TexasCHLforum.com

I ran across this today.

I don't recall it ever being posted on the forum.

I think it's pretty good. A lot more useful than many instruction manuals that I have read.

Will Eisner was an artist who did a lot of this type of work during WWII.



http://www.ep.tc/problems/25/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Download link: http://www.armsroom.com/files/m16.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cool, thanks! I'll take a look at that tonight after the festivities are over.

Very cool. I want a real one.

Notice the date. Many instruction manuals were published like comic books during the Viet Nam war. Because of the draft and Project 100,000, there were a lot of poorly educated troops, but they found they could get them to read if they made the material more attractive and what they may have been used to.

BTW, Project 100,000 was another social experiment foisted on the Army. Even if an Inductee legitimately failed the AFQT (the mental test), if his SSN ended in the number of the day, he was drafted anyway. Taking a percentage of this pool to see how they would do. (s much a smy memory serves).

oohrah wrote:Notice the date. Many instruction manuals were published like comic books during the Viet Nam war. Because of the draft and Project 100,000, there were a lot of poorly educated troops, but they found they could get them to read if they made the material more attractive and what they may have been used to.

BTW, Project 100,000 was another social experiment foisted on the Army. Even if an Inductee legitimately failed the AFQT (the mental test), if his SSN ended in the number of the day, he was drafted anyway. Taking a percentage of this pool to see how they would do. (s much a smy memory serves).

I believe they were called "McNamara's Hundred Thousand." As cadre, or a Platoon Sargent, in an Army Basic Training unit in 1965-66 (this was just before the Drill Sargent Smokey Bear hat days) we had quite a few. What they lacked in basic education/intelligence, they more than made up for in "can do" attitude and desire to succeed and follow orders. I'm sure many went on to distinguish themselves in battle. Overall though, I do not know how well the program worked.

G26ster wrote:

oohrah wrote:Notice the date. Many instruction manuals were published like comic books during the Viet Nam war. Because of the draft and Project 100,000, there were a lot of poorly educated troops, but they found they could get them to read if they made the material more attractive and what they may have been used to.

BTW, Project 100,000 was another social experiment foisted on the Army. Even if an Inductee legitimately failed the AFQT (the mental test), if his SSN ended in the number of the day, he was drafted anyway. Taking a percentage of this pool to see how they would do. (s much a smy memory serves).

I believe they were called "McNamara's Hundred Thousand." As cadre, or a Platoon Sargent, in an Army Basic Training unit in 1965-66 (this was just before the Drill Sargent Smokey Bear hat days) we had quite a few. What they lacked in basic education/intelligence, they more than made up for in "can do" attitude and desire to succeed and follow orders. I'm sure many went on to distinguish themselves in battle. Overall though, I do not know how well the program worked.

According to a DoD study, poorly.http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED366751
The 80 IQ floor limit put in place during WWII should not have been a matter of social experiment.
350,000 young men, many of whom had already been rejected when they attempted to enlist, were drafted under this program.
Their average AFQT score was 13.9! Few could read at greater than a 6th grade level.
According to a HumRRO study http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/703516.pdf training beyond basic was a nightmare. Depending on the particular task, low AFQT subjects required from two to four times as much training time, from two to six times as much prompting, and from two to five times as many trials to reach criterion as did the median AFQT group. Many wound up in Food Service, Transportation or Supply. But over 40%, unable to acquire even a soft skill set, saw combat in Viet Nam. Only 21% of regular inductees saw combat. And they died in combat at almost 3 times the rate of regular inductees.
Probably the most famous depiction of a "New Standards Man" as they were called, was the character Leonard Lawrence aka Gomer Pyle in the film "Full Metal Jacket".

Dadtodabone wrote: According to a DoD study, poorly.http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED366751
The 80 IQ floor limit put in place during WWII should not have been a matter of social experiment.
350,000 young men, many of whom had already been rejected when they attempted to enlist, were drafted under this program.
Their average AFQT score was 13.9! Few could read at greater than a 6th grade level.
According to a HumRRO study http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/703516.pdf training beyond basic was a nightmare. Depending on the particular task, low AFQT subjects required from two to four times as much training time, from two to six times as much prompting, and from two to five times as many trials to reach criterion as did the median AFQT group. Many wound up in Food Service, Transportation or Supply. But over 40%, unable to acquire even a soft skill set, saw combat in Viet Nam. Only 21% of regular inductees saw combat. And they died in combat at almost 3 times the rate of regular inductees.
Probably the most famous depiction of a "New Standards Man" as they were called, was the character Leonard Lawrence aka Gomer Pyle in the film "Full Metal Jacket".

