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.

I'm basing it on the fact the Chinese had done it 15 years before. You've provided no evidence they wouldn't have, other then citing some sort of supposed break, yet all those supplies for NV were coming through China.


Kind of blows your theory out of the water
http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/1992/1992%20garver.pdf

An opinion piece blows my theory out of the water? No. Its just a counterpoint to my opinion (or rather Colonel Summers opinion) published by a journal. For my argument, "On Strategy" would actually be a pretty good source to go to, since its in part based on the conclusion presented in said book.

Its an excellent counterpoint, showing the commitment occurring and plans China had already for war. That plus actual history vs. your what?

You're President Nixon. Its 1969. Are you prepared to go to all out war, and take hundreds of thousands of casualties (and potentially lose) an invasion of NV with another Chinese war?

Remember the last time troops were in NV, it didn't go so well...

 Frazzled wrote:
Its an excellent counterpoint, showing the commitment occurring and plans China had already for war. That plus actual history vs. your what?

You're President Nixon. Its 1969. Are you prepared to go to all out war, and take hundreds of thousands of casualties (and potentially lose) an invasion of NV with another Chinese war?

Remember the last time troops were in NV, it didn't go so well...

1969? Yes. At this point the Chinese are more afraid of the Soviets, who they are in the midst of a border war with (and are terrified of the prospect of its escalation), they have pulled (or are in the process of pulling) their forces out of North Vietnam as a result, and are cutting back support for Hanoi (which is pro-Soviet) in favor of financing the Khmer Rouge (who were both strongly anti-Vietnamese, despite taking aid from North Vietnam, and anti-American). Additionally, China is in the midst of the Cultural Revolution, facing social upheaval which has impacted civilian life, as well as military and political organization and coherency. China is effectively diplomatically isolated and basically going it alone at this point, faced with the prospect of a war against the Soviet Union along its northern border.

As Nixon, I would take the rapprochement approach, but on a much quicker timeframe and in a more aggressive fashion, giving China political and non-military support and building up a relationship fast, while escalating hostilities with North Vietnam drastically. China won't interfere in 1969, they've got their hands full with the Soviets, and with the US cozying up to them, even the paranoiacs at Beijing would have a hard time selling the story that the US would invade China while recognizing them internationally (stripping Taiwan of its seat on the Security Council), etc. though they will no doubt feel uneasy about it... but just in case lets just say theres a 50 mile buffer from the Chinese border that no US military forces will enter, and we pursue dialogue with the Chinese aggressively to assuage their concerns and negotiate. In the process, we engage Hanoi in peace negotiations, now that they face the prospect of being toppled from power via direct US military intervention, they either come to a peace agreement in 1969 or be wiped from the map. Without China's support, and with the Soviets having their hands full with the Chinese, my guess is they come to some sort of an agreement, one in which the US sets much harder terms on them, potentially including partial disarmament (since eliminating North Vietnam as an entity entirely might *not* be the best idea), the establishment of a (perhaps internationally enforced/patrolled) DMZ between north/south and north/Laos, effectively isolating North Vietnam from the South and thus ending the Ho Chi Minh trail and the flow of arms to the VC, thus giving the Saigon government at least a fighting chance of some sort of corrupt, inefficient, and inept survival (hey, I never said I agreed with the political aims of the war, only that the war was militarily winnable in my opinion), probably to be eventually toppled via internal pressure in the late 70's...

...or I'm 100% dead wrong and the situation devolves into World War 3... you never know, its the same risk that Kennedy took with the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis, so it wouldn't be the first time a President would act on gut feeling and logical analysis of the geopolitical landscape.

 dracpanzer wrote:
I'm not missing that at all, it just has nothing to do with the thread. I only pointed out America's lack of a will to win in Korea or Vietnam (or Iraq, Afghanistan) to illustrate that we lost those Wars because of that lack of will, the reason doesn't matter. It had nothing to do with a supposed decline in the skills of our ground forces, either soldiers or Marines. Since we weren't talking about whether or not we should have been in those Wars, I didn't feel the need to elaborate. Quite frankly, its not a discussion I want to engage in, so unless you feel I'm wrong to say that we did not lose those wars because the soldiers and Marines were somehow ineffectual, I think we are in agreement.

You're changing your argument.

Now, on the modified argument, "we did not lose those wars because the soldiers and Marines were somehow ineffectual" I agree entirely.

My issue was with your earlier claim "Since World War II, America has misplaced its capability to wage war in the manner required to win armed conflicts in the manner in which it won WWII. Simply put, the determination that allowed America to firebomb non military residential targets in Germany, or use the atom bomb on Japanese cities, is no longer present." which is simply mistaken. The US had no issue with bombing the hell out of Vietnam. The lack of determination as such was entirely to do with the reasonably irrelevant nature of victory in Vietnam compared to the absolute importance of defeating Germany and Japan.


Now, we do ultimately agree, but please don't amend your argument and pretend you didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
As my dad once put it... helicopters are huge, easy targets. The US lost over 5000 helicopters in 'Nam, and then theres this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Attack_on_Karbala

Fair enough, but are troops deployed by parachute any tougher? And once on the ground, they're going to need support, which surely is going to come largely from helicopters anyway, so not just deploy them by chopper in the first place?

As for the Stryker, that I know nothing about.

I saw some show years ago about how they were developing the Stryker as a new platform for infantry support, and that they could drop one by parachute.

IIRC the Strykers were used in Iraq to fairly mixed reviews.

 dementedwombat wrote:

Seriously Though, the mission of the Marines is amphibious assault, not long term territory control. They can afford to be more selective because they don't need the numbers that the Army does. Marines were never supposed to stay on the ground long term...but apparently people think they're intimidating or something so they've been on the ground in Afghanistan way too long.

Fun factoid: In the modern military, the Army is responsible for more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps. I've heard rumors that the Corps was meant to be phased out a number of years back, but that might be an Army legend.

I've heard nothing but rave reviews about the Stryker, especially in regards to it's survivability. I'm not a ground pounder though, so anything I've heard is second hand.

 CptJake wrote:
No, the Stryker family of vehicles is NOT air drop-able.

They certainly tested it.

 djones520 wrote:
I've heard nothing but rave reviews about the Stryker, especially in regards to it's survivability. I'm not a ground pounder though, so anything I've heard is second hand.

From what I've seen (second hand, of course), I'm thinking that the MRAP is superior (at least in my eyes) to the Stryker (although it has a lower troop capacity). Both are magnificent combat vehicles compared to those of the past.

 CptJake wrote:
Air landed, yes. Dropped? Yes, they tested the extraction from a C17

What's the difference, if you don't mind me asking?

KM: As for Strykers not doing well on the ground, I know a lot of folks who would beg to differ. They did well both in Iraq and are still being used in Afghanistan, and the SBCT troops give them a pretty good rating over all. The biggest problem is the original suspension didn't handle the extra armor packages. That has been worked out for the most part.

Interesting, thanks for the update.

 sebster wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Air landed, yes. Dropped? Yes, they tested the extraction from a C17

What's the difference, if you don't mind me asking?

KM: As for Strykers not doing well on the ground, I know a lot of folks who would beg to differ. They did well both in Iraq and are still being used in Afghanistan, and the SBCT troops give them a pretty good rating over all. The biggest problem is the original suspension didn't handle the extra armor packages. That has been worked out for the most part.

Interesting, thanks for the update.

Air landed means flown in by plane to a runway (or dirt field). Dropped means... well exactly what it sounds like.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Air landed means flown in by plane to a runway (or dirt field). Dropped means... well exactly what it sounds like.

How is air landed in any way impressive or hard to do?

And wiki says they air dropped the Stryker in 2004...

 sebster wrote:
Now, we do ultimately agree, but please don't amend your argument and pretend you didn't.

