It being the day it is, I was tempted to start a discussion on JFK and the grassy knoll (for my money Richard Nixon shot Kennedy ) but I thought I'd start a debate on something far more interesting.
Recently, I've moved on from early American history (still can't believe Britain lost the revolutionary war ) and instead I've focused my attention on 20th century America, or more specifically, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the cold war.
Now, I've been reading military history for years (like most people on this site I imagine) but there are a few things that bother me, a few that I agree with, and a few that probably need analysed. Most of these points focus on the fighting performance of the US military. For years, the USA has been numero one, but how good has it been at fighting wars (compared to say, Britain)?
To cut a long post short, here are the points I want to discuss in relation to the US fighting man. Do you agree with them? Disagree? And if anybody can provide book recommendations about any aspect of the US military during this period (I'll be grateful)
The Korean War
1. The general consensus is that the USA (under Truman) wound down its military on a massive scale (peacetime and all that) and that the military was allowed to decay to a wretched state. So when the Korean war springs up, the US army of occupation in Japan was woefully lacking (Task Force Smith being a prime example of this) and the reinforcements from the USA weren't that much better. The exception is the navy (Inchon) , the airforce, and the Marines (due to their spirit de corps) and of course, the success of X division.
2. A common criticism of the US military man during both Korea and 'Nam was that he was too used to home comforts. Upon arriving in Korea, General Matthew Ridgway was appalled at the reluctance of soldiers to dig into hillsides, do recon, walk around, get shot at, and often struggled to make full use of the terrain as skilfully as their Chinese opponents. In Vietnam, the amount of time and money spent bringing in stuff from home, was frightening. I remember reading about one soldier who talked about being in the jungle one minute, then the next minute the helicopter would bring them back to base in time for television beamed from home and barbecue beach parties! Was the US soldier in this period too used too home comforts?
Vietnam
1. Put simply, the hard won lessons of jungle warfare of WW2 had been neglected, and by the time the Vietnam war started, the US soldier was incapable of jungle warfare. Now I sympathise with the view that the US military would have tailored their doctrine for fighting a conventional enemy (the Soviet Union) but how suited was the US military for operations in South-East Asia?
2. A general point that applies to WW2 as well: Did the US Army have sufficient quality of recruits? In numerous books I've read, the argument always sounds the same: the airforce and the navy get the best candidates for officers/soldiers, whilst the army always gets the 4th and 5th picks. If you look at the basic infantry recruit for Vietnam, it always seems to be the poor guy from some Southern state that ends up in Vietnam. Did the army lose out to the Navy and the marines for quality of recruits?
One book I've read suggests that the Navy and airforce were better at spotting talent at college.
Cold war
Just a couple of general points, but some books have suggested that the US military were slow off the mark when it came to developing their equivalent of the AK47 (putting themselves at a disadvantage as a result, with troops entering the Vietnam war with the M1? ), and that despite their technological advances and the richness of the US in monetary wealth, the Soviet soldier was tougher, better at fieldcraft, and was more committed to winning in Western Europe, than his US equivalent. Now I know this is probably a highly contentious point, but Soviet soldiers look meaner in the pictures than the US guys
And finally, a point that could cause a lot of heated debate
Were Marines better than their Army equivalent during this period? I mentioned it above, but the espirit de corps of the Marines is often cited as a reason why they're always ready to charge forward against the enemy. Now the army would probably say the marines are too stupid to do anything else but is it too simple to say that when faced with a locked door, a marine will knock it down, whilst an army guy will either pick the lock or knock?
I think the Marines are more selective than the Army this and possibly the culture of the Marines may be why they are seen as the superior of the two, the other is that the Marines ground forces such as Ground Forces (Infantry,Armoured,Artillery, Recon and Airborne) Air (Transport,Attack,Recon both fixed wing and Helo) Sea (access to their own type of ships including an aircraft carrier designed to deploy Marine forces, supply ships and others through the Navy). The Marines are self efficient where the Army has more reliance on the other forces of the US such as the Navy and Airforce.
With Vietnam it was the tactics and the political aspects that lost that war not so much the training or say the quality of it, I found that many in the upper command were narrow minded and only focused on killing the enemy and not the other aspects such as winning the hearts and minds of the people, The US never held ground they would attack a place than abandon it allowing the VC and NVA to reoccupy the territory and they would start the fight all over again its like they did not learn anything from the past wars they fought. The political situation in the US also caused problems for the forces in Vietnam such as war resisters and protesters some of these people were drafted and spread the ideology through the military others went home for leave and would bring back the ideoligy Television gave the American people a direct link to the horrors of war unlike the highly edited newsreals of past wars.
Alpha 1 wrote: I think the Marines are more selective than the Army this and possibly the culture of the Marines may be why they are seen as the superior of the two, the other is that the Marines ground forces such as Ground Forces (Infantry,Armoured,Artillery, Recon and Airborne) Air (Transport,Attack,Recon both fixed wing and Helo) Sea (access to their own type of ships including an aircraft carrier designed to deploy Marine forces, supply ships and others through the Navy). The Marines are self efficient where the Army has more reliance on the other forces of the US such as the Navy and Airforce.
With Vietnam it was the tactics and the political aspects that lost that war not so much the training or say the quality of it, I found that many in the upper command were narrow minded and only focused on killing the enemy and not the other aspects such as winning the hearts and minds of the people, The US never held ground they would attack a place than abandon it allowing the VC and NVA to reoccupy the territory and they would start the fight all over again its like they did not learn anything from the past wars they fought. The political situation in the US also caused problems for the forces in Vietnam such as war resisters and protesters some of these people were drafted and spread the ideology through the military others went home for leave and would bring back the ideoligy Television gave the American people a direct link to the horrors of war unlike the highly edited newsreals of past wars.
I watched a youtube documentary about Marine training - it looked pretty tough, and the one I watched about Army Ranger training looked tough as well. Good points about the marines - maybe it is all about perception.
As for Vietnam, people overlook the actions of the South Vietnamese army, the rampant corruption at the top, and their failure to win hearts and minds in their own country! The communists had a pretty good base of support in the south. It wasn't all America's fault.
Seriously Though, the mission of the Marines is amphibious assault, not long term territory control. They can afford to be more selective because they don't need the numbers that the Army does. Marines were never supposed to stay on the ground long term...but apparently people think they're intimidating or something so they've been on the ground in Afghanistan way too long.
I don't think American soldiers deployed in Korea or Vietnam were of worse quality than those deployed during WW2. I think that perception exists because there has been infinitely more criticism about those wars than WW2. Also, people still don't much admit that many WW2 vets suffered from what we now call PTSD among other service-related problems. But that stuff is front-and-center with Vietnam (if less so with Korea), making the WW2 vet seem like the invincible, smiling G.I. Joe of 40s propaganda while the Nam vet is stuck with the scared kid to cynical addict trope.
The Army Rangers are an elite unit with in the US Army and is more comparable to Marine Force Recon than to standard Infantry training another thing with the Marines is that everybody goes through a standard Basic Training no matter what your trade is before you move on to your specialized training.
The South Vietnamese government was corrupted but yet the US still gave them money,military hardware and support while knowing this fact and wondering how the VC had more American equipment than they did. Either the military and political power in the US choose to ignore that fact or did not care as long as they killed commies. When it comes to winning the hearts and minds the US military has always had a problem with that concept compared to other nations (US good at winning wars not good at winning peace). You can not stick a gun in someones face and than say you are there to help them they might not see it that way.
The Marines are self efficient compared to the Army of course the Marines relies on the Navy for a lot of things just like the army but the Marines have their own sea and air capabilities that surpass that of the US Army.
My uncle didn't have PTSD. He just went crazy as a gak rat. Then he went all hippy flower power. The sound of a marching band or any brass instrument would send him into a crouch behind something and shaking.
My Dad didn't have PTSD. He was just utterly uncaring of anyone outside of the family (bit of a family trait that) and was an original biker for a while. Often absent mindedly he would make thptwhoosh sound while walking or whatever. He said it was the sound of napalm bombs on hillsides.
My D.T. teacher fought in the Falklands. His hands shook all the time unless he was holding something. Once, when someone asked why, he told us about what he had to do to survive, and how he had killed several children our age.
I can see why during wartime the Navy and Air Force would get better recruits than the Army.
Anecdotal stor s of no real value. My Dad's draft number came up in Vietnam. He didn;t open the letter, but when he say it he knew what it was. Immediately he walked to the nearest Naval recruiting station and signed up. Vietnam (mostly) avoided.
Well the old saying is that the only people who really know Marines are Marines and the enemy, so here's some quotes from enemy combatants.
"Panic sweeps my men when they are facing the American Marines."
Captured North Korean Major
“Do not attack the First Marine Division. Leave the yellowlegs alone. Strike the American Army.”
-Orders given to Communist troops in the Korean War; shortly afterward, the Marines were ordered to not wear their khaki leggings.
"The American Marines are terribly reckless fellows... they would make very good storm troopers." Unidentified German officer at Belleau Wood
"Our morale began to break when the dying Marines kept coming."
Captured Japanese soldier on Tarawa.
However since the army was directly invoked, here, have some soldier's opinions on the Corps.
"The more Marines I have around, the better I like it."
General Clark, U.S. Army
"No one can say that the Marines have failed to do their work in handsome fashion."
Major General Hagood, U.S. Army
"I can never again see a United States Marine without experiencing a feeling of reverence."
Gen Johnson, U.S. Army
Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can. They are the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines.
Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, USA; 12 February 1918
"I have just returned from visiting the MARINES at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!"
Gen Douglas MacArthur, U.S. Army
"We have two companies of Marines running all over this island and thousands of Army troops doing nothing!"
Gen John Vessey, U.S. Army, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
"The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of Marines. LORD, how they could fight!"
MajGen Frank Lowe, U.S. Army
"The man who will go where his colors go without asking, who will fight a phantom foe in a jungle or a mountain range, and who will suffer and die; in the midst of incredible hardship, without complaint, is still what he has always been, from Imperial Rome to sceptered Britain to democratic America. He is the stuff of which legends are made. His pride is his colors and his regiment, his training hard and thorough and coldly realistic, to fit him for what he must face, and his obedience is to his orders. As a legionnaire, he held the gates of civilization for the classical world...today he is called United States Marine."
LtCol Fehrenbach, U.S. Army, in "This Kind of War"
Alpha 1 wrote: The Army Rangers are an elite unit with in the US Army and is more comparable to Marine Force Recon than to standard Infantry training another thing with the Marines is that everybody goes through a standard Basic Training no matter what your trade is before you move on to your specialized training.
The South Vietnamese government was corrupted but yet the US still gave them money,military hardware and support while knowing this fact and wondering how the VC had more American equipment than they did. Either the military and political power in the US choose to ignore that fact or did not care as long as they killed commies. When it comes to winning the hearts and minds the US military has always had a problem with that concept compared to other nations (US good at winning wars not good at winning peace). You can not stick a gun in someones face and than say you are there to help them they might not see it that way.
The Marines are self efficient compared to the Army of course the Marines relies on the Navy for a lot of things just like the army but the Marines have their own sea and air capabilities that surpass that of the US Army.
Alpha, you need to stop posting incorrect information. The Marines do NOT have their own sea capabilities, the Navy provides all that. In terms of air capabilities, little known fact, but the Army has more aircraft (primarily helicopters) in its inventory than the entire the Department of the Navy does (and also quite possibly the Air Force, though that one is a close call).
In any case, back to the original point of this thread, I would say that the quality of troops post WW2 through to the post Jimmy Carter era was inferior to what it was in the second world war and what it is today based largely on the mindset of the average soldier. WW2 was a draft force, but for the most part Americans saw it as their duty to go fight, they after all had been attacked first and they were simply defending themselves. Today, we have a volunteer army, and a really damned well equipped, trained, and cared for one at that. In between we had what was largely a conscripted military, so you had a lot of people who were reluctant to serve in the first place, let alone deploy. I wouldn't really say that the Air Force or Navy had better quality recruits, nor the Marines, they all came from the same pool (when drafted), the difference however is what the various branches did with those recruits once they had them in their hands. The Marines beat (often literally) the discipline into their recruits (there really isn't much roo for mediocrity in the Corps), the Sailors and Airmen that actually got to see the battlefield were for the most part the cream of the crop from those respective services, with the rest being rather average, and the Army had a full spectrum of quality.
In general though, back then and today, there really is no effective difference in terms of combat effectiveness of an Army infantryman vs a Marine Corps infantryman. In terms of efficiency however, the Army (rather than the Marines as is usually believed, people seem to forget that a large chunk of the Marines budget is actually hidden in the Navy's budget, as well as a large chunk being contributed by the Army and Air Force from R&D, logistics, etc.) is far more efficient than the Marines at everything except maybe establishing a beachhead (in terms of dollar costs anyway). Where the Marine Corps really shines is that theoretically speaking every Marine could be an effective battlefield combatant (though you still wouldn't want a Marine REMF on the front line), whereas a Soldier in say... accounting, probably fires his rifle about as often as an Air Force mechanic would.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 2. A general point that applies to WW2 as well: Did the US Army have sufficient quality of recruits? In numerous books I've read, the argument always sounds the same: the airforce and the navy get the best candidates for officers/soldiers, whilst the army always gets the 4th and 5th picks. If you look at the basic infantry recruit for Vietnam, it always seems to be the poor guy from some Southern state that ends up in Vietnam. Did the army lose out to the Navy and the marines for quality of recruits?
One book I've read suggests that the Navy and airforce were better at spotting talent at college.
I can really only speak to this from the officer side of things, and I have zero perspective whatsoever on Korean War-era realities, but I wouldn't say there's necessary a "quality" difference. There may certainly be - and was, in my case - a motivation difference, though. You get to do cooler stuff longer as an officer in the Navy and the Air Force (with the massive caveat that this only applies if you wind up getting the right job). There are exceptions, but generally speaking, by the time you're leaving the JO realm in the Army or Marines, your days of even potentially getting to be a door-kicker are gone, whereas you can fly right up to O-5 in the Navy, provided you go the CAG route.
Easy E wrote: I can see why during wartime the Navy and Air Force would get better recruits than the Army.
Anecdotal stor s of no real value. My Dad's draft number came up in Vietnam. He didn;t open the letter, but when he say it he knew what it was. Immediately he walked to the nearest Naval recruiting station and signed up. Vietnam (mostly) avoided.
Yeah, that makes sense in a draft situation. Post-draft? I'd say it doesn't come into play any longer. Look at the early years of GWOT; the Army and the Marines didn't have any trouble at all meeting recruiting quotas. When you get people who actually want to fight versus those who are forced into it, effectiveness is obviously going to go up.
I think quality of soldiers varied as much in WW2 as in Korea and Vietnam. Probably more in WW2 as with the size of the draft force (approached 100 combat divisions) there were a lot less deferments. Training especially early in WW2 was poor. It took getting bloodied in Africa and Italy for things to change.
I think where you will see the real differences is in leadership, especially at the senior command levels. Under Marshall in WW2 GOs were fired/relieved pretty often. During Korea firing a GO was very rare and had turned into a political vice a competency issue. This followed in Vietnam and holds true to the present in many cases (read Rick's "The Generals" for a decent example, though one with some flaws in his conclusions).
We've always had some great troops and some not so great troops. Properly lead and with clear national objectives which the military can translate into executable campaigns and operations makes a big difference.
Anecdotal stor s of no real value. My Dad's draft number came up in Vietnam. He didn;t open the letter, but when he say it he knew what it was. Immediately he walked to the nearest Naval recruiting station and signed up. Vietnam (mostly) avoided.
My dad did that...he ended up attached to an Army base fixing the engines on river boats. I have no clue how that one happened.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. Americans are wussies. Would you like a little more drone with your coffee sir?
Another insightful and useful post from our resident troll.
I wouldn't say that the quality of recruits was necessarily any less in Vietnam or Korea when compared to WWII due to the use of conscripts, although I am sure that WWII had more motivated volunteers. Quite simply conscripts will always be outperformed by volunteers all things being equal. Recruits may well be more used to creature comforts during later years but that's what basic training is for. If troops reach a combat zone unprepared and soft then its a failure of training rather than selection.
Incidentally US troops in WWII were equally soft and unprepared during the 'early' years of the war. For example when they first made contact with German troops in early 1943 in North Afrcia (the same German troops who had just retreated 2000 miles through the North African desert after El Alamein and were pretty beaten up) which resulted in the routs at Faid and Sidi Bou Zid (where the US infantry apparently couldn't even be bothered to dig in properly or even unlimber their AT guns).
I think the real issue is one that recurs throughout history, hard won wartime lessons are easily forgotten during peactime. This seems to be Britains specialist subject.
Absolutely I think Marines are more effective fighters than Army soldiers, and I think it basically boils down to motivation.
You have to really want to be a marine. The recruitment process for many starts months or even years before final acceptance. They are actually relatively selective, and their boot camp is no joke at all. I think this does translate into deadlier fighters. There's a different mindset. Most of these guys are loons who really want to kill people and be shot at (which is a good thing - I certainly want the guys defending my country to be ready and able to kill)
The Army (and Navy, as well) has always sort of struck me as the last resort of people who are not sure what to do after high school. With no offense intended to anyone whatsoever, as a general rule, I do not believe the Army attracts the best and brightest of any demographic. I am not a service member, but I've known plenty, and in my experience, those who couldn't cut it as Marines joined the Army or Navy.
I'm hearing now that the Army is facing the problem of having a lot of recruits who have never even been in a fist fight in their lives. That is pretty shocking to me. I do think each successive generation gets softer.
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: Absolutely I think Marines are more effective fighters than Army soldiers, and I think it basically boils down to motivation.
You have to really want to be a marine. The recruitment process for many starts months or even years before final acceptance. They are actually relatively selective, and their boot camp is no joke at all. I think this does translate into deadlier fighters. There's a different mindset. Most of these guys are loons who really want to kill people and be shot at (which is a good thing - I certainly want the guys defending my country to be ready and able to kill)
The Army (and Navy, as well) has always sort of struck me as the last resort of people who are not sure what to do after high school. With no offense intended to anyone whatsoever, as a general rule, I do not believe the Army attracts the best and brightest of any demographic. I am not a service member, but I've known plenty, and in my experience, those who couldn't cut it as Marines joined the Army or Navy.
I'm hearing now that the Army is facing the problem of having a lot of recruits who have never even been in a fist fight in their lives. That is pretty shocking to me. I do think each successive generation gets softer.
Really? Nuclear engineers (navy), submariners (navy), deep sea divers (navy), thousands of helicopter and airplane pilots (army and navy), special forces (army), SEALs (navy) are just some of those people who apparently didn't know what they wanted to do after high school. The biggest problem facing military recruitment isn't that no one wants to join - it's that not enough Americans are qualified or medically fit. All Army jobs require a high school diploma or GED and any officer (minus Warrant Officers) must have at least a 4 year degree. Actually, per capita, there are more people with degrees in the Army/Navy/Marine/Air Force than there are in the general population.
Most people off the street can't cut it in the Marines or the Army or the Navy - that's what basic training is for. Marines say it all the time - they aren't born, they are made.
It's astounding to me that you can simultaneously say "no offense" while simultaneously denigrating a couple million active duty service members by implying they aren't very smart.
In regards to the Marines, I have great respect for their training, doctrine, temperament, and esprit de corps. They are one of America's premier rapid reaction forces and they have elevated the science of amphibious warfare to a fine art. They are the rapier that hits like a sledge hammer. The Army has a different mission. We may not be as quick to react, we may not be fully equipped to gain supremacy in land, sea, and air (as we have no air superiority assets), but there is one thing the US Army does better than anyone else and that is taking vast swathes of your territory and making it ours and keeping it. We're the sledge hammer that hits like a freight train and we. don't. stop. rolling.
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: Absolutely I think Marines are more effective fighters than Army soldiers, and I think it basically boils down to motivation.
You have to really want to be a marine. The recruitment process for many starts months or even years before final acceptance. They are actually relatively selective, and their boot camp is no joke at all. I think this does translate into deadlier fighters. There's a different mindset. Most of these guys are loons who really want to kill people and be shot at (which is a good thing - I certainly want the guys defending my country to be ready and able to kill)
The Army (and Navy, as well) has always sort of struck me as the last resort of people who are not sure what to do after high school. With no offense intended to anyone whatsoever, as a general rule, I do not believe the Army attracts the best and brightest of any demographic. I am not a service member, but I've known plenty, and in my experience, those who couldn't cut it as Marines joined the Army or Navy.
I'm hearing now that the Army is facing the problem of having a lot of recruits who have never even been in a fist fight in their lives. That is pretty shocking to me. I do think each successive generation gets softer.
Marine and Army recruiting standards are stunningly similar. Direct MOS to MOS comparisons make it even more so. 11B (Army Infantry) training really isn't too different from USMC infantry training. OUST (boot camp and MOS specific advanced training) is also no joke. You are really talking as a guy who watches TV shows vice a guy who knows anything about the topic.
By the way, did you know the USMC sends their guys to Ft Benning for Airborne School? And the USMC uses Army training for their tankers? And some of their signal and intel? And other things where they don't have the MOS density to justify their own training?
Yeah, while my father was an AF Recruiter, I got to see a lot of how things shook down with the other branches, and I saw that the Marines were a LOT less selective of their enlistees then the Army was.
The Marines is where the people who couldn't get into the Army went.
And some anecdotal evidence, we had a guy get expelled from my school for threatening to shoot it up immediately post-columbine. He also had a thing for sleeping with 14 year old girls (when he was 19). He became a Marine.
My father joined the USMC when he graduated high school because he had no other prospects whatsoever. He left as soon as his first hitch was up. When I talked to him about going OCS and JAG, he said "son, don't waste your life." Despite this, he is immensely proud of the USMC and of having been a Marine and that his father was a Marine during WW2, serving in the Pacific.
I have know a few scummers who wound up in the USMC and came out no better for it. I also know some ex-Marines who are well and truly good men. I've known people from both categories from all the service branches, except Coast Guard. To my knowledge (accounting for memory), I have never met anyone who had been in the Coast Guard.
All I mean is, none of the branches only take good people. None of the branches can guarantee to take a douche bag and turn him into a stand up guy.
I hope I did not give the impression I am against Marines. I have had the pleasure of working with some absolutely fantastic troopers who happened to be Marines. Both on the enlisted and ossifer side of the house, both combat arms and in some intel jobs.
But there was no way I was letting the BS being spouted about them being The Best Of the Best and Most Highly Selective go by. They just are not. Service pride and some inter-Service rivalry are fine. Spreading myths which are not even based on actual experience let alone facts is not fine.
Manchu wrote: My father joined the USMC when he graduated high school because he had no other prospects whatsoever. He left as soon as his first hitch was up. When I talked to him about going OCS and JAG, he said "son, don't waste your life." Despite this, he is immensely proud of the USMC and of having been a Marine and that his father was a Marine during WW2, serving in the Pacific.
I have know a few scummers who wound up in the USMC and came out no better for it. I also know some ex-Marines who are well and truly good men. I've known people from both categories from all the service branches, except Coast Guard. To my knowledge (accounting for memory), I have never met anyone who had been in the Coast Guard.
Of course, and to just be clear my previous post was in no way an indictment of the Marine Corps. I've nothing but the utmost respect for them. And we definitely get bad eggs in all of the branches. That is without a question. I've seen some true monsters in my day, some who are still in Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison.
Alpha, you need to stop posting incorrect information. The Marines do NOT have their own sea capabilities, the Navy provides all that. In terms of air capabilities, little known fact, but the Army has more aircraft (primarily helicopters) in its inventory than the entire the Department of the Navy does (and also quite possibly the Air Force, though that one is a close call).
Actually, IIRC it is that the Army has more boats than the Navy (mostly in close shore PT boats) and the Navy has more aircraft than the AF (partially because of the navy, but also because of the Marines)
And if you really want to get into the grand scheme of US Military actions there is one major trend that has continued all the way through OEF/OIF:
During the first 6-12 months of any conflict in which we send troops, we will take fairly massive casualties. After this period, the casualties will taper off greatly as the vets of the current war keep the greenhorns in check, and learn people the proper way to fight on their current land (whether its a trench, a European village, desert, jungle in Asia, etc.). Then, once we've gotten done kicking the crap out of whoever asked for it that time, we purge a ton of combat vets and majorly trim down numbers (this is something we still havent figured out how to do successfully). Then 5-10 years or so later, we launch into another conflict and take massive casualties, thus repeating the whole process.
The thing about the way we fight our wars is that, unlike many countries out there, we have a philosophy that demands that the lowest ranking private take charge, and complete the mission, should those above him get killed. I've read many of those correspondence/memoir books from previous conflicts in which we fought alongside many great nations. In the vast majority of those books, the writer often describes what they feel/know would happen should the ranking officer get killed in action, and usually it involves things grinding to a halt until SOMEONE can figure out from higher what to do. Maybe we're "brainwashed" to believe that we'll be the next great MoH winner, but the mission comes first and we are actively trained to take charge of situations should our supervisors be taken out.
@Manchu, AFAIK the Marines have the worst retention rate among first term enlistees of any branch. BUT, I think that among mid-late term careers they have probably the best retention rate. And I've known one guy who spent 20+ years as a Coastie, and he was definitely as good as any soldier or marine Ive met.
None of us were alive and in the military during the Korean War and Vietnam. All we have is what we hear and read. You are pitting the USMC against the US Army as a whole. Let's stack USMC against the 82nd, 101st, 1 Cav Div, 1st Inf Div. to name few US Army units during both conflict.
Korean War. Task Force Smith. Troops from Japan encountering NK armored forces the first time. T34'sjust literally blew right through them Anti Armor weapons was outdated. Tactic's were outdated. Army held around Pusan. When the Marines hit it was Inchon. Majority of NK forces were south. Eventually combined forces drove NK back up the peninsula and left like two NK regiments left before China came across and introduce us to the "human wave". So we got a taste of what the Germans experience on the Eastern front. Remember though, the NCO and Mid grade officers core for both branches were vet's from Europe and Pacific.