Unless I missed it, I cannot find their combat performance or combat statistics in either of the two links you provided. The first covers income and divorce rates, and the second covers training issues/difficulties. Can you provide me with the link(s) that cover their performance in combat?

As for Leonard Lawrence and the real (or fake) Gomer Pyle, one was mentally disturbed, and the other was quite adept at getting the job done. Perhaps another fictional character, Forrest Gump, would be a better example.

G26ster wrote:

Dadtodabone wrote: According to a DoD study, poorly.http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED366751
The 80 IQ floor limit put in place during WWII should not have been a matter of social experiment.
350,000 young men, many of whom had already been rejected when they attempted to enlist, were drafted under this program.
Their average AFQT score was 13.9! Few could read at greater than a 6th grade level.
According to a HumRRO study http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/703516.pdf training beyond basic was a nightmare. Depending on the particular task, low AFQT subjects required from two to four times as much training time, from two to six times as much prompting, and from two to five times as many trials to reach criterion as did the median AFQT group. Many wound up in Food Service, Transportation or Supply. But over 40%, unable to acquire even a soft skill set, saw combat in Viet Nam. Only 21% of regular inductees saw combat. And they died in combat at almost 3 times the rate of regular inductees.
Probably the most famous depiction of a "New Standards Man" as they were called, was the character Leonard Lawrence aka Gomer Pyle in the film "Full Metal Jacket".

Unless I missed it, I cannot find their combat performance or combat statistics in either of the two links you provided. The first covers income and divorce rates, and the second covers training issues/difficulties. Can you provide me with the link(s) that cover their performance in combat?

As for Leonard Lawrence and the real (or fake) Gomer Pyle, one was mentally disturbed, and the other was quite adept at getting the job done. Perhaps another fictional character, Forrest Gump, would be a better example.

I was addressing the social aspects of the program, since that was how it was promoted. There is no data on combat performance.
General William Westmoreland one time commander of USMAC-V explicitly stated that the NSM had a negative impact on the Army's performance in Southeast Asia.
Interviews with and opinions from officers both commissioned and non-commissioned placed in command of these soldiers, are that the majority performed poorly but adequately.
The Marine Corp experience seems to be the same. Although there was never a statement that they were bad for The Corp ala Westmoreland, the Marines recognized there were problems. I have read this historyhttp://www.mcu.usmc.mil/historydivision ... 0Corps.pdf and I'm glad I've found it again. This the only document I've ever found that addresses combat performance. Chapter 7 page 115.
My cousin Herb was a Project 100,00 draftee. A blood flow problem during his delivery left him with a slow man with a quiet disposition, somewhat like Gump. After his service in Viet Nam, while nowhere near the level of Lawrence, he spent the better part of 20 years in and out of VA and private hospitals working through his experiences.
I was never in combat, I served in Europe, with some NSM and punitive enlistment soldiers in my unit. Since that time and due to my cousin's experience, I've dug around trying to find out the consequences of and rationalizations for both programs as a means of manning a modern military force.
None of the rationalizations make sense to me. The consequences are some human wreckage, increased casualties mental and physical, and I truly believe that if the Russki's had been able to roundup 20,000 sober soldiers all at one time they would have rolled right over us.

Dadtodabone wrote:

G26ster wrote:

Dadtodabone wrote: According to a DoD study, poorly.http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED366751
The 80 IQ floor limit put in place during WWII should not have been a matter of social experiment.
350,000 young men, many of whom had already been rejected when they attempted to enlist, were drafted under this program.
Their average AFQT score was 13.9! Few could read at greater than a 6th grade level.
According to a HumRRO study http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/703516.pdf training beyond basic was a nightmare. Depending on the particular task, low AFQT subjects required from two to four times as much training time, from two to six times as much prompting, and from two to five times as many trials to reach criterion as did the median AFQT group. Many wound up in Food Service, Transportation or Supply. But over 40%, unable to acquire even a soft skill set, saw combat in Viet Nam. Only 21% of regular inductees saw combat. And they died in combat at almost 3 times the rate of regular inductees.
Probably the most famous depiction of a "New Standards Man" as they were called, was the character Leonard Lawrence aka Gomer Pyle in the film "Full Metal Jacket".

