presented Medals of Honor to seven Soldiers who served in either the Korean War or the Vietnam War.

Among the Soldiers honored were Pvt. Bruno R. Orig, Pfc. Wataru Nakamura, Cpl. Fred B. McGee, Pfc. Charles R. Johnson and Gen. Richard E. Cavazos. All served in the Korean War and received the medal posthumously. Family members accepted the decoration on their behalf.

From the Vietnam War, both Capt. Hugh R. Nelson Jr. and Spc. 4th Class Kenneth J. David were decorated. Nelson received the medal posthumously, while David, the only living recipient, accepted the medal in person.

“I’m deeply privileged to honor seven American heroes,” Biden said. “That’s not hyperbole. These are genuine, to their core, heroes. Heroes of different ranks, different positions, and even different generations. But heroes who all went above and beyond the call of duty. Heroes who all deserve our nation’s highest and oldest military recognition, the Medal of Honor.”

Pvt. Bruno R. Orig 

Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1930, Orig enlisted in the Army in 1950. On February 15, 1951, while serving with Company G, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division in the vicinity of Chipyong-ni, Korea, Orig returned from a mission to find many of his fellow Soldiers wounded in an ongoing enemy attack.

Orig administered first aid to his fellow Soldiers and remained exposed to enemy fire. With the assistance of other Soldiers, Orig removed the wounded to a place of safety.

When Orig noticed that all but one of a machine-gun crew had been wounded, he volunteered to man the weapon. Orig was so effective on the machine gun that a withdrawing friendly platoon was able to move back without a single casualty.

Orig continued to inflict heavy casualties on the enemy until the company positions were overrun. Later, when the lost ground was recaptured, Orig was found dead beside his weapon, though the area in front of his gun was littered with enemy dead. He was 20 years old at the time.

“Bruno saw his fellow Soldiers were wounded and stranded under enemy fire,” Biden said. “Without hesitation, he ran out to rescue them, giving his own life to save the lives of his brothers in arms. That’s valor. That’s the definition of valor.

Pfc. Wataru Nakamura 

Nakamura was born in Los Angeles, California, in 1921.

“After an attack on Pearl Harbor, he was forced to live in an internment camp, like so many other Japanese Americans,” Biden said. “But still, he signed up to serve our nation during World War II and the Korean War. During his last mission in May of 1951, single handedly he defended his unit from enemy attack, fighting until he was killed by a grenade.”

While serving with Company I, 38th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division in the vicinity of P’ungch’on-ni, Korea on May 18, 1951, Nakamura volunteered to check and repair a communications line between his platoon and the command post. During that mission, he came under fire by an enemy force which had surrounded friendly positions and were threatening to break the company defense lines.

Without waiting for help, Nakamura rushed the enemy with his bayonet engaged. He singlehandedly attacked and destroyed a hostile machine-gun nest and drove the enemy from several of the bunkers they had captured. When his ammunition was depleted, he withdrew while under enemy fire.

Nakamura then met an ammunition party ascending the hill. After briefing the officer in charge, Nakamura rearmed himself and, covered by the fire of the officer and two fellow Soldiers, returned to the attack. He killed three of the enemy in one bunker and killed and seriously wounded another in the last enemy-held bunker. Continuing to press the attack, he fell mortally wounded by an enemy grenade. He was 29 years old at the time.

Cpl. Fred B. McGee 

McGee was born in Steubenville, Ohio, in 1930. He enlisted in the Army in 1951 and served in Korea from January to November 1952.

“[He was] a Midwesterner, a steel worker and a gunner in one of the first integrated army units of the Korean War,” Biden said. “Fred embodied the very best of our country. In June 1952, his unit was attacked. They took casualties. They were ordered to fall back. But Fred refused to leave until he helped every wounded Soldier evacuate.”

While serving near Tang-Wan-Ni, Korea on June 16, 1952, as a gunner on a light machine gun in a weapons squad, McGee delivered a heavy volume of supporting fire from an exposed position despite intense enemy machine-gun and mortar fire directly on his location.

Though forced to move his gun several times, McGee continued to support the assault and give covering fire to the assault elements of his platoon. When his squad leader was wounded, together with several other members of his squad, McGee assumed command and moved the squad even farther forward to a more exposed position in order to deliver fire on an enemy machine gun. When his own machine gunner was mortally wounded, McGee again took over the gun. He directed his squad to withdraw and voluntarily remained behind to help evacuate the wounded and dead.