Vietnam. Very few vets. Draft still happening. Rampant drug use. Make formation, do your job, don't screw up, and do your time. Thing's at first was a cluster F*** till the draft kicked into over drive and one's life is on the line. Built up the combat experience of troops NCO's and officers of that conflict. Basically we screwed ourselves with the two year enlistment. Individual does one tour, officers rotate into leadership positions every six months to name a few. Basically everyone relearned how to fight VC and NVA who took Imperial Japanese tactics and fortification to a whole new level with the same fanatical mind set.
Another damn thing. Stop with the slights, finger pointing, concealed bashing, and typical "gotcha" BS stories. I see a few on here is trying to answer the question to degree and not twinkle F***ing toeing around the GD flowers holding their skirts high. Think about it. Compare our time to that time. Its a good debate point.
Just a couple of general points, but some books have suggested that the US military were slow off the mark when it came to developing their equivalent of the AK47 (putting themselves at a disadvantage as a result, with troops entering the Vietnam war with the M1? )
We were so jealous of the AK magazine capacity.......simplicity at its finest. M16 is a fine weapon but starting out with a 20 mag and the "TLC" needed to keep it functional was best kept in garrison
Most of what I say here is going to be in contrast to certain popular opinions.
I can say these things because my family was in the military in all of these wars and the gaps between, and not stacking bs in Ohio during the wars.
Marine did better because for the most part they had an organization that has always been willing to admit the only real job of a combat unit is to kill humans in such a lopsided ratio to make the other side gak their pants. Their officers looked out for them far better than the army from the political bs. This is changing with the new Marine leadership the President had appointed.
The Army leadership of course has no problem mouthing whatever idiotic platitudes that are politically correct for the day as long as they get paid and are kept far from combat as witnessed by their top NCO who never served a combat tour even though he was in a combat MOS.....
Most army Generals since Korea are detestable cretins who would eat their own young for a promotion. Trying to court martial a guy for pissing on the corpse that minutes before was killing his troops is a good example of just how fethed up the military leadership is now.
It’s a war…you just killed him forever. What moron ever talks about respect for a chunk of meat you just terminated…? There is a good physiological reason why you dehumanize the thing you just killed…
It’s not your old pet dog you put down because he was in pain. It’s an donkey-cave who was trying to kill you and yours…He got what he deserved. That nobility crap is for the movies. It does not exist in a war zone.
Anyway, back to skills, which is long…
Spoiler:
1945
After a couple of years of real war the skill set was pretty good for Army ground combat forces that served in multiple theaters.
This would be the 1st, 3rd, 9th, 36th, 45th infantry divisions, the 82nd airborne; and the 2nd armored division. I say this because there were 91 combat Divisions and only the above divisions fought in more than one area.
There were several divisions that never saw combat. Their skills were way beneath the 7 Divisions listed above. There were 3 theaters of war during WWII. Mediterranean, European and Pacific.
End of WWII to just prior to the Korean War
The Congress cut the army from 91 divisions to 17. The troops they kept after the drawn down were for the most part reduced in rank from what they had been in WWII and they used a point system that was based on direct combat experience. You had sergeants as privates, Colonels as captains, etc... The skill set was pretty good. Really. Just no money for supplies, equipment, bullets or maintenance.
Korean War
Korea is invaded without adequate warning. Task Force Smith is sent out as a response...Everyone knows what is going to happen but to keep the President from looking stupid a whole lot of good men are sent out to die.....and everybody is pushed back to Pusan.
The troops were combat experienced for the most part by WWII. The failures were in equipment, lousily weapons like the M2 carbine that works OK in warm weather, jams in cold weather, does not go thru a lot of layers of heavy cloths and since Korea was really cold at that time all those North Koreans were not terrible affected by that little round it shot unless you hit them in the face.
We go back on a war footing with the draft and get troops with enough guns and ammo and push them all the way back to the border with China and then China invades. The draft puts lots of men in a rapidly expanding army into Korea. Many of these are WWII vets but an increasing number are not.
Skill set starts to slip but by the time of the Cease Fire agreement Skill set is back up but not to the level of the WWII vets.
After the Korean War
The Congress again cuts the military to almost nothing...The difference now is a longer gap in time and WWII vets are now too old for the ranks so the army NCO's and Officers corps are a few Korean War vets and the rest are new to war unless they have been assigned the combat divisions in Korea who still have shootouts in their divisional slices of the DMZ.
The skill set is getting bad at this point. The army goes into maintenance mode, just hanging on again.
1954 till 1961
The only thing the US Army does is to start sending very small numbers of advisers to the French in Indochina.
U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) personnel are handpicked soldiers and have diplomatic status.
This is at the order of President Truman and then President Eisenhower.
Skill set degenerates even more.
There are about 600 American troops in Vietnam.
1961
Kennedy gets elected by running on a platform that he is a tougher militant than Eisenhower and stuck to it. He starts sending more advisers and plotting assassinations of other countries leaders and overthrows of communist countries like Cuba.
I know this does not match the current "history" taught in schools but go read up on it.
He launches the Bay of Pigs invasion 2 months after getting sworn in.
It was organized by Eisenhower but adopted with changes and launched by Kennedy and his brother. Kennedy pulled the air and sea support a few hours into the invasion when a American TV network got wind of it leaving the troops on the beach to die.
Cuba send the troops back to America after capture. I will skip the Missile Crisis except to say most of the movies are wrong. Read the recently released Soviet version of their official declassified documents. Ours are still classified for some reason.
This sets the leadership model for American troops who see a new President who will leave troops out to die that he ordered out there to save his own political ass. The troops notice, so do the officers. (This was a raging issue with my family. We had never had a President who had done that before.)
1961 and 1962
American troop numbers in Vietnam vastly increase by order of President Kennedy. Not Nixon, not Johnson... I remember this quite well. My father went over in October of 1961. MACV is organized in February as a replacement for MAAG and troops pour in.
Kennedy backs a coup to take out the current leader of South Vietnam, that leader is killed and replaced.
The officers and troops in Vietnam take note of this as well. As do the citizens of Vietnam. At that point we probably lost the war, for we sure did lose the support of the Vietnamese people. This was big news everywhere except France and America.
The war in Vietnam gets bigger. There are now over 15,000 troops in Vietnam, up from 600 when Kennedy came into office. Kennedy gets killed and Johnson tells the world America will not lose the war.
1964
There are over 24 thousand American troops in South Vietnam. There are also 170,000 Vietcong. There are no fixed objectives, no authorization to use all the tools of war.
The rot sets in as the troops know the leadership cares not one damn wit for their lives.
We do get to test lots of new weapons systems.
1965
After 3 years of combat American troops are officially authorized combat pay. My father is on his second tour. In July Johnson announces he will send 44 additional combat battalions bringing American troops in Vietnam to 125,000. Still no strategic objectives...still limits on weapons.
The year rotation is to get American troop fighting skills back up. It does not work well. By the end of the year troop strength in Vietnam is over 200, 000.
1966
Troop strength over 380, 000. In this year alone there are 6, 000 dead and 30,000 wounded American soldiers as they pay the price to get trained back up...
1967
Troop strength over 485 000. Less casualties for those past their first tour, not so good for fresh draftees… but the basic training gets tougher and better and that loss rate lowers as well.
There is special training. Fort Benning has fake Vietnamese villages with everything from real puji sticks to accurate tunnels with booby traps to everything you would find except for the coke girls.
1966-the end of the war.
Training stays the same, number keep increasing. Troops are less ready due to morale. All I will add is Nixon is elected President in November of 68 and the month he is sworn into office he starts the Paris Peace talks. It takes 5 years to end the war. That is the guy everyone blames for Vietnam….
The United States ends the longest war in its history, except for the present one which is going on 12 years.
This one started with the best trained army in the world but after 12 years of skipping training for the kind of war we need to be prepared for I suspect it is not up for a major war, like with China, now.
Just a couple of general points, but some books have suggested that the US military were slow off the mark when it came to developing their equivalent of the AK47 (putting themselves at a disadvantage as a result, with troops entering the Vietnam war with the M1? )
It think it was actually the M14.
Actually there were units with M1 carbines but they were Air Force and they swapped them out latter for Colts.
My first army issue was an M14...., was glad to swap it out at the time for a colt. Then I got issued a M79 and a 45... Too happy then.
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: Absolutely I think Marines are more effective fighters than Army soldiers, and I think it basically boils down to motivation.
You have to really want to be a marine. The recruitment process for many starts months or even years before final acceptance. They are actually relatively selective, and their boot camp is no joke at all. I think this does translate into deadlier fighters. There's a different mindset. Most of these guys are loons who really want to kill people and be shot at (which is a good thing - I certainly want the guys defending my country to be ready and able to kill)
The Army (and Navy, as well) has always sort of struck me as the last resort of people who are not sure what to do after high school. With no offense intended to anyone whatsoever, as a general rule, I do not believe the Army attracts the best and brightest of any demographic. I am not a service member, but I've known plenty, and in my experience, those who couldn't cut it as Marines joined the Army or Navy.
I'm hearing now that the Army is facing the problem of having a lot of recruits who have never even been in a fist fight in their lives. That is pretty shocking to me. I do think each successive generation gets softer.
Marine and Army recruiting standards are stunningly similar. Direct MOS to MOS comparisons make it even more so. 11B (Army Infantry) training really isn't too different from USMC infantry training. OUST (boot camp and MOS specific advanced training) is also no joke. You are really talking as a guy who watches TV shows vice a guy who knows anything about the topic.
By the way, did you know the USMC sends their guys to Ft Benning for Airborne School? And the USMC uses Army training for their tankers? And some of their signal and intel? And other things where they don't have the MOS density to justify their own training?
You need 10 points higher on the ASVAB to be an Army infantryman than you do a USMC rifleman.
I figured my post would set off a bunch of butt-hurt with army guys. I don't know how much more I could have sugar coated my post. You can call me an idiot, assume I don't know what I am talking about, watch too many movies, whatever you like, if it makes you feel better about your life choices. I was simply trying to answer a subjective question with a subjective answer. So sorry if you feel that you were one of the people I was talking about.
I am sure you are fine, intelligent, upstanding people, which is why I think I said "in general" a few times. Those are my impressions. Half my family is military and a bunch of friends, too. I damn near was one of those kids who joined the Navy right out of high school because I had nothing better to do. Got processed at LA MEPs and everything before I wised up to the fact that the recruiter was telling me everything I wanted to hear and glossing over the whole "cleaning gak on a boat for six months a year" stuff.
All I can tell you is that in my experience, all the Army guys I've known with a few exceptions were looking for a paycheck, and all of the Marines I've known really wanted to kill people
Purely anecdotal. I never claimed to be a scientist.
EDIT: And I will add that everyone thinks their branch is the best, has the toughest boot camp, the most stringent requirements, etc etc etc, so all that talk doesn't impress me much.
And I meant to quote Sgt_Scruffy, too, but it didn't work.
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: Absolutely I think Marines are more effective fighters than Army soldiers, and I think it basically boils down to motivation.
You have to really want to be a marine. The recruitment process for many starts months or even years before final acceptance. They are actually relatively selective, and their boot camp is no joke at all. I think this does translate into deadlier fighters. There's a different mindset. Most of these guys are loons who really want to kill people and be shot at (which is a good thing - I certainly want the guys defending my country to be ready and able to kill)
The Army (and Navy, as well) has always sort of struck me as the last resort of people who are not sure what to do after high school. With no offense intended to anyone whatsoever, as a general rule, I do not believe the Army attracts the best and brightest of any demographic. I am not a service member, but I've known plenty, and in my experience, those who couldn't cut it as Marines joined the Army or Navy.
I'm hearing now that the Army is facing the problem of having a lot of recruits who have never even been in a fist fight in their lives. That is pretty shocking to me. I do think each successive generation gets softer.
Marine and Army recruiting standards are stunningly similar. Direct MOS to MOS comparisons make it even more so. 11B (Army Infantry) training really isn't too different from USMC infantry training. OUST (boot camp and MOS specific advanced training) is also no joke. You are really talking as a guy who watches TV shows vice a guy who knows anything about the topic.
By the way, did you know the USMC sends their guys to Ft Benning for Airborne School? And the USMC uses Army training for their tankers? And some of their signal and intel? And other things where they don't have the MOS density to justify their own training?
You need 10 points higher on the ASVAB to be an Army infantryman than you do a USMC rifleman.
I figured my post would set off a bunch of butt-hurt with army guys. I don't know how much more I could have sugar coated my post. You can call me an idiot, assume I don't know what I am talking about, watch too many movies, whatever you like, if it makes you feel better about your life choices. I was simply trying to answer a subjective question with a subjective answer. So sorry if you feel that you were one of the people I was talking about.
I am sure you are fine, intelligent, upstanding people, which is why I think I said "in general" a few times. Those are my impressions. Half my family is military and a bunch of friends, too. I damn near was one of those kids who joined the Navy right out of high school because I had nothing better to do. Got processed at LA MEPs and everything before I wised up to the fact that the recruiter was telling me everything I wanted to hear and glossing over the whole "cleaning gak on a boat for six months a year" stuff.
All I can tell you is that in my experience, all the Army guys I've known with a few exceptions were looking for a paycheck, and all of the Marines I've known really wanted to kill people
Purely anecdotal. I never claimed to be a scientist.
EDIT: And I will add that everyone thinks their branch is the best, has the toughest boot camp, the most stringent requirements, etc etc etc, so all that talk doesn't impress me much.
And I meant to quote Sgt_Scruffy, too, but it didn't work.
I do not think I have jumped on you, or anyone else in a harsh manner
I will tell you soldiers are soldiers. It's the training and the environment that makes the difference.
Does not matter Army, Marine, whatever.
I will also tell you anyone that says they "really want to Kill people" is not getting assigned to a combat unit...and not staying in the military past their first exam.
It's all about the mission... Killing people is not a side benefit, it's just a requirement of the job. It gets old fast.
A child does what he wants...A man does what he has to....
Your in fan boy mode. No biggie. Your comparing today quality to a past that doesn't reflect to us. Your perception of Marines "just wanting to kill people" doesn't jive with who I have worked with. Both branch infantries are willing to "kill" the threats but not out right over do it. Welcome to the all volunteer force where you decide to join what ever branch you want. SO you decided to join the Navy because you couldn't hack it in the Corp? My first option of what branch I was joining was whoever was going to offer me the most in 1989. USMC was a open contract for six years. No damn way in Hell. USAF (my father was in) was not my cup of tea. USN I was not going to spend most of my time at sea. Picked US Army. GI Bill, 5k bonus, three year commitment, Airborne, and choice of duty station (South Korea, Hey, I'm half Thai)
The debate is 1945 - 1972.
Now if he went going from a peace time military to a war time military there are only a few of us that can pretty much explain that. Korean War and Vietnam War is comparable to our OIF and OEF or GWT (Global War on Terror)
Visual time line is not the way. All it shows is the transformation over time of uniform and equipment. I've no idea where Chub Scout Master is in the last pic. We no longer wear BDU's. That body armor(?) is not a IBA or IOTV neither a version of what the USMC wears. I might say a SpecOp operator but again. Chub Scout Master.
The "uniform" I think is a MOPP suit. Best guess is the pocket on the sleeve as an indicator. Where is his pro-mask carrier? He has a ACH and Oakley glasses. I'm not sure if his scope is painted. I don't think those are MOPP gloves...
As far as inter-service rivalry goes; When civilians ask me stupid questions about the capabilities of the various branches, I explain that the Navy, the Marines, and the Air Force are exceedingly capable of winning battles based on their specific strengths against any enemy yet encountered. On the other hand, the Army is capable of winning wars
Manchu wrote: I don't think American soldiers deployed in Korea or Vietnam were of worse quality than those deployed during WW2. I think that perception exists because there has been infinitely more criticism about those wars than WW2. Also, people still don't much admit that many WW2 vets suffered from what we now call PTSD among other service-related problems. But that stuff is front-and-center with Vietnam (if less so with Korea), making the WW2 vet seem like the invincible, smiling G.I. Joe of 40s propaganda while the Nam vet is stuck with the scared kid to cynical addict trope.
Good point. The main reason for starting this thread was to challenge that perception.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well the old saying is that the only people who really know Marines are Marines and the enemy, so here's some quotes from enemy combatants.
"Panic sweeps my men when they are facing the American Marines."
Captured North Korean Major
“Do not attack the First Marine Division. Leave the yellowlegs alone. Strike the American Army.”
-Orders given to Communist troops in the Korean War; shortly afterward, the Marines were ordered to not wear their khaki leggings.
"The American Marines are terribly reckless fellows... they would make very good storm troopers." Unidentified German officer at Belleau Wood
"Our morale began to break when the dying Marines kept coming."
Captured Japanese soldier on Tarawa.
However since the army was directly invoked, here, have some soldier's opinions on the Corps.
"The more Marines I have around, the better I like it."
General Clark, U.S. Army
"No one can say that the Marines have failed to do their work in handsome fashion."
Major General Hagood, U.S. Army
"I can never again see a United States Marine without experiencing a feeling of reverence."
Gen Johnson, U.S. Army
Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can. They are the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines.
Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, USA; 12 February 1918
"I have just returned from visiting the MARINES at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!"
Gen Douglas MacArthur, U.S. Army
"We have two companies of Marines running all over this island and thousands of Army troops doing nothing!"
Gen John Vessey, U.S. Army, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
"The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of Marines. LORD, how they could fight!"
MajGen Frank Lowe, U.S. Army
"The man who will go where his colors go without asking, who will fight a phantom foe in a jungle or a mountain range, and who will suffer and die; in the midst of incredible hardship, without complaint, is still what he has always been, from Imperial Rome to sceptered Britain to democratic America. He is the stuff of which legends are made. His pride is his colors and his regiment, his training hard and thorough and coldly realistic, to fit him for what he must face, and his obedience is to his orders. As a legionnaire, he held the gates of civilization for the classical world...today he is called United States Marine."
LtCol Fehrenbach, U.S. Army, in "This Kind of War"
Good quotes there, but back to the original point I was making about the marines. I hope I'm not offending anybody but there does seem to be a perception from this period that marines are 'dumb' i.e not thinking soldiers, but more akin to battering rams charging into battle. His name escapes me, but the example of that Marine general who went tank-hunting against North Korean T-34s (instead of commanding his division) is often cited as an example of the marine doctrine during this period.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 2. A general point that applies to WW2 as well: Did the US Army have sufficient quality of recruits? In numerous books I've read, the argument always sounds the same: the airforce and the navy get the best candidates for officers/soldiers, whilst the army always gets the 4th and 5th picks. If you look at the basic infantry recruit for Vietnam, it always seems to be the poor guy from some Southern state that ends up in Vietnam. Did the army lose out to the Navy and the marines for quality of recruits?
One book I've read suggests that the Navy and airforce were better at spotting talent at college.
I can really only speak to this from the officer side of things, and I have zero perspective whatsoever on Korean War-era realities, but I wouldn't say there's necessary a "quality" difference. There may certainly be - and was, in my case - a motivation difference, though. You get to do cooler stuff longer as an officer in the Navy and the Air Force (with the massive caveat that this only applies if you wind up getting the right job). There are exceptions, but generally speaking, by the time you're leaving the JO realm in the Army or Marines, your days of even potentially getting to be a door-kicker are gone, whereas you can fly right up to O-5 in the Navy, provided you go the CAG route.
Easy E wrote: I can see why during wartime the Navy and Air Force would get better recruits than the Army.
Anecdotal stor s of no real value. My Dad's draft number came up in Vietnam. He didn;t open the letter, but when he say it he knew what it was. Immediately he walked to the nearest Naval recruiting station and signed up. Vietnam (mostly) avoided.
Yeah, that makes sense in a draft situation. Post-draft? I'd say it doesn't come into play any longer. Look at the early years of GWOT; the Army and the Marines didn't have any trouble at all meeting recruiting quotas. When you get people who actually want to fight versus those who are forced into it, effectiveness is obviously going to go up.
It stands to reason that for the more technical/skilled jobs like fighter pilot or ship's captain, the navy/air force would attract a 'smarter' person who had a maths or physics degree or something like that. But my focus is on the platoon/company leaders of the army and marines. How good were they?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I think quality of soldiers varied as much in WW2 as in Korea and Vietnam. Probably more in WW2 as with the size of the draft force (approached 100 combat divisions) there were a lot less deferments. Training especially early in WW2 was poor. It took getting bloodied in Africa and Italy for things to change.
I think where you will see the real differences is in leadership, especially at the senior command levels. Under Marshall in WW2 GOs were fired/relieved pretty often. During Korea firing a GO was very rare and had turned into a political vice a competency issue. This followed in Vietnam and holds true to the present in many cases (read Rick's "The Generals" for a decent example, though one with some flaws in his conclusions).
We've always had some great troops and some not so great troops. Properly lead and with clear national objectives which the military can translate into executable campaigns and operations makes a big difference.
Perhaps it's a question of doctrines. It's my understanding that the US military has always placed great emphasis on overwhelming firepower. Now, I'm not saying that the US military neglected fieldcraft, but the impression from most books I've read is that during the Korean War the Chinese and the North Koreans were wily masters of camouflage (I suppose they had to be) and of course, during the Vietnam war, the NVA/Viet Cong, were wily grand masters and that America lagged behind bigtime.
As I quoted earlier, General Ridgway was exasperated that the troops couldn't do basic things like digging in, or had to be reminded not to shine torches at night when near the enemy etc etc
Do you (or anybody else for that matter) agree that the US neglected the 'traditional' military skills in favour of technology? Is this a problem today for the army/marines?
Just a couple of general points, but some books have suggested that the US military were slow off the mark when it came to developing their equivalent of the AK47 (putting themselves at a disadvantage as a result, with troops entering the Vietnam war with the M1? )
It think it was actually the M14.
Point being, I'm surprised the US (with its history small arms development) lagged behind the Soviet Union in this regard.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be fair to the US military, pre-Korea, five years of peacetime and garrison duty in Japan would take the edge of any fighting force, and my avatar has been rightly criticised for allowing this neglect to creep into the army of occupation in Japan.
But to me, it seems that after Korea, the same mistakes were made - veterans kicked out, skills forgotten, and as somebody said earlier, the cycle starts again.
Again, to be fair to the US military, they would have been planning a conventional war against the Soviets in Europe and the training and tactics would have reflected that.
Perhaps the problem of Vietnam, as others have said, was that it was a first world country fighting a third world country.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It stands to reason that for the more technical/skilled jobs like fighter pilot or ship's captain, the navy/air force would attract a 'smarter' person who had a maths or physics degree or something like that. But my focus is on the platoon/company leaders of the army and marines. How good were they?
I'd say your degree has little to do with anything you wind up doing in the Navy as an officer, so long as you have one. I was a History major, after all.
I think it'd be extremely difficult to make qualitative assessments about Marine/Army junior officers during the period you're interested in, but the "intelligence optional" sort of narrative has never been the case. Every branch wants smart combat leaders, because they're given a lot of responsibility over other guys' lives.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: Most of what I say here is going to be in contrast to certain popular opinions.
I can say these things because my family was in the military in all of these wars and the gaps between, and not stacking bs in Ohio during the wars.
Marine did better because for the most part they had an organization that has always been willing to admit the only real job of a combat unit is to kill humans in such a lopsided ratio to make the other side gak their pants. Their officers looked out for them far better than the army from the political bs. This is changing with the new Marine leadership the President had appointed.
The Army leadership of course has no problem mouthing whatever idiotic platitudes that are politically correct for the day as long as they get paid and are kept far from combat as witnessed by their top NCO who never served a combat tour even though he was in a combat MOS.....
Most army Generals since Korea are detestable cretins who would eat their own young for a promotion. Trying to court martial a guy for pissing on the corpse that minutes before was killing his troops is a good example of just how fethed up the military leadership is now.
It’s a war…you just killed him forever. What moron ever talks about respect for a chunk of meat you just terminated…? There is a good physiological reason why you dehumanize the thing you just killed…
It’s not your old pet dog you put down because he was in pain. It’s an donkey-cave who was trying to kill you and yours…He got what he deserved. That nobility crap is for the movies. It does not exist in a war zone.
.
You do know the trooper in trouble for pissing on the dead Talib are Marines right? And that it was the USMC leadership (including GOs who made GO under Bush) pushing the prosecution right? Just checking since you talk about Army GOs being cretins that eat their young and then go into that anecdote.
The rest of your argument is equally emotion rather than fact based.
Absolutely I think Marines are more effective fighters than Army soldiers, and I think it basically boils down to motivation.
You have to really want to be a marine. The recruitment process for many starts months or even years before final acceptance. They are actually relatively selective, and their boot camp is no joke at all. I think this does translate into deadlier fighters. There's a different mindset. Most of these guys are loons who really want to kill people and be shot at (which is a good thing - I certainly want the guys defending my country to be ready and able to kill)
The Army (and Navy, as well) has always sort of struck me as the last resort of people who are not sure what to do after high school. With no offense intended to anyone whatsoever, as a general rule, I do not believe the Army attracts the best and brightest of any demographic. I am not a service member, but I've known plenty, and in my experience, those who couldn't cut it as Marines joined the Army or Navy.
I'm hearing now that the Army is facing the problem of having a lot of recruits who have never even been in a fist fight in their lives. That is pretty shocking to me. I do think each successive generation gets softer.
Marine and Army recruiting standards are stunningly similar. Direct MOS to MOS comparisons make it even more so. 11B (Army Infantry) training really isn't too different from USMC infantry training. OUST (boot camp and MOS specific advanced training) is also no joke. You are really talking as a guy who watches TV shows vice a guy who knows anything about the topic.
By the way, did you know the USMC sends their guys to Ft Benning for Airborne School? And the USMC uses Army training for their tankers? And some of their signal and intel? And other things where they don't have the MOS density to justify their own training?
You need 10 points higher on the ASVAB to be an Army infantryman than you do a USMC rifleman.
