Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I mean, if you ever played Defcon and really thought about what it represented. It really makes you feel sick to the pit of your stomach. Or at least it did me when I was younger. It felt incredibly, profoundly uncomfortable.

Then again maybe they make sure they have utter, patriotic, nationalist psychopaths doing that sort of thing.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
How about the poor gits who were assigned to launch duty on nuclear weapons? The guys who would push the buttons that actually launched the missiles or dropped the nuclear bombs?

Imagine sitting in a deep bunker a few hundred feet underground, knowing it an enemy i warhead detonated near you you'd likely be trapped down there till you died, and even in the best of cases you;re going to be killing countless unarmed people, many7 children?

I recall hearing that the US military had to conduct very careful psych screening for people assigned that duty to see if they actually would push the button if they got the order to.

Can people really comprehend that end result of pushing a button?

Read The Hot War trilogy by Harry Turtledove. Basically it covers an alternate history where the Cold War escalates into a full-blown nuclear exchange during the Korean War. One thing that the author does show happening is how the people flying the bombers all react differently to what they are having to do. Some of them just coldly detach themselves and treat it as a job, others are driven to suicide. Being involved with killing people on that scale would take a certain kind of person (who many would consider to be a monster).

JWBS wrote:

It wasn't "Better working conditions" in the Mongol army - almost all infractions resulted in capital punishment. It wasn't democratic. Most cities that surrendered to the Mongols could reasonably expect wholesale slaughter of the population as their reward for compliance. The two systems, if what you say about piracy in the Caribbean is accurate, were not remarkably similar.

That is very interesting! My understanding of Mongolian warfare had always been that cities that resisted were annihilated, but that those that surrendered immediately were mostly spared. Sometimes local leaders killed, army dissolved, the looting and pillaging typical of soldiers in an enemy city at the time... but that life in the Mongolian empire was actually quite mild. Local customs and laws were preserved, and you could practice your religion freely. Certainly, their punishments of soldiers, and probably all sorts were incredibly harsh by our standards- but compared to cultures of the time, it was not a bad place to be in. Do you happen to recall what cities were destroyed that surrendered without resistance? I haven't read much about Mongolian treachery with their peace terms.

 Matt Swain wrote:
How about the poor gits who were assigned to launch duty on nuclear weapons? The guys who would push the buttons that actually launched the missiles or dropped the nuclear bombs?

Imagine sitting in a deep bunker a few hundred feet underground, knowing it an enemy i warhead detonated near you you'd likely be trapped down there till you died, and even in the best of cases you;re going to be killing countless unarmed people, many7 children?

I recall hearing that the US military had to conduct very careful psych screening for people assigned that duty to see if they actually would push the button if they got the order to.

I think this thread has got to page 3 and you have probably mentioned the worst one of all. Where it is someone's hands to end millions of peoples lives and most likely the end of advanced civilisation.

Reading about the multiple instances of where a sentry on duty 'should' have made a phone call. If they had made that phone call we wouldn't be sat here now having this discussion.

Most terrifying I think (if I remember this correctly) was the commandant on duty at a Soviet Union early warning station. Their radar report said multiple incoming targets (I forget if it was the era of bombers or ICMBs). However there were only a small handful of attacking vehicles. He should have made the phone call that would have lead to a Soviet counter-strike. But, it didn't feel right - if the US was launching a strike, why wouldn't it have been with hundreds rather than just a handful? And so he didn't make the call which, had he been following doctrine, he would have. Think there are stories like that from both sides.

Another terrifying element is that apparently the ICBMs do not have an 'abort' button that causes the missiles to fall to the ground harmlessly, as that would have apparently made them vulnerable to counter measures. Once they are up, they are up.

I can't help imagining the guys assigned to carry out the execution of private eddie slovik near the end of ww2 weren't too happy with it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

 Matt Swain wrote:
I can't help imagining the guys assigned to carry out the execution of private eddie slovik near the end of ww2 weren't too happy with it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

Some US soldiers looked at desertion as the ultimate treason, you can't assume any of those soldiers were upset with the detail, especially being infantrymen.

