TV/film portrayal of US & UK soldiers realistic?
Discussion
I was watching a film last night ("The Outpost") and it struck me, once again, that the US soldiers portrayed were a bunch of slovenly goons who backtalked to their commanding officer, drank alcohol and smoked on duty, didn't respect rank and were basically ill-disciplined and a bit of a rabble. I have to say that this seems to me to be the prevailing depiction of US soldiers - by American TV & film companies!
By contrast, we don't get quite so many films about British forces but when we do they are usually portrayed as at least being orderly, well disciplined and respectful to senior officers and their commands.
I have nil first hand experience of the military, are these reasonable portrayals?
By contrast, we don't get quite so many films about British forces but when we do they are usually portrayed as at least being orderly, well disciplined and respectful to senior officers and their commands.
I have nil first hand experience of the military, are these reasonable portrayals?
Theres a HBO miniseries called Generation Kill. It's based on the book of the same name by a rolling stone journalist who was embedded with the 1st marine recon division in the second gulf war. It's a must watch if you want a bit of reality to modern professional soldiers in combat.
What i took away from the series was that the soldiers are pretty raw and intense characters but aren't thick, aren't trailer trash or whiskey tangos as they call each other, they're incredibly well trained at great expense and if anything was an issue it was that war is chaos and the logistics, organisation and running of a modern military in a 3rd generation war were the major problem.
What i took away from the series was that the soldiers are pretty raw and intense characters but aren't thick, aren't trailer trash or whiskey tangos as they call each other, they're incredibly well trained at great expense and if anything was an issue it was that war is chaos and the logistics, organisation and running of a modern military in a 3rd generation war were the major problem.
A bit OT I'm afraid, but I knew an old guy (now long passed away) who had been a signals officer in WW1 at Gallipoli. He was seconded to an Australian outfit - the stories he told were mind-boggling, especially when you consider how strict everything was back then, social class-respecting and all that.
They ignored officers or addressed them by first names, refused orders, drank and smoked on duty. As a Limey he was considered fair bait, notwithstanding the fact that he was a Lieutenant. He reckoned they were the most disrespectful and slovenly soldiers he'd ever met, but in battle they were magnificent.
If you're talking about WW2, I think many if not most American officers were recruited from civilian life and not professional Army like the Brotish. I think the men felt it was OK to address them in familiar terms.
They ignored officers or addressed them by first names, refused orders, drank and smoked on duty. As a Limey he was considered fair bait, notwithstanding the fact that he was a Lieutenant. He reckoned they were the most disrespectful and slovenly soldiers he'd ever met, but in battle they were magnificent.
If you're talking about WW2, I think many if not most American officers were recruited from civilian life and not professional Army like the Brotish. I think the men felt it was OK to address them in familiar terms.
Rank subordination is very rare and dealt with pretty quickly when it does arise.
Can only remember one or two minor instances from my military career and never on Ops.
As regards drinking, they're clamping down now but it was always work hard, play hard. Plenty of times I've nursed a headache the next day at work but never been drunk at work, that would be weeded out pretty quickly too.
The idea of heavy school night drinking sessions make me feel a bit sick just at the thought of it now.
Can only remember one or two minor instances from my military career and never on Ops.
As regards drinking, they're clamping down now but it was always work hard, play hard. Plenty of times I've nursed a headache the next day at work but never been drunk at work, that would be weeded out pretty quickly too.
The idea of heavy school night drinking sessions make me feel a bit sick just at the thought of it now.
Vast majority of British Forces will be respectful and professional on duty. Off duty can be more informal, how informal depends on service, unit, how respected you are, if you have a sense of humour etc.
eg when i was in the Navy, people were pretty strict about discipline respect, formal addresses on surface ships. On Submarines, you were a bit more relaxed outside of when s
t is going down. Lots more banter, nicknames etc and having a bit of fun at each others expense, albeit respectfully done most of the time. Difference IMO is you are a much closer community on submarines and really are dependent on each other regardless of rank.
On surface ships it was too often "bullst baffles brains" so quite often you would see officers not respecting their men's experience and knowledge in the way they should, instead following everything on a "leadership playbook" straight as taught at BRNC. IMO too many surface ship officers had their heads up their arses focused on brown nosing the XO or ops officer to help their career. On Submarines you would say "operational not decorational". As an officer, especially a junior officer, you relied on the experience and knowledge of your men and team around you, otherwise, while learning you will just fk it up. You having been in the submarine service only a couple of years should always consider carefully advice from your men as many will have been in 10-20 years and done what you are dealing with many times before. Not to say you should not own your own decisions as that is "weak" leadership, but you must use all the resources available to you and often your best asset is your team.