I figured my post would set off a bunch of butt-hurt with army guys. I don't know how much more I could have sugar coated my post. You can call me an idiot, assume I don't know what I am talking about, watch too many movies, whatever you like, if it makes you feel better about your life choices. I was simply trying to answer a subjective question with a subjective answer. So sorry if you feel that you were one of the people I was talking about.
I am sure you are fine, intelligent, upstanding people, which is why I think I said "in general" a few times. Those are my impressions. Half my family is military and a bunch of friends, too. I damn near was one of those kids who joined the Navy right out of high school because I had nothing better to do. Got processed at LA MEPs and everything before I wised up to the fact that the recruiter was telling me everything I wanted to hear and glossing over the whole "cleaning gak on a boat for six months a year" stuff.
All I can tell you is that in my experience, all the Army guys I've known with a few exceptions were looking for a paycheck, and all of the Marines I've known really wanted to kill people
Purely anecdotal. I never claimed to be a scientist.
EDIT: And I will add that everyone thinks their branch is the best, has the toughest boot camp, the most stringent requirements, etc etc etc, so all that talk doesn't impress me much.
And I meant to quote Sgt_Scruffy, too, but it didn't work.
I'm not butt hurt. Your answer that the USMC was more selective is factually wrong. I demonstrated that. Your answer about USMC training is factually wrong. I demonstrated that. A 'subjective' answer based on falsehoods and myths is really just a wrong opinion. Opinions can be wrong. Your opinion clearly is.
djones520 wrote: Yeah, while my father was an AF Recruiter, I got to see a lot of how things shook down with the other branches, and I saw that the Marines were a LOT less selective of their enlistees then the Army was.
The Marines is where the people who couldn't get into the Army went.
.
When I was recruiting even during the surge the exact opposite was true. I dunno when your Dad was recruiting, but just having a criminal record would get you tossed out of the Marine office, the Army would waive it and your GED no problem. They also had a big board out front telling you how much money you could expect. All the recruiters in our office opened with the same speech "If you want a pay day, don't waste my time, Army's next door and they'll hook you up will all the bonuses they can, if you want to be a Marine, stay in the goddamn chair"
By the way, did you know the USMC sends their guys to Ft Benning for Airborne School?
This is nothing to be proud of mate. Static line Airborne training is the most massive waste of tax dollars on the planet. We need to scrap the 82nd/101st and their lil'red beanies post haste. If we need Airborne insertion these days we're calling Force Recon, Rangers or other fine gentlemen from over at USSOCOM. It's no slight on the battle record of the 82nd or 101st, they're tough, motivated bastards and are good in a fight, but Airborne's dead and has been for decades.
On another note I think the uniform culture and espirit of the Marines is another significant advantage that often gets over looked, if you give me an ad hoc gaggle feth of a squad from a dozen different units, given a couple minutes to sort who goes where I'll show you a basically functioning squad for whatever task needs doing be it filling sandbags or getting stuck in. I've seen similar attempts from the army and it doesn't go well. The unit to unit culture is just so massively different I don't understand how some army units work together at all.
Plenty of others in relatively recent history (a couple DZs in Panama, Grenada, Iraq....) done by the 82nd as well as the 173rd out of Italy, and the BNs of the 75th. By the way, the 101st is not an airborne division and has not been for decades.
Just saying...
And even the SOCOM folks go through basic airborne school at Benning well before they get to advanced airborne techniques.
And when it comes to air field takedown or other insertions into non-secured areas, static line jumps are the only way to get the mass needed into a small area without risking rotary wing lift.
So a "combat jump" on an empty airstrip which later had to be taken by the Marines after recon by the SEALs is your counter argument?
Out of Iraqi Freedom the best mass combat jumps we have are Task Force Viking... which was jumping onto a Coalition held airfield. Hell of a way to earn your mustard stain.
Other then that it looks like nothing but HALO/non-static jumps by SOCOM and supporting personnel all the way back to Task Force Pacific during Just Cause.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: On another note I think the uniform culture and espirit of the Marines is another significant advantage that often gets over looked, if you give me an ad hoc gaggle feth of a squad from a dozen different units, given a couple minutes to sort who goes where I'll show you a basically functioning squad for whatever task needs doing be it filling sandbags or getting stuck in. I've seen similar attempts from the army and it doesn't go well. The unit to unit culture is just so massively different I don't understand how some army units work together at all.
I would say in almost all cases that's true, with the one glaring exception being the strong institutional reluctance to having any "elite" units ("because Marines are already elite!" etc.) that led to MEUs' (SOC) designation not amounting to a hill of beans during the opening phases of OEF/OIF and, of course as a result of that, the formation of MARSOC.
Manchu wrote: I don't think American soldiers deployed in Korea or Vietnam were of worse quality than those deployed during WW2. I think that perception exists because there has been infinitely more criticism about those wars than WW2. Also, people still don't much admit that many WW2 vets suffered from what we now call PTSD among other service-related problems. But that stuff is front-and-center with Vietnam (if less so with Korea), making the WW2 vet seem like the invincible, smiling G.I. Joe of 40s propaganda while the Nam vet is stuck with the scared kid to cynical addict trope.
Good point. The main reason for starting this thread was to challenge that perception.
I have my own theory as to why this is the case... I actually knew a gentleman who fought the Japanese in the Pacific and we got to talking about what he saw, etc. I honestly think that our mode of transportation home after WW2 had a much greater affect than we realize as far as "negating" PTSD, etc. Think of it this way, they guys were holed up on a boat, with hundreds of other dudes who just went through largely the same crap as each other. This means they were able to talk about it, joke about it, and basically get things off their chest prior to getting home. The same gentleman was still in contact with about half of the living remnants of the company he served with (and this was the late 90s, early 2000s) Fast forward to Vietnam. While the fighting was similar in nature to what guys fighting Japan faced (heavy jungle, booby traps, and guerrilla style warfare, etc.), instead of being put on a boat home, they were put on a plane, and in about 18-24 hours or so, they were back in the states and being released to "normal" life. They didnt have the time to decompress, nor did the military provide the support that we do now (in the transition programs that are now mandatory), many didnt know about the VA benefits,etc that they earned.
That's not even taking into account the civilian attitudes in regards to those vets when they got home.
Alpha, you need to stop posting incorrect information. The Marines do NOT have their own sea capabilities, the Navy provides all that. In terms of air capabilities, little known fact, but the Army has more aircraft (primarily helicopters) in its inventory than the entire the Department of the Navy does (and also quite possibly the Air Force, though that one is a close call).
Actually, IIRC it is that the Army has more boats than the Navy (mostly in close shore PT boats) and the Navy has more aircraft than the AF (partially because of the navy, but also because of the Marines)
Wrong, the entire department of thr Navy has about 4000 aircraft, the AF some 5500 (as of 2011 anyway). I dont know where this myth came from but whoever came up with it needs to be stabbed in the face. If you dont believe me you can check the services annual budgets, its spelled out pretty clearly.
KalashnikovMarine - American Airborne is dead, doesnt mean Airborne as a whole is. If Airborne in this country had the same support and budgeting as the Russian VDV itd be a serious force to be reckoned with. Actually ive heard that were once again looking to develop an AFV light enough to be parachuted onto the battlefield, so maybe thatll change.
Marine and Army recruiting standards are stunningly similar. Direct MOS to MOS comparisons make it even more so. 11B (Army Infantry) training really isn't too different from USMC infantry training. OUST (boot camp and MOS specific advanced training) is also no joke. You are really talking as a guy who watches TV shows vice a guy who knows anything about the topic.
If only recruiting "standards" were all that went into making soldiers or Marines, then this would be relevant. If EITHER branch of service were somehow capable of creating a combat infantrymen from an eight week basic school, then this would be relevant. If the culture within which EITHER service cultivated their infantrymen were somehow equal, then this would be relevant. Trust me, they are not.
By the way, did you know the USMC sends their guys to Ft Benning for Airborne School? And the USMC uses Army training for their tankers? And some of their signal and intel? And other things where they don't have the MOS density to justify their own training?
Tell me again why Marines need to learn how to jump out of perfectly good airplanes? You forgot that Marines go to Ft. Sills(sp?) for Artillery training. I think its safe to say that the Army has the best Armor and Artillery units in the world, why wouldn't you want them to teach you everything they know? The Marines are forced to maintain a much higher percentage of combat troops to support than the other branches, they cannot do that AND maintain their own schools for all the various MOS's.
You need 10 points higher on the ASVAB to be an Army infantryman than you do a USMC rifleman.
There is some insight that can be found from a common slang term for Marines, Jarhead. A jar is an empty vessel. The Corps fully accepts that the recruit who shows up on the yellow footprints has a lot of unnecessary contraband rolling around in his brain pan. That's okay, they fully intend to wash it out and put only what they need back in. When I enlisted, Marines were required to get a 61 on the ASVAB to join, I was never aware that 03's were an MOS that required anything higher than that. I find it hard to believe you'd need a 71 on the ASVAB to become an 11BangBang. At any rate, I'm quite certain that no matter how much you paid attention in high school, both services intend to teach you a great deal before they send you to the battlefield.
To the OP's questions.
The Political climate in the United States has to be the greatest factor in why its Armed Forces were unable to achieve Major Victories in either the Korean or Vietnam wars. Much like Cornwallis's campaign in the South during the American Revolution, it is completely possible for the Armed Forces of a Nation to win every battle and still lose the War. Since World War II, America has misplaced its capability to wage war in the manner required to win armed conflicts in the manner in which it won WWII. Simply put, the determination that allowed America to firebomb non military residential targets in Germany, or use the atom bomb on Japanese cities, is no longer present. It stands to reason, that since the opponents in the Korean and Vietnam wars did not suffer this handicap, they would ultimately be able to win those conflicts by outlasting the U.S. long enough for outside pressures to necessitate the U.S. bringing the conflict to a close. This is exactly what has happened in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well.
As to jungle warfare.
Spoiler:
I would argue that while the jungle is certainly not a natural environment for your average American, assuming that they could only lose in Vietnam because they were "incapable" of fighting there is a mistake. Yes, the NVA were fighting in their natural environment with a certain "home field" advantage. But, you cannot assume that the Americans somehow "forgetting" the lessons learned against the Japanese in WWII is the reason the Vietnamese were able to outlast them. The NVA were an extremely capable, and determined enemy who were employed in a manner that allowed them to win. It's a testament to the fighting abilities of both sides that while the Americans were able to win the battles, which were extremely hard fought on both sides. The Vietnamese were able to absorb their losses and stay in the fight long enough to kill enough Americans to give weight to the Peace movement back in the U.S. With the roles reversed, this is exactly what happened in the American War of Independence.
As far as the quality of recruits is concerned.
Spoiler:
If there is any advantage held by any of the Armed Forces, it must be within the dynamic of a volunteer versus a draftee. While all have at times needed draftee's to fill their requirements. Traditionally the volunteers will go one of two ways, into the branch that will keep them away from the blood and guts, mud and muck (Navy and Air Force) or into the branch that will make sure that they see those very things. For whatever reason, the latter type has at least since WWI traditionally been largely drawn to the Marines. At least in so much that the smaller size of the Corps lends to a much higher percentage of volunteers within their ranks. If the Marines were forced to maintain the numbers the Army must, they would invariably have the same volunteer/draftee issues.
As to the Cold War.
Spoiler:
Until the U.S. starts putting untrained citizens on the battlefield the advantage of the AK-47 being usable by anyone and their grandmother is unimportant. The U.S. did not lose the Vietnam War because it started it fielding the M1 and M14. A perfectly fine weapon that defeated the Germans who wielded the weapon that inspired the AK-47. The U.S. has not lost a single war fought with the M16 or its variants BECAUSE of the bugs in the weapon system when first rolled into service or its complexity as a weapon system over all. I would point out that the M16 and its variants actually have a great Win % when it comes to battles fought with the two on opposing sides. As to the wars fought using them, I blame the aforementioned American determination to prosecute any War since WWII.
As far as comparing the U.S. Armed Forces with those of the Soviets.
Spoiler:
Since there was no direct conflict fought, we simply cannot know, hopefully we never will know, who would ultimately win a conflict between the U.S. and the Soviets or modern day Russia. I'm sorry, but pictures are a ridiculous way of attempting to measure such a thing. With there not having been an actual armed conflict, we can only theorize whether Russian/Soviet fatalism would have gotten the better of American fighting spirit and improvisation. Or whether or not an advance through the Gap would have awoken the "Sleeping Giant" the way the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did. All we do know is that the American ramp up of its military in the 80's under Reagan drove the Soviet Union into collapse trying to keep up.
Last, when comparing the Army to the Marines.
Spoiler:
Thankfully their wars are limited to E-clubs the world over and various skirmishes over the supplies of the Army, and reputation of the Corps. Having been a Marine infantrymen in two Wars. I would argue that while individually they are near enough to equal, it is when taken in numbers that Marines begin to exert their supremacy. Marines do no fight as individuals, be it In a bar or on the battlefield, they fight in packs. Marines of the Grunt variety are possessed with an extreme "us" versus "everyone" mentality. For both, these are amazingly fast calculations that are instilled at birth and honed through the culture they live in. The Army may call it stupid, and yes, Marines do amazingly stupid and often cruel things to themselves and each other. But the results are undeniably effective and as many have found, terribly destructive.
Going back to the "recruiting" of the two branches. I believe the difference can be best summed up by the recruiting slogans the two branches use to entice enlistments. While simplistic, and obviously propaganda, they do speak volumes about the culture of the two branches. The Army has used "Be all you can Be" a promise to better yourself. "An army of One" a call to the individual within. "Army Strong" once again, a call to better yourself. The Corps does not make such promises, They simply point out what it is to be a Marine, and ask whether the individual has the strength of character to become one of them. As the Marines understand it, the volunteer is seeking to give up his individuality, hoping to be remade into a Marine.
You can see the difference, subtle though it is, even in the nightly news. Active and former Army/Navy/Air Force are often referred to as "servicemen" or "veterans". When a Marine gets in the news (often for doing something stupid) they'll be sure to point out that they're Marines. The Army has begun to focus more on the term "Soldier" in its recruiting campaigns. I think its a step in the right direction, but we'll have to wait and see if its effective. We do know that the Marines have a 238 year head start on them...
Semper Fi!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: KalashnikovMarine - American Airborne is dead, doesnt mean Airborne as a whole is. If Airborne in this country had the same support and budgeting as the Russian VDV itd be a serious force to be reckoned with. Actually ive heard that were once again looking to develop an AFV light enough to be parachuted onto the battlefield, so maybe thatll change.
So going by the triumvirate of Tanks, Armor/Firepower/Speed, the Army is once again looking to dump out all its protection and firepower to shoehorn in a vehicle light enough to fall out of the sky that as a consequence won't be able to perform any of the functions you'd require an AFV for? Soldiers and jumping out of perfectly good Airplanes, I'll never understand it. It's like German Artillerymen and the StuG, only way they thought they could win the Knights Cross so they fought like hell to keep the Panzer Crews out of them.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: Most of what I say here is going to be in contrast to certain popular opinions.
I can say these things because my family was in the military in all of these wars and the gaps between, and not stacking bs in Ohio during the wars.
Marine did better because for the most part they had an organization that has always been willing to admit the only real job of a combat unit is to kill humans in such a lopsided ratio to make the other side gak their pants. Their officers looked out for them far better than the army from the political bs. This is changing with the new Marine leadership the President had appointed.
The Army leadership of course has no problem mouthing whatever idiotic platitudes that are politically correct for the day as long as they get paid and are kept far from combat as witnessed by their top NCO who never served a combat tour even though he was in a combat MOS.....
Most army Generals since Korea are detestable cretins who would eat their own young for a promotion. Trying to court martial a guy for pissing on the corpse that minutes before was killing his troops is a good example of just how fethed up the military leadership is now.
It’s a war…you just killed him forever. What moron ever talks about respect for a chunk of meat you just terminated…? There is a good physiological reason why you dehumanize the thing you just killed…
It’s not your old pet dog you put down because he was in pain. It’s an donkey-cave who was trying to kill you and yours…He got what he deserved. That nobility crap is for the movies. It does not exist in a war zone.
.
You do know the trooper in trouble for pissing on the dead Talib are Marines right? And that it was the USMC leadership (including GOs who made GO under Bush) pushing the prosecution right? Just checking since you talk about Army GOs being cretins that eat their young and then go into that anecdote.
The rest of your argument is equally emotion rather than fact based.
The President at that time (President Obama) had replaced the Marine Chief due to his opposition to gays in the military with his pick. That guy pushed the prosecution... Get YOUR facts straight.....
You do know the trooper in trouble for pissing on the dead Talib are Marines right? And that it was the USMC leadership (including GOs who made GO under Bush) pushing the prosecution right? Just checking since you talk about Army GOs being cretins that eat their young and then go into that anecdote.
The rest of your argument is equally emotion rather than fact based.
Absolutely I think Marines are more effective fighters than Army soldiers, and I think it basically boils down to motivation.
You have to really want to be a marine. The recruitment process for many starts months or even years before final acceptance. They are actually relatively selective, and their boot camp is no joke at all. I think this does translate into deadlier fighters. There's a different mindset. Most of these guys are loons who really want to kill people and be shot at (which is a good thing - I certainly want the guys defending my country to be ready and able to kill)
The Army (and Navy, as well) has always sort of struck me as the last resort of people who are not sure what to do after high school. With no offense intended to anyone whatsoever, as a general rule, I do not believe the Army attracts the best and brightest of any demographic. I am not a service member, but I've known plenty, and in my experience, those who couldn't cut it as Marines joined the Army or Navy.
I'm hearing now that the Army is facing the problem of having a lot of recruits who have never even been in a fist fight in their lives. That is pretty shocking to me. I do think each successive generation gets softer.
Marine and Army recruiting standards are stunningly similar. Direct MOS to MOS comparisons make it even more so. 11B (Army Infantry) training really isn't too different from USMC infantry training. OUST (boot camp and MOS specific advanced training) is also no joke. You are really talking as a guy who watches TV shows vice a guy who knows anything about the topic.
By the way, did you know the USMC sends their guys to Ft Benning for Airborne School? And the USMC uses Army training for their tankers? And some of their signal and intel? And other things where they don't have the MOS density to justify their own training?
You need 10 points higher on the ASVAB to be an Army infantryman than you do a USMC rifleman.
I figured my post would set off a bunch of butt-hurt with army guys. I don't know how much more I could have sugar coated my post. You can call me an idiot, assume I don't know what I am talking about, watch too many movies, whatever you like, if it makes you feel better about your life choices. I was simply trying to answer a subjective question with a subjective answer. So sorry if you feel that you were one of the people I was talking about.
I am sure you are fine, intelligent, upstanding people, which is why I think I said "in general" a few times. Those are my impressions. Half my family is military and a bunch of friends, too. I damn near was one of those kids who joined the Navy right out of high school because I had nothing better to do. Got processed at LA MEPs and everything before I wised up to the fact that the recruiter was telling me everything I wanted to hear and glossing over the whole "cleaning gak on a boat for six months a year" stuff.
All I can tell you is that in my experience, all the Army guys I've known with a few exceptions were looking for a paycheck, and all of the Marines I've known really wanted to kill people
Purely anecdotal. I never claimed to be a scientist.
EDIT: And I will add that everyone thinks their branch is the best, has the toughest boot camp, the most stringent requirements, etc etc etc, so all that talk doesn't impress me much.
And I meant to quote Sgt_Scruffy, too, but it didn't work.
I'm not butt hurt. Your answer that the USMC was more selective is factually wrong. I demonstrated that. Your answer about USMC training is factually wrong. I demonstrated that. A 'subjective' answer based on falsehoods and myths is really just a wrong opinion. Opinions can be wrong. Your opinion clearly is.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The President at that time (President Obama) had replaced the Marine Chief due to his opposition to gays in the military with his pick. That guy pushed the prosecution... Get YOUR facts straight.....
Air Field seizure KM. Combat drops are at 500 ft. Anyway in the world in 8 hrs are something silly like that. The "Ready" BDE is dropped with follow on BDE's from the 82nd landing and expanding the "bridge head". You have like 11K pissed off troopers who were hauled in over a four day weekend of drinking a bit irritated. Now can a MEU secure a bridgehead in a land lock land? Thinking to in the box KM. Broaden out and think strategic. Can the US Army conduct Amphib landing? Who does? Who's best to support a beach landing and who best expanding it. Can a MEU go into a land lock country and seize an airfield and expand from it? Can a MEU design to do what the 82nd can do? Can the 82nd do what a EU can do?
Now to this silly mentality of grunts "packs" and individuality in a team. Last I look a buddy rush is a buddy rush. Seizing an objective is the same for both.
Hell
0300 Basic Infantryman - SGT-PVT
0311 Rifleman - SGT-PVT
0312 Riverine Assault Craft Crewman
0313 LAV Crewman - MGYSGT-PVT
0314 Rigid Raiding Craft (RRC) Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB) Coxswain (FMOS)
0316 Combat Rubber Reconnaissance Craft Coxswain (NMOS)
0317 Scout Sniper - GYSGT-LCPL1 [formerly 8541] (Not a signing MOS)
0321 Reconnaissance Man - MGYSGT-PVT
0323 Reconnaissance Man, Parachute Qualified (NMOS) [formerly 8652]
0324 Reconnaissance Man, Combatant Diver Qualified (NMOS) [formerly 8653]
0326 Reconnaissance Man, Parachute and Combatant Diver Qualified (NMOS) [formerly 8654]
0331 Machine Gunner - SGT-PVT
0341 Mortarman - SGT-PVT
0351 Assaultman - SGT-PVT
0352 Anti-Tank Missileman - SGT-PVT
0358 Force Reconnaissance man -MGYSGT-SGT
0369 Infantry Unit Leader - MGYSGT-SSGT
0372 Critical Skills Operator - MGYSGT-SGT
11B Infantryman (includes soldiers formerly designated 11M [Mechanized] and 11H [Anti-armor]) 11B Infantryman are the standard infantry soldiers; the main combatants of the Army.
11C Indirect Fire Infantryman (Mortarman)
11X Undetermined Infantry (Open Enlistment Option, B/C determined during training.)
11Z Infantry Senior Sergeant
I highly doubt USMC would "tunnel vision" their Marines in their MOS's but cross train. By the time their E4's they best know how operate and maintain pretty much all crew serve weapons, M4/M9, At4, Javelin, SINGARS (I hate freaking getting in synch), head space and timing for a 50 cal, MK19, well Hell you NCO's know what I'm talking about. I also expect everyone to know how to do PMCS on whatever equipment they're told to do.
Marine Recon = US Army Rangers. Don't biatch about both are classed as Shock Troops.
US Seals = SF. Hell both are snake eater. We all know that
Delta.....they don't exist. They are not on Ft Bragg. That is not their compound right of Butner road. Anyone can join them. Just file the required paperwork in your branch to give a try out. As far as I know. One AF medic is there and One Navy Seal made it. 2010. We're talking a whole new level of the Dark Side.
101st Airborne (Air Assault) Nine Battalions of aviation asset to it. Who in this world can beat that size of a lateral movement on the battlefield. Who in the world can literally placed a BDE in someone rear area of operations in like two hours.
I will say that I am a better NCO then those from the Korean War and Vietnam War. In training and in leadership. That's a freebie though due to the nature of battlefield and military "technology" not to mention NCO schools.
As to the " Just checking since you talk about Army GOs being cretins that eat their young and then go into that anecdote. "
List a single General officer appointed in the last 10 years that you would trust with your life?
The one that everyone thought was a Warrior Monk that was shacking up with a reporter that was not his wife? That was allowed to retire...
The one that raped his subordinates wives and kept it quiet by threatening their husbands careers? That was allowed to retire?
The one who got a sentence of retirement by his peers for cheating on his wife, letting the father of the one he was cheating with steal government equipment, that forged official documents....
Jihadin wrote: Air Field seizure KM. Combat drops are at 500 ft. Anyway in the world in 8 hrs are something silly like that. The "Ready" BDE is dropped with follow on BDE's from the 82nd landing and expanding the "bridge head". You have like 11K pissed off troopers who were hauled in over a four day weekend of drinking a bit irritated. Now can a MEU secure a bridgehead in a land lock land? Thinking to in the box KM. Broaden out and think strategic. Can the US Army conduct Amphib landing? Who does? Who's best to support a beach landing and who best expanding it. Can a MEU go into a land lock country and seize an airfield and expand from it? Can a MEU design to do what the 82nd can do? Can the 82nd do what a EU can do?
Factually? Yes we can, because WE seized and held Camp Rhino. Not the Airborne. Grabbing an unoccupied airfield for a little bit then leaving? Not gonna do anything.Honestly that full para-assaults even worked in Panama's a bloody miracle, which is why the ONLY mass drops since have been unoccupied airfields and airfields already in friendly hands so some red beanies could get their mustard stains on their jump wings. The only benefit of Airborne school is developing a motivated corps of light infantry for the Army, and providing basic jump training to Marines, sailors, soldiers and airmen who will actually use it, usually by going to follow up advanced jump schools.
Modernly, the USMC is a rapid reaction and assault force, and the MEU is a fully supported battalion with organic air assets that can get any where in the world in under 24 hours or you money back. We can do a lot more then just light infantry with some paradropped support elements when we get there too. Securing anything in a landlocked country? Yep can do will do, TRAP in hostile areas? Yep, just did it in Libya pilot and RIO recovered in under three hours, can the Airborne do that? Especially with a single unified command and pre-made strike package?
The Army's very good at what was stated earlier, the steam roller. Heavy mechanized forces crushing resistance and occupying vast swaths of territory*. As far as QRF goes, you guys don't have the gear and mobility to do what we can do in as many places as we can do it, and that's okay too. Different services, different purposes. We set'em up, you knock em down, while SOCOM is sneaking behind them and sticking a knife in their kidneys and the squids and wing wipers are taking out their friends before they make it around the corner. One team one fight.
Jihadin wrote: What happen at Leatherneck in Afghanistan that got two USMC GO relieved of their command?
