Dd Form 200 Army: Fill & Download for Free

Yes.EDIT: I am not sure why I did not say this in the original response, but the simple way to do this is to ask for their DD-214. On it there will be a section for MOS, section 11, and it will say what there MOS was. That said, I have no Idea how to identify a DELTA operator. But a regular SF guy will be an 18 series, Rangers will have the V tag on their MOS code (i.e. 11B2V), and if they were part of the regiment, in their duty station section it will say Ranger Regiment (section 8a). Officers have a different coding system.If they say they were a SEAL first thing to ask is their class number. They are three digits now, with 200 being close to around 2000 as year of graduation.However Don Shipley, will out any fake seal.As far as Army claims there are a few things to ask.If they say Ranger, ask them to recite the ranger creed.If they say they are Special Forces ask them their unit and team number. You can google these responses.Never let anyone say “I can not tell you that it is classified”. that is 100% horse shit, and the biggest flag of them all.Unit, mos, etc are never classified.DELTA, DEVGRU, and the CIA SAD are all classified duty positions, and those people won’t fucking tell you they are even in the army, navy, or fucking CIA. The minute they do that all it does it make people want to ask questions, questions they can not answer.These tier 1 guys, if they are going to try and get a job, they will apply to a position that will allow them to disclose their past, if they need too. And if they say want to be a teacher they will Just say, “I were in da army as er infantry guy. I were not special.”and THAT is the truth of it.

It’s more a case - at least in Europe - of:Were the Yanks completely incompetent in World War Two, losing every battle until the Brits intervened?The early US actions in the Europe/Mediterranean theatre involved:• Kasserine Pass: General Fredendal• Salerno: Generals Dawley and Clark• Anzio: General LucasAnd all were disastrous failures. Three of the Generals - Fredendal, Dawley and Lucas - were relieved of command, and sent home to training duties. Clark, for inexplicable reasons, was kept on. Though Stalin - when asked about Clark’s later disobedience in heading to capture Rome, and failing to cut off the retreating German armies - said that, in Russia, he would have been shot.My father explained why, post-War, the US Occupation Zone was in the south of Germany, the British one in the north. He was in the British 1st Army in North Africa, and was at the crossroads outside Constantine on the main east-west road, in the days after Kasserine. It was nearly 200 miles back from the front line. But there was a steady stream of US Army tanks and vehicles fleeing westwards.A joint patrol of US and British Military Police was there, stopping them, turning them round, and sending them back to their units. They had orders that anyone who refused was to be given an instant drumhead Court Martial, and shot on the spot, for Cowardice.For the Normandy Landings, it was clear that the shorter route was on the left [east] end of the beaches, but it would involve hard fighting to overcome the German defences at Caen. There was no such ‘strong point’ behind the western end of the beaches; but the distances would be much longer, and require better transport.These were the dispositions made by the Allied High Command under Eisenhower:And they continued like that, US on the right, Brits on the left, right up to Torgau.You can see why . . . .UpdateI have been reminded that the US landings on Omaha Beach were barely a display of military genius:• The presence, by the beach, of the entire German 352nd Infantry Division, with its Artillery Regiment. Known about beforehand, but ignored.• Refusal to use any of the specially modified beach assault tanks “Hobart’s Funnies” offered to them by the British – and found extremely useful on the British and Canadian beaches• Refusal to use British-developed Sherman Firefly tanks, with 17-pounder guns• Inaccurate paratroop drops, with only 25% to 50% landing within a mile of target• Inadequate naval bombardment, with just 2 battleships, 3 cruisers and some destroyers to cover over 5 miles of coastline• Inaccurate bombardment. Soldiers in the landing reported shells and bombs being directed between 2 and 5 miles inland• Landing craft consistently missing their target beaches. Only one company, out of nine, landed where intended• DD swimming tanks launched too far out, so 27 out of 29 sank• 12 out 13 DUKWs of the 115th Field Artillery sank. Just one gun landed.• In the absence of beach assault tanks, combat engineers had to destroy defences by handThe result was over 2,000 D-Day casualties, compared with 1,000 or less at the other four beaches.