Though wounded in the face, McGee exposed himself to danger by standing straight up in enemy machine-gun and mortar fire while attempting to evacuate the body of the company runner. Forced to abandon the body, he aided a wounded man to be moved to the rear and safety through a huge volume of enemy mortar and artillery fire.

At the time of his combat action, McGee was 22 years old. After the Korean War, McGee worked in the steel industry for more than four decades. He died in 2020, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Pfc. Charles R. Johnson 

Johnson was born in Sharon, Connecticut, in 1932, and enlisted in the Army in 1952.

“Growing up, in the words of Charlie’s high school classmates, he was a heck of a football player,” Biden said. “Well back in 1952, Charlie signed up to serve in Korea, trading his jersey for a uniform. During one battle, he gave his life to defend a bunker full of his wounded Soldiers. His valor saved 10 men, including an old high school classmate.”

When Chinese forces attacked his unit at Outpost Harry in Korea, June 11-12, 1953, Johnson was serving as a rifleman with Company B, 15th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division. During the battle, an overwhelming number of Chinese troops assaulted the trenches and bunkers that were defended by Johnson and his squad.

Johnson was wounded from a direct artillery hit on his bunker and subsequently from a hand grenade thrown inside the bunker. Even though he was injured, he administered first aid to those more seriously injured than himself. Johnson dragged a wounded Soldier to the safety of a secure bunker while stopping intermittently to aid injured Soldiers and kill several enemy troops in hand-to-hand combat.

After departing the safety of the second bunker, he conducted a search for weapons and ammunition then returned to rearm everyone. After acknowledging the untenable situation, he and his fellow Soldiers found themselves in, Johnson exited the bunker and placed himself between the enemy and his injured comrades. He told them he’d hold off the enemy forces as best as he could. He was killed by enemy forces while fighting to defend his position and to protect his wounded comrades.

At the time of his combat action, Johnson was 19 years old.

Gen. Richard E. Cavazos 

Born in Kingsville, Texas, in 1929, Cavazos earned his commission in 1951, after having served in the Reserve Officer Training Corps at Texas Tech University.

“Richard led his men through a difficult and deadly mission in enemy territory,” Biden said. “Eventually, he was ordered to retreat, but he stayed. He stayed rescuing wounded Soldiers one by one, until every one of them was evacuated. Richard went on to serve for three decades in the army, becoming … the country’s first Hispanic four star general.”

At the time of the combat action which earned him the Medal of Honor, Cavazos was a first lieutenant serving as the company commander of Company E, 2nd Battalion, 65th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division in the vicinity of Sagimak, Korea.

On the night of June 14, 1953, Cavazos led his company in a raid on an entrenched enemy outpost with the mission of destroying the personnel and installation there. During the initial attack, he led his men through enemy mortar and artillery fire. Upon entering the trenches, close combat ensued during which Cavazos directed heavy fire on the enemy and their positions.

When an enemy mortar and artillery barrage hit his position, Cavazos withdrew the company and regrouped his men. Twice more he led his men through intense enemy fire in assaults on the enemy position, destroying vital enemy fortifications and personnel.

When ordered to withdraw his company, Cavazos complied but remained alone on the enemy outpost to search for missing men. Although exposed to enemy fire, he located five battle casualties and evacuated each, one by one, to a point on the reverse slope of a nearby hill where they could be safely recovered by friendly forces.

After, he returned to the battlefield where he found a small group of men who had become separated from the main assaulting force and personally led them to safety. When informed that there were still men missing, Cavazos again returned to the scene of the battle. There, he located and led another small group of men to safety. He then made two more unassisted trips to the battlefield searching for missing Soldiers.

It wasn’t until he was satisfied that the battlefield was cleared on the morning of June 15, that he allowed treatment of his own combat wounds.

Cavazos retired from the Army in 1984, after attaining the rank of general. At the time of his combat action, he was 24 years old. He died in 2017, in San Antonio, Texas.

Capt. Hugh R. Nelson, Jr. 

Born in 1937, in Charlotte, North Carolina, Nelson entered the Army in 1963.

