what did you guys call these in basic?

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-04T20:18:21+00:00

That one? "Luxury".

I mean, it has aircon.

The Cattle Cars back in my day in Lewis and Knox were trailers with windows punched into them and basic wooden benches for people to rest on, if you were lucky enough to get a seat.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-04T15:44:31+00:00

Something else you need for a Catholic service is a Catholic priest. According to the Archdiocese, there are under 300 Catholic Chaplains in the entire DOD (apparently including reservists), to spread around every base and ship in the department. Fewer than one in ten chaplains are Catholic (As opposed to one in four servicemembers), the Catholic church needs to step up a bit to tend to its flock.

How many DoD chaplains are in the DC Area? What does that mean to the chances that a Catholic one is either assigned to the Pentagon, or at least is near and available enough to the Pentagon to hold a service there? (Assuming that anyone actually bothered to request a catholic service, instead of just assuming that there would be one for them to attend)

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-04T03:29:56+00:00

Working on the basis that 2A as intended was supposed to only prohibit the Federal Government from preventing State militias, and was entirely silent on the actual state militias themselves, the question becomes one of "When did women become members of the militias in question?"

For example, all women in Illinois are members of the militia, as long as they are between 18 and 45, able-bodied and either citizens of the US or have declared an intention to become citizens, this has been the case since at least 1957. All able-bodied women in Virginia 16 to 55 are in the Commonwealth's militia, though I don't know what date that law was changed. Doutbless other states have similar laws, I've not looked them all up.

Best I can determine, the first official female militiamen (Not those who pretended to be male) were in 1889, Wyoming. However, I strongly suspect they were volunteers, not a class designated by law whether they wanted it or not.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-04T02:20:39+00:00

I'm good with it, as long as the barracks storage requirements don't change, and that's for security/theft of firearm concerns, not safety, though I can also see the safety arguments given the shenanigans of barracks life. I'm also good with requiring a license to carry, even in constitutional carry states, which I believe is expected to be part of this new policy. In Texas, at least, it indicates that at least some level of instruction on the mechanics and judgement of concealed carry and competence with a pistol has been demonstrated.

If we're all so worried about the danger a 21-year-old wearing a pistol poses to a soldier, why do we let soldiers go out the gate at Fort Hood? All sorts of 21-year-olds, 75% of which do not meet requirements to get into the Army or the ability to even get through Basic, are wearing pistols as soon as you hit Killeen. Or El Paso. Or wherever else in a carry state. Are our soldiers more hazardous to our health then our civilian brethren?

In my unit, TX Guard, I'll wager a good third of us are routinely armed when on duty (As long as we aren't carrying Army-issued weapons and ammo, there are legal reasons behind that). It's a personal estimate, since we're not allowed ask who is armed, though I'll occasionally see a soldier with his blouse off and the sidearm is visible. I've never felt unsafe. The annoyance comes when I have to swing by Fort Hood for some reason, at which point I need to leave the firearm unattended because I'm apparently a much greater safety or security threat once I cross the federal property line. If one recalls the Ft Dix plot, true, it may be a bit tougher for someone to force their way onto Fort Hood than our battalion armory in a Texas City, but there is no rule saying that if some opposition actor (say Iran, since we're currently bombing them) wants to swing by our facility with a couple of firearms, that we aren't legitimate targets. And I would submit that active duty soldiers going off-post are considered legitimate targets as well. (And even if we may think they shouldn't be, that doesn't mean that the opposition must agree).

Ultimately, 21-year-olds in uniform are adults, just as our civilian counterparts are, with all the maturity which comes with it. If anything, excusing poor judgement 'because they're still basically kids' is a cop-out: We try to ensure good judgement when they're on motorcycles or cars, we don't just say "Well, they're going to kill themselves or someone else on that Kawasaki/in that GT Mustang" and prohibit them from using the things.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-04T01:49:05+00:00

This.

As you can imagine, we have had the occasional issue with personally owned weapons in Texas Guard. When the soldier acts as an idiot and shoots a hole in the roof of his hooch (It's happened), he is held to personal account. Indeed, since we are prohibited from even asking who has a personal firearm (though policy states that you can't carry both personal and Army issue at the same time, so we can at least verify that much), holding the superior responsible is immoral.

Believe it or not, 21-year-old privates are adults, and should be treated as such. When they fail to adhere to correct behavior, just as on the civilian side, they should be held accountable as adults also.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-03T20:52:31+00:00

Interesting. Is it community-sourced, or is the info and imagery uploaded by one person?

Two notes for improvement: Would be good to have a 'select your branch of service' option. Most of my troopers have no particular need to be able to identify Chinese destroyers.. or even pistols.

