View Full Version : US MArines
OK my question is y do the marines not were Knee pads while the tenth mountain do and y do the marines not use M4A1s with M203 GRenade launchers while the tentho mountain and air borne does this pisses me off
PS. anyone got a pic of a Marine in desert camo useing an M4A1 with M203 grenade launcher if so post it p-)
01-16-2003, 11:28 PM
I'm sure that Force Recon Marines can wear knee pads if they choose to. Also, The USMC has just adopted the M16A4 i believe. This is a flattop rifle...just a longer version of the M4A1. (it also is limited to 3 round burst)
As for pictures, try this site's Enduring Freedom gallery.
01-17-2003, 11:19 AM
I imagine wearing knee pads could get rather heavy and soggy when one is 'hitting the beach' and would probably be more of a hindrance than help.
Why does this piss you off?
:bash: because the marines r the best and they should have M4s with M203s not the out dated M16 :fork: woot
01-20-2003, 02:39 PM
the m203's doesn't seem to be the best solution nowadays. if you look at all the specop-forces in afgh, you'll see that there's a tendency towards old-fashioned standalone grenade-launchers like the HK69 (http://www.hkpro.com/hk69.htm).
01-20-2003, 06:15 PM
...I've got a picture in my mind of someone who 'has a whole six-pack, but lacks the little plastic thingy to hold it all together' :roll:
the Marines new Marpat(the digitals) have pockets on the inside where the knees and elbows are so you can slip pads in them
01-27-2003, 02:03 PM
I don't why 'hitting the beach' with knee pads is such a problem. I mean we do lots of stuff where soldiers get wet, like river crossings and things like that, so water shouldn't be an issue. As far as I'm aware, Marines do use the 203 just not on the M4.
01-27-2003, 02:34 PM
I hate to nitpick about something as trivial as knee pads, and I'm no expert...but here's my theory regarding knee pads and Marines:
knee pads x 2 + H2O = weight
thus: weight = knee pads around the ankles
knee pads x 2 + H2O + SAND = SUGAR COOKIE*
*go ask a BUD/S student
knee pads x 2 + urban terrain/concrete = happy Marine knees
-don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things -anonymous
hey USMC guy r u realy a marine (im only 14 and a canadian so i cant join the marines :cry: )
well i think that the Marines should use the m4 m203 just because its better (in my opinion i have never shot a assult rifle of any kinda only hunting rifles so i dont realy know) but i hope that they switch to M4 and m16 ..... :fork:
Foreign citizens can enlist in the US military. They just can't become officers or hold certain security clearences
01-27-2003, 10:01 PM
Unless you have the experience then why post? Also, learn to type correctly.
01-27-2003, 10:44 PM
w00t i can still be a Marine
PS. nelson i kno whow to type im doing it right now i just dont feel like sitting here for 5 minutes amiing sure everything is typed correctly :bash:
01-28-2003, 06:51 PM
BOB, if the Marines take you, WE'RE DOOMED! Now go play in traffic. :cantbeli:
01-28-2003, 07:17 PM
Trigger.....men like him are refered to as "cannon fodder" rofl
01-29-2003, 11:21 AM
You are correct sir.
Some drink from the fountain of knowledge. Sadly, he only gargled. rofl
01-29-2003, 12:33 PM
Being out of the Marines 11 years I havent had the opputunity to shoot the M4A1 w/ 203. However, when I was in Somalia, the 7 firefights I was engaged in, the M-16A2 w/ 203 Grenade Launcher was just fine. The accuracy of the weapon depends on the individuals knowledge of windage, usage of weight among several other variances. How much more accurate can this newer weapon be than 500 yeards in the face? Feedback
JockularFiasco, I'm sure everyone here would be more than appreciative if you had any photos or war stories from that time period that you'd like to share. It's very difficult to find any from that conflict, as it was so long ago and we haven't heard much from the Marines since it was the Ranger based side of things that was glorified so much. Thanks.
