CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > Community > Stuff and Nonsense
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Stuff and Nonsense For off-topic chatter. Keep it PG-13; no sex, politics or religion!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-19-2009, 06:28 PM   #11
Michael Henry
Member Michael Henry is offline
 
Michael Henry's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Houston  TX
Posts: 480
Re: WW2 - marine's V army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Miller View Post
We use over whelming fire power, manuever at the lowest level and desentralized leadership to acomplish the mission. Those three things is what really sets us apart.
Those 3 things set you apart? Not really. Anyone who's job is to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver will do the same thing, no matter what branch of service you belong to. That's the way its done.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2009, 06:42 PM   #12
Lincoln Brigham
Member Lincoln Brigham is offline
 
Lincoln Brigham's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kirkland  WA
Posts: 3,987
Re: WW2 - marine's V army

Quote:
Before we do that, we empty the trash bins, turn off the lights and lock the door.
And we thank you for your service for our country.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2009, 06:48 PM   #13
Michael Ricketts
Member Michael Ricketts is offline
 
Michael Ricketts's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Oak Harbor  WA
Posts: 264
Re: WW2 - marine's V army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert D Taylor Jr View Post
I'm not Army or Marines,

Most of the we're better than you talk is interservice rivalry stuff, akin to harassing your brother. The military today is too joint to have too much disparity between each other. This was true in WWII as well, with the Army & the USMC in the Pacific, the USMC and the Army Air Corps in China, and of course the Navy providing a ride and massive fire support, as well as beach recon and amphibious delivery.

If you asked an Army grunt, he'd say to close with and destroy the enemy, same answer different cammie pattern.

You're all battling for 2nd place anyway, Go Navy.
__________________
M|239lbs|74"|26yo|21% BF
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 06:31 AM   #14
Yotam Wei
Member Yotam Wei is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney  NSW Australia
Posts: 76
Re: WW2 - marine's V army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Montgomery View Post
T....for the most part it's all a ****-measuring contest. There's not a lot of difference between the services. ...So to sum all this up--everyone likes to brag that they're the most elite, or toughest, or fill-in-the-blank-est service, but there's not that much difference.
So if there is not that much difference, why does the USA have 2 infantry sections of the armed forces? why not just air force, navy and army? what is the point of having marines AND army?
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 08:05 AM   #15
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: WW2 - marine's V army

I see you're in Australia, so the question is somewhat academic.

The Marines, basically, are our shock troops. They are a unified branch, which has in-house capability of deploying multiple ground and air assets. The Army, if it needs an air-strike, calls the Navy or Air Force. The Marines have their own jets.

Basically, the concept is they can pack up and deploy (fight) more quickly since inter-branch coordination is LESS needed than with other services. Theoretically, EVERY Marine is a combat asset, whereas in other branches you specialize once you get out of Basic training.

I had a friend who, for reasons I won't get into, went through both Marine Corps training, and Army Ranger training. He said the soldiers created by both were comparable, although no doubt some would disagree.

The Marines, in fact, when we created the Special Operations Command to (in my opinion) copy the Israelis, wanted their whole branch considered to be Special Operations. They got an emphatic no, but that tells you something about the mindset.

When you have a short, intense fight, you send in the Marines. When you have a protracted, large scale conflict, you send in the Army. Both are very professional, both very brave, and both get people killed defending our nation.

Hopefully that helps. As far as commanders, the Army has produced MANY brilliant leaders, as of course have the Marines. Chesty Puller is the archetypal Marine. The Army had Patton, McAuliffe ("nuts"), Abrams, and others.

We're lucky to have all of them. We have great leaders now. Petraeus is Army. Generally speaking, overall commanders of theaters and wars tend to be Army, just because they physically have the most people committed and the most resources.
__________________
It is best not to make vast plans with half vast ideas.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 08:11 AM   #16
Michael Henry
Member Michael Henry is offline
 
Michael Henry's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Houston  TX
Posts: 480
Re: WW2 - marine's V army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yotam Wei View Post
So if there is not that much difference, why does the USA have 2 infantry sections of the armed forces? why not just air force, navy and army? what is the point of having marines AND army?
Especially with the current world situation, it would seem that Marines hitting a beach, and to an extent even Army doing a combat parachute jump, are mostly obsolete methods. Both can do the land and air thing. But these are things that still have to be trained (probably limited) in the event that they have to be performed sometime in the future.

