Author Archives: thinkcreativelya

1953 – 1954 Corps of Cadets and Their Team

The Polo Grounds October 17, 1953
Much of the Material is taken from Bill McWilliams book “A Return to Glory”


Colonel Blaik, (misty eyed) leaving the field after the 1953 Team beat Navy. To the right with helmet is Rox Swain, who was yanked off the Cadet Train, suited up and kicked off to Navy.
“In the locker room after the Game he was to say –
Bob Mischak’s 73 yard run down of the Blue Devils’ All American Red Smith The Game Saving -Season Saving Tackle. Col Blaik was later to write “In somehow catching and collaring (Smith), Mischak displayed heart and a pursuit that for one single play I have never seen matched.”

Still photos are at

While the film is at

Bob’s playing and coaching career after graduation and service commitment was perhaps the most distingushed of any West Point Graduate. See



*Please note – Jerry Lodge – who wore #32 is missing from Photo as is Norm Stephen. 2d man 2d row next to Tommy Bell – Name is Zaborowski. Wynn #31 is actually in the 2d row not the 3d


Acheer copy
The 1953 cheerleaders, standing, for the Army team, with tumblers in the first row. Cheerleaders, left to right: Ed Moses, ’54; John Clayton ’55, Al Worden ’55, Billy McVeigh ’54, Jay Edwards ’54, Bill Robinson ’55; Tumblers: Peter Jones ’54, Dan Ludwig ’55, Jack Charles ’54, Charles Glenn ’56.

Taking an old war trophy, a German Rocket gun captured at Kasserine Pass in WW II, the staff in the Ordinance Laboratory volunteered to make an adapter shell that would shoot a blank 10 gauge.

Jerry Lodge – A Brahma Bull going for more yards against North Carolina

Rox Swain was pulled off the Cadet Train when it pulled into Philadelphia and his Kickoff resulted in a fumble which Lowell Sisson recovered. The Football can be seen against Lowell’s knee. Norm Stephen wa she first one down the field, making the tackle.

It is unclear who is coming down the line, but it appears Navy’s number 82 is in for a brutal hit.

17 Oct 1953, Manhattan, New York, New York, USA --- Army football team player, Chesnauskas (63), quick kicks the ball in first quarter of Army v. Duke University game at Manhattan's Polo Grounds. --- Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS Attaya Kick

Uebel-BellUebel 34 leads Bell against Duke

Attaya, Uebel, Hagan, Farris
Attaya with the ball, Hagan 16 just handed off, Uebel 34 and Farris 55 blocking

Billy in Washington Hall copy
Ben Schemmer ’54, Alex Rupp ’55, and a Corporal from the West Point Band, Driver of the convertible.

swarming the field
Conclusion of the Duke Game – Deliriously happy Army players and cadets celebrate their stunning 14-13 upset of Duke University Blue Devils at the Polo Grounds in New York City 17 October 1953. Identified players are Lowell Sisson (83), right end; Bob Mischak (87), left end; Bill Cody (11), quarterback; Ed Zaborowski (58), center; Joe Franklin (facing Ed Zaborowski; Frank Burd (33),fullback; Peter Vann (10), quarterback.

blaik-lund copy

coaches copy

Why Women failed the Marine Officer Coarse


Second Lt. Sage Santangelo says the Marine Corps should train women to the same standard as men. (Matthew Coughlin/For The Washington Post)Sage Santangelo - Marine

I awoke to Eminem blasting hours before dawn at Quantico Marine Base. A fog of breath and sweat permeated the cold January air as I joined 104 other nervous lieutenants hauling gear to the classroom where we would receive our first instructions. With body armor, Kevlar, a rifle and a huge pack on my 5’3’’ frame, I must have looked like a child next to the buff guys assembling for Day 1 of the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course.

I was one of four women in the group, bringing the number to 14 female officers who had attempted the course since it was opened to women in the fall of 2012. All the women so far had failed — all but one of them on the first day.

I wasn’t thinking about that, though. I was excited to have a shot at the Marines’ premier training course.

I’m typical of a Marine in that I’ve always sought out challenges. I flew my first solo flight when I was 15 and got my private pilot’s license three years ago at 21. I’ve climbed 10 of the 14,000-foot peaks in my home state of Colorado. As an ice hockey goalie for more than a decade, I put myself in the path of pucks flying at 80 mph.

I expected that this, though, would be the toughest experience I’d ever had.

There’s a lot of mystery surrounding the arduous 13-week course used to screen and train potential infantry officers. Past participants are asked not to talk about it, in order to preserve the uncertainty for future classes. So we lieutenants had little idea of what we were getting into. But we knew that the first day is always the Combat Endurance Test, and that it pushes people to the limits of their physical and mental capabilities.

Several hours into the test, I jogged past a lieutenant who was overcome with cramps and vomiting on the side of the road. The temperature hovered just above freezing. A blister bled on my foot and sweat poured down my face, yet I felt relatively good. I had completed all the tasks so far within the time allotted, and I was determined to make it to the end without showing any weakness. A packet of MRE cheese spread gave me new life. I shook frost from my uniform, threw my pack on my back, slung my rifle and jogged on through the woods.

But there came a point when I could not persuade my body to perform. It wasn’t a matter of will but of pure physical strength. My mind wanted more, but my muscles quivered in failure after multiple attempts. I began to shiver as I got cold. I was told I could not continue.

That night I forced every step to be normal as I dragged myself — weighed down by gear, disappointment and exhaustion — back to the barracks. It was no consolation that 28 other lieutenants, including the other three women, failed along with me or that the Infantry Officer Course commonly drops 20 to 25 percent of each class. As I sat in my room, famished and waiting for pizza that seemed like it would never arrive, I reflected: Why did I fail?

The question matters because Marine leaders have been watching female participants like me to help them decide how to integrate women into units and positions whose primary mission is to engage in direct ground combat. The Marines have until Jan. 1, 2016 , to request any exemptions from the Pentagon directive to open all combat roles to women. “If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job — and let me be clear, I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job . . . then they should have the right to serve,” then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said when he rescinded the direct-combat exclusion rule last year.

Marine Sgt. Maj. Micheal P. Barrett, the senior enlisted adviser to the commandant, affirmed: “Our plan is deliberate, measured and responsible. We will not lower our standards.”

My failed attempt at Quantico, and the fact that no woman has yet made it through the Infantry Officer Course, shouldn’t be interpreted as evidence that women can’t handle combat environments. To date, 13 female Marines have passed the two-month enlisted infantry training course at Camp Geiger in North Carolina. While that course is significantly less demanding than the one at Quantico, it is still grueling — participants must lug 85-pound packs on 12-mile treks through the woods — and it establishes the standard for enlisted warfighters.

Even more telling, on the front lines, where roles have already blurred, women have performed exceptionally well in traditionally male situations. Consider Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester . A Kentucky National Guard soldier, Hester was leading a team on a mission outside Baghdad in March 2005 when her convoy was attacked by insurgents. She orchestrated a counterattack with grenades and M203 rounds. The unit killed 27 insurgents, including three taken out by Hester with a rifle, and not a single soldier was lost. Hester became the first woman to receive a Silver Star since World War II.

So what’s held women back in the Marines Corps Infantry Officer Course? I absolutely agree that we shouldn’t reduce qualifications. For Marine infantry officers, mistakes mean risking the lives of the troops you are charged to protect. But I believe that I could pass, and that other women could pass, if the standards for men and women were equal from the beginning of their time with the Marines, if endurance and strength training started earlier than the current practice for people interested in going into the infantry, and if women were allowed a second try, as men are.

Female lieutenants aren’t as prepared as male lieutenants for the Infantry Officer Course’s tests of strength and endurance because they’ve been encouraged to train to lesser standards. Officer Candidates School, where all Marine officers start out, is segregated by sex. I was in an all-female platoon. We worked with the men on a few occasions but never competed with them. That was odd for me. As someone who grew up playing hockey on boys’ teams, I was used to facing off with the guys.

The Basic School, where I reported after graduating from Bowdoin College in 2012, has long been co-ed. But physical double standards persist. In the Physical Fitness Test, for example, a male perfect score is achieved by an 18-minute three-mile run, 20 pull-ups and 100 sit-ups in two minutes. A female perfect score is a 21-minute three-mile run, a 70-second flexed-arm hang and 100 sit-ups in two minutes. There was a move to shift from arm hangs to pull-ups for women last year. Yet 55 percent of female recruits were unable to meet the minimum of three, and the plan was put on hold.

I understand not wanting to discourage new recruits. But dual standards highlight and foster differences in a way that undercuts the goal of integrated military units. Women aren’t encouraged to establish the same mental toughness as men — rather, they’re told that they can’t compete. Men, meanwhile, are encouraged to perceive women as weak. I noticed that women were rarely chosen by their peers for some of the harder tasks in basic training.

Yes, men have biological advantages in tests of upper-body strength. But women can do pull-ups if given enough time to build that strength. (I did 16 in my last physical fitness test, and I have no illusions that I’m the most qualified female Marine.) Recognizing biologically based advantages and disadvantages and developing training programs that work to balance them are key.

It would be especially helpful if the Marines allowed people to decide on an infantry career earlier and offered some infantry-oriented training earlier, too. Basic training doesn’t include enough physical gruntwork under a combat load. More exercises such as running, jumping and climbing while wearing a flak jacket, Kevlar and a pack would help build strength and endurance. They would also help prevent injuries by increasing bone density. My class had only a month between the end of the Basic School and the start of the Infantry Officer Course. I wish there’d been more time to train to the endurance test’s demands.

I also would have liked to have had the opportunity to try the course again. The Marine leadership has said it doesn’t want female lieutenants taking the course multiple times, at least until combat positions are available to women, because it doesn’t want to delay the rest of their training. Yet many of the men who failed alongside me in January are back at Quantico, training to retake the course in April.

They’re more likely to pass the second time around. The course is designed to create young officers who thrive in an uncertain environment. Going into the endurance test, you don’t know how far you’ll have to go, what the obstacles will be or what time constraints will be imposed. The uncertainty makes the test overall much more difficult than any of its individual parts. Some of the details change for each new class. But the male lieutenants who have taken it before have an advantage in that they know generally what to expect.

For me, the next stop is Marine flight school in Pensacola, Fla. I’ve been told, though, that it will be 12 months before there will be an open slot. So reporting for Infantry Officer Training next month wouldn’t have hurt my career.

UPDATE, April 4: In response to this essay, Gen. James F. Amos announced that female Marines would be allowed to retake the Infantry Officer Course, as male Marines are, and he offered Sage Santangelo a posting in Afghanistan while she waits for a flight school opening.

I’ve always been taught that failure provides the greatest learning opportunities. My failed effort at Quantico has helped me better understand the needs of the Marines on the ground and will allow me to better support them in the future. At the same time, I love the Marine Corps philosophy that failure should never be viewed as permanent or representative; it is an opportunity to remediate. Marines cannot meet standards all the time. What do we do? We train until every Marine is competent. “No Marine joins the Corps to be a failure,” Gen. James F. Amos has said. “We don’t raise them up that way.”

It’s frustrating to me that there are still doubts about whether women are capable of handling combat environments. The women who have been awarded for their valor in combat, and the women who have died in combat for their country, have already answered the question about capability.

Now, instead of passively evaluating their performance, we need to figure out how to set women up to excel in infantry roles. My hope is that the Marine Corps will allow every Marine the opportunity to compete. And that when we fail, our failure is seen simply as a challenge to others to succeed.

Vietnam War Myths and Facts

LZ Center
Vietnam War Myths and Facts
Common Myths | Facts about the end of the war | Vietnam: Looking back at the facts by K.G. Sears, Ph.D. | MIT Study of the Vietnam Death Rates by Dr. Arnold Barnett
9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the official Vietnam era from August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975

2,709,918 Americans served in uniform in Vietnam

Vietnam Veterans represented 9.7% of their generation

240 men were awarded the Medal of Honor during the Vietnam War

The first man to die in Vietnam was James Davis, in 1958. He was with the 509th Radio Research Station. Davis Station in Saigon was named for him

58,148 were killed in Vietnam, 75,000 were severely disabled, 23,214 were 100% disabled, 5,283 lost limbs, 1,081 sustained multiple amputations

Of those killed, 61% were younger than 21, 11,465 of those killed were younger than 20 years old, of those killed, 17,539 were married, average age of men killed was 23.1 years, five men killed in Vietnam were only 16 years old, and the oldest man killed was 62 years old

As of January 15, 2004, there are 1,875 Americans still unaccounted for from the Vietnam War

97% of Vietnam Veterans were honorably discharged, 91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served, 74% say they would serve again, even knowing the outcome

Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than the same non-vet age groups, Vietnam veterans’ personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent

87% of Americans hold Vietnam Veterans in high esteem

There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non-Vietnam Veterans of the same age group (Source: Veterans Administration Study), Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison – only one-half of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes

85% of Vietnam Veterans made successful transitions to civilian life

Credit: Capt. Marshal Hanson, USNR (Ret.) and Capt. Scott Beaton, Statistical Source
Statistics from the Combat Area Casualty File (CACF) as of November 1993 (the CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial). Average age of 58,148 killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years (Although 58,169 names are in the Nov. 93 database, only 58,148 have both event date and birth date. Event date is used instead of declared dead date for some of those who were listed as missing in action).

Deaths Average Age
Total: 58,148, 23.11 years
Enlisted: 50,274, 22.37 years
Officers: 6,598, 28.43 years
Warrants: 1,276, 24.73 years
E1 525, 20.34 years
11B MOS: 18,465, 22.55 years
Interesting Census Stats and “Been There” Wanabees: 1,713,823 of those who served in Vietnam were still alive as of August 1995 (census figures).
During that same Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in country was: 9,492,958.
As of the current Census taken during August 2000, the surviving U.S. Vietnam Veteran population estimate is: 1,002,511. This is hard to believe, losing nearly 711,000 between ’95 and ’00. That’s 390 per day. During this Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in country is: 13,853,027. By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE VIETNAM VETS ARE NOT.
The Department of Defense Vietnam War Service Index officially provided by The War Library originally reported with errors that 2,709,918 U.S. military personnel as having served in-country. Corrections and confirmations to this error index resulted in the addition of 358 U.S. military personnel confirmed to have served in Vietnam but not originally listed by the Department of Defense (All names are currently on file and accessible).
Common Myths
Common belief is that most Vietnam veterans were drafted. Fact: 2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. Approximately 70% of those killed in Vietnam were volunteers.
Common belief that the media reported suicides among Vietnam veterans range from 50,000 to 100,000 – 6 to 11 times the non-Vietnam veteran population. Fact: Mortality studies show that 9,000 is a better estimate. “The CDC Vietnam Experience Study Mortality Assessment showed that during the first 5 years after discharge, deaths from suicide were 1.7 times more likely among Vietnam veterans than non-Vietnam veterans. After that initial post-service period, Vietnam veterans were no more likely to die from suicide than non-Vietnam veterans. In fact, after the 5-year post-service period, the rate of suicides is less in the Vietnam veterans’ group.
Common belief is that a disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War. Fact: 86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, and 1.2% were other races. Sociologists Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler, in their recently published book “All That We Can Be,” said they analyzed the claim that blacks were used like cannon fodder during Vietnam “and can report definitely that this charge is untrue. Black fatalities amounted to 12 percent of all Americans killed in Southeast Asia, a figure proportional to the number of blacks in the U.S. population at the time and slightly lower than the proportion of blacks in the Army at the close of the war.”
Common belief is that the war was fought largely by the poor and uneducated. Fact: Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers. Vietnam Veterans were the best-educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better.
The common belief is the average age of an infantryman fighting in Vietnam was 19. Fact: Assuming KIAs accurately represented age groups serving in Vietnam, the average age of an infantryman (MOS 11B) serving in Vietnam to be 19 years old is a myth, it is actually 22. None of the enlisted grades have an average age of less than 20. The average man who fought in World War II was 26 years of age.
The common belief is that the domino theory was proved false. Fact: The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America’s commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism.
The common belief is that the fighting in Vietnam was not as intense as in World War II. Fact: The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter.One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,148 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.7 million who served. Although the percent that died is similar to other wars, amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II. 75,000 Vietnam veterans are severely disabled. MEDEVAC helicopters flew nearly 500,000 missions. Over 900,000 patients were airlifted (nearly half were American). The average time lapse between wounding to hospitalization was less than one hour. As a result, less than one percent of all Americans wounded, who survived the first 24 hours, died. The helicopter provided unprecedented mobility. Without the helicopter it would have taken three times as many troops to secure the 800-mile border with Cambodia and Laos (the politicians thought the Geneva Conventions of 1954 and the Geneva Accords or 1962 would secure the border).
The common belief that Kim Phuc, the little nine-year-old Vietnamese girl running naked from the napalm strike near Trang Bang on 8 June 1972 (shown a million times on American television), was burned by Americans bombing Trang Bang. Fact: No American had involvement in this incident near Trang Bang that burned Phan Thi Kim Phuc. The planes doing the bombing near the village were VNAF (Vietnam Air Force) and were being flown by Vietnamese pilots in support of South Vietnamese troops on the ground. The Vietnamese pilot who dropped the napalm in error is currently living in the United States. Even the AP photographer, Nick Ut, who took the picture, was Vietnamese. The incident in the photo took place on the second day of a three-day battle between the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) who occupied the village of Trang Bang and the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) who were trying to force the NVA out of the village. Recent reports in the news media that an American commander ordered the air strike that burned Kim Phuc are incorrect. There were no Americans involved in any capacity. “We (Americans) had nothing to do with controlling VNAF,” according to Lieutenant General (Ret) James F. Hollingsworth, the Commanding General of TRAC at that time. Also, it has been incorrectly reported that two of Kim Phuc’s brothers were killed in this incident. They were Kim’s cousins not her brothers.
The common belief that the United States lost the war in Vietnam. Fact: The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. General Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike (a professor at the University of California, Berkeley), a major military defeat for the VC and NVA. The United States Did Not Lose The War In Vietnam; The South Vietnamese did after the U.S. Congress cut off funding. The South Vietnamese ran out of fuel, ammunition and other supplies because of a lack of support from Congress, while the North Vietnamese were very well supplied by China and the Soviet Union. The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides’ forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification. The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives. There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 than there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. Thanks for the perceived loss and the countless assassinations and torture visited upon Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians goes mainly to the American media and their undying support-by-misrepresentation of the anti-War movement in the United States. As with much of the Vietnam War, the news media misreported and misinterpreted the 1968 Tet Offensive. It was reported as an overwhelming success for the Communist forces and a decided defeat for the U.S. forces. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite initial victories by the Communists forces, the Tet Offensive resulted in a major defeat of those forces. General Vo Nguyen Giap, the designer of the Tet Offensive, is considered by some as ranking with Wellington, Grant, Lee and MacArthur as a great commander. Still, militarily, the Tet Offensive was a total defeat of the Communist forces on all fronts. It resulted in the death of some 45,000 NVA troops and the complete, if not total destruction of the Viet Cong elements in South Vietnam. The Organization of the Viet Cong Units in the South never recovered. The Tet Offensive succeeded on only one front and that was the News front and the political arena. This was another example in the Vietnam War of an inaccuracy becoming the perceived truth. However, inaccurately reported, the News Media made the Tet Offensive famous.
Facts about the end of the war

The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides’ forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification. [1996 Information Please Almanac]

The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives.