01-30-2003, 12:18 AM
U.S. Marines do use the m4 but only certain units whose role is more CQB related, for instance, F.A.S.T Company and Force Recon. The use of the M4 for anything other than CQB is really unnecessary. Don't forget the USMC doesn't have the budget that the 10th Mountain Div. does. The Army's budget is about 72 billion per fiscal year and the Marine Corps is about 70 billion less. That's why Marines are still using gear from Vietnam. However with General Jones being appointed to the Commander of NATO and the Marine Corps getting a lot better PR we'll probably finally get the respect we've earned.
01-30-2003, 10:54 AM
I hope you guys get better funding too. I got nuthin' but love for all of our military folks, but especially for you Marines and Special Ops people. You are the tip of the spear.
01-30-2003, 06:25 PM
yeah...the Marines should get better equipment. DUring the Gulf war, the Marines were still using the M60 Tank...damn thing was 30 + years old while the army had DIVISIONS of brand new M1 and M1A1 Abrams tanks.
Although, I heard that the USMC recently decides to replace the M16A2 with the A4 (same thing, only with the removable carrying handle).
DAMN IT TO HELL the marines should eb getting 30 bill the army 50 bill thats that
01-30-2003, 07:44 PM
Well the Marines did have M1A1's during the gulf.But then again they borrowed the Army's Tiger Battalion,2nd Armored Div to use in thier land assault in Iraq.In any instance though there is nothing wrong with a good ol M-60 Patton.Hech even the Israelis are still using it to some extent these days and they love the hell out of it.
And Nelson take it easy on the kid.Like he said hes only 14 so try to lighten up on the guy.We can teach him a thing or two around here.
01-30-2003, 09:54 PM
The Marines are not using equipment from the 60's. They designed the Interceptor. They designed the FSBE, well actually Paraclete did. They introduced PALS with MOLLE. Force uses the MEU(SOC) instead of the P.O.S. M9. They also use the M16A4 as standard issue and the M4 for CQB and specialized units. They designed and used input from other Marines to construct the amazing digital camoflauge. They may not have the best armor and aircraft but their personal TA-50 is way better than the Army's.
01-31-2003, 01:34 AM
you may be right, however, when I was in the Corps from 1995-2000 we had some pretty wore out gear. I was exagerrating about the 60's but I remember in 1997 we still had PRC-77's for most of our radio's. I wasn't around for the MOLLE or digital cammies and I never survived the crucible. When we would drive from the Palms to Pendleton we couldn't take the HUMVEES on hardball because about 25% would break down. I don't know but I seem to recall flying in Helo's that were pretty old as well. We had a saying " If it looks new don't ride in it because they haven't fixed what's wrong with it yet. Semper Fidelis.....
01-31-2003, 02:14 AM
By the way, the MEU-SOC 45's used by F.A.S.T. and Force Recon are standard 1911a1's that are taken out of the stockpile of old 1911's. The best ones are picked and Precision Weapons Section armorers in Quantico juice them up with a few new and improved parts. The reason these units use MEUSOC 45's is: a; stopping power b; speed from the tac holster. It's a lot quicker to present your weapon and engage your target it the weapon is already locked and cocked in single action. So, yes it is a "new" piece of gear but in a sense it is old.
01-31-2003, 07:22 AM
The MEU(SOC) is used by Force Recon Marines attached to MEU(SOC) units and maybe FAST. But yes I suppose you are right they are in a sense old. Refer to this thread and the article posted in it at: http://lightfighter.net/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=7336015661&f=7206084761&m=1736016602
i think the marines are starting to use the M4 with m203 or hwat ever i saw a couple picks with that so w00t woot
01-31-2003, 02:24 PM
02-05-2003, 09:42 PM
Marines? I found these articles quite interesting:
Alright I looked at the first link you have posted and it is quite obvious that this was not written by a Marine. The details give it away. For example; using the word "bdu's" find me a Marine that calls cammies that and I will show you an army pogue, not capatalizing Marines-a major no-no, and even knowing what the army calls 782 gear all tells me that this guy is army and for some reason has a beef with the Marine Corps and wants to discredit it as much as possiable. Take a look at what else this guy has posted on his site its all anit-Marine propaganda.