Unless I missed it, I cannot find their combat performance or combat statistics in either of the two links you provided. The first covers income and divorce rates, and the second covers training issues/difficulties. Can you provide me with the link(s) that cover their performance in combat?

As for Leonard Lawrence and the real (or fake) Gomer Pyle, one was mentally disturbed, and the other was quite adept at getting the job done. Perhaps another fictional character, Forrest Gump, would be a better example.

Dadtodabone wrote:I was addressing the social aspects of the program, since that was how it was promoted. There is no data on combat performance.
General William Westmoreland one time commander of USMAC-V explicitly stated that the NSM had a negative impact on the Army's performance in Southeast Asia.
Interviews with and opinions from officers both commissioned and non-commissioned placed in command of these soldiers, are that the majority performed poorly but adequately.
The Marine Corp experience seems to be the same. Although there was never a statement that they were bad for The Corp ala Westmoreland, the Marines recognized there were problems. I have read this historyhttp://www.mcu.usmc.mil/historydivision ... 0Corps.pdf and I'm glad I've found it again. This the only document I've ever found that addresses combat performance. Chapter 7 page 115.
My cousin Herb was a Project 100,00 draftee. A blood flow problem during his delivery left him with a slow man with a quiet disposition, somewhat like Gump. After his service in Viet Nam, while nowhere near the level of Lawrence, he spent the better part of 20 years in and out of VA and private hospitals working through his experiences.
I was never in combat, I served in Europe, with some NSM and punitive enlistment soldiers in my unit. Since that time and due to my cousin's experience, I've dug around trying to find out the consequences of and rationalizations for both programs as a means of manning a modern military force.
None of the rationalizations make sense to me. The consequences are some human wreckage, increased casualties mental and physical, and I truly believe that if the Russki's had been able to roundup 20,000 sober soldiers all at one time they would have rolled right over us.

Thank You! Excellent link. While the interviews are all over the board one way or the other, but mostly not in favor of the NSM, I believe the conclusion speaks volumes as it says:

"Given this evidence, it is likely that during Vietnam low score men posed less of a problem than they did during World War II. Any failure on the battlefield cannot be ascribed to the presence of New Standards men. Any blame to be placed must be placed elsewhere."

oohrah wrote:Notice the date. Many instruction manuals were published like comic books during the Viet Nam war. Because of the draft and Project 100,000, there were a lot of poorly educated troops, but they found they could get them to read if they made the material more attractive and what they may have been used to.

BTW, Project 100,000 was another social experiment foisted on the Army. Even if an Inductee legitimately failed the AFQT (the mental test), if his SSN ended in the number of the day, he was drafted anyway. Taking a percentage of this pool to see how they would do. (s much a smy memory serves).

PS Magazine started in 1951 through the work of Will Eisner. It is still going strong in today's Army, although perhaps not as risque with the swimsuit wearing Connie and Bonnie, LOL. Read it is more politically correct. If you read one there was MSG Halftrack included. If you can open the LOGSA website you can still view them. (https://www.logsa.army.mil/psmag" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) I attempted to do so here at home and it is blocked, so perhaps one can't on a non-Military computer? I enjoyed reading them, especially as a young soldier,whiling away the hours in the Motorpool. I believe they were developed due to the age of the soldier more than their intelligence level. Might be wrong, but as they are still going strong, and the soldier of today can read at a higher than 6th grade level, perhaps they are just enjoyable and impart information? I even wrote MSG Halftrack about something that was written in a PS Magazine that I found fault with and received a good answer, even a retraction. This was also when I found out the MSG Halftrack was Mr. Eisner, now deceased. If you can get on the website, you can find a plethora of information about the care and maintenance of firearms, vehicle care as well as almost anything you can think of, as far as the maintenance of care of said item. I even downloaded how to properly care for an M1 Garand when I bought one. Had to read around but the information is there. Want to know how to care for an AR series rifle, it is there as well. How to properly zero said rifle, it is there. Might be a cartoon magazine written for us dumb soldiers, but the information is still valid. (And no I didn't take offense, even if it came from a Marine)