And what Barry said.

Last edited by Michael Henry : 10-20-2009 at 08:13 AM. Reason: Because Barry is a genius
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 08:30 AM   #17
John Corona
Member John Corona is offline
 
John Corona's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Corona  CA
Posts: 215
Re: WW2 - marine's V army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yotam Wei View Post
So if there is not that much difference, why does the USA have 2 infantry sections of the armed forces? why not just air force, navy and army? what is the point of having marines AND army?
I've always understood it as this:

If the US needs to quickly insert the military into a foreign country, it always sounds better, from a political perspective, to send in the Marines as opposed to sending in the "Army".

Imagine two different news headlines. One says the United States has sent in its Marines. The other says the United States has sent in its army.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 08:50 AM   #18
Tom Woodside
Departed Tom Woodside is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 114
Re: WW2 - marine's V army

I am somwhat biased in that I was trained by a USMC Drill Intructor in Navy OCS, so take this for what it is worth:

In Iraq, I coordinated Close Air Support for both the Army in the West and Marines in the East. The differences were amazing. We could barely keep up with the Marines. Those guys were moving so fast and they barely needed our help. Incredibly professional on the radios, as well. They were obviously well trained.

The Army, on the other hand, had zero professionalism on the radios, didn't know what was going on, and we had to spend half of our time un-f***ing them. It was brutal.

Granted, this is one experience and the few people that I dealt with on the radio with the Army shouldn't represent the entire service. But, I have heard similar comparisons from others.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 09:04 AM   #19
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: WW2 - marine's V army

That's a good example of an integrated versus a multi-service approach. It's logical the Marines would have a good understanding of CAS, since they have their own air assets. Theoretically, in my understanding--and I've talked about this with a few Air Force Controllers--Air Force Tac-P's are supposed to deploy with Army ground units, to do CAS. They are trained in it. Army folks are not, as far as I know.

For that reason, it's to be expected that their performance was sub-optimal. They just lacked training.

This does point to what appears to me--outside looking in--as an occasional and sometimes large problem: interservice rivalry. People saying "we can do that", when they know perfectly well another service has people trained in that. CAS is easy to screw up. You're playing the part of an Air Traffic Controller, under fire.

Based on conversations I've had, everyone seems to think they can do CAS, and when they can't, sometimes people get killed that didn't need to.

We do get SNAFU and FUBAR from the military. There's a reason.
__________________
It is best not to make vast plans with half vast ideas.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 10:13 AM   #20
Robert D Taylor Jr
Member Robert D Taylor Jr is offline
 
Robert D Taylor Jr's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chesapeake  VA
Posts: 1,736
Re: WW2 - marine's V army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cooper View Post
That's a good example of an integrated versus a multi-service approach. It's logical the Marines would have a good understanding of CAS, since they have their own air assets. Theoretically, in my understanding--and I've talked about this with a few Air Force Controllers--Air Force Tac-P's are supposed to deploy with Army ground units, to do CAS. They are trained in it. Army folks are not, as far as I know.

For that reason, it's to be expected that their performance was sub-optimal. They just lacked training.

This does point to what appears to me--outside looking in--as an occasional and sometimes large problem: interservice rivalry. People saying "we can do that", when they know perfectly well another service has people trained in that. CAS is easy to screw up. You're playing the part of an Air Traffic Controller, under fire.

Based on conversations I've had, everyone seems to think they can do CAS, and when they can't, sometimes people get killed that didn't need to.

We do get SNAFU and FUBAR from the military. There's a reason.
Barry,
All the services can do CAS, the TACPs specialize in it, as the USMC specializes in amphibious operations, but the Army has more boats than the Navy. There are very few exclusive roles in the modern US military. Even sea control could be done (in a limited fashion, perhaps,) by the USCG.

On the professionalism side, unprofessionalism is in my experience a case by case thing. I've seen units that get movies made about them act like spoiled kids and units you've never heard of perform like butter.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My Best Pt Test In The Army Rick Kolberg Testimonials 5 01-08-2010 10:39 PM
Army Personnel Richard Lee Sattro Fitness 35 07-31-2009 11:04 AM
Army APFT Kimberly Johnston Fitness 12 05-09-2009 03:11 PM
Will the U.S. Army care? Thomas P. Fox Injuries 5 02-24-2009 09:03 AM
Army APFT Thomas Whitehead Starting 4 03-17-2004 01:44 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.