Which is better, Army, Marines, or Navy?
-
T51b
- Scarf-wearing n00b
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:13 am
- Location: land of awnawld, cawlifawnya
My best friend was with 1/64 Armor during Operation Iraqi Freedom; He was in an M1A1 tanks leading the 3rd Infantry Division's charge (all that crap about 3/7 Cav is bullcrap, they were in the back thats why all the reporters were inbedded with them), and he said that really the 3rd ID didn't clear out anything but the main defenses in all the towns they got to. He said for the most part once the Iraqi infantry got their asses kicked by our M1s they pretty much scattered but came back to harass the Marines and the 101st and 2nd ACR who were sweeping up behind them. So I guess the Marines have right to complain that the 3rd ID didn't properly clean out the area, but that wasn't their job; they were spearheading straight to Baghdad... You're right Menno, the stupid Jar-Heads should have used their "super" Marine-Recon or one of those FAST teams or whatever their elite-elite are to check the scene out before driving their unarmored ACAVs and Amtraks and LAVs into areas where they were RPG-fodder. Typical Marines... All loud on the outside but really stupid pussies when they get their asses kicked.
Thank you both for clearing that up for me. I didn't have knowledge of the specifics, but I knew when I saw so many Marines whining to the media about how the Army "screwed" up, I knew there was more than meets the eye with really happened. Since we're on the subject of poor tactics, I thought I'd share something with you guys (err...no, not that). We had Marines come up to Alaska briefly for some cold-weather training, and I have to say it was the most appalling display of "tactics", if you can call it that, that I ever saw.
As a Corporal, I would usually lead an individual fireteam (3-4 other guys). As a result of my rank, and depending upon my team's formation, a majority of the time I'd take the point (fore) position to lead my team, where I would be responsible for my team's actions, placement, and manuevers. Was it because I was some "fearless-super-badass-unstoppable $#@#"? No, there's actually a real logical reason for it. Since I'm in the fore position, when I give orders (whether through hand signals/speech) my whole team knows what's in front of them. The purpose of the hand signals is that sometimes an area can be extremely loud (especially during combat), so your voice can get drowned out by the sound of gunfire. That's where the hand signals come in to play. Lets say for example I'm out in front, and see our target. I would still be facing in the direction of my target (not taking my eyes off of it), and extend my arm fully towards my men with my fist closed. I would then open my fist one finger for each estimated 100 meters of range. Now lets look at the advantage of doing something so simple such as that.
Because I was out at the point position, my men saw the correct method to move and approach by watching me (without having to tell them to do so). Because I was the one in front (and was responsible for giving my team orders), I was quickly able to give them those orders through use of hand signals (thereby keeping stealth), without using a middleman to relay those orders (I'll get into that in a minute). As a result, the men knew where our target was immediately and silently. I could also relay what I saw to our squad leader without taking my eyes off of my target.
Occassionaly, I would instruct the lower-ranked members of my fireteam to take the point position; the purpose of this being that they would gain experience in commanding a team, and relay the situation to me; if I became incapacitated the fire-team would still be able to function because they would have some command experience to fall back on. Because they watched how I moved and responded to situations, they followed my examples and actions.
Now lets compare this simple tactic to what I saw when the Marines came up for training. First, they stayed bunched together in open-terrain. An immediate no-no. Their team-leader also failed to correct this throughout the excercise. Secondly, the team leader would virtually always (95% of the time) stay in the rear, while sending someone else to the point position. When that Marine reached the point position, he would routinely turn around (taking his eye off his sector), relay what he saw (verbally, with no signals), the Marine team-leader then screamed an order, and the point Marine (still turned around looking at his leader) would execute the command. Lets analyze this step-by-step. Because the unit was so bunched up together on open terrain, the entire team would be wiped out by mortar fire/rifle spray immediately if something like that were to occur. Because their team leader was in the rear, the men he sent forward would have have to turn around and report back to him verbally(because the team did not use hand signals), putting that man's life in danger for several seconds. Also, because the team leader was repeatedly in the rear, the men were extremely dependent upon him for what to do. If something were to happen to that team-leader, the whole team would be practically lost, and it would be up to valor to get them out alive. Extremely poor basic fireteam tactics; since the Marines are infantry-based this is appalling. This wasn't just this one fire team I saw that did this, virtually every single one performed this way (I didn't see every single one, so I can't say all). But after the excercise was over, they were all patting themselves on the ass for a job well done...in the real world against a foe with half a brain they would have been dead.