There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam.
More realities about the Vietnam War

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) – it was not invented or unique to Vietnam Veterans. It was called “shell shock” and other names in previous wars. An automobile accident or other traumatic event can also cause it. It does not have to be war related. The Vietnam War helped medical progress in this area.
Vietnam: Looking Back – At The Facts

1 Jun 01 © By: K. G. Sears, Ph.D., with permission – Ron Leonard (<; )

One reason America’s agonizing perception of “Vietnam” will not go away, is because that perception is wrong. It’s out of place in the American psyche, and it continues to fester in much the same way battle wounds fester when shrapnel or other foreign matter is left in the body. It is not normal behavior for Americans to idolize mass murdering despots, to champion the cause of slavery, to abandon friends and allies, or to cut and run in the face of adversity. Why then did so many Americans engage in these types of activities during the country’s “Vietnam” experience?

That the American experience in Vietnam was painful and ended in long lasting (albeit self-inflicted) grief and misery cannot be disputed. However, the reasons behind that grief and misery are not even remotely understood, by either the American people or their government. Contradictory to popular belief, and a whole lot of wishful thinking by a solid corps of some 16,000,000+ American draft dodgers and their families and supporters, it was not a military defeat that brought misfortune to the American effort in Vietnam.

The United States military in Vietnam was the best educated, best trained, best disciplined and most successful force ever fielded in the history of American arms. Why then, did it get such bad press, and, why is the public’s opinion of them so twisted? The answer is simple. But first, a few relevant comparisons.

During the Civil War, at the Battle of Bull Run, the entire Union Army panicked and fled the battlefield. Nothing even remotely resembling that debacle ever occurred in Vietnam.

In WWII at the Kasserine Pass in Tunisia, elements of the US Army were overrun by the Germans. In the course of that battle, Hitler’s General Rommel (The Desert Fox) inflicted 3,100 US casualties, took 3,700 US prisoners and captured or destroyed 198 American tanks. In Vietnam no US Military units were overrun and no US Military infantry units or tank outfits were captured.

WW II again. In the Philippines, US Army Generals Jonathan Wainwright and Edward King surrendered themselves and their troops to the Japanese. In Vietnam no US generals, or US military units ever surrendered.

Before the Normandy invasion (“D” Day, 1944) the US Army (In WW II the US Army included the Army Air Corps which today has become the US Airforce) in England filled its own jails with American soldiers who refused to fight and then had to rent jail space from the British to handle the overflow. The US Army in Vietnam never had to rent jail space from the Vietnamese to incarcerate American soldiers who refused to fight.

Desertion. Only about 5,000 men assigned to Vietnam deserted and just 249 of those deserted while in Vietnam. During WW II, in the European Theater alone, over 20,000 US Military men were convicted of disertion and, on a comparable percentage basis, the overall WW II desertion rate was 55 percent higher than in Vietnam.

During the WW II Battle of the Bulge in Europe two regiments of the US Army’s 106th Division surrendered to the Germans. Again: In Vietnam no US Army unit ever surrendered.

The highest ranking American soldier killed in WW II was Lt. (three star) General Leslie J. McNair. He was killed when American warplanes accidentally bombed his position during the invasion of Europe. In Vietnam there were no American generals killed by American bombers.

As for brutality: During WW II the US Army executed nearly 300 of its own men. In the European Theater alone, the US Army sentenced 443 American soldiers to death. Most of these sentences were for the rape and or murder of civilians.

In the Korean War, Major General William F. Dean, commander of the 24th Infantry Division, was taken prisoner of war (POW). In Vietnam no US generals, much less division commanders, were ever taken prisoner.

During the Korean War the US Army was forced into the longest retreat in its history. A catastrophic 275 mile withdrawal from the Yalu River all the way to Pyontaek, 45 miles south of Seoul. In the process they lost the capital city of Seoul. The US Military in Vietnam was never compelled into a major retreat nor did it ever abandon Saigon to the enemy.

The 1st US Marine Division was driven from the Chosin Reservoir and forced into an emergency evacuation from the Korean port of Hungnam. There they were joined by other US Army and South Korean soldiers and the US Navy eventually evacuated 105,000 Allied troops from that port. In Vietnam there was never any mass evacuation of US Marine, South Vietnamese or Allied troop units.

Other items: Only 25 percent of the US Military who served in Vietnam were draftees. During WW II, 66 percent of the troops were draftees. The Vietnam force contained three times as many college graduates as did the WW II force. The average education level of the enlisted man in Vietnam was 13 years, equivalent to one year of college. Of those who enlisted, 79 percent had high school diplomas. This at a time when only 65% of the military age males in the general American population were high school graduates.

The average age of the military men who died in Vietnam was 22.8 years old. Of the one hundred and one (101) 18 year old draftees who died in Vietnam; seven of them were black. Blacks accounted for 11.2 percent the combat deaths in Vietnam. At that time black males of military age constituted 13.5 percent of the American population. It should also be clearly noted that volunteers suffered 77% of the casualties, and accounted for 73% of the Vietnam deaths.

The charge that the “poor” died in disproportionate numbers is also a myth. An MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) study of Vietnam death rates, conducted by Professor Arnold Barnett, revealed that servicemen from the richest 10 percent of the nations communities had the same distribution of deaths as the rest of the nation. In fact his study showed that the death rate in the upper income communities of Beverly Hills, Belmont, Chevy Chase, and Great Neck exceeded the national average in three of the four, and, when the four were added together and averaged, that number also exceeded the national average.

On the issue of psychological health: Mental problems attributed to service in Vietnam are referred to as PTSD. Civil War veterans suffered “Soldiers heart” in WW I the term was “Shell shock” during WW II and in Korea it was “Battle fatigue.” Military records indicate that Civil War psychological casualties averaged twenty six per thousand men. In WW II some units experienced over 100 psychiatric casualties per 1,000 troops; in Korea nearly one quarter of all battlefield medical evacuations were due to mental stress. That works out to about 50 per 1,000 troops. In Vietnam the comparable average was 5 per 1,000 troops.

To put Vietnam in its proper perspective it is necessary to understand that the US Military was not defeated in Vietnam and that the South Vietnamese government did not collapse due to mismanagement or corruption, nor was it overthrown by revolutionary guerrillas running around in rubber tire sandals, wearing black pajamas and carrying home made weapons. There was no “general uprising” or “revolt” by the southern population. Saigon was overrun by a conventional army made up of seventeen conventional divisions, organized into four army corps. This totally conventional force (armed, equipped, trained and supplied by the Soviet Union) launched a cross border, frontal attack on South Vietnam and conquered it, in the same manner as Hitler conquered most of Europe in WW II. A quick synopsis of America’s “Vietnam experience” will help summarize and clarify the Vietnam scenario:
Prior to 1965 – US Advisors and AID only
1965 to 1967 – Buildup of US Forces and logistical supply bases, plus heavy fighting to counter Communist North Vietnamese invasion.
1968 to 1970 – Communist “insurgency” destroyed to the point where over 90% of the towns and villages in South Vietnam were free from Communist domination. As an example: By 1971 throughout the entire populous Mekong Delta, the monthly rate of Communist insurgency action dropped to an average of 3 incidents per 100,000 population (Many a US city would envy a crime rate that low). In 1969 Nixon started troop withdrawals that were essentially complete by late 1971.
Dec 1972 – Paris Peace Agreements negotiated and agreed by North Vietnam, South Vietnam, the Southern Vietnamese Communists (VC, NLF / PRG) and the United States.
Jan 1973 – All four parties formally sign Paris Peace Agreements.
Mar 1973 – Last US POW released from Hanoi Hilton, and in accordance with Paris Agreements, last American GI leaves Vietnam.
Aug 1973 – US Congress passes the Case – Church law which forbids, US naval forces from sailing on the seas surrounding, US ground forces from operating on the land of, and US air forces from flying in the air over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. This at a time when America had drawn its Cold War battle lines and as a result had the US Navy protecting Taiwan, 50,000 troops in South Korea and over 300,000 troops in Western Europe (Which has a land area, economy and population comparable to that of the United States), along with ironclad guarantees that if Communist forces should cross any of those Cold War lines or Soviet Armor should role across either the DMZ in Korea or the Iron Curtain in Europe, then there would be an unlimited response by the armed forces of the United States, to include if necessary, the use of nuclear weapons. In addition, these defense commitments required the annual expenditure of hundreds of billions of US dollars. Conversely, in 1975 when Soviet armor rolled across the international borders of South Vietnam, the US military response was nothing. In addition, Congress cut off all AID to the South Vietnamese and would not provide them with as much as a single bullet. In spite of the Case – Church Congressional guarantee, the North Vietnamese were very leery of US President Nixon. They viewed him as one unpredictable, incredibly tough nut. He had, in 1972, for the first time in the War, mined Hai Phong Harbor and sent the B-52 bombers against the North to force them into signing the Paris Peace Agreements. Previously the B-52s had been used only against Communist troop concentrations in remote regions of South Vietnam and occasionally against carefully selected sanctuaries in Cambodia, plus against both sanctuaries and supply lines in Laos.
Aug 1974 – Nixon resigns.
Sept 1974 – North Vietnamese hold special meeting to evaluate Nixon’s resignation and decide to test implications.
Dec 1974 – North Vietnamese invade South Vietnamese Province of Phouc Long located north of Saigon on Cambodian border.
Jan 1975 – North Vietnamese capture Phuoc Long provincial capitol of Phuoc Binh. Sit and wait for US reaction. No reaction.
Mar 1975 – North Vietnam mounts full-scale invasion. Seventeen North Vietnamese conventional divisions (more divisions than the US Army has had on duty at any time since WW II) were formed into four conventional army corps (This was the entire North Vietnamese army. Because the US Congress had unconditionally guaranteed no military action against North Vietnam, there was no need for them to keep forces in reserve to protect their home bases, flanks or supply lines), and launched a wholly conventional cross-border, frontal-attack. Then, using the age-old tactics of mass and maneuver, they defeated the South Vietnamese Army in detail.
The complete description of this North Vietnamese Army (NVA) classical military victory is best expressed in the words of the NVA general who commanded it. Recommended reading: Great Spring Victory by General Tien Van Dung, NVA Foreign Broadcast Information Service, Volume I, 7 Jun 76 and Volume II, 7 Jul 76. General Dung’s account of the final battle for South Vietnam reads like it was taken right out of a US Army manual on offensive military operations. His description of the mass and maneuver were exquisite. His selection of South Vietnam’s army as the “Center of gravity” could have been written by General Carl von Clausewitz himself. General Dung’s account goes into graphic detail on his battle moves aimed at destroying South Vietnam’s armed forces and their war materials. He never once, not even once, ever mentions a single word about revolutionary warfare or guerilla tactics contributing in any way to his Great Spring Victory.

Another Aspect – US Military battle deaths by year:
Prior to 1966 – 3,078 (Total up through 31 Dec 65)
1966 – 5,008
1967 – 9,378
1968 – 14, 589 (Total while JFK & LBJ were on watch – 32,053)
1969 – 9,414
1970 – 4,221
1971 – 1,381
1972 – 300 (Total while Nixon was on watch – 15,316)
Source of these numbers is the Southeast Asia Statistical Summary, Office of the Assistant Secretary or Defense and were provided to the author by the US Army War College Library, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17023. Numbers are battle deaths only and do not include ordinary accidents, heart attacks, murder victims, those who died in knife fights in barroom brawls, suicides, etc. Those who think these numbers represent “heavy fighting” and some of the “bloodiest battles” in US history should consider the fact that the Allied Forces lost 9,758 men killed just storming the Normandy Beaches; 6,603 were Americans. The US Marines, in the 25 days between 19 Feb 45 and 16 Mar 45, lost nearly 7,000 men killed in their battle for the tiny island of Iwo Jima.

By comparison the single bloodiest day in the Vietnam War for the Americans was on 17 Nov 65 when elements of the 7th Cav (Custer’s old outfit) lost 155 men killed in a battle with elements of two North Vietnamese Regular Army regiments (33rd & 66th) near the Cambodian border southwest of Pleiku.

Parallel Point

During its Normandy battles in 1944 the US 90th Infantry Division, (roughly 15,000+ men) over a six week period, had to replace 150% of its officers and more than 100% of its men. The 173rd Airborne Brigade (normally there are 3 brigades to a division) served in Vietnam for a total of 2,301 days, and holds the record for the longest continuous service under fire of any American unit, ever. During that (6 year, 3+ month) period the 173rd lost 1,601 (roughly 31%) of its men killed in action.

Further Food For thought

Casualties tell the tale. Again, the US Army War College Library provides numbers. The former South Vietnam was made up of 44 provinces. The province that claimed the most Americans killed was Quang Tri, which bordered on both North Vietnam and Laos. Fifty four percent of the Americans killed in Vietnam were killed in the four northernmost provinces, which in addition to Quang Tri were Thua Thien, Quang Nam and Quan Tin. All of them shared borders with Laos. An additional six provinces accounted for another 25 % of the Americans killed in action (KIA). Those six all shared borders with either Laos or Cambodia or had contiguous borders with provinces that did. The remaining 34 provinces accounted for just 21% of US KIA. These numbers should dispel the notion that South Vietnam was some kind of flaming inferno of violent revolutionary dissent. The overwhelming majority of Americans killed, died in border battles against regular NVA units. The policies established by Johnson and McNamara prevented the American soldiers from crossing those borders and destroying their enemies. Expressed in WW II terms; this is the functional equivalent of having sent the American soldiers to fight in Europe during WW II, but restricting them to Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, etc., and not letting them cross the borders into Germany, the source of the problem. General Curtis LeMAY aptly defined Johnson’s war policy in South Vietnam by saying that “We are swatting flies in the South when we should be going after the manure pile in Hanoi.”

Looking back it is now clear that the American military role in “Vietnam” was, in essence, one of defending international borders. Contrary to popular belief, they turned in an outstanding performance and accomplished their mission. The US Military was not “Driven” from Vietnam. They were voted out by the US Congress. This same Congress then turned around and abandoned America’s former ally, South Vietnam. Should America feel shame? Yes! Why? For kowtowing to the wishes of those craven hoards of dodgers and for bugging out and abandoning an ally they had promised to protect.

The idea that “There were no front lines.” and “The enemy was everywhere.” makes good press and feeds the craven needs of those 16,000,000+ American draft dodgers. Add either a mommy or a poppa, and throw in another sympathizer in the form of a girl (or boy?) friend and your looking at well in excess of 50,000,000 Americans with a need to rationalize away their draft-dodging cowardice and to, in some way, vilify “Vietnam” the very source of their shame and guilt. During the entire period of the American involvement in “Vietnam” only 2,594,000 US Military actual served inside the country. Contrast that number with the 50-million plus draft dodging anti-war crowd and you have the answer to why the American view of its Vietnam experience is so skewed.