I did no such thing, the determination to do ANYTHING NECESSARY was simply not there. While I used the point that in WWII we were not afraid to firebomb or nuke dense population centers to illustrate that it. I wasn't making the point that bombing Hanoi would have ended the war. You seem to be fixated on the point of bombing things. I did not say that increased bombing in Vietnam would have brought us victory or that the supposed lack of it was a symptom of America's lack of will.

My point was that since WWII the U.S. hasn't had the ability to manifest the will to win that would lead them into any theater, across any border, or over thousands of bodies just to achieve victory. We fought against the Axis Powers WHERVER we found them. If we lost thousands of men, we sent more. By the time of the Korean and Vietnam War the will to prosecute those Wars in that manner just didn't exist. Are you saying that isn't the case? Were we signing treaties calling for nothing short of unconditional surrender on the part of Korea, North Vietnam and China?

The Korean and Vietnam Wars being "reasonably irrelevant" (your words) is a symptom of a Nation that is incapable of winning a war that it CHOSE to fight simply because the will is not there to win it no matter the cost.

 sebster wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Air landed means flown in by plane to a runway (or dirt field). Dropped means... well exactly what it sounds like.

How is air landed in any way impressive or hard to do?

And wiki says they air dropped the Stryker in 2004...

Again, yes, they tested extraction from a C17, that is the 2004 test. The test was not really designed to see if the Stryker was air dropable, but rather can a C17 handle the extraction. A subtle difference, but a difference. Takes a lot more to have them drop certified, and more to make it a valid strategic option. They may get there (the recent Unified Quest exercise assumed the capability for I think the 2025 time frame, I may be off on the time frame).

Air landing is impressive if done right. It isn't a leisurely unloading and when you are talking small dirt airfields with very limited ramp space dumping a company of 21+ Strykers (11 C17 loads minimum) ready to fight in minutes is a very impressive thing.

I saw someone say MRAPS were better. I disagree. They are different. They are not nearly as mobile as Strykers, even the MATV variant, and aside from the troop capacity you have other issues. A Stryker company has C2 vehicles, mortar carriers, MGS Strykers as well as the ICVs , ambulance and Fire support Stryker. There are not MRAPS that can cover all those roles. MRAPS are pretty much limited to roads, and are just designed for a different mission than the Stryker. They are not 'better', just different and cannot really replace the Strykers. They are much more of a logistics nightmare (higher fuel consumption and maintenance requirements).

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:

Seriously Though, the mission of the Marines is amphibious assault, not long term territory control. They can afford to be more selective because they don't need the numbers that the Army does. Marines were never supposed to stay on the ground long term...but apparently people think they're intimidating or something so they've been on the ground in Afghanistan way too long.

Fun factoid: In the modern military, the Army is responsible for more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps. I've heard rumors that the Corps was meant to be phased out a number of years back, but that might be an Army legend.

Your numbers seem to be Army legend as well.

Let's see, So Operation Overlord, Operation Torch, Operation Husky, and Operation Avalanche.

Compared to.... THE ENTIRE PACIFIC CAMPAIGN. (Tarawa, Peleliu, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc ad nauseum)

Not to mention the tactics, techniques, and gear used by the Army in their assaults, including the famous Higgens boat, were all developed, tested and perfected by the Corps.

What's happened since WW2?

Inchon was the last major Amphib landing, and that was spearheaded by the 1st MarDiv.

The latest major Amphibious Operation was during the first Gulf War, they parked a massive Amphibious landing fleet off the Kuwati coast to pin down six Iraqi divisions while the Marines and Army's primary forces hit the line of departure like a sack of rocket propelled hate bricks.

So tell who ever told you that that he doesn't know how to count.


They (being Congress, and you army types) have tried to get rid of the Marine Corps multiple times, but every attempt has been met with failure. Mostly because we know how to get the job done and be budget efficient about it, but also because in the end equation, America WANTS a Marine Corps.

You do know that almost all the large scale Pacific landings the USMC participated in had Army divisions involved, right?

