A mental exercise about following/not following orders in combat zones?

I over-simplify this and it was actually a more serious situation. This is an analogy only. The actual incident involved something other than a tank far more important than a tank. However, otherwise an actual case. For this, you are a member on the court martial board:

Situation: In a war zone country, but in an unpopulated area and declared free of any enemy, A Marine unit is on foot on patrol. A few miles away a prototype tank is being field tested. The crew of the tank is not typical. There is an officer and navigator - who are regular tank personnel and the officer in charge of the tank...
...EXCEPT another officer and 2 other geeky teckie military personnel are about and in charge of the weaponry. The main gun is a prototype. AI identifies targets upon entered parameters firing AI guided shells with extreme accuracy, range and full automatic firing ability. The crew of the tank has standing orders that under no circumstance are they to engage in combat to not risk the hundreds of millions of dollar prototype tank nor risk the military geeks who developed the software either. (The real thing was more like $2 billion prototype whatever-it-is.)

Both commanders are of equal rank. Radioed in orders are from higher rank.
"Tank Commander: Authority over the tank except...
"Gunnery Commander: Authority over all the tank's weapons.

Incident: 3 of the tank crew are standing just over a hill the tank is on the other side of. Suddenly, there is an explosion a couple hundred feet away (mortar) and the hear lots of auto gun fire - seeing at least a couple dozen "insurgents" running towards them, firing. They are at maximum rifle range and outside mortar range (so far). They run to the hill to the tank.

The Marines in the shallow valley below see this, and begin approaching towards the insurgents. The insurgents, seeing the tanks ahead of them and charging Marines about a mile away turn to face the Marines. They all are now positioned in sight of the tank.

Response?Action: The tank commander calls in the situation. The order comes back: "Do NOT engage. No engagement. Return to base immediately!" He tells the rest: "No engagement, we are to return immediately."

To this, the Gunnery commander says to the tank commander "You move this tank and I'll have you up on cowardice before the enemy!" and shouts out "Fire! Both guns! Kill them all!" (exact actual quote, this all recorded)

Hearing the firing, over the radio over and over is "Do not engage! Return to base! Return to base!" During this firing, the tank commander shouts out "No engagement! No engagement!" Maybe heard over the guns, maybe not.

The tank's prototype full auto main gun and full auto standard 50 cal are loud of course. Maybe that is heard, maybe not. But the killing power of that tank is massive. In under 30 seconds all insurgents are dead, most are just pieced. They figure 32 to 35 insurgent KIA. The Marines cheer.
The gunnery commander then radios back to the base. "Engagement terminated, returning to base."

That's the case. Did the gunnery commander defy orders by open firing? Did the tank commander for delaying returning?

Tank commander defense: "Had I moved the tank while they were firing it shells could instead have hit the Marines."

Gunnery commander defense: "Since there already was an engagement, we had to fire to comply with a no engagement order by killing all of them. Doing was to put us into compliance with no engagement by ending the engagement already happening.

Prosecution: "It was a clear and concise order. They risked hundreds of millions in equipment. They risked their own lives that we've spent on training and they are virtually irreplaceable specialists. This could have set back development for years. What next? A B52 commander on a carpet bombing testing mission sees enemy so defies orders to carpet bomb them?
What if the initial attack was a mistake by friendly locals and this could have been cleared up had they not all been immediately killed in direct defiance of orders - creating a real crisis with our local allies and population? The Marines could have captured prisoners for critical info. This may have divulged military secrets by making it possibly known this prototype systems exists, when it's top secret.


Defense advocate: "This is a war zone and because intelligence got it wrong they were all under attack, they were already engaged. Can't not do what is already happening. Those Marines could have been wounded or hurt. 100% enemy KIA? No American casualties? Court Martial? They should get a commendation for quick and successful action.

Defense contractor/manufacturer rep: "I have no opinion on the charges. We are delighted that in a surprise military engagement the prototype systems worked perfectly. It would not be beneficial to the development to jail, boot out or demote the head of the design and software team on the military's side of development."