Yeah, firing squad would be a pretty bad detail to pull.

Also, the squaddies hauling alpine guns up and down the mountains in WWI sounds like no fun.

On the Ancient front, I really would not have wanted to be a chariot runner. These were guys assigned to run along with chariots as a type of light infantry/skirmish screen to finish off foes, retrieve weapons, protect from other skirmishers, and help if your man got stuck in the mud.

Also, ancient sappers/miners and counter-sappers/miners sounds pretty crappy too.

For me at least shooting one unarmed, bound individual would be harder than pushing a button and wiping a city. One you can observe in real time and the other is an abstraction, at least for the moment.

That particular case was god-awful.

Early blackpowder artillery , deafness, burns and high value target...

Alternatively front row on any of these:
Tercio, gwalthufe, gvierthaufe, etc...
Terrible artillery targetting you, high Chances of muskets and pistol shooting over you and at you , utter Chaos after the Pike squares break up, terrible medical Situation , terrible logistics for some of the worst wars (30 years war) , religious fanaticism....

Snipers have to carry their poos in their backpacks...

You know, looking at this thread I'm starting to wonder if we ought to start a thread about what jobs in the military are actually good ones, assuming you don't have the connections to get a REMF position or a stateside cushy job.

 Matt Swain wrote:
You know, looking at this thread I'm starting to wonder if we ought to start a thread about what jobs in the military are actually good ones, assuming you don't have the connections to get a REMF position or a stateside cushy job.

Well that would be the cook init

Get as much chow as you want...

 Gitzbitah wrote:

JWBS wrote:

It wasn't "Better working conditions" in the Mongol army - almost all infractions resulted in capital punishment. It wasn't democratic. Most cities that surrendered to the Mongols could reasonably expect wholesale slaughter of the population as their reward for compliance. The two systems, if what you say about piracy in the Caribbean is accurate, were not remarkably similar.

That is very interesting! My understanding of Mongolian warfare had always been that cities that resisted were annihilated, but that those that surrendered immediately were mostly spared. Sometimes local leaders killed, army dissolved, the looting and pillaging typical of soldiers in an enemy city at the time... but that life in the Mongolian empire was actually quite mild. Local customs and laws were preserved, and you could practice your religion freely. Certainly, their punishments of soldiers, and probably all sorts were incredibly harsh by our standards- but compared to cultures of the time, it was not a bad place to be in. Do you happen to recall what cities were destroyed that surrendered without resistance? I haven't read much about Mongolian treachery with their peace terms.

I go back to the point of 'both sides wanted to exaggerate the Mongols' brutality.' It's kind of like getting all your information on a country from the countries it's at war with. The reality is we know they were brutal, not not how brutal. It could have been as simple as them matching the brutality of the times--they were simply better at getting results. Or they actually could have been abnormally violent. But we have good reason to doubt contemporary accounts. Anyone who says 'the Mongols slaughtered the populace of all the cities they came across' isn't addressing the ambiguity of information surrounding their warfare, and IMO they can't be trusted as accurate since there is a clear lack of understanding in regards to context.

Personally, I think they took a polarized perspective. If they were going to make war it was all-in on death and destruction. They want to make examples and they want people to talk about it. But if there was surrender and tribute was paid, all is well. It doesn't make sense to massacre the population of a country you want to collect tribute from, and Mongols were anything but fools. But that is just my theory, as established above it is a lot of guesswork and reading-between-the-lines.

 Argive wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
You know, looking at this thread I'm starting to wonder if we ought to start a thread about what jobs in the military are actually good ones, assuming you don't have the connections to get a REMF position or a stateside cushy job.

Well that would be the cook init

Get as much chow as you want...

UAV operator I'd imagine is pretty baller XD All the fun of a plane with none of the risks. It's basically just flight simulator.

Throwing one out there for jobs that suck outside of combat conditions.

MPs - They're derisively referred to as BFs, Blue Falcons, or Buddy fethers. I haven't heard of an MOS that is despised as MPs.

IIRC the USMC requires Sergeants (E-5s) and above to serve from a select group of billets which include recruiters and drill instructors.