“He was just 28 years old when he and his crew were shot down in Vietnam,” Biden said. “Hugh freed his men who were trapped in the wreckage. Then as the enemy began to attack, he used his body as a shield to protect them. It cost him dearly. It cost him his life. Hugh’s commanding officer called it the ultimate act of self-sacrifice, which it was.”

While serving with the 114th Aviation Company (Airmobile Light) on June 5, 1966 near Moc Hoa, Republic of Vietnam, Nelson was the acting aircraft commander of an armed UH-1 Iroquois helicopter on a search and destroy reconnaissance mission when it was struck by enemy fire that rendered the aircraft virtually uncontrollable.

The pilot and Nelson were able to crash land the aircraft without lateral controls. At some point after the crash, Nelson exited the aircraft and went to the aid of his wounded comrades.

Proceeding to the other side of the aircraft, Nelson found his dazed and wounded crew chief still trapped inside. After removing the specialist and placing him on the ground, he climbed into the severely damaged helicopter to assist the door gunner who was still strapped inside and unable to move.

While Nelson tried to free his comrade, the insurgents engaged the aircraft with automatic rifle and small arms fire. Despite the enemy fire and being hit, he was able to free the trapped door gunner. Upon removing the wounded door gunner from the aircraft, he forced the specialist to the ground and used his own body as a shield to cover his comrade from the enemy fire.

While shielding the door gunner, Nelson was hit several times by enemy fire and was killed in action while saving the life of his comrade. His sacrifice allowed the wounded door gunner to use a smoke grenade to signal for supporting aircraft. When those aircraft responded, they were able to prevent the insurgents from advancing on the downed aircraft. They also were able to rescue the three wounded crew members.

At the time of his combat action, Nelson was 28 years old.

Spc. 4th Class Kenneth J. David 

Born in 1950, David entered the Army in 1969.

On May 7, 1970, David was serving as a radio-telephone operator with Company D, 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division, near Fire Support Base Maureen, Thua Thien Province, Republic of Vietnam.

At that time, David’s company came under an intense attack from a large hostile force. The enemy’s initial assault mortally wounded the company’s platoon leader and resulted in numerous other casualties. Upon the initial assault, David handed his radio to his platoon sergeant and moved forward to the defensive perimeter, where he unleashed a barrage of automatic weapons fire on the enemy.

From this location, David resisted all enemy efforts to overrun his position. Realizing the impact of the enemy assault on the wounded who were being brought to the center ofthe perimeter, he moved to a position outside of the perimeter while continuing to engage the enemy.

Each time the enemy attempted to concentrate its fire on the wounded inside the perimeter, David would jump from his position and yell to draw the enemy fire away from his injured comrades and back to himself.

Refusing to withdraw in the face of the concentrated enemy fire now directed toward him, David continued to engage the enemy. Although wounded by an exploding satchel charge and running low on ammunition, he tossed hand grenades toward the attackers to counter their fire.

The unit’s medic, realizing that David had been injured, moved to his position to provide aid, but David assured him that he was okay and continued to fight on.

David’s actions continued to draw the enemy fire away from the incoming medevac helicopters, which allowed the wounded to be safely evacuated. After allied reinforcements fought their way to his company’s position, David carried a wounded comrade to a sheltered position. He then returned to the contact area and continued to engage the enemy and provide covering fire for the wounded until the enemy broke contact and fled, at which point he too was medically evacuated.

At the time of his combat actions, David was 20 years old.

“[Ken] couldn’t and wouldn’t give up,” Biden said. “Instead, he shouted and fired his weapon to attract attention to him, away from others and away from the wounded men. Imagine that courage. ‘Come get me. Come get me. Don’t get those folks.’ That’s selflessness. Ken, I want to say to you, and I wish I could say to every man we’re honoring today: you’re a hero, a genuine hero, a flat out, straight-up American hero. And we owe you. The families owe you.”

Since concluding his service in Vietnam, David has spent 39 years working for Disabled American Veterans in Ohio, where he now serves as the adjutant treasurer.

“[At] our chapter back here, we just spent $3,000 in food for homeless veterans and veterans in need for the Christmas holidays,” David said. “We get used scooters and wheelchairs …. donated to us, and we, in turn, give them out, no charge, [to] whoever needs them. We do what we have to do to help the veterans in our community … because we have to help our brothers.”

