Views on body armor by troops - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Psycho Dad · 12-09-2004, 04:25 PM

Given that my son is a Marine, I have been noticing a lot of differences between the attitudes of people I know that have been in various branches of the service and what I seem to see from Marines.

I'm not meaning to knock reservists or anyone in any branch of the armed forces. I fully support and appreciate everything that all of them do. However there just seems to be something different about Marines. They have a different attitude about them it seems. The Marine Corps seems to somehow take these young men and women and turn them into a different type of person. Even former Navy people I know who have been to sea with Marines say that there is always something different about them.

Reservists

Marines

clavus · 12-09-2004, 04:39 PM

Please keep in mind that I say this with the utmost respect for the Marines.

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course the Marines are different. When you absolutely, positively need to have it killed, secured, rescued, or blown up in no-time flat, send in the Marines. They don't have the time or energy to waste on complaining, pondering, or dithering.

Marines are the tip of the spear. They exist for one purpose - to whoop ass...immediately. Their lot is utterly indispensible and ultimately thankless. Spear-tips wear out. They are broken and discarded.

How could those people NOT be "different."

God bless the USMC.

Coppertop · 12-09-2004, 04:42 PM

I know a former Marine, and let me tell you: I'm sure glad he's on our side. Because I'd hate to be the sad fucker who stands in the way of a division of soldiers like him. And he's calmed down quite a bit since his soldiering days.

StormBerlin · 12-09-2004, 04:52 PM

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of former marines. They all seem to have some attitude problems. Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for all of our branches of this military, but those marines can be assholes.

Mephisto2 · 12-09-2004, 05:14 PM

I thought the Green Berets, the Screaming Eagles, the 4th Infantry Division, the SEALs, the Rangers all claimed the same thing.

How can you have so many "best of the bunch" military outfits? Seems like a bit unusual to me

Also, did I miss something? What's this got to do with body armour?

Mr Mephisto

Psycho Dad · 12-09-2004, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Also, did I miss something? What's this got to do with body armour?

Mr Mephisto

One link discussed the reservists questioning rumsfeld on the lack of protection while the other was about Marines saying "works for us".

Mephisto2 · 12-09-2004, 05:30 PM

Oppps... sorry, my bad.

Mr M

Grasshopper Green · 12-09-2004, 06:03 PM

There is something different about them. My hubby is a former Marine, and it surely did change him, for the better I might add. These links don't surprise me in the least; not that the reservists make the remarks, but that the Marines are satisfied with what they have. They've made do with hand-me-down aircraft, they'll make do with the body armor they have. God bless ALL our troops; they have a hard job and make a lot of sacrifices!

Mephisto2 · 12-09-2004, 06:15 PM

So someone tell me, is it the Marines or the others I mentioned that are the "top guns"?

Or is that just healthy competition between the various units?

Mr Mephisto

MooseMan3000 · 12-09-2004, 06:30 PM

Well, there's a difference, Mephisto. Basically, as I understand it, if a beachhead needs to be taken, the Marines do it. It one guy needs to get whacked, the SEALs or Delta do it. The Marines are not "the best of the best," so to speak, but as far as branches of the military go, they're the most brutal and effective. When I real fight breaks out, they're at the front. Of course this is on over-simplification, but it gets the basic idea across. Marines kill well, special forces kill specific things well.

And back on topic, the Marines I know are all psycho. With good reason. I respect it, but I'm certainly glad I'm not one of them.

Suave · 12-09-2004, 06:50 PM

Yes. As I understand it, the USMC is a large group of efficient killing machines. SEAL, Rangers, Green Berets, etc. are smaller groups of efficient killing machines. Regs are less efficient killing machines.

martinguerre · 12-09-2004, 06:56 PM

the complaint that seems to make some sense is that marines and army regulars are getting priority on equipment, and reserves aren't. this may make sense with mission tasking, etc. but it seems like they should all have it. body armor is expensive, GI's are priceless. To die for lack of body/vehicle armor seems like the stupidest waste...

Mephisto2 · 12-09-2004, 07:05 PM

What about the 101st Airbourne? Or the 4th Infantry Division?

I've heard that the Screaming Eagles are the elite too. I've also heard that the 4th Inf Div is the most technologically advanced fighting unit on Earth; they get all the new toys before any other unit in the US Army.

Either that, or the documentaries I'm watching are bunkum. Not entirely impossible I might add...