Johnson made two monumental Vietnam blunders. First he failed to get a declaration of war, which he could have easily had. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which LBJ regarded as the “Functional equivalent of a formal declaration of war.” was passed unanimously by the House and there were only two dissenting votes cast in the Senate. This would have altered the judicial state of the nation, exactly as the Founding Fathers had intended. The Founding Fathers were all veterans of the American Revolutionary War and knew just how hard it had been to maintain public support during their war (At one point, 80% of the “American” people were against that War. If the Founding Fathers had bowed to public opinion, today we would still be British subjects not American citizens). A formal declaration of war would have allowed for control of the press. If Vietnam had been fought under WW II conditions (during WW II Congress formally declared war) folks who gave aid and comfort to the enemy, people in the ilk of Jane Fonda and Walter Cronkite, would have been charged with treason, tried, found guilty (their “treasonous acts” were on film / video tape), and then hanged by the neck until dead. Second, LBJ exempted college kids from the draft. Presto! The nation’s campuses immediately filled with dastardly little dodgers and became boiling cauldrons of violent rampaging dissent. The dodgers knew they were acting cowardly and could appease their conscience only if they could convince themselves that the war was somehow immoral. Once the “immoral” escape concept emerged and became creditable, it spread across the college campuses and out into the main streets of America like wild fire. Miraculously, acts of cowardice were transformed into respectable acts of defiance. Anti-war protests and violent demonstrations became the accepted norm. However, when one goes back and scrutinizes those anti-war demonstrations, one quickly finds they were not really against the war. They were only against the side fighting the Communists! This of course turns out to be the side which had the army, from which the dodgers were dodging. Hmmmmm!

Once the draft dodging gang’s numbers reached critical mass, the media and politicians started pandering to those numbers (with media it is either circulation numbers or Nielsen ratings. With politicians it is votes). Multi-million dollar salaries are not paid to people for reporting the news, in any form, be it written, audio or video. Multi-million dollar salaries (e.g., Cronkite) are paid to entertainers, stars and superstars. One does not get to be, much less continue to be, a superstar unless one gives one’s audience what it wants. Once the dodging anti-war numbers started climbing through the stratosphere it was not in the media’s interest to say something good about Vietnam to an audience that was guilt ridden with shame and with a deep psychological need to rationalize away the very source of their burden of guilt.

A good example of this number pandering can be found in a 1969 Life magazine feature article in which Life’s editors published the portraits of 250 men that were killed in Vietnam in one “routine week.” This was supposedly done to illustrate Life’s concern for the sanctity of human life; American human life (During WW II the U.S. Media were not allowed to publish the picture of a single dead G.I until after the invasion of Normandy, D-Day 1944, was successful). And furthermore, to starkly illustrate the Vietnam tragedy with a dramatic reminder (i.e., the faces staring out of those pages), that those anonymous casualty numbers were in fact the sons, brothers and husbands of neighbors. In 1969 the weekly average death toll from highway accidents in the United States was 1,082. If indeed Life’s concern was for the sanctity of American lives, why not publish the 1,082 portraits of the folks who were killed in one “routine week” on the nation’s highways? Then they could have shown photos of not only the sons, brothers and husbands of neighbors, but could have depicted dead daughters, mothers, grandmothers, aunts, babies, cripples, fools and draft dodgers as well. No way. Life knew where its “numbers” were.

The most glaring example of the existence of the dodging guilt syndrome can be found in a statement made by the ranking head dodger himself. When asked for his reaction to McNamara’s book In Retrospect, Clinton’s spontaneous response was “I feel vindicated.” (of his cowardly act of dodging the draft). Clinton is a lawyer and understands the use of the English language very well. For one to “feel” vindicated, as opposed to being vindicated, one must first have been, by definition, feeling guilty.

The Battle of Xuan Loc; Mar 17 – Apr 17, 1975 & The End

Xuan Loc was the last major battle for South Vietnam. It sits astride Q. L. (National Road) #1, some 40 odd miles to the northeast of Saigon (on the road to Phan Thiet), and was the capitol of South Vietnam’s Long Khanh province. The NVA (North Vietnamese Army) attack fell on the ARVN (Army Republic of Vietnam) 18th Division.

On 17 Mar 75 the NVA Sixth and Seventh Divisions attacked Xuan Loc but were repulsed by the ARVN 18th. On 9 Apr 75 the NVA 341st Division joined the attack. After a four thousand round artillery bombardment, these three divisions massed, and, spearheaded by Soviet tanks, assaulted Xuan Loc; but again the ARVN 18th held its ground. The NVA reinforced with their 325th Division and began moving their 10th and 304th Divisions into position. Eventually, in a classic example of the military art of “Mass and Maneuver” the NVA massed 40,000 men and overran Xuan Loc.

During this fight, the ARVN 18th had 5,000 soldiers at Xuan Loc. These men managed to virtually destroy 3 NVA Divisions, but on 17 Apr 75 they were overwhelmed by sheer numbers and the weight of the “Mass.” Before overrunning Xuan Loc the NVA had committed six full divisions, plus a host various support troops.

In the Sorrow of War, author and NVA veteran Bao Ninh writes of this battle: “Remember when we chased Division 18 southern soldiers all over Xuan Loc? My tank tracks were choked up with skin and hair and blood. And the bloody maggots. And the fucking flies. Had to drive through a river to get the stuff out of my tracks.” He also writes “After a while I could tell the difference between mud and bodies, logs and bodies. They were like sacks of water. They’d pop open when I ran over them. Pop! Pop!

The Irony

It’s ironic that in spite of all the hype and hullabaloo about the “Viet Cong” and the “American Soldiers” both were absent from the final battles for South Vietnam. The Viet Cong had been bludgeoned to death (During Tet 1968) on the streets of the cities, towns, and hamlets of South Vietnam. The Americans had left under the terms of the Paris Peace Agreements, and then were barred by the US Congress, from ever returning. The end came in the form of a cross border invasion. Two conventional armies fought it out using strategies and tactics as old as warfare itself.

A quick word about the South Vietnamese government lacking support from the people, and of the so called “Popular support” for the Communists. During the 1968 Tet Offensive the Communists attacked 155 cities, towns and hamlets in South Vietnam. In not one instance did the people rise up to support the Communists. The general uprising was a complete illusion. The people did rise, but in revulsion and resistance to the invaders. At the end of thirty days, not one single communist flag was flying over any of those 155 cities, towns or hamlets. The citizens of South Vietnam, no matter how apathetic they may have appeared toward their own government, turned out to be overwhelmingly anti-Communist. In the end they had to be conquered by conventional divisions, supported by conventional tanks and artillery that was being maneuvered in accordance with the ancient principles of warfare. But then, as with mathematics, certain rules apply in war, and, military victories are not won by violating military principles.


General Dung’s Great Spring Victory was supported by a total of 700 (maneuverable) Soviet tanks, i.e. Soviet armor, burning Soviet gas and firing Soviet ammunition. By comparison, the South Vietnamese had only 352 US supplied tanks and they were committed to guarding the entire country, and because of US Congressional action, were critically short of fuel, ammo and spare parts with which to support those tanks.

Recommended Reading

Works by Bao Ninh, the author of The Sorrow of War. He tells of being drafted into the North Vietnamese Army in 1968 and fighting for nearly seven years. His unit lost over 80% of its men to battle deaths, desertion and sickness. In all those years, he never once fought against the Americans. His war was strictly a Vietnamese affair.

Related Comments

For those who think that Vietnam was strictly a civil war, the following should be of interest. With the collapse of Communism and the Soviet Union along with the opening up of China, records are now becoming available on the type and amount of support North Vietnam received from China and the Soviet Block. For example:

China has opened its records on the number of uniformed Chinese troops sent to aid their Communist friends in Hanoi. In all, China sent 327,000 uniformed troops to North Vietnam. Historian Chen Jian wrote “Although Beijing’s support may have fallen short of Hanoi’s expectations, without the support, the history, even the outcome, of the Vietnam War might have been different.”

In addition, at the height of the War, the Soviet Union had some 55,000 “Advisors” in North Vietnam. They were installing air defense systems, building, operating and maintaining SAM (Surface to Air Missiles) sites, plus they provided training and logistical support for the North Vietnamese military.

When I asked a well known American reporter, who had covered the war extensively, why they never reported on this outside Communist support, his answer was essentially that the North Vietnamese would not let the reporters up there and that because “We had no access to the North during the war…meant there were huge gaps in accurately conveying what was happening North of the DMZ.”

By comparison, at the peak of the War there were 545,000 US Military personnel in Vietnam. However, most of them were logistical / support types. On the best day ever, there were 43,500 ground troops actually engaged in offensive combat operations, i.e., out in the boondocks, “Tiptoeing through the tulips” looking for, or actually in contact with, the enemy. This ratio of support to line troops is also comparable with other wars, and helps dispel the notion that every troop in Vietnam was engaged in mortal combat on a daily basis.

The Reason it all, Hangs Like a Pall

There always has, and always will be, American opposition to war. The Revolutionary War had the highest, 80 percent, and that was because it was fought on home soil. Opposition to WW I was 64 percent, in WW II the peak was 32 percent, and in Korea it was 62 percent. What makes Vietnam different is the dodger disaster. Of the 2,594,000 million US Military personnel that served in Vietnam only about 25 percent, or 648,000+ were drafted. Compare that to the 16,000,000+ who dodged, and it works out to 25 dodgers for every draftee who went. Today, America’s crocks are crammed chock-a-block full of dodgers, and the crocks of academia are more fully crammed than most. America’s schools colleges and universities are overloaded with dodgers, who, to this day have a need to rationalize away their acts of cowardice and have a compulsion to vilify the very source of their guilt, Vietnam.

The antiwar movement was akin to a national temper tantrum that eventually engulfed and then afflicted the entire nation with its warped rational. This group, fueled and led by dodgers, were responsible for poisoning the American mind on the subject of Vietnam and eventually those dodging hordes influenced the American body politic to elect a Congress that stripped the soldiers who fought in Vietnam of their victories, and voted to cut and run in the face of adversity. To this day, academia, the media, the politicians, talking heads, and the draft dodging multitudes continuously feed off one another with their preposterous, addictive hallucinations about “Vietnam” and, this is done at small expense, only a handful of veterans bear the brunt of their vicious absurdities.

The reason “Vietnam” will not go away is because the story the dodging masses and their cohorts are perpetuating is not true, and it simply sticks in the craw of the none dodging population. Especially the young. If a teacher wrote 1 + 1 = 2 on the black board, kids going by would take one look and forget it. However, if 1 + 1 = 6, a certain portion of the kids would stop and question it. Same with Vietnam. The supposed “facts” being taught or presented just don’t add up.

Recently I had a young man ask me “How come North Vietnam, which has a land area smaller than the state of Missouri, and had a population of less than one tenth the size of America’s, could defeat the modern armed forces of the United States?” I answered “Son, they didn’t.” He came back with “Then why did my teachers tell me that? My answer was “Son, they are mostly either draft dodgers or wannabes (as in wannabe a draft dodger but was too young, the wrong sex, or ?), or their descendents, or kin of, or other wise trick with, the dodgers. Take this article, go show it to them, and then ask for a detailed explanation of the American military defeat.”
MIT Study of the Vietnam Death Rates by Dr. Arnold Barnett, professor of operations research at MIT’s Sloan School of Management

Vietnam Deaths Spread Over Economic Spectrum, Charles H. Ball, News Office, September 30, 1992

The widely held belief that many more poor and working class youths died in the Vietnam War than their middle and upperclass counterparts is “a great exaggeration,” say MIT researchers who studied the family incomes of the 58,000 American war dead in Vietnam.

In a report based on the study, the researchers said that their data analysis “offers substantial evidence that, in terms of the bereavement it brought to America, Vietnam was not a class war.”

The study, funded by the US Army and MIT, found that affluent communities had only marginally lower casualty rates than the nation as a whole, while poor communities had only marginally higher rates.

Furthermore, the report said, “Data about the residential addresses of war casualties suggest that, within both large heterogeneous cities and wealthy suburbs, there was little relationship between neighborhood incomes and per capita Vietnam death rates.”

The authors of the report-which appears in the September-October issue of the journal Operations Research-are Dr. Arnold Barnett, professor of operations research at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, and two former graduate students, Captain Timothy Stanley, who now teaches at the US Military Academy, and Michael Shore. Professor Barnett specializes in applied probabilistic and statistical analyses related to health and safety. His earlier studies on such topics as air safety and homicide have been widely reported.

The researchers believe that their study was “the first comprehensive scientific analysis relating Vietnam war casualty patterns to economic status.” They undertook it, they said, because of a “strong public interest in the historical accuracy of judgments about the bitterly controversial Vietnam War” and because the belief about class war “continues to influence contemporary policy debates” and even the current presidential election campaign.

The existing perceptions “contribute to a sense of pervasive unfairness in which the benefits of being rich go well beyond material possessions,” the authors said. They took note of present Vietnam War-related controversies about Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton’s draft status and Republican vice presidential candidate Dan Quayle’s National Guard duty.

The perception that Vietnam was a class war, they said, “seems to arise more from anecdotes and personal impressions than from any systematic study” relating casualty patterns to economic status.

Citing several examples, the authors declared that “prestigious newspapers and magazines and Academy Award-winning movies have depicted the conflict as a `class war,'” and “distinguished defense analyst James Fallows explicitly described it as one.”

They added: “If untrue, the belief that affluent citizens were conspicuously missing from the Vietnam war dead is harmful to all Americans. It demeans the sacrifices of the wealthy by implying that such sacrifices were nonexistent. It demeans the sacrifices of the nonwealthy by suggesting that, manipulated and misled, they shed their blood in a conflict in which the privileged and influential were unwilling to shed theirs.”

The study concentrated on US servicemen killed in the war, reasoning that they and their families were presumably the Americans who suffered the most in the conflict, the researchers said. It considered how the families of the 58,000 war dead compared with a random sample of 58,000 contemporary American youths.

In their analysis, they said, they used information about the deceased that appears in the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Directory of Names, supplemented by more precise data from the National Military Archives in St. Louis, MO, about key subsets of casualties. Through scrutinizing the data in conjunction with diverse statistics from the 1970 census, they were able to make inferences about the economic backgrounds of the war dead.

The authors performed numerous analyses of local, regional and national data, some based on a random sample of essentially every 40th name in the alphabetical list of US casualties. While the data analyses were individually imperfect, their weaknesses did not overlap, the researchers stated. Hence, “the credibility of their collective outcome may far transcend that of any isolated result.”

In analogy with a widely used economic indicator, the authors devised a “disparity score” under which “zero” means no net link between economic status and casualty rates, and “one” means an extreme concentration of war deaths among the poor. They estimated the national disparity score for Vietnam to be about 0.06, which suggests only weak association between income and per capita casualty rates.

The researchers said they also undertook several specialized calculations, one of which examined the contention by Fallows that, with gold stars going to families in rural and working-class areas, “the mothers of Beverly Hills [CA] and Chevy Chase [MD] and Great Neck [NY] and Belmont [MA] were not on the telephones to their Congressmen screaming “you killed my boy.”

“We found,” they said, “that per capita death rates exceeded the national average in three of the four `upscale’ communities, as did the overall rate for the four.”

Another calculation involved the fact that public discontent with the war grew steadily over time. “A concentration of casualties among wealthy citizens towards the start of the war, therefore, might imply that such citizens rapidly withdrew from participating in the conflict once they ceased supporting it,” they said. “Date-of-casualty data indicate, however, that deaths of servicemen from the richest 10 percent of the nation’s communities had essentially the same distribution over time as the deaths of other servicemen.”

Other specialized calculations estimated that, among the dead, those from prosperous communities were about twice as likely as the others to have been officers (24 percent vs. 13 percent) and that men from such communities who went to Vietnam were about 10 percent likelier to die there than were other servicemen.

They explained: “That excess reflects the disproportionate presence of the affluent in such hazardous roles as pilots or infantry captains and lieutenants. Even if few affluent youths were among the `grunts’ in the Vietnam front lines, it could be fallacious to infer from that circumstance that well-off Americans were out of harm’s way.”

Because few conscripts become officers, the relatively high ranks of affluent servicemen also raised the issue of voluntary vs. compulsory Vietnam service, the researchers said, and whether “the real difference between rich and poor was that Vietnam service was optional for the former and and mandatory for the latter.”

“One should be cautious in advancing that viewpoint,” they said, “given strong evidence that many `volunteers’ only enlisted as an alternative to imminent induction. But suppose that middle- and upper-class youths were in fact far better equipped than other Americans to avoid the military draft. To reconcile that premise with the findings in our paper, one would have to infer that the affluent did not proceed en masse to exploit their special advantages. Less vulnerable than other youths to unrelenting pressure to serve in Vietnam, they nonetheless appear to have gone there in sizeable numbers.”

A version of this article appeared in the September 30, 1992 issue of MIT Tech Talk (Volume 37, Number 8).

1953 -1954 Corps of Cadets Highlights – Room 405

Col. Blaik (Football Coach of the Year) leaving the field late afternoon Nov. 28th 1953 after the Army Team beat Navy 20 to 7.