Finally, in the Pacific, when you speak of amphibious warfare, again, you rightly think of the Marines. But in fact, the Army had a huge presence there as well. Indeed, it was always a larger prescence than the Marines. The Army made over 100 amphibious assualts in the Pacific theater, many in the Southwest Pacific in and around New Guinea. In conjunction with the US Seventh Fleet, MacArthur’s forces in the Southwest Pacific became masters at the art of amphibious warfare, striking where the Japanese least expected them, and routinely conducting sweeping flanking movements that left Japanese garrisons cut off and useless. Dan Barbey, the Commander of 7th Fleet became known as “Uncle Dan The Amphibious Man.” All this with a fleet mostly composed of tiny LCTs, a few LSTs and LCIs.

The Army also fought alongside the Marine Corps in some of their most storied battles, such as the invasions of Saipan and Okinawa. Indeed, if the atomic bomb attacks had not lead to the early surrender of Japan, the invasion of the home islands would have been mostly an Army affair. Largely as a result of the Army’s preocupation with the European theater, these magnificent efforts have received little attention from the public at large.

http://xbradtc.com/2009/03/18/the-army-and-amphibious-warfare/

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:

Seriously Though, the mission of the Marines is amphibious assault, not long term territory control. They can afford to be more selective because they don't need the numbers that the Army does. Marines were never supposed to stay on the ground long term...but apparently people think they're intimidating or something so they've been on the ground in Afghanistan way too long.

Fun factoid: In the modern military, the Army is responsible for more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps. I've heard rumors that the Corps was meant to be phased out a number of years back, but that might be an Army legend.

Your numbers seem to be Army legend as well.

Let's see, So Operation Overlord, Operation Torch, Operation Husky, and Operation Avalanche.

Compared to.... THE ENTIRE PACIFIC CAMPAIGN. (Tarawa, Peleliu, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc ad nauseum)

I'm not saying I disagree with you or that you're wrong, but do keep in mind that the Army was involved in amphibious landings in the Pacific as well, alongside the Marines. The first Americans ashore in Okinawa, for example, were from the Armys 77th Infantry Division.

Not to mention the tactics, techniques, and gear used by the Army in their assaults, including the famous Higgens boat, were all developed, tested and perfected by the Corps.

Not entirely true by any means. The Higgins boat wasn't developed by the Marine Corps, it was developed by Andrew Higgins for civilian use (some say for Prohibition era booze smugglers), its military application was incidental following testing by the Navy/USMC. Also given that the Army had engaged in numerous amphibious landings itself, they had a big hand in 'writing the book' on how its done. Keep in mind that prior to WW2, amphibious landings were conducted in a rather different manner.

What's happened since WW2?

Inchon was the last major Amphib landing, and that was spearheaded by the 1st MarDiv.

Depends what you mean by "Spearheaded". The unit that undertook the landing was X Corps, which was primarily composed of 1st MarDiv and the 7th Infantry Division, the Marines hit the beaches first (although as I understand it there were Army combat engineering units attached to the Marines initial landings, meaning that the Marines can't quite claim they did it solo), with the main bulk of the 7th Infantry hitting about 3 or 4 days later (as I understand it they also landed on contested beachfront property in a separate sector from the Marines, who were securing the flank to prevent a counterattack from Seoul.

They (being Congress, and you army types) have tried to get rid of the Marine Corps multiple times, but every attempt has been met with failure. Mostly because we know how to get the job done and be budget efficient about it, but also because in the end equation, America WANTS a Marine Corps.

Well, I don't know if I would put it in quite that way, if American wanted a Marine Corps there wouldn't be anyone trying to get rid of it, its more like... the Marine Corps is an American institution with enough support from the population as a whole that its doubtful that it will ever fall by the wayside. Simply put, there is a Marine Corps because America chooses to have a Marine Corps.

 CptJake wrote:
You do know that almost all the large scale Pacific landings the USMC participated in had Army divisions involved, right?

