Repellant to the point of loathsomeness

One question: Have you ever been in the military? Because if you had served, the movie would have made perfect sense.

You must be a girl, or a guy totally unfamiliar with the way things need to be in a combat setting, or even in a sports setting. Savage needed to come in as a martinet, get those men back onto a military footing. Think of the new teacher coming in tough as nails and then letting up as the year goes on. It's much easier to set the expectations way high and then ease up than it is to come in lax and then try to sharpen up.

As for Savage sitting on the transfer requests, well, in some instances little kids don't get what they want. He needed time to bring the unit to a level that would gain success. If anyone wanted out after that, he'd have let them. Think of the conditioning drills at the start of a high school basketball or football season: you don't even touch a ball, and you pretty much think the coach is crazy for running you like this. But, when that first victory comes because you are still running hard in the fourth quarter and the other team is dead on its feet, your coach suddenly seems much smarter. Granted, the stakes are higher in a combat setting, but I cannot fauly Savage for his initial approach.

They are many things I could say about someone who finds the actions of Savage as "loathsome". Instead, I will pay homage not only to those incredible heroes who manned those aircraft but to those of you who took the time to straighten out this mis-guided and out of touch person. Those of us who lived during the war years (WW2) know what was going on at the time. We were generally not in touch with the world situation (there was only radio and very little news)and many of us were farmers or rural residents. When Hitler was on the march in Europe and Pearl Harbor was bombed, we lined up to deal with it. Those in the might 8th (as I was after the war) didn't need lessons to learn what had occurred during the war years. We lost thousands of wonderful people in those planes and they saved our bacon as a nation and they saved the world from totalitarian rule. Those of you still living, my heart is heavy for you in your incredible sacrifice and I will carry the memory of your deeds to my grave. God bless you all.

While this thread pretty well covers the response to this post, there is some additional factual detail which may help everyone understand this movie better. This comes straight out of the Airmanship course for future officers taught at both the Air Force Academy and in AFROTC (still taught--not as a "how-to" manual by itself, but as the basis for a practical exercise in leadership).

The officer portrayed as Colonel Davenport was for the most part based on Colonel Charles "Chip" Overacker, a decent, hardworking man who was from the pre-war Air Corps with Armstrong and Eaker. But Armstrong didn't just re-build one slack group but two. In August 1942 he relieved the commander of the 97th Bomb Group, a popular and well-known B-17 pioneer named "Connie" Cousland. Armstrong himself said it was the 97th, not the 306th, that was the disciplinary problem when he took over (althought the scene with sentry played by Kenneth Tobey did take place at the main gate of the 306th base at Thurleigh). The 306th was a veteran outfit and its lack of military bearing was a symptom, not the problem itself, whereas the 97th was actually undisciplined, untrained, and lacking in direction. So the book and by extension the movie are composites of Armstrong's experiences with both groups, as well as Colonel Fred Castle's in taking over the 94th Bomb Group.

What neither the book nor the movie explained was what got Overacker fired. The writers liked Overacker the way Savage liked and admired Keith Davenport. It was not as simple as "all he did was look after his men." Far from it. Not only was the 306th suffering losses at twice the rates of the other groups, but the experience so bothered Overacker that he became a loose cannon. The trip to Pinetree made by Davenport really happened, and was more hysterical than depicted. (After the low-altitude bombing mission shown, the 306th landed at an RAF base and vandalized its officer's club in a drunken binge--led by Overacker.) When it failed to change the mission tactics, Overacker began openly and persistently criticizing to his air crews the orders and decisions made by Bomber Command. This went on for two months but Eaker and Armstrong strung along with Overacker because they too admired and liked him and hoped he would battle his way out of the hole.

The 306th then began to fail in its committments. Aborts for personnel reasons (not mechanical) skyrocketed and were quadruple the rate of the other groups COMBINED. On the last mission before Overacker was fired the entire group turned back for crew reasons, not mechanical, except for one plane which attached itself to the 91st Bomb Group and completed the mission. When Pritchard comments to Savage that an American group had quit, he meant just that--only Bartlett and Lay simply couldn't say so in so many words, out of fondness for Overacker and loyalty to the 306th, which did turn itself around and perform with dedication. That was the mission that got him relieved--his group had quit. The book and script both hinted at it in the "sick reports" mentioned by Doc Kaiser (who was not sympathetic to Davenport in the book--he felt he was the cause).