The topic includes the ability -if any - to defy orders while in combat in a fire fight - if you see that as relevant. Later I'll tell the outcome. While just an analogy, in terms of issues and facts behind them it is very accurate.

Many on this forum have been in combat and many in the military. Your opinion?

Orders were given. Orders were disobeyed.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

The only leeway in judgement, in my mind, is the punishment. I would recommend a slap on the wrist.

joko104 said:

Tank commander defense: "Had I moved the tank while they were firing it shells could instead have hit the Marines."

Gunnery commander defense: "Since there already was an engagement, we had to fire to comply with a no engagement order by killing all of them. Doing was to put us into compliance with no engagement by ending the engagement already happening.

Prosecution: "It was a clear and concise order. They risked hundreds of millions in equipment. They risked their own lives that we've spent on training and they are virtually irreplaceable specialists. This could have set back development for years. What next? A B52 commander on a carpet bombing testing mission sees enemy so defies orders to carpet bomb them?
What if the initial attack was a mistake by friendly locals and this could have been cleared up had they not all been immediately killed in direct defiance of orders - creating a real crisis with our local allies and population? The Marines could have captured prisoners for critical info. This may have divulged military secrets by making it possibly known this prototype systems exists, when it's top secret.


Defense advocate: "This is a war zone and because intelligence got it wrong they were all under attack, they were already engaged. Can't not do what is already happening. Those Marines could have been wounded or hurt. 100% enemy KIA? No American casualties? Court Martial? They should get a commendation for quick and successful action.

Defense contractor/manufacturer rep: "I have no opinion on the charges. We are delighted that in a surprise military engagement the prototype systems worked perfectly. It would not be beneficial to the development to jail, boot out or demote the head of the design and software team on the military's side of development."

The topic includes the ability -if any - to defy orders while in combat in a fire fight - if you see that as relevant. Later I'll tell the outcome. While just an analogy, in terms of issues and facts behind them it is very accurate.

Many on this forum have been in combat and many in the military. Your opinion?

Click to expand...

If all turns out well then all is forgiven.

few orders are set in stone. In combat, conditions on the ground can be reason to alter the conditions of that order. If your on the ground evaluation lead you to believe that obeying an order could lead to negative consequences, disobeying that order is justified. Combat troops are taught to adapt to circumstances. Extenuating circumstances existed that only those on the ground can react to. American lives were in peril. The main basis for the order was to protect the equipment and techs. This action in no way endangered either. I say circumstances warranted disobeying or rather delaying orders in order to assist Americans in peril. The action was justified.

It's hard to come up with a real opinion on this because it is a complete nonsense scenario. It's just not believable.

There is a significant volume of Vietnam war video footage of troops on patrol refusing to comply with orders they felt put them wrongly in harms way - even doing so knowing they are on being video with audio recorded.

A Marine squad leader in Afghanistan in the Helmand District at the height of fighting recounted a direct refusal to follow orders. As he told it, a CO ordered his squad specifically how to engage a small group of insurgents believed to be in a certain compound-style structure. He flat out refused, stating doing so would risk his men's life needlessly. When the CO made it clear it was not a suggestion or request, he made it clear his no wasn't a yes. When the CO declared another in his squad was then in charge, the rest of the squad sort of started kicking their feet and looking at the ground with "I don't know about this."

A higher ranking CO then got into this - listening to the plan of both sides - and told the squad leader we know to do it his way, not the first CO's way. The squad killed the insurgents other than capturing one for interrogation. There was no negative consequences of the initial refusal.

The actual outcome:

Commendation, increase in rank, and in written protocol given independent authority from any direct command in terms of operation. Instead, placed under direct orders on a singular line of command out of the Pentagon - or something like that - as basically a special missions team.
However, that geeky officer (“gunnery commander”) was also told any defiance against that line of command authority that loses or needlessly risks (it) is a one-way ticket to Leavenworth for a very long time. Basically “well done and here's your rewards. But do something like that again and it's a your ass.”