eg when i was in the Navy, people were pretty strict about discipline respect, formal addresses on surface ships. On Submarines, you were a bit more relaxed outside of when s
t is going down. Lots more banter, nicknames etc and having a bit of fun at each others expense, albeit respectfully done most of the time. Difference IMO is you are a much closer community on submarines and really are dependent on each other regardless of rank. On surface ships it was too often "bulls
t baffles brains" so quite often you would see officers not respecting their men's experience and knowledge in the way they should, instead following everything on a "leadership playbook" straight as taught at BRNC. IMO too many surface ship officers had their heads up their arses focused on brown nosing the XO or ops officer to help their career. On Submarines you would say "operational not decorational". As an officer, especially a junior officer, you relied on the experience and knowledge of your men and team around you, otherwise, while learning you will just fk it up. You having been in the submarine service only a couple of years should always consider carefully advice from your men as many will have been in 10-20 years and done what you are dealing with many times before. Not to say you should not own your own decisions as that is "weak" leadership, but you must use all the resources available to you and often your best asset is your team. ChocolateFrog said:
Rank subordination is very rare and dealt with pretty quickly when it does arise.
Can only remember one or two minor instances from my military career and never on Ops.
As regards drinking, they're clamping down now but it was always work hard, play hard. Plenty of times I've nursed a headache the next day at work but never been drunk at work, that would be weeded out pretty quickly too.
The idea of heavy school night drinking sessions make me feel a bit sick just at the thought of it now.
I’m asking as you are clearly an experienced military type, but would be interested to hear from others as well.Can only remember one or two minor instances from my military career and never on Ops.
As regards drinking, they're clamping down now but it was always work hard, play hard. Plenty of times I've nursed a headache the next day at work but never been drunk at work, that would be weeded out pretty quickly too.
The idea of heavy school night drinking sessions make me feel a bit sick just at the thought of it now.
How would you go about leaving the Army/RAF/Navy if you were within your 4 year initial contract period and decided you hated it? (RAF is a whopping 12 years contract isn’t it?)
Do people deliberately try to get thrown out (drinking, drugs, etc) or are there so many options for leaving that you can pretty much just go anyway? (Claim depression, say you have decided the forces are morally wrong, not mentally suited, feel stressed)
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 18th June 16:42
nicanary said:
A bit OT I'm afraid, but I knew an old guy (now long passed away) who had been a signals officer in WW1 at Gallipoli. He was seconded to an Australian outfit - the stories he told were mind-boggling, especially when you consider how strict everything was back then, social class-respecting and all that.
They ignored officers or addressed them by first names, refused orders, drank and smoked on duty. As a Limey he was considered fair bait, notwithstanding the fact that he was a Lieutenant. He reckoned they were the most disrespectful and slovenly soldiers he'd ever met, but in battle they were magnificent.
If you're talking about WW2, I think many if not most American officers were recruited from civilian life and not professional Army like the Brotish. I think the men felt it was OK to address them in familiar terms.
In the First World War a lot of soldiers serving in Commonwealth regiments were originally from the UK, they joined up presumably out of a sense of loyalty to the country of their birth. There was a much less well defined sense of national identity in those days, although Gallipoli is often described as the one of the events that helped to shape this for ANZAC troops. They ignored officers or addressed them by first names, refused orders, drank and smoked on duty. As a Limey he was considered fair bait, notwithstanding the fact that he was a Lieutenant. He reckoned they were the most disrespectful and slovenly soldiers he'd ever met, but in battle they were magnificent.
If you're talking about WW2, I think many if not most American officers were recruited from civilian life and not professional Army like the Brotish. I think the men felt it was OK to address them in familiar terms.
The reason I think that American soldiers are often depicted as poorly disciplined and insolent is that this was a common trope for films about Vietnam, most of which are anti-war and tend to characterise the conscripted US troops as unwilling participants in the conflict. Also rebellious or damaged characterisations are far more interesting, the viewing public tend not to identify with soldiers who obey orders without question. Rebelliousness is also a popular trait in U.S. military films, blind obedience to orders is seen variously as Germanic/Commie or in the context of Star Wars, Imperial.
If I may offer a view without revealing too much about myself...
I have worked with lots of British soldiers and officers and on the whole they are a cracking lot - respectful and professional, but with a wicked sense of humour. The attitude is that the job will get done, no matter what.
I've worked with US Marines on operations, and to a lesser extent US Army. In my limited experience the USMC are closer in attitude to the British Army but in some ways are utterly different. The British resourcefulness and can-do attitude is often born from being chronically under-resourced, whilst US forces don't have that problem. Manpower, equipment and money are plentiful, and so their approach is different. The standard of education of US service personnel is generally lower that that of British soldiers (and probably sailors and airmen, but I have less experience of those), and hence expectations of them to think are lower. They are also trained very prescriptively and not taught to think. A US Marine or soldier is generally a 'point and shoot' weapon, who will carry out their explicit mission - no more, no less. In contrast, British soldiers are trained according to the 'mission command' school of leadership, where they are expected to put a bit more thought and initiative into what they do and when.
I don't know whether any of this addresses the original question, which was about discipline and professionalism, but may provide some insight.
British soldiers - extremely effective and resourceful. Almost always professional and respectful.
US Marines (in my experience) - extremely effective and always respectful. Mostly professional and most definitely gung-ho. Well resourced but not resourceful.
US Army (in my limited experience) - varies widely but would in many cases live up to the worst examples in TV and film. Apologies to any US Army types on here - just the experience and opinion on one random internet dude.
There are of course always exceptions in every field.
I have worked with lots of British soldiers and officers and on the whole they are a cracking lot - respectful and professional, but with a wicked sense of humour. The attitude is that the job will get done, no matter what.
I've worked with US Marines on operations, and to a lesser extent US Army. In my limited experience the USMC are closer in attitude to the British Army but in some ways are utterly different. The British resourcefulness and can-do attitude is often born from being chronically under-resourced, whilst US forces don't have that problem. Manpower, equipment and money are plentiful, and so their approach is different. The standard of education of US service personnel is generally lower that that of British soldiers (and probably sailors and airmen, but I have less experience of those), and hence expectations of them to think are lower. They are also trained very prescriptively and not taught to think. A US Marine or soldier is generally a 'point and shoot' weapon, who will carry out their explicit mission - no more, no less. In contrast, British soldiers are trained according to the 'mission command' school of leadership, where they are expected to put a bit more thought and initiative into what they do and when.
I don't know whether any of this addresses the original question, which was about discipline and professionalism, but may provide some insight.
British soldiers - extremely effective and resourceful. Almost always professional and respectful.
US Marines (in my experience) - extremely effective and always respectful. Mostly professional and most definitely gung-ho. Well resourced but not resourceful.
US Army (in my limited experience) - varies widely but would in many cases live up to the worst examples in TV and film. Apologies to any US Army types on here - just the experience and opinion on one random internet dude.
There are of course always exceptions in every field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2jgrGtiYHE
In my experience a fairly realistic portrayal of men who have seen plenty action, especially rearguard action.
Lord Marylebone said:
Do people deliberately try to get thrown out (drinking, drugs, etc) or are there so many options for leaving that you can pretty much just go anyway? (Claim depression, say you have decided the forces are morally wrong, not mentally suited, feel stressed)
some do, but the system is set up to make that difficult. sure tsking a load of drugs might do it but then you will likely get a nice long stint at Colchester before being thrown out. that would basically look really bad on any cv so unless youve got a sympathetic new employer, its not t9 be recommended.you cant pull the depression card easily either, the forces have pretty decent shrinks so they would pretty quickly work you out. plus the medical discharge path is quite slow. minimum 12 months for minor conditions to get MD'd. likely longer if they think you may recover fully. When i was recovering from going nuts myself, one of the jobs i had was help run and organise a recovery program for sailors who had been long term sick and on that program we were open minded about those who wanted to leave, but they had usually already been downgraded medically for a long time. even then it still took a while to help those ones leave who wanted to.
nicanary said:
A bit OT I'm afraid, but I knew an old guy (now long passed away) who had been a signals officer in WW1 at Gallipoli. He was seconded to an Australian outfit - the stories he told were mind-boggling, especially when you consider how strict everything was back then, social class-respecting and all that.
They ignored officers or addressed them by first names, refused orders, drank and smoked on duty. As a Limey he was considered fair bait, notwithstanding the fact that he was a Lieutenant. He reckoned they were the most disrespectful and slovenly soldiers he'd ever met, but in battle they were magnificent.
If you're talking about WW2
If the Odd Angry Shot, about the Australian SAS in Vietnam is accurate, they haven't changed a bit They ignored officers or addressed them by first names, refused orders, drank and smoked on duty. As a Limey he was considered fair bait, notwithstanding the fact that he was a Lieutenant. He reckoned they were the most disrespectful and slovenly soldiers he'd ever met, but in battle they were magnificent.
If you're talking about WW2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2A5-E2zHoI
Quite old news now, but the unfiltered opinions of the US and Afghan governments regarding the UK's efforts in Afghanistan were revealed in the leaked diplomatic cables in 2010.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11906147
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11906147
With regards to TV/film, the berets or hats never fit. I was RAF for 12 years, left in 2008. Had the same beret all that time. I was an aircraft techie though so didn't wear it very often. With regards to rank and formality, it was first name terms up to the rank of flight sergeant. On ops, in Iraq, because of who we were supporting, rank was out the window and we got to grow our hair long for a bit. Groundcrew or engineers very rarely get mentioned in any film or tv anyways, for good reasons, so not much to compare it too.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff