What do you think might have been harder when the older vets went through their career than it is today? Easier?

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:13:25 -0400

Over the last few years I have had countless prior service civil servants tell me "back in my day things were different, you new troops have it so easy". I imagine that things were in fact different, harder even. But I would also venture a guess that some things today might be more difficult. Thoughts?

Response by SPC David Wyckoff made Mar 17 at 2014 6:22 PM

SPC David Wyckoff — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:22:52 -0400

Don't let the "I walked to school in waist deep snow, uphill, both ways" stories get to ya SrA T. We old timers like to whittle on our sticks and talk about how much harder we worked at it, but fact remains that the old saying is true. The more things change the more they stay the same. Cleaning a battle rifle is pretty much the same now as it was then.

I think you have more technology available to you that allows you to accomplish your mission faster and more efficiently than we did. But that technology has to be learned and more importantly maintained. I think because of that technology, sometimes more is demanded of you. Today's military personnel are more computer and tech savvy than we were.
Challenges you face now, that we didn't face has to do with social media and how many people can see your ah shits. We had knuckeheads back then, just like you do now...we just didn't have to worry about 1.5 million people seeing our knuckeheads showing their best side.

If I could impress anything on the new military is not to forget their basics. Fundamentals will save your hide. If the batteries go out in the GPS, having proficient land nav skills will come in handy. That would be just one simple example

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 5:44 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:44:11 -0400

I have heard it portrayed both ways. I am sure everyone has heard about how much harder it was back in the day. What I found interesting is when I spoke with some WWII vets, they said they would never want to have to fight a war like in Iraq or Afghanistan. The perspective they had was that it was easier to fight an enemy who had a distinct uniform and a clearly defined war front. While I agree with this logic, looking at the casualty rates between WWII and Iraq/Afghanistan, I would say that we were much more likely to get injured or killed in WWII, depending on where we saw combat.

Vietnam vets I spoke to about this are one way or the other. I have met a good mix of some who think it was hell compared to now, and some that say we have so much red tape now that it was cake back then. I guess it is all a matter of perspective, and we will not truly know which was harder unless we happened to be there for both.

Response by SSG Jason Hoadley made Mar 20 at 2014 6:20 PM

SSG Jason Hoadley — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:20:17 -0400

The older guys had it easier when it comes to everyday soldiering....

There was no need for a paper trail on a bad troop..

The rule/regs were really black and white..

An E-4 respected and treated an E-5 correctly..

On the aspect of war, They had it a bit easier as well.

Conventional warfare has rules, granted many were unwritten but there was a form to it.

There jobs may have been harder because the tech was not there...

But as a whole, I think they had easier and in some ways better than we have it now...

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made May 31 at 2014 9:13 AM

Cpl Glynis Sakowicz — Sat, 31 May 2014 09:13:16 -0400

There is a great deal of truth in your comment, at least when it comes to women. Until the 70's women were locked out of most MOS's, and I can remember how overjoyed most of us were, when we saw the very first women appear in the army, with jump wings. It was like the glass ceiling cracked wide open for us. It wasn't so much that we WANTED to do that, it was the fact that now, we COULD.
For every single opening into jobs that women were never able to even apply for, there were thousands of women who'd pushed and pushed to have those openings. Again, it wasn't the jobs themselves, it was the idea that we had more CHOICE in how we served!
In WWI, my grandmother was a Telegrapher in the military, in WWII my mother was pushed into being a cook, but she fought to enlarge her roll, simply because she hated the idea that she had so few choices.
You have no idea how affected most women vets were when serving women were ALLOWED to actually qualify with rifles.
Right now, I know a ten year old daughter of a friend, who's focus is on becoming a Sniper. I told her, I don't think that field is open yet, and she gave me this angry stare, "It will be." she said, and I suddenly realized that I must have looked like that, when I told my mother I wanted to be in the Engineers, because I'd been operating heavy equipment since I could sit on the seat and actually work the pedals. By the time I was 16, I could operate at least a dozen types of heavy equipment, but the military didn't trust me to do so, and that bothered me... a lot.
Just yesterday, we lost a Woman Marine who had served in WWII. Far and wide, all the past and present Women Marines mourned her, because it was women like her, who pushed and hammered on the 'glass ceiling' and gave us the choices we have now.
And now you know why that question really hit home for me.