As I understand it that was a British failure more then anything else, and a massive clusterfeth that proves coalition operations and joint commands tend to work poorly. The Generals were relieved of their commands for their failure to take a glaring failure like that and fix it, which resulted in destroyed aircraft and dead Marines. Letting someone else handle our own security, especially when we know there are issues with that security is the worst form of negligence. (Also that was more specifically at Camp Bastion, the British controlled airbase adjoining Leatherneck)
Funny how I can finally understand what you're talking about.
Personally, I've always felt that the army's advancements in deployment procedures were predictable, especially after the USMC made its theme the "force in constant readiness". How could the army compete with that claim? Oh, by ripping it off, basically, and using it's massive assets for something meaningful. All my experience with the army has led me to believe that it is a force that exists simply for the fact that it's too hard to get rid of. There are simply too many redundant assets that have no discernible function or practical application.
The USMC, on the other hand, has essentially three separate forces, that are almost identical in structure, all of which are small and easily organized. Assets like H&S, transport, logistics and intel are irrevocably tied together with the actual boots on the ground, from the battalion level, all the way up to the Divison. Divisions are supported by Air Wings, which are likewise unified and cooperative i their own ways. Almost every 03 crosstrains, by the way. I know that a lot of infantry battalions like to do land-based recon crap for their 0311s, as well as a crap ton of house clearing.
MARSOC did not meet objectives on its first deployment. Obviously, there are kinks to be worked out, but it's stupid to judge the entire Marine Corps off the failures of a brand new unit that they were reluctant to create anyway. They didn't fail because they were al hard charging boots who didn't know what they were doing, they failed because no one in the entire unit, including the officers had experience doing those sort of things. MARSOC is no secret either. They advertise their recruiting crap in the Marine Corps Times.
Meanwhile, your precious Rangers are in the sandbox doing the exact same day to day that regular grunts are doing, albeit with nicer gear from the fat funding big army gives them for their name alone. The Army's "division pride" has always annoyed me, especially the units that earned their place in WW2, and have really done nothing impressive since then, but still get deployment priority because all the top CGs are from either the 82nd, 101st or some other gung-ho unit.
Hhhmmm. You need to delve a bit deeper KM. Mind you I am not getting into a slam fest with this BS.
Marine Unit Is Told To Leave Afghanistan
A new elite Marine Corps unit that allegedly killed at least eight civilians in the aftermath of an ambush in eastern Afghanistan this month is under investigation by the U.S. military and has been ordered to leave the country months earlier than scheduled, officials said yesterday.
In an unusual move, Maj. Gen. Francis H. Kearney III, who commands U.S. Special Operations forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, ordered the 120-strong Marine Corps Special Operations Company to leave Afghanistan because the incident so damaged the unit's relations with the local Afghan population that it could not carry out its mission, the officials said.
"General Kearney decided they could no longer effectively conduct counterinsurgency operations, and so that's why he decided to move them out of there," said Lt. Col. Lou Leto, a spokesman at Kearney's command headquarters in Tampa. The unit arrived in Afghanistan about two months ago for a six-month tour and is now preparing to redeploy, Leto said.
In the March 4 ambush, the Marines were traveling in a convoy on a highway in Nangarhar province when they were hit with a car bomb followed by small-arms fire, and fired back in self-defense, according to U.S. military accounts. Afghan witnesses said the Marines fired recklessly at passing vehicles and pedestrians along the crowded road flanked by shops.
The U.S. military initially said 16 civilians were killed but later changed that estimate to eight. An official at a local hospital said 14 people had died. The military said 35 people were wounded, among them a coalition service member.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai criticized the U.S. military reaction, and the incident sparked large anti-American protests.
Kearney ordered an Article 15-6 investigation, in which an investigating officer conducts an inquiry and reports back to the commander, to begin soon afterward, Leto said.
The investigation and abrupt removal of the unit, known as MSOC-F, is doubly significant because the company was composed of some of the most experienced, highly trained Marines -- including many experts in reconnaissance and marksmanship. Their focus, however, is on killing and capturing targets, in contrast to that of other elite troops who specialize in working with indigenous forces.
The company was the first of nine that are planned to deploy under the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, established in February 2006 to incorporate Marines into U.S. Special Operations forces, which include Army Special Forces, Rangers, Navy SEALs and others.
The Marines in the companies are trained to a standard that is "quite a bit higher" than other Marines, Maj. Gen. Dennis Hejlik, head of the new command, said in testimony in January.
The Marine Corps had initially resisted creating the new command, which is assigned about 2,600 Marines and sailors and has consumed much of the Marines' specialized reconnaissance forces.
KM. I've been at this much longer then you have NSDQ
KM your narrow view showing.
MEU =
is a fully supported battalion with organic air assets that can get any where in the world in under 24 hours or you money back. We can do a lot more then just light infantry with some paradropped support elements when we get there too.
The mission of the 82nd Airborne Division is to, within 18 hours of notification, strategically deploy, conduct forcible entry parachute assault and secure key objectives for follow-on military operations in support of U.S. national interests.
You see the difference?
Edit
Captain I see where you going with what your saying. Can we say safely that
USMC = Tactically
82nd = Strategic
As the unit in particular. I'm not judging. Its a steep learning curve in Afghanistan when units are use to Iraq. I was bringing that out against Needles who slammed GO for their antics off the battlefield then on the battle field. Hell I'm trying to stay on topic
Edit II
your precious Rangers
Seriously Fantastic?
Marine Recon has the same gear as your regular grunts? WTF we forget about Pat Tillman and a fukked up Blue Force tracker?
The 82nd couldn't deploy as a division in under 18 hours. I doubt they could deploy in greater then regiment strength AT ALL. I'd honestly be impressed to see better then a battalion stood up in a hurry.
The MEU is a battalion level formation, we have combined arms forces up to the division level, we have the ability to get them where they need to go, and again, they'll have combined arms support when they get there. Not to mention we bring our own supplies with us, roughly a month's worth of sustained combat operations. How long long would paradropped airborne last without combined arms support, or resupply for that matter?
Airborne is a waste of time and money when you brag about a capability we haven't used "for real" since Panama, and even that was considered risky. I mean you can bring up the Airborne's ability to take airfields we (being coalition forces) already hold (Task Force Viking) or those guys in Rhino who "took" an unoccupied airfield, then beat feet only to let it be retaken by Marines and SEALs later.
Paraborne operations are useful for special forces and naught much else.
82nd has a ready BDE to go in six hours after notification. Two hour recall distance and no drinking (seriously out of sight out of mind). Mind you Pope AFB is right next door to a point its room mate.
The "2nd" BDE is eight hours after notification or something silly
Basically 82nd back in its day where everyone jumps is 12 hrs the Division is in the air after notification.
The "present" 82nd is combat and combat support units are jumping (like it should) and the rest of the division is flown in. Still the same time frame. In flight rig prior to jump yada yada. Mind you all ammo and supplies to sustain combat operations for 48 hours are already prepackage and ready to go. Mind you we're not going with C130 or C141. Its C17's and maybe a few C5's. Yes I have jumped three time from a C5.
KM you need to visually in mind to see what involves moving a MEU compare to division. What asset's are around and what the asset's are capable of to move said units.
Think Fantastic and you are seeing it within your given field that you know. Not a broad over view I have to see and who I trained with back in the days. NSDQ
Jihadin wrote: Air Field seizure KM. Combat drops are at 500 ft. Anyway in the world in 8 hrs are something silly like that. The "Ready" BDE is dropped with follow on BDE's from the 82nd landing and expanding the "bridge head". You have like 11K pissed off troopers who were hauled in over a four day weekend of drinking a bit irritated. Now can a MEU secure a bridgehead in a land lock land? Thinking to in the box KM. Broaden out and think strategic. Can the US Army conduct Amphib landing? Who does? Who's best to support a beach landing and who best expanding it. Can a MEU go into a land lock country and seize an airfield and expand from it? Can a MEU design to do what the 82nd can do? Can the 82nd do what a EU can do?
Factually? Yes we can, because WE seized and held Camp Rhino. Not the Airborne. Grabbing an unoccupied airfield for a little bit then leaving? Not gonna do anything.Honestly that full para-assaults even worked in Panama's a bloody miracle, which is why the ONLY mass drops since have been unoccupied airfields and airfields already in friendly hands so some red beanies could get their mustard stains on their jump wings. The only benefit of Airborne school is developing a motivated corps of light infantry for the Army, and providing basic jump training to Marines, sailors, soldiers and airmen who will actually use it, usually by going to follow up advanced jump schools.
Modernly, the USMC is a rapid reaction and assault force, and the MEU is a fully supported battalion with organic air assets that can get any where in the world in under 24 hours or you money back. We can do a lot more then just light infantry with some paradropped support elements when we get there too. Securing anything in a landlocked country? Yep can do will do, TRAP in hostile areas? Yep, just did it in Libya pilot and RIO recovered in under three hours, can the Airborne do that? Especially with a single unified command and pre-made strike package?
The Army's very good at what was stated earlier, the steam roller. Heavy mechanized forces crushing resistance and occupying vast swaths of territory*. As far as QRF goes, you guys don't have the gear and mobility to do what we can do in as many places as we can do it, and that's okay too. Different services, different purposes. We set'em up, you knock em down, while SOCOM is sneaking behind them and sticking a knife in their kidneys and the squids and wing wipers are taking out their friends before they make it around the corner. One team one fight.
Jihadin wrote: What happen at Leatherneck in Afghanistan that got two USMC GO relieved of their command?
As I understand it that was a British failure more then anything else, and a massive clusterfeth that proves coalition operations and joint commands tend to work poorly. The Generals were relieved of their commands for their failure to take a glaring failure like that and fix it, which resulted in destroyed aircraft and dead Marines. Letting someone else handle our own security, especially when we know there are issues with that security is the worst form of negligence. (Also that was more specifically at Camp Bastion, the British controlled airbase adjoining Leatherneck)
No KM, the Rangers seized camp rhino, the Marines merely relieved them and held it after they moved on to do their thing.
And no, the Marines cant get anywhere in the world within 24 hrs, the MEU response time is closer to 72-96. An Air ExpeditionRy Force can however deploy in 18-24 hours, bringing along with them whatever Army, Navy, or USMC assets are along for the ride.
All my experience with the army has led me to believe that it is a force that exists simply for the fact that it's too hard to get rid of. There are simply too many redundant assets that have no discernible function or practical application.
Funny, thats actually most peoples opinion of the Marines. Hell, even a former Commandant admitted it himself and that the rest of the DoD is more than capable enough of handling matters without it (the essay is, iirc, "Why America Chooses to Have a Marine Corps).
And KM, as for your doubts as to deployment times, you can doubt it but it flies in the face of the reality (during the Cold War). On more than one occassion the AF put more or less an entire airborne division into the air within a matter of hours as part of a surprise readiness exercise. I dont know if the Army still maintains that level of readiness or kot, but its clearly possible to do so if there is a will to do it.
As I understand it that was a British failure more then anything else,
It was a bit of both really. The sangar nearest to the Taliban's entry point was unmanned at the time due to manpower issues (although manned and unmanned sangars were rotated), which was a British failing, while the Marines had a patchwork of security arrangements that left significant gaps which was a US failing. At the end of the day Bastion and Leatherneck have a massive perimeter, the only real surprise is that the battle of Bastion didn't happen sooner.
Why has this thread devolved into an interservice pissing contest?
As I understand it that was a British failure more then anything else,
It was a bit of both really. The sangar nearest to the Taliban's entry point was unmanned at the time due to manpower issues (although manned and unmanned sangars were rotated), which was a British failing, while the Marines had a patchwork of security arrangements that left significant gaps which was a US failing.
Why has this thread devolved into an interservice pissing contest?
Because that's what we do. I'm just sitting back and waiting for someone to draw the Air Force into it.
List a single General officer appointed in the last 10 years that you would trust with your life?
H.R. McMaster. Look him up if you'd like. But, in 05-06 I DID put my life in his trust, as at that time he was the Regimental Commander of the unit I was assigned to in Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._R._McMaster if you want to look him up a bit.
Can't really do that DJ Mostly involve ground troops of '45 to '72 era. Trying to focus in that time frame but its like a ferret seeing a "shiney" easily distracted. Air Force had a much better survival rate in Korea then in Europe WWII with its bomber crews. I say the bomber crews from WWII had bigger balls then the ones in Korean Conflict. Vietnam was pure nerves and timing. The "Wild Weasel" factor and the B-52's vs SAM of the NVA being the gut check factor.
Mind the US Military at the time was "use" to fighting a western style foe then what was being encountered in Korea. Same as in Vietnam. You switch both of those around and say the WWII veterans fought in Vietnam can draw on their experience from Pacific. Mainly Marines and a few US Army units. You take the Korean Conflict and use the Vietnam Era of the 60's and 70's then I'm both conflict would have ended better in the UN and US favor.
Overall though. It doesn't matter the spirit de corpe, motivation, dedication and camaderie. (Bah spelling errors) NCO's are the backbone. Its the recruit first view of his/her life in the Military. Seeing a NCO for the very first time outside of recruitment purposes.
In WW2 the Western forces had a considerable material advantage which worked well in the conventional warfare that most of the campaigns involved from 1942 onwards.
In Korea, after the end of the Pusan campaign, the UN forces had the potential for a considerable material advantage but it was greatly reduced by the difficult terrain. Most of Korea is mountains or rice paddies.
In Vietnam, the Allies had a massive material advantage but they were fighting an enemy who used Maoist guerilla warfare tactics that are very difficult to counter with conventional tactics.
We see the same problem in Iraq and Afghanistan. To the extent that Saddam or the Taleban used conventional tactics, they were pretty easily crushed. The campaigns then became asymmetric, and ground on for years without a favourable resolution. Eventually, the Allies would have to give up and go home, which has happened in Iraq, and is happening in Afghanistan.
The training and organisation methods used by the Allies were the same in WW2, Korea and Vietnam. Therefore the supposed relative failures in Korea and Vietnam are due to the changing nature of warfare, rather than decline of fighting quality of the troops.
Marine and Army recruiting standards are stunningly similar. Direct MOS to MOS comparisons make it even more so. 11B (Army Infantry) training really isn't too different from USMC infantry training. OUST (boot camp and MOS specific advanced training) is also no joke. You are really talking as a guy who watches TV shows vice a guy who knows anything about the topic.
If only recruiting "standards" were all that went into making soldiers or Marines, then this would be relevant. If EITHER branch of service were somehow capable of creating a combat infantrymen from an eight week basic school, then this would be relevant. If the culture within which EITHER service cultivated their infantrymen were somehow equal, then this would be relevant. Trust me, they are not.
By the way, did you know the USMC sends their guys to Ft Benning for Airborne School? And the USMC uses Army training for their tankers? And some of their signal and intel? And other things where they don't have the MOS density to justify their own training?
Tell me again why Marines need to learn how to jump out of perfectly good airplanes? You forgot that Marines go to Ft. Sills(sp?) for Artillery training. I think its safe to say that the Army has the best Armor and Artillery units in the world, why wouldn't you want them to teach you everything they know? The Marines are forced to maintain a much higher percentage of combat troops to support than the other branches, they cannot do that AND maintain their own schools for all the various MOS's.
You need 10 points higher on the ASVAB to be an Army infantryman than you do a USMC rifleman.
There is some insight that can be found from a common slang term for Marines, Jarhead. A jar is an empty vessel. The Corps fully accepts that the recruit who shows up on the yellow footprints has a lot of unnecessary contraband rolling around in his brain pan. That's okay, they fully intend to wash it out and put only what they need back in. When I enlisted, Marines were required to get a 61 on the ASVAB to join, I was never aware that 03's were an MOS that required anything higher than that. I find it hard to believe you'd need a 71 on the ASVAB to become an 11BangBang. At any rate, I'm quite certain that no matter how much you paid attention in high school, both services intend to teach you a great deal before they send you to the battlefield.
To the OP's questions.
The Political climate in the United States has to be the greatest factor in why its Armed Forces were unable to achieve Major Victories in either the Korean or Vietnam wars. Much like Cornwallis's campaign in the South during the American Revolution, it is completely possible for the Armed Forces of a Nation to win every battle and still lose the War. Since World War II, America has misplaced its capability to wage war in the manner required to win armed conflicts in the manner in which it won WWII. Simply put, the determination that allowed America to firebomb non military residential targets in Germany, or use the atom bomb on Japanese cities, is no longer present. It stands to reason, that since the opponents in the Korean and Vietnam wars did not suffer this handicap, they would ultimately be able to win those conflicts by outlasting the U.S. long enough for outside pressures to necessitate the U.S. bringing the conflict to a close. This is exactly what has happened in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well.
As to jungle warfare.
Spoiler:
I would argue that while the jungle is certainly not a natural environment for your average American, assuming that they could only lose in Vietnam because they were "incapable" of fighting there is a mistake. Yes, the NVA were fighting in their natural environment with a certain "home field" advantage. But, you cannot assume that the Americans somehow "forgetting" the lessons learned against the Japanese in WWII is the reason the Vietnamese were able to outlast them. The NVA were an extremely capable, and determined enemy who were employed in a manner that allowed them to win. It's a testament to the fighting abilities of both sides that while the Americans were able to win the battles, which were extremely hard fought on both sides. The Vietnamese were able to absorb their losses and stay in the fight long enough to kill enough Americans to give weight to the Peace movement back in the U.S. With the roles reversed, this is exactly what happened in the American War of Independence.
As far as the quality of recruits is concerned.
Spoiler:
If there is any advantage held by any of the Armed Forces, it must be within the dynamic of a volunteer versus a draftee. While all have at times needed draftee's to fill their requirements. Traditionally the volunteers will go one of two ways, into the branch that will keep them away from the blood and guts, mud and muck (Navy and Air Force) or into the branch that will make sure that they see those very things. For whatever reason, the latter type has at least since WWI traditionally been largely drawn to the Marines. At least in so much that the smaller size of the Corps lends to a much higher percentage of volunteers within their ranks. If the Marines were forced to maintain the numbers the Army must, they would invariably have the same volunteer/draftee issues.
As to the Cold War.
Spoiler:
Until the U.S. starts putting untrained citizens on the battlefield the advantage of the AK-47 being usable by anyone and their grandmother is unimportant. The U.S. did not lose the Vietnam War because it started it fielding the M1 and M14. A perfectly fine weapon that defeated the Germans who wielded the weapon that inspired the AK-47. The U.S. has not lost a single war fought with the M16 or its variants BECAUSE of the bugs in the weapon system when first rolled into service or its complexity as a weapon system over all. I would point out that the M16 and its variants actually have a great Win % when it comes to battles fought with the two on opposing sides. As to the wars fought using them, I blame the aforementioned American determination to prosecute any War since WWII.
As far as comparing the U.S. Armed Forces with those of the Soviets.
Spoiler:
Since there was no direct conflict fought, we simply cannot know, hopefully we never will know, who would ultimately win a conflict between the U.S. and the Soviets or modern day Russia. I'm sorry, but pictures are a ridiculous way of attempting to measure such a thing. With there not having been an actual armed conflict, we can only theorize whether Russian/Soviet fatalism would have gotten the better of American fighting spirit and improvisation. Or whether or not an advance through the Gap would have awoken the "Sleeping Giant" the way the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did. All we do know is that the American ramp up of its military in the 80's under Reagan drove the Soviet Union into collapse trying to keep up.
Last, when comparing the Army to the Marines.
Spoiler:
Thankfully their wars are limited to E-clubs the world over and various skirmishes over the supplies of the Army, and reputation of the Corps. Having been a Marine infantrymen in two Wars. I would argue that while individually they are near enough to equal, it is when taken in numbers that Marines begin to exert their supremacy. Marines do no fight as individuals, be it In a bar or on the battlefield, they fight in packs. Marines of the Grunt variety are possessed with an extreme "us" versus "everyone" mentality. For both, these are amazingly fast calculations that are instilled at birth and honed through the culture they live in. The Army may call it stupid, and yes, Marines do amazingly stupid and often cruel things to themselves and each other. But the results are undeniably effective and as many have found, terribly destructive.
Going back to the "recruiting" of the two branches. I believe the difference can be best summed up by the recruiting slogans the two branches use to entice enlistments. While simplistic, and obviously propaganda, they do speak volumes about the culture of the two branches. The Army has used "Be all you can Be" a promise to better yourself. "An army of One" a call to the individual within. "Army Strong" once again, a call to better yourself. The Corps does not make such promises, They simply point out what it is to be a Marine, and ask whether the individual has the strength of character to become one of them. As the Marines understand it, the volunteer is seeking to give up his individuality, hoping to be remade into a Marine.
You can see the difference, subtle though it is, even in the nightly news. Active and former Army/Navy/Air Force are often referred to as "servicemen" or "veterans". When a Marine gets in the news (often for doing something stupid) they'll be sure to point out that they're Marines. The Army has begun to focus more on the term "Soldier" in its recruiting campaigns. I think its a step in the right direction, but we'll have to wait and see if its effective. We do know that the Marines have a 238 year head start on them...
Semper Fi!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: KalashnikovMarine - American Airborne is dead, doesnt mean Airborne as a whole is. If Airborne in this country had the same support and budgeting as the Russian VDV itd be a serious force to be reckoned with. Actually ive heard that were once again looking to develop an AFV light enough to be parachuted onto the battlefield, so maybe thatll change.
So going by the triumvirate of Tanks, Armor/Firepower/Speed, the Army is once again looking to dump out all its protection and firepower to shoehorn in a vehicle light enough to fall out of the sky that as a consequence won't be able to perform any of the functions you'd require an AFV for? Soldiers and jumping out of perfectly good Airplanes, I'll never understand it. It's like German Artillerymen and the StuG, only way they thought they could win the Knights Cross so they fought like hell to keep the Panzer Crews out of them.
Good post, this is the level of debate I was after.
Some people are getting bogged down with Operation Iraq Freedom!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: In WW2 the Western forces had a considerable material advantage which worked well in the conventional warfare that most of the campaigns involved from 1942 onwards.
In Korea, after the end of the Pusan campaign, the UN forces had the potential for a considerable material advantage but it was greatly reduced by the difficult terrain. Most of Korea is mountains or rice paddies.
In Vietnam, the Allies had a massive material advantage but they were fighting an enemy who used Maoist guerilla warfare tactics that are very difficult to counter with conventional tactics.
We see the same problem in Iraq and Afghanistan. To the extent that Saddam or the Taleban used conventional tactics, they were pretty easily crushed. The campaigns then became asymmetric, and ground on for years without a favourable resolution. Eventually, the Allies would have to give up and go home, which has happened in Iraq, and is happening in Afghanistan.
The training and organisation methods used by the Allies were the same in WW2, Korea and Vietnam. Therefore the supposed relative failures in Korea and Vietnam are due to the changing nature of warfare, rather than decline of fighting quality of the troops.
Maybe it's more complicated than that? I made the point earlier that perhaps the US military just wasn't flexible enough in its doctrines during this period. From the US point of view, I can understand that their military would be planning a conventional war with the Soviets in Europe, so when Vietnam came, the switch between fighting a conventional war against the Soviets against having to move to a counter-insurgency doctrine against the North Vietnamese, was perhaps too much?
Maybe too general a question, but was/is the US military of that period a 'thinking' force or was the primary reliance on overwhelming firepower to win? Like a 20th century version of the imperial guard!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Maybe too general a question, but was/is the US military of that period a 'thinking' force or was the primary reliance on overwhelming firepower to win? Like a 20th century version of the imperial guard!
Marines do no fight as individuals, be it In a bar or on the battlefield, they fight in packs. Marines of the Grunt variety are possessed with an extreme "us" versus "everyone" mentality. For both, these are amazingly fast calculations that are instilled at birth and honed through the culture they live in. The Army may call it stupid, and yes, Marines do amazingly stupid and often cruel things to themselves and each other. But the results are undeniably effective and as many have found, terribly destructive.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Maybe too general a question, but was/is the US military of that period a 'thinking' force or was the primary reliance on overwhelming firepower to win? Like a 20th century version of the imperial guard!
Are you actually serious with these questions?
Yeah, I am!
I made the point that as they were expecting/planning for a conventional war against the Warsaw pact, the doctrine/training of the US military would have been focused on this, but with the Vietnam war being mostly a counter-insurgency (with the odd set piece battle) maybe they weren't flexible enough to adapt to the conditions of the war. It's up for debate.
Maybe it's more complicated than that? I made the point earlier that perhaps the US military just wasn't flexible enough in its doctrines during this period.
The problem here is, and there are German and Soviet officers quoted with this stuff, is that we don't follow our own doctrine. We seem to have a tendency to go in all John Wayne, guns ablazin' thinking we're gonna kick ass, take names and be home in time for dinner. Then, when that doesnt happen, we develop a rough "doctrine" and "plan" for how to beat whoever it is militarily. As I said earlier, it's in our command structure and mentality that we expect even the lowest ranking private to take charge of a situation if everyone above him is gone.
I made the point that as they were expecting/planning for a conventional war against the Warsaw pact, the doctrine/training of the US military would have been focused on this, but with the Vietnam war being mostly a counter-insurgency (with the odd set piece battle) maybe they weren't flexible enough to adapt to the conditions of the war. It's up for debate.
Not really. To quote noted military historian and strategist Barack Obama, "You, our Vietnam veterans, did not always receive the respect that you deserved, which was a national shame. But let it be remembered that you won every major battle of that war. Every single one."
Now, whether that's true largely depends on how you measure victory, but there's zero doubt that the casualty ratio was heavily in our favor in Vietnam. Same for the current unpleasantness, for the record. Successful anti-US insurgencies are successful not because they break the US military, but because they break US civilians and politicians.
It is pretty hard to make the case that post 1968 the Vietnam war was mostly a counter insurgency.
It is easier to make the case that the US strategic/national goals for the war were either in a state of flux or just poorly defined and that the resulting military strategies were equally confused.
List a single General officer appointed in the last 10 years that you would trust with your life?
H.R. McMaster. Look him up if you'd like. But, in 05-06 I DID put my life in his trust, as at that time he was the Regimental Commander of the unit I was assigned to in Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._R._McMaster if you want to look him up a bit.
I did. This was the one whose 3rd attempt at promotion was "fixed" by Petraeus, right?