Bartlett and Lay knew a real crisis had occurred and why, but they did not want to paint Davenport/Overacker in a such a bad light, especially since both group and colonel went on to honorable service for the rest of the war. So they let the disciplinary problems of the 97th become those of the 306th, and let the symptoms take the place of the real problem, which was that the command staff of the 306th wasn't doing its job (primarily because Overacker was doing everything himself instead of delegating).

Armstrong led only two missions during his command of the 306th--but he insisted that the squadron and staff officers do theirs, including leading combat missions (as represented by his treatment of Gately). He quietly relieved the deputy commander (air exec) who had wangled a temporary job at wing staff, and brought in a squadron commander from the 91st, Major Claude Putnam, to replace him (Putnam took over from Armstrong in February when Armstrong was promoted to wing commander). He also replaced the Operations Officer with a squadron CO a la Joe Cobb.

So you see, Savage was "being mean" to immature kids who needed a kick in the pants (the kids of the 97th) to re-instill basic discipline--they not only weren't performing, but they couldn't. (Don't tell me that harsh methods to correct a similar company-wide problem in business today would get an exec fired immediately, because that's crap).

If it's any consolation, I too wondered why Davenport was treated so severely until I learned the whole story. As a post-script, Overacker was retained on Eaker's staff until he began criticizing the boss in memos and reports (sound familiar?), at which point he was sent back to the US and served out the war as director of an R&D unit at Eglin Field, Florida.

Its obvious you were never in the military or if your were, you didn't learn a thing. It was Major General Pritchard who relieved Col. Davenport, not General Savage. Gen. Savage did point out what he believed to be Col Davenport's problem to General Pritchard. The only person I recall being busted was Sgt. McIlhenney, twice to be exact and twice the order was rescinded. Gen. Savage did reprimand a few officers and airmen in his command. Near the end, Col. Davenport admits to General Savage that his method of leadership was indeed better than his, (Davenport's). Methods of command and leadership in the military are vastly different than that used in civilian life and it must be.

Although I have to say, I did find something likeable about the general, I have to agree with your assessment of him... starting where he told everyone that whoever didn't like it could transfer, and then ten minutes later he's trying to find a way to screw everyone that put in for a transer, out of one. His reasons for doing this are self-serving at best, and very typical of lifer mentality... basically lie to everyone figuring no one will have the balls to follow through, and when they do, lie to them again and hang their paperwork up in red tape, just so you don't look bad. Try telling the truth in the first place if you want respect. Small wonder that so many enlisted people don't trust officers. Great way to instill loyalty.

You answered your own concerns twice.

"In Savage's words, 'He's a first rate guy who over-identifies with his men.'"

"Maybe Savage's techniques work in the military, but anyone who tried to act that way in most modern (underline modern--ed) organizations would find themselves in line at the unemployment office."

Exactly!

What this movie needs is a prequel to show how Davenport and his leadership got where it got. There was an obvious level of zero discipline and most military units will begin to fail if discipline begins to fail. Savage saw that at the entry gate.

If you paid attention, Savage's level of "over-identification" began to reach the same level that Davenport had at the beginning of the movie. In otherwords, Davenport knew the effects of the continued missions on the men, psychologically, and began to try and 'be their friend'--the last thing a commander wants to be. Fair is one thing, but friendship can cloud decision making for what is best for the unit, especially in a combat unit.

Savage's technique? Yes, in a forward combat unit in WW2, his attitude was exactly what was needed to keep things operating. Otherwise, the inmates run the asylum. No, this technique would not work in a modern setting because there is too much 'frickin' political correctness and too many 'momma's boys' who'll run to the JAG or Chaplain.

Anyone who has served in the military knew what was happening. Those who haven't served in the military would think of Savage as a jerk. That doesn't make 'servees' better...they just understand the concepts.

[deleted]