Famous Maj. Gen. George A. Custer is probably best known for his exploits after the Civil War, but he graduated from West Point in June 1861, arriving in the regular Army just in time to lead cavalrymen in the First Battle of Bull Run that July. Yeah, Custer rode into combat the month after he graduated college.
Cadet George A. Custer at West Point in 1859.
The First Battle of Bull Run, or the First Battle of Manassas as it was known in the South, focused on the railroad intersection at Manassas. The railroads that intersected there were key to Washington’s ability to send troops and supplies south into Virginia in case of an invasion of the South. Both sides knew this and wanted to control the junction.
The South stationed an army there, but those men largely fell back when 30,000 Union troops assembled nearby in June 1861. Just weeks later, the field commander of the Union Army, Gen. Irvin McDowell, proposed using his 30,000 men to further drive back the Confederate defenders and then advance on Richmond. His goal was to capture the Virginia capital, recently selected as the second capital of the Confederacy.
While the Confederate forces under Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard had fallen back when the Union troops showed up, they were obviously not willing to leave the capital undefended. They had to fight the Union at Manassas Junction.
Custer arrived in Washington D.C. on July 20, 1861, the day before the battle broke out. He had been held on West Point’s campus for disciplinary reasons right after he had graduated from the school as the 34th ranked student in a class of 34. Because of his late start after this detainment, he barely reached D.C. in time for the battle.
He reported to the Adjutant-General’s office and was told that he had been assigned as an officer in the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. (This was an auspicious assignment. Lt. Col. Robert E. Lee had commanded the unit until January 1861.)
But after giving Custer his orders, the adjutant offered to introduce Custer to Lt. Gen. Winfield Scott. At the time, Scott was the Commanding General of the United States Army. Custer gave his assent, and Scott asked Custer if he would rather spend the following weeks training recruits or if he desired “something more active?”
A Union artillery battery is overran at the First Battle of Bull Run.
Custer said he wanted more active work, and Scott ordered him to procure a horse and report back by 7 p.m. to carry dispatches to McDowell, the field commander. Custer did so, introduced himself to the general and his staff, and then reported to his regiment.
Because of West Point’s detaining him, Scott had managed to ingratiate himself with the Army’s top commander and its top field commander mere hours before its first engagement, a fight he would now ride in. It was a pretty great start for a bottom-of-his-class West Pointer.
But when the actual battle touched off, Custer was present and in the saddle, but did not see serious action. The Union commanders had seven cavalry troops on the field, but largely used them attached to infantry brigades where they would, at most, protect the infantry’s flanks or do a little reconnaissance.
Custer, on the right, as a captain after he captured one of his West Point classmates.
(Library of Congress)
Still, he made himself present and provided warnings to commanders, leading to a citation in reports from the battle and impressing George C. McClellan. The battle went badly for the Union, and McDowell was removed from command. That might seem like a problem for the cavalry officer who had just impressed McDowell, but McDowell was replaced by McClellan.
As McClellan re-organized and re-trained the Union military, he kept an eye on Custer who was quickly impressing others, largely through brash actions. During the Peninsula Campaign, he saw a debate about whether it was safe to ford a river and ended the argument by riding into the middle of it and reporting that, yeah, he wasn’t dead. It was probably fine.
Gov. Steve Sisolak of Nevada railed against the Department of Energy for what he described as “unacceptable deception,” after the agency transported a half-ton of weapons-grade plutonium to Nevada, allegedly without the state’s consent.
“I am beyond outraged by this completely unacceptable deception from [The Department of Energy],” Sisolak said in a statement. “The Department led the State of Nevada to believe that they were engaging in good-faith negotiations with us regarding a potential shipment of weapons-grade plutonium, only to reveal that those negotiations were a sham all along.”
“They lied to the State of Nevada, misled a federal court, and jeopardized the safety of Nevada’s families and environment,” Sisolak said.
During a press conference on Jan. 30, 2019, Sisolak said he did not know how the plutonium was transported or the route the Energy Department took to get to Nevada. “They provided us with no information in that regard,” he said.
Gov. Steve Sisolak of Nevada.
Sisolak said he would look into several options for the plutonium, which had been taken to the Nevada National Security Site.
“To put the health and the well-being of millions of people at risk … without giving us the opportunity to prepare in case there would have been a mishap along the way, was irresponsible and reckless on behalf of the department,” Sisolak said.
In a court filing, the Energy Department reportedly revealed it had completed the shipment of plutonium, but declined to provide specifics due to security reasons. It noted that the transfer was completed before November 2018, prior to an injunction the state had filed during negotiations.
The plutonium was shipped from the Savannah River Site in South Carolina in order to comply with a federal court order in the state, according to a National Nuclear Security Administration official cited in a Las Vegas Review-Journal report.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, the federal agency responsible for nuclear applications in the US military, claimed the plutonium would only be temporarily stored in Nevada before being moved to another facility in New Mexico or elsewhere, The Review-Journal reported.
Lawmakers from Nevada sought an injunction and raised questions about the safety of transporting the nuclear material, including the impact it could have on the environment. The state also claimed the Energy Department failed to conduct a federally mandated study to assess the risks in transportation, and neglected to study alternative sites for depositing the plutonium, according to The Review-Journal.
United States Department of Energy headquarters.
Sisolak said the state filed a temporary restraining order on Wednesday to prevent future shipments, and that he was seeking retribution from the Energy Department.
Throughout 2018, state and the federal officials were in preliminary negotiations for the transportation of plutonium, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford said in the press conference.
In previous group emails, Nevada officials questioned the procedure and said their analysis indicated it was “insufficient … to commence this transaction,” according to Ford.
On Oct. 30, 2018, Nevada officials met with Energy Department officials in Washington, DC, to “express the concerns regarding this proposal,” Ford said. In November 2018, the state also sent a request to the Energy Department for specific commitments and timelines.
“Now, this is all the while … they had already shipped some plutonium,” Ford said. “We’re having good-faith discussions and negotiations … but they had already shipped this plutonium.”
The Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Jan. 30, 2019.
The transportation of nuclear waste is traditionally kept under close guard due to safety concerns. The Office of Secure Transportation within the Energy Department reportedly contracts hundreds of couriers to transport radioactive material using truck convoys.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
At this year’s E3, many long-awaited game have been announced. And because gaming companies love digging into the same gold mine over and over again, it seems like a good handful of established franchises are now getting a new “battle royale” mode to try and cash in on a booming trend.
For those who don’t know, a “battle royale” game is one in which 100 players are dropped into an open world and are expected to find gear to help them outlast the other 99 players. We have nothing but love for the game mode, seeing as PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds is one of our favorite games lately. When it’s done right, it’s spectacular, but shoehorning the mode into any old game might not work.
Shooter games, both first-person and third-, tend to work pretty well, but other games, like Realm Royale, are proving that even in the absence of rifles, the genre is surprisingly fun. Even a game that was focuses more on 1 vs 99 could do well, as proved by the Thanos update to Fortnite.
So, we’ve decided to take a look at games for which a battle royale mode would definitely be a welcome addition.
Quake is the original “git good” game.