There is so much garbage on this site it is almost painful to read. "U.S. Army Soldiers, not marines did the lion's share of the amphibious landings and fighting/dying in WWII" No crap how many divisions did the army field in WWII and how many did the Marines field(6). This is just a silly argument the Marines are only something like 13% of the military.
Then he goes on and on about some recruit deaths that occured during boot camp. Well it is sad but that is what happens when you a fairly difficult training program. I have no idea why he did not meniton that when an army recruit(is that what they call them?) gets to stressed out he can hold up a red card so the drill sergeant lays off him.
I can go on and about every point this guy tries to make but through some hazy and sometimes downright false information he basically believes the army can do no wrong and everything the Marines do is wrong. I don't believe either service is perfect (though I am biased being a Marine) but you just have to question someone who is just so one-sided on such a complex argument.
by the way I was in a hurry when I wrote this so i hope it makes a little sense if I have some time later maybe I could outline my point a little better.
02-06-2003, 06:25 PM
But did you read about how Army shoots at moving targets and plays against OPFOR and Marines shoot stationary nonmoving targets and doesnt play with OPFOR? Is this true?
02-06-2003, 09:35 PM
Is that you Legacy Dude? Those articles are written by a VERY anti-Marine group. Almost everything that they have on that site is against the Marines. The Marines have less than half of the budget of the Army therefore they can't afford to update their equipment as fast as the Army, nor can they afford big OPFOR scenarios all of the time. You are not even in the Armed Forces how can you possibly know what kind of training the Marine Corps conducts. Legacy your an airsoft wanna-be with little to no intelligence. You believe only what you read, not from real operators, Marines, etc.
02-06-2003, 10:17 PM
Im not a Marine myself yet...but I know a few. and 2nd hand equipment is often a major pain for the USMC...in fact one tank commander at a Miramar air show told me that they usually get stuff the Army doesn't need any more because they recieve new stuff.
and despite all this...hard-chargin' Marines have nearly consistantly fought harder and had more "success" than your average Army units- although I am not taking away anything from the Army.
case in point...during the Korean war, the 1st Marine Division (12500 men) was surrounded by 22 Chinese and N. Korea Divisions (each at around 17000+ men). The Army commanders wrote off the 1st Marine Div because they were outnumbered close to 30:1....only to be stunned a few weeks later when the division (well...most of it) emerged- having destroyed *7 entire enemy divisions*- the highest casualty ratio on an enemy in history
A quote from Chesty Puller during that battle: "They are in front of us, behind us, and we are flanked on both sides by an enemy that outnumbers us 29:1. They can't get away from us now!"
to any and all Marines, past, present, and future....Semper Fi!
PS- just another quote about Marines: "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, USArmy; 12 February 1918]
02-07-2003, 06:32 PM
Read the following again:
"The Key Mc Systemic Sins
1. Bad institutional values
The Mc sees itself as an assault force from the sea derived from its storming ashore from U.S. Navy amphibious ships, heavily defended pacific beaches in WWII and gaining lots of positive American publicity for successes despite tactical ineptitude made possible at the cost of thousands of American dead. Taking heavy casualties but glorifying and excusing away the failure by focusing on the heroism of the individual men to further the institution before Congress and the American public, the Mc teaches blind obedience to order men forward to achieve local mass as a "virtue". WWII was actually a curse to the Mc, with Korea as a mistaken validation of a lemming ethos when it was actually lucky circumstance that seasoned, practical experience in the form of WWII veterans was able to be recalled to active duty. However, the charge! and pile on! attitude of ad hoc has endured beyond the majority of WWII veterans who know better and has permeated the organization from basic training as the cure-all to any and all battlefield problems. Respecting the enemy and what he can do is not factored into how marines fight through better techniques, plans, equipment and prudent countermeasures, as its thought these will only hamper the mass ad hoc effect. Also tied in with blind obedience is a macho pecking order of "who the hell are you?" such that the talents and skills of individuals and even the honest reporting of what they observe are not welcomed and valued to better the organization. Every issue is seen as a question of personal worth/resume' of the good faith messenger instead of the merits of the problem at hand (message). This climate is comfortable for co-dependants who want an institutional parent to validate their worth by conformity, but is a dangerous creator of listless mobs when the local leader figure is gone and they have to think and act for themselves.