Less than a year later, this same person was brought to a preliminary hearing on a charge of leading a mutiny by a CO over refusing to allow or participate in a mission for as vague a reason of "something is wrong, don't know what yet" - and the rest of the team then refusing when a replacement was picked for that one. When the CO selected a full replacement team, that person accidentally or deliberately - depends who you believe - pulled a key component dropping it on concrete. Oops.

It turned out to be the CO's ass. The mission was such a big deal he decided to have a maintenance crew check it out the night before, contradicting the written protocol that no one else was to go near it or even ask about it. The team was not told of this. This was analogous to sending a couple guys from Joe's Tire and Brake Shop to secretly check out the space shuttle before a launch. Has the mission proceeded it would have failed and all of them killed with the equipment lost, with it likely impossible to ever learn why. Another commendation and scratch a CO.

There is a final chapter to this.

All but one of that team are leaving the military for ethical reasons. At first the military offered carrot-and-stick inducements to stay, but gave that up and probably should have. They had twice refused orders - one not to kill and the other to kill. Oddball super geeks, brainiac and sevant types aren't the "Hurrah!' type military personnel.
They disagreed with military and targeting policy, coming to believe the killing is being done in a way to only endlessly perpetual war for war profits and administrative power. That the military should destroy and kill from the top down, not bottom up - endlessly killing foreign militia peasants in KIA body count comparisons to declare winning. No, if we kill 10, 50, 100 or 1,000 of them for every one of us, that isn't winning. It is perpetual and only inflaming.

Thus, there was a Dr. Strangelove situation potential since they are willing to mutiny and do what they think best including about killing. The mission they were given might not be the mission they do.

They also oppose further development for future potential - particularly in light of the Space Force being created for which it could have horrific applications. They do not want to be next Oppenheimers: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” Does the world really need another category of WMDs? Apparently they believe it has that potential.

Anyway, all but one is out or getting out on honorable discharges. They have lucrative defense industry offers. The one this was about declined.

Simple: the tank commander was ordered not to engage enemy targets, but nothing in those orders prohibits him from protecting the vehicle and his crew.

If it were me, I would have gotten written orders concerning that "what if" before I went to the field.

joko104 said:

A Marine squad leader in Afghanistan in the Helmand District at the height of fighting recounted a direct refusal to follow orders. As he told it, a CO ordered his squad specifically how to engage a small group of insurgents believed to be in a certain compound-style structure. He flat out refused, stating doing so would risk his men's life needlessly. When the CO made it clear it was not a suggestion or request, he made it clear his no wasn't a yes. When the CO declared another in his squad was then in charge, the rest of the squad sort of started kicking their feet and looking at the ground with "I don't know about this."

A higher ranking CO then got into this - listening to the plan of both sides - and told the squad leader we know to do it his way, not the first CO's way. The squad killed the insurgents other than capturing one for interrogation. There was no negative consequences of the initial refusal.

Click to expand...

Sounds like officer #1 is a piece of **** who has no business leading soldiers on the battlefield.

1) If he felt so strongly that he was right, he should have lead the charge, or 2) he should have trusted his veteran squad leader.

apdst said:

Sounds like officer #1 is a piece of **** who has no business leading soldiers on the battlefield.

1) If he felt so strongly that he was right, he should have lead the charge, or 2) he should have trusted his veteran squad leader.

Click to expand...

I have never been in the military, but know many who have, including in direct combat and including one of my own kids. I gather those in combat tend to develop very different attitudes - understandably - than those who don't know the fine details of situations nor is it their lives on the line.

I watched the movie "Blackhawk Down" again last night. One of the best war movies ever made. For the closing stats of over 1000 Somalians killed and 19 of ours, over a 50 to 1 kill rate, still did not mean we won the battle nor the goals of being there, but the opposite. For all the training, it is apparently depressingly long in deadly ways for how long it takes for a base to obtain permission to act even with level of an immediate life-death urgency of the situation due to the almost endless lines of military and civilian command that have to clear it first.