David said he frequently remembers the men he knew who didn’t come home alive from Vietnam, saying he thinks of them as friends. He said he keeps biographies of those men in a book in his truck.

“That’s my way of coping with my stress,” he said. “They were my friends, a lot of times I call them kids, because we were all kids at that time. But we knew the way they walked, we knew the way they talked, their heartbeat, and we would do anything for each other in any situation.”

David is already the recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, which he received in 1971, for his service in Vietnam. But he said the Medal of Honor will help him be a better advocate for the needs of veterans like himself.

“With the cross I was able to use the award to help more veterans, because people listen to me,” he said. “Now that I’m receiving the Medal of Honor, I will have more power to help more veterans, in my opinion, because I think people will listen to me more because of the award.”

Serving veterans, he said, continues to be his duty.

“I will never forget my friends and my veterans in my county up here,” he said. “That’s my goal for the rest of my life now.”

As Biden closes out his term as commander in chief, he said it’s been the greatest honor of his life to lead the world’s greatest military.

“They’re the finest military in the history of the world,” he said. “Today we award these individuals a Medal of Honor. We can’t stop here. Together as a nation, it’s up to us to give this medal meaning, to keep fighting, to keep fighting for one another, for each other, to keep defending everything these heroes fought for and many of them died for: the ideals of America, the freedom we cherish, the democracy that has made our progress possible.”

The United States, Biden said, was built on an idea, rather than on geography, ethnicity or religion.

“We are the only nation based on an idea,” he said. “The idea is that we hold these truths to be self-evident, all men and women are created equal [and] deserve to be treated equally throughout their entire lives. We haven’t always lived up to it, but we’ve never, ever, ever walked away from it. Today we must say clearly, we never, ever, ever will.”

By C. Todd Lopez, DOD

Planning a More Effective Army

Monday, January 6th, 2025

The Department of the Army is conducting a bold new experiment designed to bring developers, tacticians, and intelligence workers into closer coordination for the development of an effective fighting concept. It has established an Advanced Concepts Organization from three of its elements: the Institute of Land Combat of the Combat Developments Command; the Advanced Materiel Concepts Agency of the Army Materiel Command; and the Intelligence Threat Analysis Detachment of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence. The three agencies are working interdependently to achieve a Land Combat System Study that will integrate technology and intelligence into an operational organization for the future.

IN THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS that leads to the development of profitable new products or processes, it is only natural to be interested in the systems that facilitate the process of innovation. There are two opposing theories concerning innovation. The scientist/technologist firmly believes that technology always leads, while the sociologist/economist just as firmly believes that identification of a market must precede a development program to satisfy that market.

Many examples have been cited that indicate that need-oriented planning led to successful innovation. Yet, the evidence is almost as heavily weighed in favor of the precedence of technological innovations that created whole new systems that filled needs not previously recognized. Examples of this include the Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emmission of Radiation (MASER) and the Light Amplification by Stimulated Emmission of Radiation (LASER), which Dr. C.H. Townes observed at Columbia University while working on a method to explain the spin resonance of the hydrogen atom; the transistor, which was developed by a team at Bell Laboratories; and the printed circuit, developed at the Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories of Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, which led first to macrominiaturized circuits and then microminiaturized circuits. However, scientists and tacticians in the Anny feel that while both theories have their place, neither alone is the answer. One of the most glaring examples that neither in itself is supreme is the use the German General Staff made of the technologies for the “blitzkrieg” of World War II. The tank, the airplane, mobile troops, and artillery were available to the Allies (France, Britain, and later the United States), but the tactical concept developed by the Germans made maximum use of technology, insuring initial victories.

In the spring of 1967, the Department of the Army established three organizations, to be known collectively as the Advanced Concepts Organization, whose joint mission was to prepare recommended designs of the total land combat system and to guide development of selected major materiel concepts through concept formulation. Each individual organization has specific responsibilities in achieving the overall mission.