*Please note – Jerry Lodge – who wore #32 is missing from Photo as is Norm Stephen. 2d man 2d row next to Tommy Bell – Name is Zaborowski. Wynn #31 is actually in the 2d row not the 3d



Acheer copy
The 1953 cheerleaders, standing, for the Army team, with tumblers in the first row. Cheerleaders, left to right: Ed Moses, ’54; John Clayton ’55, Al Worden ’55, Billy McVeigh ’54, Jay Edwards ’54, Bill Robinson ’55; Tumblers: Peter Jones ’54, Dan Ludwig ’55, Jack Charles ’54, Charles Glenn ’56.


Cadets swarm the field after the Duke Game. 

The Nomination of the 1953 Football Team for the Army Sports Hall of Fame is at

While Bob Mischak’s Nomination is at – – –




1952ArmyTeam copy



Army 55 Team

ArmyTeam 1956

Civil War Photos









 Antietam Hospital

Antietam Hospital

Civil War Dead

Civil war dead

Civil War Gunner

civil war gunner


Note Cut and paste IndividualPhotos 

Lincoln and ?



N B Forest


Siege of Petersburg – Fort Sedgwick

Seige Of Petersburg - FortSedgwick



US – – – CSA


Erin Mauldin

A West Point valedictorian who received her diploma in May from President Obama. A Rhodes Scholar who studies at Oxford and trains with the university’s rowing team. The first American woman to graduate from French Commando School.

Erin Mauldin

Second Lt. Erin Mauldin’s résumé has more than its share of superlatives, but this month’s magazine rack adds another, from a less-than-expected source:
She’s now a “Cosmo girl” — sort of.
The 22-year-old was the lone American representative in a Cosmopolitan magazine feature entitled “8 Incredible Women Who Will Inspire You to Break the Rules,” a compilation put together with support from some of the magazine’s 60-plus international editions and backed by the Clinton Foundation’s No Ceilings initiative.
Mauldin’s “world-rocking work” is listed alongside an 18-year-old Polish chemist developing a treatment for pancreatic cancer, the first female soccer agent in South Africa and an Olympic weightlifting hopeful from the United Arab Emirates. Chelsea Clinton wrote the introduction. Mauldin’s labeled “the trailblazer” for her post-Oxford plans to enter the infantry.
“We thought, this is someone we need to have in the magazine and tell our 18 million girls about,” said Laura Brounstein, special projects editor for the magazine. “When this project came up, we thought this is exactly where we should be celebrating Erin and her accomplishments, because what’s more American than the valedictorian at West Point?”
Mauldin spoke with Army Times on Tuesday about the magazine honor, her take on being a “trailblazer” and how she believes her time spent abroad — she’ll return for Basic Officer Leadership Course in late 2016, likely with two master’s degrees under her belt — will make her a better soldier.

Erin and Pres
President Obama presents Class of 2014 valedictorian Erin Mauldin with her diploma during U.S. Military Academy graduation ceremonies in May.(Photo: U.S. Military Academy via Twitter)
Questions and answers have been edited for length and clarity.
Q. You’ve had a lot of accomplishments since your time at West Point and while you were there, but in terms of things that you might not have expected to have happen, where does seeing your photo in Cosmo rank in that list?
A. That was definitely a pretty big shock for this year. Being at Oxford has been even bigger — I keep pinching myself every couple of days, going, “Am I really here? Is this really happening?” So I’d say that one is a little bit higher up on the list, followed by graduation. Cosmo definitely ranks somewhere. It’s not something I was expecting whatsoever.
Q. How was that process? Cosmo editors say you’d kind of been on their radar since the May graduation.
A. They reached out to me a couple of days before graduation, which was a pretty hectic time, and we did an initial interview. I was a little bit concerned, just because I only knew Cosmo through what I had seen of it on stands before … but the lady who interviewed me was absolutely awesome. And I think the nature of the article changed based on between that first interview and later on that summer; I could see that it went from something where they thought they would focus on me to me being a part of this group of women, which I was much happier with.
Q. You’re looking to do some things in the Army that traditionally women either haven’t done or not a lot of women have done. When did these goals come into your head? Is it something that’s been with you since you were a kid? Something you grew into at West Point?

Mauldin copy  (Fairly certain this is Erin Mauldin)

A. I was fortunate enough to grow up with a lot of strong woman role models, particularly climbers. I spent a lot of time at the Climbers’ Ranch in the Grand Tetons, and so I never saw being a woman as being a limitation there. Also, I think my parents and my siblings [two sisters and brother Ian, now a West Point cadet] did a very good job of fostering a sense that you can do whatever you work hard for. …
I didn’t consider going into the Army until the end of my junior year in high school, and so that had never been something in the back of my head until then, but I guess being a woman had never been something in the back of my head as a limitation. In choosing what to pursue at West Point and the Army, I have tried to do what I find meaningful and what I can make a useful contribution to.
When I first went to West Point, there were some aspects of the summer training that were a bit frustrating. … One, the lack of woman role models — there just weren’t a whole lot of women represented in both the lower and higher levels of leadership. The second thing came from the fact that we did a lot of basic infantry skills as well as a lot of basic soldier skills and the perception that I always had was, “OK, we’re teaching you this because we have to, but really, you, the women, are not going to be doing this later on.” That was especially frustrating to me, since I really enjoyed that training.
At West Point, I continued to do things that challenged me, which happened to include things that involved infantry-type skills, but also general soldering skills that I think are valuable for everybody to have. I had wanted to try out for French Commando School since I had heard of it my first year at West Point. I thought that it would be challenging, forcing me to use French in a military setting and to work on small-unit leadership and allowing me to do things I really liked, such as climbing and obstacle courses.


Overall, I thought it would help my development as a whole person, and I think it did. Never was being a woman an issue at French Commando School — I worked to be competent at what was expected of us and to contribute to every one of our missions. As a result, I was seen as just another member of the team.

Then-cadet Erin Mauldin trains on the Anzio Obstacle Course at West Point’s Camp Buckner.(Photo: Courtesy of Erin Mauldin)

Q. Have you spoken to anyone about Ranger school? Obviously you have a few other things on your plate …
A. I am in contact with my friends who are training for it, and my fingers are crossed for their success. I definitely want to be a part of it when the time comes. I want to go to Ranger school because of the valuable skills to learn there. I did some of the Ranger preparation at West Point that they were doing for some of the men who were going before BOLC and was excited by the small-unit leadership that is at the core of training. The missions we did at French Commando School hinted at the tight teamwork necessary to execute missions on a squad level or a platoon level, but due to language barriers or a different focus of the course, we never could quite accomplish that.
At Ranger school, I see the opportunity to hone those skills in terms of small-unit leadership, as well as developing the confidence in very sucky situations to be able to know as a team that you can either lead or be a part of a team that accomplishes what needs to be done. Yes, I want to go to Ranger school — for the skill sets and for learning the confidence for those situations.
Q. When you are looked at as a “trailblazer,” as a “glass-ceiling breaker,” is that a label you care for? That you don’t care for?
A. I would resist any characterization of what I do as for the sake of “trailblazing.” I think it’s important that the first groups of women who go through are doing it for the reasons that line up with their personal interests of what they want to contribute to the Army … so that they’re driven by, “I want to do this because this is what I want to do,” rather than, “Oh, it would be really cool to be part of the first group of women to go through and do it.” …
I acknowledge that there is going to be a need for trailblazing, but those doing the trailblazing need to find within themselves legitimate reasons that will carry them through. For me, it’s because I think I can contribute to the infantry based on my skills, and I want to be a part of that mission. Perhaps there is an aspect of trailblazing to that, but I won’t say I’m doing it to be a trailblazer.

Editors Note

The training received at the Academy ensures Women Graduates will succeed in Ranger School.  The concern is Branch of Service.  Does this Officer have what it takes to walk the line in the middle of the cold night as Chesty Puller did at the Chosin Reservoir as he checked the men of his Marine Regiment – – Probably.

It is the worst of what an Infantry man must face and do face that should exclude the vast majority of women from Infantry Units.  It is not worth it to allow a few women into Infantry Units just because it is Politically Correct.

This is what they might face – Korea World War II Vietnam War on Terror

In the middle of the night, two marines stood on the high ground, one loading 8 round clips, the other doing the shooting as an M-1 was handed to him. Up and down the road similar examples of Marine Lore was established. When the last bugle sounded and the last was dead on the wire, the loader looked at the shooter and said “You don’t have your boots on”. It was 40 below, wind blowing. (One near breakthrough collapsed under the BAR and rifle fire of Pvt. Hector A. Cafferata and Pfc. Kenneth R. Benson, a pair of young men from New Jersey who had enlisted together. As Cafferata blazed away, his blinded partner, Benson, loaded weapons. Caught with his wet boots off, Cafferata fought five hours crippled by frostbite. Before the battle ended, he’d lost one arm to a grenade and the use of his other arm to a bullet. Taken from “The Last Stand of Fox Company) These two wore the patch of the 1st Marine, a 1 arched by Guadalcanal where Marines with their uniforms rotting off, surviving on captured Japanese rice, with diseased ridden bodies, gave America our 1st Victory. A machine gunner who was at Guadalcanal, like a few others, developed an inability to wake up in the middle of the night to relieve himself (nocturnal enuresis – stress). The doctors told him there was no cure as long as he was on the front line, it was just another complication of combat and he was sent back into the line. Carrying a Thompson as he fought his way north, finally worn out on Saipan and sent home to recover.

In the Bulge a paratrooper went to relieve himself, when his buddy “Yelled get back in here” (meaning do it in our foxhole) he went ahead, dropped his trou and was immediately shot at by a German sniper. Hitching his pants up without cleaning himself he jumped back into their foxhole. The smell did not bother any other members of his Rifle Company, as they all smelled the same. Some who were never able to get their trousers down in time, did smell worst than the others.

Ranger Class December ’62 – February ’63. Normal rain in North Georgia Mountains, crossed a river, then the winds and freezing temperatures hit – 40 some cases of frost bite.

As the main body, 6,900 of the Japanese 51st Division steamed toward Lea, Lieutenant General Kenny ordered in waves of bombers sinking all 8 transports and 4 of 8 destroyers leaving men in life boats, on make shift rafts and swimmers in the water who began to head toward shore. General Kenny ordered the air crews to strafe the defenseless men. The air crews did not meet the eyes of the dying soldiers and sailors, but the crew of PT Boat 121 made repeated sweeps through the mass of men, killing with rifle fire individuals, machine gunning and dropping depth charges among larger groups of Japanese were forced to look them in the eye. General Kenny was correct, but far from Politically Correct in his order, as Japanese survivors would have picked up weapons on shore. Today such orders and subsequent action would result in Court Martial, yet one wonders, would the young women training with todays version of the Navy’s PT Boat been able to respond as the men of PT 120 responded? Lieutenant (j.g.) Edward T Hamilton U.S.N.R. after completion of the task “As long as we saw a Jap alive, we kept up our relentless hunt. Not until the job was done, did we turn for home, while behind us those black dots still bobbed through the waves – but now they were corpses floated still by unpunctured life belts, carrying them toward the shore they had set out to conquer. We were a sad lot coming home. We hardly dared look one another in the eye or speak. We felt more like executioners than fighters.” It had to be done.

Can even the most ruthless of today’s young female warriors approach such brutality. August 18, 1976 North Korean soldiers (probably preplanned by the N Korean Government) wielding axes, hacked to death Captain Bonifas and 1Lt Mark Barrett during a required tree trimming in the Joint Security Area, Panmunjom. America’s Politically Correct response several days later was a show of force to backup trimming the tree. Kim Jong-il in addressing the Conference of Non-Aligned Nations asked that a resolution condemning the grave US provocation, demanding withdraw of American forces from Korea and dissolution of the UN Command. It passed.

Black Hawk Down, now some 20 years ago may be a more reasonable example for women to consider. When Administrations changed, the mission changed from humanitarian assistance to regime change. There was then an immediate request for a small American mechanized force which was denied by Sec Def. When a chopper went down while supporting ground troops, 2 snipers dropped in to protect the pilot. The two were ultimately killed, their naked dead bodies dragged through the streets to the joy of the cheering mob. The pilot was captured, exchanged, the US left, SecDef resigned and Somalia remains as it was before our humanitarian entry.

Knowing we cut and ran in Somalia did the Politically Correct, Politically Appointed Bureaucrat consider what some future President would face when the body of an American female was dragged through the streets to the cheers of the mob. Did he consider what some future President would face when a captured female soldier was paraded through the streets with several ropes around her neck – perhaps her sniper rifle over her shoulder.

As mentioned women are better snipers than the average male as their ability to control breathing is superior. Should female soldiers train with real life like targets – a known terrorist face as the target. Perhaps a known women terrorist holding a baby. Let them look into the eyes of a known foe.

In the MATA Coarse at Bragg in the mid 60’s Vietnamese instructors told of interrogation techniques used on the enemy. One was to take several prisoners up, tell them what you were going to do and if the first one refused to talk, he was tossed out. Normally the others talked. There was a very repulsive technique used to interrogate women prisoners. It will not be listed, but if you must know, send an email to and an answer will be provided on an individual basis.

VA report of injuries from 80 pound loads carried by today’s male soldiers A signature injury of America’s latest wars has been musculoskeletal, cases of which exceed the number of wounds from firefights and improvised explosive devices. One study found that between 2004 and 2007, about a third of medical evacuations from the Iraq and Afghan theaters were due to musculoskeletal, connective tissue and spinal injuries. There is no data for Women as yet.

Rifle Company Command Vietnam –Two to four weeks in Jungle was very routine – no showers or enough water for good hygiene –when rains came, put security out and strip naked and use rain as shower, then re-dress with wet jungle fatigues and walk them dry –carry 3 days of C-rations (cans could be heavy) – hot meal every 2 to 4 days –double basic load of M-16 ammo (240 rounds – twelve 20 round mags) –two hand grenades per man; claymore – one per man; help machine gunner with ammo cans –sometimes (very seldom) help mortar platoon hump 81mm mortars and ammo for short relocation – mostly this was done by help –two water canteens per man (we got helo resupply most, but not all, days) –steel pot –shovel – every second man –bayonet –many times we moved all day and stopped at night and dug hasty defensive positions –most carried ponchos and liners (we never pitched tents) –some carried air mattresses –carried one or two extra pair of socks – no extra jungle fatigues –we would change fatigues and shower when we returned to base camp – we spent an average of 1 1/2 days per month in our base camp –even during Christmas cease fire we were pulled out at 2 AM Christmas day to rescue an SF camp near the Cambodian border that was in trouble –of course the radios were heavy – and still the radio man had to carry most of the same gear as everyone else –pee on the move –poop at night or in the AM – no privacy for this, just dig a 6″ hole and squat away –during combat helo assaults (we did many) carry everything with you because you never knew if or when you would return to your previous location –on occasion set up defensive positions – a series of two man foxholes with overhead cover and connecting trenches – stay there 7 to 10 days and patrol from there – we did this on road clearing exercises or near Cambodian border to interdict infiltration routes.

Other units, other situations – In 1st Cav – went light with the expectation of resupply and hot meal every day, bath in bomb crater or stream, moved every day.

Women Rangers – it should have been done years ago

The key is the last sentence – Similar to the current process, earning a Ranger tab will not automatically move a soldier into the 75th Ranger Regiment, the Army’s special operations unit.

The U.S. Army’s top officer said he expects between 70 and 80 women to apply to become the first-ever female students at Ranger School.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno cited the figures on Wednesday during an interview at Atlantic Media’s Defense One conference in Washington, D.C.
When asked how many women will apply to the historically all-male combat training course, Odierno said, “We’re still waiting to see. By December-January, we’ll know the number of women who have asked to actually participate in Ranger School. I expect it will be somewhere around 70 or 80.”
Like the other military services, the Army must open all combat jobs to women by 2016 or seek a waiver and explain why any must remain closed. The Pentagon last year lifted its ban on women serving in such roles, but gave the services time to integrate female troops into male-only front-line positions.
The Army recently picked 31 women — 11 officers and 20 noncommissioned officers — to undergo training to become observers and advisers for the course, most of which takes place at Fort Benning, Georgia. The punishing two-month ordeal is designed to train future infantry leaders. More than three dozen women had applied for the positions.