That Marine I wrote of one time told me he researched previous modern wars in detail at the small unit combat level. He said the reasons the Germans were so superior is because each unit out in the field had great independent authority to act, while our troops had many levels of command they had to convince before they could divert from orders or be creative/response to the situation - none of those higher levels of command in the combat zone or in the actual combat. He had said to us before he was sent over that he is not going to let any dumbass officer ever put his men or himself in danger.

For Benghazi, we had a base 1 mile away, two locations with aircraft that could have been there within the hour, and a special forces unit specifically for such situations an hour away in Italy. The two defenders who put their lives on the line were so certain aircraft MUST be on the way, the were laser making where the mortar rounds were coming from. Instead, team Obama asked the local police to take care of it - an absurd idea that $3 a day police already facing potential murder of themselves and their families would go fight insurgents armed with AK47s and mortars - while we had a military base a mile away - the greatest military power on earth - did nothing. Finally, the White House took action. They sent a SWAT team to arrest an American Jew.

I am certain those two true heroes trying to hold off the onslaught must have felt the ultimate betrayal when no aircraft did come nor anyone from the base. I also am confident that the order to "stand down" was eating out the hearts and minds of our military personnel at the nearby base.

I suspect that our best military personnel are those who meticulously and with the great professional skill follow orders and protocols 90 to 95% of the time. But what makes them the best also is the 5 to 10% of time they don't. Except for dumbass officers stranded in their rank by the "Peter Principle" - rising just enough until they are clearly incompetent - I believe nearly all seriously combat experienced higher ranking officers recognize those with the brains to know when not to follow dumbass orders. They know that in combat, usually in the first 15 minutes - if not from the first minute - most plans are no longer even relevant.

After Vietnam the Army shifted more importance on to NCO's. They learned during Vietnam that the NCO's were what made water boil, the ocean blue and the world go 'round.

On my first field problem as a platoon seargant, an observer/controller (OC), basically the guy that reported to the division commander about whether, or not an officer, or NCO should be wearing the rank, or scrubbing toilets stopped me:

OC: C'mere, sarge

Me: Sir?

OC: explain to me just why in the sweet ****ing hell are you letting your platoon leader look like a ****ing asshole? Are you trying to sabotage him? You're aren't a team player?

Me: He's a first leautenant. I can't tell him what to do, sir

OC: When he deviated from the plan, started getting your men slaughtered and giving the free ****ing world to the commies and causing every American girl under the age of 13 to get raped by hordes of barbarians, you bet your ass you can tell him he's deviating from the plan and we need to get back on mission before the world comes to an end.

Me: With all due respect, captain...that doesn't work with him.

OC: What? Hey! Leautenant! Get your ass over here!

Lt.: Sir?

OC: I can't believe what I just heard. Your PS just told me that when tries to stop you from ****ing up, getting an entire platoon wasted and destroying Venus, you don't listen to him. Is that true?

Lt.: sir, this is MY platoon. I'M in charge.

OC: I oughta beat you death where you stand! This man is the only thing between you and the hear after. You best learn to listen to him, or you won't be a platoon leader in the Army for much longer. Before this field problem is over, there's going to be one of two things coming out of your ass: cooperation, or blood. You choose.

Every good platoon leader, or company commander I ever saw always gave the NCO's a very lose rein, not a free rein, but very lose.

What I learned to do as a PS was sit down with the PL and tell him what I expected from him and what he could expect from me and ask him to do the same. I always had a good platoon when he and I negotiated those terms. Best PL I ever had said, "In the field, it's my show, unless you see me ****ing up. If you do, don't **** around telling me. Other than that, it's your platoon. Keep me informed."

apdst said:

Sounds like officer #1 is a piece of **** who has no business leading soldiers on the battlefield.

