Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

Agreed. Americans are wussies. Would you like a little more drone with your coffee sir?

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. Americans are wussies. Would you like a little more drone with your coffee sir?

To quote that well known Sting classic Englishman in New York: I don't drink coffee I take tea my dear

Besides, did you guys even have drones in the 1970s? Gerald Ford doesn't count

We had cruise missiles...

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.

Alpha 1 wrote:
The Marines are self efficient

The Navy would beg to differ.

 Seaward wrote:

Alpha 1 wrote:
The Marines are self efficient

The Navy would beg to differ.

It'd be better to say that the Department of The Navy is self sufficient.

My
[butt]
Rides
In
Navy
Equipment.

MARINE

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.

Nobody messed with him after that lesson.

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.

 Easy E wrote:

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.

To chaos0xomega: I stand corrected

 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.

 Palindrome wrote:

 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.

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.

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?


Check this out:

http://www.military.com/ASVAB/0,,ASVAB_MOS_USMC.html

http://www.military.com/ASVAB/0,,ASVAB_MOS_Army.html

You need 10 points higher on the ASVAB to be an Army infantryman than you do a USMC rifleman.

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.

Nah, I didn't get that impression. I edited my post before seeing yours so maybe that will clarify things.