The Army method is far better because the team leader is on point and the other team members act off of his visual, personal example. The Army-style fireteam leader leads-by-example from the point. There's a difference between shouting orders and leading by example. When you shout orders, the men become dependent upon you for those orders, making them stagnant bodies until they get that order; god forbid something happens to that individual, then the team is "lost". When you lead through example, men pick up on your actions and adapt to what they experience; moreso learning on the job instead of just depending upon the team-leader for orders. In this way, if something were to happen to the team-leader, the men have a working knowledge of what to do, and are able to lead.
The Marines need a good doctrine for ground combat, the one they have now is appalling, and will just cause young men to come home in bodybags for situations that could have been prevented by sound basic tactics. The "bravado" needs to stop; maturity needs to step in and wake these guys up before they get killed for reasons that could have been prevented. The Greeks had a word for this, "Hubris". The Marines need to look at themselves in a mirror before it's too late, and cut out the ego-bullshit.
As a Corporal, I would usually lead an individual fireteam (3-4 other guys). As a result of my rank, and depending upon my team's formation, a majority of the time I'd take the point (fore) position to lead my team, where I would be responsible for my team's actions, placement, and manuevers. Was it because I was some "fearless-super-badass-unstoppable $#@#"? No, there's actually a real logical reason for it. Since I'm in the fore position, when I give orders (whether through hand signals/speech) my whole team knows what's in front of them. The purpose of the hand signals is that sometimes an area can be extremely loud (especially during combat), so your voice can get drowned out by the sound of gunfire. That's where the hand signals come in to play. Lets say for example I'm out in front, and see our target. I would still be facing in the direction of my target (not taking my eyes off of it), and extend my arm fully towards my men with my fist closed. I would then open my fist one finger for each estimated 100 meters of range. Now lets look at the advantage of doing something so simple such as that.
Because I was out at the point position, my men saw the correct method to move and approach by watching me (without having to tell them to do so). Because I was the one in front (and was responsible for giving my team orders), I was quickly able to give them those orders through use of hand signals (thereby keeping stealth), without using a middleman to relay those orders (I'll get into that in a minute). As a result, the men knew where our target was immediately and silently. I could also relay what I saw to our squad leader without taking my eyes off of my target.
Occassionaly, I would instruct the lower-ranked members of my fireteam to take the point position; the purpose of this being that they would gain experience in commanding a team, and relay the situation to me; if I became incapacitated the fire-team would still be able to function because they would have some command experience to fall back on. Because they watched how I moved and responded to situations, they followed my examples and actions.
Now lets compare this simple tactic to what I saw when the Marines came up for training. First, they stayed bunched together in open-terrain. An immediate no-no. Their team-leader also failed to correct this throughout the excercise. Secondly, the team leader would virtually always (95% of the time) stay in the rear, while sending someone else to the point position. When that Marine reached the point position, he would routinely turn around (taking his eye off his sector), relay what he saw (verbally, with no signals), the Marine team-leader then screamed an order, and the point Marine (still turned around looking at his leader) would execute the command. Lets analyze this step-by-step. Because the unit was so bunched up together on open terrain, the entire team would be wiped out by mortar fire/rifle spray immediately if something like that were to occur. Because their team leader was in the rear, the men he sent forward would have have to turn around and report back to him verbally(because the team did not use hand signals), putting that man's life in danger for several seconds. Also, because the team leader was repeatedly in the rear, the men were extremely dependent upon him for what to do. If something were to happen to that team-leader, the whole team would be practically lost, and it would be up to valor to get them out alive. Extremely poor basic fireteam tactics; since the Marines are infantry-based this is appalling. This wasn't just this one fire team I saw that did this, virtually every single one performed this way (I didn't see every single one, so I can't say all). But after the excercise was over, they were all patting themselves on the ass for a job well done...in the real world against a foe with half a brain they would have been dead.