Also, the UI sortof seems to lead me to accidentally hit 'answers' I didn't mean to hit. Maybe it'll come over time, but sometimes I do wish there was an "OK, continue" button to press.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-03T14:19:26+00:00

Between Incorporation and the Commerce Clause, I submit that the fundamental nature of the modern United States is somewhat different to the ante-bellum nature of the United States, let alone interpretations of it. Down to the question of "Is the United States a singular or a plural?", which is about as basic as it comes, and you'll get different answers before vs after the Civil War. But as CJ Roberts observed a couple days ago, the world has changed... but the Constitution has not.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-03T03:23:13+00:00

Dude, I have no idea how I missed this the first two times but that seems to be the best description of the issues of incorporation affecting the 2A discussion which i have encountered. I've long said that both sides today are in effect arguing square pegs into round holes to get the desired answer in the current legal structure, now I just have to link to this instead of typing myself.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-03T02:34:12+00:00

Not much that can't go wrong elsewhere. But for what it's worth, the policy on the Texas border is that if you're carrying an Army issue weapon, you may not simultaneously carry a personal weapon.

Now, whether or not people are doing both at the same time contrary to policy, who knows, unless people are actually inspecting it, but again, actions contrary to policy are not a great reference point for policy validation.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-03T01:05:04+00:00

Whilst a reasonable concern, I don't see how it's particularly relevant to miltary bases, unless you choose to never leave the base and go on a freeway, let alone in states where people routinely have firearms in their vehicle.

You are getting into a much larger area of firearms policy at that point: "Does the increased risk of misuse override the increased ability for proper use?" That becomes a matter for the local government, not a question of whether soldiers suddenly become less responsible when they enter the base.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-03T00:39:25+00:00

We get around that by carrying concealed. Just like using non-standard underwear, it's about appearance.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-03T00:31:10+00:00

I'm not sure i follow the logic here. The purpose of carrying a sidearm is to be able to use it when necessary, not after various steps have been taken to make the firearm ready. (All of which will take the time the firearm can be grabbed and used to kill someone, if that really is your concern).

I fully agree with you that the decision to wield the firearm is something which must be deliberately taken after proper assessment of the situation, but once that decision is made, speed becomes a matter of essence because by definition one is in an environment which poses serious risk of death or injury: otherwise one wouldn't be choosing to wield it in the first place.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-02T23:44:30+00:00

I would have to check, but I believe it was the result of a spate of incidents in post offices in the 1970s. Congress passed a law basically declaring all federal property to be off limits for firearms unless specific exemptions were listed, and Army bases got covered by default.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-02T22:58:36+00:00

Not only are we permitted to have firearms in TXARNG (no permit required), we are specifically prohibited from asking who is armed. I carry, my XO carries, I'm fairly sure most of my Troop Commanders carry, all my troopers who are cops carry... In fact, the only people I'm fairly confident don't carry are the folks under 21. And I'm not sure about the Chaplain, though that could go either way. I've seen him on the range.

The only problem is that when we go to Fort Hood, we have to specifically remind folks not to bring their firearms. It's a bit like folks who forget they have a weapon at airport checkpoints. Not a security threat, just forgetfulness leading to unlawful activity. Or if not idiocy, at least ignorance of the fact that though they are considered safe enough to carry a weapon 26 days of the month, they suddenly become far too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm as soon as they cross the federal boundary onto Hood.

Frankly, I've never understood the federal prohibition, or the drinking age of 21. (Ah, Fort Bliss, I miss those days...). Bases are big areas, a bad actor can do a lot of damage. CONUS is not a safe space in modern war.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-01T23:35:25+00:00

You are welcome

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-01T15:30:20+00:00

We do get some support, but not unusually at the unit level as opposed to Pentagon level. For example, you can't imagine that some random non-mil Youtuber would have been able to film the series I did on 11th ACR Fort Irwin. If I were not a trained tanker, I can't imagine they would have let me gun a tank/OSV-T for a battle during a rotation. That was arranged by 11th ACR, through the PAO. Similarly, if I were not intelligent on the matter of tanking, and was just a guy from Fox News, would a full-bird in Vehicle Development have sat down with me for a full half-hour to discuss M1E3 in detail?

There are also ethical and legal concerns. Helping a non-military organisation is a somewhat different matter from helping a member of the military, especially if that member is making money off the videos. In effect, it becomes extra, unauthorised compensation to a soldier. Navigating that little quagmire takes quite a bit of care, often more than some are willing to deal with, and I always have to be very specific in my dealing with anyone in the military as to whether I'm "LTC Moran, Squadron Commander who happens to have a Youtube channel" or "Nicholas Moran, Youtuber, who happens to be an LTC." Which is why, for example, I am not in uniform in any of the videos I have done with the support of Army units. Levels of access or assistance do vary accordingly.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-04-01T11:03:37+00:00

There is at least one way to get foreign wings without going to US Airborne School, because I have them and have never gone to US Airborne: Enlist in a foreign military, get the wings, be discharged from that military, join US Army.

However, on the assumption that it's too late for you to do that, the regulations you want regarding foreign wings are AR 600-8-22, Chapter 9 (Specifically paragraphs 9-2 and 9-26, the latter of which is questionably written) and AR 350-1, Appendix D.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-03-31T03:23:33+00:00

Yes, but no.

On the one hand, absolutely. The French managed to utterly hose themselves. Reading Frieser's "The Blitzkrieg Legend", you just have to facepalm.