One of the biggest draws of PUBG is the incredibly high skill ceiling. But in our opinion, no game franchise in history has come close to matching the skill required to dominate in Quake.
Currently, nothing in the battle royale scene matches the hyper-fast tempo of Quake. The health, armor, and weapon-spawn systems wouldn’t need to change — Quake Champions is already perfect for the game mode if you simply gave it a massive map for players to traverse.
Pro-tip: If you download the game between now until June 18th, 2018, you get it for free.
Something to think about… Maybe as a multiplayer mode in the RE2 remake.
Shy of Minecraft: Hunger Games, there isn’t really any story or plot behind why 100 players are trying to kill each other. If it was set in a zombie-infested hellscape, it’d be a bit more logical.
The Resident Evil franchise would make for a fantastic battle royale because dying wouldn’t mean a game over. It would start out as a 100-player free-for-all. Whoever dies just gets moved to the zombie team and they get another life. In order to win, you’d have to kill all of the zombies as well as the other players — or be a part of the zombie horde that kills all living survivors.
It’ll be like Los Angeles when it rains!
It’s been about ten years since a (good) Burnout game was released and they remastered the best installment of the series just a few months ago.
Burnout has always been about the stupid, awesome fun of destroying vehicles. What better way to make that happen than to have 100 player-driven cars crashing into each other?
If you think about it, Red Dead Redemption’s online mode was basically a free-for-all anyways.
Now, if it were 100 cowboys fighting each other in an open world, it’d be far more fun. One player couldn’t just find a Rhino tank and roll their way to victory.
No items, Foxes only, Final Destination — let’s do this.
Super Smash Bros Ultimate
To be fair, Super Smash Bros is the original sumo-wrestling equivalent of a battle royale game. Some game modes allow you to take on an endless onslaught of computer-controlled characters with your single fighter. It might be tough to fit 100 players around a TV, but the groundwork is all there. Just make the Hyrule Temple stage a little bigger and it’d probably fit 100 fighters.
The game is great with 4 players and chaotically awesome with just 16 players — why not go a step further?
“Where are we dropping, boys?”
World of Warcraft
The makings of a battle royale mode are already established in the lore and game mechanics of World of Warcraft. The greatest thing about the Warlords of Draenor expansion was its inclusion of a 25-man, free-for-all arena called the Highmaul Coliseum. Maybe they could bring that back and up the ante.
There are even four battlegrounds already in the game that would be perfectly suited for a re-purposing to support 100 players: Alterac Valley, Wintergrasp, Tol Barad, and Ashran. Hell, the “drop-in” mechanic that typifies nearly every battle royale game already exists in their newest battleground, Seething Shore.
Okay, you just want to play the latest computer wargame. Well, it can be a blast, whether it’s a flight simulator (just don’t strafe the guys in chutes), a first-person shooter, or even just a simulation of a battle. But there are a bunch of wargames you’ve probably ignored.
Yeah, those miniatures rules. It seems antiquated in this day and age when you can immerse yourself into a game on your computer, but don’t knock those paper rules. In fact, just as cluster bombs have got JDAMs beat in under appreciated ways, miniatures rules have computer games beat in ways you may not appreciate. Let’s take a look.
You don’t need a computer to have a good game going – just imagine a few sailors with some Harpoon or Advanced Squad Leader.
(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Tarra Samoluk)
No tech needed
When your power is out, your laptop’s got a finite life. The more performance you want or need for that game, the faster the battery runs down. That is not an issue with miniatures rules. No tech needed. The most important specialty item: Dice — and those are not dependent on electricity.
Pizza and sodas with the buddies – a nice miniatures game can provide the perfect excuse for that, PCs, not so much.
(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class David N. Dexter)
You can throw a party
When you and your buddies get together to play a miniatures game, it can be a real nice party. Get some pizza, energy drinks, throw together some nachos. But you and your friends can have a few hours… or a whole weekend, for that matter. Just make sure you clean up afterwards.
Why is the cruiser USS Monterey (CG 61) firing? What will those two Burke-class destroyers do? You could create the scenario…
(U.S. Navy Photo by Chief Damage Controlman Andrae L. Johnson)
Easy to come up with new scenarios
You don’t need much to come up with your own scenarios for a miniatures game. Just a map (doesn’t even have to be real), something to represent the ships or units (either informal tokens, actual miniatures, or even pieces of paper), and you are set to go.
It will be very easy to incorporate these changes into the miniature version of Harpoon.
(Photo by Harold Hutchison)
You can address variables
The author gets to brag here. In 2004, he asked Larry Bond, the designer of the Admiralty Trilogy wargames, a question about implementing kamikazes into Harpoon. It took a few e-mails, but an article soon detailed how to implement kamikazes into the main Harpoon 4 rule set. Try doing that with a computer game.
Okay, let’s spice up a Cold War scenario of a carrier versus two regiments of Backfires by giving the carrier the Valkyrie from Robotech…
Custom characters, weapons, or ships are no problem
If you have the blank form, you have the means to add a character, ship, or weapon to the game. Whether your own design, or something from pop culture, you can use it in a minis game. Harpoon has brilliantly done this by providing blank forms, notably for ships. Some computer wargames allow you to do that, but most don’t.
So, the next time someone disses you about liking miniature wargames, you can show them what’s what.
Full of fear and anxiety, a 10-year-old Vietnamese boy sailed across the South China Sea for 10 days, in 1986, with the expectation that a better life awaited him across the ocean.
In his mind, the only way he could live a full and prosperous life was by coming to the United States.
“If it was not for America, I probably would be dead long ago,” said Command Sgt. Maj. Thinh Huynh, the senior enlisted advisor of 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division. “If I didn’t escape, my life wouldn’t be like this.”
Born in a small village in Southern Vietnam, Huynh and his siblings lived most of their youth in poverty fighting for survival daily.
“We were so poor that we used to watch people eat,” he said. “We were barely eating. We would eat only two or three times a week.”
While recalling the struggles he faced growing up during post-Vietnam War conditions, the infantryman relates to images of children suffering from chronic malnutrition.
Command Sgt. Maj. Thinh Huynh, the senior enlisted advisor of 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, prepares to conduct pre-jump training during Operation Devil Storm at Green Ramp, Fort Bragg, N.C., July 17, 2018.
(U.S. Army photo by Spc. Alleea Oliver)
“When I see those TV commercials where they show the kids that have bloated bellies, to me, that was how I grew up in Vietnam at that time,” he said.
Huynh believes the Vietnam War, along with other wars, determined the outcome of his family’s future. Before the war, they were rice farmers and after the war they were forced to share their harvest with the communists, he said.
“Not only that, but they took away our home,” he said.
It was then that his family decided to escape Vietnam in hopes of a better life. Packed like sardines in a tiny fishing boat, Huynh and his family sailed across the South China Sea.
“I looked at old slave-boat drawings and I would compare us to that,” he said. “We were all packed in tight with no space to spare.”
Being hungry, thirsty and tired for an extensive amount of time altered the other passengers’ character.
“When people think they are about to die, they will do just about anything to survive,” Huynh said. “This brought out some of the worse behavior from people that I ever witnessed.”