Finally, in the Pacific, when you speak of amphibious warfare, again, you rightly think of the Marines. But in fact, the Army had a huge presence there as well. Indeed, it was always a larger prescence than the Marines. The Army made over 100 amphibious assualts in the Pacific theater, many in the Southwest Pacific in and around New Guinea. In conjunction with the US Seventh Fleet, MacArthur’s forces in the Southwest Pacific became masters at the art of amphibious warfare, striking where the Japanese least expected them, and routinely conducting sweeping flanking movements that left Japanese garrisons cut off and useless. Dan Barbey, the Commander of 7th Fleet became known as “Uncle Dan The Amphibious Man.” All this with a fleet mostly composed of tiny LCTs, a few LSTs and LCIs.

The Army also fought alongside the Marine Corps in some of their most storied battles, such as the invasions of Saipan and Okinawa. Indeed, if the atomic bomb attacks had not lead to the early surrender of Japan, the invasion of the home islands would have been mostly an Army affair. Largely as a result of the Army’s preocupation with the European theater, these magnificent efforts have received little attention from the public at large.

http://xbradtc.com/2009/03/18/the-army-and-amphibious-warfare/

Usually only after the marines landed first
Not seeing where this is a marine army fight. Frankly there's no way the Army can win that fight. Marine dress blues are just auto win...

Frazzled... bro, did you read my post? I just gave an explicit example where the Army landed first, and that was hardly an isolated event.

Especially in bars. By the way, Army types, who the hell thought it was a bright idea to let you nasties wander around off base in your camis? Seriously. gak is heinous. Even Airborne types pull that crap and at least I can normally expect those guys to have a little pride.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Frazzled... bro, did you read my post? I just gave an explicit example where the Army landed first, and that was hardly an isolated event.

No I didn't actually.
I said usually.
Admit your jealousy of the greatness of Marine dress blues over mere Army dress and your journey to the dark side shall be complete.

 Frazzled wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Frazzled... bro, did you read my post? I just gave an explicit example where the Army landed first, and that was hardly an isolated event.

No I didn't actually.
I said usually.
Admit your jealousy of the greatness of Marine dress blues over mere Army dress and your journey to the dark side shall be complete.

I don't need to admit my jealousy... I'm not in the Army and I'm actually looking at the Corps as a career option

 dracpanzer wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Now, we do ultimately agree, but please don't amend your argument and pretend you didn't.

I did no such thing, the determination to do ANYTHING NECESSARY was simply not there. While I used the point that in WWII we were not afraid to firebomb or nuke dense population centers to illustrate that it. I wasn't making the point that bombing Hanoi would have ended the war. You seem to be fixated on the point of bombing things. I did not say that increased bombing in Vietnam would have brought us victory or that the supposed lack of it was a symptom of America's lack of will.

My point was that since WWII the U.S. hasn't had the ability to manifest the will to win that would lead them into any theater, across any border, or over thousands of bodies just to achieve victory. We fought against the Axis Powers WHERVER we found them. If we lost thousands of men, we sent more. By the time of the Korean and Vietnam War the will to prosecute those Wars in that manner just didn't exist. Are you saying that isn't the case? Were we signing treaties calling for nothing short of unconditional surrender on the part of Korea, North Vietnam and China?

The Korean and Vietnam Wars being "reasonably irrelevant" (your words) is a symptom of a Nation that is incapable of winning a war that it CHOSE to fight simply because the will is not there to win it no matter the cost.

So, in Vietnam and Korea we should have fought Communists wherever they were found?

Isn;t there some military conventional wisdom about Land Wars in Asia.

Yes. It involves actually fighting the war instead of playing games. (Translation: Actually stomping the gak out of Northern Vietnam and taking the fight to them)

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Frazzled... bro, did you read my post? I just gave an explicit example where the Army landed first, and that was hardly an isolated event.

No I didn't actually.
I said usually.
Admit your jealousy of the greatness of Marine dress blues over mere Army dress and your journey to the dark side shall be complete.

I don't need to admit my jealousy... I'm not in the Army and I'm actually looking at the Corps as a career option

Then shush you!

Funny, a buddy of mine said the same thing happened on his ship, wonder if it ever actually happened.