Mr Mephisto

Carno · 12-09-2004, 07:13 PM

101st Airborne are the elite of the regular army, but not on par with the Marines.

I don't know about the Screaming Eagles or the 4th Inf Div though.

smooth · 12-09-2004, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

What about the 101st Airbourne? Or the 4th Infantry Division?

I've heard that the Screaming Eagles are the elite too. I've also heard that the 4th Inf Div is the most technologically advanced fighting unit on Earth; they get all the new toys before any other unit in the US Army.

Either that, or the documentaries I'm watching are bunkum. Not entirely impossible I might add...

Mr Mephisto

The way it was explained to me right before basic was that marines are on par with all the groups you are referring to.

See they are the elites of their branches. Marines are on par with them.

Then there's Recon.

So now you get a sense of what's going on. The 'average' marine's training is on par with the elite segments of the other branches, and then they have their elite, which places them in a class by themselves.

But that could have all been smoke to convince us young men that death was honor.

Mephisto2 · 12-09-2004, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

So now you get a sense of what's going on. The 'average' marine's training is on par with the elite segments of the other branches, and then they have their elite, which places them in a class by themselves.

So who are the elite of the Marine Corp then?

Mr Mephisto

djtestudo · 12-10-2004, 12:13 AM

Mr. Mephisto,

The US military has three main branches: the Army, Navy and Air Force.

The Marine Corps is officially part of the US Navy. They were originally the on-ship troops back when ships fought hand-to-hand, now they are designed as the main seaborne invasion force, though they are used everywhere. Their training is longer and more difficult then any other branch, so they are a different kind of soldier.

Most of the rest of what you listed is under the Army. The Green Berets and Rangers are special-forces units, for dangerous missions. The 101st Airborne is designed as the paratrooper division.

The SEALS are part of the Navy, but are their version of special-forces.

I hope this helps, and I REALLY hope it's all right, as it comes from my memory

smooth · 12-10-2004, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

So who are the elite of the Marine Corp then?

Mr Mephisto

Marine Recons.

Marines train the equavalent to other special ops. Recons train twice as hard as marines.
Literally, unless things have changed, they literally run the courses twice and in less time to even qualify for Recon training. They are the ultra-elite.

djstudio,

I hope no marine sees your post

I think they'd reply if anything that in so far as they are part of the Navy, it's only that they are the best part! But I haven't met any Corpman who didn't bristle at that kind of statement.

The Marine Corps fall under the Department of the Navy, not the US Navy branch of service (seamen)--people like mephisto (non-US citizens) might not know that they are two different entities. The Dept. provides civilian leadership to the branch of the Navy.

The Marine Corps are actually the oldest US military force. They don't have their own sea transportation, although I can't remember why, there was at one time a reason stated to me. It could be because the intention was never to have them be a standing military branch in the sense of what we think, but a flexable and powerful force that was ultra portable to be injected into places the Navy, Army, or Air Force doesn't really cover. Thus, each and every marine is first and foremost a fighting soldier, even support personnel are "fighters" first.

So they are rifleman, then medic
rifleman, then tech
rifleman, then damage control
etc.

HTH

whocarz · 12-10-2004, 01:42 AM

There seems to be some slight ignorance on this topic, let me clarify some things:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carn

101st Airborne are the elite of the regular army, but not on par with the Marines.

I don't know about the Screaming Eagles or the 4th Inf Div though.

The Screaming Eagles is the name of the 101st Airborne Division. I wouldn't call them "elite" either. They are specialized in differing tactics from say an Infantry or Mechanized Division, however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Mr. Mephisto,

The US military has three main branches: the Army, Navy and Air Force.

The Marine Corps is officially part of the US Navy. They were originally the on-ship troops back when ships fought hand-to-hand, now they are designed as the main seaborne invasion force, though they are used everywhere. Their training is longer and more difficult then any other branch, so they are a different kind of soldier.

Most of the rest of what you listed is under the Army. The Green Berets and Rangers are special-forces units, for dangerous missions. The 101st Airborne is designed as the paratrooper division.

The SEALS are part of the Navy, but are their version of special-forces.

I hope this helps, and I REALLY hope it's all right, as it comes from my memory

The 101st Airborne was created as an infantry division in WW1, then a paratrooper division in WW2, but during Vietnam was turned into an Airmobile division, which means they move around by helicopter. I believe they are the only division in the world that relies entirely upon helicopters for transportation. During Gulf War 1, they managed to fly the entire division behind enemy lines in about 24 hours, then fly to another location, causing massive disruption, etc.