1) If he felt so strongly that he was right, he should have lead the charge, or 2) he should have trusted his veteran squad leader.

Click to expand...

I first read that, and could only assume the following.

The "First CO" was most likely a Platoon Leader, and a very junior Lieutenant. And as most of them should know, they should mostly sit back and let their Platoon Sergeant run the platoon. Only the most senior ones should actually even start to think of giving actual orders in combat.

And the "second CO" was probably the Company Commander. And I bet that the Platoon Sergeant pulled the Company Gunny to the side, and told him the Louie was being an idiot, and he whispered that into the Skipper's ear. Skipper made the call, probably telling the Platoon Sergeant to take charge as he pulled the Lieutenant to the side for some professional counseling.

Being a Marine and a grunt for a decade, I have seen things like this many times. In fact, it is safe to say that I often went weeks without seeing my Platoon Leader, or most other Officers (in garrison). The Company Gunny really leads the Company, and the Platoon Sergeant leads the platoon.

apdst said:

Every good platoon leader, or company commander I ever saw always gave the NCO's a very lose rein, not a free rein, but very lose.

What I learned to do as a PS was sit down with the PL and tell him what I expected from him and what he could expect from me and ask him to do the same. I always had a good platoon when he and I negotiated those terms. Best PL I ever had said, "In the field, it's my show, unless you see me ****ing up. If you do, don't **** around telling me. Other than that, it's your platoon. Keep me informed."

Click to expand...

I worked with one in the Corps that was the worst Officer I ever served under. And sadly, it was a 2 man section, him and me.

How I had heard of this guy already, from scuttlebutt in the Battalion. A graduate of "The Prick Factory" (CanoeU, Annapolis), his entire platoon hated him. His platoon sergeant hated him. He was a micro-manager from hell, and while he would not actually throw those under him under the bus to make himself look good, he would do nothing to help them either. Enlisted were just steps to be used to get ahead.

Well, he was a senior 1st Lt, and it was time to put him in a staff position. That was how he became my boss, and I hated him from day one. Had me change how all reports were done for the Battalion CO, essentially making all maintenance look outstanding. I kept trying to tell him that was not how we did it, but he was more interested in looking good. Finally when he was on leave I had to make the presentation, and the Colonel was surprised my reports were not what he had used. After that, I was going to his office a day after the "Battalion Meeting", to inform him of what our actual numbers were.

Finally after he had his year of staff service, he moved on. He reported to Flight School, and became a Whizzo for an F-18. I looked him up a few years ago out of curiosity. He did around 10 years in the Corps, and got out and went to the civilian sector. He was probably getting to be a senior Captain, and I imagine he was informed that at most he could look forward to becoming a Staff Major, and spending his entire time there (and never changing his gold leaf for a silver one) if he insisted on remaining until retirement.

Being in a staff position, I learned a lot of things that most enlisted did not know. Such as every officer in our section (he was 1 of 4) hated him. I also knew the Battalion CO did not care for him, and recognized he had changed Official Forms, and insisted I fill out nonsensical ones that only served to make him look good. Which was stupid, because we could have had a maintenance status that was at 0%, so long as we were reporting that the companies told us and why it was not our fault.

Case in point, at one point every M-2 .50 Cal in the Battalion was deadlined (all 20+) for a possible defect. Everybody in the Corps knew of this, and I reported it. The Lt. had me scrub it from his report, because he did not think it was right to show that all of our heavy machine guns were "broken". But the problem is, it gives the Battalion CO false data. He needs facts, not moonbeams and unicorns. It was our job to collect information and report, nothing more.

Oozlefinch said:

I first read that, and could only assume the following.

The "First CO" was most likely a Platoon Leader, and a very junior Lieutenant. And as most of them should know, they should mostly sit back and let their Platoon Sergeant run the platoon. Only the most senior ones should actually even start to think of giving actual orders in combat.