The Army method is far better because the team leader is on point and the other team members act off of his visual, personal example. The Army-style fireteam leader leads-by-example from the point. There's a difference between shouting orders and leading by example. When you shout orders, the men become dependent upon you for those orders, making them stagnant bodies until they get that order; god forbid something happens to that individual, then the team is "lost". When you lead through example, men pick up on your actions and adapt to what they experience; moreso learning on the job instead of just depending upon the team-leader for orders. In this way, if something were to happen to the team-leader, the men have a working knowledge of what to do, and are able to lead.
The Marines need a good doctrine for ground combat, the one they have now is appalling, and will just cause young men to come home in bodybags for situations that could have been prevented by sound basic tactics. The "bravado" needs to stop; maturity needs to step in and wake these guys up before they get killed for reasons that could have been prevented. The Greeks had a word for this, "Hubris". The Marines need to look at themselves in a mirror before it's too late, and cut out the ego-bullshit.
Last edited by Menno on Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
requiem_for_a_starfury
- Hero of the Wastes
- Posts: 1820
- Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 11:13 am
Out of interest when did the Marine 'Propaganda' machine get going? I read somewhere recently that the USMC is constitutionally guaranteed, where as the other services might have to fight off eventual almalgamation there will always be a Marine Corps. So it seems strange that they need to promote themselves so much. Over here all you ever really hear about, when US Forces are mentioned, are the Marines and Air Force.
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
requiem_for_a_starfury wrote:Out of interest when did the Marine 'Propaganda' machine get going? I read somewhere recently that the USMC is constitutionally guaranteed, where as the other services might have to fight off eventual almalgamation there will always be a Marine Corps. So it seems strange that they need to promote themselves so much. Over here all you ever really hear about, when US Forces are mentioned, are the Marines and Air Force.
The Marine propaganda machine kicked into full-gear after WWII. It further increased after movies such as Full Metal Jacket and Heartbreak Ridge, and from the Marine's own propaganda machine telling the Marines they're superior and patting themselves on the ass without any constructive criticism. Imagine if you did every single thing in your life without a plan; that's how Marines operate on the battlefield. Their combat doctrines are very weak/vague, the Marines aren't properly trained in basic combat tactics, etc. I mean how sad is it that actors in the movie 'Aliens' who play Colonial Marines used far better tactics compared to the "real" Marines I saw?
I'm not certain that the only guaranteed service is the Marines, but I doubt it. A further example of this is that the Army and Air Force get a far larger amount of congressional dollars. Another thing is that the Marines are a part of the Navy, and are dependent upon the Navy for everything.
A better example of a real Marine are the British Royal Marines. They're not pumped up full of bravado, and have good sound tactical training.
Last edited by Menno on Wed Nov 05, 2003 8:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
PeterWoman
- Perpetual SDF
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 5:59 am
- Location: Bronx of sydnay
-
the guardian
- Hero of the Desert
- Posts: 1618
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:36 pm
- Location: israel
- Contact:
I seem to be a bit late.
But here's my two cents: Medical Corp
You wana see dead people? Hacked up limbs? You like needles? Well, whatever, chances are you'll be doing mostly mundane crap then the shit they show you in movies, but it's still the best corp EVA! And I'm not just saying this because I'm part of it, oh no, nothing like that.
So if you're fond of needles, medicine, and pain(and there's a lot of pain), and realy wish someone would fucking step on a mine already so you can patch him up , join my corp.
Hey, everyone likes a medic, right? Fuck yes.
End of two cents.
But here's my two cents: Medical Corp
You wana see dead people? Hacked up limbs? You like needles? Well, whatever, chances are you'll be doing mostly mundane crap then the shit they show you in movies, but it's still the best corp EVA! And I'm not just saying this because I'm part of it, oh no, nothing like that.
So if you're fond of needles, medicine, and pain(and there's a lot of pain), and realy wish someone would fucking step on a mine already so you can patch him up , join my corp.
Hey, everyone likes a medic, right? Fuck yes.
End of two cents.
Hello New Jersey
-
Guest
marines!!!
WTF!!! The average marine is better than the army, navy or A.F. You would be thinking of the army Menno. The marines are NOT part of the navy, their medical corps IS part of the navy. The best soldiers of all though would have to be SEALs.
-
King of Creation
- Righteous Subjugator
- Posts: 5103
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:00 pm
- Contact:
