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 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.

Modern times? Burning gak ters. Dear fething Dorn I never thought I'd find anything that stunk worse than a refinery or that paper mill in Bogalusa Louisiana...

I think Flamethrower dude (in WWII and also later) also sucked a lot. For once, it is pretty hard psychologically as by the nature of your weapon you get close enough to the enemy to really see/hear them dying, they also do it in a pretty awful and painful way. But even worse is that your fuel tanks are basically a large "kill me please!" sign you are hurling around and every sniper or random dude with a gun will try to shoot you first. And if you are not lucky enough to die instantly you likely go up in flames yourself and die as horibly as the poor sods you fired at before.

WWI assault troops, all the boredom of sitting in the trenches under artillery fire, but then you also get to be the first people running into the machine guns. Early tankers, back in the early WWI models that didn't exhaust properly. Suicide troops. Medics in a conflict not fought by signatories to the Geneva Convention. Anything to do with SEAD.

Bomb disposal. Not knowing if the bomb's been deliberately rigged to blow up someone trying to disarm it. Now they use lasers to detonate the bedamned things in place.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I think Flamethrower dude (in WWII and also later) also sucked a lot. For once, it is pretty hard psychologically as by the nature of your weapon you get close enough to the enemy to really see/hear them dying, they also do it in a pretty awful and painful way. But even worse is that your fuel tanks are basically a large "kill me please!" sign you are hurling around and every sniper or random dude with a gun will try to shoot you first. And if you are not lucky enough to die instantly you likely go up in flames yourself and die as horibly as the poor sods you fired at before.

This would be my least favorite job.

Being a tanker, especially in the WWII era, could also be pretty damn bad. Internal combustion engines and ammunition storage in the time were still having kinks worked out of them. There was always a risk that your tank would catch fire or that ammunition would be set off. With you inside the tank. Trapped in an iron can. With only a few tiny hatches to shimmy your way out of.

I'd definitely second early submariners too.

i'd like to point to the humble petardier in the 16th century.

Now that IS a gak job.

First into the machine guns; first into the breach; first up the ladders; first through the gate. I figure front row in any military combat situation is a pretty horrible position to be in considering that for the most part you know whoever goes first is generally going to die first.

Sappers in WWI likely had a terrible job. Digging through mud for hours at a time having to make hardly any noise so that you can lay bombs and traps and break into enemy trenches; all whilst under the fear that a shell overhead or another team or just a bad bit of digging could bring the whole lot down ontop of you.




What about those send to wriggle up the waste chutes during a castle siege.


Sappers, poop wrigglers; submarines; tanks. It's all a similar horror of a confined space and the risk of becoming trapped within a box in pitch darkness without any means to escape. With several of them offering the additional horror that you might not die quickly, but would slowly starve or suffocate over days/hours before death took you. Your only saviour perhaps being a suicide pill.



Heck you could throw medics into the horror, especially in ancient times where you'd have the stink of infection, disease, rot, guts and blood all mixed together with the moaning and screams of the injured. Crude medical instruments, a high risk of fatalities. From sword and shield days to the era of muskets and guns. There's also the sheer scale of the number of injuries as well.

I remember seeing an interview with a WW2 USN submariner who volunteered for the submarine service on the basis of it being easier on his Mum, as he’d either return whole and healthy or not at all. Hell of a decision to make.

Modern times? The poor bugger who has to wash out the MRAPs after an IED strike. We had one go off with the equivalent explosive power of a 500lb bomb. Took the drivers cab completely off the MRAP. The driver/assistant died instantly, the Marines being transported all had TBI/Concussions but were otherwise intact.

 Jadenim wrote:
I remember seeing an interview with a WW2 USN submariner who volunteered for the submarine service on the basis of it being easier on his Mum, as he’d either return whole and healthy or not at all. Hell of a decision to make.

Can appreciate the logic though.

Early submariners? I'd say submariners in general, even today.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
I remember seeing an interview with a WW2 USN submariner who volunteered for the submarine service on the basis of it being easier on his Mum, as he’d either return whole and healthy or not at all. Hell of a decision to make.

Can appreciate the logic though.

That isn't logic, its optimism. At the time he wouldn't necessarily have known, but all sorts of mold, exhaust and chemicals worked into the air system could and did cause all sorts of long term damage.
And then you've got accidents or battle damage that cripple, but not sink, the sub, so you're stuck surfaced for an indeterminate length of time with not enough supplies hoping for rescue.

'Whole and healthy' or 'not at all' aren't even vaguely the only options there.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Bomb disposal. Not knowing if the bomb's been deliberately rigged to blow up someone trying to disarm it. Now they use lasers to detonate the bedamned things in place.

Common practice in US Infantry units is to simply shoot the object with HE grenades, we refer to it as "Blowing it in place".

Well, lets not forget Mortuary Services, where you have to investigate, document, and ultimately bury the deceased (Sometimes having to disinter corpses that were quickly buried in mass graves, and rebury them after the corpses have been ID'ed in various states of decomposition, and documented in order to do so). Some battles leave little of the corpse left for them. May not be as difficult as underwater demolition, or bomb disposal, but certainly the most thankless (yet necessary).

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
I remember seeing an interview with a WW2 USN submariner who volunteered for the submarine service on the basis of it being easier on his Mum, as he’d either return whole and healthy or not at all. Hell of a decision to make.

Can appreciate the logic though.

That isn't logic, its optimism. At the time he wouldn't necessarily have known, but all sorts of mold, exhaust and chemicals worked into the air system could and did cause all sorts of long term damage.
And then you've got accidents or battle damage that cripple, but not sink, the sub, so you're stuck surfaced for an indeterminate length of time with not enough supplies hoping for rescue.

'Whole and healthy' or 'not at all' aren't even vaguely the only options there.

It is logic given the information he had, rather absurd to claim logical reasoning must be done including everything one does not know! And even if he did know, the ODDS of him being one or the other rather than 'in between' are higher, so that argument still doesn't make sense.

Being one of the night witches in russia.

The night witches were a special all female force that flew obsolete ww1 light bombers on harassment raids against nazi forces in russia. They were all women because the planes they flew were low powered and the lighter female pilots allowed more fuel to be carried.

There planes were biplanes based on ww1 designs and had open cockpits.

Their missions were to harass nazi formations by flying overhead and dropping light frag bombs. Mainly they were meant to keep nazis soldiers from being able to sleep a full night as a way of wearing the enemy down.

Their planes were very frail and slow, many night witches learned to cut their engines and glide in over the enemy, drop their bombs and then hope their engine hadn't frozen up in the cold russian winter night and could be restarted.

The nazis initially mocked the night witches, calling their planes "sewing machines" and were dismissive at first.

Weeks of nightly raids and troops losing efficiency due to lack of sleep took their toll, and eventually the nazi military had to take them seriously. Special defense protocols were enacted to deal with the silent raids from the dark they conducted over and over.

They all carried pistols as it was better to suicide than be taken alive. Many suffered frostbite to their faces from the cold russian winter nights, losing parts of their noses was common. They were also treated contemptuously and dismissively by the russian military as a whole.

The night witches were so successful in eroding nazi morale that later they were rewarded by personal order of stalin himself. As russian forces approached berlin, night witch pilots were given the honor of being the first russian pilots to bomb the nazi capitol.

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

 Matt Swain wrote:
Bomb disposal. Not knowing if the bomb's been deliberately rigged to blow up someone trying to disarm it. Now they use lasers to detonate the bedamned things in place.

Best job in the military.

Honestly?

Child Soldiers. I don’t think I need to elaborate further.

Child soldier isn't really a job though in the military.

they are a phenomenon that shows up if
A: A side of the conflict is on it's last legs, because children are really , REALLY ineffective at combat scenarios just from Bodily restrictions alone, not even going into the stress durability.

B: It is insurgent or terrrorist or Civil war territory conflict. Which baseline morales errodet allready and social cohesion is broken allready, in which they partially are a usefull asset because of their statute especially against an overwhelming opponent that still has to maintain ethical-supperiorty. It is however still the sign of a side beeing on it's last legs or beeing particulary callous.


And frankly, Children are allways to be considered Conscripts against their will. Simply because the capacity to actually be capable of action and responsibilty is simply not given intelectually.

At the risk of sounding edge Lord and provocative?

I see little difference between Conscripts/Draftees and Child Soldiers. Neither volunteered, neither really want to be there. Neither have much of a choice.

It’s still a child being forced to fight battles.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
At the risk of sounding edge Lord and provocative?

I see little difference between Conscripts/Draftees and Child Soldiers. Neither volunteered, neither really want to be there. Neither have much of a choice.

It’s still a child being forced to fight battles.

Here's the issue, what is acceptable for a state and what not is dependant upon the (nationalistic/ideological/traditional etc) selfperception of a society and what is needed to protect it.

There are nations and societies that had historically speaking never the luxury to allow for voluntary service because it would've endangered their existence.
Switzerland is an exemple for a state that never had the luxury to NOT conscript it's population if it wanted to be sovereign.
It actually monopolised the capability and manpower by dissolving Mercenary contracts after the Nationstate was founded preciscly to defend itself against Austria, france and later on prussia/ Germany and italy and to do so required the capacity to call upon the collective for the greater good. ( in this case the only other democratic-republic for some time next to the USA, surounded by monarchists and nations with ideological systems which brought in some serious claims)

The key difference is, however also, that the state and the sovereignity and security as goods that it provides, has to offer something in return for such acts of collective armaments and mobilisation, you see this especially pressing after WW1 were you see a whole slew of expanding voting rights f.e.