And the "second CO" was probably the Company Commander. And I bet that the Platoon Sergeant pulled the Company Gunny to the side, and told him the Louie was being an idiot, and he whispered that into the Skipper's ear. Skipper made the call, probably telling the Platoon Sergeant to take charge as he pulled the Lieutenant to the side for some professional counseling.

Being a Marine and a grunt for a decade, I have seen things like this many times. In fact, it is safe to say that I often went weeks without seeing my Platoon Leader, or most other Officers (in garrison). The Company Gunny really leads the Company, and the Platoon Sergeant leads the platoon.

Click to expand...

Of the stories I have been told by people who served was an old Vietnam Vet. He claimed in Vietnam he was a clerk and his job included death certificates and reports. He claimed that the majority of lieutenants killed in combat had been shot in the back. He claimed the reason was during Vietnam anyone with a college degree who enlisted automatically was made a lieutenant - meaning in command at a small unit level not knowing jack****. When no one would comply with taking the point because they thought it just too dangerous, commonly lieutenant would tell them to follow him. Bang - shot in the back.

I don't really believe his claim of our soldiers shooting COs in the back. The war had clearly messed up his head otherwise. I have seen a video from Vietnam where everyone in a squad on patrol in the jungle refused to go into the open to be evacuated by helicopter because a bombing mission was coming. Even knowing they were being recorded, they all absolutely refused to go out in the open from where they all were ducking down back in the jungle. Can't blame them.

joko104 said:

A Marine squad leader in Afghanistan in the Helmand District at the height of fighting recounted a direct refusal to follow orders. As he told it, a CO ordered his squad specifically how to engage a small group of insurgents believed to be in a certain compound-style structure. He flat out refused, stating doing so would risk his men's life needlessly. When the CO made it clear it was not a suggestion or request, he made it clear his no wasn't a yes. When the CO declared another in his squad was then in charge, the rest of the squad sort of started kicking their feet and looking at the ground with "I don't know about this."

A higher ranking CO then got into this - listening to the plan of both sides - and told the squad leader we know to do it his way, not the first CO's way. The squad killed the insurgents other than capturing one for interrogation. There was no negative consequences of the initial refusal.

Click to expand...

The problem with all your made up scenarios is you have no actual knowledge of how the military works so none of them are believable by anyone who has spent more then a couple days in the military.

Feel free to step over the messages by the troll.

joko104 said:

Feel free to step over the messages by the troll.

Click to expand...

It’s funny you post these kinds of stories. It usually involves either some geeks testing some prototype equipment in a war zone or your ones about some female super soldier off on a mission by herself killing people.

None of it is true and it’s obvious

joko104 said:

Of the stories I have been told by people who served was an old Vietnam Vet. He claimed in Vietnam he was a clerk and his job included death certificates and reports. He claimed that the majority of lieutenants killed in combat had been shot in the back. He claimed the reason was during Vietnam anyone with a college degree who enlisted automatically was made a lieutenant - meaning in command at a small unit level not knowing jack****. When no one would comply with taking the point because they thought it just too dangerous, commonly lieutenant would tell them to follow him. Bang - shot in the back.

I don't really believe his claim of our soldiers shooting COs in the back. The war had clearly messed up his head otherwise. I have seen a video from Vietnam where everyone in a squad on patrol in the jungle refused to go into the open to be evacuated by helicopter because a bombing mission was coming. Even knowing they were being recorded, they all absolutely refused to go out in the open from where they all were ducking down back in the jungle. Can't blame them.

Click to expand...

I think the fragging stories are greatly overblown. I was in a combat unit in Nam and don't know of any officer who got fragged. I know of a couple who were reassigned because they were at odds with the EM. I know of a couple of others who got punched in the face but none who were fragged.

Oozlefinch said:

I worked with one in the Corps that was the worst Officer I ever served under. And sadly, it was a 2 man section, him and me.