Huynh said he observed a lot of things that kids shouldn’t have seen. “I saw greed, fear and anger,” he said. “Some people were so greedy they would drink as much water as they could while the rest of us had about a shot glass per day.”
After ten days of sharing the small space with 86 others, they arrived at a refugee camp on Pulau Bidong Island. Huynh’s hope finally had became his reality.
Command Sgt. Maj. Thinh Huynh, the senior enlisted advisor of 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, holds a static line while conducting pre-jump training during Operation Devil Storm at Green Ramp, Fort Bragg, N.C., July 17, 2018.
(U.S. Army photo by Spc. Alleea Oliver)
“One of the happiest days of my life was the day I escaped out of Vietnam,” he said. “I didn’t know if I was going to make it or not, but I was happy and very excited.”
Huynh and his family lived in the camp for nearly two years before coming to the United States, where he learned how to read and write, and studied America’s culture.
On Sept. 28, 1989, Huynh and his family moved from the refugee camp to a small town in Iowa.
Being interested in the military throughout grade school, he chose to focus his first American homework project on the U.S. Army.
At the age of 22, Huynh joined the U.S. Army in 1996, but waited to tell his loved ones because of his fear of disappointing his mother.
“When I joined the Army, I didn’t tell my parents until two days before I went to basic,” he said.
“My mom was really upset, because I was in college at the time. Nobody wanted their kid to escape out of Vietnam and go through all that just to join the military. “
In spite of their fears, he believed there wasn’t anything better than serving the country he now calls home.
“Ever since I was in the refugee camp, I wanted to be a U.S soldier,” he said. “Every day I would say, I need to be in the Army. So that’s what I did. I joined the Army. I don’t have any regrets.”
Twenty one years and six combat deployments later, the paratrooper says he’s gained resilience, honor and a profound love for the United States.
Although he has led many soldiers, Huynh never predicted he would become a command sergeant major within the 82nd Airborne Division.
“I never had the goal of being a command sergeant major,” he said. “My goals were to always take care of my soldiers. Now that I’m a command sergeant major of an Airborne Infantry battalion in the 82nd, I’m enjoying every minute of it. It is such an honor to be in a unit that is filled with so much history, pride, tradition and some of the best soldiers and leaders in the Army.”
According to his youngest sister, Thanh Huynh, he always possessed the qualities and had the desire to be a soldier.
“The characteristics that helped him become a command sergeant major are leadership, loyalty, initiative and courageousness,” she said. “Growing up, that’s all he ever wanted to be.”
At a young age, he demonstrated selfless service by putting Thanh first in every situation. “When we would come across a river while going fishing, he would always make sure I got across safely by finding anything that would float because I can’t swim,” she said.
Huynh believes his experiences in Vietnam developed his gratitude toward the freedoms he has as a U.S. citizen.
“I would never take America, or the freedom I have here, for granted,” he said. “I know what it’s like growing up without freedom [and] fearing for your life on a daily basis.”
Nearly 30 years ago, Huynh left Vietnam and found a place he could call home.
“I realized once I set foot in this country, that this was now my country,” he said. “I was born in Vietnam, but I escaped. America is now my country.”
A great navy is key to any great military. It’s what allowed Brittania to rule the seas for decades, France to establish vast colonies around the world, and Japan to assert itself over European powers in Asia in the early 1900s. But navies are, obviously, made up of dozens or hundreds of individual ships, and not all of them are created equal.
So we’ve dug through the history to find out top 10 picks for ships that, either because of revolutionary designs or because their crews made a new technology work where all others had failed, changed naval combat overnight:
The 64-gun warship Vasa was built in the tradition of the Mars, the first great artillery-focused naval warship.
(Jorge Lascar, CC-BY 2.0)
The Swedish warship Mars was the test platform for a bold new strategy in the 1560s: Elevate naval artillery from from a weapon used to hurt enemy ships to one that can actually sink enemy ship. The Swedish king was obsessed with the concept, and commissioned the Mars with five decks, two of them dedicated to naval artillery carrying massive cannons.
The Nautilus set speed and range records. It even conducted an entire cruise where it surfaced only once, rising to the open air only to transit the Panama Canal. It also completed the first transit of the ship across the North Pole, conducting the crossing underwater on August 3, 1958. Now, the entire U.S. submarine fleet is nuclear-powered.
The first-nuclear powered carrier and first nuclear-powered surface vessel in history, the USS Enterprise set range and speed records thanks to its powerful fuel source and engines.
The USS Enterprise of World War II was the most decorated ship of the war, and the Navy brought the name back to commission its first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in 1960. That USS Enterprise would, like the USS Nautilus, set speed and range records. It also led the Navy’s first and only all-nuclear task force, sailing around the world with USS Long Beach and USS Bainbridge, a cruiser and frigate.
Russian torpedo boats Sinop and Chesma were pretty forgettable warships except for one exchange in January 1878, when they launched the first successful self-propelled torpedo attack in naval history. The torpedo they used had been invented in England in 1866, but no navy had successfully used it in combat yet.
Without getting too technical, there’s a difference between steam-piston engines and steam-turbine engines. Steam turbines are much more powerful, and the HMS Viper and HMS Cobra were British torpedo destroyers commissioned at the same time in order to take advantage of the additional speed turbines gave.
Both ships were capable of flying across the surface at almost 40 mph (about 34 knots for the actual sailors out there). They were over 10 percent faster than most other warships of the day, and they helped prove the steam turbine technology. Today, steam turbines powered by nuclear reactors propel the new Ford-Class carriers.
The Union referred to the CSS Virginia as the Merrimack, the name originally given to her by the Union, throughout the war.
USS Monitor and CSS Virginia
At the Battle of Hampton Roads, the clash of two American ships changed naval warfare overnight. The CSS Virginia, a Confederate ship captured from the Union, attacked the northern fleet at Hampton Roads on March 8, 1862, and the Union ironclad USS Monitor showed up the next day to protect the rest of the fleet.
The Napoleon was a 90-gun warship that was launched in 1850 and soon changed the way steam-powered ships operated. Prior to the Napoleon, steam was used to power paddle wheals on one side of a warship. Sails provided primary power, and the wheel helped the ship maneuver quickly during fights.
The Furious had all sorts of shortcomings as a carrier, most notably the short flight deck that made landings extremely hazardous. It underwent multiple redesigns and refits between World War I and II, eventually becoming a full flat-top carrier.
Any naval buffs out there saw this one coming. While there are plenty of game-changing ships on this list, as well as dozens more from history that we could have chosen, the Dreadnought was such a game-changing ship that the entire world sought to copy its design and methods of construction, leading to the “Dreadnought Era” followed soon after by the “Super Dreadnought Era.”
Someone went and moneyball-ed military history. Ethan Arsht applied the principles of baseball sabermetrics to the performances of history’s greatest generals’ ability to win battles. It starts with comparing the number of wins from that general to a replacement general in the same circumstances.
The math is tricky but the list is definitive. There are just a few caveats.