The Intelligence Threat Analysis Detachment (ITAD) of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence provides long-term threat forecasts and environmental information in response to the requirements of the Advanced Materiel Concepts Agency (AMCA) of the Army Materiel Command (AMC) and the Institute of Land Combat (ILC) of the Combat Developments Command (CDC). The AMCA provides descriptions of alternative systems and concepts of materiel with which future forces could be equipped, conducts some design work, and serves as a contact point for concepts originating at AMC elements and industry during the concept formulation phase. The Institute of Land Combat develops conceptual designs of the land combat system and conducts related selected studies and analyses to guide the development of Army doctrine, materiel, and organization during the concept formulation phase.

The AMCA will devise or act as a clearinghouse for the advanced materiel concepts and systems that will influence the tactics and doctrine developed by the ILC to meet the threats evolved by the Threats Analysis Detachment. Therefore, the relationship of the three organizations is one of mutual support which will enhance the future Army’s combat effectiveness.

The Land Combat System Study will be unique and innovative because it approaches the Army in the field as a total, integrated land combat system—arrived at by a systematic process; presents options in the form of alternative designs; and conducts a preferential analysis which gives the decision maker a preferred design as well as the pros and cons of all the options. The schematic diagram below illustrates the sequence of steps envisioned in development of the Land Combat System Study. The study closely integrates the systematic forecasting of environments and problems by the intelligence community; the advanced materiel concepts of the materiel developer; and the operational, organizational, and materiel concepts of the user.

A Land Combat System Study completed and approved by late 1972 or early 1973 would provide immediate guidance at that time for investment of research and development funds (including curtailment of on-going projects not relevant to the land combat system). The approved land combat system would also be the basis for new procurement decisions after 1973 and also perhaps, as in research and development, would provide the motivation for curtailing production of certain items already in production. Many decisions on the development of complex items must be made not later than 1975 if the approved concept is to be “fielded” during 1990. This means dealing with today’s science and the technology of about 1972 to 1975—not the 1990’s! This is a point not well understood by some people who look askance (if not aghast) at what the ACO is trying to do, believing that they must project technology to 1990 in order to attain their goal. This is just not so. Admittedly, the task before the Advanced Concepts Organization is a difficult one; but then, that has never been a valid excuse for not trying. The dean of a major university recently stated, “As to what it is you’re trying to do, I don’t think it can be done—but, I damn well agree someone had better be trying.” The ACO is trying—and plowing new and fertile ground in the attempt. At the same time they are constantly reevaluating themselves in an effort to refine and improve their methodology and products.

The first major component of the study to be developed was the conflict situations and Army tasks. Of 389 potential conflict situations for consideration, 145 were considered to impact on the interests and security of the United States. From these 145 conflicts, 10 representative conflict situations were selected for more exhaustive analysis. These 10 were chosen not because they were the most probable, but as being representative or typical on the basis of three factors—types of geographical environment, types of antagonists, and use or nonuse of mass destruction weapons. The purpose of these detailed representative conflict situations was twofold: first, to provide a basis for deriving the Army tasks which the land combat system should be designed to carry out, and second, to provide plausible, concrete situations as vehicles for gaming and other analytical techniques to be employed in the preferential analysis of the alternative conceptual designs.

The Directorate of Military Technology of the Institute of Land Combat compiles a comprehensive summary of plausible materiel options for the 1990’s. This is a listing that identifies functional objectives and statements of tasks in terms of the five battlefield functions of land combat (firepower; mobility; intelligence; command, control, and communications; and combat service support). For example, under the firepower function of combat, a functional objective would be to “inflict casualties on enemy personnel and damage to enemy materiel in a ground and water environment.” With this broad and unconstrained objective of the user, represented by ILC, the materiel developer, represented by AMCA, proposed various materiel systems for its solution. Two routes were used. The first was a reasoned extrapolation from current technology which, in some cases, led to significant improvements in the cost-effectiveness relation of materiel systems. The second called for more imagination. The developer was given free rein within certain constraints of attainability, to conjecture those materiel systems which were not based on any materiel existing or under development but which promised cost-effectiveness benefits. Materiel Option Data Sheets were developed by AMCA for each proposed system and contained as much of the following types of data as possible:

Concept of operation.

Characteristics of operation, including such data as weights, length, range, accuracy, hit probability, rate of fire, production costs, life cycle cost, etc.

Vulnerabilities/limitations.

Pivotal materiel unknowns—technical barriers or problems to be overcome if development, production, and deployment of the materiel option is to be achieved by 1990.