The so-called observer-advisers underwent a week of modified training last week to give them a sense of what the program is like so they can work alongside male instructors and help observe the female students selected for the first-ever co-ed class, known as the Ranger Course Assessment, tentatively scheduled for this spring.
“Their performance and professionalism over the course of the week was extraordinary,” Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, commanding general of the Maneuver Center of Excellence, said of the women, according to a release posted on Fort Benning’s Facebook page. “This group did very well for what was a very physically challenging week for any soldier.”
Women make up about 15 percent of the U.S. military’s 1.3 million active-duty service members, according to Pentagon statistics. As of August, there were almost 71,000 female soldiers in the Army’s active component, which is the largest of any branch and totals some 510,000 soldiers.
While the vast majority of jobs in the Army are open to women of various ranks – enlisted, officer and warrant officer – less than 10 percent of infantry, special operations and security forces positions in the service are open to female enlisted personnel, and less than half of tactical operations positions are open to female officers, according to a 2012 report to Congress.
Service officials hinted that the number of women actually interested in applying for combat assignments will be relatively small.
NATO countries that have opened infantry jobs and similar positions to women report that only about 1 percent of potential female recruits apply for the jobs, Col. Linda Sheimo, who works for the Army’s human resources policy directorate, has said. What’s more, if the U.S. military fully integrates women into all jobs, the services’ various recruiting offices will vie to recruit that small subset of the population, she said.
“Unfortunately, all of us will be competing for those same women,” Sheimo said.
Army Secretary John McHugh and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno, among others, are expected to make a decision sometime after Jan. 1 on whether to approve the plan to allow female soldiers to enroll in Ranger School.
On Wednesday, Odierno said the service plans to finish by spring or summer assessments to determine the feasibility of opening engineering, artillery, armor and infantry jobs to women.
“It’s going very well,” he said. “We still have some final assessments to do. For me, it’s about talent management. We need to take the best, no matter who you are, if you’re qualified. We’re not going to lower the standards. If you can meet the standard, we should give them the capability to service.”
The application deadline for female students interested in applying to Ranger School has passed; units have until Dec. 1 to provide names of the volunteers to the Army’s Infantry School. Women selected for the highly competitive slots will be identified in January, Sheimo said.
The Ranger Course Assessment was open to all women in the grades E-4 through O-4 who had the support of their chain of command and whose end term of service, or ETS, was no earlier than Oct. 1, 2016, according to All-Army Activities, or Alaract, notices about the proposal.
Similar to the current process, earning a Ranger tab will not automatically move a soldier into the 75th Ranger Regiment, the Army’s special operations unit.

— Brendan McGarry can be reached at

James Farley Izard

Class of 1828
James F. Izard – son of Major-General George Izard. First Lieutenant of the 1st Dragoons, on the frontier and in the Black Hawk War; killed in the Second Seminole War at the Battle of the Withlacoochee River.
Birth: Feb. 28
Saint Augustine
St. Johns County
Florida, USA
Death: Mar. 5, 1836

James Farley Izard: Born 1811.

Military History. — Cadet at the Military Academy, July 1, 1824, to July 1, 1828, when he was graduated and promoted in the Army to
Bvt. Second Lieut. of Infantry, July 1, 1828.

Second Lieut., 2d Infantry, July 1, 1828.

Served: in garrison at Jefferson Barracks, Mo., 1828‑30, — and Ft. Niagara, N. Y., 1830‑31; on Topographical duty, Nov. 25, 1831, to June 18, 1832; in the “Black Hawk” War against the Sac Indians, 1832; on Topographical duty, Dec. 10, 1832, to Mar. 4, 1833; on frontier duty at Ft. Gibson, I. T., and on Expedition to Tow‑e‑ash Villages, 1834,
(First Lieut., 1st Dragoons, Mar. 4, 1833)

— and Ft. Gibson, I. T., 1834‑35; and in the Florida War against the Seminole Indians, 1835‑36, being engaged in the Skirmish at Camp Izard, Feb. 28, 1836, where he was Mortally Wounded, while commanding the advance guard, and directing his men “to keep their positions and lie close.”
Died of Wounds, Mar. 5, 1836, at Camp Izard, on the Withlacoochee River, Fla.: Aged 26.

Was the son of Major-General George Izard, who served in the war of 1812‑15, and was Governor of Arkansas Territory, 1825‑28.

Thayer’s Note:

a A tablet in the Old Cadet Chapel at West Point perpetuates his memory.
Saint Augustine National Cemetery
Saint Augustine
St. Johns County
Florida, USA
Plot: Memorial PyramidsLazar-grave

Class of 1828
James F. Izard – son of Major-General George Izard. First Lieutenant of the 1st Dragoons, on the frontier and in the Black Hawk War; killed in the Second Seminole War at the Battle of the Withlacoochee River.
Birth: Feb. 28
Saint Augustine
St. Johns County
Florida, USA
Death: Mar. 5, 1836

James Farley Izard: Born 1811.

Military History. — Cadet at the Military Academy, July 1, 1824, to July 1, 1828, when he was graduated and promoted in the Army to
Bvt. Second Lieut. of Infantry, July 1, 1828.

Second Lieut., 2d Infantry, July 1, 1828.

Served: in garrison at Jefferson Barracks, Mo., 1828‑30, — and Ft. Niagara, N. Y., 1830‑31; on Topographical duty, Nov. 25, 1831, to June 18, 1832; in the “Black Hawk” War against the Sac Indians, 1832; on Topographical duty, Dec. 10, 1832, to Mar. 4, 1833; on frontier duty at Ft. Gibson, I. T., and on Expedition to Tow‑e‑ash Villages, 1834,
(First Lieut., 1st Dragoons, Mar. 4, 1833)

— and Ft. Gibson, I. T., 1834‑35; and in the Florida War against the Seminole Indians, 1835‑36, being engaged in the Skirmish at Camp Izard, Feb. 28, 1836, where he was Mortally Wounded, while commanding the advance guard, and directing his men “to keep their positions and lie close.”
Died of Wounds, Mar. 5, 1836, at Camp Izard, on the Withlacoochee River, Fla.: Aged 26.

Saint Augustine National Cemetery
Saint Augustine
St. Johns County
Florida, USA
Plot: Memorial PyramidsLazar-grave

James F. Izard

Class of 1828
James F. Izard – son of Major-General George Izard. First Lieutenant of the 1st Dragoons, on the frontier and in the Black Hawk War; killed in the Second Seminole War at the Battle of the Withlacoochee River.
Birth: Feb. 28
Saint Augustine
St. Johns County
Florida, USA
Death: Mar. 5, 1836

Saint Augustine National Cemetery
Saint Augustine
St. Johns County
Florida, USA
Plot: Memorial PyramidsLazar-grave





k-ring1962Battalion Staff and Cadet Companies E1, F1, G1 and H1 US Signal Corps Photo

President Kennedy Trooping the Line May 1962

Most college graduates when asked who gave their graduation address and what did they say do not have any recollection. Well, for some unknown reason, I have a copy of the White House press release of President Kennedy’s remarks to us. Each time I read them they become more timeless. Inasmuch as we just passed the 36th anniversary of our graduation, I’m sending JFK’s remarks in their entirety. I have no idea how this came into my possession, but I thought you all might like a copy of it.

Provided by Len Butler to Jim Malley

Graduation Address by President John F. Kennedy
to the Class of 1962
US Military Academy
(As delivered, Wednesday, 6 June 1962)

General Westmoreland, General Lemnitzer, Mr. Secretary, General Decker, General Taylor, members of the graduating class and their parents, gentlemen: I want to express my appreciation for your generous invitation to come to this graduating class. I am sure that all of you who sit here today realize, particularly in view of the song we just heard, that you are part of a long tradition stretching back to the earliest days of this country’s history, and that where you sit sat once, some of the most celebrated names in our nation’s history, and also some who are not so well known, but who, on 100 different battlefields in many wars involving every generation of this nation’s history, have given very clear evidence of their commitment to their country.

So that I know you feel a sense of pride in being part of that tradition, and as a citizen of the United States, as well as President, I want to express our high regard to all of you in appreciation for what you are doing and what you will do for our country in the days ahead.

I would also like to announce at this time that as Commander-in-Chief I am exercising my privilege of directing the Secretary of the Army and the Superintendent of West Point to remit all existing confinements and other cadet punishments, and I hope that it will be possible to carry this out for the day.

General Westmoreland was slightly pained to hear that this was impending in view of the fact that one cadet, who I am confident will someday be the head of the Army, has just been remitted for eight months, and is about to be released. But I am glad to have the opportunity to participate in the advancement of his military career.

My own confinement goes for another two and a half years, and I may ask for it to be extended instead of remitted.

I want to say that I wish all of you, the graduates, success. While I say that, I am not unmindful of the fact that two graduates of this Academy have reached the White House, and neither was a member of my party. Until I am more certain that this trend will be broken, I wish that all of you will be generals and not Commanders-in-Chief.

I want to say that I am sure you recognize that your schooling is only interrupted by today’s occasion and not ended, because the demands that will be made upon you in the service of your country in the coming months and years will be really more pressing, and in many ways more burdensome, as well as more challenging, than ever before in our history. I know that many of you may feel, and many of our citizens may feel that in these days of the nuclear age, when war may last in its final form a day or two or three days before much of the world is burned up, that your service to your country will be only standing and waiting. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. I am sure that many Americans believe that the days before World War II were the golden age when the stars were falling on all the graduates of West Point, that that was the golden time of service, and that you have moved into a period where military service, while vital, is not as challenging as it was then. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that the period just ahead in the next decade will offer more opportunities for service to the graduates of this Academy than ever before in the history of the United States, because all around the world, in countries which are heavily engaged in the maintenance of their freedom, graduates of this Academy are heavily involved; whether it is in Vietnam or in Laos or in Thailand, whether it is a military advisory group in Iran, whether it is a military attache’ in some Latin American country during a difficult and challenging period, whether it is the commander of our troops in South Korea — the burdens that will be placed upon you when you fill those positions as you must inevitably, will require more from you than ever before in our history. The graduates of West Point, the Naval Academy, and the Air Academy in the next ten years will have the greatest opportunity for the defense of freedom than this Academy’s graduates have ever had, and I am sure that the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorse that view, knowing as they do and I do, the heavy burdens that are required of this Academy’s graduates every day. General Tucker in Laos, or General Harkins in Viet Nam, and a dozen others, who hold key and significant positions, involving the security of the United States and the defense of freedom — you are going to follow in their footsteps and I must say that I think that you will be privileged in the years ahead to find yourselves so heavily involved in the great interests of this country.

Therefore, I hope that you realize – and I hope every American realizes – how much we depend upon you. Your strictly military responsibilities, therefore, will require a versatility and an adaptability never before required in either war or peace. They may involve the command and control of modern nuclear weapons and modern delivery systems, so complex that only a few scientists can understand their operation, so devastating that their inadvertent use would be of world wide concern, but so new that their employment and their effects have never been tested in combat conditions.

On the other hand, your responsibilities may involve the command of more traditional forces, but in less traditional roles. Men risking their lives, not as combatants, but as instructors or advisors, or as symbols of our nation’s commitments. The fact that the United States is not directly at war in these areas in no way diminishes the skill and the courage that will be required, the service to our country which is rendered or the pain of the casualties which are suffered.

To cite one final example of the range of responsibilities that will fall upon you, you may hold a position of command with our special forces, forces which are too unconventional to be called conventional, forces which are growing in number and importance and significance, for we now know that it is wholly misleading to call this the “nuclear age”, or to say that our security rests only on the doctrine of massive retaliation.

Korea has not been the only battle ground since the end of the Second World War. Men have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba, and Cyprus and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin – war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called “wars of liberation”, to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training.

But I have spoken thus far only of the military challenges which your education must prepare you for. The non-military problems which you will face will also be most demanding, diplomatic, political and economic. In the years ahead, some of you will serve as advisors to foreign aid missions or even to foreign governments. Some will negotiate terms of a cease-fire with broad political as well as military ramifications. Some of you will go to the far corners of the earth, and to the far reaches of space. Some of you will sit in the highest councils of the Pentagon. Others will hold delicate command posts which are international in character. Still others will advise on plans to abolish arms instead of using them to abolish others. Whatever your position, the scope of your decisions will not be confined to the traditional tenets of military competence and training. You will need to know and understand not only the foreign policy of the United States, but the foreign policy of all countries scattered around the world who 20 years ago were the most distant names to us. You will need to give orders in different tongues, and read maps by different systems. You will be involved in economic judgments which most economists would hesitate to make. At what point, for example, does military aid become burdensome to a country and make its freedom endangered rather than helping to secure it. To what extent can the gold and dollar cost of our overseas deployments be offset by foreign procurement? Or at what stage can a new weapons system be considered sufficiently advanced to justify large dollar appropriations?

In many countries, your posture and performance will provide the local population with the only evidence of what our country is really like. In other countries, your military mission, its advice and action, will play a key role in determining those people will remain free. You will need to understand the importance of military power and also the limits of military power, to decide what arms should be used to fight and when they should be used to prevent a fight, to determine what represents our vital interests and what interests are only marginal.

Above all, you will have a responsibility to deter war as well as to fight it. For the basic problems facing the world today are not susceptible of a final military solution. While we will long require the services and admire the dedication and commitment of the fighting men of this country, neither our strategy nor our psychology as a nation, and certainly not our economy, must become permanently dependent upon an ever-increasing military establishment.

Our forces, therefore, must fulfill a broader role as a complement to our diplomacy, as an arm of our diplomacy, as a deterrent to our adversaries, and as a symbol to our allies of our determination to support them.

That is why this Academy has seen its curriculum grow and expand in dimension, in substance and in difficulty. That is why you cannot possibly have crowded into these four busy years all of the knowledge and all of the range of experience which you must bring to these subtle and delicate tasks which I have described, and that is why you will go to school year after year so you can serve this country to the best of your ability and your talent.

To talk of such talent and effort raises in the minds, I am sure, of everyone, and the minds of all of our countrymen, why – why should men such as you, able to master the complex arts of science, mathematics, language, economy, and all the rest devote their lives to a military career, with all of its risks and hardships? Why should their families be expected to make the personal and financial sacrifices that a military career inevitably brings with it? When there is a visible enemy to fight in open combat, the answer is not so difficult. Many serve, all applaud, and the tide of patriotism runs high. But when there is a long, slow struggle, with no immediate visible foe, your choice will seem hard indeed. And you will recall, I am sure, the lines found in an old century box in Gibraltar, “God and the soldier all men adore, in time of trouble and no more; for when war is over and all things righted, God is neglected and the old soldier slighted.”

But you have one satisfaction, however difficult those days may be: when you are asked by a President of the United States or by any other American what you are doing for your country, no man’s answer will be clearer than your own. And that moral motivation which brought you here in the first place is part of your training here as well. West Point was not built to produce technical experts alone. It was built to produce men committed to the defense of their country, leaders of men who understand the great stakes which are involved, leaders who can be entrusted with the heavy responsibility which modern weapons and the fight for freedom entail, leaders who can inspire in their men the same sense of obligation to duty which you bring to it.

There is no single slogan that you can repeat to yourself in hard days or give to those who may be associated with you. In times past, a simple phrase, “55-40 or fight”, or “to make the world safe for democracy” – all that was enough. But the times, the weapons and the issues are now more complicated than ever.

Eighteen years ago today, Ernie Pyle, describing those tens of thousands of young men who crossed the “ageless and indifferent” sea of the English Channel, searched in vain for a word to describe what they were fighting for. And finally he concluded that they were at least fighting for each other.

You and I leave here today to meet our separate responsibilities, to protect our nation’s vital interests by peaceful means if possible, by resolute action if necessary, and we go forth confident of support and success because we know that we are working and fighting for each other and for all those men and women all over the globe who are determined to be free.

I asked earlier this month if anyone knew who was the beneficiary of the amnesty granted by President Kennedy at our graduation in 1962. In his remarks the President mentioned that someone in the class had recently been punished and was being relieved of a great load due to the amnesty that the President was granting.

I received replies from two individuals. Charlie (“C.O.”) Bennett of Company M-2 thought he might have been the person but in a second message to me remembered that he was finished with his punishment prior to graduation.

Sam (“Sammy”) Steele told me that his roommate, Charlie (“Bud”) Merriam of Company C-2 was probably the person, as he had been caught off post about a week before graduation and was serving punishment when we were graduated.

That’s all I know so, by default it looks like Charlie Merriam was the classmate who could thank President Kennedy for allowing him to graduate in a timely manner.

In our Register of Graduates it shows that Charlie Merriam retired in 1988 as a Lieutenant Colonel.

Larry D. Smith, Company K-1

West Point Graduates Killed in Action

Much of the material for the site is taken from the on line Cullum Register created and maintained by Bill Thayer.

Is there an appropriate way to Honor the Fallen? The New Zealand Military has a unique way. It may be offensive to some yet the link is added. Sometimes it is hard to express what the loss of a Friend, a Classmate, a Soldier you are Responsible For, really means –

Haka Farewell


Maori Troops in North Africa 1941
New Zealand’s Maori soldiers performing a haka during World War II in North Africa.

Web site which contains material used on this page

However Bill’s listings only cover the years 1802 to 1861. The Cullum Register maintained by the Special Collections & Archives Section at the West Point Library lists Graduates from 1802 to 1950.

U. S. Military Academy Library

The reason this effort is being made is due to a recent visit to the Naval Academy to attend the Army – Navy Wrestling Match in Alumni Hall. As I sat down I observed a brass plaque on the arm rest. It named a Naval Academy Graduate with the following – Cruiser USS Houston 1942. It was sobering as I knew exactly what it meant – that graduate had gone down with The Galloping Ghost of the Java Coast – sunk by the Japanese in 1942.

Please Note – this Web Site does not advertise, however many of the links which are listed do advertise. The historical material they provided is essential, requiring us to list the sites.

West Point Graduates who died in captivity are included in this listing. As an example of why Captives are listed – After his capture, “Bill Kellum” organized resistance to Chinese indoctrination at Camp Five. His punishment was confinement to the camp hospital, where he was systematically killed. Big Bill Kellum died in June 1951.

The Oryoku Maru, Shinyo Maru, and perhaps the 8 Americans on the Juny Maru involved killing of prisoners by Japanese guards and Japanese machine gun crews on shore as the Prisoners swam away from the ship.