First, where is all this information coming from? Although an imperfect source, Arsht complied Wikipedia data from 3,580 battles and 6,619 generals. He then compiled lists of key commanders, total forces, and of course, the outcome. The general’s forces were categorized and his numerical advantage or disadvantage weighted to reflect tactical ability. The real power is ranking the general’s WAR score, the aforementioned Wins Above Replacement.
For each battle, the general receives a weighted WAR score, a negative score for a loss. For example, at the Battle of Borodino that pitted Napoleon against Russian General Mikhail Kutuzov, the French had a slight numerical advantage against the Russians. So, the model devised by Arsht gave Bonaparte a WAR score of .49, which means a replacement general had a 50 percent chance of still winning the battle. Kutuzov gets a -.49 for Borodino, meaning a replacement for him had a 51 percent chance of losing anyway.
The more battles a commander fights and wins, the more opportunities to raise their scores. Fighting fewer battles doesn’t help, either. There were some surprises in the model, like the apparent failures of generals like Robert E. Lee and more modern generals. For the more modern generals like Patton, that can be attributed to the relatively small number of battles commanded.
For more about Arsht’s results, responses to criticism, and his findings, visit his post on Medium’s Towards Data Science. To see every general’s data point and where they sit in the analysis, check out the Bokeh Plot, an interactive data visualization. Remember, this has nothing to do with overall strategy and it’s all in good fun. Arsht does acknowledge his shortcomings, so check those out, too.
Ancient Macedonians didn’t have sideburn regulations, apparently.
10. Alexander the Great
As previously mentioned, Alexander was a great strategist, but since his life was cut short and he had only nine battles from which to draw data, it leaves the model very little to work with. Still, the conqueror of the known world is ranked much higher than other leaders with similar numbers, including the Japanese Shogun Tokugawa, German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, and Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart.
It should be noted that Alexander’s per-battle WAR average is higher than anyone else’s on the list.
Soviet General and Stalin survivor Georgy Zhukov.
9. Georgy Zhukov
Zhukov has only one more battle than Alexander and his overall score barely squeaks by the Macedonian. Interestingly enough, his score is far, far above that of Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Confederate Generals Jubal Early and John Bell Hood. That’s what overcoming the odds does for your WAR score.
But he places first for “coolest portrait.”
8. Frederick the Great
Ruling for more than 40 years and commanding troops in some 14 battles across Europe earned the enlightened Prussian ruler the number 8 spot on this list. His per-battle average was also lower than Alexander’s but, on the whole, he was just a better tactician.
Grant’s face says, “Do you see any Confederate generals on this top ten list? No? You’re welcome.”
7. Ulysses S. Grant
Grant’s performance commanding Union troops in 16 battles earned him the seventh spot on the list – and the U.S. presidency. Although his performance on the battlefield is clearly much better than those of his contemporaries, it should be noted that his Civil War arch-rival, Robert E. Lee, is so far below him on the list that he actually has a negative score.
Hannibal will very patiently kill you with elephants.
6. Hannibal Barca
Hannibal, once captured by Scipio Africanus, is believed to have given his own ranking system to Scipio, once the two started talking. His personal assessment wasn’t far off from the truth. He listed Alexander the Great and himself. Both of whom are in the top ten, even centuries later.
5. Khalid Ibn al-Walid
Khalid was a companion of the Prophet Mohammed, and one of the Islamic Empire’s most capable military leaders. In 14 battles, he remained undefeated against the Byzantine Empire, the Sassanid Persians, and helped spread Islam to the greater Middle East. Compared to others who fought similar numbers of battles, his score eclipses even Frederick the Great.
4. Takeda Shingen
Being one of the best military minds in feudal Japan is a really big deal, because almost everyone seemed to be a military mind and being better than someone else might mean you get challenged to a duel. After 18 battles, the Tiger of Kai reigned supreme – in Japan, anyway.
3. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington
It’s a pretty big deal to be the guy who delivered a solid defeat to the man they called “Master of Europe.” Napoleon’s old nemesis, the Duke of Wellington, also saw command of 18 battles, but his WAR score is considerably higher than that of Takeda Shingen, his nearest challenger.
2. Julius Caesar
Caesar didn’t have command in as many battles as Shingen or the Duke of Wellington, but his WAR score reflects a lot more risk and shrewdness in his battlefield tactics. But Caesar also couldn’t top Alexander’s per-battle WAR average.
“Guys, move over there. Trust me, I’m really good at this stuff.”
1. Napoleon Bonaparte
Yes, you might have guessed by now, but the number one spot belongs to l’Empereur. Napoleon is so far ahead of the normal distribution curve created by the data for these 6,000-plus generals, it’s not even close. After 43 battles, he has a WAR score of more than 16, which blows the competition away. There can be no question: Napoleon is the greatest tactical general of all time, and the math proves it.
Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, addresses Marines and Sailors during his visit aboard the USS Makin Island (LHD 8), moored at Changi Naval Base, Singapore, November 22, 2016.
Former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said the US fleet is facing an “acute problem” with the coronavirus pandemic and that it needs to make drastic measures to combat the disease.
In a “Pod Save The World” podcast released on Wednesday, Mabus pointed out why Navy sailors and Marines were particularly susceptible to the disease. News of the podcast was first reported on by the Navy Times.
“People do not have any way to social distance on any Navy ship, but particularly a carrier,” Mabus said. “You’ve got almost 5,000 people here. And they literally are on top of each other.”
Mabus said it was “distressing that it doesn’t look like they have a plan” implemented after the political scandal that roiled aboard the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt earlier this month.
As of Wednesday, 615 sailors aboard the ship tested positive. The majority of its crew members have been evacuated to in hotels in Guam, where the ship is in port.
The ship’s commander, Capt. Brett Crozier, was relieved of command on April 2 after he emailed a letter to his colleagues about the urgent situation aboard his ship. The letter was eventually leaked to the San Francisco Chronicle, which published its contents. Crozier was fired for what the then-acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly described as circumventing the chain of command.
Modly later resigned on April 7, after he visited the USS Theodore Roosevelt and delivered a profanity-laced speech about the situation on the ship.
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) sails in the US 5th Fleet area of operations.
According to Mabus, Capt. Crozier’s instincts were correct.
“I think what they need to do is bring every ship in,” Mabus said. “Offload, like the captain said, offload most of the crew … a little bit in a rolling fashion … leave a very skeletal force on board, sanitize the ship, quarantine people for two weeks, make sure nobody’s got COVID.”
“And then once they go back on that ship, whether it’s in port or it’s going to sea, they don’t get off the ship until this crisis is mitigated,” Mabus added.
Mabus admitted that the unorthodox approach of calling in every ship in the service was not ideal, but added it was necessary given the spread of the disease.
“It’s going to be hard because they may be inport in Norfolk or in San Diego, and once they go back on the ship and the ship is COVID-free, they’re not going to get off to see their families,” Mabus said. “But if we don’t do that, I think you’re going to see the situation that played out on the [USS Theodore Roosevelt] play out over and over again — not just on those big ships, but virtually every ship that we have in the Navy.”
Mabus’ comments come as the Defense Department reported over 5,000 coronavirus cases. Over 2,800 of the personnel are US service members, 85 of which are hospitalized as of Wednesday. One Navy sailor has died after contracting the coronavirus.