Attainability—expressed as a probability of achieving type-classification by 1985.

Under the aegis of the Advanced Materiel Concepts Agency, an ad hoc working group, chaired by Professor N.K. Rogers of the Georgia Institute of Technology, studied the state-of-the-art and potential advanced concepts in the area of mechanized/automated handling of all classes of supplies by Army terminals and stockage points in a theater of operations for the 1990 time frame. Some of the conclusions were—

The container or unit load will become a prime method of supplying a theater Army.

The module of pallet-load or less in size will become the prime unit of issue and will be a consumable item.

The speed of response required from the entire supply system will be vastly increased as a result of the nature or pace of combat activities.

The Army in-theater supply centers will become smaller in size, mobile, and more dispersed.

Most of the general public does not realize it, but the “spin-off” from materiel research and development contributes in large measures to the civilian community. The development of the printed circuit and its reduction in size has resulted in the pocket radio receiver, which for many a mother, when turned up to full volume by her youngster, is the bane of her existence.

Techniques developed by medical evacuation units, using the helicopter as an ambulance, promise to save the lives of our populace who are injured seriously in automobile accidents on our highways. Other advances in medicine include the Army’s contribution to vaccine developments which are capable of immediate exploitation. Our scientists in biological research have an international reputation in the field of tissue culture, which contributes to cancer and organ (heart, lung, kidney) transplant research.

The Advanced Concepts Organization is monitoring the Independent Research and Development Program funded by the Armed Forces for those civilian contractors who are doing defense work. In addition to doing research and development for civilian items, this program is aiming toward simplification of the items used by the Army. Not only must this materiel be simple in design, but it must be economical to maintain, and capable of use by the average soldier. The soldier of the future will be a well-educated man, but if present trends in new gear continue, he will need to be a highly trained engineer or scientist to operate equipment visualized for the future Army. This program must begin working toward reductions in development and production costs, because funds will become scarcer as our social and economic need programs are attacked. Even the emphasis in these latter areas may not be adequate to take up the slack which is being generated.

Alternative conceptual designs (ACD’s) of the Land Combat System of 1990 are being developed by independently functioning teams. Through guidance to each team, the TLC seeks to insure development of different conceptual designs. The last major stage prior to the drafting of the study itself is the preferential analysis of these alternative conceptual designs. Its purpose is to rank the three ACD’s by evaluating their relative effectiveness in carrying out the Army tasks developed for the representative conflict situations against their costs in dollars and manpower, and in terms of other possible impact on the United States.

Traditionally, the development of materiel has preceded the development of doctrine and pretty well dictated how the Army would organize and fight. The user never really had a chance—certainly not in a systems context—to influence the development by stating his requirements. Frequently an item has been built simply because it could be built. While it always will be helpful

to have the materiel developer tell the user—“Look, we can make you this gadget,” most development should be responsive to a foreseen and stated need of the user. The Land Combat System Study provides this essential interface and compromise between who drives what—the operational concept or the materiel development, the user or developer.

Current and projected austerity demands a close look at what the Army is getting for its investment in personnel and materiel. No one is absolutely sure yet. The question may never be answerable in quantitative terms, but an approved land combat system would, for the first time, provide the U.S. Army decision makers with an agreed blueprint of the whole system. Trade-offs among subsystems would have some basis in rationale. Research and development investment and curtailment of investment could have direction and purpose. Even procurement funds could be allocated under one master plan. The whole investment could easily be recouped if the system were to preclude only one false start on a major materiel system. This is particularly important and relevant during both the current and projected austerity because funds could be allocated to the right places the first time.

The systems approach to the Army in the field tends to de-emphasize branch orientation, such as infantry, armor, aviation, in favor of determining requirements and possible trade-offs on a total system basis. In other words, the “squeaking wheel” is now the total system.

Whatever conceptual design the Department of the Army approves, it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever see the U.S. Army in exactly that configuration. It is intended to be a long-range dynamic goal to be modified as required by the passage of time and its increased visual acuity of such factors as technology, international events, resource availability, and other factors that could not be foreseen in the design. The use of alternatives, where appropriate, and other factors of the methodology, such as attainability and pivotal materiel unknown, give some degree or assurance that the final product will be relatively insensitive to all but truly major changes.