I'm pretty confident that the only US paratrooper division nowadays is the 82nd Airborne, also known as the All American division. They were created as a regular infantry division in 1917 and later reorganized as a paratrooper division during WW2.

Now to address Mr. Mephisto's questions. Basically, each of the forces you mentioned are considered "elite" but they all do different jobs.

Navy SEALs: Part of the Navy (obviously), they are used for clandestine operations, including unconventional warfare, direct action, combating terrorism, special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, information warfare, security assistance, counter-drug operations, personnel recovery and hydrographic reconnaissance. Their primary method of insertion and extraction are maritime. Each SEAL is an extremely tough individual, and their reputation as badasses are deserved. Perhaps their most widely known failure, Patilla Field in Panama, stems from the fact that SEALs are not trained for a conventional assault on an airfield. The job should have been handled by Army Rangers.

Army Delta Force: Primarily used in counter-terror operations, there isn't a whole lot of info about Delta Force. However, they can be considered roughly equivilant to the SEALs, just with a more limited scope and not based on maritime operations, although they do train to operate in aquatic environs.

Army Green Berets: Primarily concerned with clandestine operations, and providing combat training to, and operating with, indigenous troops.

Army Rangers: More highly trained than regular Army soldiers, Rangers are organized as Light Infantry, used to spearhead assaults, and support special operations units, such as SEALs and Delta Force. Their training is roughly equivilant to Marines, but without the maritime aspect. Of course, if asked which is better, however, a Ranger will claim Rangers are, and the Marine will claim Marines are.

Marines: The land fighting arm of the Navy. Marines specialize in amphibious assaults and taking ground. They are primarily concerned with clearing the enemy out of the area, so that it can later be occupied by regular Army units. Every Marine, whether a cook or supply clerk or infantry man, is considered a Rifleman first and foremost. This allows support personnel to be sent to the front with confidence that they will fight efficiently.

Marine Force RECON: This is the elite of the Marines, and are used to scout even further ahead of the main body than the Reconnaissance Battalions, aquiring information on enemy positions, etc.

I hope I didn't fuck anything up, and if I did, please feel free to point it out.

Mephisto2 · 12-10-2004, 01:58 AM

Thanks whocarz, that was really interesting. Smooth, did you serve with the US military?

I guess I should point out that I knew there was a difference between the SEALs, Green Berets, Delta Force etc and "frontline" troops.

So I guess I was really wondering who was the best between units like the Rangers, Marines, Airbourne etc.

Everyone seems to say that the Marines are badass. But what if they came up against the 4th Infantry Division? These guys are outfitted with the latest equipment available. Wouldn't they beat the living daylights out of the Marines?

Mr Mephisto

whocarz · 12-10-2004, 02:16 AM

This is a difficult question to answer. I assume you mean the 4th ID vs. a single Marine Division. The 4th ID is a mechanized division, which means they are equipped with Bradley Fighting Vehicles. They are also the first digitized division in the Army, with state of the art equipment (as you already know), and quite a prestigious history. However, they are still regular Army, althought that is nothing to be ashamed of. Yet stripped down to the basics, a Marine is a better fighting man than a regular Army soldier. The question boils down to technology versus training and fighting spirit, essentially. I will choose to opt out of giving a real answer, and instead say that it's really anyone's guess.

smooth · 12-10-2004, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Smooth, did you serve with the US military?

PM sent.

whocarz,

good points and conclusion.

we've seen in our recent wars that tech doesn't necessarily trump spirt and determination--although our romanticization of the powers of technology often seem to lead to hubris.

tropple · 12-10-2004, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

So who are the elite of the Marine Corp then?

Mr Mephisto

Force Recon. You won't hear much about them. They do the dirty stuff.

tropple · 12-10-2004, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whocarz

There seems to be some slight ignorance on this topic, let me clarify some things:
/snip

Navy SEALs:
/snip
Perhaps their most widely known failure, Patilla Field in Panama, stems from the fact that SEALs are not trained for a conventional assault on an airfield. The job should have been handled by Army Rangers.

/snip

Excuse me, you're wrong. They were sent in with incorrect information, someone else's plan, and were forced to use a fucked up comm net with too many asshats trying to be in charge. Taking an airfield is every-fucking-day stuff.