@Frazzled - Negative, I'm not a Marine fanboy and some of what KM posted wasn't correct.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:

Seriously Though, the mission of the Marines is amphibious assault, not long term territory control. They can afford to be more selective because they don't need the numbers that the Army does. Marines were never supposed to stay on the ground long term...but apparently people think they're intimidating or something so they've been on the ground in Afghanistan way too long.

Fun factoid: In the modern military, the Army is responsible for more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps. I've heard rumors that the Corps was meant to be phased out a number of years back, but that might be an Army legend.

Your numbers seem to be Army legend as well.

Let's see, So Operation Overlord, Operation Torch, Operation Husky, and Operation Avalanche.

Compared to.... THE ENTIRE PACIFIC CAMPAIGN. (Tarawa, Peleliu, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc ad nauseum)

I'm not saying I disagree with you or that you're wrong, but do keep in mind that the Army was involved in amphibious landings in the Pacific as well, alongside the Marines. The first Americans ashore in Okinawa, for example, were from the Armys 77th Infantry Division.

Not to mention the tactics, techniques, and gear used by the Army in their assaults, including the famous Higgens boat, were all developed, tested and perfected by the Corps.

Not entirely true by any means. The Higgins boat wasn't developed by the Marine Corps, it was developed by Andrew Higgins for civilian use (some say for Prohibition era booze smugglers), its military application was incidental following testing by the Navy/USMC. Also given that the Army had engaged in numerous amphibious landings itself, they had a big hand in 'writing the book' on how its done. Keep in mind that prior to WW2, amphibious landings were conducted in a rather different manner.

The "Book" was written in 1935, with the Marine Corps training Army units over the course of the war, and sending a couple copies of the book to Eisenhower to help plan Overlord.

I am aware that the Army did spend some time in The Pacific and preformed quite well. Probably could have done a bit better without Douglas MacArthur around, but I admit hating that git with a passion.

What's happened since WW2?

Inchon was the last major Amphib landing, and that was spearheaded by the 1st MarDiv.

Depends what you mean by "Spearheaded". The unit that undertook the landing was X Corps, which was primarily composed of 1st MarDiv and the 7th Infantry Division, the Marines hit the beaches first (although as I understand it there were Army combat engineering units attached to the Marines initial landings, meaning that the Marines can't quite claim they did it solo), with the main bulk of the 7th Infantry hitting about 3 or 4 days later (as I understand it they also landed on contested beachfront property in a separate sector from the Marines, who were securing the flank to prevent a counterattack from Seoul.

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:

Seriously Though, the mission of the Marines is amphibious assault, not long term territory control. They can afford to be more selective because they don't need the numbers that the Army does. Marines were never supposed to stay on the ground long term...but apparently people think they're intimidating or something so they've been on the ground in Afghanistan way too long.

Fun factoid: In the modern military, the Army is responsible for more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps. I've heard rumors that the Corps was meant to be phased out a number of years back, but that might be an Army legend.

It's not an army legend. Omar Bradley was going to phase out the marine divisions and return them to their traditional role of protecting ships, then the Korean War kicked off.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:

Seriously Though, the mission of the Marines is amphibious assault, not long term territory control. They can afford to be more selective because they don't need the numbers that the Army does. Marines were never supposed to stay on the ground long term...but apparently people think they're intimidating or something so they've been on the ground in Afghanistan way too long.

Fun factoid: In the modern military, the Army is responsible for more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps. I've heard rumors that the Corps was meant to be phased out a number of years back, but that might be an Army legend.

Your numbers seem to be Army legend as well.

Let's see, So Operation Overlord, Operation Torch, Operation Husky, and Operation Avalanche.

Compared to.... THE ENTIRE PACIFIC CAMPAIGN. (Tarawa, Peleliu, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc ad nauseum)

I'm not saying I disagree with you or that you're wrong, but do keep in mind that the Army was involved in amphibious landings in the Pacific as well, alongside the Marines. The first Americans ashore in Okinawa, for example, were from the Armys 77th Infantry Division.

Not to mention the tactics, techniques, and gear used by the Army in their assaults, including the famous Higgens boat, were all developed, tested and perfected by the Corps.

Not entirely true by any means. The Higgins boat wasn't developed by the Marine Corps, it was developed by Andrew Higgins for civilian use (some say for Prohibition era booze smugglers), its military application was incidental following testing by the Navy/USMC. Also given that the Army had engaged in numerous amphibious landings itself, they had a big hand in 'writing the book' on how its done. Keep in mind that prior to WW2, amphibious landings were conducted in a rather different manner.

The "Book" was written in 1935, with the Marine Corps training Army units over the course of the war, and sending a couple copies of the book to Eisenhower to help plan Overlord.

I am aware that the Army did spend some time in The Pacific and preformed quite well. Probably could have done a bit better without Douglas MacArthur around, but I admit hating that git with a passion.

What's happened since WW2?

Inchon was the last major Amphib landing, and that was spearheaded by the 1st MarDiv.

Depends what you mean by "Spearheaded". The unit that undertook the landing was X Corps, which was primarily composed of 1st MarDiv and the 7th Infantry Division, the Marines hit the beaches first (although as I understand it there were Army combat engineering units attached to the Marines initial landings, meaning that the Marines can't quite claim they did it solo), with the main bulk of the 7th Infantry hitting about 3 or 4 days later (as I understand it they also landed on contested beachfront property in a separate sector from the Marines, who were securing the flank to prevent a counterattack from Seoul.

Spearhead would imply, in the lead, both as far as planning and actually hitting the beach.

They (being Congress, and you army types) have tried to get rid of the Marine Corps multiple times, but every attempt has been met with failure. Mostly because we know how to get the job done and be budget efficient about it, but also because in the end equation, America WANTS a Marine Corps.

Well, I don't know if I would put it in quite that way, if American wanted a Marine Corps there wouldn't be anyone trying to get rid of it, its more like... the Marine Corps is an American institution with enough support from the population as a whole that its doubtful that it will ever fall by the wayside. Simply put, there is a Marine Corps because America chooses to have a Marine Corps.

Which is what I said. The people who want to get rid of the Corps are the occasional congress critter and Army brass who are A. jealous and B. looking for any excuse to acquire more funding to waste on their 30th uniform change this decade.

Not that we don't do our own politicing. I wish someone would remove the boot up someone at MCHQ's ass and let the Army have Marpat already. We already gave the "No EGA" variant to the squids, we may as well pass it on and help the hooahs before someone thinks a universal camo pattern's a bright idea again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Frazzled... bro, did you read my post? I just gave an explicit example where the Army landed first, and that was hardly an isolated event.

No I didn't actually.
I said usually.
Admit your jealousy of the greatness of Marine dress blues over mere Army dress and your journey to the dark side shall be complete.

I don't need to admit my jealousy... I'm not in the Army and I'm actually looking at the Corps as a career option

I'd suggest the Airforce instead

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


Spearhead would imply, in the lead, both as far as planning and actually hitting the beach.

You do know that MacArthur planned Inchon, right?

Which is what I said. The people who want to get rid of the Corps are the occasional congress critter and Army brass who are A. jealous and B. looking for any excuse to acquire more funding to waste on their 30th uniform change this decade.

I don't disagree with you there, though I think there is something that could be done involving the DoD as a whole (in terms of restructuring) to cut out a lot of unnecessary overlap and redundancy.

Not that we don't do our own politicing. I wish someone would remove the boot up someone at MCHQ's ass and let the Army have Marpat already. We already gave the "No EGA" variant to the squids, we may as well pass it on and help the hooahs before someone thinks a universal camo pattern's a bright idea again.

Amen. I think Congress will soon be setting that straight though. A bill that would require all branches to standardize by 2018 passed through the house and is waiting for vote by the senate.

I'd suggest the Airforce instead

Oh cute, you're trying to insult me, not working. The Air Force is actually my first choice, but my only option there might be to fly a desk, which isn't what I'm interested in doing.

PS - Kalashnikov, you shouldn't piss off the guy who offered to make 3D design files for your .454 Casull revolver ;P