"McMaster was nominated for Brigadier General on the 2008 promotion list. Secretary of the Army Pete Geren had requested Petraeus to return briefly from Iraq to take charge of the promotion board as a way to ensure that the best performers in combat received every consideration for advancement, and it is generally acknowledged that Petraeus's presence ensured that McMaster was among those selected."
Examine that line above carefully..... One of these two options has to be true.
A. A civilian had to interfere to get a group of Generals to promote the most qualified combat leader who had been passed over twice before. The "honest' general sent to interfere with the board is General Petraeus, the general who lied about Pat Tillman, had affairs....So what does that say about the 2006 and 2007 board of Generals?
B. A army general who has been passed over twice for promotion and is on his "third strike and you are out" suddenly sees his friend come back fly back from the war zone solely to get his friend promoted...and then flies back...
Pick one, there is not an option c....if there is please explain... I do not personally know this General but if there is nothing wrong with the current crop of General officers explain it took what it did to get McMaster past his coming third strike....
As I understand it that was a British failure more then anything else,
It was a bit of both really. The sangar nearest to the Taliban's entry point was unmanned at the time due to manpower issues (although manned and unmanned sangars were rotated), which was a British failing, while the Marines had a patchwork of security arrangements that left significant gaps which was a US failing. At the end of the day Bastion and Leatherneck have a massive perimeter, the only real surprise is that the battle of Bastion didn't happen sooner.
Why has this thread devolved into an interservice pissing contest?
That's the entire premise.
The only general officer I would currently trust with my life is Mad Dog Mattis. I realize we're both out now, and I'm a busted up cripple, but if Mattis puts out a call for every available Marine to ruck up, I'm calling into work, grabbing a go bag, my M1 and I'm on my way.
Manchu wrote: My father joined the USMC when he graduated high school because he had no other prospects whatsoever. He left as soon as his first hitch was up. When I talked to him about going OCS and JAG, he said "son, don't waste your life." Despite this, he is immensely proud of the USMC and of having been a Marine and that his father was a Marine during WW2, serving in the Pacific.
I have know a few scummers who wound up in the USMC and came out no better for it. I also know some ex-Marines who are well and truly good men. I've known people from both categories from all the service branches, except Coast Guard. To my knowledge (accounting for memory), I have never met anyone who had been in the Coast Guard.
All I mean is, none of the branches only take good people. None of the branches can guarantee to take a douche bag and turn him into a stand up guy.
This right here is pretty on point.
My Grandfather was a retired army tank commander in WWII, and when I was 18 and considering military service he told me to stay away from the army.(this was late 80's). This coming from a guy with 3 purple hearts, who lived near Fort Bragg, and is buried on base.
Anyway, I have worked with many ex military, and I was quite shocked(probably should not have been) to see the quality or lack thereof of these guys. Maybe it's just a statistical anomaly, but in my experience I found the ex Airforce dudes to be the brightest and earned a lot of my respect. Might be because the airforce attracts more technically inclined individuals, rather than straight up combatants.
My experience the marines and Navy guys were the worst. I'm speaking in generalization here, as I have met some great people from all branches.
Pick one, there is not an option c....if there is please explain... I do not personally know this General but if there is nothing wrong with the current crop of General officers explain it took what it did to get McMaster past his coming third strike....
Thing is, McMaster was a CAV commander. For those of us in the Army, we should all know that basically, if you are not an infantry officer, chances are your career is going to end at Colonel (excluding MI, because generally speaking only MI maintain all the proper requisites to move up higher than that)
And, if you looked at the Wiki page for McMaster, it did outline how he'd been passed up because he is completely unafraid to speak out against the higher leadership, if they are in fact in the wrong. What many people may not realize is just how much time in Washington a General is expected to spend, especially once he/she has reached 2 and 3 stars. Senators, Representatives, etc. do not like a general who will not simply go along with them.
GO of any branch pretty deals in politics like Col on up.
We train to doctrine but do not follow doctrine when bullet fly's
KM and Captain thinks we're all individuals in the US Army. Seriously?
I have to hand it to the NCO's for KM and Captain. They instilled pretty good Self Motivation into them. Now if we can broaden their perception or broaden their horizon into overall.
KM and Captain thinks we're all individuals in the US Army. Seriously?
I have to hand it to the NCO's for KM and Captain. They instilled pretty good Self Motivation into them. Now if we can broaden their perception or broaden their horizon into overall.
Not sure where you're getting the bolded bit.
As to the horizon, I just disagree with you. A MEU/MEF or a carrier group is a strategic tool. The 82nd Airborne, even if you roll and drop the whole division? Also a useful strategic tool, but a fragile one, They ain't gonna last long without supplies and combined arms support, my points and questions on which you never answered. That's assuming all of them make it to the ground alive. Which I doubt. There's a reason all our recent mass "combat drops" in the last two decades have been on unopposed or already captured airfields. For mass airborne assaults to function at all, everything has to go 100% perfectly. As all of us should know by now, everything going right as a concept has next to no relation to reality as makes any sense to plan for.
The mobile QRF brigades the Army's got/is working on would be a damn sight more useful, but even then it's all about how you get there. Bringing your own airfield and support bases with you does keep things simple in some regards.
@Chaos, that is not what happened at Camp Rhino, a hand off means there was actually someone there. The Marines and SEALs had to retake Rhino. (Still unopposed I believe, the Airforce Specter gunship dissuaded the original group of hadjis that came to see what the feth was going on right after TF Rhino established initial control, and I don't think any one reoccupied after they (TF Rhino) left.)
Off the top of my head the last time a MEU did a combat beach landing was Somalia. Do you know where they were not contested at the beach? Wasn't because of the news team there.
KM your stuck in this time frame. Tell me why you are better then me in regard to our selves in this time frame? Minus the amount of years I have compare to you.
Have I said I'm better'n you? I might be, I might not be. Depends on a whole passel of variables doesn't it? but we're talking about MEUs and the 82nd Airborne not each other. If that's the ball game we're playing now, then I'd suggest you listen to your own advice to Needles about taking this whole conversation too personally.
KM...... ...think of a better reply...that's a "Boot" answer Hero.....think....I want one word from you. If I don't get it....I be highly disappointed in those NCO's who influence you and trained you......think....I will aloow you 45 seconds to be embarrass and blush for pulling a bone headed answer to...now I'm off to Gig Harbor Game Workshop to hang out with my Troopers...
The problem with the MEU vice the 82nd is the time it takes to get them where they need to go. C5s and C17s are a bit quicker than even the fastest sea transport. The speed difference is quite a bit more once you hit that thing called the shoreline.
As for the Op where the Rangers (and JSOC elements) hit Rhino, it was a raid. By definition, a raid includes a withdrawal from the objective. They landed, secured their objective (and allowed the JSOC teams to hit theirs) and unassed just as they were supposed to. Again, raid =/= invade and hold. So of course if another unit from another branch was given a subsequent mission on Rhino they would have to re-secure it.
If the original op was to secure and hold as a log center, an airborne BCT would have either airlanded once the company from the 75th secured the strip or jumped in themselves.
Frazzled wrote: You must not get the point. Whether or not our troops are any good, our bombs and bullets are awesome and have been since 1941.
Yep.
I read an interesting excerpt from the war diary of a German officer written during Operation Cobra. The officer dismissed the Americans unwillingness to engage with a full offensive, he thought they hid behind air power and artillery,. After several days of getting hammered by artillery and having his supply chain smashed by fighter bombers, the Germans grew weaker and weaker, and so when the Americans assaulted the position the Germans offered little resistance. The German officer was still contemptuous that the Americans hadn't attempted a rapid attack in force, and thought it a sign of how weak the armies of these democratic forces are. I just sat there thinking 'well the Americans lost nothing, and you lost everything, so it worked you stupid Nazi'.
Seriously, big planes dropping big bombs, and loads of artillery support. Worked brilliantly in WWII, worked brilliantly in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan (and all those other incidents as well). Just look up the US kill to casualty ratios for any of those engagements. The eventual outcome of Vietnam, probably Afghanistan and Iraq, and arguably Korea wasn't successful, but that's a point on how military effectiveness doesn't automatically give you the desired political result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Eventually combined forces drove NK back up the peninsula and left like two NK regiments left before China came across and introduce us to the "human wave". So we got a taste of what the Germans experience on the Eastern front.
A lot of the first wave of Chinese troops were actually former KMT troops that were basically told that they had to go and die in Korea and your family back home can keep their honour and not be harassed. So off they went, put in to human waves and slaughtered by the thousands.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: KalashnikovMarine - American Airborne is dead, doesnt mean Airborne as a whole is. If Airborne in this country had the same support and budgeting as the Russian VDV itd be a serious force to be reckoned with. Actually ive heard that were once again looking to develop an AFV light enough to be parachuted onto the battlefield, so maybe thatll change.
Didn't they airdrop some Strykers?
And what's the value of airborne today, when you can rapid deploy so many troops by helicopter?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dracpanzer wrote: he Political climate in the United States has to be the greatest factor in why its Armed Forces were unable to achieve Major Victories in either the Korean or Vietnam wars. Much like Cornwallis's campaign in the South during the American Revolution, it is completely possible for the Armed Forces of a Nation to win every battle and still lose the War. Since World War II, America has misplaced its capability to wage war in the manner required to win armed conflicts in the manner in which it won WWII. Simply put, the determination that allowed America to firebomb non military residential targets in Germany, or use the atom bomb on Japanese cities, is no longer present. It stands to reason, that since the opponents in the Korean and Vietnam wars did not suffer this handicap, they would ultimately be able to win those conflicts by outlasting the U.S. long enough for outside pressures to necessitate the U.S. bringing the conflict to a close. This is exactly what has happened in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well.
Dude, the US bombed the gak out of Hanoi, they put more bombs on that city than they dropped on Germany in total. Vietnam was not lost out of a lack of really big planes dropping really big bombs on cities.
Vietnam was lost because the US, for very understandable reasons, was not willing to expand the conflict by advancing in to North Vietnam. Without that option, they were left with simply killing enemy troops over and over again until the North gave up, or the South finally got a government that wasn't bunch of hateful donkey-caves. The US kept that up for years, until they eventually gave up.
By the time the US gave up, they had inflicted somewhere in the region of a million dead enemy soldiers. And this was for a war driven by a completely false political doctrine. Concluding there was a lack of US determination is just bonkers.
Maybe it's more complicated than that? I made the point earlier that perhaps the US military just wasn't flexible enough in its doctrines during this period.
The problem here is, and there are German and Soviet officers quoted with this stuff, is that we don't follow our own doctrine. We seem to have a tendency to go in all John Wayne, guns ablazin' thinking we're gonna kick ass, take names and be home in time for dinner. Then, when that doesnt happen, we develop a rough "doctrine" and "plan" for how to beat whoever it is militarily. As I said earlier, it's in our command structure and mentality that we expect even the lowest ranking private to take charge of a situation if everyone above him is gone.
Yeah, but isn't that a good thing? If everybody is encouraged to be a 'leader' and to think of solutions to problems, surely that must be a benefit?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: It is pretty hard to make the case that post 1968 the Vietnam war was mostly a counter insurgency.
It is easier to make the case that the US strategic/national goals for the war were either in a state of flux or just poorly defined and that the resulting military strategies were equally confused.
Well, post '68, there were a lot of search and destroy missions conducted so you could argue that the war had switched to a counter-insurgency by then.
One thing I find fascinating (in my view) is the whole field craft area of the US military. When you consider the frontier background/heritage of the US army in various wars against the British/Native Americans, I'm surprised that the US didn't value this more. Certainly, if you compare your average US soldier to his Chinese counterpart in Korea, the US soldier lags way behind.
Now, obviously, a lot of these Chinese soldiers were veterans from the Chinese civil war, and being masters of camouflage was a necessity (due to overwhelming US air power) but it seems to me (from reading the books on Korea) that the US fighting man was lacking even in the basics. Surprising, given the US frontier heritage.
Yeah, but isn't that a good thing? If everybody is encouraged to be a 'leader' and to think of solutions to problems, surely that must be a benefit?
Yes, It's very good for us. But as you had asked if it made us inflexible, etc. that's what I was trying to point out.
For those not getting what I'm saying, a good Hollywood scene to illustrate what I'm talking about is the Captain's "sticky bomb" lines from the movie, "Saving Private Ryan"
IDK if the WW2 US soldier was trained to be flexible and adaptable, but some operational studies show he was about 50% as effective, man for man, as German troops.
To be fair, the US Army had to expand very rapidly to an enormous size, and did not have the excellent cadre that existed in Germany. It was also a matter of training and organisation methods, though, not the individual men.
This topic was covered in one of Van Creveld's books.
dracpanzer wrote: The Political climate in the United States has to be the greatest factor in why its Armed Forces were unable to achieve Major Victories in either the Korean or Vietnam wars. Much like Cornwallis's campaign in the South during the American Revolution, it is completely possible for the Armed Forces of a Nation to win every battle and still lose the War. Since World War II, America has misplaced its capability to wage war in the manner required to win armed conflicts in the manner in which it won WWII. Simply put, the determination that allowed America to firebomb non military residential targets in Germany, or use the atom bomb on Japanese cities, is no longer present. It stands to reason, that since the opponents in the Korean and Vietnam wars did not suffer this handicap, they would ultimately be able to win those conflicts by outlasting the U.S. long enough for outside pressures to necessitate the U.S. bringing the conflict to a close. This is exactly what has happened in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well.
Dude, the US bombed the gak out of Hanoi, they put more bombs on that city than they dropped on Germany in total. Vietnam was not lost out of a lack of really big planes dropping really big bombs on cities.
Vietnam was lost because the US, for very understandable reasons, was not willing to expand the conflict by advancing in to North Vietnam. Without that option, they were left with simply killing enemy troops over and over again until the North gave up, or the South finally got a government that wasn't bunch of hateful donkey-caves. The US kept that up for years, until they eventually gave up.
By the time the US gave up, they had inflicted somewhere in the region of a million dead enemy soldiers. And this was for a war driven by a completely false political doctrine. Concluding there was a lack of US determination is just bonkers.
I think you misunderstood my point. Your example of America's unwillingness to expand the conflict just to win is MY point. We have misplaced our ability to wage wars to win them in the manner we have in the past.
dracpanzer wrote: Simply put, the determination that allowed America to firebomb non military residential targets in Germany, or use the atom bomb on Japanese cities, is no longer present.
It has nothing to do with how many bombs were dropped on a city, everything to do with how far America is willing to go to win an armed conflict. The fact that the War in Vietnam came to an end ultimately due to a lack of approval for the war back in the States. Is IMO a clear indication of there being less determination to win in the U.S. during the Vietnam War than during the AWI/Civil War/WWI/WWII. Going by the record, certainly not enough to win, despite the efforts of the American Military.
dracpanzer wrote: It has nothing to do with how many bombs were dropped on a city, everything to do with how far America is willing to go to win an armed conflict. The fact that the War in Vietnam came to an end ultimately due to a lack of approval for the war back in the States. Is IMO a clear indication of there being less determination to win in the U.S. during the Vietnam War than during the AWI/Civil War/WWI/WWII. Going by the record, certainly not enough to win, despite the efforts of the American Military.
Which is why many people out there say that the Vietnam War was won militarily but lost politically.
dracpanzer wrote: Simply put, the determination that allowed America to firebomb non military residential targets in Germany, or use the atom bomb on Japanese cities, is no longer present.
It has nothing to do with how many bombs were dropped on a city, everything to do with how far America is willing to go to win an armed conflict. The fact that the War in Vietnam came to an end ultimately due to a lack of approval for the war back in the States. Is IMO a clear indication of there being less determination to win in the U.S. during the Vietnam War than during the AWI/Civil War/WWI/WWII. Going by the record, certainly not enough to win, despite the efforts of the American Military.
So, what exactly were we "winning" in Vietnam compared to AWI/Civil War/WWI/and WWII? That may answer your question about why the will was not there.
That is true, however it fails to address the issue of whether the Vietnam War was winnable at all until the Republic of South Vietnam government stopped being a bunch of horrible corrupt useless clowns.
The CotW "won" both Gulf Wars and Afghanistan, but we are still slinking away with our tails between our legs and nothing properly resolved in favour of justice and human rights. The Balkans weren't exactly a triumph either, and let's not get started on Somalia.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is true, however it fails to address the issue of whether the Vietnam War was winnable at all until the Republic of South Vietnam government stopped being a bunch of horrible corrupt useless clowns.
The CotW "won" both Gulf Wars and Afghanistan, but we are still slinking away with our tails between our legs and nothing properly resolved in favour of justice and human rights. The Balkans weren't exactly a triumph either, and let's not get started on Somalia.
If the people aren't willing to save themselves, what can you do? All we can do is offer them the chance.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK if the WW2 US soldier was trained to be flexible and adaptable, but some operational studies show he was about 50% as effective, man for man, as German troops.
To be fair, the US Army had to expand very rapidly to an enormous size, and did not have the excellent cadre that existed in Germany. It was also a matter of training and organisation methods, though, not the individual men.
This topic was covered in one of Van Creveld's books.
The modern American way of war is victory through superior firepower facilitated by superior logistics. As a 12 year veteran of the U.S. Army, I have amazing respect for the pointy end of the spear warriors in all the services (MEDEVAC pilot myself), but there are many nations with equal or perhaps even superior soldiers in certain areas when it comes to close combat. Many of our allies are certainly equal in the tactical field craft of closing with and engaging the enemy.
America has excelled in the last 75 years at being able to mass enough force to overwhelm any opposition, no matter how well entrenched. In the last 30 years, we also have had the advantage of simply being more technologically advanced. This is why the United States hasn't truly lost a major battle since World War 2 - arguably the Korean War. Only with the realization that not all future wars would be total wars and that the political will of the civilian leadership/populace could quickly tire in these wars did the US military begin to place greater importance in the tactical training of its troops.
Throughout the 50-70s the military was almost solely focused on the theoretical invasion of Western Europe by the Warsaw Pact - total war using weapons of mass destruction and consuming divisions and whole armies in hours. There is little incentive to spend dollars and training time on a rifleman that - at least according to theory - would likely fall victim to weapons which there is almost no defense against. Only post-Vietnam did the military realize the need for increased training at the individual through battalion level. Only post-Grenada did the military realize that need for joint operations. If you are interested in the transition from the large, cold war, draft military of the 40s-70s to the professional force of today, I highly recommend studying Operation Urgent Fury the invasion of Grenada and the finding of the Goldwater-Nichols act of 1986 that laid the foundation for today's US military.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is true, however it fails to address the issue of whether the Vietnam War was winnable at all until the Republic of South Vietnam government stopped being a bunch of horrible corrupt useless clowns.
The CotW "won" both Gulf Wars and Afghanistan, but we are still slinking away with our tails between our legs and nothing properly resolved in favour of justice and human rights. The Balkans weren't exactly a triumph either, and let's not get started on Somalia.
If the people aren't willing to save themselves, what can you do? All we can do is offer them the chance.
As I've said in other topics, you cannot force people to become free. It illustrates the limits of military power as an effective tool of policy. The CotW
wants the Afghanis to abandon their tribal ways and become a modern liberal democracy, but that won't happen unless they want to, and we can't drone missile them into wanting it.
Easy E wrote: So, what exactly were we "winning" in Vietnam compared to AWI/Civil War/WWI/and WWII? That may answer your question about why the will was not there.
I really didn't think we were discussing WHY the U.S. has lost it's will to win, no matter the cost. I was simply stating that since the end of WWII, it hasn't been able to manifest anything like that scale of commitment. Which I think goes to the OP's question about the military skills of our soldiers and Marines in the period ('45-'72), where IMO, we didn't lose those wars due to a lack of skill on their part.
dracpanzer wrote: [I think you misunderstood my point. Your example of America's unwillingness to expand the conflict just to win is MY point. We have misplaced our ability to wage wars to win them in the manner we have in the past.
That isn't a product of some vague cultural change in willingness, it's a product of the actual political importance of Vietnam relative to WWII. The US lurched in to Vietnam largely by mistake, domino theory and some overly imaginative reports from the foreign office led to aid, then troops, and finally a full blown military operation... all for a conflict that really meant not one damn thing to the politcal and economic well being of the USA. In that instance it is only basic common sense to resist expanding that conflict any further - there is no point risking a greater war with China or the USSR when all that at's stake is some minor Asian nation.
On the other hand, WWII was a war with a genuine existential threat. Lose that one and you stop being a nation. So of course the concern about exterior political consequences drops away.
It has nothing to do with how many bombs were dropped on a city, everything to do with how far America is willing to go to win an armed conflict. The fact that the War in Vietnam came to an end ultimately due to a lack of approval for the war back in the States. Is IMO a clear indication of there being less determination to win in the U.S. during the Vietnam War than during the AWI/Civil War/WWI/WWII. Going by the record, certainly not enough to win, despite the efforts of the American Military.
It's an indication that it was a stupid conflict that the US shouldn't have involved itself in in the first place. Nothing more than that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dracpanzer wrote: I really didn't think we were discussing WHY the U.S. has lost it's will to win, no matter the cost. I was simply stating that since the end of WWII, it hasn't been able to manifest anything like that scale of commitment. Which I think goes to the OP's question about the military skills of our soldiers and Marines in the period ('45-'72), where IMO, we didn't lose those wars due to a lack of skill on their part.
What you are missing is that the will to win is a product of what you stand to win.
If I have to paint 15 mini's before the tournament starts on the weekend, and there's a real good chance I'll find the time. If there's a chance I might actually win best painted, then you can guarantee I'll find the time. But if it's just because it'd be nice to play a fully painted force against a mate in a friendly game, then its really unlikely I'll get it done - other things will take priority.
In the latter case I'm a lot less willing to sacrifice, but this isn't because I'm softer or anything silly like that, it's because getting the result simply isn't as important.
sebster wrote: What you are missing is that the will to win is a product of what you stand to win.
I'm not missing that at all, it just has nothing to do with the thread. I only pointed out America's lack of a will to win in Korea or Vietnam (or Iraq, Afghanistan) to illustrate that we lost those Wars because of that lack of will, the reason doesn't matter. It had nothing to do with a supposed decline in the skills of our ground forces, either soldiers or Marines. Since we weren't talking about whether or not we should have been in those Wars, I didn't feel the need to elaborate. Quite frankly, its not a discussion I want to engage in, so unless you feel I'm wrong to say that we did not lose those wars because the soldiers and Marines were somehow ineffectual, I think we are in agreement.
Is it too simplistic to say then that the US military was over confident in its technological/firepower supremacy, then it simply couldn't cope when the fighting switched to a more 'traditional' war of attrition as in Korea and Vietnam?
And as a result of this, the US soldier/marine either through lack of flexible doctrines/training just couldn't cope at first?
Going slightly OT here, but if you look at the Iraq invasion, then the conventional war was over in a matter of hours, but when it switched too counter-insurgency, the US (and Britain as well) struggled to cope.
In my view, the parallels with Korea and Vietnam are still there to this day. Nobody would expect to survive a conventional war with the USA, but a guerrilla/insurgency conflict would be anybody's game.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Is it too simplistic to say then that the US military was over confident in its technological/firepower supremacy, then it simply couldn't cope when the fighting switched to a more 'traditional' war of attrition as in Korea and Vietnam?
And as a result of this, the US soldier/marine either through lack of flexible doctrines/training just couldn't cope at first?
Going slightly OT here, but if you look at the Iraq invasion, then the conventional war was over in a matter of hours, but when it switched too counter-insurgency, the US (and Britain as well) struggled to cope.
In my view, the parallels with Korea and Vietnam are still there to this day. Nobody would expect to survive a conventional war with the USA, but a guerrilla/insurgency conflict would be anybody's game.
Why do you keep ignoring what people are telling you?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Is it too simplistic to say then that the US military was over confident in its technological/firepower supremacy, then it simply couldn't cope when the fighting switched to a more 'traditional' war of attrition as in Korea and Vietnam?
And as a result of this, the US soldier/marine either through lack of flexible doctrines/training just couldn't cope at first?
Going slightly OT here, but if you look at the Iraq invasion, then the conventional war was over in a matter of hours, but when it switched too counter-insurgency, the US (and Britain as well) struggled to cope.
In my view, the parallels with Korea and Vietnam are still there to this day. Nobody would expect to survive a conventional war with the USA, but a guerrilla/insurgency conflict would be anybody's game.
Why do you keep ignoring what people are telling you?
I'm not sure if people are telling me anything!
We have people discussing Operation Iraq freedom, which tells me nothing about the US military from 1945-1972, and we have people telling me things that I already know: the US public weren't happy with Vietnam war. Most posters have provided comments and I'm grateful for that, but on other key questions, there have been inconclusive answers.
For example, I've asked about military philosophy/doctrines of the basic US soldier (training, flexibility, fieldcraft, basic soldiering etc ) and there's been nothing back. I'll stick to my books. This discussion is over!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Is it too simplistic to say then that the US military was over confident in its technological/firepower supremacy, then it simply couldn't cope when the fighting switched to a more 'traditional' war of attrition as in Korea and Vietnam?
And as a result of this, the US soldier/marine either through lack of flexible doctrines/training just couldn't cope at first?
Going slightly OT here, but if you look at the Iraq invasion, then the conventional war was over in a matter of hours, but when it switched too counter-insurgency, the US (and Britain as well) struggled to cope.
In my view, the parallels with Korea and Vietnam are still there to this day. Nobody would expect to survive a conventional war with the USA, but a guerrilla/insurgency conflict would be anybody's game.
Why do you keep ignoring what people are telling you?
I'm not sure if people are telling me anything!
We have people discussing Operation Iraq freedom, which tells me nothing about the US military from 1945-1972, and we have people telling me things that I already know: the US public weren't happy with Vietnam war. Most posters have provided comments and I'm grateful for that, but on other key questions, there have been inconclusive answers.
For example, I've asked about military philosophy/doctrines of the basic US soldier (training, flexibility, fieldcraft, basic soldiering etc ) and there's been nothing back. I'll stick to my books. This discussion is over!