How I had heard of this guy already, from scuttlebutt in the Battalion. A graduate of "The Prick Factory" (CanoeU, Annapolis), his entire platoon hated him. His platoon sergeant hated him. He was a micro-manager from hell, and while he would not actually throw those under him under the bus to make himself look good, he would do nothing to help them either. Enlisted were just steps to be used to get ahead.

Well, he was a senior 1st Lt, and it was time to put him in a staff position. That was how he became my boss, and I hated him from day one. Had me change how all reports were done for the Battalion CO, essentially making all maintenance look outstanding. I kept trying to tell him that was not how we did it, but he was more interested in looking good. Finally when he was on leave I had to make the presentation, and the Colonel was surprised my reports were not what he had used. After that, I was going to his office a day after the "Battalion Meeting", to inform him of what our actual numbers were.

Finally after he had his year of staff service, he moved on. He reported to Flight School, and became a Whizzo for an F-18. I looked him up a few years ago out of curiosity. He did around 10 years in the Corps, and got out and went to the civilian sector. He was probably getting to be a senior Captain, and I imagine he was informed that at most he could look forward to becoming a Staff Major, and spending his entire time there (and never changing his gold leaf for a silver one) if he insisted on remaining until retirement.

Being in a staff position, I learned a lot of things that most enlisted did not know. Such as every officer in our section (he was 1 of 4) hated him. I also knew the Battalion CO did not care for him, and recognized he had changed Official Forms, and insisted I fill out nonsensical ones that only served to make him look good. Which was stupid, because we could have had a maintenance status that was at 0%, so long as we were reporting that the companies told us and why it was not our fault.

Case in point, at one point every M-2 .50 Cal in the Battalion was deadlined (all 20+) for a possible defect. Everybody in the Corps knew of this, and I reported it. The Lt. had me scrub it from his report, because he did not think it was right to show that all of our heavy machine guns were "broken". But the problem is, it gives the Battalion CO false data. He needs facts, not moonbeams and unicorns. It was our job to collect information and report, nothing more.

Click to expand...

I was range NCOIC during battalion Bradley gunnery, table 7. The OIC waaaay under-ordered his ammo, even after I told him to add 25% to what the book called for. When it became obvious that we were going to run out with nearly a whole company (10 crews) left to fire. I told him we needed to get on the horn with the battalion commander right then, take our ass chewing and let the BC pull some strings, but he didn't want to do that. A couple hours later, the BC pops in. When he asked me how things were going, I flat out told him were going to run short of ammo by several thousand rounds. The OIC was pissed, but I explained to him that that just wasn't something we could lie about and waiting until the range was totally shut down because of a depletion of ammo was going to only make things. Back then a range could only call a safety/admin lull for 4 hours; past that and range control would kick you off the range because other units were waiting in line. But, I was a good NCO. I made the BC think that it was my fault as much as his. He was a pretty good shave tail lieutenant. I couldn't let him burn by himself. He still hated me for it, but I explained to him that there were things you could bull**** about, fix later and no one would be the wiser. This wasn't one of them.

While not combat, my job in the military came with standing orders to disobey or at least question orders, that would otherwise be lawful, if they could damage the Rx plant or potentially cause a radiological accident. So the situation and reasonable point of view should be taken into account. Not saying it shouldn't be investigated, but definitely considerations made for intention and outcome.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

roguenuke said:

While not combat, my job in the military came with standing orders to disobey or at least question orders, that would otherwise be lawful, if they could damage the Rx plant or potentially cause a radiological accident. So the situation and reasonable point of view should be taken into account. Not saying it shouldn't be investigated, but definitely considerations made for intention and outcome.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Whenever we are overseas, one thing that is gone over again and again until we are almost sick of it is the "Rules of Engagement". And I bet for every incident where it was broken, there are probably 50 we never hear about where some idiot in the chain of command says "We need to do this!", and somebody below them goes "Uhhhh, that is not authorized, think again" or "Nope, not gonna do it!"

But we never hear about those, because nothing happened. No rules were violated, and there was not an incident.