Cadets are surrounded by and live in the shadow of some of West Points greatest Graduates. The Class of 1939 provided 2 volumes listing recipients of the Medal of Honor while Plaques of each are on the walls throughout the Academy. In the War of 1812 of the total 120 Graduates 9 were Killed in Action, with another dying as a prisoner; several went down in the Eastern Indian Wars; 105 in the Civil War; some 500 died in World War II, 157 in Korean, 273 Vietnam and, over 81 have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the global war on terror.

The Civil War/World War II Connection
By Stuart Zelman
Here are famous World War II personalities who are connected in one way or another to famous (and not famous) Civil war personalities. Some of the names you should recognize; others will surprise you. By no means is this list complete.
Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, great (?) grandfather of…
Brig. General Nathan Bedford Forrest III, USAAF – Shot down over the Baltic Sea while leading a bombing raid on the submarine yards at Kiel in June of 1943. His body was found when it washed up at a German Seaplane base in September of that year. He was buried by a detail of the German Navy, but was disinterred in 1947 to be reburied in Arlington National Cemetery.
Major General Arthur MacArthur – 24th Wisconsin Infantry, Medal of Honor recipient for planting the flag on Missionary Ridge, fought in the Indian wars and the Spanish-American War. He was the father of…

General Douglas MacArthur

General Adna R. Chaffee, Sr. – 1st Lt. in the 6th US Cavalry at the end of the Civil War. He was brevetted Captain at the end of the Civil War because of his conduct at Dinwiddie Court House. He fought in the Indian Wars and the Spanish-American Wars, finally serving as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. He is the father of…

Major General Adna R. Chaffee, Jr. – He and Patton are considered to be the father of the WWII-era Armored Corps.

Confederate Lt. Col. Waller Tazewell Patton – led the 7th Virginia during Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg where he was mortally wounded, great uncle of…

Major General George S. Patton, Jr.

Col. George S. Patton, killed at 3rd Winchester, grandfather of…

Major General George S. Patton, Jr.

Confederate Col. Charles Marshall, Gen. Lee’s aide-de-camp/adjutant, present with Lee at the McLean House at Appomattox, uncle of…

WWII U.S. Chief of Staff, and creator of Marshall Plan, Major General George C. Marshall.

Confederate Major General Fitzhugh Lee, Cavalry leader, nephew of Robert E. Lee, grandfather of…

Captain Fitzhugh Lee III, USN – Pilot on the pre-war carrier USS Enterprise, commanded Escort Carrier CVE 61 (USS Manila Bay) at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, present at surrender ceremonies on the USS Missouri, aide to Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan during the Truman Administration, retired in 1962 with the rank of Vice Admiral.

Lt. General U.S. Grant, grandfather of…

General U.S. Grant III, WWII-era Civil Defense Planner.

Confederate Major General Simon Bolivar Buckner, surrendered Fort Donelson to Grant, father of…

Lt. General Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr. – WWII-era USMC General, killed by a sniper at Okinawa.

Confederate Major Manning H. Kimmel, Lt. in the 2nd US Cavalry in the pre-Civil War army and had been involved in an excursion into Mexico by Texas Rangers and U.S. Regulars after a raid led by Mexican Bandito Juan Nepomuceno “Cheno” Cortina on Brownsville, Texas (Lee, Stoneman, and Heinzelman were also present), AAG to Brig. Gen. Frank Anderson CSA, father of…

Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, of Pearl Harbor fame.

Also the Grandfather of Lt. Commander Manning M. Kimmel, commanding officer of the submarine USS Robalo (SS-273). Survived the sinking of his submarine after hitting a mine off of Borneo but was one of those prisoners burnt alive in “Massacre of Palawan” in December of 1944.

Also the Grandfather of Captain Thomas K. Kimmel (brother of Manning M.), commanding officer of the submarine USS Bergall. Pulled from combat duty by Admiral Christie after Lt. Commander Kimmel was reported MIA. He commanded the Fleet Submarine Training School at Portsmouth, NH until the conclusion of hostilities whereupon he returned to the command of the USS Bergall. After holding various other commands he finally retired (circa 1960s) from a career in the Navy and began to focus his efforts to clear his father’s name. He was finally successful but had passed away by the time Admiral Kimmel (and General Short) were finally exonerated in August of 1995.

Confederate Private William A. McCain, 5th Mississippi Cavalry, grandfather of…

Admiral John S. “Slew” McCain, Sr. – commander of Task Force 58 in Halsey’s Third Fleet, and present at surrender ceremonies on the USS Missouri. He died only four days afterward. (He was also the grandfather of Republican Presidential candidate Senator John S. McCain III.)

Major General George E. Pickett – one of three Generals that led the charge on the Union center on the third at Gettysburg, an event that has come down through history as “Pickett’s Charge.” Forever afterward blamed Lee for the decimation of his Division. Great grandfather of…

Colonel George E. Pickett IV – graduated from West Point in 1942, serving in World War II and the Korean War.

The Wilson home located in Rice, Virgina, was used as a hospital for both Union and Confederate troops during and after the Battle of Saylor’s Creek.

In 1940 Sam Wilson, stirred by one of Churchill’s most rousing speeches after the debacle of Dunkirk, jogged 7 miles in the pouring rain to the National Guard Amory in Farmville where he enlisted. In 1942 he was sent to OCS after which he taught guerrilla tactics at Fort Benning. By 1943 he found himself in Burma as a 19 year old 1st Lieutenant and Chief Reconnaissance Officer in the 5037th Composite Unit (Provisional) otherwise known as… Merrill’s Marauders. He served the military for 37 years (three of them as a civilian) and retired from the army as a Lieutenant General in 1977. He is also an inductee in the Army Ranger Hall Of Fame and the Military Intelligence Hall Of Fame. As of this writing he enjoys his retirement at his family homestead still in Rice, Virginia.

Helen Dortch Longstreet, General Longstreet’s second wife (1863-1962) contributed to the war effort. In 1943 at the age of 80 she worked at Bell Aircraft as a riveter! (Photo here.)

Captain Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright II commanded the USS Harriet Lane, taking part in the Battle of New Orleans. He also took part in the operations against Vicksburg. He was killed on January 1, 1863 attacking coastal batteries and forts at Galveston, Texas. He is the great-grandfather of…
General Jonathan Mayhew “Skinny” Wainwright IV – Commander of Allied forces in the Philippines during WWII, who had to surrender Allied forces on Bataan to the Japanese. He was held as a P.O.W. until liberated by forces with the Red Army in August 1945. Medal of Honor recipient. Died September 2, 1953.

Rufus King held a Brigadier General’s commission in the Union Army where he commanded Wisconsin militia and organized what would become the famed “Iron Brigade.” Unfortunately his bouts of epilepsy forced him to resign his commission. Abner Doubleday would replace him.
Rufus King, Jr. started out as a Private in Colonel Marshall Leffert’s 7th NY Militia. He managed to get commissioned as a lieutenant in the 4th US Artillery, eventually commanding Battery A. He is noted for his bravery during the Seven Days Battles when he took command of Batteries A and C at the battle of White Oak Swamp on June 30, 1862. Because of his actions, he would win the highest award, the Medal of Honor. He would eventually retire with the rank of Major.

Brigadier General Archibald Gracie III, though NY born and bred, threw his lot in with the Confederacy when the war broke out. He received a commission as a major in the 11th Alabama Infantry. He eventually commanded a Brigade; his most notable battles being fought under Longstreet at Bean’s Station and at Chickamauga. He was killed by an artillery shell on Dec. 2, 1864 while observing the enemy during the Seige of Petersburg.

These two men were related and were ancestors of…

Admiral William F. “Bull” Halsey, Jr., Vice Admiral. He was on his flagship the USS Enterprise (CV-6) when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He planned and led raids on Japanese installations in the early part of the war. Just before the Midway campaign he was side-lined with a chronic skin condition forcing him to take medical leave and giving up his command to Admiral Spruance. He returned in time to take command during the Guadalcanal campaign and the subsequent battles in the Solomon Islands chain. He then received command of the Third Fleet, leading it in the Battles of the Palaus, Leyte Gulf and Luzon. He retired from active service in 1947. As a civilian he served on the board of ITT. He passed away at the age of 76 on August 16, 1959.

General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson, great grandfather of…

Col. Thomas J. Jackson Christian, Jr. – Graduate of West Point, Class of 1939, where he was assigned to the artillery as a 2nd Lt. He shortly transferred to the Army Air Corps. Upon graduation in 1941 he was assigned to the Philippines. When war broke out he flew various missions in the South Pacific area (Bataan, Mindanao, Australia) until shot down. Given up for dead, he survived living with the natives until rescued. He returned to duty flying 60 combat missions over Guadalcanal. He was granted leave and returned to the States where he married and was assigned the command of the 361st Fighter Group. While in the European Theater he flew 70 combat missions earning the DSC, Air Medal, and Purple Heart. He was shot down August 12, 1944 in a P-51 Mustang over Arras, France. His body was never recovered.

General Robert Edward Lee, CSA, cousin of…
Vice Admiral William Augustus “Ching” Lee, Jr., USN

Graduated from the US Naval Academy, Class of 1904. Earned the nickname “Ching” because of his love of the Orient. Participated on the Academy’s rifle team. In World War I he served on destroyers. He also participated in 14 events in the 1920 Olympics winning 7 medals; 5 of them the Gold Medal. In WWII he commanded Battleship Division 6 at Guadalcanal (USS Washington and South Dakota) battering IJN Battleship Kirishima in a decisive night-time engagement in November of 1942. This was the first naval battle fought mostly by radar. The Kirishima was so badly damaged that she had to be scuttled by her own forces. In 1944 he was promoted to Vice Admiral, Commander Battleships Pacific Fleet. He died of a sudden heart attack on August 25, 1945.

Major John William Puller, 5th Virginia Cavalry, grandfather of…
Lt. General Lewis. B. “Chesty” Puller

Puller was influenced from the tales of Confederate Veterans and the exploits of Stonewall Jackson growing up in his home state of Virginia.

He attended VMI and enlisted in the Marines after graduation. Superiors recognized his abilities; he was sent to the NCO and OC Schools. He graduated with the rank of 2nd Lt., but in the streamlining of the Armed Forces after the war he was demoted to the rank of Corporal. In this capacity he served in Haiti fighting the Rebels. He returned to the States and regained his officer’s commission. A stint fighting in Nicaragua followed. He then commanded a detachment of the China Marines and then served as the head of the Marine Basic Training School based in Philadelphia. During World War II, Puller led Marines at Guadalcanal, Cape Gloucester, and Peleiu racking up an impressive array of decorations: 5 Navy Crosses, the Silver Star, The Legion of Merit and the Distinguished Service Cross, to name a few. Puller served in the Korean War and was forcibly retired with the rank of Lt. General in 1955 after suffering a stroke. He passed away on October 11, 1971.

Richard L. Ewell, a Lieutenant in the 24th Kentucky Infantry (Union) and kin to Confederate General Richard S. Ewell; grandfather of…
Lt. Col. Julian Ewell, commanding the 3rd Battalion of the 501st of the 101st Airborne Division, then the entire regiment. He landed with his men in the early morning hours of D-Day June 6 behind the Utah beach sector. He fought with his men in Operation Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge, most notably at Bastogne. Col. Ewell served in Korea as Colonel in the 9th infantry Regiment. In Vietnam, Major General Ewell commanded the 9th Infantry Division during Operation Speedy Express. He later was promoted to Lt. General and commanded the II Field Force. After the war he served as Chief of Staff of the NATO Southern Command until his retirement in 1973. He passed away in 2009 at the age of 93.

Pvt. Samuel E. Johnson of Company B, 26th Texas Cavalry. Patrolled along the Rio Grande and participated in the Red River Campaign. Great-grandfather of…
Lyndon Banes Johnson, President of the United States, 1963-1969. In World War II, he was a Commander in the USNR. He was part of a three-man team that and monitored and reported on conditions in the South Pacific; reporting back to the Department of the Navy, Congress and President Roosevelt. He also was Chairman of a Naval Affairs committee that made recommendations to upgrade the efficiency of Naval commands, personnel and ships.

Private George Nixon, 73rd Ohio, mortally wounded at Gettysburg and dying July 10, 1863. Grandfather of…
Richard Nixon, President of the United States, 1969-1974. In World War II he was commissioned a Ensign in the USNR. After attending school in Quonset Point, RI, he got posted as an aide to the Executive Officer at the Naval Reserve Aviation base in Ottumwa, Iowa. He requested and got posted to Guadalcanal and Green Islands as the Officer In Charge of the South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command. In the summer of 1944 he returned to California where he assigned to Fleet Air Wing 8 until December of that year. Until the close of the war he served in various capacities in the Bureau of Aeronautics. He retired from active duty in 1946 with the rank of Lt. Commander.

Lt. General Nelson A. Miles, father of…
Major General Sherman Miles. Sherman Miles was born in 1882 and was named after his Uncle, Major General William T. Sherman. He was a graduated of the USMA at West Point, class of 1905, and was commissioned as a 2nd lt. in the 11th Cavalry.

In WWI he served as a military attaché in the Balkans and an observer in Russia until 1916. He was promoted to the rank of Major and attached to the General Staff. He then was sent Western Front continuing the role of observer during the Argonne Offensive. By the Armistice he had attained the rank of Brevet Lt. Colonel.

After WWI, he was a member of the Coolidge Mission. At the conclusion of that task he attended various schools and posts eventually landing the job as Commander of the United States Army Field Artillery School at Fort Sill until September 1, 1939. He then was promoted to Brigadier General, being posted to London as military attaché. A year later he returned to the U.S. where he was given the job as the head of the Military Intelligence Division on General Marshall’s Staff. The debacle of Pearl Harbor and intelligence failures resulted in his being reassigned from Marshall’s staff to the First Service Command; but still attaining the rank of Major General. Miles served in this capacity until his retirement in 1946 after forty-one years of military service.

Major General Sherman Miles died in 1966.


The information provided for each Graduate should start with the circumstances surrounding his or her action including awards, Cadet days and last in order personnel information including family.

West Point Graduates Killed in Action – War of 1812

West Point Graduates Killed in Action – Southern Indian Wars

West Point Graduates Killed in Action – Mexican War

West Point Graduates Killed in Action – Civil War

West Point Graduates Killed in Action – Plains Indian Wars

West Point Graduates Killed in Action – Spanish American War‎

West Point Graduates Killed in Action – World War I

West Point Graduates Killed in Action – World War II

West Point Graduates Killed in Action – Korea

West Point Graduates Killed in Action – Vietnam

“West Point Graduates Killed in Action – War on Terror”

West Point Graduates KIA 1812 – 1900

Web Site – Association of Graduates list of Graduates Killed in Action – page 54

There are 5 more listed at the end of the record

Some of what they wrote years ago contain more of love for another, than what we allow ourselves to write in our sophisticated world.

Details of the War – participants, dates, battles and important names.

Clicking on a subject provides advertisement so you must copy each and then do a search

American Battle Monuments Commission –

1920 – 1929 Army Navy Football

Navy 7, Army 0 Nov. 27, 1920 – New York, N.Y.

Navy’s first offensive touchdown in 10 Army-Navy games proved to be a big one, handing the Cadets a 7-0 defeat. This also evened the all-time series mark at 11-11-2. Army was unable to convert on any of its three first-half field goal attempts, forcing the teams into halftime deadlocked in a scoreless tie. This remained until Vic Noyes tossed a seven-yard touchdown to Ben Koehler for the score. The Midshipmen nullified any hopes of an Army comeback with an interception at midfield to end the game.

Navy 7, Army 0 Nov. 26, 1921 – New York, N.Y.

Allowing just 124 yards of total offense, Navy posted its sixth shutout in its last-seven wins with a 7-0 victory over Army. Vince Conroy gave Navy all the points it needed with a short touchdown run midway though the first quarter. The Midshipmen defense sealed the deal with a superb effort, halting the Cadets on two key occasions. Army had driven to the Navy 33-yard line in the fourth quarter, as Denis Mulligan’s field goal attempt fell short. The Midshipmen’s Ira McKee spoiled Army’s next hope with an interception at the Navy eight-yard line. This win was Navy’s third-straight victory over its archrival. In addition to outscoring Army 20-0 in the last three quarters, Navy had a 40-13 advantage in first downs and had outgained the Cadets, 683-230.

Army 17, Navy 14 Nov. 25, 1922 – Philadelphia, Pa.

Army’s George Smythe proved to be a thorn in Navy’s side, as his 47-yard punt return set up his seven-yard touchdown pass to Fran Dodd and gave the Cadets a 17-14 win before 55,000 fans at Philadelphia’s Franklin Field. Trailing 10-7, momentum swung to Navy’s side as Vince Conroy’s one-yard touchdown run gave the Midshipmen a 14-10 lead at the start of the fourth quarter. However, the excitement shifted back to the Army sideline, as Smythe’s punt return and touchdown pass gave the Cadets a lead they would not relinquish. The Army defense clinched the victory by stopping Navy at the Cadet 22-yard line late in the game. Despite the final outcome, the Midshipmen won the statistical battle, outgaining Army, 283-154.