An underequipped US fought off 300,000 Chinese troops and caused massive casualties in Korea. Its hard to find a battle or even minor engagement where the US lost from 1944-now. I'm not sure what you're really asking for. Man for man worse then others? depends when. Depends on who. But youy have to assign factors youy're discussing first and actual actions where the US lost.
Easy E wrote: So, what exactly were we "winning" in Vietnam compared to AWI/Civil War/WWI/and WWII? That may answer your question about why the will was not there.
I really didn't think we were discussing WHY the U.S. has lost it's will to win, no matter the cost. I was simply stating that since the end of WWII, it hasn't been able to manifest anything like that scale of commitment. Which I think goes to the OP's question about the military skills of our soldiers and Marines in the period ('45-'72), where IMO, we didn't lose those wars due to a lack of skill on their part.
Right. It sounded like you were saying we didn't win in these engagements because of the skill of the soldiers. I wanted to make sure that the skill of soldiers had nothing to do with the losses.
Overall, I beleive the kill ratio is 6 to 1 with artillery and air support for US troops. However, I culdn't find a quick breakdown by conflict for Kill Ratios with a simple Google search. It would be intersting to see if this Kill Ratio changes over the course fo the conflicts.
An underequipped US fought off 300,000 Chinese troops and caused massive casualties in Korea. Its hard to find a battle or even minor engagement where the US lost from 1944-now. I'm not sure what you're really asking for. Man for man worse then others? depends when. Depends on who. But youy have to assign factors youy're discussing first and actual actions where the US lost.
Look up the Battle of Kham Duc in Vietnam. There was also the Siege of Khe Sanh, which is claimed as a US victory, but in reality, we withdrew from and abandoned Khe Sanh (under fire) after determining it was largely and undefendable position.
An underequipped US fought off 300,000 Chinese troops and caused massive casualties in Korea. Its hard to find a battle or even minor engagement where the US lost from 1944-now. I'm not sure what you're really asking for. Man for man worse then others? depends when. Depends on who. But youy have to assign factors youy're discussing first and actual actions where the US lost.
Look up the Battle of Kham Duc in Vietnam. There was also the Siege of Khe Sanh, which is claimed as a US victory, but in reality, we withdrew from and abandoned Khe Sanh (under fire) after determining it was largely and undefendable position.
And those are just off the top of my head.
We did not abandon Khe Sanh under fire. It was a defended position and meant to be stuck out their to draw NVA. It worked. You need to check your facts boyo.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm not sure if people are telling me anything!
We have people discussing Operation Iraq freedom, which tells me nothing about the US military from 1945-1972, and we have people telling me things that I already know: the US public weren't happy with Vietnam war. Most posters have provided comments and I'm grateful for that, but on other key questions, there have been inconclusive answers.
For example, I've asked about military philosophy/doctrines of the basic US soldier (training, flexibility, fieldcraft, basic soldiering etc ) and there's been nothing back. I'll stick to my books. This discussion is over!
Stick to what you like, but as sebster pointed out earlier, American kill ratios in the conflicts in question were always in our favor, sometimes heavily so. The wars weren't lost on the battlefield, so the entire premise of, "Why did American soldiers and Marines suck?" is inaccurate to begin with.
An underequipped US fought off 300,000 Chinese troops and caused massive casualties in Korea. Its hard to find a battle or even minor engagement where the US lost from 1944-now. I'm not sure what you're really asking for. Man for man worse then others? depends when. Depends on who. But youy have to assign factors youy're discussing first and actual actions where the US lost.
Look up the Battle of Kham Duc in Vietnam. There was also the Siege of Khe Sanh, which is claimed as a US victory, but in reality, we withdrew from and abandoned Khe Sanh (under fire) after determining it was largely and undefendable position.
And those are just off the top of my head.
We did not abandon Khe Sanh under fire. It was a defended position and meant to be stuck out their to draw NVA. It worked. You need to check your facts boyo.
Check your facts, boyo. Look up "Operation Charlie", the NVA continued shelling the base after the Siege had been lifted.
On June 19, 1968, another operation began at Khe Sanh, Operation Charlie, the final evacuation and destruction of the Khe Sanh Combat Base. The Marines withdrew all salvageable material and destroyed everything else. The NVA continued shelling the base, and on July 1 launched a company-sized infantry attack against its perimeter. Two Marines died. NVA casualties were more than 200. The base was officially closed on July 5. Marines stayed in the area, conducting operations to recover the bodies of Marines killed previously. On July 10, Pfc Robert Hernandez of Company A, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines, was manning an M-60 machine gun position when it took a direct hit from NVA mortars. Hernandez was killed. Ten more Marines and 89 NVA died during this period. They were not included in the official Khe Sanh counts.
On July 11, the Marines finally left Khe Sanh. This is the battle's end date from the North Vietnamese perspective. The NVA 304th Division's history notes that on "9 July 1968, the liberation flag was waving from the flag pole at Ta Con [Khe Sanh] airfield." On July 13, 1968, Ho Chi Minh sent a message to the soldiers of the Route 9–Khe Sanh Front affirming "our victory at Khe Sanh."
Dude that doesn't mean we lost. They achieved a slaughter against the NVA. Seriously, they could be fired on from mountains all around.
And nothing about it supports that the US soldier was poor in any way. Whether they were or weren't they still slaughtered everyone they fought against.
CptJake wrote: No, the Stryker family of vehicles is NOT air drop-able.
Actually, the AF has successfully done so, they just still haven't been certified for it yet.
Air landed, yes. Dropped? Yes, they tested the extraction from a C17 and the army has tested rigging/packing/shock protection not using aircraft. They are not close to certification though.
I've seen M551 heavy drop. Pretty awesome. The drop I took part in, 3 of 4 actually were able to drive off the DZ. And with Sheridans, that is good even without the drop factored in.
KM: As for Strykers not doing well on the ground, I know a lot of folks who would beg to differ. They did well both in Iraq and are still being used in Afghanistan, and the SBCT troops give them a pretty good rating over all. The biggest problem is the original suspension didn't handle the extra armor packages. That has been worked out for the most part.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm not sure if people are telling me anything!
We have people discussing Operation Iraq freedom, which tells me nothing about the US military from 1945-1972, and we have people telling me things that I already know: the US public weren't happy with Vietnam war. Most posters have provided comments and I'm grateful for that, but on other key questions, there have been inconclusive answers.
For example, I've asked about military philosophy/doctrines of the basic US soldier (training, flexibility, fieldcraft, basic soldiering etc ) and there's been nothing back. I'll stick to my books. This discussion is over!
Stick to what you like, but as sebster pointed out earlier, American kill ratios in the conflicts in question were always in our favor, sometimes heavily so. The wars weren't lost on the battlefield, so the entire premise of, "Why did American soldiers and Marines suck?" is inaccurate to begin with.
But my basic premise has NEVER been American soldiers suck.
Maybe the fault is mine for not making my points clear, but the general consensus of most of the books/articles I've read has been the following:
1. The quality of army recruits was lacking compared to other services.
2. The average American soldier did not have the same fieldcraft/camouflage/basic soldiering skills as his Chinese/ North Vietnamese counterpart
3. America placed too much emphasis on technological capabilities, so when Vietnam switched to a counter-insurgency war, the basic US fighter struggled.
Now, I know America had higher kill ratios than the NVA in the Vietnam war, I know that some American units were highly effective (special forces for example) but my purpose was to challenge the consensus above, to get different viewpoints/sources etc.
Maybe the fault is mine for not making my points clear, but the general consensus of most of the books/articles I've read has been the following:
1. The quality of army recruits was lacking compared to other services.
They had the finest in two year draftees and volunteers. Some were good, some were bad, few wanted to be there. Note historically Marines were a volunteer force except the depths of Vietnam.
2. The average American soldier did not have the same fieldcraft/camouflage/basic soldiering skills as his Chinese/ North Vietnamese counterpart
They were better then the Chinese/NK by leaps and bounds. Were they up to WWII vets from December 1944-no. But again NK was more of a fight to survive and WWI situation. Vietnam? Ayah I’d put the NVA and VC as more skilled in fieldcraft/camouflage. They had experience in fighting back to the Japanese. Those that weren’t…died.
3. America placed too much emphasis on technological capabilities, so when Vietnam switched to a counter-insurgency war, the basic US fighter struggled.
Kill rates were still high and lessons were learned. But frankly-how are they not going to struggle? They were in a jungle in a low intensity conflict. Who is going to do well in that environment?
Of course one could argue the way around it would have been invade China in 1952.
Frazzled wrote: Dude that doesn't mean we lost. They achieved a slaughter against the NVA. Seriously, they could be fired on from mountains all around.
And nothing about it supports that the US soldier was poor in any way. Whether they were or weren't they still slaughtered everyone they fought against.
Doesn't mean we won either, and again the fact of the matter is we withdrew (under fire), which, traditionally, implies a retreat, i.e. - a loss. I would also question what the "victory" would be if we sustained all that just to fall back. It truly served no real tactical or strategic purpose (and we ended up just setting up a new base a few miles down Route 9) from everything I've read, so, yeah.
The strategic purpose was to kill NVA. Thats what the whole war was about. Not getting your point related to the topic, other than a nice attempted dig at the US.
Frazzled wrote: The strategic purpose was to kill NVA. Thats what the whole war was about. Not getting your point related to the topic, other than a nice attempted dig at the US.
Its called "fact checking". Someone implied that the US hasn't lost a battle since world war 2, I pointed out one hard instance (Kham Duc) and one arguable instance (Khe Sanh) where that was untrue. And just to pull a third example from earlier in the thread, there was the Battle of Karbala: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Attack_on_Karbala
And the strategic purpose was to kill the NVA? Really? Well, general consensus in modern times is that war by attrition is your strategic goal, then you've probably already lost the war.
You're defining them as lost battles. Kham Duc I'll give on. Kham Duc is also a small unit action. Meh
And the strategic purpose was to kill the NVA? Really? Well, general consensus in modern times is that war by attrition is your strategic goal, then you've probably already lost the war.
I for one, believe that the war was winnable. You'll also note, the war was only lost after we had pulled out following a peace agreement (that neither side really paid any attention to).
chaos0xomega wrote: I for one, believe that the war was winnable. You'll also note, the war was only lost after we had pulled out following a peace agreement (that neither side really paid any attention to).
Well if you have the will everything is winnable. But with the will comes cost. Would it have been worth it to us to have a major war-perhaps a nuclear war-to end it?
It goes back to the old question-why exactly are American citizens being sent to die again?
See, I don't think that the cost to win the war would have been that much more, if at all, higher than the cost we had actually paid (both in terms of dollars and lives). If we had taken the bombs off and just gone on an offensive against the NVA into the North, perhaps toppled Ho Chi Minh's government... well, we probably would have ended up with a bigger quagmire than we found ourselves in, but I'm reasonably certain that had we then withdrawn following a period of Vietnamization as we did historically, the South wouldn't have collapsed in 1975.
chaos0xomega wrote: See, I don't think that the cost to win the war would have been that much more, if at all, higher than the cost we had actually paid (both in terms of dollars and lives). If we had taken the bombs off and just gone on an offensive against the NVA into the North, perhaps toppled Ho Chi Minh's government... well, we probably would have ended up with a bigger quagmire than we found ourselves in, but I'm reasonably certain that had we then withdrawn following a period of Vietnamization as we did historically, the South wouldn't have collapsed in 1975.
China was prepared for a full scale war, up to nukes. They had built and extensive series of bunkers to protect important assets.
So no, it would have been a major war, with a WWII like effort on our part at that point.
Well, we expended more ordnance in Vietnam than we did in WW2 anyway, at least if we'd been bombing China it would have been to good use... >.>
Keep in mind that, at the time, China did NOT have the capability to strike the US with nuclear weapons. Also keep in mind, that China developed and tested its first nuclear weapon in 1964, assuming that Chinese nuclear weapons production followed a similar pattern to the US and the Soviets (and bearing in mind that they are believed to only have 100-200 nuclear weapons in the present day, and that the last weapon they tested in 1996 had an estimated yield of less than 5 KILOtons), a "nuclear war" with China at the time would be decidedly one-sided.
Also keep in mind, that Chinese/North Vietnamese relations after 1968 were BAD (due to Vietnams pro-Soviet leaning and refusal on their part to cut relations with Moscow), meaning its doubtful that the Chinese would have got involved had the US really escalated things after that point. The general fear of Chinese intervention during the Vietnam War was largely misguided and probably the result of a lack of serious understanding between the relationships and dynamics of the region, as well as a lack of understanding of Cultural differences between Eastern and Western thinking as it relates to politics.
Maybe sometimes, but given that I wasn't born yet... 'meh'. Nobody ever said anything about invading China though, just escalating hostilities with North Vietnam, at a time when it was particularly unlikely that the Chinese would actually directly intervene.
Disagreed. After the Sino-Soviet split in 68 and the Chinese cessation of support for North Vietnam as a result (and their recognition and support of the Khmer Rouge, who were actually an enemy of the North Vietnamese gov't), the Chinese-American rapprochement which was highlighted by Nixons visit to China in 72, etc. ad nauseum, its pretty clear that towards the end of the war the Chinese wouldn't have been involved in Vietnam if the US had gone HAM on the NVA (barring the use of nuclear weapons on the US end, which I think everyone knows would spell doom for everyone involved). The Chinese invasion of Vietnam in the late 70s did not come out of a vacuum.
The scary thing is I think you're serious. Did you miss that whole Chinese army invading to push back US forces from being near the Chinese mainland? What country does NV border again? Oh yea...
Frazzled wrote: The scary thing is I think you're serious. Did you miss that whole Chinese army invading to push back US forces from being near the Chinese mainland? What country does NV border again? Oh yea...
What "Chinese army invading to push back US forces from being near the Chinese mainland" thing? To the best of my knowledge, that was never actually a thing, other than an idea that was floated in some circles in the US based on prior experience with the Chinese in Korea, which, in case you didn't notice, was a different war fought under different circumstances, and didn't involve a nation that had long been a traditional enemy of China, aka Vietnam.
Frazzled wrote: It was never actually "a thing" because we didn't invade North Vietnam.
And I'm questioning that it would have been "a thing" even if we had. You seem rather committed to the idea, based on... I don't know what you're basing it on because you haven't presented any sort of logical or reasonable evidence that would indicate that they would have intervened, while I'm presenting to you the idea that the Chinese WOULDN'T have intervened based on the reality of Sino-Soviet and Sino-Vietnamese relations during the last half of the Vietnam War.
In essence: I'm trying to have a logical debate based on fact and evidence, and you're putting your fingers in your ear and screaming "LALALALALA IM NOT LISTENING CHINA WOULD INVADE!!!!!" at the top of your lungs.
I'm basing it on the fact the Chinese had done it 15 years before. You've provided no evidence they wouldn't have, other then citing some sort of supposed break, yet all those supplies for NV were coming through China.
An opinion piece blows my theory out of the water? No. Its just a counterpoint to my opinion (or rather Colonel Summers opinion) published by a journal. For my argument, "On Strategy" would actually be a pretty good source to go to, since its in part based on the conclusion presented in said book.
Its an excellent counterpoint, showing the commitment occurring and plans China had already for war. That plus actual history vs. your what?
You're President Nixon. Its 1969. Are you prepared to go to all out war, and take hundreds of thousands of casualties (and potentially lose) an invasion of NV with another Chinese war?
Remember the last time troops were in NV, it didn't go so well...
Frazzled wrote: Its an excellent counterpoint, showing the commitment occurring and plans China had already for war. That plus actual history vs. your what?
You're President Nixon. Its 1969. Are you prepared to go to all out war, and take hundreds of thousands of casualties (and potentially lose) an invasion of NV with another Chinese war?
Remember the last time troops were in NV, it didn't go so well...
1969? Yes. At this point the Chinese are more afraid of the Soviets, who they are in the midst of a border war with (and are terrified of the prospect of its escalation), they have pulled (or are in the process of pulling) their forces out of North Vietnam as a result, and are cutting back support for Hanoi (which is pro-Soviet) in favor of financing the Khmer Rouge (who were both strongly anti-Vietnamese, despite taking aid from North Vietnam, and anti-American). Additionally, China is in the midst of the Cultural Revolution, facing social upheaval which has impacted civilian life, as well as military and political organization and coherency. China is effectively diplomatically isolated and basically going it alone at this point, faced with the prospect of a war against the Soviet Union along its northern border.
As Nixon, I would take the rapprochement approach, but on a much quicker timeframe and in a more aggressive fashion, giving China political and non-military support and building up a relationship fast, while escalating hostilities with North Vietnam drastically. China won't interfere in 1969, they've got their hands full with the Soviets, and with the US cozying up to them, even the paranoiacs at Beijing would have a hard time selling the story that the US would invade China while recognizing them internationally (stripping Taiwan of its seat on the Security Council), etc. though they will no doubt feel uneasy about it... but just in case lets just say theres a 50 mile buffer from the Chinese border that no US military forces will enter, and we pursue dialogue with the Chinese aggressively to assuage their concerns and negotiate. In the process, we engage Hanoi in peace negotiations, now that they face the prospect of being toppled from power via direct US military intervention, they either come to a peace agreement in 1969 or be wiped from the map. Without China's support, and with the Soviets having their hands full with the Chinese, my guess is they come to some sort of an agreement, one in which the US sets much harder terms on them, potentially including partial disarmament (since eliminating North Vietnam as an entity entirely might *not* be the best idea), the establishment of a (perhaps internationally enforced/patrolled) DMZ between north/south and north/Laos, effectively isolating North Vietnam from the South and thus ending the Ho Chi Minh trail and the flow of arms to the VC, thus giving the Saigon government at least a fighting chance of some sort of corrupt, inefficient, and inept survival (hey, I never said I agreed with the political aims of the war, only that the war was militarily winnable in my opinion), probably to be eventually toppled via internal pressure in the late 70's...
...or I'm 100% dead wrong and the situation devolves into World War 3... you never know, its the same risk that Kennedy took with the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis, so it wouldn't be the first time a President would act on gut feeling and logical analysis of the geopolitical landscape.
dracpanzer wrote: I'm not missing that at all, it just has nothing to do with the thread. I only pointed out America's lack of a will to win in Korea or Vietnam (or Iraq, Afghanistan) to illustrate that we lost those Wars because of that lack of will, the reason doesn't matter. It had nothing to do with a supposed decline in the skills of our ground forces, either soldiers or Marines. Since we weren't talking about whether or not we should have been in those Wars, I didn't feel the need to elaborate. Quite frankly, its not a discussion I want to engage in, so unless you feel I'm wrong to say that we did not lose those wars because the soldiers and Marines were somehow ineffectual, I think we are in agreement.
You're changing your argument.
Now, on the modified argument, "we did not lose those wars because the soldiers and Marines were somehow ineffectual" I agree entirely.
My issue was with your earlier claim "Since World War II, America has misplaced its capability to wage war in the manner required to win armed conflicts in the manner in which it won WWII. Simply put, the determination that allowed America to firebomb non military residential targets in Germany, or use the atom bomb on Japanese cities, is no longer present." which is simply mistaken. The US had no issue with bombing the hell out of Vietnam. The lack of determination as such was entirely to do with the reasonably irrelevant nature of victory in Vietnam compared to the absolute importance of defeating Germany and Japan.
Now, we do ultimately agree, but please don't amend your argument and pretend you didn't.
Fair enough, but are troops deployed by parachute any tougher? And once on the ground, they're going to need support, which surely is going to come largely from helicopters anyway, so not just deploy them by chopper in the first place?
As for the Stryker, that I know nothing about.
I saw some show years ago about how they were developing the Stryker as a new platform for infantry support, and that they could drop one by parachute.
IIRC the Strykers were used in Iraq to fairly mixed reviews.
Seriously Though, the mission of the Marines is amphibious assault, not long term territory control. They can afford to be more selective because they don't need the numbers that the Army does. Marines were never supposed to stay on the ground long term...but apparently people think they're intimidating or something so they've been on the ground in Afghanistan way too long.
Fun factoid: In the modern military, the Army is responsible for more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps. I've heard rumors that the Corps was meant to be phased out a number of years back, but that might be an Army legend.
I've heard nothing but rave reviews about the Stryker, especially in regards to it's survivability. I'm not a ground pounder though, so anything I've heard is second hand.
djones520 wrote: I've heard nothing but rave reviews about the Stryker, especially in regards to it's survivability. I'm not a ground pounder though, so anything I've heard is second hand.
From what I've seen (second hand, of course), I'm thinking that the MRAP is superior (at least in my eyes) to the Stryker (although it has a lower troop capacity). Both are magnificent combat vehicles compared to those of the past.
CptJake wrote: Air landed, yes. Dropped? Yes, they tested the extraction from a C17
What's the difference, if you don't mind me asking?
KM: As for Strykers not doing well on the ground, I know a lot of folks who would beg to differ. They did well both in Iraq and are still being used in Afghanistan, and the SBCT troops give them a pretty good rating over all. The biggest problem is the original suspension didn't handle the extra armor packages. That has been worked out for the most part.
CptJake wrote: Air landed, yes. Dropped? Yes, they tested the extraction from a C17
What's the difference, if you don't mind me asking?
KM: As for Strykers not doing well on the ground, I know a lot of folks who would beg to differ. They did well both in Iraq and are still being used in Afghanistan, and the SBCT troops give them a pretty good rating over all. The biggest problem is the original suspension didn't handle the extra armor packages. That has been worked out for the most part.
Interesting, thanks for the update.
Air landed means flown in by plane to a runway (or dirt field). Dropped means... well exactly what it sounds like.
sebster wrote: Now, we do ultimately agree, but please don't amend your argument and pretend you didn't.
I did no such thing, the determination to do ANYTHING NECESSARY was simply not there. While I used the point that in WWII we were not afraid to firebomb or nuke dense population centers to illustrate that it. I wasn't making the point that bombing Hanoi would have ended the war. You seem to be fixated on the point of bombing things. I did not say that increased bombing in Vietnam would have brought us victory or that the supposed lack of it was a symptom of America's lack of will.
My point was that since WWII the U.S. hasn't had the ability to manifest the will to win that would lead them into any theater, across any border, or over thousands of bodies just to achieve victory. We fought against the Axis Powers WHERVER we found them. If we lost thousands of men, we sent more. By the time of the Korean and Vietnam War the will to prosecute those Wars in that manner just didn't exist. Are you saying that isn't the case? Were we signing treaties calling for nothing short of unconditional surrender on the part of Korea, North Vietnam and China?
The Korean and Vietnam Wars being "reasonably irrelevant" (your words) is a symptom of a Nation that is incapable of winning a war that it CHOSE to fight simply because the will is not there to win it no matter the cost.
chaos0xomega wrote: Air landed means flown in by plane to a runway (or dirt field). Dropped means... well exactly what it sounds like.
How is air landed in any way impressive or hard to do?
And wiki says they air dropped the Stryker in 2004...
Again, yes, they tested extraction from a C17, that is the 2004 test. The test was not really designed to see if the Stryker was air dropable, but rather can a C17 handle the extraction. A subtle difference, but a difference. Takes a lot more to have them drop certified, and more to make it a valid strategic option. They may get there (the recent Unified Quest exercise assumed the capability for I think the 2025 time frame, I may be off on the time frame).
Air landing is impressive if done right. It isn't a leisurely unloading and when you are talking small dirt airfields with very limited ramp space dumping a company of 21+ Strykers (11 C17 loads minimum) ready to fight in minutes is a very impressive thing.
I saw someone say MRAPS were better. I disagree. They are different. They are not nearly as mobile as Strykers, even the MATV variant, and aside from the troop capacity you have other issues. A Stryker company has C2 vehicles, mortar carriers, MGS Strykers as well as the ICVs , ambulance and Fire support Stryker. There are not MRAPS that can cover all those roles. MRAPS are pretty much limited to roads, and are just designed for a different mission than the Stryker. They are not 'better', just different and cannot really replace the Strykers. They are much more of a logistics nightmare (higher fuel consumption and maintenance requirements).
Seriously Though, the mission of the Marines is amphibious assault, not long term territory control. They can afford to be more selective because they don't need the numbers that the Army does. Marines were never supposed to stay on the ground long term...but apparently people think they're intimidating or something so they've been on the ground in Afghanistan way too long.
Fun factoid: In the modern military, the Army is responsible for more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps. I've heard rumors that the Corps was meant to be phased out a number of years back, but that might be an Army legend.
Your numbers seem to be Army legend as well.
Let's see, So Operation Overlord, Operation Torch, Operation Husky, and Operation Avalanche.
Compared to.... THE ENTIRE PACIFIC CAMPAIGN. (Tarawa, Peleliu, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc ad nauseum)
Not to mention the tactics, techniques, and gear used by the Army in their assaults, including the famous Higgens boat, were all developed, tested and perfected by the Corps.
What's happened since WW2?
Inchon was the last major Amphib landing, and that was spearheaded by the 1st MarDiv.
The latest major Amphibious Operation was during the first Gulf War, they parked a massive Amphibious landing fleet off the Kuwati coast to pin down six Iraqi divisions while the Marines and Army's primary forces hit the line of departure like a sack of rocket propelled hate bricks.
So tell who ever told you that that he doesn't know how to count.
They (being Congress, and you army types) have tried to get rid of the Marine Corps multiple times, but every attempt has been met with failure. Mostly because we know how to get the job done and be budget efficient about it, but also because in the end equation, America WANTS a Marine Corps.
You do know that almost all the large scale Pacific landings the USMC participated in had Army divisions involved, right?
Finally, in the Pacific, when you speak of amphibious warfare, again, you rightly think of the Marines. But in fact, the Army had a huge presence there as well. Indeed, it was always a larger prescence than the Marines. The Army made over 100 amphibious assualts in the Pacific theater, many in the Southwest Pacific in and around New Guinea. In conjunction with the US Seventh Fleet, MacArthur’s forces in the Southwest Pacific became masters at the art of amphibious warfare, striking where the Japanese least expected them, and routinely conducting sweeping flanking movements that left Japanese garrisons cut off and useless. Dan Barbey, the Commander of 7th Fleet became known as “Uncle Dan The Amphibious Man.” All this with a fleet mostly composed of tiny LCTs, a few LSTs and LCIs.