Mephisto2 · 12-10-2004, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tropple

Excuse me, you're wrong. They were sent in with incorrect information, someone else's plan, and were forced to use a fucked up comm net with too many asshats trying to be in charge. Taking an airfield is every-fucking-day stuff.

I think you'll find it was simple bad planning.

http://www.specwarnet.com/miscinfo/patilla.htm

Mr Mephisto

djtestudo · 12-10-2004, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whocarz

The 101st Airborne was created as an infantry division in WW1, then a paratrooper division in WW2, but during Vietnam was turned into an Airmobile division, which means they move around by helicopter. I believe they are the only division in the world that relies entirely upon helicopters for transportation. During Gulf War 1, they managed to fly the entire division behind enemy lines in about 24 hours, then fly to another location, causing massive disruption, etc.

I'm pretty confident that the only US paratrooper division nowadays is the 82nd Airborne, also known as the All American division. They were created as a regular infantry division in 1917 and later reorganized as a paratrooper division during WW2.

Now to address Mr. Mephisto's questions. Basically, each of the forces you mentioned are considered "elite" but they all do different jobs.

Navy SEALs: Part of the Navy (obviously), they are used for clandestine operations, including unconventional warfare, direct action, combating terrorism, special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, information warfare, security assistance, counter-drug operations, personnel recovery and hydrographic reconnaissance. Their primary method of insertion and extraction are maritime. Each SEAL is an extremely tough individual, and their reputation as badasses are deserved. Perhaps their most widely known failure, Patilla Field in Panama, stems from the fact that SEALs are not trained for a conventional assault on an airfield. The job should have been handled by Army Rangers.

Army Delta Force: Primarily used in counter-terror operations, there isn't a whole lot of info about Delta Force. However, they can be considered roughly equivilant to the SEALs, just with a more limited scope and not based on maritime operations, although they do train to operate in aquatic environs.

Army Green Berets: Primarily concerned with clandestine operations, and providing combat training to, and operating with, indigenous troops.

Army Rangers: More highly trained than regular Army soldiers, Rangers are organized as Light Infantry, used to spearhead assaults, and support special operations units, such as SEALs and Delta Force. Their training is roughly equivilant to Marines, but without the maritime aspect. Of course, if asked which is better, however, a Ranger will claim Rangers are, and the Marine will claim Marines are.

Marines: The land fighting arm of the Navy. Marines specialize in amphibious assaults and taking ground. They are primarily concerned with clearing the enemy out of the area, so that it can later be occupied by regular Army units. Every Marine, whether a cook or supply clerk or infantry man, is considered a Rifleman first and foremost. This allows support personnel to be sent to the front with confidence that they will fight efficiently.

Marine Force RECON: This is the elite of the Marines, and are used to scout even further ahead of the main body than the Reconnaissance Battalions, aquiring information on enemy positions, etc.

I hope I didn't fuck anything up, and if I did, please feel free to point it out.

Thanks whocarz; always happy to learn new info

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I hope no marine sees your post
I think they'd reply if anything that in so far as they are part of the Navy, it's only that they are the best part! But I haven't met any Corpman who didn't bristle at that kind of statement.

The Marine Corps fall under the Department of the Navy, not the US Navy branch of service (seamen)--people like mephisto (non-US citizens) might not know that they are two different entities. The Dept. provides civilian leadership to the branch of the Navy.

The Marine Corps are actually the oldest US military force. They don't have their own sea transportation, although I can't remember why, there was at one time a reason stated to me. It could be because the intention was never to have them be a standing military branch in the sense of what we think, but a flexable and powerful force that was ultra portable to be injected into places the Navy, Army, or Air Force doesn't really cover. Thus, each and every marine is first and foremost a fighting soldier, even support personnel are "fighters" first.

Trust me; my best friend is a Marine and he would beat the crap out of me if he knew I said that, so I know the risk I take

KMA-628 · 12-10-2004, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

/snip

So they are rifleman, then medic
rifleman, then tech
rifleman, then damage control
etc.

Well, the Marine Corp does not have medics. All medics attached to a Marine squad are actually Navy personnel (i.e. Hospital Corpsmen).

By the way, Marine is actually an acronym, it means: My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment.