'Cooler' is maybe not the right word for the tanks of WWII; I would certainly say 'ridiculous' fits some of the quirky designs the crazy Army engineers got their hands on.Let's start with some British designsThe TOG II*. A tank to fight in the Great War designed and built at the start of the Second World War. An 80-Ton, 33-foot long tank, that never reached mass production because even the interwar tanks did the job better.The Churchill infantry support (Heavy) Tank. A tank that was actually quite effective even when it was extremely slow and (again) built for another Great War. Those tracks are much larger than the tank itself, which makes the next iteration even better.The Churchill Gun Carriage. There is almost 1.5m between the frontal armour and the end of the mudguards, which were taken off most Churchills because the gun would damage the guards when fired.Another British design; the Matilda tank. The slides on the side of the tank would spray mud everywhere which was a sight to behold. A surprisingly effective little tank; the Germans didn't have anything that could beat the armour at the start of the war.Now to the Russians.The KV-2 Heavy Breakthrough Tank. That turret is silly; it's a fridge on tracks with a 152mm howitzer sticking out the front. There are battlefield reports of the tank tipping over if the howitzer was fired over the tracks. It was extremely effective, but utterly ridiculous.The T-26, also called the Vickers 6-Ton. The grenade trap and the turret shape make it look like the T-26 is always rearing its head in surprise.The T-60 and T-70 light tanks look like the Soviets forgot the turret and had to slap it on somewhere, making the entire tank lopsided.The AmericansYes, the Americans did silly too.The M3 Lee (or M3 Grant in Canada and the UK). The sponson-mounted 75mm gun is frankly ridiculous because the 40mm gun in the turret was useless for the role it was designed for (anti-tank vehicle) and the bigger gun should have been turret-mounted instead.Meet the M26 Super Pershing; all of the frontal armour was taken from a Panther, and the gun was so big it needed two shock absorbers bolted to the top of the gun mantlet (the tubular things in the photo). Like the late Panther, the Super Pershing's gun is longer than the tank itself. Talk about overcompensating.It reached Germany too late for combat, but it would have been on the front line had the Soviet Union pushed out of Berlin in 1945.The GermansThe Pz II Ausf. L 'Luchs'- the cutest tank in the West. The fact this thing only carried a 20mm anti-aircraft cannon makes it even cuter.The SdKfz 164 Nashorn (or Hornisse) was a cousin of the Ferdinand (or Elefant) and carried one of the best anti-tank cannons of WWII; the Pak 43/1 88mm gun. This one is cool; you've got me.The Porsche Tiger [VK45.01 (P)] got caught in a door at some point and got stretched… Wait, no, that was to fit the engine that overheated and repeatedly caught fire. This became the test bed for the Ferdinand tank destroyer which didn't always try to kill its own crew.I'm not even going to go into the silliness of the Pz VII 'Löwe', Pz VIII 'Maus', E-50, E-75, E-100, the Landkreuzer P.1000 'Ratte', or any other blueprint tanks the Germans came up with.Even though some of these are a bit silly, I'd still pick them over an Abrams. I guess there is merit in the silly.Edit: Even more silliness from the minds of the WWII tank creators!The Soviet SMK multi-turreted tank. Multi-turret tanks were going out of fashion when this one was built. The Soviets tried this and the KV tank during the war with Finland; this tank was terribly outdated so it was the only one to be built.The Sherman DD. A good idea on paper, but in practice the Sherman can't handle the English Channel when released in deep water; it was more Sherman submarine than Sherman boat.The Medium Mk A Whippet; another Great War tank also used in the Second World War, this time by the Japanese. Just look at it.The O-I. An experimental tank that never got past mock ups; the name means "Big One" in Japanese. This tank was going to weigh 120 tons and have five turrets! FIVE! It was going to use an engine that when put in a 40 ton tank gave a top speed of 28mph, so just like the Japanese Tiger (Heavy Tank No. 6) it would have been severely underpowered and like the 200 ton Maus, utterly useless as anything but a bunker moving at glacial speeds.