Recruiters - No one likes them outside of the wide-eyed youth looking to sign up.

Drill Instructors - It is almost a guarantee that you will have to deal with 1 or more absolute non-hacks during each cycle, which would be a constant annoyance. Aside from that, they have to go through what amounts to a second boot camp and then do several cycles as a DI before moving on to easier billets (Range Instructor, Swim Qual, MCMAP, etc). While on duty they are up for longer than recruits, must maintain an absolutely immaculate uniform, and have to do all aspects of their job to a physically superior than recruits. Now, once in a while a recruit will come through that can smoke everyone in PT on the run or pullups, but if a recruit falls out a march or something similar it is not the absolute end of the world.

In WW2 Australian troops "Volunteered(obviously it was kept secret till they arrived on site)" for tests to see the effects of mustard gas in tropical climate in case the Japanses ever used it. The effect was that the excessive moisture in the air and sweat on the body acted make the gas more effective and leave more extensive and debilitating burning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I was reading about Vietnam War Tunnel Rats and they stick out to me as being one of the worst details to be stuck on in war. You'd have to belly crawl through a pitch black, boobytrapped, uncharted maze filled with God only knows how many enemy forces with zero support outside of possibly one another poor SOB if you're working in pairs. On top of that, you're already in an environment filled with exotic diseases that your body isn't accustomed to, a climate likely foreign to anything you've encountered before, and you're operating in the enemy's own backyard. To make matters worse, there's a solid chance that you didn't even volunteer for the damned war. The specific role of Tunnel Rat in that war seems to me like it would have all the suck of Vietnam (the war, not the country) plus a few more generous portions doled out for good measure.

Some other ones that come to mind.

Early submariners. I was on a museum submarine out in San Diego as a child and even then it was a cramped nightmare. It's uncomfortable and confined even if you're not claustrophobic. And underwater. Toss in primitive technology and you have a recipe for suck.

Anyone involved trench warfare during WWI.

Slaves on Roman galleys. I suppose you could say slaves forced into warfare in any situation but being forced to row on a primitive boat just makes it worse in my eyes.

What other military jobs have been particularly awful? I'm wondering more about roles than campaigns or Napoleon's frostbitten soldiers and similar would qualify as well.

I'd like to say as a counterpoint:
Anyone involved in that silly business of marching in great columns and squares before the entrenchment stage of WW1 and anyone in Napoleonic warfare, you just lined up and fired at each-other at point blank.

Roman Navy never used slave rowers, it used professionals becasue when it comes down to the wire the Romans got gak done, and they knew that weren't happening with slaves pulling the oars, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians did, but never the Roman Navy or the navies of the Greek city states. Nor Persia, Persians never actually had slaves(that being said Phoenicia was one of their satrapies and it as mentioned earlier used them). It wasn't apparently Persia's their thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bomb disposalist/Sapper. You're fiddling around with explodey things and sometimes people are trying to shoot you. You lead the way through minefields which are guarded by mchineguns and artillery.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Japanese soldier WW2
You are expected to die before dishonour. If you are sick or injured that is a personal failing and you will be left to die on the side of the track. Your army expects thousands of soldiers to live off the same piece of land, to augment your inadequate rations. You're likely to get dysentery or poisoned by the food you are eating but its what you have. You're expected to suicide with a grenade before capture so when the enemy does find you they are not in the mood for taking chances with grenade toting Japs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Comfort girl attached to the Japanese military WW2. Indentured sex worker, as it's indentured I'm counting it as military. Either recruited via coercion or by fake promises of other work. Long hours of work, inadequate rations, and any weakness is a personal failing and it will be punished.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I think what also really sucks were the dudes landing on fortified beaches with the enemy knowing they were coming. D-Day is the most popular example, but I'm sure there were similar situations in the pacific and elsewhere. The same situation for paratroopers when they are dropped somewhere, where there are armed defenders aware of them. I think few things suck more than hanging on a parachute when down below are hundreds of armed enemies seeing you gliding down or sitting in a landing boat when the enemy knows full well where you will be standing at when the ramp drops and he has a machine gun.