Anyway, I look at it this way:

Of the five different "branches", without specialized training (i.e. spec ops), the Marines are the most able-bodied fighting force. If you were to take an E-3 from each branch, after standard training, the Marine will be the badass. They are also the most disciplined, which definitely helps to make a more cohesive and effective fighting force.

Once you add specialized training, then the water gets murkier and much more competitive.

A SEAL will always claim they are the best, Rangers the same, Delta the same, and so on and so on. Personally, I know better than to fuck with a guy who wears a trident. I see that gold little symbol, shut up and stand still--mama didn't raise no fool (we used to train with them as their "opponents") Look one in the eye when he is in the "zone" and you will know what I mean.

Edit: Don't forget, they all cross-train, which even clouds the distinction even more

KMA-628 · 12-10-2004, 10:38 AM

Oh yeah, on topic:

The first thing I noticed was that the people complaining about armor were Guard.

I would've been shocked if they had been regular Army or Marines, but alas, they weren't, which is very telling for those that have experience in the matter.

I worked with the "weekend warriors" on occasion and it wasn't any fun. They, for the most part, didn't take anything seriously and were a danger to themselves and others. I watched a few episodes of "Off to War" (I think that was the title) on Discovery Time and was embarrased to watch their utter lack of military bearing and discipline. On one episode, they got reamed by a Regular Army guy for their lack of respect for an officer.

It made me wonder how effective it is to have a part-time fighting force.

That being said, regulars may have the same bitches/complaints, but you probably won't see it happen in a public forum like the Rummy event. I find it very interesting that most of the complaining comes from reservists.

My experience:

Amongst ourselves, we laughed about how poorly equipped we were and how weak our defenses were. We didn't even have the proper armament to adequately protect ourselves in a direct attack. We just did our jobs, relied on each other, and lived day-to-day.

We used to joke about our "life expectancy" times based on different types of events/attacks. That was just how we did things and we weren't anywhere near as disciplined as the Marines.

But, we did not even consider taking our gripes/griefs/bitches to a public forum.

smooth · 12-10-2004, 11:53 AM

Just to clarify,

It isn't quite fair to chatise this guy for being a whiner or bitch.

The embeds were precluded from asking Rumsfield questions.

So evidently one of them "consulted" with some personnel and got them to voice the questions the media were curious about.

But what's interesting in that is it troubles what I think some people in here consider about how freely our embeds are reporting. We can discuss whether a reporter *ought* to report something, but that is different as to whether they actually *can* or not. So it troubles me so much weight is given to the notion that if there were problems, we would necessarily hear about it stateside.

In this case, it seems to be embeds are seeing alarming things in regards to troop safety, there may in fact be some grumblings about it, but that is not making it from the ground to the airwaves--until things like this occur.

Bill O'Rights · 12-10-2004, 11:55 AM

It's all really very simple.

The Marine Corps takes it.
The Army secures it.
The Navy cleans it up.
And the Air Force lives in it.

That sort of sums it all up.

KMA-628 · 12-10-2004, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

It's all really very simple.

The Marine Corps takes it.
The Army secures it.
The Navy cleans it up.
And the Air Force lives in it.

That sort of sums it all up.

I would amend the Navy part to: Cleans it up and then paints it

/haze gray and underway....

KMA-628 · 12-10-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

In this case, it seems to be embeds are seeing alarming things in regards to troop safety, there may in fact be some grumblings about it, but that is not making it from the ground to the airwaves--until things like this occur.

It seems that there is a definite difference in equipment for the regulars and the guard.

I have heard some griping that the armor problem is more of a Guard issue.

I would guess that it is tied to the fact that regular army gets the good stuff first since they are the ones working 24/7, whereas, in peacetime, the Guard equipment only gets used on occasion.

bigoldalphamale · 12-10-2004, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

It's all really very simple.

The Marine Corps takes it.
The Army secures it.
The Navy cleans it up.
And the Air Force lives in it.

That sort of sums it all up.

tropple · 12-10-2004, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I think you'll find it was simple bad planning.

http://www.specwarnet.com/miscinfo/patilla.htm

Mr Mephisto

It was still not the right plan (Sandoz) (which is why Mikey Walsh was relieved).

IMHO, it was doable, but not with an open assualt and definitely not without the gunship.

It's funny how Sandoz retired without his flag, though. Too bad they didn't hang him.