2. Ad hocery
"The Mc has gotten along great by improvising, so why should it change now?" Or so goes the common myth. As long as the Mc propaganda machine covers up failures like the Beirut suicide truck bombing that killed 265 with excuses, there will be no repudiation of ad hocery in favor of reasoned and smart TTP. Look at the Mc pubs, there isn't even a TTP for creating fighting positions with overhead cover! If there is, its not trained on. "We are marines we do not need any we will always be on the attack! let the Army defend" is the smug mantra.
3. "Strawman" OPFOR
Because its not considered important to understand and know the enemy since Mc mass and gung ho (should mean Evans Carlson's work together but now means be an obedient follower with a good military appearance imbued with delusions of marine superiority) is going to overwhelm them, OPFOR is usually done by the temporary selection of a friendly unit ad hoc instead of training up and equipping a selected unit to study and best emulate the enemy. That the OPFOR is easily defeated in training exercises should come as no surprise and the scene in Heartbreak Ridge where the OPFOR die on cue by not exercising any initiative is not far from the truth, just reflect on the CSPAN video!
Possible enemy Courses Of Action (COA) are not war-gamed even during the troop-leading process or the sand table briefing via an asking of "what ifs".
4. Bad equipment
With institutional fatalism towards battle, the Mc has purchased and operated large, unarmored cargo helicopters to do heliborne assault operations in order to get mass--a squad or larger sized units into battle per aircraft and not be concerned with survival. This is despite warnings from U.S. Army Air Assault leaders like General Tolson that such large aircraft are extremely vulnerable to enemy small-arms and RPG fire, and to assault using smaller, more robust-sized helicopters flying into smaller, more unpredictable landing zones:
"The Army's decision to standardize on a utility tactical transport helicopter has far-reaching implications on every operation from its planning to its execution. Literally hundreds of our key battles could not have been fought without a light, agile machine that could go into improbable landing zones at a critical time. Had the Army chosen to build its airmobile tactics around a 'platoon carrier', different and less flexible tactics would have been forced on our commanders. As we move to replace the Huey fleet, we must never lose sight of the essential characteristics that made the Huey invaluable to the Infantry commander. Technology offers so many tempting alternatives that one can easily forget the basic problems of squad tactics. The vital lessons which we learned in the 'sizing' of our helicopter fleet dare not be forgotten.
"Late in 1956 the Department of the Army announced plans to replace the H-37 helicopter, which was powered by piston-driven engines, with a new, turbine-powered aircraft. A design competition was held and, in September 1958, a joint Army-Air Force source selection board recommended that the Army procure the Boeing Vertol medium transport helicopter. However, the necessary funds to proceed with full-scale development were not available and the Army vacillated in its design requirements. There were those in the Army who felt that this new helicopter should be a light tactical transport aimed at the mission of the old H-21's and H-34's and, consequently, sized for approximately fifteen troops. Another faction believed that the new transport should be much larger to serve as an artillery prime mover and have minimum interior dimensions compatible with the Pershing Missile system. This 'sizing' problem was a critical decision.
The first Vertol prototype, called the YHC-1A, was tested by the Army to derive engineering and operational data. Three aircraft were built with a maximum troop capacity of twenty. This model eventually became Vertol's commercial 107 and the Marine Sea Knight. However, the YHC-1A was considered by most of the Army users to be too heavy for the assault role and too light for the transport role. The decision was made to procure a heavier transport helicopter and at the same time upgrade the Huey as a tactical troop transport. This decision was to determine the pattern of airmobile operations for the next decade. As a consequence, the Army concept of air assault operations differed from the Marines because, among many reasons, the very nature of the equipment demanded different methods of employment."