West Point’s Eleven Reaches Philadelphia. – Schenectady Gazette – Nov 21, 1922

Coolidge, Weeks and Denby to Be on Hand for Army-Navy Clash…- Boston Daily Globe – Nov 22, 1922
CHEERING THRONGS GREET ARMY TEAM; West Point Delegation Gets a Great Welcome Upon Arrival in Philadelphia. – New York Times – – Nov 24, 1922
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 23.–From the time the West Point football squad, thirty-six strong, arrived at the Reading Terminal at 1:25 o’clock this afternoon until it arrived at Green Hill Farms. Overbrook, the players were greeted lavishly.

ARMY PLAYERS OUT ON FRANKLIN FIELD – Boston Daily Globe – Nov 24, 1922
PHILADELPHIA, Nov 23–Behind holted and guarded gates, the Army football team went through a snappy practice on Franklin Field this afternoon in preparation for the annual struggle with the Navy Saturday.
Walter Camp Looks for Much Passing When Army and Navy Elevens Clash – Middies Will Rely on Long Heaves, While Army Will Shoot Over Many Shorter Ones -Atlanta Constitution – Nov 24, 1922
The Army and Navy game at Philadelphia will hold the center of interest in the football world Saturday. This will be due to the fact that the Army has not been defeated and that this is the Year…
ARMY-NAVY TEAMS READY FOR CLASH; Arrive in Philadelphia and Put on Finishing Touches for Today’s Football Struggle.55,000 EXPECTED AT GAME Hotels in Quaker City, Are Full,Streets, Are Crowded and Service Uniforms Everywhere. – New York Times – Nov 25, 1922
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 24.–This city was invaded without a struggle today, the civil population giving way gracefully to the advance guard of the Army and the Navy. …The usual phrase that Philadelphia Is football mad on the eve of tomorrow’s, the twenty-fifth , Army and Navy game would not be true…

WEST POINT MOVING TO FRANKLIN FIELD; Military Post Will Be Deserted Today While Everybody Goes to Football Game…- New York Times – Nov 25, 1922

Service Squads Ready – Lewiston Daily Sun – Nov 25, 1922

Army-Navy Game Will Sure Be Full Of Fireworks – Rochester Evening Journal – Nov 25, 1922

ARMY TRIUMPHS BY MIGHTY EFFORT, 17-14 – First Score Against Navy Since 1916–Colorful Scenes For 55,000–Smythe Stars- Boston Daily Globe – Nov 26, 1922
PHILADELPHIA, Nov 25–Playing true to form, the Army football eleven defeated the Navy on Franklin Field today, 17 to 14, in one of the hardest and cleanest gridiron struggles seen on the Pennsylvania field in a long time..
Army Team Stages Rally In Final Period…-Atlanta Constitution – Nov 26, 1922
Playing true to the season’s form the Army football elevens defeated their old rivals, the Navy, on Franklin field today by the score of 17 to 14, in a hard, clean gridiron struggle.
DALY OVERJOYED AT ARMY’S SHOWING; West Point Coach Proud of His Team–Refuses Credit for Victory Over Navy – New York Times – Nov 26, 1922
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 25–There was a riotous scene within the dressing quarters of the Army players shortly after their victory over the Navy eleven at Franklin Field this afternoon.


Army 0, Navy 0 Nov. 24, 1923 – New York, N.Y.

The 1923 Army-Navy game may have resulted in a scoreless tie, but that doesn’t mean the afternoon was lacking in excitement. After all, when the two teams combine to punt 26 times, something is bound to happen – maybe even more than once. On the first play of the fourth quarter, Army’s Henry Baxter blocked Navy punter Carl Cullen’s kick. The alert Cullen scrambled to recover the punt inside his own 10-yard line, which under the rules allowed Navy to retain possession. Although this was long before instant replay existed, the 65,000 fans were treated to the same incident on Navy’s next punt. Again, the Mids were inside their own 10-yard line as August Farwick got a hand on Cullen’s kick, which the Navy punter also recovered. Navy closed its season with a 14-14 tie against Washington in the Rose Bowl to finish 5-1-3 on the year.

Football Players Behaving Amicably on Field

Army 12, Navy 0 Nov. 29, 1924 – Baltimore, Md.

Given the choice of where to play the 1924 Army-Navy game, Annapolis officials chose Baltimore’s 80,000-seat stadium. But this supposed home field advantage did not pay the dividends the Mids had hoped, as Edgar Garbisch booted four field goals to give Army a 12-0 win. He may have accounted for all 12 points, but Garbisch had the opportunity to score 21 against the Mids. Army’s opening drive ended with Garbisch attempting a 30-yard dropkick field goal, however, it was blocked. Garbisch recovered the block, but his 40-yard attempt four downs later fell short. He also had a 45-yard attempt midway through the second quarter that sailed wide. Navy may not have reached the end zone, but it wasn’t due to a lack of effort. The Mids set a then series record by completing 12-of-22 passes for 50 yards. The Army victory gave the Cadets a 13-12-2 series advantage, a lead it would not relinquish for 56 years.



Army 10, Navy 3 Nov. 28, 1925 – New York, N.Y.

Six turnovers proved to be Navy’s demise, as Army held on for a 10-3 triumph before 60,000 fans at the Polo Grounds. After driving to the Army three-yard line early in the second quarter, Navy had to settle for a 12-yard field goal by Tom Hamilton. The Cadets, on the other hand, were able to capitalize upon a fourth down situation just before halftime. On fourth-and-four from the nine, Neil Harding hit Henry Baxter for the touchdown and the 7-3 win. Russell Reeder tacked on a field goal in the fourth quarter for the victory.




Army 21, Navy 21 – Nov. 27, 1926 – Chicago, Ill.

In his first season as head coach at his alma mater, West Point graduate Biff Jones used an intriguing strategy for the Army-Navy game. By starting his second-team units against the Midshipmen, he hoped to give Navy a false sense of confidence. The Mids took full advantage of the “mismatch,” as touchdown runs by Henry Caldwell and James Schuber handed Army an early deficit. The Cadets responded with three touchdowns, the last a 44-yard run by Chris Cagle, to take the lead by the end of the third quarter. Nonetheless, an eight-yard touchdown run by Alan Shapley in the fourth quarter salvaged a 21-21 tie for Navy. Army may have spoiled the Midshipmen’s bid for a 10-0 record, but coach Bill Ingram’s club still laid claim to the national title.
By Ray Schmidt
“…No single game in college football history has ever so completely combined the color, spectacle, national media coverage, public popularity, and top-flight level of play as the Army-Navy battle of 1926 at Soldier Field.
Robert Kelley of the New York Times defined the game’s significance when he wrote that day:
“Football had the greatest pageant, its high spot of color, and so did sport in the United States.”


Army 14, Navy 9 Nov. 26, 1927 – New York, N.Y.

In the last Army-Navy game played at the Polo Grounds, the Cadets overcame a pesky Midshipmen club to claim a 14-9 victory. Navy held a 2-0 lead at halftime, but it could have just as easily been 16-0. On its first possession, Navy reached the Army eight-yard line, but came away without a point. Midway through the second quarter, the Mids’ Carl Giese blocked a punt out of the end zone to give Navy a 2-0 lead. Navy had another chance to reach the end zone just before halftime, but Army stopped Joe Clifton on a fourth-and-goal from the one-yard line. A two-yard run by Lighthorse Harry Wilson gave the Cadets a 7-2 advantage early in the third quarter. Army added another touchdown to its lead when Chris Cagle intercepted an Ed Hannegan pass and returned it 41 yards to the Navy four-yard line. Wilson scored again, and Army was on its way to the win.
Navy scored its touchdown when Russell Lloyd hit Ted Sloane on a 28-yard touchdown, but it wasn’t enough.1927a-n

Time Magazine When the U. S. Academies at West Point and Annapolis agreed last summer, after a three-year breach (Editors note – 2 years 1928 & 1929) of athletic relations, to resume playing football with each other, they failed to settle the differences on which the breach was based. Navy like other colleges observes the three-year eligibility rule; at West Point cadets who have played three years of varsity football elsewhere are still eligible for the team. This gives West Point an obvious advantage in Army-Navy games. Navy has not won since 1921.

1940 – 1949 Army Navy Football

Navy 14, Army 0 Nov. 30, 1940 – Philadelphia, Pa.

Navy celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Army-Navy game with a solid, all-around effort, resulting in a 14-0 triumph. Navy scored on its first drive, as Bill Busik went the final-two yards for the touchdown to make it 7-0. The Midshipmen covered 54 yards in 12 plays, with Busik accounting for 50 of those 54 yards. Although the Army offense could muster just 107 yards of total offense on the afternoon, the Cadet defense held Navy without a point on its next-two drives, which were halted deep in Army territory. However, the Midshipmen tallied their final score in the third quarter when Howie Clark tossed a nine-yard touchdown pass to Everett Malcolm.


Navy 14, Army 6 Nov. 29, 1941 – Philadelphia, Pa.

As a Naval Academy player from 1919-21, Swede Larson never lost to Army. And in his first-two years as head coach, his teams shut out the Cadets by a combined score of 24-0. But prior to the 1941 Army-Navy contest, the Marine major was informed he was being sent to the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., immediately after the football season. As you can imagine, he wanted nothing more than a final victory over Army, which is why he was less than pleased when his club trailed West Point, 6-0, at halftime. Challenging his team to win its last battle on the football field, the Midshipmen answered the call in the second half. Bill Busik’s effective running and passing set up touchdowns by Phil Hurt and Howie Clark, which led to a 14-6 Navy win.





Col Blaik’s Teams were to lose to Navy in 42 & 43 before Army would win 4 straight.


Navy 14, Army 0 Nov. 28, 1942 – Annapolis, Md.

In an effort to conserve transportation resources due to World War II, the Army-Navy game was moved to Annapolis in 1942 and West Point for 1943. This meant the West Point Corp of Cadets, with the exception of two cheerleaders, would not be permitted to attend the game, nor would anyone else outside a 10-mile radius of the Maryland state capital. Thus, half of the Brigade of Midshipmen would serve as the Army cheering section, while the other half would root for the Mids. As it turns out, the Cadets would need much more help than this, as Navy turned back Army, 14-0. Backup halfback Joe Sullivan opened the scoring with a short touchdown run in the second quarter. Hillis Hume set up the other touchdown with an interception deep in Cadet territory midway through the third stanza. Hal Hamberg proceeded to hit Ben Martin with an 18-yard scoring strike. Hume clinched the win with another interception of Army quarterback Doug Kenna at the Navy seven-yard line.


no film of the stateside game – meanwhile there was a war on! but overseas –   a “not your average” Army – Navy game took place –

Navy 13, Army 0 Nov. 27, 1943 – West Point, N.Y.

For the first time in 50 years, West Point, N.Y., played host to an Army-Navy game. The Midshipmen were less than gracious guests on the field, however, scoring two touchdowns in the second half of a 13-0 triumph. In the first half, Army got inside the Navy 40-yard line three times but failed to reach the end zone. Navy finally cracked the scoreboard midway through the third quarter when Bob Jenkins capped a 42-yard drive with a one-yard touchdown run. Jim Pettit then contributed two of the game’s biggest plays, one on each side of the ball. His one-yard touchdown run stretched the lead to 13-0, and he halted an Army drive at the Navy 24 when he intercepted Doug Kenna’s pass.



Army 23, Navy 7 Dec. 2, 1944 – Baltimore, Md.

Two weeks prior to the 1944 Army-Navy game, President Franklin D. Roosevelt announced the contest would be moved from Annapolis to Baltimore as part of the “Sixth War Bond Drive.” The U.S. Treasury Department designated 20,000 seats as War Bond Seats. In other words, buy a war bond and get a free ticket to the game. The arrangement not only generated $58.6 million in war bonds, but also allowed 70,000 fans to see a 23-7 Army win. “Dale Hall” put Army on the scoreboard with a 20-yard touchdown run, and Joe Stanowicz’s blocked punt in the end zone stretched the lead to 9-0 in the third quarter. Clyde Scott’s one-yard touchdown run cut the deficit to 9-7, but “Mr. Inside,” “Doc Blanchard”, and “Mr. Outside,” “Glenn Davis”, each scored fourth-quarter touchdowns to put the game out of reach. The 9-0 Cadets closed the fall atop the Associated Press poll, while 6-3 Navy finished fourth.




Army 32, Navy 13 Dec. 1, 1945 – Philadelphia, Pa.

Navy entered the 1945 season finale toting a 7-0-1 record. The No. 2 Midshipmen defense opened the season with three-consecutive shutouts and had never allowed more than one touchdown in any of the following five contests. However, it hadn’t played an offense as potent as No. 1 Army, who posted a decisive 32-13 win. Felix “Doc Blanchard” caught the attention of the Heisman Trophy voters, who awarded the Army halfback with the honor days after his three-touchdown performance. The Cadets jumped out to a 20-0 lead, and the Mids were unable to recover. They scored their first touchdown on a 39-yard Bruce Smith-to-Clyde Scott touchdown to cut the halftime deficit to 20-7. Blanchard erased any hope of a Navy comeback when he intercepted Smith’s pass and returned it 52 yards for his last touchdown of the game. Smith returned the favor by intercepting a “Glenn Davis” pass to set up Navy’s second touchdown, a Joe Bartos three-yard plunge. Finally, Davis atoned for his aerial miscue by scampering 28 yards for the final score to give Army the win and eventual national title.






couldnt find a A-N 45 hilite – but here is an intersting film on the 1945 team in training

Army 21, Navy 18 Nov. 30, 1946 – Philadelphia, Pa.

After finishing second in the final 1945 AP poll, Navy endured the other end of the spectrum in 1946. With just eight returning lettermen, Navy struggled to a 1-8 campaign. While these eight losses included a 21-18 defeat at the hands of rival Army, it was the Cadets who held the short end of the stick when all was said and done. Three weeks before its annual grudge match against Navy, No. 2 Army and No. 1 Notre Dame played to a scoreless tie. And while the Cadets would battle the Mids on Nov. 30, the Fighting Irish were set to meet Southern California. Thus, the outcomes on this day were critical to the final AP polls. Down 21-6 at halftime, Navy came back with a pair of touchdowns in the third quarter Bill Hawkins had a two-yard rushing touchdown, and Reaves Baysinger hit Leon Bramlett for a short touchdown to bring the Midshipmen within three points. Unfortunately for the Mids, they were unable to convert on any of the extra points, and the Cadets prevailed. Unfortunately for Army, AP voters took more notice of Notre Dame’s 26-6 victory than they did of Army’s narrow triumph, voting Notre Dame first in the final AP poll.





Doc Blanchard 1944-46


Army 21, Navy 0 Nov. 29, 1947 – Philadelphia, Pa.

In front of 103,000 fans, including President Harry S. Truman, Army scored one touchdown in each of the first-three quarters to cruise to a 21-0 victory over Navy. A Bill Hawkins fumble led to Army’s first touchdown, as “Bill Kellum” caught an 18-yard touchdown pass from quarterback Elwyn Rowan. Navy drove right back down the field on the next possession, but turned the ball over on downs inside the Army 10-yard line. On Army’s first play from scrimmage, “Rip Rowan” went around the end and down the field 92 yards for the go-ahead score. He finished the afternoon with 148 yards rushing. ( “Joe Steffy” once asked Col Blaik what his Greatest Thrill was in Coaching — Rip Rowan’s 92 yard run from scrimmage)






Army 21, Navy 21 Nov. 27, 1948 Philadelphia, Pa.

Considering Army entered the 1948 season finale with an 8-0 mark, as opposed to Navy’s 0-8 record, it should not be a surprise that the Cadets were a 20-point favorite. Yet, the Midshipmen proved the oddsmakers wrong by battling Army to a 21-21 tie. Navy quarterback Reaves Baysinger opened the scoring with a two-yard touchdown run midway through the first quarter. However, short touchdown runs by Rudolph Cosentino and Harold Shultz enabled the Cadets to take a 14-7 lead at the half. Navy responded with a one-yard Bill Hawkins touchdown run to tie the game at 14 in the third quarter. Army then took its second lead of the game when quarterback Arnold Galiffa scored on a 10-yard bootleg. Finally, Hawkins preserved the tie with clutch plays on both sides of the ball. He followed a one-yard touchdown run by knocking away a Galiffa pass on fourth down to end the game.






Army 38, Navy 0 Nov. 26, 1949 – Philadelphia, Pa.

If Navy had any question about Army’s No. 4 national ranking in 1949, the Cadets erased those doubts with a 38-0 trouncing of the Midshipmen in the 50th meeting between the two academies. The statistics certainly told the story on this afternoon Army had 27 first downs compared to eight for Navy, not to mention a 459-107 advantage in total offensive yardage. The Mids advanced no further than the Army 47-yard line, as Cadet fullback “Gil Stephenson” gained 127 yards on 26 attempts.







1910 -1919 Army Navy Football

Navy 3, Army 0 Nov. 26, 1910 – Philadelphia, Pa.

Seven proved to be a lucky number for both Jack Dalton and his Midshipmen teammates. After missing his first-six field goal attempts in the 1910 Army-Navy game, Dalton connected on his seventh, which was all Navy needed in a 3-0 triumph. This field goal was also valuable in that it capped the Mids’ first undefeated season, a year that saw them outscore all nine opponents, 99-0. Dalton’s field goal was the lone offensive highlight in a game that saw both clubs combine to punt 40 times.