Cadwiz · 12-10-2004, 02:28 PM

It warms my cold black heart to hear all the wonderful things people have to say about my beloved Corps. Most of it is true, some is not. The reason we don't care what equipment we get is because we always get the left-overs. After a while, you just do with what you have. Sitting around bitching about what you wish you had, doesn't get the job done. That said, something as important as armor should already be had.

For those interested:

Quote:

From the National Security Act 1947
SEC. 206. (a) [50 U.S.C. 409(b)] The term "Department of the Navy" as used in this Act shall be construed to mean the Department of the Navy at the seat of government; the headquarters, United States Marine Corps; the entire operating forces of the United States Navy, including naval aviation, and of the United States Marine Corps, including the reserve components of such forces all field activities, headquarters, forces, bases, installations, activities and functions under the control or supervision of the Department of the Navy; and the United States Coast Guard when operating as a part of the Navy pursuant to law.

This passage effectively creates the USMC as a seperate entity under the Dept. of the Navy.

Shirtninja · 12-10-2004, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

A SEAL will always claim they are the best, Rangers the same, Delta the same, and so on and so on. Personally, I know better than to fuck with a guy who wears a trident. I see that gold little symbol, shut up and stand still--mama didn't raise no fool (we used to train with them as their "opponents") Look one in the eye when he is in the "zone" and you will know what I mean.

I'll agree with that. Most my family all has a military back ground. Marines when looked at as "regular" military people are the best around in my opinion. But when it comes to special forces, the few seals I know are on an entire different level then anyone else I have ever know except maybe this ex-GSG9 guy a friend introduced me too. They can all be some very scary people when they want too...

whocarz · 12-10-2004, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tropple

Excuse me, you're wrong. They were sent in with incorrect information, someone else's plan, and were forced to use a fucked up comm net with too many asshats trying to be in charge. Taking an airfield is every-fucking-day stuff.

Please excuse my berevity. I felt that a quick sentence would have been a good enough explination for a casual reader, and they could have looked into the incident more thoroughly on their own time. I still believe that a company of Rangers would have made more sense than using Navy SEALs, because taking airfields is something Rangers are used for. I will agree that bad planning was the real reason, INCLUDING the part where they decided to use SEALs instead of Rangers. You have your opinion, I have mine.

Lockjaw · 12-10-2004, 09:03 PM

Just going by personal experience every single Marine I know first off let's you know very quickly they are a jarhead. Secondly each and everyone of them are friggin nuts.
One of my college professors is a retired Marine. Nice guy smart funny but that joker has to be one of the nuttiest SOBs I've run across.

I do wonder one thing though since Marines are so widely regarded as being such hardass and efficient troopers...why the hell doesn't the Army adopt their training policies? It would stand to reason in my opinion that if the smaller and less well equiped Marine corp was that tough that it would be smart to have the more numerous Army to be up to the Marine standard. Not that the Army sucks or anything but that level of effectiveness in combination with some of the baddest fighting machines on the planet CAN'T be a bad thing.

Psycho Dad · 12-10-2004, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lockjaw

I do wonder one thing though since Marines are so widely regarded as being such hardass and efficient troopers...why the hell doesn't the Army adopt their training policies?

Fewer recruits willing to undergo that kind of training perhaps?

clavus · 12-10-2004, 09:17 PM

Just to beat my metaphor into the ground... because the Marines are the TIP of the spear. You can't have a whole spear made out of tips. They do one thing, and they do it well. The army has a different job. They can't do what the regular army does.

12-09-2004, 04:25 PM	#1 (permalink)
Psycho Dad Mulletproof Location: Some nucking fut house.	Views on body armor by troops Given that my son is a Marine, I have been noticing a lot of differences between the attitudes of people I know that have been in various branches of the service and what I seem to see from Marines. I'm not meaning to knock reservists or anyone in any branch of the armed forces. I fully support and appreciate everything that all of them do. However there just seems to be something different about Marines. They have a different attitude about them it seems. The Marine Corps seems to somehow take these young men and women and turn them into a different type of person. Even former Navy people I know who have been to sea with Marines say that there is always something different about them. Reservists Marines __________________ Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

12-09-2004, 04:39 PM	#2 (permalink)
clavus pow! Location: NorCal	Please keep in mind that I say this with the utmost respect for the Marines. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course the Marines are different. When you absolutely, positively need to have it killed, secured, rescued, or blown up in no-time flat, send in the Marines. They don't have the time or energy to waste on complaining, pondering, or dithering. Marines are the tip of the spear. They exist for one purpose - to whoop ass...immediately. Their lot is utterly indispensible and ultimately thankless. Spear-tips wear out. They are broken and discarded. How could those people NOT be "different." God bless the USMC. __________________ Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