The Army tries not to overload too many Soldiers and rucksacks in its UH-60 Blackhawks (successors of the Huey), and their crash-worthy seats have saved hundreds of lives; similar crashes in marine helicopters have KILLED dozens of marines. Since Vietnam, the large, unarmored CH-46 and CH-53 type helicopters have been devastated by enemy fires in numerous operations with large losses of life: Helicopter Valley, Koh Tang island, Desert One and Grenada. Mc emphasis on ship-to-shore movement slants them towards large fuel payloads for range resulting in tactically vulnerable large aircraft, a practice continued in the quest to field the fatally flawed V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft which cannot descend quickly without flipping over due to Vortex Ring State losing rotor lift on one side.
Just a mistake made in training? Think again. November 29, 2001, marines in Afghanistan: packed like sardines combat-loaded rucksacks in America's LARGEST helicopter: the CH-53E
With institutional survival hanging in the balance, the Mc has wed itself to obsolete WWII-style Navy amphibious surface ships in order to guarantee at least some part of the Mc might be forward deployed to get "a piece of the action" in a crisis. Now that these type surface ships are vulnerable to myriad missile, mine and subsurface attacks, they have had to move to over-the-horizon to avoid line-of-sight targeting, adding over 100 miles of travel distance to already range-challenged helicopters. That the Mc recently in Afghanistan had a friendly base in Pakistan to refuel to get there does not cover up the fact that large, unarmored helicopters or tilt-rotors are ill-suited for insertions and extractions of troops in mountainous terrain where close range ambush is likely.
5. Bad doctrine and TTP
Who needs TTP? We are marines.
6. Blind obedience
Shut up and do what you are told! Do not think!
You are kept in the dark so you totally depend on your leaders.
8. No force protection
We are in the assault, casualties are inevitable, move on! Is the mindset
9. Half-ass training
The enemy is lesser beings: "ragheads", "slopeheads", etc. etc.
10. Circular reasoning
Marines like to point out how they executed training "by the book". Well the Mc's books are *****ed up. Its not only in many places wrong and stupid, it's supposed to be a GUIDE anyway! If your **** is weak and then say you are great because you followed your **** to the letter---that's circular reasoning. It's totally disconnected from REALITY.
The killer is that after all of this, the marine in need of feeling good about himself smugly proclaims that because he did stupid things with vigor he is great and superior to all other warriors on earth. Its a dangerous attitude in a dangerous world where real bad guys shoot back at you and are cunningly coming up with unexpected ways to kill you. The creatively evil 9/11 attacks on America of hijacking then ramming airliners into buildings should have alerted the Mc that it is far from being a "911" force.
The enemy is a human being made in God's image with creative abilities even if they are evil. But the marine doesn't know this because his self-worth, in fact all self-worth is tied up in whether they are marines or not. Yes, marines are brain-washed into this mindset in basic training and its high time we rebuke this mentality and show the disease in action, and how it can bring about battlefield disasters (Beirut, Koh Tang, Desert One) or simulated in the recent Lima Company "dog and pony" show for CSPAN.
The statements of the marines at the end of the video segment about how they are marines to prove their personal worth and superiority are sickening to say the least. These mentalities are obstacles for any kind of technotactical humility and excellence"
Yeah I do not need to read it again it is all garbage written by someone who has never been in the Marines. "Blind Obedience?"... yeah were is the army's Crucible. Learning initiative starts right in boot camp.Why is it that equivalent jobs on the platoon and company level are usually handled by a lower rank in the Corps than in the army? Well I will tell you Marines are trained to get things done and use initiative when they first enter the Marines. "Half ass training!" How long is army "boot camp" again, anybody ever see that show on the History channel called Boot Camp? It is the sorriest thing I have EVER seen. Do they even IT in army boot camp? Obviously the way the army trains it must believe that you do not need disipline anymore in the military. Recruits sitting around smoking and joking while thier drill sergeants try to "yell". Gimmie a break I would like to see that happen at Paris Island, Hollywood, or Quantico.
Oh yeah please by the way tell me the army's PFT and then tell me what the Marines is.What I guess what is getting me so mad is what some in the army call "arrogance" we in the Marines call Esprit de Corps. It is a pride in our unit and the title we have earned. There is a reason that the Corps meets it's enlistment qoutas year in and year out while no other service does.