While I'd agree I'd also say Omaha is the go to image for a beach landing but it is the exception rather than the norm when it comes to beach landings.
With Omaha Beach you have waves and waves of effectively unsupported infantry(the American LCM crew refused to go closer to shore before unloading their swimming tanks, which promtly were flooded and sank(I guess that is a worst job? US swimming tank crewman 100% chance your vehicle is going to the bottom), leaving the infantry unsupported against 2x machinegun nests. And as I might have said before machineguns are really good for killing unsupported people who are in the open. At Sword and Juno they only landed infantry platoons after landing swimming tanks, specialist tanks(AVRE Churchills!) (to clear the beach of mines, take out stong points and lay down matting) and then sappers. In the Pacific the marines would land the first wave with amphtracks, so you'd have close support, then when the initial beachead was secure they'd start to land tanks to take over the role of supporting the infantry.

 Argive wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
You know, looking at this thread I'm starting to wonder if we ought to start a thread about what jobs in the military are actually good ones, assuming you don't have the connections to get a REMF position or a stateside cushy job.

Well that would be the cook init

Get as much chow as you want...

By as much chow as you want, you of course mean not able to eat a bite until the entire unit is fed. Also, say goodbye to sleep. I did 17 years infantry, 6 in a line platoon as an M-60 gunner with 11 as a TOW gunner in a Delta company. My deployment got me a nice spine injury which scored me a permanent profile and a reclass, which I chose cook so I could promote easier. I can tell you that I never had an appreciation for what it takes to get food to Joes until I was the one up at 0100 cracking eggs...

And the best part? Spend all that awake time listening to people bitch about every aspect of your food.

I think WWI trench fighter and Vietnam Tunnel rat are in the lead for worst job in this thread.

LordofHats wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
You know, looking at this thread I'm starting to wonder if we ought to start a thread about what jobs in the military are actually good ones, assuming you don't have the connections to get a REMF position or a stateside cushy job.

Well that would be the cook init

Get as much chow as you want...

UAV operator I'd imagine is pretty baller XD All the fun of a plane with none of the risks. It's basically just flight simulator.

That's until you read about the actual job.

With how unsure they tend to be about targets (they seem to not get a lot of information, mostly just orders to follow and a screen to stare at) a lot of them start to doubt the "video game-iness" that was advertised and end up conflicted about their work. On the other hand they also have moments when they see stuff but can't do anything about it. These conflicting emotions result in a lot of drinking after the job and feeling like you did nothing at all (just pushed some buttons in a tiny dark room) while also feeling like you maybe killed random innocent people and couldn't help others at the same time but you also never get any confirmation about any of these doubts. This uncertainty of it seems to seed all kinds of feeling in quite a bunch of them: Everything from anxiety, to doubts about the job, to full depression, PTSD, and suicidal thoughts.

Some links about this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/secret-us-drone-whistleblowers-say-operators-stressed-and-often-abuse-drugs-and-alcohol-rare-insight-programme-a6741021.html

https://www.gq.com/story/drone-uav-pilot-assassination

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/23/us/drone-operator-interview/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-get-stress-disorders-much-as-those-in-combat-do.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5949534/

https://jmvh.org/article/eye-in-the-sky-understanding-the-mental-health-of-unmanned-aerial-vehicle-operators/

Flamethrower soldier, you're extremely conspicuous especially when you fire, the enemy really want to shoot you because otherwise you will burn them to death in their trenches/ bunkers and you've got a great big heavy tank of burny stuff strapped to your back and an ignition source on the front of it in an environ where shrapnel and bullets are flying around. And I imagine any aspects of the job being good for the balance of one's long term mental health.

Theres been a lot of talk about child soldiers here but one of the worst jobs I've ever heard a veteran talk about hasn't been mentioned. Fighting against them. They are still actively trying to kill you and your comrades and need to be dealt with and sadly that usually means having to brutally and horrifically murder them. Forces that use child soldiers also are unfortunately generally forces that do need to be violently opposed nd so it's not the soldiers on the grounds fault. It's just a horrific part of war.