12-09-2004, 04:52 PM	#4 (permalink)
StormBerlin Happy as a hippo Location: Southern California	Yeah, I'm not a big fan of former marines. They all seem to have some attitude problems. Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for all of our branches of this military, but those marines can be assholes. __________________ "if anal sex could get a girl pregnant i'd be tits deep in child support" Arcane

12-09-2004, 06:56 PM	#12 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	the complaint that seems to make some sense is that marines and army regulars are getting priority on equipment, and reserves aren't. this may make sense with mission tasking, etc. but it seems like they should all have it. body armor is expensive, GI's are priceless. To die for lack of body/vehicle armor seems like the stupidest waste... __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

12-10-2004, 12:13 AM	#17 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Mr. Mephisto, The US military has three main branches: the Army, Navy and Air Force. The Marine Corps is officially part of the US Navy. They were originally the on-ship troops back when ships fought hand-to-hand, now they are designed as the main seaborne invasion force, though they are used everywhere. Their training is longer and more difficult then any other branch, so they are a different kind of soldier. Most of the rest of what you listed is under the Army. The Green Berets and Rangers are special-forces units, for dangerous missions. The 101st Airborne is designed as the paratrooper division. The SEALS are part of the Navy, but are their version of special-forces. I hope this helps, and I REALLY hope it's all right, as it comes from my memory __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

12-09-2004, 04:42 PM	#3 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	I know a former Marine, and let me tell you: I'm sure glad he's on our side. Because I'd hate to be the sad fucker who stands in the way of a division of soldiers like him. And he's calmed down quite a bit since his soldiering days.

12-09-2004, 05:14 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	I thought the Green Berets, the Screaming Eagles, the 4th Infantry Division, the SEALs, the Rangers all claimed the same thing. How can you have so many "best of the bunch" military outfits? Seems like a bit unusual to me Also, did I miss something? What's this got to do with body armour? Mr Mephisto

12-09-2004, 05:30 PM	#7 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Oppps... sorry, my bad. Mr M

12-09-2004, 06:03 PM	#8 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	There is something different about them. My hubby is a former Marine, and it surely did change him, for the better I might add. These links don't surprise me in the least; not that the reservists make the remarks, but that the Marines are satisfied with what they have. They've made do with hand-me-down aircraft, they'll make do with the body armor they have. God bless ALL our troops; they have a hard job and make a lot of sacrifices!

12-09-2004, 06:15 PM	#9 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	So someone tell me, is it the Marines or the others I mentioned that are the "top guns"? Or is that just healthy competition between the various units? Mr Mephisto

12-09-2004, 06:30 PM	#10 (permalink)
MooseMan3000 wouldn't mind being a ninja. Location: Maine, the Other White State.	Well, there's a difference, Mephisto. Basically, as I understand it, if a beachhead needs to be taken, the Marines do it. It one guy needs to get whacked, the SEALs or Delta do it. The Marines are not "the best of the best," so to speak, but as far as branches of the military go, they're the most brutal and effective. When I real fight breaks out, they're at the front. Of course this is on over-simplification, but it gets the basic idea across. Marines kill well, special forces kill specific things well. And back on topic, the Marines I know are all psycho. With good reason. I respect it, but I'm certainly glad I'm not one of them.

12-09-2004, 06:50 PM	#11 (permalink)
Suave Twitterpated Location: My own little world (also Canada)	Yes. As I understand it, the USMC is a large group of efficient killing machines. SEAL, Rangers, Green Berets, etc. are smaller groups of efficient killing machines. Regs are less efficient killing machines.

12-09-2004, 07:05 PM	#13 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	What about the 101st Airbourne? Or the 4th Infantry Division? I've heard that the Screaming Eagles are the elite too. I've also heard that the 4th Inf Div is the most technologically advanced fighting unit on Earth; they get all the new toys before any other unit in the US Army. Either that, or the documentaries I'm watching are bunkum. Not entirely impossible I might add... Mr Mephisto

12-09-2004, 07:13 PM	#14 (permalink)
Carno Junkie	101st Airborne are the elite of the regular army, but not on par with the Marines. I don't know about the Screaming Eagles or the 4th Inf Div though.