Mabus served as the Navy secretary from 2009 to 2017 and also served in the Navy as a surface warfare officer in the 1970s.
Republican Sen. Jeff Flake doesn’t want the Pentagon spending any more money on robots that serve beer.
An amendment Flake and fellow Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain submitted to the 2019 Defense Department Appropriations Act would “prohibit the use of funds for the development of beerbots or other robot bartenders.”
Robots have appeared in bars and restaurants in recent years, being used to shake, stir, and garnish drinks — the Makr Shakr robot developed by engineers at MIT was said to be able to mimic a bartender’s movements while mixing drinks to precision.
In late 2014, Royal Caribbean agreed to incorporate the Makr Shakr into a “bionic bar” on one of its cruise ships, where they feature a tablet for customers to order drinks and a robotic arm to make them.
“There are beerbots in the private sector already, so why would we devote resources for this?” Flake told Bloomberg Law.
“There’s just a lot of willy-nilly spending these days,” Flake said. “Why in the world would you spend Department of Defense funding for beerbots?”
Flake’s amendment comes two years after the Defense Department and the National Science Foundation provided million in grants to a project at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT. Those grants were only a part of the total budget.
The project used a double-armed robot to pick up and move beers around, handing them to two other “turtle bots,” equipped with coolers, that acted as waiters. The waiters, which could not communicate with one another unless they were in close proximity, traveled between rooms in an MIT lab, taking orders from people and getting beers from the bartender bot.
The project’s goal was “to control a group of robots interacting with an environment in order to cooperatively solve a problem.”
While Flake’s amendment would prevent money from going to such studies in the future, it was not clear if future studies could swap alcohol out for something else and still qualify for federal money. Nor is it certain the amendment will be included in the final defense appropriation bill.
The American Legion was founded on March 15, 1919, with a charter by Congress to focus on service to veterans, service members, and communities. Today, with over 13,000 posts worldwide, membership stands at over 2 million — with a growing number of post-9/11 veterans joining.
All across the country, posts are pouring shots celebrating the centennial with pride.
“Veterans. Defense. Youth. Americanism. Communities.” The American Legion works every day to uphold its values. Just recently during the 2019 government shutdown, the Legion stepped up to help Coast Guard service members and their families with limited assistance.
Legion programs assist with youth sports and education, community projects and events, and support to non-profit organizations. Not only that, but posts often become a community of their own, providing companionship, service opportunities, and support for veterans after their service.
And not for nothing, but you can’t beat the bar tab if you’re a Legionnaire…
Congratulations to the American Legion – and thank you for one hundred years of support, community, and laughs.
Click here to find a celebration near you — and for all the service members out there who haven’t joined yet, I highly recommend checking out your local post.
The president, on the other hand, said that his troops had already successfully defeated “the coup-mongering right.” In an hour-long TV address on Tuesday evening he accused the opposition of fueling violence “so the empire could get its claws into Venezuela.” Maduro’s use of the phrase “the empire” is a reference to the US.
Maduro also ridiculed a claim by Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, that he had been planning on fleeing Venezuela for Cuba before being dissuaded by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Pompeo told CNN that the socialist leader had a plane waiting “on the tarmac” Tuesday morning, but was talked out of the escape Putin.
Nicolas Maduro on state TV.
The US, one of many nations to recognize Guaidó as the rightful president of Venezuela, was quick to back the opposition in “Operation Freedom.” Several top politicians pledged their support on social media.
President Donald Trump tweeted that he was monitoring the situation. “The United States stands with the People of Venezuela and their Freedom!” he said.
But one of the named officers, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino, fervently backed Maduro throughout the unrest, saying: “Loyal forever, never traitors!”
Protests on Tuesday erupted into violence. Opposition-backing soldiers exchanged live fire with Maduro’s military, Reuters reported. Shocking video also showed military vehicles ramming into anti-government protesters.
A military tank rammed into opposition protesters.
A medical center near the main protest site in Caracas said it was treating more than 50 people for injuries, many from rubber bullets, The Associated Press reported. The NGO Provea said a man was killed during an opposition rally in the city of La Victoria, about 40 miles outside the capital.
Leopoldo López, a high profile opposition leader and mentor to Guaidó, also sought refuge at the Spanish embassy, according to AP. López was previously under house arrest, but said that military members backing the opposition had freed him on Tuesday morning.
The government is planning its own rally on Wednesday, Maduro said in his address. “Those who try to take [the presidential palace] Miraflores with violence will be met with violence.”
This article originally appeared on Insider. Follow @thisisinsider on Twitter.
The answer to that question depends on their rank, time in service, location of duty station, family members, and job specialty — just to name a few.
Other benefits, like government healthcare and tax-free portions of their pay, help service members stretch their earnings a bit farther than civilian counterparts.
To give you an idea, we broke down their monthly salary, or base pay, for each rank. We estimated their pay rate based on how many years they’ve typically served by the time they reach that rank — many service members spend more time in each rank than we’ve calculated, while some troops spend less time and promote more quickly.
We also didn’t include factors like housing allowance because they vary widely, but these are often a large portion of their compensation. We also didn’t include warrant officers, whose years of service can vary widely.
Each military branch sets rules for promotions and implements an “up or out” policy, which dictates how long a service member can stay in the military without promoting.
Here is the typical annual base pay for each rank.
A drill instructor shows Marine recruits proper techniques during martial arts training at Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego, California. While they are in boot camp, service members are paid minimally — but their paychecks will increase incrementally as they gain experience.
(US Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Christian Garcia)
E-1 is the lowest enlisted rank in the US military: Airman Basic (Air Force), Private (Army/Marine Corps), Seaman Recruit (Navy). Service members usually hold this rank through basic training, and automatically promote to the next rank after six months of service.
Rounded to the nearest dollar, base pay (salary) starts at id=”listicle-2629413157″,554 per month at this rank. After four months of service, pay will increase to id=”listicle-2629413157″,681 per month.
The military can demote troops to this rank as punishment.
These sailors’ uniforms indicate a seaman apprentice, petty officer 3rd class, and seaman.
(US Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist Seaman Apprentice Ignacio Perez)
Service members automatically promote to the E-2 paygrade — Airman (Air Force), Private (Army), Private 1st Class (Marine Corps), Seaman Apprentice (Navy) — after 6 months of service.
Their pay increases to id=”listicle-2629413157″,884 per month.
A Marine Lance Cpl. strums his guitar on the USS Kearsarge during a deployment.
(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Antonio Garcia)
Promotion to the E-3 occurs automatically after 12 months of service. Airman 1st Class (Air Force), Private 1st Class (Army), Lance Corporal (Marine Corps), Seaman (Navy).
Basic pay is id=”listicle-2629413157″,981 at this rank, adding up to a 7 monthly increase in pay after one year on the job.
Senior Airmen conduct a flag folding presentation during a retirement ceremony in 2019.