If the Marine Corps warfighting doctrine is so screwed up why is the army starting to copy it? The army's new Stryker brigades sound a little like something called a MAGTAF.
"The Stryker's also giving the Army the capability the Marine Corps have had for roughly two decades," -John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, an Alexandria, Va.-based nonprofit defense policy group.
WWII was actually a curse to the Marines? I can not believe this guy had the balls to write this. Maybe in all his infinite wisdom he could enlighten us on how he would have taken Iwo Jima, Tarawa, or any other of the fortified bunkers claiming to be islands in the Pacific. After reading this part of his little diatribe I have come to the conclusion that this idiot does not know anything about tactics and probably less about everything else.
Like the others said you can not believe everything you read if you are doing research or something do your self a favor and visit some more reputable sites. Or better yet go talk to some recruiters. The army will ask you if you want to be an "army of one" while the Marines will ask you if you think you really got what it takes. Yeah I might be getting a little corny but just food for thought think about all the army recruiting commercials you have seen now think of all the Marine ones. Whats the big difference? The army talks about all the benefits you WILL receive while the Marines asks are you good enough do, you THINK you can be one of us?
sorry but I promise no more rants, my beloved Corps is the only subject I will and am capable of ranting about.
02-07-2003, 11:21 PM
We're all on the same team here. As long as there is an Army and Marine Corps there is going to be a FRIENDLY rivalry. I will bring up some facts or observations I might add.
1. The Army during the dreaded Clinton Era lowered their recruit standards in order to fill much needed space because people just didn't want to join. Also the US Army lowered their standards for non combat arms MOS's in order to give the females a little better chance to pass recruit training. Has anybody seen Basic Training on the History Channel? Pretty weak. The Marine Corps continues to strive to make training more difficult by implementing the Crucible, harder close combat training that every Marine must do ( even WomenMarines) and qualification on the rifle range is mandatory for all Marines not just grunts.
But don't take my word for it. Read Col. David Hackworth's article " The Marines have landed, again." at www.sftt.org look under the Defending America newsletter 26 Nov 2001. Pretty compelling. Especially coming from the most decorated living soldier alive today.
02-08-2003, 02:15 AM
"If the Marine Corps warfighting doctrine is so screwed up why is the army starting to copy it"
I was talking about playing against an OPFOR and shooting at moving targets. Explain that to me. Dont get me wrong, Im as shocked as you are about this whole degrading marine thing, I'm just trying to find out the facts... But I do admit I do like the Army, especially the 75th Ranger Regiment.
"Maybe in all his infinite wisdom he could enlighten us on how he would have taken Iwo Jima, Tarawa, or any other of the fortified bunkers claiming to be islands in the Pacific"
I believe he did. Heres yet a another link of him talking about how airborne is better than seaborne, he talks about a fictional war and which units and branches it involves doing what etc. and how marines dont get the action: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/seabased.htm
START QUOTE--->>> "A Far East Asian country becomes an immediate threat to the national security of the U.S. (Threatens to use chem-bios, nukes on its neighbors?)
Having gone throught some force restructure, and new equipment, the U.S. Army deploys rapidly in force, and more importantly in Depth. The Regional ABNTF seizes an airhead by parachute assault, followed by 82nd Airborne Paratroopers. The 101st Air Assault siezes a beach via BDE-sized Regimental Combat Team movement by air assault, from a U.S. Navy carrier, Pre-Po C&C carriers. They do this at night because they can, not a mcPathetic company by daylight CH-46 from a McPuny BN sized meu. Two remaining 101st AA RCT's come in on Army LACV-30 landing craft and M113A3 Amphigavins after being transfered to the PrePo C&C Jeep Carrier by shuttling inside their own helicopters made flyable after ship transit from an Intermediate Staging Base (ISB).