The Army also fought alongside the Marine Corps in some of their most storied battles, such as the invasions of Saipan and Okinawa. Indeed, if the atomic bomb attacks had not lead to the early surrender of Japan, the invasion of the home islands would have been mostly an Army affair. Largely as a result of the Army’s preocupation with the European theater, these magnificent efforts have received little attention from the public at large.
Seriously Though, the mission of the Marines is amphibious assault, not long term territory control. They can afford to be more selective because they don't need the numbers that the Army does. Marines were never supposed to stay on the ground long term...but apparently people think they're intimidating or something so they've been on the ground in Afghanistan way too long.
Fun factoid: In the modern military, the Army is responsible for more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps. I've heard rumors that the Corps was meant to be phased out a number of years back, but that might be an Army legend.
Your numbers seem to be Army legend as well.
Let's see, So Operation Overlord, Operation Torch, Operation Husky, and Operation Avalanche.
Compared to.... THE ENTIRE PACIFIC CAMPAIGN. (Tarawa, Peleliu, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc ad nauseum)
I'm not saying I disagree with you or that you're wrong, but do keep in mind that the Army was involved in amphibious landings in the Pacific as well, alongside the Marines. The first Americans ashore in Okinawa, for example, were from the Armys 77th Infantry Division.
Not to mention the tactics, techniques, and gear used by the Army in their assaults, including the famous Higgens boat, were all developed, tested and perfected by the Corps.
Not entirely true by any means. The Higgins boat wasn't developed by the Marine Corps, it was developed by Andrew Higgins for civilian use (some say for Prohibition era booze smugglers), its military application was incidental following testing by the Navy/USMC. Also given that the Army had engaged in numerous amphibious landings itself, they had a big hand in 'writing the book' on how its done. Keep in mind that prior to WW2, amphibious landings were conducted in a rather different manner.
What's happened since WW2?
Inchon was the last major Amphib landing, and that was spearheaded by the 1st MarDiv.
Depends what you mean by "Spearheaded". The unit that undertook the landing was X Corps, which was primarily composed of 1st MarDiv and the 7th Infantry Division, the Marines hit the beaches first (although as I understand it there were Army combat engineering units attached to the Marines initial landings, meaning that the Marines can't quite claim they did it solo), with the main bulk of the 7th Infantry hitting about 3 or 4 days later (as I understand it they also landed on contested beachfront property in a separate sector from the Marines, who were securing the flank to prevent a counterattack from Seoul.
They (being Congress, and you army types) have tried to get rid of the Marine Corps multiple times, but every attempt has been met with failure. Mostly because we know how to get the job done and be budget efficient about it, but also because in the end equation, America WANTS a Marine Corps.
Well, I don't know if I would put it in quite that way, if American wanted a Marine Corps there wouldn't be anyone trying to get rid of it, its more like... the Marine Corps is an American institution with enough support from the population as a whole that its doubtful that it will ever fall by the wayside. Simply put, there is a Marine Corps because America chooses to have a Marine Corps.
CptJake wrote: You do know that almost all the large scale Pacific landings the USMC participated in had Army divisions involved, right?
Finally, in the Pacific, when you speak of amphibious warfare, again, you rightly think of the Marines. But in fact, the Army had a huge presence there as well. Indeed, it was always a larger prescence than the Marines. The Army made over 100 amphibious assualts in the Pacific theater, many in the Southwest Pacific in and around New Guinea. In conjunction with the US Seventh Fleet, MacArthur’s forces in the Southwest Pacific became masters at the art of amphibious warfare, striking where the Japanese least expected them, and routinely conducting sweeping flanking movements that left Japanese garrisons cut off and useless. Dan Barbey, the Commander of 7th Fleet became known as “Uncle Dan The Amphibious Man.” All this with a fleet mostly composed of tiny LCTs, a few LSTs and LCIs.
The Army also fought alongside the Marine Corps in some of their most storied battles, such as the invasions of Saipan and Okinawa. Indeed, if the atomic bomb attacks had not lead to the early surrender of Japan, the invasion of the home islands would have been mostly an Army affair. Largely as a result of the Army’s preocupation with the European theater, these magnificent efforts have received little attention from the public at large.
Usually only after the marines landed first Not seeing where this is a marine army fight. Frankly there's no way the Army can win that fight. Marine dress blues are just auto win...
Especially in bars. By the way, Army types, who the hell thought it was a bright idea to let you nasties wander around off base in your camis? Seriously. gak is heinous. Even Airborne types pull that crap and at least I can normally expect those guys to have a little pride.
chaos0xomega wrote: Frazzled... bro, did you read my post? I just gave an explicit example where the Army landed first, and that was hardly an isolated event.
No I didn't actually.
I said usually.
Admit your jealousy of the greatness of Marine dress blues over mere Army dress and your journey to the dark side shall be complete.
chaos0xomega wrote: Frazzled... bro, did you read my post? I just gave an explicit example where the Army landed first, and that was hardly an isolated event.
No I didn't actually.
I said usually.
Admit your jealousy of the greatness of Marine dress blues over mere Army dress and your journey to the dark side shall be complete.
I don't need to admit my jealousy... I'm not in the Army and I'm actually looking at the Corps as a career option
sebster wrote: Now, we do ultimately agree, but please don't amend your argument and pretend you didn't.
I did no such thing, the determination to do ANYTHING NECESSARY was simply not there. While I used the point that in WWII we were not afraid to firebomb or nuke dense population centers to illustrate that it. I wasn't making the point that bombing Hanoi would have ended the war. You seem to be fixated on the point of bombing things. I did not say that increased bombing in Vietnam would have brought us victory or that the supposed lack of it was a symptom of America's lack of will.
My point was that since WWII the U.S. hasn't had the ability to manifest the will to win that would lead them into any theater, across any border, or over thousands of bodies just to achieve victory. We fought against the Axis Powers WHERVER we found them. If we lost thousands of men, we sent more. By the time of the Korean and Vietnam War the will to prosecute those Wars in that manner just didn't exist. Are you saying that isn't the case? Were we signing treaties calling for nothing short of unconditional surrender on the part of Korea, North Vietnam and China?
The Korean and Vietnam Wars being "reasonably irrelevant" (your words) is a symptom of a Nation that is incapable of winning a war that it CHOSE to fight simply because the will is not there to win it no matter the cost.
So, in Vietnam and Korea we should have fought Communists wherever they were found?
Isn;t there some military conventional wisdom about Land Wars in Asia.
Yes. It involves actually fighting the war instead of playing games. (Translation: Actually stomping the gak out of Northern Vietnam and taking the fight to them)
chaos0xomega wrote: Frazzled... bro, did you read my post? I just gave an explicit example where the Army landed first, and that was hardly an isolated event.
No I didn't actually.
I said usually.
Admit your jealousy of the greatness of Marine dress blues over mere Army dress and your journey to the dark side shall be complete.
I don't need to admit my jealousy... I'm not in the Army and I'm actually looking at the Corps as a career option
Seriously Though, the mission of the Marines is amphibious assault, not long term territory control. They can afford to be more selective because they don't need the numbers that the Army does. Marines were never supposed to stay on the ground long term...but apparently people think they're intimidating or something so they've been on the ground in Afghanistan way too long.
Fun factoid: In the modern military, the Army is responsible for more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps. I've heard rumors that the Corps was meant to be phased out a number of years back, but that might be an Army legend.
Your numbers seem to be Army legend as well.
Let's see, So Operation Overlord, Operation Torch, Operation Husky, and Operation Avalanche.
Compared to.... THE ENTIRE PACIFIC CAMPAIGN. (Tarawa, Peleliu, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc ad nauseum)
I'm not saying I disagree with you or that you're wrong, but do keep in mind that the Army was involved in amphibious landings in the Pacific as well, alongside the Marines. The first Americans ashore in Okinawa, for example, were from the Armys 77th Infantry Division.
Not to mention the tactics, techniques, and gear used by the Army in their assaults, including the famous Higgens boat, were all developed, tested and perfected by the Corps.
Not entirely true by any means. The Higgins boat wasn't developed by the Marine Corps, it was developed by Andrew Higgins for civilian use (some say for Prohibition era booze smugglers), its military application was incidental following testing by the Navy/USMC. Also given that the Army had engaged in numerous amphibious landings itself, they had a big hand in 'writing the book' on how its done. Keep in mind that prior to WW2, amphibious landings were conducted in a rather different manner.
The "Book" was written in 1935, with the Marine Corps training Army units over the course of the war, and sending a couple copies of the book to Eisenhower to help plan Overlord.
I am aware that the Army did spend some time in The Pacific and preformed quite well. Probably could have done a bit better without Douglas MacArthur around, but I admit hating that git with a passion.
What's happened since WW2?
Inchon was the last major Amphib landing, and that was spearheaded by the 1st MarDiv.
Depends what you mean by "Spearheaded". The unit that undertook the landing was X Corps, which was primarily composed of 1st MarDiv and the 7th Infantry Division, the Marines hit the beaches first (although as I understand it there were Army combat engineering units attached to the Marines initial landings, meaning that the Marines can't quite claim they did it solo), with the main bulk of the 7th Infantry hitting about 3 or 4 days later (as I understand it they also landed on contested beachfront property in a separate sector from the Marines, who were securing the flank to prevent a counterattack from Seoul.
Spearhead would imply, in the lead, both as far as planning and actually hitting the beach.
They (being Congress, and you army types) have tried to get rid of the Marine Corps multiple times, but every attempt has been met with failure. Mostly because we know how to get the job done and be budget efficient about it, but also because in the end equation, America WANTS a Marine Corps.
Well, I don't know if I would put it in quite that way, if American wanted a Marine Corps there wouldn't be anyone trying to get rid of it, its more like... the Marine Corps is an American institution with enough support from the population as a whole that its doubtful that it will ever fall by the wayside. Simply put, there is a Marine Corps because America chooses to have a Marine Corps.
Which is what I said. The people who want to get rid of the Corps are the occasional congress critter and Army brass who are A. jealous and B. looking for any excuse to acquire more funding to waste on their 30th uniform change this decade.
Not that we don't do our own politicing. I wish someone would remove the boot up someone at MCHQ's ass and let the Army have Marpat already. We already gave the "No EGA" variant to the squids, we may as well pass it on and help the hooahs before someone thinks a universal camo pattern's a bright idea again.
chaos0xomega wrote: Frazzled... bro, did you read my post? I just gave an explicit example where the Army landed first, and that was hardly an isolated event.
No I didn't actually.
I said usually.
Admit your jealousy of the greatness of Marine dress blues over mere Army dress and your journey to the dark side shall be complete.
I don't need to admit my jealousy... I'm not in the Army and I'm actually looking at the Corps as a career option
Seriously Though, the mission of the Marines is amphibious assault, not long term territory control. They can afford to be more selective because they don't need the numbers that the Army does. Marines were never supposed to stay on the ground long term...but apparently people think they're intimidating or something so they've been on the ground in Afghanistan way too long.
Fun factoid: In the modern military, the Army is responsible for more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps. I've heard rumors that the Corps was meant to be phased out a number of years back, but that might be an Army legend.
It's not an army legend. Omar Bradley was going to phase out the marine divisions and return them to their traditional role of protecting ships, then the Korean War kicked off.
Seriously Though, the mission of the Marines is amphibious assault, not long term territory control. They can afford to be more selective because they don't need the numbers that the Army does. Marines were never supposed to stay on the ground long term...but apparently people think they're intimidating or something so they've been on the ground in Afghanistan way too long.
Fun factoid: In the modern military, the Army is responsible for more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps. I've heard rumors that the Corps was meant to be phased out a number of years back, but that might be an Army legend.
Your numbers seem to be Army legend as well.
Let's see, So Operation Overlord, Operation Torch, Operation Husky, and Operation Avalanche.
Compared to.... THE ENTIRE PACIFIC CAMPAIGN. (Tarawa, Peleliu, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc ad nauseum)
I'm not saying I disagree with you or that you're wrong, but do keep in mind that the Army was involved in amphibious landings in the Pacific as well, alongside the Marines. The first Americans ashore in Okinawa, for example, were from the Armys 77th Infantry Division.
Not to mention the tactics, techniques, and gear used by the Army in their assaults, including the famous Higgens boat, were all developed, tested and perfected by the Corps.
Not entirely true by any means. The Higgins boat wasn't developed by the Marine Corps, it was developed by Andrew Higgins for civilian use (some say for Prohibition era booze smugglers), its military application was incidental following testing by the Navy/USMC. Also given that the Army had engaged in numerous amphibious landings itself, they had a big hand in 'writing the book' on how its done. Keep in mind that prior to WW2, amphibious landings were conducted in a rather different manner.
The "Book" was written in 1935, with the Marine Corps training Army units over the course of the war, and sending a couple copies of the book to Eisenhower to help plan Overlord.
I am aware that the Army did spend some time in The Pacific and preformed quite well. Probably could have done a bit better without Douglas MacArthur around, but I admit hating that git with a passion.
What's happened since WW2?
Inchon was the last major Amphib landing, and that was spearheaded by the 1st MarDiv.
Depends what you mean by "Spearheaded". The unit that undertook the landing was X Corps, which was primarily composed of 1st MarDiv and the 7th Infantry Division, the Marines hit the beaches first (although as I understand it there were Army combat engineering units attached to the Marines initial landings, meaning that the Marines can't quite claim they did it solo), with the main bulk of the 7th Infantry hitting about 3 or 4 days later (as I understand it they also landed on contested beachfront property in a separate sector from the Marines, who were securing the flank to prevent a counterattack from Seoul.
Spearhead would imply, in the lead, both as far as planning and actually hitting the beach.
They (being Congress, and you army types) have tried to get rid of the Marine Corps multiple times, but every attempt has been met with failure. Mostly because we know how to get the job done and be budget efficient about it, but also because in the end equation, America WANTS a Marine Corps.
Well, I don't know if I would put it in quite that way, if American wanted a Marine Corps there wouldn't be anyone trying to get rid of it, its more like... the Marine Corps is an American institution with enough support from the population as a whole that its doubtful that it will ever fall by the wayside. Simply put, there is a Marine Corps because America chooses to have a Marine Corps.
Which is what I said. The people who want to get rid of the Corps are the occasional congress critter and Army brass who are A. jealous and B. looking for any excuse to acquire more funding to waste on their 30th uniform change this decade.
Not that we don't do our own politicing. I wish someone would remove the boot up someone at MCHQ's ass and let the Army have Marpat already. We already gave the "No EGA" variant to the squids, we may as well pass it on and help the hooahs before someone thinks a universal camo pattern's a bright idea again.
chaos0xomega wrote: Frazzled... bro, did you read my post? I just gave an explicit example where the Army landed first, and that was hardly an isolated event.
No I didn't actually.
I said usually.
Admit your jealousy of the greatness of Marine dress blues over mere Army dress and your journey to the dark side shall be complete.
I don't need to admit my jealousy... I'm not in the Army and I'm actually looking at the Corps as a career option
I'd suggest the Airforce instead
For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.
Spearhead would imply, in the lead, both as far as planning and actually hitting the beach.
You do know that MacArthur planned Inchon, right?
Which is what I said. The people who want to get rid of the Corps are the occasional congress critter and Army brass who are A. jealous and B. looking for any excuse to acquire more funding to waste on their 30th uniform change this decade.
I don't disagree with you there, though I think there is something that could be done involving the DoD as a whole (in terms of restructuring) to cut out a lot of unnecessary overlap and redundancy.
Not that we don't do our own politicing. I wish someone would remove the boot up someone at MCHQ's ass and let the Army have Marpat already. We already gave the "No EGA" variant to the squids, we may as well pass it on and help the hooahs before someone thinks a universal camo pattern's a bright idea again.
Amen. I think Congress will soon be setting that straight though. A bill that would require all branches to standardize by 2018 passed through the house and is waiting for vote by the senate.
I'd suggest the Airforce instead
Oh cute, you're trying to insult me, not working. The Air Force is actually my first choice, but my only option there might be to fly a desk, which isn't what I'm interested in doing.
PS - Kalashnikov, you shouldn't piss off the guy who offered to make 3D design files for your .454 Casull revolver ;P
sebster wrote: Now, we do ultimately agree, but please don't amend your argument and pretend you didn't.
I did no such thing, the determination to do ANYTHING NECESSARY was simply not there. While I used the point that in WWII we were not afraid to firebomb or nuke dense population centers to illustrate that it. I wasn't making the point that bombing Hanoi would have ended the war. You seem to be fixated on the point of bombing things. I did not say that increased bombing in Vietnam would have brought us victory or that the supposed lack of it was a symptom of America's lack of will.
My point was that since WWII the U.S. hasn't had the ability to manifest the will to win that would lead them into any theater, across any border, or over thousands of bodies just to achieve victory. We fought against the Axis Powers WHERVER we found them. If we lost thousands of men, we sent more. By the time of the Korean and Vietnam War the will to prosecute those Wars in that manner just didn't exist. Are you saying that isn't the case? Were we signing treaties calling for nothing short of unconditional surrender on the part of Korea, North Vietnam and China?
The Korean and Vietnam Wars being "reasonably irrelevant" (your words) is a symptom of a Nation that is incapable of winning a war that it CHOSE to fight simply because the will is not there to win it no matter the cost.
So, in Vietnam and Korea we should have fought Communists wherever they were found?
Isn;t there some military conventional wisdom about Land Wars in Asia.
Yes there is. Unless your name is Genghis Khan, you'll always lose!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've created a monster with this thread
For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.
Patton is a pretty good place to start looking. MacAurthur was headstrong and far too sure of himself. When put in charge of the rebuilding of Japan, his goal was to make it "new America" basically, by forcing various aspects of America onto the Japanese.
Yeah, I know, Patton was a crazy mofo who didn't give a flying rat's gak what anyone thought, he was going to fight and win wherever he fought, and he brooked no cowardice, and hated lazy people with a passion. But the fact is, wherever he fought/led men in fighting, things got done and fairly quickly.
For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.
Patton is a pretty good place to start looking. MacAurthur was headstrong and far too sure of himself. When put in charge of the rebuilding of Japan, his goal was to make it "new America" basically, by forcing various aspects of America onto the Japanese.
lol, Is that why modern day Japan is so weird?(referring to their messed up porn/sex industry, among other things)
My opinion of the American WW2 era generals is that they were all Primadonnas, although they were no doubt effective in what they were tasked to do (well, the "big names" anyway).
For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.
Patton is a pretty good place to start looking. MacAurthur was headstrong and far too sure of himself. When put in charge of the rebuilding of Japan, his goal was to make it "new America" basically, by forcing various aspects of America onto the Japanese.
lol, Is that why modern day Japan is so weird?(referring to their messed up porn/sex industry, among other things)
My opinion of the American WW2 era generals is that they were all Primadonnas, although they were no doubt effective in what they were tasked to do (well, the "big names" anyway).
I'd lump British ones in there as well. If your claiming Primadonna, then Montgomery fits in there better then some of ours.
For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.
Patton is a pretty good place to start looking. MacAurthur was headstrong and far too sure of himself. When put in charge of the rebuilding of Japan, his goal was to make it "new America" basically, by forcing various aspects of America onto the Japanese.
lol, Is that why modern day Japan is so weird?(referring to their messed up porn/sex industry, among other things)
It was a serious suggestion. If you find the Airforce insulting perhaps that's on you ja? and if you can't take this kinda ribbing, you really shouldn't be in the Corps kay-det, regardless of your 3D printing skillz.
Modern Japan really isn't that weird, the whole tentacle thing is actually /our/ fault because we imposed some TERRIBLE post war censoring laws on them.
For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.
Patton is a pretty good place to start looking. MacAurthur was headstrong and far too sure of himself. When put in charge of the rebuilding of Japan, his goal was to make it "new America" basically, by forcing various aspects of America onto the Japanese.
lol, Is that why modern day Japan is so weird?(referring to their messed up porn/sex industry, among other things)
My opinion of the American WW2 era generals is that they were all Primadonnas, although they were no doubt effective in what they were tasked to do (well, the "big names" anyway).
I'd lump British ones in there as well. If your claiming Primadonna, then Montgomery fits in there better then some of ours.
Plus, I'd hardly call Eisenhower one.
Don't get me started on the British generals, lol. Eisenhower, yeah he wasn't, but that might also be because he was the Commanding General of the ETO as of summer 1942...
That's why the Navy's great. The only way that story gets better is if this was in the time frame when the hilariously style-reasons-only blue Cobra Commander NWU not-camo was adopted.
dracpanzer wrote: I did no such thing, the determination to do ANYTHING NECESSARY was simply not there.
Yes, and I've explained to you several times now that the reason the will to do anything necessary wasn't there was to do with the conflict itself, not some fuzzy brained notion of a change in American culture. WWII was a war in which the US faced an existential threat - be defeated by Germany and Japan and the US as there was a fair chance that sooner rather than later the US would no longer exist as a country. Whereas defeat in Vietnam meant nothing to the US - some country in Asia had a different despot in charge.
If you don't want to get it, then don't get it. But I'll give the example again, just in case you're actually still trying to figure this out;
There's a tournament coming up in 5 days, and I think if I can get my last five minis painted in time I'm a pretty good chance of winning. So I pull out all the stops, piss off the wife by spending the evenings painting instead of talking to her, cash in a favour with the neighbour to have him carpool the kids to jazzballet, that kind of stuff.
A month after that and I've got a friendly game lined up for the weekend. I want to get my new unit all painted up and ready, as I'd like to deploy a fully painted force. There's only 4 models that need painting, so it won't even take as much effort this time around. And yet, I don't chance getting the bad books with the wife by disappearing to study, and I actually take the kids to jazzballet when it isn't my turn, to make up for last time.
Is this because I no longer have the will paint like I used to? Or is it because having a fully painted army ready for a tournament was worth the sacrifice, while having a fully painted army ready for a friendly game against a mate wasn't?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Again, yes, they tested extraction from a C17, that is the 2004 test. The test was not really designed to see if the Stryker was air dropable, but rather can a C17 handle the extraction. A subtle difference, but a difference.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. On the earlier description of air landed I thought about posting something along the lines of 'that sounds like more of an achievement for the plane than the stryker', and now what you've explained helps me make sense of all that. Cheers.
Takes a lot more to have them drop certified, and more to make it a valid strategic option. They may get there (the recent Unified Quest exercise assumed the capability for I think the 2025 time frame, I may be off on the time frame).
Air landing is impressive if done right. It isn't a leisurely unloading and when you are talking small dirt airfields with very limited ramp space dumping a company of 21+ Strykers (11 C17 loads minimum) ready to fight in minutes is a very impressive thing.
I saw someone say MRAPS were better. I disagree. They are different. They are not nearly as mobile as Strykers, even the MATV variant, and aside from the troop capacity you have other issues. A Stryker company has C2 vehicles, mortar carriers, MGS Strykers as well as the ICVs , ambulance and Fire support Stryker. There are not MRAPS that can cover all those roles. MRAPS are pretty much limited to roads, and are just designed for a different mission than the Stryker. They are not 'better', just different and cannot really replace the Strykers. They are much more of a logistics nightmare (higher fuel consumption and maintenance requirements).
Interesting, thankyou.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Yes. It involves actually fighting the war instead of playing games. (Translation: Actually stomping the gak out of Northern Vietnam and taking the fight to them)
Sure, but it isn't too hard to realise that the problems that would cause weren't worth the win.
At which point I guess we can say that the US shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, but that's something that's only clear in hindsight. Who knew the North would be willing to whether that many casualties, and who knew the South Vietnamese leadership would continue to be that incompetent throughout.
Which I guess is a good reason to recognise wars have lots of unknown unknowns, to borrow a phrase, and you should only get involved in them when you have to. Which leads us back neatly to why expanding the war in to North Vietnam was such a bad idea - even more unknown unknowns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.
The Phillipines would have to be a pretty big black mark against the guy, wouldn't it?
MRAP can be easily flipped. MRAP turret gunners were becoming main targets.
Stryker are a target being that they are Stryker. Were quite exposed to IED's that were designed to get them. The V hull of the Stryker were being introduced in 2010. Before 2010 they were also equip with one Halon system. Once a squad from 2-5 Stryker burned alive when a IED flipped the Stryker disabling the Halon system and torqueing the rear hatch. They were equipped with two Halon system and a nifty extraction tool for the rear hatch
djones520 wrote: I doubt Hannibal Barca could have had the Phillipines turn out much differently.
Losing the Phillipines, sure, but the loss of FEAF for basically nothing? When you've received warning of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour, been informed of strikes at Luzon, and you've managed to track the incoming attack force by radar, and you still get surprised and lose half your planes on the ground, I'm going to say that's not something that could happen to anyone.
I still maintain on a hindsight note we should have been involved in Vietnam.
Fighting on the same side as Uncle Ho. Only reason we weren't was a racist in the White House and a bid to keep those useless cheese eating surrender monkeys (the French if you're not tracking) in NATO
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.
Several gentlemen of the Navy, from John Paul Jones to Chester Nimitz and Bull Halsey, would like a word with you.
In that case Washington, that one guy who trashed Tarlton at the Battle of the Cowpens, Generals Lee, Grant and Sherman, Black Jack Pershing, George S. Patton and goddamn Chesty Puller would like a word.
In that case Washington, that one guy who trashed Tarlton at the Battle of the Cowpens, Generals Lee, Grant and Sherman, Black Jack Pershing, George S. Patton and goddamn Chesty Puller would like a word.
Well...off the bat. US of A was not even around when Washington lead..
1. He wasn't around when both sides lined up and just blew each other away so we can skip Lee, Sherman, and Grant. Though in that time frame I go for Lee being the best being he used his limited resources the best way he can.
2. Pershing...well....chasing Mexican bandits wasn't involve in Pacific..
3. Patton died a bit after WWII but he was geared towards a western European front basically US Armor vs Panzer units. Did you know he was related to Puller? Just saw that.