(US Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Alexandre Montes)
Although time in service requirements vary between each branch, service members who promote to E-4 typically have at least two years of service. Senior Airman (Air Force), Specialist/Corporal (Army), Corporal (Marine Corps), Petty Officer 3rd Class (Navy)
If an E-3 doesn’t advance in paygrade after two years, their pay will still increase to ,195 rounded to the nearest dollar.
For those who do make E-4 with two years, pay will increase to ,307 per month. Some service members will promote to the next rank after just one year at this paygrade — those who remain at the E-4 level will see a pay raise to ,432 per month after spending three years in service.
Promotions are no longer automatic, but troops can advance to E-5 with as little as three years in service. Those ranks are Staff Sergeant (Air Force), Sergeant (Army/Marine Corps), Petty Officer 2nd Class (Navy).
For these troops, their new paychecks will come out to ,678 per month.
Service members will commonly spend at least three years at this paygrade. While they do not advance in rank during that time, their pay will still increase along with their time in service.
Four years after enlistment, an E-5 will make ,804 per month. After six years of service, their pay will increase again — even if they do not promote — to ,001 per month.
First class petty officers from USS Dwight D. Eisenhower participate in a community relations project. The logo on their t-shirts is an alteration of the Navy’s E-6 insignia, which shows an eagle perched on top of three inverted chevrons and the sailor’s job specialty badge.
(US Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist 1st Class Patrick Grieco)
It is unusual for a service member to achieve the rank of E-6 — Technical Sgt. (Air Force), Staff Sgt. (Army/Marine Corps), Petty Officer 1st Class (Navy) — with fewer than six years of service.
An “E-6 with six” takes home ,254 per month.
After another two years in the service, that will increase to ,543 in monthly salary, equating to approximately ,500 per year.
Achieving the next higher paygrade, E-7, before serving for 10 years is not unheard of but not guaranteed. If an E-6 doesn’t advance by then, they will still receive a pay raise, taking home ,656 a month.
Their next pay raise occurs 12 years after their enlistment date, at which point their monthly pay will amount to ,875.
The late Marine and actor R. Lee Ermey as Gunnery Sgt. Hartman in Full Metal Jacket.
Achieving the coveted rank of E-7 — Master Sergeant (Air Force), Sgt. 1st Class (Army), Gunnery Sgt. (Marine Corps), Chief Petty Officer (Navy) — with fewer than 10 years of service is not common, but it can be done.
Those who achieve this milestone will be paid ,945 a month, increased to ,072 per month after reaching their 10-year enlistment anniversary.
Some service members retire at this paygrade — if they do, their pay will increase every two years until they become eligible to retire. When they reach 20 years, their pay will amount to ,798 per month — or ,576 yearly.
The military places a cap on how long each service member can spend in each rank. Commonly referred to as “up or out,” this means that if a service member doesn’t advance to the next rank, they will not be able to reenlist. While these vary between branches, in the Navy that cap occurs at 24 years for chief petty officers.
A chief with 24 years of service makes ,069 per month.
A US Navy senior chief petty officer’s cover, with the emblem of an anchor and its chain, USN, and a silver star.
(US Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist 1st Class James Foehl)
Service members may promote to E-8 — Senior Master Sgt. or 1st Sgt. (Air Force), 1st Sgt. or Master Sgt. (Army), Master Sgt. or 1st Sgt. (Marine Corps), Senior Chief Petty Officer (Navy) —with as little as 12 years of service.
At that point, they will receive ,657 per month.
Troops who retire as an E-8 after 20 years of service will take home a monthly salary of ,374 — or ,488 per year.
If they stay in past that point, they will receive raises every two years.
An E-8 with 28 years in the service makes ,076 monthly.
The Army’s up-or-out policy prevents more than 29 years of service for each 1st Sgt. or Sgt. Maj.
The Chief Master Sergeant insignia is seen on jackets prepared for an induction ceremony. Less than 1% of US Air Force enlisted personnel are promoted to the rank.
(US Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Randy Burlingame)
E-9s have anywhere from 15 to 30 years of experience, although few selected for specific positions may exceed 30 years of service. Their titles are Chief Master Sgt. (Air Force), Sgt. Maj. (Army), Master Gunnery Sgt. or Sgt. Maj. (Marine Corps), Master Chief Petty Officer (Navy).
Service members who achieve this rank with 15 years of experience will be paid ,580 per month.
They’ll receive their next pay raise when they reach 16 years, and take home ,758 monthly.
After 20 years, they will take home ,227 — that’s ,724 yearly when they reach retirement eligibility.
Some branches allow E-9s to stay in the military up to 32 years, at which point they will make ,475 — or ,700 per year.
Newly commissioned Navy and Marine Corps officers celebrate during their 2018 graduation from the US Naval Academy.
(US Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist Chief Elliott Fabrizio)
Compared to enlisted service members with the same amount of experience, military officers make considerably more money.
A freshly commissioned O-1 — 2nd Lt. (Army/Marine Corps/Air Force), Ensign (Navy) — earns ,188 per month in base pay alone.
A US Marine 1st Lt. takes the oath of office during his promotion ceremony.
(US Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Jered Stone)
Officers are automatically promoted to O-2 after two years of service. This is a highly anticipated promotion, as it marks one of the largest individual pay raises officers will see during their careers. Those ranks are 1st Lt. (Air Force/Army/Marine Corps), Lt. j.g. (Navy).
An O-2 earns ,184 per month, which comes out to ,208 a year.
A US Army captain waits for a simulated attack during training in Wiesbaden, Germany.
(US Army photo by Paul Hughes)
Officers will receive a pay raise after reaching three years in service.
Using the Army’s average promotion schedule, officers will achieve the next rank automatically after four years in the service.
New captains and lieutenants, with four years of service, make ,671 per month. At this rank, officers will receive pay raises every two years.
A Navy lieutenant commander talks with pilots from Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 26 from the USS Ponce while the ship is deployed to the Arabian Gulf in 2014.
(US Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist 1st Class Peter Blair)
By the time they reach the rank of O-4, military officers will have spent an average of 10 years in the service. Maj. (Air Force/Army/Marine Corps), Lt. Cmdr. (Navy)
A major or lieutenant commander with a decade of experience takes home ,236 per month, or just under ,832 a year. Officer pay continues to increase with every two years of additional service.
O-4 pay is capped at ,074 a month, so if an officer wants to take home a six-figure salary — additional pay, bonuses and allowances aside — they’ll have to promote to O-5.
Lt. Col. Goldie, the only US Air Force therapy dog, wears a purple ribbon in support of domestic violence awareness month in October 2017.
(US Air Force photo by Roland Balik)
Officers typically spend at least 17 years in the military before promoting to O-5.
They’ll take home ,751 per month until their 18-year commissioning anniversary, at which point they’ll earn ,998 per month. Those ranks are Lt. Col. (Air Force/Army/Marine Corps), Cmdr. (Navy).
After 18 years in the military, officers receive annual compensation of nearly 8,000 a year.
Col. Lewis “Chesty” Puller, a Marine Corps legend, circa 1950.
(US Marine Corps Archives)
“Full bird” colonels and Navy captains, with an average 22 years of service, are compensated ,841 per month.
Officers who do not promote to become a general or admiral must retire after 30 years of service. At this point, they will be making ,668 a month, or roughly 0,000 per year.