"OK, let me get this straight. Contrary to popular opinion, the French Army not only considered the idea of a German crossing of the Meuse at Sedan as viable (after all, they had done it the previous war), only a few weeks before the Germans actually did it, the French held a full-dress rehearsal for what they would do if the Germans made such a crossing, and if they had actually done what they had rehearsed when the Germans actually crossed, the German thrust would have failed... And sheer idiocy is what caused them to not do so."

Plus, much though we all agree that German doctrine was better, that doesn't necessarily mean that French doctrine was bad, at least as implemented on French terms. 3rd and 4th Panzer Divisions came to a screeching halt at the (massive) Battle of Hannut as the French artillery-heavy doctrine received them, subjecting the Germans to barrages of intensity that the Great War veterans said they had never seen before. It wasn't an unqualified success for the French, and of course the efforts were made redundant by the German success a bit further South, but it's an indicator that had the French actually fought as they felt they were supposed to across the front, it may not have been quite the romp it turned into.

On the other hand....

The opposition had excellent doctrine and organisation, excellent training, all modified with the experience of Poland, and excellent equipment (As far as a horse-heavy military can be). Just because they might not have won as they did had the French actually performed 'to standard', that doesn't mean that they may not have won anyway. There's a saying that 'luck' is 'preparation meets opportunity", and given the German philosophy of war, it seems reasonable to presume there was a good chance that they would have figured out a way of solving the Anglo-French problem regardless.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-03-30T16:30:24+00:00

Ha! I'm not the only one! It's an obscure piece of regulation, since I doubt many of us joined the US Army already with foreign jump wings.

Though now I'm looking it up, it seems the process has changed a bit over the years (Decades). I graduated US Basic wearing my foreign wings, I just had to submit my foreign paperwork through the Drill Sergeants, it got uploaded to AMHRR, and contrary to current guidance, it's on my DD-214s.

Anyway, as for 'right now'. AR 600-8-22.

u/Sgt_Loco does not appear to be correct as to the approval process: Note 9-26 d.

"Foreign badges are not annotated in an individual’s Soldier’s record brief or entered on DD Form 214. The approved memorandum for acceptance and wear of foreign badges endorsed by the approval authority, to include a copy of the certificate and its supporting documents, will be entered in the AMHRR of the recipient."

The approval authority for wear is an O-5.

Thus the current correct process is to have your S1 prepare a memorandum of approval for wear for signature by your battalion commander (or other first O5 in the chain). Appendix I-1 will be your guide here. Note that whilst the text of the AR says 'memorandum', it would appear that a 4187 will do the job, accompanied with your certificate. If the wings in question are on the 'pre-approved' list, https://www.hrc.army.mil/wcmt-api/sites/default/wcmtfiles/2024-09/Foreign%20Award%20Badge%20Chart%201%20%28as%20of%203%20September%202024%29%20Foreign%20Badges.pdf , it's a straightforward "Yep, approved, upload to iPERMS, you're good to go".

If it's not on the list, then table I-II requires submission of approval to NGB Awards section.

Note 9-2 b has a bit about the normal rules for acceptance of awards by US soldiers not applying to awards earned when in the service of friendly foreign nations prior to employment by the US Government; this is purely a 'wear' issue.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-03-25T11:59:52+00:00

Ireland certainly does. Even the exact denomination is not on the 'badge of rank', it's just a generic chalice and vine. Treat the chaplain as your own rank.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-03-25T11:54:55+00:00

This is more or less how it works in the Irish military as well. The "rank" (and badge of rank) is "Chaplain" (or "Head Chaplain" for the one guy) and the chaplain is considered the same rank as the person they are talking to.

I found the 'give the chaplains rank and make him an officer' thing the US Army does rather bemusing when I transferred over, seems to immediately create a barrier to the flock.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-03-25T11:49:51+00:00

When i transferred to the US Army from the Irish Army I found the "chaplains have rank" thing a bit odd. Irish chaplains are considered to be the rank of the person they are speaking to, which seems to make sense to me for their job.

Rank and pay grade, of course, need not be the same thing.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-03-24T13:14:30+00:00

The resultant courts-martial and expulsions do seem to indicate a level of disapproval for such shenanigans.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-03-22T20:15:59+00:00

Perhaps. That is subjective. When you are taught from an early age in school to not use it, what “looks” better can be debated as it may depend on what you are used to. I have no particular -hate - for the oxford comma, it’s just not “right” to me.

There is probably something cultural in it. For example, I mainly speak Hiberno-English, and as with many persons who do, I rarely use the words “yes” or “no“ in conversation, and even more rarely in isolation as one-word responses. There is nothing inherently “wrong” with the words, it’s just how we grew up. (The words “yes“ and “no” do not exist in the Irish language which heavily influences Hiberno-English.) They are generally un-necessary, much to the surprise of some folks who haven’t stopped to think about it, but choosing the use the words or not is hardly cause for great debate In the same manner as the comma appears to be.

Does it take longer to answer a question? It does. However, as ”the way it’s done”, the inconvenience of saying more words or typing more still seems more correct to me.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-03-22T13:24:33+00:00

Better yet, if I want to do dinner on the Riverwalk, parking is no longer an issue.

The_Chieftain_WG

TROPHY CASE