The Army’s researchers in our laboratories are long on freedom, but short on guidance from our customer, hence technology and requirements don’t always meet. Now, with the meld of both in the Advanced Concepts Organization, we will jointly provide our Army increased capabilities in the field.

By Halvor T. Darracott and COL M.H. Rosen

Mr. Halvor T. Darracott is chief of the Operations Analysis Division of the Advanced Materiel Concepts Agency, USAMC. He holds a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and a master’s degree in physics.

Colonel M.H. Rosen is commanding officer of the Institute of Land Combat, USACDC. He is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and the Army War College and he holds a master’s degree in international affairs.

[This article was first published in Army Sustainment Professional Bulletin, which was then called Army Logistician, volume 2, number 5 (September–October 1970), pages 8–11, 40–41. The text is reproduced as faithfully as possible to enable searchability. To view any images and charts in the article, refer to the issue itself, available on DVIDS and the bulletin’s archives at asu.army.mil/alog/.]

Blast From The Past – Coyote’s Rules

Saturday, January 4th, 2025

Many of the men I learned from during my term of service were personally mentored by one of the most brilliant men I have ever met. Everytime I heard him speak, I learned something.

Coyote aka GEN Peter Schoomaker not only commanded SOF elements from the small unit level all the way up to USSOCOM, but he was also called back to active duty from retirement to serve as Chief of Staff of the Army, early in the war on terror.

His set of rules are a simple example of his leadership philosophy. I hope you gain from them as much as so many others have.

The Multi-Component Boot System

Thursday, January 2nd, 2025

Yesterday, I was way down the rabbit hole of reviewing the library of photographs taken by Natick Soldier Systems Center over the years when I ran across this photo. I knew immediately what it was and it got my mind to racing.

I had read an article on a boot system used by the Rangers over 30 years ago in Infantry magazine. In fact, I adopted some of the concept as my own during my time at Bragg.

I did a little online research and found the article in the online Infantry magazine archive at Fort Moore’s website. It was in the March-April issue of 1989 but I know I didn’t read it until at least Fall of 90.

Unfortunately, the older issues are all PDF scans and whoever did it didn’t do a very good job. Consequently, the pages I’m going to share aren’t the best. For instance, one of the pages was scanned upside down. I have tried to rectify them as best as possible, and hopefully you can read the article.

I had recalled that one of the authors was a physicians assistant with 2/75, and at the time they were Warrant Officers, and not commissioned officers like today. When I went back and reread the article, the co-author really stood out: CPT Peter E Blaber who at the time the article was written was the XO of A Co, 2nd Bn, 75th Ranger Regt. Yeah, that Pete Blaber. Obviously, the name would not have resonated with me in 1990, but COL Blaber definitely made his mark on the Army during the ensuing years.

But I find even more remarkable is that he took the time to write an article about footwear and foot care for Infantrymen.

Now, on to the meat of this trip down memory lane: the Multi-Component Boot System. The article lays out a project undertaken by Natick and 2/75 for a boot system based around the popular OD Green Jungle Boot which could be accessorized with various socks and a GORE-TEX gaiter to increase the temperature and climatic range of the boot so that the Soldier could rely upon a single pair for a mission which takes place during varied environmental conditions. There article also offers some great advice discussing foot care and boot sizing. As far as I know, no other units ever adopted the system.

I won’t steal anymore of the authors’ thunder except to say that it made a significant impression my me as young Sergeant, influencing my equipment choices, and it educated me that that metal foot size gizmo is called a Branock Device.

Enjoy!




Boots on the Ground: Modern Land Warfare from Iraq to Ukraine by Leigh Neville

Saturday, December 28th, 2024

In February 2025 Osprey Publishing will release Boots on the Ground: Modern Land Warfare from Iraq to Ukraine by Leigh Neville.

Written by a renowned expert in modern conflicts, this fully illustrated book provides an examination of ground warfare over the past 20 years and looks ahead to the future.

Available for pre-order on the Osprey Publishing website.

WWII US Army Training Film – Ski Equipment

Thursday, December 26th, 2024

This 1942 US Army training film is a great snapshot in time, depicting various clothing and equipment issued at the time to ski troops, specifically members of the 10th Light Division.