Rights for duty is actually a rather common trade off for a society to make.
Children however have not the capability to assume all their rights, you don't let a 14 year old buy a car f.e. therefore they can not assume all rights of a full citizen and therefore are also not egligable for all duties that involves. That is the key difference.

I don't know how it is in other countries with conscription but I know that back when Germany still conscripted it's 18+ males there were some issues arising because in theory every male could be conscripted, while lot's of boys finished secondary school at the age of 16 and wanted to start an apprenticeship that they might not want to pause for Military Service/leave their field of work immediatly after graduation for a year or possibly even planned a Career in the Military.
So these minors were allowed to join the Bundeswehr before the age of 18 (voluntarily) while only becomming full fletched armed soldiers upon reaching 18. While understandable from a bureaucratic point of view this gained Gemany multiple complaints for employing child soldiers.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I don't know how it is in other countries with conscription but I know that back when Germany still conscripted it's 18+ males there were some issues arising because in theory every male could be conscripted, while lot's of boys finished secondary school at the age of 16 and wanted to start an apprenticeship that they might not want to pause for Military Service/leave their field of work immediatly after graduation for a year or possibly even planned a Career in the Military.
So these minors were allowed to join the Bundeswehr before the age of 18 (voluntarily) while only becomming full fletched armed soldiers upon reaching 18. While understandable from a bureaucratic point of view this gained Gemany multiple complaints for employing child soldiers.

actually that isn't something understandable... The military could've easily waited for people to finish apprenticships and abitur, drafted these at that age point instead.
Certainly better then to put an 16 year old anywhere near military hardware...

Just reread it and I was slightly off: it's 17 year olds. And they can still - after an Audition to assess if they are mature enough - voluntarily join the army here. They are only allowed to use weapons for training purposes and are bared froma any activities that involve a possible risk of using them like watch duty. Also minors can not forcebly be conscripted or send into warzones. The main argument still seems to be that those that choose a career in the military should not be held back.

I appologize for drifting off slightly, I just find it interesting that even in highly developed first world countries - and I would claim Germany is relativly unmilitaristic at that - the line is surprisingly blurry. A quick wiki search also popped up countries like USA, France, UK, Australia, Austria, Netherlands, New Zealand as doing the same.

EDIT: to underline it: minors are not DRAFTED in Germany, they can only volunteer

Uh. That was an odd way to handle that.

When there was still a military service in France you were supposed to do it when you turned 18, but you could get it delayed for several years, especially if you were doing long studies like a doctorate. As far as I know even volunteers couldn't join before they were 18.

during to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_military#Europe

France enlists military personnel from age 17, and students for military technical school from age 16; 3% of its armed forces' intake is aged under 18

 Pyroalchi wrote:
during to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_military#Europe

France enlists military personnel from age 17, and students for military technical school from age 16; 3% of its armed forces' intake is aged under 18

I was talking about conscription, which doesn't exist anymore. Seems the rules are a bit different now that it's a professional army.

Interestingly, the minimum age for the "land" army is 17 and a half. Considering that training can last 6 months, I suppose that's how they keep people under 18 out of any actual action. But apparently, the air force and the navy don't care and will take anyone over 17

Speaking of conscription, in the book "inside the soviet army" by Viktor Suvorov, the highest ranking soviet military officer to defect to the west, (And I do recommend it, especially if your'e an IG player) he talked about the real purpose of conscription in the soviet union.

It was essentially a 2 year indoctrination into the soviet sociopolitical system designed to break young men's will and make them accept the soviet zetigeist thru intense military level indoctrination.

It involved physically and mentally wearing and tearing down draftees then rebuilding them with heavy doses of soviet propaganda forced into them by "zampolits" (What we'd call commissars in english.)

The author sneered at the idea that the soviets needed to draft young men for defense given the track record of what happens to powers that invade russia and the fact russia has a nuclear arsenal.

If you really want to look into the reasons and effects of conscription it's a great source written by a man who was there.

absolutely , make no mistake conscription is a mass phenomenon for society and has massive infulence capabilities in both ways which can be used for good, aka tying together a country that would want to rather shank itself about which cross is on the wall for 500 years straight, or bad, aka totalitarian controll.

Btw, wasn't there recently a scandal in russia because another recruit died from such "training"?

yup , found it
https://www.nzz.ch/international/missbraeuche-im-russischen-militaer-wenn-die-grossvaeter-peinigen-ld.1519320