An Air Force pararescueman unfurls the brigadier general flag for US Air Force Brig. Gen. Claude Tudor, commander of the 24th Special Operations Wing.
(US Air Force photo by Senior Airman Joseph Pick)
Promotion to brigadier general and rear admiral depends on a wide range of variables, including job availability.
Each of these ranks carries its own mandatory requirement; similar to the enlisted “up or out” policies, officers must promote to the next higher rank or retire.
Officers who have spent less than five years at the lowest flag rank must retire after 30 years of service. Their last pay raise increased their monthly salary to ,985.
Two Rear Admirals and a Captain salute during the national anthem.
(US Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist 2nd Class Eric Dietrich)
Generals and admirals with two stars — Maj. Gen. (Air Force/Army/Marine Corps), Rear Adm. (Navy) — must retire after their 35th year in the military.
At this point, they will be earning ,381 per month, or 4,572 a year.
US Army Lt. Gen. Martin lays a wreath for President Abraham Lincoln’s 210th birthday. It takes the corporal in the image roughly half a year to earn the same amount Martin takes home every month.
(US Army photo by Spc. Dana Clarke)
Military officer pay is regulated and limited by US Code.
Both three- and four-star admirals and generals who stay in the service long enough will receive the maximum compensation allowed by the code. These ranks are vice admiral for the Navy and lieutenant general for the other branches.
Excluding additional pays, cost of living adjustments, and allowances, these officers make up to ,800 every month.
That’s about 9,600 a year.
Retired Gen. James Amos, the 35th Commandant of the Marine Corps, shares a story with Marines during a visit to a base in Hawaii.
(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Reece Lodder)
Regardless of continued time in service, once a military officer achieves the four-star rank of general or admiral, they will no longer receive pay raises and are capped at ,800 per month.
US service members across all branches conduct state funeral services for former President George H. W. Bush.
(US Army photo by Spc. James Harvey/)
Extra pays and allowances help take their salaries a bit further.
Base pay can seem stingy, especially at the lower ranks where enlisted receive around ,000 per year.
But troops receive a number of benefits and may qualify for extra allowances.
When eligible to live off base, service members receive a basic allowance for housing (BAH), which increases at each paygrade; the exact amount is set based on location and whether the individual has any children. Service members also receive allowances to help cover the cost of food and in expensive duty locations receive a cost of living allowance (COLA). Enlisted personnel also receive a stipend to help them pay for their uniforms.
Any portion of a service member’s salary that is labeled as an “allowance” is not taxed by the government, so service members may only have to pay taxes for roughly two-thirds of their salary.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
Few know mission command better than retired Gen. Carter F. Ham. In the time between his enlistment as an infantryman in 1973 and his retirement as a geographic combatant commander in 2013, Ham experienced the Army from a variety of perspectives, including as the commander of U.S. Army Europe and as the director for operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
As the current president and chief executive officer of the Association of the U.S. Army, Ham continues to make a difference on behalf of the men and women who serve. Here are his insights on mission command as the Army looks to the future.
Q: After having a career that spanned four decades, what does mission command mean to you?
A: When I think of mission command, it is getting the right process by which leaders make decisions to employ their forces from the strategic to tactical levels. It is freedom to act within intent and established parameters, and it’s achieving the right blend of initiative and control.
I’ve thought about this a lot as the Army sometimes has a tendency to rebrand old ideas with new names. The term “mission command” started gaining momentum over “command and control” in the late 2000s, particularly when Gen. Martin Dempsey was at Training and Doctrine Command. A lot of talk within the profession suggested this really wasn’t anything new but, rather, what the Army had always done in terms of mission-type orders and building trust.
General Carter F. Ham.
My sense was that it wasn’t quite the same. The cohort of senior Army officers at the time, myself included, grew up mostly in the Cold War era with very clearly defined boundaries, rear areas, adjacent units, and the like. When that era changed and the Army found itself in highly irregular warfare, leaders recognized command and control wasn’t adequate for the new environment.
The command piece was okay, but the control piece was overly regulated given the circumstances in which the Army was anticipated to operate. It was time for a change, and I think mission command was exactly the right focus. With varying degrees at varying levels, and certainly as circumstances change, we must enable leaders to operate with empowered, disciplined initiative and higher degrees of flexibility.
Q: What were some of the biggest challenges you faced as commander of U.S. Africa Command?
A: Most Americans think of Africa as a single place; it’s not. It is huge; at the very least, Africa is 54 countries with vast geographic differences, linguistic challenges, and economic, cultural, and ethnic diversity. It’s an exceedingly complex area of operations.
When Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told me he intended to recommend the president nominate me for [commanding general of] the Africa Command, I had two feelings simultaneously. First was pure exhilaration: “Holy smokes, you’re going to be a combatant commander! You get your picture hung on the entryway of the Pentagon!”
But instantaneously, the second feeling hit: “You don’t know anything about Africa.” At the time, it was not a part of the world any of us in the military thought much about.
Carter F. Ham as lieutenant colonel commanding U.S. forces in Camp Able Sentry, Macedonia, speaking to Admiral William Owens in 1995.
I was going from a very Europe-centric career — frankly a very comfortable setting for me because I had relationships with many of the senior leaders — to exceeding discomfort in Africa. It was intellectually stimulating, but I just didn’t have that foundational understanding of the area of operations as I did in Europe.
For me, this was mission command in practice at the upper operational and strategic levels. Despite the dispersed nature of U.S. forces, the requirement to work with host-nation forces, and the diversity of missions — ranging from very precise targeted activities and hostage rescue to maritime security, humanitarian assistance, and veterinary teams helping with herds of animals — there was still an expectation from the Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the other service chiefs. They were empowering me to make decisions in this vast and complex area of responsibility.
You can’t do that with a highly structured, highly controlling style of leadership. I had to catch myself sometimes, and my senior enlisted leaders would often remind me, “General, they don’t need you to tell them how many times to turn the screwdriver; they need your intent.”
If you can describe your intent, subordinate leaders will accomplish the mission.
Q: How does mission command need to evolve to maximize readiness for the future operational environment?
A: There is recognition that the Army has to refocus after 15-plus years of irregular warfare and counter-insurgency operations. Gen. [Mark] Milley has it right; we have to get back to preparing for combat operations across all domains against a very capable, state-based adversary. It’s a much more complex environment in which to operate.
The first half of my career was highly structured and very clearly focused on a state-based adversary, the Soviet Union. It was a very dangerous, but also very predictable, period. We knew their doctrine and organizational structure; they knew ours. We knew their equipment and capabilities; they knew ours. Our war plans were incredibly detailed: we knew exactly where we were going to fight and exactly where almost every soldier was going to go in the defense of Western Europe. Control was dominant.
That is not the environment in which the Army will operate in the future. We have to develop leaders who can thrive in the ambiguity that is certain to exist in future combat. Leaders must know how to exercise mission command and make proper decisions without linkages to their higher and adjacent units, or when communications are degraded. That, I think, is the great challenge the Army faces today.
Carter F. Ham speaking to reporters during a press briefing at the Pentagon in October 2005.