12-10-2004, 01:58 AM	#20 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Thanks whocarz, that was really interesting. Smooth, did you serve with the US military? I guess I should point out that I knew there was a difference between the SEALs, Green Berets, Delta Force etc and "frontline" troops. So I guess I was really wondering who was the best between units like the Rangers, Marines, Airbourne etc. Everyone seems to say that the Marines are badass. But what if they came up against the 4th Infantry Division? These guys are outfitted with the latest equipment available. Wouldn't they beat the living daylights out of the Marines? Mr Mephisto

12-10-2004, 02:16 AM	#21 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	This is a difficult question to answer. I assume you mean the 4th ID vs. a single Marine Division. The 4th ID is a mechanized division, which means they are equipped with Bradley Fighting Vehicles. They are also the first digitized division in the Army, with state of the art equipment (as you already know), and quite a prestigious history. However, they are still regular Army, althought that is nothing to be ashamed of. Yet stripped down to the basics, a Marine is a better fighting man than a regular Army soldier. The question boils down to technology versus training and fighting spirit, essentially. I will choose to opt out of giving a real answer, and instead say that it's really anyone's guess. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

12-10-2004, 10:38 AM	#28 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	Oh yeah, on topic: The first thing I noticed was that the people complaining about armor were Guard. I would've been shocked if they had been regular Army or Marines, but alas, they weren't, which is very telling for those that have experience in the matter. I worked with the "weekend warriors" on occasion and it wasn't any fun. They, for the most part, didn't take anything seriously and were a danger to themselves and others. I watched a few episodes of "Off to War" (I think that was the title) on Discovery Time and was embarrased to watch their utter lack of military bearing and discipline. On one episode, they got reamed by a Regular Army guy for their lack of respect for an officer. It made me wonder how effective it is to have a part-time fighting force. That being said, regulars may have the same bitches/complaints, but you probably won't see it happen in a public forum like the Rummy event. I find it very interesting that most of the complaining comes from reservists. My experience: Amongst ourselves, we laughed about how poorly equipped we were and how weak our defenses were. We didn't even have the proper armament to adequately protect ourselves in a direct attack. We just did our jobs, relied on each other, and lived day-to-day. We used to joke about our "life expectancy" times based on different types of events/attacks. That was just how we did things and we weren't anywhere near as disciplined as the Marines. But, we did not even consider taking our gripes/griefs/bitches to a public forum.

12-10-2004, 11:53 AM	#29 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Just to clarify, It isn't quite fair to chatise this guy for being a whiner or bitch. The embeds were precluded from asking Rumsfield questions. So evidently one of them "consulted" with some personnel and got them to voice the questions the media were curious about. But what's interesting in that is it troubles what I think some people in here consider about how freely our embeds are reporting. We can discuss whether a reporter ought to report something, but that is different as to whether they actually can or not. So it troubles me so much weight is given to the notion that if there were problems, we would necessarily hear about it stateside. In this case, it seems to be embeds are seeing alarming things in regards to troop safety, there may in fact be some grumblings about it, but that is not making it from the ground to the airwaves--until things like this occur. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

12-10-2004, 11:55 AM	#30 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	It's all really very simple. The Marine Corps takes it. The Army secures it. The Navy cleans it up. And the Air Force lives in it. That sort of sums it all up. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

12-10-2004, 09:03 PM	#38 (permalink)
Lockjaw Junkie	Just going by personal experience every single Marine I know first off let's you know very quickly they are a jarhead. Secondly each and everyone of them are friggin nuts. One of my college professors is a retired Marine. Nice guy smart funny but that joker has to be one of the nuttiest SOBs I've run across. I do wonder one thing though since Marines are so widely regarded as being such hardass and efficient troopers...why the hell doesn't the Army adopt their training policies? It would stand to reason in my opinion that if the smaller and less well equiped Marine corp was that tough that it would be smart to have the more numerous Army to be up to the Marine standard. Not that the Army sucks or anything but that level of effectiveness in combination with some of the baddest fighting machines on the planet CAN'T be a bad thing.

12-10-2004, 09:17 PM	#40 (permalink)
clavus pow! Location: NorCal	Just to beat my metaphor into the ground... because the Marines are the TIP of the spear. You can't have a whole spear made out of tips. They do one thing, and they do it well. The army has a different job. They can't do what the regular army does. __________________ Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.