Posted on 02/23/2005 7:03:38 AM PST by gunnyg
I'll agree on the integration part, but mostly for fixed and rotary wing aviation. I still think the Army's direct and general artillery support is more advanced. A lot of people want the Army to own the Air Force's A-10s, but that would be a mistake. Having to rely on prepared airfields would be a step in the opposite direction. If the F-35 VSTOL doesn't make the cut, that will become awfully apparent.
As a Marine Corps Viet Nam combat veteran, I think I can speak from experience.
I agree with you.
I know that my fellow Grunts and I wouldn't be alive today if not for the Army, Navy & Air Force support.
And as any good Marine knows, there's nothing like a good jock strap!
But if ya don't have the balls to put in it, it doesn't serve much purpose now does it! LOL
Semper Fi,
Kelly
BRAVO SIERRA! Then why bring up the points?
"I was replying to the article and some of the issues that it glossed over concerning "expeditionary" warfare and some of its drawbacks."
BRAVO SIERRA!
The article was not discussing the drawbacks as you see them nor did it "gloss over" [implies intent] anything. It was a cogent piece that as usual...hits some posers right in the manhood because it does not make inclusive qualifications.
"And, US Army Special Forces are part of the Army. They are soldiers."
Like I said...they're closer to Marines than any US Army Line soldier.
Stop hating, Punk!
Now who's hating?
I was posting legitimate drawbacks to the author's points and you get all huffy. Then the name-calling begins.
And quit trying to take credit for other service's achievements, it's very unbecoming.
"And quit trying to take credit for other service's achievements"
I have not mentioned a single achievement made by another service [past what you brought up]. And I definitely did not try to take credit for anything. Haha...I'm a Marine, I do not need to.
My [our] resume is the phattest one on the block.
As a former cannon-cocker myself, I attended the same artillery schools as did army arty officers. Our doctrine is almost identical. Other than the army bought into "big sky, little bullet", and we didn't. Which our pilots liked.
But the Army does have more arty, and more varied assets. So it certainly is possible for the army to put together a more flexible package of arty support for a given operation if it has the time and assets in theater to do so. We just don't have the equivalent of Corps-level artillery. Although that can be task-organized to some extent by adding more arty units to a particular MAGTF package.
The way I've always looked at it, both the Army and the Marines have a particular value that could not be fully replaced by the other. If the Marine Corps tried to get as large as the Army, it wouldn't be the Marines anymore. And if the Army tried to recreate what the Marines have (and they've looked at it one some levels) they couldn't do that either.
We're all on the same side, and in the same boat.
Be that as it may, there is one thing that the Army, Navy or the Air Force will never be able to Duplicate.
I cannot, and will not be able to "implement" the Esprit D Corps that has kept my Marine Corps kicking ass and taking names for over 200 years.
We have been and still are, the finest fighting force this world has ever seen. Bar none.
Semper Fi
I attended the FAOBC, Lance and MLRS courses at Ft Sill from 1988 through 1992. There were a lot of squared-away Marines in those courses and some of the better instructors were Marines.
As for "big sky, little bullet"; I think that was always a fire support trick by the Army artillery in order to prove themselves over other fire support assets. The first thing fire support planners at V Corps headquarters would do was block out their boxes and keep the aviation guys at bay.
I'm not against the "expeditionary" aspect of SOME engagements (which the USMC clearly owns), but the prevailing trend to declare everything as expeditionary has clearly been proven false. After two years, EVERYBODY wants heavy assets and the lame attempts to bolt ineffective "armor" on HMMWVs is no substitute.
The problem with the Army is that we still have aggressive recruiting goals for non-combat arms positions. Let's face it, CS and CSS branches don't attract the hard-chargers that the Combat Arms branches do. Coupled with the Army's inter-gender experimentation (thanks to politicos and gutless General Officers) and we definitely have a problem. The Army can clearly use the very successful USMC model of gender separation as justification for returning to single-sex basic training.
No argument there. But to paraphrase Rumsfeld, no force mix is going to be able to meet every contingency perfectly prepared. Kind of why we need both some heavier stuff and the more expeditionary stuff.
I sympathize with you guys because of that. I've known plenty of army hard-chargers who were aggravated by some of the b.s you guys had to put up with. Fortunately, there are plenty of outstanding army units that have managed to keep their standards high despite the social experimentation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.