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.
2013/11/23 00:08:50
Subject: A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2013/11/23 00:13:46
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/23 00:14:04
2013/11/23 00:27:38
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2013/11/23 00:30:31
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/23 00:45:52
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
2013/11/23 00:46:31
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
2013/11/23 01:19:21
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2013/11/23 02:30:29
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/23 02:43:23
If I was vain I would list stuff to make me sound good here. I decline. It's just a game after all.
House Rule -A common use of the term is to signify a deviation of game play from the official rules.
Do you allow Forgeworld 40k approved models and armies?
2013/11/23 03:14:27
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/23 03:22:00
Avoiding Dakka until they get serious about dealing with their troll problem
2013/11/23 03:27:01
Subject: A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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....
If I was vain I would list stuff to make me sound good here. I decline. It's just a game after all.
House Rule -A common use of the term is to signify a deviation of game play from the official rules.
Do you allow Forgeworld 40k approved models and armies?
2013/11/23 03:39:48
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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)
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2013/11/23 04:35:56
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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...
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2013/11/23 05:11:23
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
Jenkins: You don't have jurisdiction here!
Smith Jamison: We aren't here, which means when we open up on you and shred your bodies with automatic fire then this will never have happened.
About the Clans: "Those brief outbursts of sense can't hold back the wave of sibko bred, over hormoned sociopaths that they crank out though."
2113/11/23 08:35:01
Subject: A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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
2013/11/23 09:46:26
Subject: A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2013/11/23 10:06:47
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2013/11/23 10:30:08
Subject: A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
2013/11/23 11:58:39
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2013/11/23 12:13:41
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2013/11/23 12:36:01
Subject: A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/23 12:38:52
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/23 12:50:56
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
0019/11/23 13:06:08
Subject: A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
Call the Ospreys, time to get real work done.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
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.
2013/11/23 13:47:24
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/23 14:10:42
2013/11/23 14:30:24
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2013/11/23 14:31:31
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/11/23 14:56:13
A ton of armies and a terrain habit...
2013/11/23 16:56:34
Subject: Re:A discussion of the military skills of the American Soldier/Marine 1945-1972
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.....
Pulled it out so it was not lost...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/23 16:57:12
If I was vain I would list stuff to make me sound good here. I decline. It's just a game after all.
House Rule -A common use of the term is to signify a deviation of game play from the official rules.
Do you allow Forgeworld 40k approved models and armies?
If I was vain I would list stuff to make me sound good here. I decline. It's just a game after all.