Navy 3, Army 0 Nov. 24, 1911 – Philadelphia, Pa.

On paper, the 1911 Army-Navy game was slated to be an even matchup. Army entered the season finale 6-0-1, while Navy was 5-0-3. Each team had surrendered less than two points per contest, while averaging two touchdowns per outing. The game lived up to its billing, with Jack Dalton’s second-quarter field goal proving to be the difference in a 3-0 win. Dalton did much more than kick a field goal, however. He had a pair of 15-yard runs on the Mids’ scoring drive and also recorded a 72-yard punt.

Navy 6, Army 0 Nov. 30, 1912 – Philadelphia, Pa.

At 6-2, 228 pounds, Navy’s John “Babe” Brown was not your typical placekicker. In fact, he used his imposing frame to his advantage in the 1912 Army game, and the result benefitted all of the Midshipmen. With five minutes left in the game, he lined up to attempt a field goal. But rather than dropkick the ball when it was snapped to him, he took off running before the Cadets tackled him at the five-yard line. He booted a 12-yard field goal two plays later and tacked on a 35 yarder with less than a minute left to give Navy a 6-0 victory. The triumph was Navy’s sixth in nine decisions and dropped Army’s final record to 5-3.

Army 22, Navy 9 Nov. 29, 1913 – Philadelphia, Pa.

Navy coach Doug Howard could look at the 1913 season from two perspectives. His defense allowed a total of 29 points in nine games, which is quite impressive. But when you consider the Midshipmen allowed 22 in one game, and it was the game against Army, Howard’s club did not end the year on a solid note. Indeed, Navy would need more than three Babe Brown field goals to overcome the Cadets. Vernon Prichard and Louis Merrilat caught the Midshipmen defense off-guard with two touchdown passes, and Merrilat’s 60-yard run set up West Point’s other score in the 13-point victory.
Cadets Final Practice – Army Eleven Ready for Big Game in Gotham Saturday – The News and Courier – Nov 27, 1913

OPEN FOOTBALL IS PROVED THE BEST; West Point Victory Is Another Verdict for Open Game as Played This Season – New York Times – Dec 1, 1913
A decisive triumph for the open style of play, as compared with the more conservative and less spectacular line bucking species, stands out as the main feature of the 1913 football season, which came to a close Saturday at the Polo Grounds, when the Army and Navy elevens clashed in their annual battle.
There is little doubt that football in the future will far excel that of the past … The main reason for the transfer from Philadelphia to New York was that…

Army 20, Navy 0 Nov. 28, 1914 – Philadelphia, Pa.


Army capped its first undefeated season (9-0) with a “textbook perfect” 20-0 triumph over Navy. The Cadets took advantage of a blocked punt and two Navy fumbles to score their first-14 points. After forcing Navy to punt on its opening possession, Louis Merillat blocked the punt in the end zone for a safety.
The Mids’ H.C. Blodgett fumbled a second-quarter punt that “Robert Neyland” picked up at the Navy 20-yard line. One play later, Louis Merillat was in the end zone after catching a 20-yard touchdown pass from Vernon Prichard. Finally, Blodgett fumbled a second punt that quarter which resulted in a Paul Hodgson one-yard touchdown run.


ARMY TEAM WELCOMED.; Annual Homecoming Scenes at West Point ;- Wyand Elected Captain.- New York Times – Nov 30, 1914
WEST POINT, N.Y., Nov. 29. — The victorious Army football team reached home at 4 o’clock this afternoon and received a rousing welcome. The scenes which annually feature the homecoming of the football men, whether they are winners or losers, were enacted, although, if possible, with a little more enthusiasm than in the past.
The football men brought with them from Philadelphia the blue and gold blanket which has adorned the back: of the Navy;s mascot goat for many years…

ARMY-AND NAVY END PRACTICES FOR THEIR GAME- Atlanta Constitution – Nov 27, 1914
Army And Navy Teams in Annual Gridiron Contest
About 33,000 Spectators Witness Football Struggle at Philadelphia This Afternoon – Army Scored Safety and Two Touchdowns in First Half – The Day – Nov 28, 1914

Largest Crowd On Record At Army And Navy Game – Sunday Tribune – Nov 28, 1914

Army And Navy In Their Greatest Fight Of The Year…Surrounded by Mighty Crowd, cadets and Middies battle on Franklin Field Today – Army is Slight favorite – The Day – Nov 28, 1914

ARMY SHUTS OUT NAVY BY 20 TO 0. – Boston Evening Transcript – Nov 29, 1914 – PHILADELPHIA, Nov 28
The West Point football players today beat Annapolis, 20 to 0, this afternoon before the biggest crowd ever assembled on Franklin Field, the Cadets superiority being even greater than indicated by the…
Boston Daily Globe – Nov 29, 1914
PHILADELPHIA, Nov 28–The West Point football players today beat Annapolis, 20 to 0, this afternoon before the biggest crowd ever assembled on Franklin Field…

Army 14, Navy 0 Nov. 27, 1915 – New York, N.Y.

The 1915 Army-Navy game marked the first time each team wore numbered jerseys for identification. However, the Navy offense finished with the same number it had a year ago, 0, as Army blanked the Midshipmen, 14-0. Elmer “Ollie” Oliphant certainly left his impression on the Navy defense, accounting for 130 of his team’s 196 total offensive yards, along with 11 punt returns for 114 yards. The contest once again fell victim to bad weather, which factored into a combined 30 punts and 10 turnovers between the two teams.
Army VS. Navy On Saturday – Reading Eagle – Nov 26, 1915

Army Mule and Navy Goat In Annual Game at Gotham – Atlanta Constitution – Nov 27, 1915
The football elevens of the United States Naval and Military academies will close the eastern gridiron season with their annual contest here tomorrow afternoon. Indications point to a hard-fought game.
Service Game Today May Break Existing Series Tie. Army and Navy Have Each Won Nine Games .. – Lewiston Daily Sun – Nov 27, 1915

Army VS. Navy On Gridiron. Cadets Score First In Annual Contest….- Reading Eagle – Nov 27, 1915

Soldier and Sailor Elevens Will Try to Break Tie – The Day – Nov 27, 1915

40,000 SEE ARMY BEAT NAVY, 14 TO 0; Drizzling Rain Robs Football Game at Polo Grounds of Usual Brilliancy. VICTORS’ SCORE MADE IN MUD President Wilson’s Party, Including Mrs. Galt, Is Saluted by the Cadets in Mass. OLIPHANT HAILED AS STAR Makes Both Touchdowns and Goals ;- Flock of Doves, Set Loose, Attributed to Ford. 40,000 SEE ARMY BEAT NAVY IN MUD; WILSON ATTENDS In Fog and Drizzle West Point Piles Up 14-0 Score, with Oliphant as Star. MRS. GALT WITH PRESIDENT Cheers and Music Resound at Polo Grounds, but Weather Mars the Spectacle. FLOCK OF DOVES SET LOOSE Rumored They Are Furnished by the Ford Peace Promoters, but the Teams Fight On.
Playing upon a field slippery with a morning’s rain, and in a mist that now and then thickened to a drizzle which all but blotted out the teams toward the end of the last quarter, the United States Military Academy football team defeated the Naval Academy at the Polo Grounds yesterday by a score of 14 to 0.
November 28, 1915 Front Page


Army 15, Navy 7 Nov. 25, 1916 – New York, N.Y.

Through 103 Army-Navy games, there has been one constant – neither team can ill-afford to miss an extra point. Of course, there are exceptions to this standard. Take 1916, when “Ollie Oliphant” missed the extra point on Army’s first score of the afternoon. Army coach Charles Daly could not have been that upset, considering Oliphant had carried the ball three times for 89 yards during that drive. It was just a sign of things to come for Navy, which suffered a 15-7 defeat at the hands of the Cadets. Oliphant added a field goal late in the first quarter, and the Cadets used a trick play for their final score of the day. Army was attempting a field goal when holder Charles Gerhardt took the snap and threw to fullback Eugene Vidal for the touchdown. Navy scored its first series touchdown since 1907 when Harry Goodstein blocked a punt and returned it for a touchdown

ARMY CONQUERS NAVY, 15-7, AMID CHEERS OF 45,000; Oliphant the Chief Figure in West Point’s Victory at the Polo Grounds. MAKES A RUN OF 83 YARDS Goodstein Scores for Losers by Turning Blocked Kick Into a Touchdown. NOTABLES IN GAY THRONG President Wilson Absent, but Crowd Includes Men Prominent in All Walks of Life.
– New York Times – Nov 26, 1916
More than 45,000 cheering spectators saw the Army football team defeat the Navy by a score of 15 to 7 at the Polo Grounds yesterday. Famous for its gala crowds, the annual contest never attracted a more brilliant assemblage, while spectacular playing, especially by Oliphant and Vidal, the Army stars, transformed the banks of the huge eclipse of the Brush stadium into a mass of shouting, flag-waving humanity..




Navy 6, Army 0 Nov. 29, 1919 – New York, N.Y.

After a two-year series hiatus due to World War I, Army and Navy renewed their heated rivalry in 1919. Despite posting seven times as much total offensive yardage as the Cadets, Navy could only manage a pair of Clyde King field goals. Fortunately for Naval Academy fans, that was enough for a 6-0 win. The victory marked the fourth time in 10 years that Navy had beaten Army strictly by kicking field goals. Although the game was played in a steady downpour, neither team lost a fumble or committed a turnover. The Midshipmen finished the year 6-1, while the Cadets were 6-3.

1930 – 1939 Army Navy Football Games

Army 6, Navy 0 Dec. 13, 1930 – New York, N.Y.

A disagreement regarding eligibility policies may have cancelled the 1928 and ’29 Army-Navy games, but a capacity crowd at Yankee Stadium welcomed the rivalry’s return Dec. 13, 1930. Unfortunately for Navy, Army retained its recent series dominance with a 6-0 victory. The final score certainly doesn’t reflect Army’s commanding performance, as the Cadets finished the afternoon with 265 yards of total offense, compared to 63 for the Midshipmen. Yet, Navy was able to keep Army off the scoreboard until the fourth quarter, when Ray Stecker ran 56 yards for the game’s lone score. Navy had a chance to win the game on its final possession. Army’s Wendell Bowman fumbled a punt on his own 37-yard line, and the Midshipmen’s John Byng recovered. The Mids drove 12 yards, but were stopped on downs. The Cadets took over and advanced to the Navy seven-yard line as time ran out.

Midshipmen – Yankee Stadium December 13, 1930








1930 Army Navy Football Game Stock Footage HD



Army 17, Navy 7 Dec. 12, 1931 – New York, N.Y.
The running of Ed Herb and Ray Stecker paced Army to a 17-7 win over Navy at Yankee Stadium. The first of Herb’s touchdown runs and a Travis Brown 25-yard field goal gave the Cadets a 10-0 halftime lead. Navy cut the deficit to 10-7 in the third quarter when Lou Kirn and Harvey Tschirgi connected on a 55-yard scoring strike. Herb then erased any hopes of a Navy triumph when he went up and over from the one-yard line late in the final stanza. By reaching the end zone twice, Herb certainly garnered a majority of the headlines. However, the real hero was Stecker, who turned in a workman-like 141 yards on 29 carries.




Army 20, Navy 0 Dec. 3, 1932 – Philadelphia, Pa.

Thanks in large part to a Navy offense that mustered just 15 yards on the ground and turned the ball over seven times, Army rolled to a 20-0 win over the Midshipmen. Rip Miller’s club had an early indication this may not be its day when its opening drive was halted by an interception at the Army six-yard line. On first down, the Cadets’ Kenneth Field “quick-kicked” the ball 85 yards to the Navy 15-yard line. Peck Vidal opened the scoring with a two-yard touchdown run in the first quarter, and Army added two more scores in the final half. Jack Buckler scored one on a short run and took a lateral from Tom Kilday and passed 43 yards to Bill Frentzer for the other touchdown.


No sound:

Army 12, Navy 7 Nov. 25, 1933 – Philadelphia, Pa.

Army scored a pair of first-half touchdowns and held on for a 12-7 win over a feisty Rip Miller-coached Navy club. The win was Army’s ninth in as many games, and a Dec. 2 victory over 2-5-1 Notre Dame would all but guarantee the Cadets the 1933 national title. However, the Fighting Irish spoiled these hopes by handing Army a 13-12 setback. For the first time since 1916, Army scored in the opening quarter against Navy. Paul Johnson took Bill Clark’s punt and returned it 81 yards for the touchdown. But the extra point was blocked, which enabled Navy to take a 7-6 lead when Red Baumberger galloped 38 yards to the Cadet end zone. Nonetheless, Army’s Jack Buckler, whose extra point was blocked on his team’s first score, raced 25 yards for the winning touchdown in the second half.







Navy 3, Army 0 Dec. 1, 1934 – Philadelphia, Pa.

Despite the driving rainstorm at Franklin Field, Navy kicker Slade Cutter’s 28-yard field goal ended an 11-game drought, as the Midshipmen’s 3-0 win marked their first triumph over Army since 1921. Nothing indicates the treacherous weather conditions better than the final statistics. Army and Navy combined to record five first downs and 132 yards of total offense between them. Collectively, they also completed three-of-eight passes and punted 25 times.





Army 28, Navy 6 Nov. 30, 1935 – Philadelphia, Pa.

The 1935 matchup was a tale of two halves. In the first two quarters, Army piled up 303 yards of total offense, holding Navy to just 37. Yet, in the second half, the Mids had more than eight times the total offense than that of the Cadets – 259 yards to 31 for Army. Despite these similarities, there was also one visible difference. Army scored four times in its half, while the Mids were unable to reach the end zone. Final score: Army 28, Navy 6. Quarterback “Monk Meyer” had 35- and 40-yard touchdown passes in the opening half, while Whitey Grove added an 80-yard touchdown run on a reverse. Sneed Schmidt’s four-yard touchdown plunge in the fourth quarter was the only offensive highlight in the Midshipmen’s season finale.








No sound version –

Navy 7, Army 0 Nov. 28, 1936 – Philadelphia, Pa.

In an effort to meet the supreme ticket demand, the 1936 game was moved from 88,000-seat Franklin Field to 102,000-seat Municipal Stadium. Despite driving deep into Navy territory in the first half, Army was unable to capitalize, as John Schmidt’s three-yard touchdown run in the fourth quarter was all Navy needed for a 7-0 win over the Cadets. Following the series’ first scoreless opening half since 1930, the third quarter was even less exciting. Army fumbled the football away on three of its next-four possessions, while the Midshipmen were unable to reach the Cadet end zone on three possessions. However, Navy was able to take advantage of a “Monk Meyer” fumble in the fourth quarter. Aided by a pass interference call against the Cadets’ Jim Craig, Schmidt scored his touchdown with two minutes left.







Another version of 1936 A-N game – although no date stated

Army 6, Navy 0 Nov. 27, 1937 – Philadelphia, Pa.

In a game that saw the two teams punt a combined 32 times, Army’s Jim Craig managed to score a three-yard touchdown run to give his team a 6-0 victory. Craig’s run capped off a 44-yard scoring drive highlighted by a 19-yard pass from Woody Wilson to Jim Schwenk. The teams had a combined 255 yards of total offense, as Craig was the game’s high rusher with 47 yards on 20 carries.







no date stated

Army 14, Navy 7 Nov. 26, 1938 – Philadelphia, Pa.

In front of 102,000 fans, the largest crowd to see a sporting event in 1938, Woody Wilson scored on a one-yard touchdown run in the third quarter to help Army to a 14-6 win over Navy. Army’s Charley Long brought Cadet faithful to their feet in the first quarter when he returned Lem Cooke’s punt 79 yards for a touchdown. Navy drove deep into Army territory on each of its next-two possessions, only to be stopped once on downs and once on a Wilson interception. However, Cooke tied the score with a one-yard touchdown run before halftime. Navy opened the third quarter poised to take the lead, but Emmette Wood fumbled on the Cadet 17-yard line. Army more than capitalized on this miscue, driving the length of the field to take the lead, and eventually the win, on Wilson’s touchdown.









Navy 10, Army 0 Dec. 2, 1939 – Philadelphia, Pa.

When Emory “Swede” Larson took over the Navy program in 1939, no one had to define the magnitude of the Army-Navy rivalry to him. A three-year letterwinner (1919-21), Larson had played on three teams victorious over the Cadets. In fact, Larson arranged to have Billy VIII, Navy’s mascot, wear the same blanket that adorned the 1921 goat. This superstition must have paid off, as the Midshipmen shut out Army, 10-0. Navy scored on its opening drive, as Ulmont Whitehead booted a 33-yard field goal between the uprights to give the Mids a 3-0 lead. Halfback Dick Shafer added a 22-yard touchdown run in the last quarter, as Navy utilized six Army turnovers to finish 3-5-1 on the season.






no A-N game film found but here is the game with Notre Dame

Army Navy Games 1890 to Present

Following taken from the Nimitz Library Digital Collections holdings at the Naval Academy.
Continue reading