The enemy country heavily reinforces a strategic airfield believing they can defeat lightly equiped 82nd on DZ. The 82nd makes short work of armor/light armor on DZ away from the actual airfield (surprise! why jump directly onto an airfield?) with 106RRs and Paragators rapidly out maneuvering enemy armor, M8 AGS's making short work of heavy armor left after leaving the heavy DZs. Meanwhile, the 1/508th, 1st RGR, 2nd RGR, 3 RGR taking down key smaller airfields and destroying attack aircraft on DZ's, taking down command centers, securing C2 stations, to support the forced-entry by devastating the entire depth of the enemy's forces. The 2nd ACR airlands using the C-17's 1,400 foot STOL capability directly behind 82nd, rapidly moving into the capitol city to sieze key objectives in concert with 82nd: the dictator's "Presidential Palace".
1/501st ABNTF siezes a highland airfield, rest of their of light RCT airlands behind. They rapidly move via armored BV-206S SUSVs mounted with heavy wpns to sieze and hold the only mountain pass in and out of the country. 25th LID airlanding on the airfield next to the beachhead the 101st siezed with its light infantry/M113A3 Cavalry organic mix moves into nearby heavily vegetated areas to sieze objs in small towns where opposing units are hiding with sympathetic noncombatants. Fully ashore, the 101st AA has formed into BN QRF's for to rapidly respond to problems day or NIGHT via air assualt.
101st, and XVIII Airborne Corps aviation attack assets off shore on the USN CV and Pre-Po C&C carriers wait to respond to any heavy contacts, once again day or NIGHT. One RCT of 82nd still sittting on the DZ holding and defending the only international airport in the country recieves a RCT from a foward deployed 1st AD via airland of its personnel and marry-up of its heavy vehicles by APA Pre-po ships. These two RCTs and 75th RGR form a task force to sieze the countries main army base/command center where the enemy command has fled and is holed up.
The OPLAN is executed on short notice the mcNot-there-yet is not left out. The mc puts into motion the forming of a Mclight meb. While the above mentioned is happening: the newly formed Mclight meb and a Mclight meu already at sea are steaming towards the region. When they arrive, the U.S. Army has completed all strategic objectives with minimal loss of life, and equipment. The mil world sits stunned at how the U.S. Army could so rapidly deploy in force and in depth. McWhiners say "the Army already had its logistics in place" ad nauseum; the mcBureaucracy should receive budget share for self-proclaimed "911" type missions. The NCA and the President called the mcSlackers and their "line was busy". The U.S. Army answered the call, went and did the job. To the victors go the spoils" <<<<<------ ENDQUOTE
"Has anybody seen Basic Training on the History Channel? Pretty weak"
I like armys basic training more than marine basic training because the army DIs dont shout and yell as much the marine DIs :) call me what u want, its a personal preference.. I also like the Navy SEAL type instructors, theyre cool as hel.. One navy seal instructor said something like how shouting/yelling is not "the way he does business"..Watch the discovery BUD/S training..
I still think what the geocities dude said was pretty legitimate although I cant say I entirely trust 100% of the things he said. Harrison Ford in the movie clear and present danger said to the president, he said it best when he said "I HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY TO YOU SIR" hahaha
02-10-2003, 03:21 PM
I personally agreed with many points presented with the author of above article. I wish he could've stayed more objective in his tone toward the Corps, but who cares. I was a grunt with 2/5 from 93 to 97. The group in that CNN footage sure didn't look like they were ready for the real deal. Sometimes, incompetent NCOs and staff NCOs sure do make difference....I should know.
People who never been in the boots of a Marine grunt carrying 60-70 lbs combat load on a 25-miler over the hills of Camp Pendleton really shouldn't talk too much smack about who the best is or who should get this or that. I mean...it's flattering to know that people out there think Marines are the best and all, but I learned to appreciate the capability and uniquness of other foreign troops and combat units within US armed forces.
By the way, some of you folks take this **** way too seriously.....
02-10-2003, 05:23 PM
My biggest question is why did 75th Ranger Reg have to capture Kandahar Airport and then turn it over to USMC to establish Camp Rhino. Yeah, thats what i thought.
But if you're in a firefight, anyone with an American flag on his arm is a friend of mine.
