The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 4, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Morale Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Is a one year combat tour too long?
JohnBarry    11/4/2004 10:59:04 AM
What is the most effective length of time for a combat tour? I think the US Army's one year tours are just too long. There has been talk of shortening them but it looks like that has been dropped. Didn't they do a study in WW2 about days on the line before burnout, the British were able to keep their troops in combat for more days(something like twice as long) by rotating them off the line much more often than the Americans . In Iraq, aren?t the British again pulling much shorter tours than the US? Overall isn't this a better policy? I'm not saying American troops in Iraq are cracking only, only that after 11 months the fatigue of combat outweighs any benefit of added expericne.

Is this another result of the US indivdual rotation system, soldiers being treated like interchangeable parts in a machine, used until they wear out?
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
oldman    RE:Is a one year combat tour too long?   11/7/2004 12:24:26 PM
NO.
 
Quote    Reply

JohnBarry    RE:Is a one year combat tour too long?   11/7/2004 1:38:50 PM
I respect your opinion, but can you give me more than just - NO!!. Do you disagree because you think that the add combat experiece more than outweights any combat fatigue or that the added turbulence of more frequent rotations would be harmful overall?
 
Quote    Reply

oldman    RE:Is a one year combat tour too long? JohnBarry 11/7/2004 1:38:51 PM   11/17/2004 12:32:33 AM
Sorry about that. I had to run and forgot to come back to this thread. This is where a perspective of history comes into effect. Our fathers and grandfathers who fought in WW2 fought for the duration. And this is without all the ammenities our military provides today. Phones, Internet(!!), good food(for the most part. Thank you Haliburton), reliable mail, incredible PX service, the list goes on and on. While the combat fatigue that effects many and the frequent rotations effect all that deploy (I'm deploying for the third time in three years)what has the most effect is the percieved lack of support from our own media, Hollywood, and liberal pundits. Could you imagine our media during WW2 behaving this way? On the other hand, the tremendous outpouring of love and support from every day regular people takes my breath away. We had Boy and Girl Scout troops sending letters of support and small care packages. Mothers of service men and women sending books, AIR CONDITIONERS!?!, almost anything and everything. Business men donating their frequent flyer miles. These people love America and those who serve her. And those who serve love them back. That is why we fight, why I fight. And I know I have it good and better than those who served before and those we come to liberate. My apoligies for my previous rudeness and current rant.
 
Quote    Reply

F22    RE:Is a one year combat tour too long?---oldman   12/6/2004 1:52:05 AM
I'm only a civilian, but I want to throw in my two cents. I appreciate the historical perspective you give. America was committed back then in a way that is sorely lacking today. But I'd like to point out that serving for the duration didn't necessarily mean 4 years of combat, or even being deployed for 4 years. In Europe, most troops were deployed during 1943 and 1944. A large majority of them did not see combat until after 6 June 1944. There were, of course, units that fought continuously in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy from November 1942 through May 1945. And we still had combat veterans pulling occupation duty as late as 1946 (and maybe longer). My point is that most troops in Europe probably saw less than 1 year of combat, and were deployed for 2 or 3 years at most. The Pacific was a little different situation, but I think my conclusions are valid for that theater as well. The War on Terror is 3 years old and is likely to go on for much longer. The combat in Iraq could last another year or two. I don't think having troops deployed this long, especially in a combat theater, is good for the troops. I think one year is good enough, but not much longer. I could be wrong, and you know better than I what is best for the troops. I so greatly appreciate your service to our country. I have a yellow ribbon tied around one of my trees (yes, it IS an oak tree). It's been there for 3 years. It's pretty worn and torn, having survived 3 years of Florida weather, including a hurricane. And there it will stay, until the this war is won, and our troops come home. God bless you all!
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3    RE:Is a one year combat tour too long?   12/31/2004 1:43:19 AM
What I think is that each regiment/brigade should have a depot battalion to handle the training of newbies. In the meantime units in the field will rotate by battalion. The battalion that finishes it's tour will go home and be the next depot battalion while that one will replace it in the field. This way the newbies always have several months being trained by veterans while the troops on the field will think of the unit tour rather than the individual, thus encouraging cohesion.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy