Jump to content

Advanced Training Techniques By The Thai Army


FarangCravings

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dunno, but doesn't sound right to me thats why l asked are you sure. :)

Countries that are primarily english speaking with a cultural heritage descended from "anglo" British culture. What's so wrong about that definition? Militarily it refers to commonwealth countries who often back each other up in wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying now that the US, British Military are less of a soldgiers now they DONT have to suffer abuse like that

I dont think so

The elite military units still haze their recruits. Maybe not a boot to the face sort of physical punishment/training but it's along the same lines ie..hours of forced Physical "training" sessions in scorching or cold temps.

Wrong, as has already been explained.

There is a world of difference between training in extremes of temperature, etc, and "hazing".

The problem with physical abuse being used as a training method to "harden" troops is that it only hardens them to that sort of abuse; it does nothing to harden them to combat conditions or to make them physically or mentally stronger or self-reliant.

Well you tell that to the old school marine corps, the IJA forces, and the SS which were all schooled with corporal punishment. They were extremely tough and mean SOBs. History shows such conditioning _does_ work especially if you want men who aren't afraid to do certain things that would be frowned upon in today's political climate.

The modern military doesn't need this because when was the last time there was any war that was the size or scale of WW2? No developed country has had to face an existential struggle for survival in the past 50 years.

Like I said pushing around destitute brown people in the desert is nothing ..absolutely nothing compared to the wars of old.

The "last time there was any war that was the size or scale of WW2" was 65 years ago, so rather before my time.

What exactly are you comparing when comparing modern warfare to "the wars of old", and to what end? How does WWII compare to WWI in your book? Or WWI to the Crimea? Or the Crimea to the Hundred Years War?

Your grasp of what "history shows" is evidently as limited as your grasp of actual history. Between 35 and 50 million people have died in wars in the last fifty years, but leaving out counter-insurgency operations and conflicts in what you would probably call "undeveloped" countries, a number of developed countries with developed military forces have fought wars for their "survival" in the last 50 years, from the Lebanon to the Iran-Iraq war, the first Gulf War (Kuwait), Chechnya, Kosovo, Serbia, and various Arab-Israeli wars.

The idea that a JNCO abusing a recruit (as appears to be the case here, but it could quite easily be something different) "does work" and turns them into "men who aren't afraid to do certain things" is not only wrong, but if it were true it would be even more reason to make it unacceptable. The military today has to observe the "niceties" because if it doesn't then it has no chance of winning the hearts and minds of those "destitute brown people" you believe it is "pushing around" - it would be far easier for the military to simply "bomb them back to the stone age", but that is not their job.

Somehow I doubt if you have ever seen any sort of warfare at first hand, or you would not post such uninformed rubbish about the military or about warfare over the past 50 years.

Edited by JohnLeech
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly are you comparing when comparing modern warfare to "the wars of old", and to what end? How does WWII compare to WWI in your book? Or WWI to the Crimea? Or the Crimea to the Hundred Years War?

The major battles characterized by sheer brutality..ie. Stalingrad, Iwo Jima, and even the smaller Korean war battles.

[quote

Your grasp of what "history shows" is evidently as limited as your grasp o actual history. Leaving out counter-insurgency operations and conflicts in what you would probably call "undeveloped" countries, a number of developed countries with developed military forces have fought wars for their "survival" in the last 50 years, from the Lebanon to the Iran-Iraq war, the first Gulf War (Kuwait), Chechnya, Kosovo, Serbia, and various Arab-Israeli wars.

I'm talking about similarly equipped developed nations using modern warfare in a war for survival. Not ragged poorly trained Arab armies being propped up by illicit second rate arms and oil money.

Your examples suck.

The conflict in Chechnya was only serious in the beginning until the Russians leveled Grozny and decided to act like Mongols. After that Chechnya stopped being a problem. Now they've resorted to blowing themselves up on subways. It's certainly an insurgency but there was never any threat of it spilling over and becoming a wider threat to Russia. Chechnya has always been a backwater province and the Russian military is particularly good at steamrolling rebel provinces close to home.

Arab-Israeli war was a total joke and was over before it began. Israel was better equipped and had the proxy support of the U.S. The Arab militaries involved were incompetent and I believe one of the nations (egypt?) had its entire air force destroyed before a single plane even left the ground.

Kosovo-Serbia. Thuggish eastern europeans battling it out in some obscure ethnic cleansing grudge that's been going on for 600+ years. Hardly an example of serious modern warfare.

The military today has to observe the "niceties" because if it doesn't then it has no chance of winning the hearts and minds of those "destitute brown people" you believe it is "pushing around" - it would be far easier for the military to simply "bomb them back to the stone age", but that is not their job.

With something north of 500,000+ Iraqis dead do you think hearts and minds are actually being won? I have a bridge to sell you..or the Pentagon does rather..

Then again I suppose hearts and minds can be won if everyone is dead from sectarian fighting.

Somehow I doubt if you have ever served in the military in any capacity or seen any sort of warfare at first hand, or you would not post such absolute rubbish about the military or about warfare over the past 50 years.

Somehow I knew you were going to do this. It's easy to pull online e-penis rank when actually it takes a person outside of the uniform and not blinded by political/nationalistic ideals to have a more objective look at history.

Edited by wintermute
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

I'm talking about similarly equipped developed nations using modern warfare in a war for survival. Not ragged poorly trained Arab armies being propped up by illicit second rate arms and oil money.

...................

With something north of 500,000+ Iraqis dead do you think hearts and minds are actually being won? I have a bridge to sell you..or the Pentagon does rather..

..................

Somehow I knew you were going to do this. It's easy to pull online e-penis rank when actually it takes a person outside of the uniform and not blinded by political/nationalistic ideals to have a more objective look at history.

What you are "talking about" does not exist, fortunately, even though some countries such as India and Pakistan are a cause for concern. "Similarly equipped developed nations" who could use "modern warfare in a war for survival" all have others to support or oppose them, consequently potential opponents would no longer be similarly equipped.

I am interested to know what you base your information on, as (unsurprisingly) you seem to have little grasp of the realities of modern Arab armies; far from being "ragged" and "poorly trained", equipped with "illicit second rate arms" some are extremely well equipped and trained and, in their own environment and on their own ground, they make the soldiers from the world's biggest military spender look like a bunch of poorly trained, poorly equipped and badly led incompetents who would be lost without their air cover.

"Propped up" by their "oil money"? Agreed 100%, and why not? It was more than enough for them to "rent" my services from the British Army for a number of years!

No, I do not think that "hearts and minds are actually being won" in Iraq, far from it, or that the war in Iraq was ever winnable or justified. On the other hand I think the war in Afghanistan was not only justified but was winnable if a quarter of the troops and the money wasted in Iraq had gone there instead nine years ago.

That is not a criticism of the military involved, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not they would be any better if they were "all schooled with corporal punishment" making them "extremely tough and mean SOBs", which seems to be the point you are making. Any limitations they may have on the battlefield today are primarily a result of political decisions, not military training.

I deliberately avoided pulling my "online e-penis rank" (although I have a reasonable amount of penis rank to pull!), as it wasn't necessary - given your grasp of history and the military it evidently still isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a country wants a 'fully functional' military (order taking 'robots'), it will realise that beating the crap out of recruits achieves nothing. Zero respect comes from such actions, which can be detrimental in a time of war.

'Real' soldiers (albeit robots to some degree) have respect for their superiors. This respect has been earnt by superiors, usually without violence but sometimes with nonviolent suffering.

It's very easy for a soldier to 'stop fighting' due to an inner quandary. The possibilities of such quandaries are removed when the individual is respected & not treated like a prospective enemy.

I spent 5 years in the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a country wants a 'fully functional' military (order taking 'robots'), it will realise that beating the crap out of recruits achieves nothing. Zero respect comes from such actions, which can be detrimental in a time of war.

'Real' soldiers (albeit robots to some degree) have respect for their superiors. This respect has been earnt by superiors, usually without violence but sometimes with nonviolent suffering.

It's very easy for a soldier to 'stop fighting' due to an inner quandary. The possibilities of such quandaries are removed when the individual is respected & not treated like a prospective enemy.

I spent 5 years in the military.

Spot on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying now that the US, British Military are less of a soldgiers now they DONT have to suffer abuse like that

I dont think so

The elite military units still haze their recruits. Maybe not a boot to the face sort of physical punishment/training but it's along the same lines ie..hours of forced Physical "training" sessions in scorching or cold temps.

Wrong, as has already been explained.

There is a world of difference between training in extremes of temperature, etc, and "hazing".

The problem with physical abuse being used as a training method to "harden" troops is that it only hardens them to that sort of abuse; it does nothing to harden them to combat conditions or to make them physically or mentally stronger or self-reliant.

Well you tell that to the old school marine corps, the IJA forces, and the SS which were all schooled with corporal punishment. They were extremely tough and mean SOBs. History shows such conditioning _does_ work especially if you want men who aren't afraid to do certain things that would be frowned upon in today's political climate.

The modern military doesn't need this because when was the last time there was any war that was the size or scale of WW2? No developed country has had to face an existential struggle for survival in the past 50 years.

Like I said pushing around destitute brown people in the desert is nothing ..absolutely nothing compared to the wars of old.

Hi wintermute. I have been reading your posts, I think I understand where you’re coming from; you don’t advocate bullying as part of soldiers training, you’re simply highlighting history, and pointing out the use of bullying as an effective training method. Well, you’re right about one thing the old school armed forces around the world that used, and still use bullying as way to gain, blind abidance and in essence make their troops more afraid of disobey an order than carry it out. Both the SS and 2nd Rep (French Foreign Legion) to name two from the old day carried this stigma. Back in the day this was seen as a good way make your soldiers tough and compliant. Things change, I know for a fact, 20 years ago 2nd Rep were just as tough as their reputation of old….But with no outward signs of system bulling, they were bright intelligent guys with a strong “espree de corp” you don’t get that feeling by being bullied! The SS…….. Whatever happened to them boys? Fact! The SS were very good soldiers, because of training…..Not bullying, the bullying just made them bigger <deleted> than they were when they joined.

Bullying is out dated in the modern armies of the world, the days of sending thousands of men “over the top” is over, (unless your Chinese of North Korean, “Unlucky boy”) a small fact; The British army tried to eradicate system bullying in the armed forces in 1914 because so many army recruits were dying from over enthusiastic instruction! It would seem British Generals, at the time thought it was far more sporting to let the enemy kill all our young men! So a way was needed to find a method to instill non questioning obedience under fire, they did this by Foot Drill, Squire bashing……..Synchronized walking, for hours and hours, a precise action for a precise order, and he was shown how to make a good “bed block” (anyone old Brit squaddies remember them?) and fire a couple of rounds. Bullying too Brainwashing in one go, worked a treat but not in a good way!

I do take umbrage at some of your comments! Allow me to tell you why. Reading your posts I have the feeling you have very little respect for armed service personal, OK, It’s a free world, of sorts! Your basically inferring that the wests ground forces are only good at playing at war and doesn’t really know what a war is as it’s soldiers only get to push poor ill-equipped flip flop wearing natives about…..Big men a! How hard can that be? Well having been attacked by “flip flop” dirt poor kids high on “brow brown” (cocaine and cordite) sporting AK47’s and RPG’s laughing their heads off! Soldiers today don’t know what war is? Please go and tell that to the Grunt, or Grav with his face pressed in the dirt with rounds cracking just over his head, shot at by some 10 year old boy in some shitty little insignificant “peace keeping” mission. I’m sure he’ll feel very lucky and take some comfort he’s not fighting in a major conflict of old!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

post-8751-092211000 1285413279_thumb.jpgpost-8751-081793400 1285413646_thumb.jpg

ok i thought i would add my three shekels worth:

my son is in active duty after one year of job/office field soldier. he fought the army (he is non symtomatic asthamic as a child) to regain his 'profile' (the number that says whether u can be a front line soldier or officer or have to be on base or non front line) and has now made it to the barak 12 golani IDF... we went to his swearing in last week. although all front lline soldiers 'neither feel heat nor cold' and wouldnt be caught wearing a coat in winter....my son came home for home leave covered in sores from having to roll down terraces covered in rocks and desert plants- when i asked abou tthat, he said: the commander said,"roll to your left and down" "so i did" , and he shrugged it off; they have massive runs, four hour guard shifts back to back, and all the other boot camp neccessities. two of his fellow soldiers suffered heat exhaustion and convulsions and were hospitalized during training even though the army doesnt allow stressful excercise in certain heat conditions; they were exposed to tear gas in a closed room to show them that gas masks indeed work, the list is endless. im sure he censors some of it so i wont worry (all of us mothers trade army horror stories but inreality we cant intefere)

the army decides what those conditions are... most of u wouldnt stand up to them, and these kids are kids : 18 yr olds, fresh out of high school. some like my son did a year of community service and pre army, and had one year of boot camp already. now has to redo in higher standards and as he is a bit older, his commanders demand more from him. he is the one to volunteer to take up the rear to push the laggers when running, he is the one to do extra shifts of everything.... his commanders came to me personally to say how proud they are that he is in their unit, willing to help the weaker guys, but keeping 'distance' (that way of not being too friendly with new soldiers/officers)...

while we know that there is often an officer or commander that will hassle and harrass a particular soldier (every mother's greatest fear is that psychological harrassemnt that has caused soldiers to commit suicide or have breakdowns, in every unit) most vicious practices are not tolerated, even tacitly. ive heard of commanders deliberately humiliating soldiers but what often happens is that the whole unit rebels (there were several such in givati and golani in the past, and the officers were demoted or moved, or even came to army trial)to protect one of 'their own'. it made it to the newspapers asnd was a scandal.

since our army is also made up of poeple that often you know from civilian life (my son's younger then him commanding officer was with him in his previous training-- my one of my daughter's commanding officers was a girl from her class in high school whom she didnt get along with in shcool.........an other kid on kibbutz was an officer of a guy hew was his boss in civilian live in a work place) beatings and harrassment can backfire in civilian life where here, what u did and where u served is an important question on anyone's resume. someoen who hasnt been in the army often loses out on jobs contacts.

point being: u dont have to beat soldiers to make them soldiers although hardening them to climatic conditions and lacks of food/sleep/luxuries are neccessary. we often say to spoiled whiny children: wait to u are in the army, will u cry then? a sad but important part of life here.

have permission from son to put up his photo here as a rookie soldier, doesnt have his red beret yet, still green, he will get his in one year:

wanted to add 'Real' soldiers (albeit robots to some degree) have respect for their superiors. This respect has been earnt by superiors, usually without violence but sometimes with nonviolent suffering.

It's very easy for a soldier to 'stop fighting' due to an inner quandary. The possibilities of such quandaries are removed when the individual is respected & not treated like a prospective enemy.

my son is treated as a soldier but as a person too; he also knows that he can refuse an order that he feels is morally wrong-- and soldier have done so.. although it is very difficult to do that in the heat of the battles. point being, he knows 'the enemy', but in daily life, the 'enemy' is not neccesarily the enemy, and can even be friends... a dilemna that all soldiers may feel at any given time...

it is an unforutnate fact of life that soldiers are young and malleable and must be turned in to some sort of 'robot' to enable them to function in enemy situations. while hardening the body and soul, a good officer knows that training also must allow for 'human' actions and reactions, so that the soldier can remain also humane when needed. as we all know, there are people that cannot take the strain, and there are forms of soldiers that are just that: mean killing machines.

even in our army there are units (that im glad my son did not join) that are like that. the training is even more gruelling than his commando style training. it involves more psychological pressure, more physical pressure, and im sure the training methods are less conventional althoug the point of the training is to create someone who can take the high risk pressures. it is not meant to break the soldier cause a 'broken' soldier doesnt function when needed. anyone can google to find out about IDF training for egozi(part of golani super special forces, my sons physical profile still didnt allow him to join which im glad of, as i wouldnt be able to sleep at all :)) ...

the weapon he is receiving is a tabor machine gun. thailand bought a large amount of those for jungle fightng a few years ago.. as they are fairly light weight, can be used in closed in situations, etc....

i hope this info was a bit more enlightening, im sure it will bring out the anti israel sentiments as well. save your posting for relavant discussion about soldiers,and army training, and avoid the usual disintergration of the topic...

brought to u by word of mouth from my son, who is immensely proud to be soldier in a fighting unit, to serve his country, regardless of his personal political views-- he is , what they call here 'poisoned by the army' meaning: to be in love with being a soldier...

bina

israel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a country wants a 'fully functional' military (order taking 'robots'), .......(edited).........I spent 5 years in the military.

My sympathy - no offence intended, but your 5 years must have been very frustrating.

For the last 50 years the vast majority of wars involving western armies and those involving the most casualties to them (and most wars in the rest of the world) have been counter-insurgency operations; even though they have often been protracted and resulted in considerable casualties the most common factor is that they have been "low-level" operations. Obvious exceptions and "conventional" wars are the India/Pakistan wars (1965 & 1971), Six-day war (1967), the Falklands conflict (1982), Iran/Iraq war (1980-88) and Gulf wars I & II (1991 & 2003).

The last thing needed in any " 'fully functional' military " under these circumstances is "order taking 'robots'" who are a liability - there is a world of difference between blind obedience and instant reaction.

Edited by JohnLeech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you think its ok to be an obvious spineless bastard beating on little kids well your no better than he is

What? These aren't little kids..older teenagers for sure. Plus it looks to me they are going through military training. Do you expect them to be pampered and coddled in the military?

They aren't French.

Few armies sanction punishments (or "training" as you like to call it) such as getting booted in the face by some sadistic prick. There are established punishments - many of them physically unpleasant - where the results are known. You don't just cut some bully loose to jump up and down on people - it is foolish and accomplishes nothing - except perhaps to encourage soldiers to be total dickheads.

And what makes you think the French Army are coddled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...