Yeah I agree with you but the reason the Rangers were used (I will trust you on this but I thought it was the 15th MEU(SOC)) is because Tommy R. Franks USA...United States Army. duh. I like a little friendly service rivalry, it is like fighting with a sibling; it is alright but once a stranger tries to jump in you both turn and whup his ass then go back to fighting each other. I hope nothing I have said comes across mean-spirited I know I am not going to change anyones mind that is already in another service about the path they have decided on.[/b]
02-10-2003, 06:38 PM
USMA...that point is mute...it's like saying why did the Marines have to take Guadacanal and then had it over to the Army for safe-keeping while the MC moved on to Tarawa....Sipan.....Iwo Jima.....Okinawa.
That plus....everyone here realizes that POLITICS also play an important role in who fights where and when. ;)
02-10-2003, 07:39 PM
No reason. Just thought this was a cool photo.
02-10-2003, 08:13 PM
Looks to be a Marine too. I don't see any unit patches on his arm.
02-11-2003, 08:15 AM
Definitely!! Task Force Practices Live-fire in Djibouti (http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/feb2003/a020903a.html)
02-11-2003, 01:20 PM
I understand the whole rivalry thing and I can see how some people can find fault with certain operations we Marines have conducted. But facts are facts, the Army has had their share of screw ups. And who ever posted that info "..that Marines threw themselves on to enemy shores in glorified futile efforts" or something like that must be forgetting all the brave Army dogs that threw themselves on the shores of Omaha beach. I served in the Marines from '93 - 97, before, during and after I have been an avid history buff. If someone says that the Marines make up excuses like the fact that they weren't allowed to "lock and load" in Beirut then show me where the Army hasn't made excuses for some of it's failures.
When I was in I was admin, I have never claimed to be anything but that. I have met those that have seen combat in Somalia, these are my friends, my brothers and I have met those that have lied. Those that have seen it, those that have had to kill to protect their fellow Marine, Soldier, Sailor or Airmen do not speak of death lightly if they speak of it at all. These oridinary men have stood tall when faced with hardships and they've stood tall along their friends and comrades. If a person feels a need to dishonor that bravery then maybe they should check what's wrong with their lives.
I to am partial to my beloved Corps, but brave souls don't just wear Marine Cami's!
Semper Fi 7th Marine Regiment, and all Marines
03-12-2003, 07:33 PM
The real reason we are CHEAP. Any Marine knows this. We honestly think, hell what are a few bumps and bruises...we can spend the money elsewhere.
I think the guy who wrote this "anti-Marine" critique was actually a Marine because you don't spend this much time and energy critiqueing an institution that you do not love. There were many times I wanted to write a critique of the Army's practices, leadership and culture because I saw the failings first-hand and these failings detracted from the tremendous potential of the Army. An Army that I loved. An Army that was only a fraction of what it could be. Besides, it is human nature to highlight the strengths of your competition in order to force change in your own institution. If you looked, I bet you will find many instances of Army officers pointing out the strengths of USMC doctrine or practice in order to force change in the Army.
I agree with the "arrogance" issue. I knew that the USMC had more demanding training in bootcamp, and that attracted me to the USMC but their attitude really turned me off. Arrogance will get killed. :bash:
:oops: Correction- Arrogance will get you killed. You can't learn from your mistakes if you think you know it all and you have nothing to learn. It takes humility and introspection to arrive at anything near perfection.
03-13-2003, 06:27 PM
There is no way this guy was a Marine. Why didnt he leave his name so he could be contacted for his obvious expertise on changing the Corps for the better. Show me a Marine that would write the title marine with no capital "M".(he always capitalises Army). Show me a Marine who calls cammies or utilities BDUs (thats like an Army soldier calling his hat a cover.) And show me anyone in the US military who calls his CO a Kernal. What is he fu#@%*g popcorn?!! What a Wanker.
03-13-2003, 06:36 PM
Thats the 1st Tactical Studies Group(Airborne) theyre army paratrooper guys this is their main webpage: http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop
... ur my hero a real marine finally u make more sense than anyone else here
PS. do u like the MARPAT camo im not a marine but i do hate it i like the old Desert stuff ALOT more oh and what gun do u use in combat
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.