 OldMate wrote:
Flamethrower soldier, you're extremely conspicuous especially when you fire, the enemy really want to shoot you because otherwise you will burn them to death in their trenches/ bunkers and you've got a great big heavy tank of burny stuff strapped to your back and an ignition source on the front of it in an environ where shrapnel and bullets are flying around. And I imagine any aspects of the job being good for the balance of one's long term mental health.

Not to mention that death by fire is pretty horrific to see, and being a flamethrower operator you're close enough to see the results of your work. Seems like a recipe for deep scarring trauma/PTSD.

Mario wrote:

LordofHats wrote:UAV operator I'd imagine is pretty baller XD All the fun of a plane with none of the risks. It's basically just flight simulator.

That's until you read about the actual job.

Yeah, I'll echo this. Physically it's one of the safer jobs as the worst you'll get is RSi - there's cartoons about RPAS operators receiving the purple heart for falling out of their chair.

Psychologically though it's a head kick. When folks are deployed they unwind with their team mates and are in a sympathetic situation to talk through on going issues. RPAS operators who aren't deployed spend all day observing targets, then killing them, then they go home to face their families and deal with the day-to-day without talking about what they just did. It can get screwy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScarletRose wrote:

 OldMate wrote:
Flamethrower soldier, you're extremely conspicuous especially when you fire, the enemy really want to shoot you because otherwise you will burn them to death in their trenches/ bunkers and you've got a great big heavy tank of burny stuff strapped to your back and an ignition source on the front of it in an environ where shrapnel and bullets are flying around. And I imagine any aspects of the job being good for the balance of one's long term mental health.

Not to mention that death by fire is pretty horrific to see, and being a flamethrower operator you're close enough to see the results of your work. Seems like a recipe for deep scarring trauma/PTSD.

Yeah I think it's safe to say it'd probably ruin cooking meat for you.

Also, the poor Marine Infantry forced into the island hopping campaign of WW2.

Almost forgot about all parties involved with the field expedient method of checking to see if a chemical environment is clear...

 Just Tony wrote:
Almost forgot about all parties involved with the field expedient method of checking to see if a chemical environment is clear...

2 man sniff test?

Any ABC combat for infantry and tankers...
It's allready really fething annoying to train with that kind of equipment, actually wearing it propperly and fast enough i don't even want to imagine doing in combat...

 Just Tony wrote:
Almost forgot about all parties involved with the field expedient method of checking to see if a chemical environment is clear...

The poor bastards who literally had the effects of the nuclear explosions tested on them in the Mojave and likely also in the Soviet Union. "Go sit in a fox hole in the middle of the desert, don't forget your welding goggles and sunscreen. Something's going to happen, you'll know it when you see it."

 Gitzbitah wrote:

JWBS wrote:

It wasn't "Better working conditions" in the Mongol army - almost all infractions resulted in capital punishment. It wasn't democratic. Most cities that surrendered to the Mongols could reasonably expect wholesale slaughter of the population as their reward for compliance. The two systems, if what you say about piracy in the Caribbean is accurate, were not remarkably similar.

That is very interesting! My understanding of Mongolian warfare had always been that cities that resisted were annihilated, but that those that surrendered immediately were mostly spared. Sometimes local leaders killed, army dissolved, the looting and pillaging typical of soldiers in an enemy city at the time... but that life in the Mongolian empire was actually quite mild. Local customs and laws were preserved, and you could practice your religion freely. Certainly, their punishments of soldiers, and probably all sorts were incredibly harsh by our standards- but compared to cultures of the time, it was not a bad place to be in. Do you happen to recall what cities were destroyed that surrendered without resistance? I haven't read much about Mongolian treachery with their peace terms.

I might have been a bit hasty there actually. From what I remember, there were loads of massacres of surrendered cities even after leniency had been promised, especially from Subutai, but now I've checked I can only find a few (eg Moscow 1382 and Bukharra 1220).

/Edit - ok I read a little more, it seems they would repeatedly renege on promises to spare the populations that gave up after a fight (Toloui's siege of Merv, Genghis at Samarkand, some others), I think I just misremembered this as a routine annihilation of surrendered people, which isn't quite correct.