Q: Can you discuss the importance of mission command for sustainment formations?
A: I’m not a logistician, but I learned the importance of sustainers early. When I was a division operations officer, I had some great mentoring from my division commander. The simple message was, “The brigades, they’re going to win the fight; you don’t need to spend time mapping things out for them. Your job is to set the conditions for those brigades to operate, and the biggest piece of that is sustainment.”
In the Cold War, sustainment was a complex operation; it’s tenfold more complex today. There are no longer safe rear areas, secure supply routes, or the ability to move “iron mountains” of supplies to the point of need at a moment’s notice.
In my era, sustainment was mostly a math problem: how do you move stuff from point A to point B? Today’s sustainment challenge is much more of an art than it is a science. How will sustainers make sure that dispersed, often separated, units have what they need to fight and win on the future battlefield?
The science is certainly still there; you still have to make sure fuel, water, chow, and ammunition are at the right place at the right time. But now, more than ever, sustainers have to be inside the heads of maneuver commanders, understanding what they want to achieve. That’s where it becomes more of an art, and I think that’s where mission command enters into the realm for sustainment leaders.
Q: How important is training?
A: I’m old enough to have been in the Army before there were combat training centers, and it’s night and day. I was an opposing force guy at the National Training Center in the mid- to late-1980s, and you could see the Army get better. Repetition matters. Complexity matters. The difficulty created in the training base matters.
We want Army leaders to be more challenged in their training than they will be in combat. That’s tough to achieve these days, particularly given multi-domain operations. How do you create that cyber, electronic warfare, or geographic complexity leaders will have to deal with? The more we invest in the rigors of our training, the better off we will be. That certainly applies to the sustainment force.
There are tremendous opportunities in the Synthetic Training Environment that allow for repetition and increased difficulty without great expense. At some point you still have to put Army units in the dirt to train, but it’s the most expensive way to do so. There’s so much you can do prior to that point so that units enter that phase at a much higher level. For all of our forces, the Synthetic Training Environment will yield a stronger Army that is able to train at levels we can’t imagine today.
General Carter F. Ham being sworn into office as the Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe by Cairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen on Aug. 28, 2008.
Q: Where does integration with our allies and coalition partners fit into mission command?
A: In our guiding documents, including the National Military Strategy and Army vision, we’ve established a recognition that the Army will always operate with allies and partners. The scale will vary from time to time, but we’re always going to do so in some form. As fast as the Army is changing, we have to be careful we don’t leave our allies and partners out of our modernization efforts.
We also have to become increasingly comfortable with the idea of U.S. maneuver forces being sustained by forces of another country and vice versa. This became almost normal for us when our force presence in Iraq and Afghanistan was very high. Now that force levels are significantly lower, junior leaders have less opportunity to interact with our allies and partners. We have to find a way to replicate those kinds of activities in the training base.
Again, I think it is more art than science. Part of the art is making sure each of the partners has responsibility for support, for sustaining, and for direction in a coalition-type operation. That doesn’t happen by accident. Through the exercise of mission command, we want to create leaders who are comfortable in multinational environments.
Q: How are we doing as an Army when it comes to soldier resilience?
A: When I came home from Iraq, I think like many soldiers, I felt incomplete. I felt I had left soldiers behind; I came home and those I had served with were still there. I came to the Pentagon, the five-sided puzzle palace, and my work just didn’t feel very fulfilling. I had this tremendous longing to go back.
As a one-star general at the time, I don’t pretend I was on patrol facing hard combat every day like a squad leader or platoon sergeant. That’s an extraordinary kind of stress I frankly didn’t see on a daily basis. I think for leaders the effect is a little different; it’s a different kind of stress. Particularly for commanders, when you lose soldiers in combat — soldiers who are wounded or killed executing orders you issued — that stays with you.
When I came home, it was my wife who said, “Hey listen, you’ve changed.” That was important. It was recognition that a normal person can’t be exposed to combat and be unchanged. A lot of soldiers go through combat and deal with it very effectively. They’re resilient, they deal with it openly and confront it, and they continue to move forward. But there’s a spectrum, and on the other end are soldiers who have post-traumatic stress or, in more severe cases, traumatic brain injury. I was one of those who needed a little bit of help; mine came from an Army chaplain.
I’ll confess I was outed publicly. It wasn’t me coming forward; it was someone else talking about it. But as a general officer, my sense was [that] many other soldiers were having the same challenges readjusting to a nondeployed environment. If coming forward publicly would encourage one other soldier to get help and to say, “I’m having a tough time,” to his or her spouse, a chaplain, a social worker, a commander, a first sergeant, to somebody — then my speaking out was worthwhile.
I think the Army is once again leading the nation in matters like this. The senior leadership — the Secretary, Chief of Staff, and Sergeant Major of the Army — are coming forward and saying, “Hey, it is strength to step forward and say I need a little bit of help.”
Carter F. Ham listens to a soldier’s comments during a visit to the headquarters of the U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (Airborne), a major subordinate command of the U.S. Army Reserve.
(Photo by Master Sgt. Mark Bell)
That’s what the Army needs. We need soldiers who can take a blow, whether physical or psychological, recover, and be stronger in continuing their mission.
There’s still a lot of work to be done; we shouldn’t kid ourselves that the stigma is gone. We have to keep it as a frontline Army effort and continue to say, “This can make you stronger; and when you’re stronger, our Army is stronger.” But I’m really proud of our efforts thus far.
Q: You’re one of only a few to rise from private to four-star general. What advice do you have for soldiers today?
A: First, recognize I didn’t go from private to four-star overnight; there were just a few intervening steps along the way. When I was enlisted, I rose to the exalted position of being our battalion command sergeant major’s driver. He was, to me, the model of the noncommissioned officer: mission-focused, hard on soldiers, and always fair. He made me a better soldier. And after all these years, it comes back to one question, “Why do you serve?”
We get so busy sometimes that we forget this. We talk a lot about what we do; we talk less about what we’re for. Whenever I have the opportunity to talk to young leaders, both enlisted and officers, I ask them to think about the oath they took. It is the bond that ties us together, the shared commitment each one of us made to serve the nation.
In my mind, it’s what makes the Army such a unique organization. I have lots of experience as a joint officer, and I truly value the other services. We have the best Marine Corps, the best Navy, and the best Air Force. But of all the services, I think the Army is uniquely of the people. We’re the biggest and most diverse. I think it’s worthwhile to sit back and say, “What is this Army for, and why is it that more than one million women and men have raised their right hand and said I’m willing to do this?”
Every now and then, take time to think about it. Don’t get consumed by it, but take pause and remember why you chose to serve this nation. I found when I did, it caused me to reflect as a professional soldier and “re-green” myself. For any Army leader — enlisted, officer, or civilian — it’s a worthy endeavor to remember why.
Arpi Dilanian is a strategic analyst in the Army G-4’s Logistics Initiatives Group. She holds a bachelor’s degree from American University and a master’s degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Matthew Howard is a strategic analyst in the Army G-4’s Logistics Initiatives Group. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Georgetown University.
This article was published in the January-March 2019 issue of Army Sustainment.