4. Puller was a Combat Ground Commander. He was part of the pointy end of the spear.
2. Pershing...well....chasing Mexican bandits wasn't involve in Pacific..
3. Patton died a bit after WWII but he was geared towards a western European front basically US Armor vs Panzer units. Did you know he was related to Puller? Just saw that.
4. Puller was a Combat Ground Commander. He was part of the pointy end of the spear.
2. Pershing did have command over US Forces in the Philippines during the Insurrection, and did some things that under today's laws would be considered Crimes, but were highly effective terrorist deterrents.
3. I think that while Patton was definitely geared towards fighting Tanks and a regular standing army, he would have done well in Korea as well (but lets face it, he probably wouldnt have been around for Vietnam)
4. Puller was great. A bit of trivia: Chesty Puller was against the use of the Flamethrower in the military. His reasoning wasnt the humanity of it, or some other moral objection. He didnt like it simply because he couldnt have a bayonet put on it (or so the legend goes)
I think the criteria used by some to rate these leaders is a but flawed and subject to popular perception...
Washington shouldnt even rate, he lost most of the battles he fought, his greatest assets as a military leader had little to actually do with military leadership.
Grant was an absolute butcher (of his own men, let alone the enemy). While he was a genius at the "Operational Art," chances are you wouldnt want to serve under him.
Lee was a great general, but a lot of it had to do with his divisional/corps commanders, Longstreet in particular. The one time Lee didn't listen to Longstreet was Gettysburg, and we know how that went. Longstreet definitely rates as a great in my book.
Know who Im surprised wasnt mentioned? Mad Dog Mattis.
djones520 wrote: Your estimation of Washington does a great disservice to you Chaos.
The simple fact he took a band of rag tag farmers, and led them to victory over the strongest military power of the age alone...
Washington was more then just a general. He was a Commander in Chief. He was, and still is, the epitome of generalship.
Not to mention Washington apparently ran a spy network that puts the CIA, MI-6, and KGB all to shame... and THAT's where I think Washington actually did the most damage during his tenure in command.
djones520 wrote: Your estimation of Washington does a great disservice to you Chaos.
The simple fact he took a band of rag tag farmers, and led them to victory over the strongest military power of the age alone...
Washington was more then just a general. He was a Commander in Chief. He was, and still is, the epitome of generalship.
Not to mention Washington apparently ran a spy network that puts the CIA, MI-6, and KGB all to shame... and THAT's where I think Washington actually did the most damage during his tenure in command.
His tactical record may look shoddy, but Washington wasn't just a regular general. He did EVERYTHING that generals we are compairing him to did not have to do. As I mentioned, he was the Commander in Chief, he wasn't just a general of the Army. It was his responsibility to oversee every aspect of that war, not just the battles. espionage, logistics, public affairs, etc... and he did it all with back country folks who had very little to no professional military training.
Look a bit further into the father of the US Military Drill and Ceremony. Friedrich Von Steuben basically drilled the Continental Army to stand up to the British Regulars after time at Valley Forge.
Jihadin wrote: Look a bit further into the father of the US Military Drill and Ceremony. Friedrich Von Steuben basically drilled the Continental Army to stand up to the British Regulars after time at Valley Forge.
Yeah, Steuben was a godsend to our troops.
George Washington's War, I'd highly suggest that book to folks who want to learn more about how he fought that war.
By February 5, 1778, Steuben had offered to volunteer without pay (for the time), and by February 23, Steuben reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge. Steuben spoke little English and he often yelled to his translator, "Over here! Swear at him for me!" Colonel Alexander Hamilton and General Nathanael Greene were of great help in assisting Steuben in drafting a training program for the Army, which found approval with Washington.
Know who Im surprised wasnt mentioned? Mad Dog Mattis.
I'd follow Mattis to hell and back any day of the week. However he's a bit young for the crowd we've been talking about.
I really must concur that you aren't giving Washington much credit. He avoided battles as much as possible, especially decisive engagements until he could enter battle in such a way that utterly favored his army, with short supplies against a better trained, armed and equipped foe this was the ONLY sane strategy. What use is winning a battle when it exhausts much of your manpower and loses the war?
I concur with my military history professor on the subject of George Washington. One of the best ways to judge a man is by how the men he trained behave. Well the Big G.W. trained Brigadier General Daniel Morgan, taught him everything during their time together during the French Indian wars and earlier in the Revolution, and the Battle of Cowpens was an absolute spanking delivered to a superior sized and armed British force lead by none other then the bad guy from The Patriot. (seriously.) any way, beautiful double envelopment playing to the weaknesses of the militia under his command (a trick he learned from George) while taking advantage of Tarleton being an arrogant donkey cave.
What in the name of God has happened to this thread? I turn my back for five minutes and I come back to George Washington and the battle of Cowpens!
At least when I was talking about Macarthur, it was relevant to the discussion, as MacArthur was supreme commander of UN forces during the Korean War, which, may I remind people, fits into the 1945-1972 timeframe. Where does 1781 fight into this?
To use one of my favourite American sayings - this discussion has turned into a goat rope session!
My original aim was to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the US fighting man, 45-72, and compare how he matched up to his Soviet/Korean/Chinese counterpart, instead, this thread has been hijacked for nefarious ends.
Yeah, I'm looking at you Kalashnikov, Jihadin, djones, chaosomega
Well, I'm pretty sure Korean, Chinesse and Vietnamese military forces int eh field had a very different logistical method than the US troops they faced. These logistical problems/methods would play a pretty big role in how the units themselves would need to fight.
Therefore, Americans could rely more on overwhelming firepower and less on fieldcraft where the opposite was not true of their opponents.
My original aim was to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the US fighting man, 45-72, and compare how he matched up to his Soviet/Korean/Chinese counterpart, instead, this thread has been hijacked for nefarious ends.
In this context though, Washington, among others greatly formed our fighting/military thinking processes that actually have an affect on the way we wage wars to this day.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: What in the name of God has happened to this thread? I turn my back for five minutes and I come back to George Washington and the battle of Cowpens!
At least when I was talking about Macarthur, it was relevant to the discussion, as MacArthur was supreme commander of UN forces during the Korean War, which, may I remind people, fits into the 1945-1972 timeframe. Where does 1781 fight into this?
To use one of my favourite American sayings - this discussion has turned into a goat rope session!
My original aim was to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the US fighting man, 45-72, and compare how he matched up to his Soviet/Korean/Chinese counterpart, instead, this thread has been hijacked for nefarious ends.
Yeah, I'm looking at you Kalashnikov, Jihadin, djones, chaosomega
The book Phantom Soldier by H. John Poole is probably a good read for you, at least in the latter half of that range.
Come now "I Do Not Like That". I mention on the first page off the git go that no one here has experience in those time frame. What do you expect of a website dedicated to war gaming knowing there be military prior and present was going to train wreck this thread and take it as our own...
KalashnikovMarine wrote: This thread was taken by a joint service lighting raid with extensive combined arms support. We will proceed to hold our ground for the near future.
Love it, you get an exalt. And it probably only worked because the army was there to help with the initial landing (and we are right back into it!).
KalashnikovMarine wrote: This thread was taken by a joint service lighting raid with extensive combined arms support. We will proceed to hold our ground for the near future.
Quite possibly the only thing missing is Mattyrm for the coalition support.
On the plus side, it seems the French have seen the level of awesome here, and have surrendered prior to entering this fray
Yes we really do need Matty back. The only thing better then Marines on the attack is two kinds of Marines on the attack.
Side note: If you ever want to tick off an Army SF type (because you have a death wish maybe? Or you know him well enough to poke fun) remind him that the RMs wore the green beanie first, and second that POGs used to wear the green beanie in SF support units (even the admin types). You should probably buy him a drink after that, because the second note there is the pride equivalent of a knee to the nuts.
Easy E wrote: Well, I'm pretty sure Korean, Chinesse and Vietnamese military forces int eh field had a very different logistical method than the US troops they faced. These logistical problems/methods would play a pretty big role in how the units themselves would need to fight.
Therefore, Americans could rely more on overwhelming firepower and less on fieldcraft where the opposite was not true of their opponents.
This is a model example of a thread that is RELEVANT to the discussion! Have an exalt on me
It's a good point as the NVA and the Chinese army relied on people pushing handcarts for their supplies, whilst the US had a massive, modern logistical operation behind them. Thus, the NVA or Chinese would have to compensate for this by becoming masters of fieldcraft. The way the Chinese were able to move 100,000 men through Manchuria into Korea was military deception of the highest order, as most people know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tibbsy wrote: It has been a rather interesting thread though; so there's that!
My original aim was to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the US fighting man, 45-72, and compare how he matched up to his Soviet/Korean/Chinese counterpart, instead, this thread has been hijacked for nefarious ends.
In this context though, Washington, among others greatly formed our fighting/military thinking processes that actually have an affect on the way we wage wars to this day.
If Washington had had an annual defence budget of $600 billion dollars, I suspect the British would have lost a few more men at Lexington! Still would have won Long Island, though
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: What in the name of God has happened to this thread? I turn my back for five minutes and I come back to George Washington and the battle of Cowpens!
At least when I was talking about Macarthur, it was relevant to the discussion, as MacArthur was supreme commander of UN forces during the Korean War, which, may I remind people, fits into the 1945-1972 timeframe. Where does 1781 fight into this?
To use one of my favourite American sayings - this discussion has turned into a goat rope session!
My original aim was to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the US fighting man, 45-72, and compare how he matched up to his Soviet/Korean/Chinese counterpart, instead, this thread has been hijacked for nefarious ends.
Yeah, I'm looking at you Kalashnikov, Jihadin, djones, chaosomega
The book Phantom Soldier by H. John Poole is probably a good read for you, at least in the latter half of that range.
I've put it on my to read list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Come now "I Do Not Like That". I mention on the first page off the git go that no one here has experience in those time frame. What do you expect of a website dedicated to war gaming knowing there be military prior and present was going to train wreck this thread and take it as our own...
Has anybody on this site got experience of 1781?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Yeah... the thread is in a place called "Off-Topic". What did you expect to happen?
Intelligent and reason debate?
Then again, this is dakka!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: This thread was taken by a joint service lighting raid with extensive combined arms support. We will proceed to hold our ground for the near future.
Well, I'm calling a congressional oversight committee to tie this raid down in red tape and bureaucracy!
KalashnikovMarine wrote: This thread was taken by a joint service lighting raid with extensive combined arms support. We will proceed to hold our ground for the near future.
Quite possibly the only thing missing is Mattyrm for the coalition support.
On the plus side, it seems the French have seen the level of awesome here, and have surrendered prior to entering this fray
Is matty still banned? I've been campaigning for that ban to be overturned for ages.
Easy E wrote: Well, I'm pretty sure Korean, Chinesse and Vietnamese military forces int eh field had a very different logistical method than the US troops they faced. These logistical problems/methods would play a pretty big role in how the units themselves would need to fight.
Therefore, Americans could rely more on overwhelming firepower and less on fieldcraft where the opposite was not true of their opponents.
This is a model example of a thread that is RELEVANT to the discussion! Have an exalt on me
It's a good point as the NVA and the Chinese army relied on people pushing handcarts for their supplies, whilst the US had a massive, modern logistical operation behind them. Thus, the NVA or Chinese would have to compensate for this by becoming masters of fieldcraft. The way the Chinese were able to move 100,000 men through Manchuria into Korea was military deception of the highest order, as most people know.
I have to disagree, the strategic move of getting the PLA forces into Korea was excellent, everything else? Human wave tactics like both the PLA and NVA applied liberally in Korea with massive amounts of barely literate conscripts is not an example of good field craft. I don't think it's till we hit Vietnam that the standard American soldier is really outclassed in a fieldcraft since by his opponent and even then that comes down to a difference between warfare and COIN operations, and the enemies you face in those situations.
Easy E wrote: Well, I'm pretty sure Korean, Chinesse and Vietnamese military forces int eh field had a very different logistical method than the US troops they faced. These logistical problems/methods would play a pretty big role in how the units themselves would need to fight.
Therefore, Americans could rely more on overwhelming firepower and less on fieldcraft where the opposite was not true of their opponents.
Very true. I read an interesting attempt to defend Chiang Kai Shek, of all people, particularly the way his troops fought the Japanese. The argument made was that Western forces of the time, with their large surplus production and powerful logistic ability, would see the widely diversified troop formations and see a guy who was unwilling to concentrate his troops to properly engage the Japanese, and so conclude he was more interested in using US support to hunt the communists. Except, it's pointed out, that the Chinese forces were drawn from an economy about half a step above subsistence farming, and with horse and cart transport at best. You have to spread them out that much just to keep them fed. This limited how they could fight, which in turn greatly limited how effective they were.
I read a similar thing that compared jackets used on the Eastern Front. The Russian jacket was padded with stuff cotton. Simple design with minimal stitching, came in one standard size (with the expectation that if the jacket was too loose or too tight the soldier would move the buttons). Exactly what you'd expect of a country with vast natural resources but sharply limited machinery.
The German jacket had very complex stitching, and was lined with animal fur. It looked fantastic, but in the field that fur got wet and then was about as bad as not wearing a jacket at all. The Germans didn't do this because they were idiots, but because animal confiscated from civilians was what they had. And the overly complex stitching is understood when you realise it was done by forced labour in prison camps - when it came to that kind of work the labour pool was vast, so why not squander it on making uniforms look a little more spiffy?
It all gets back to that line that you go to war with the army you've got... except it goes deeper than that, you go to war with the economy you've got, and the society you've got.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I still maintain on a hindsight note we should have been involved in Vietnam.
Fighting on the same side as Uncle Ho. Only reason we weren't was a racist in the White House and a bid to keep those useless cheese eating surrender monkeys (the French if you're not tracking) in NATO
Or just stay out of a third mess the French had gotten us into.
Easy E wrote: Well, I'm pretty sure Korean, Chinesse and Vietnamese military forces int eh field had a very different logistical method than the US troops they faced. These logistical problems/methods would play a pretty big role in how the units themselves would need to fight.
Therefore, Americans could rely more on overwhelming firepower and less on fieldcraft where the opposite was not true of their opponents.
This is a model example of a thread that is RELEVANT to the discussion! Have an exalt on me
It's a good point as the NVA and the Chinese army relied on people pushing handcarts for their supplies, whilst the US had a massive, modern logistical operation behind them. Thus, the NVA or Chinese would have to compensate for this by becoming masters of fieldcraft. The way the Chinese were able to move 100,000 men through Manchuria into Korea was military deception of the highest order, as most people know.
I have to disagree, the strategic move of getting the PLA forces into Korea was excellent, everything else? Human wave tactics like both the PLA and NVA applied liberally in Korea with massive amounts of barely literate conscripts is not an example of good field craft. I don't think it's till we hit Vietnam that the standard American soldier is really outclassed in a fieldcraft since by his opponent and even then that comes down to a difference between warfare and COIN operations, and the enemies you face in those situations.
Boom! All up in this on topic stuff.
I am no expert on this topic, but perhaps one of the reasons for the human wave attacks were also a choice based on the "logisitcal" constraints of the Chinese/Koreans. They couldn't support a large army in the field for long periods, so thay had to use those manpower resources quickly and in overwhleming numbers before they degraded due to poor logisitcs. In such a case, a high casualty rate would be beneficial to their logistics problem provided they were able to run the Americans off in a timely/suitable fashion.
I am no expert on this topic, but perhaps one of the reasons for the human wave attacks were also a choice based on the "logisitcal" constraints of the Chinese/Koreans. They couldn't support a large army in the field for long periods, so thay had to use those manpower resources quickly and in overwhleming numbers before they degraded due to poor logisitcs. In such a case, a high casualty rate would be beneficial to their logistics problem provided they were able to run the Americans off in a timely/suitable fashion.
Or in such cases, I think the thinking may be more along the lines of "if we send overwhelming numbers at them, they'll be forced to retreat quickly, and we can secure the supplies they've left behind, giving us some more time to run our campaign"
djones520 wrote: Your estimation of Washington does a great disservice to you Chaos.
The simple fact he took a band of rag tag farmers, and led them to victory over the strongest military power of the age alone...
Washington was more then just a general. He was a Commander in Chief. He was, and still is, the epitome of generalship.
Giving him far too much credit, Lafayette, Steuben, and others had a lot to do with it all, and then theres the simple fact that Washington didn't so much lead them to victory over the British, he simply outlasted their will to fight a war in backwater colonies an ocean away from their homeland, which was itself against the war (little known fact, there was actually a lot of support for the rebellion back in jolly ole England, particularly amongst the lower classes of society), and despite King Georges desire to continue fighting, he lost the support of Parliament which sealed the deal. Also keep in mind, the American Revolution was in fact an international war as well, with battlefields well outside of North America.
Washington was an inspirational figure, no doubt about that, but as a military leader he leaves a lot to be desired. He should't rank as a great, he is decidedly 'average' (and thats ONLY because he did have some redeeming qualities, otherwise I'd rate him as one of the worst).
I'd follow Mattis to hell and back any day of the week. However he's a bit young for the crowd we've been talking about.
Greatness knows no age.
I really must concur that you aren't giving Washington much credit. He avoided battles as much as possible, especially decisive engagements until he could enter battle in such a way that utterly favored his army, with short supplies against a better trained, armed and equipped foe this was the ONLY sane strategy. What use is winning a battle when it exhausts much of your manpower and loses the war?
You're right, it was a sane strategy, yet he still lost numerous battles that he did choose to engage in.
I concur with my military history professor on the subject of George Washington. One of the best ways to judge a man is by how the men he trained behave. Well the Big G.W. trained Brigadier General Daniel Morgan, taught him everything during their time together during the French Indian wars and earlier in the Revolution, and the Battle of Cowpens was an absolute spanking delivered to a superior sized and armed British force lead by none other then the bad guy from The Patriot. (seriously.) any way, beautiful double envelopment playing to the weaknesses of the militia under his command (a trick he learned from George) while taking advantage of Tarleton being an arrogant donkey cave.
Thats an interesting way to look at it, regarding the training, not sure its a position I fully agree with though. Morgan also spent time with Arnold, Gates, Greene, and others, and really DIDNT spend that much time under Washingtons tutelage.
Getting back on topic, I read that one of the major flaws of the Chinese in North Korea was that they had a seemingly fanatical obsession with destroying armored vehicles. As in they would charge a tank to destroy it (even abandoned ones), ignoring any infantry that might be in the area until they ran out of things to blow up, and then they would bother with the infantry. I don't know how true this is, it seems kinda silly, but it might be worth considering that their human wave attacks might have actually had an objective, I would imagine that if they were ignoring things other than vehicles, then they would have taken heavy casualties trying to take out said vehicles.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I still maintain on a hindsight note we should have been involved in Vietnam.
Fighting on the same side as Uncle Ho. Only reason we weren't was a racist in the White House and a bid to keep those useless cheese eating surrender monkeys (the French if you're not tracking) in NATO
Or just stay out of a third mess the French had gotten us into.
All the more reason to OPPOSE the French this time.
Nah we already curb stomped the French in the Quasi War. No need to rub their nose in it.
Just stay out of it. Its an amazing concept.
“Oh noes the Zimbonis are fighting the Mohicans! “
"thats sad. We offer to broker a truce between all parties. In the interim, Lockheed would like to have a word with your procurement manager."
“Oh noes the North Koreans have the Bomb and are acting all crazy like!”
"thats sad. We offer to broker a truce between all parties. In the interim, Lockheed would like to have a word with your procurement manager."
“Oh noes the Iranians might get the Bomb and blow up the Middle East!”
"thats sad. We offer to broker a truce between all parties. In the interim, Lockheed would like to have a word with your procurement manager."
Easy E wrote: I am no expert on this topic, but perhaps one of the reasons for the human wave attacks were also a choice based on the "logisitcal" constraints of the Chinese/Koreans. They couldn't support a large army in the field for long periods, so thay had to use those manpower resources quickly and in overwhleming numbers before they degraded due to poor logisitcs. In such a case, a high casualty rate would be beneficial to their logistics problem provided they were able to run the Americans off in a timely/suitable fashion.
As I already posted, a really large portion of the troops used in the human wave attacks were formed soldiers from the KMT. The Communist government basically used American machine guns to get rid of the last awkard vestige of the old regime.
Part of a speech from Lt. Gen John Kelly, USMC relating an incident in Ramadi.
Two years ago when I was the Commander of all U.S. and Iraqi forces, in fact, the 22nd of April 2008, two Marine infantry battalions, 1/9 “The Walking Dead,” and 2/8 were switching out in Ramadi. One battalion in the closing days of their deployment going home very soon, the other just starting its seven-month combat tour.
Two Marines, Corporal Jonathan Yale and Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter, 22 and 20 years old respectively, one from each battalion, were assuming the watch together at the entrance gate of an outpost that contained a makeshift barracks housing 50 Marines.
The same broken down ramshackle building was also home to 100 Iraqi police, also my men and our allies in the fight against the terrorists in Ramadi, a city until recently the most dangerous city on earth and owned by Al Qaeda. Yale was a dirt poor mixed-race kid from Virginia with a wife and daughter, and a mother and sister who lived with him and he supported as well. He did this on a yearly salary of less than $23,000. Haerter, on the other hand, was a middle class white kid from Long Island.
They were from two completely different worlds. Had they not joined the Marines they would never have met each other, or understood that multiple America’s exist simultaneously depending on one’s race, education level, economic status, and where you might have been born. But they were Marines, combat Marines, forged in the same crucible of Marine training, and because of this bond they were brothers as close, or closer, than if they were born of the same woman.
The mission orders they received from the sergeant squad leader I am sure went something like: “Okay you two clowns, stand this post and let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass.” “You clear?” I am also sure Yale and Haerter then rolled their eyes and said in unison something like: “Yes Sergeant,” with just enough attitude that made the point without saying the words, “No kidding sweetheart, we know what we’re doing.” They then relieved two other Marines on watch and took up their post at the entry control point of Joint Security Station Nasser, in the Sophia section of Ramadi, al Anbar, Iraq.
A few minutes later a large blue truck turned down the alley way—perhaps 60-70 yards in length—and sped its way through the serpentine of concrete jersey walls. The truck stopped just short of where the two were posted and detonated, killing them both catastrophically. Twenty-four brick masonry houses were damaged or destroyed. A mosque 100 yards away collapsed. The truck’s engine came to rest two hundred yards away knocking most of a house down before it stopped.
Our explosive experts reckoned the blast was made of 2,000 pounds of explosives. Two died, and because these two young infantrymen didn’t have it in their DNA to run from danger, they saved 150 of their Iraqi and American brothers-in-arms.
When I read the situation report about the incident a few hours after it happened I called the regimental commander for details as something about this struck me as different. Marines dying or being seriously wounded is commonplace in combat. We expect Marines regardless of rank or MOS to stand their ground and do their duty, and even die in the process, if that is what the mission takes. But this just seemed different.
The regimental commander had just returned from the site and he agreed, but reported that there were no American witnesses to the event—just Iraqi police. I figured if there was any chance of finding out what actually happened and then to decorate the two Marines to acknowledge their bravery, I’d have to do it as a combat award that requires two eye-witnesses and we figured the bureaucrats back in Washington would never buy Iraqi statements. If it had any chance at all, it had to come under the signature of a general officer.
I traveled to Ramadi the next day and spoke individually to a half-dozen Iraqi police all of whom told the same story. The blue truck turned down into the alley and immediately sped up as it made its way through the serpentine. They all said, “We knew immediately what was going on as soon as the two Marines began firing.” The Iraqi police then related that some of them also fired, and then to a man, ran for safety just prior to the explosion.
All survived. Many were injured … some seriously. One of the Iraqis elaborated and with tears welling up said, “They’d run like any normal man would to save his life.”
What he didn’t know until then, he said, and what he learned that very instant, was that Marines are not normal. Choking past the emotion he said, “Sir, in the name of God no sane man would have stood there and done what they did.”
“No sane man.”
“They saved us all.”
What we didn’t know at the time, and only learned a couple of days later after I wrote a summary and submitted both Yale and Haerter for posthumous Navy Crosses, was that one of our security cameras, damaged initially in the blast, recorded some of the suicide attack. It happened exactly as the Iraqis had described it. It took exactly six seconds from when the truck entered the alley until it detonated.
You can watch the last six seconds of their young lives. Putting myself in their heads I supposed it took about a second for the two Marines to separately come to the same conclusion about what was going on once the truck came into their view at the far end of the alley. Exactly no time to talk it over, or call the sergeant to ask what they should do. Only enough time to take half an instant and think about what the sergeant told them to do only a few minutes before: “… let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass.”
The two Marines had about five seconds left to live. It took maybe another two seconds for them to present their weapons, take aim, and open up. By this time the truck was half-way through the barriers and gaining speed the whole time. Here, the recording shows a number of Iraqi police, some of whom had fired their AKs, now scattering like the normal and rational men they were—some running right past the Marines. They had three seconds left to live.
For about two seconds more, the recording shows the Marines’ weapons firing non-stop…the truck’s windshield exploding into shards of glass as their rounds take it apart and tore in to the body of the son-of-a-bitch who is trying to get past them to kill their brothers—American and Iraqi—bedded down in the barracks totally unaware of the fact that their lives at that moment depended entirely on two Marines standing their ground. If they had been aware, they would have know they were safe…because two Marines stood between them and a crazed suicide bomber.
The recording shows the truck careening to a stop immediately in front of the two Marines. In all of the instantaneous violence Yale and Haerter never hesitated. By all reports and by the recording, they never stepped back. They never even started to step aside. They never even shifted their weight. With their feet spread should width apart, they leaned into the danger, firing as fast as they could work their weapons. They had only one second left to live.
The truck explodes. The camera goes blank. Two young men go to their God.
Six seconds. Not enough time to think about their families, their country, their flag, or about their lives or their deaths, but more than enough time for two very brave young men to do their duty…into eternity. That is the kind of people who are on watch all over the world tonight—for you.
) but I thought I'd start a debate on something far more interesting.
NSDQ
