Fusilier9

Hmmm, the scenario descrition states that a third platoon of reinforcements is due to arrive? Do reinforcements just appear in other scenarios?

I have started the campaign game and am enjoying the first scenario very much. However, I was notified that a group of reinforcements arrived but they have not appeared on the map. Am I missing something? Do I need to select a hotkey or something to make them appear? Thanks!

"Gas Mask, honestly and to your face...I don't think you are who you say you are, in fact I suspect that you and Fusilier9 may be the same person, and are having the rest of us on with your little mutual admiration society." We are not the same person although I was issued a gas mask in the Army and by my law enforcement agency. You wouldn't think we had a mutual admiration society going between us if you scrutinized our earlier heated debate. Mun13F brings up some excellent points (13F, forward observer?). I was an artillery officer and served as a Fire Support Officer to an infantry battalion). The Army is changing radically. The transition will make the Army more like the USMC in some ways and not in others. As part of the new joint forces concept, the Army is taking the lead in civil affairs among other things. The Army is also changing its force structure from division-sized units to brigade combat teams. As smaller more self-contained units, they will be deployed in an expeditionary role like the one the USMC has done for years. The Army will also expand its infantry force and upgrade infantry-oriented training. Interestingly, the Army will have a mix of infantry units (airborne, air mobile, light, Stryker, and mechanized). Is the USMC infantry organized all the same? I see them as being somewhat medium in this array (larger, more weapons than the Army’s light units but less so than the Stryker or mechanized). However, the USMC does employ amtracks so maybe they are heavy on occasion. Amtracks aren’t organic to USMC infantry are they? Also, what about the LAV’s? Are they just recon or infantry carriers?

“He said when they sent him to Vietnam, they sent him as an infantrymen, and he was freaking out because he had no idea how to be an infantrymen, because all he knew was tanks.” Gas Mask is right. The USMC emphasizes infantry training more than the Army does. However, that is changing given recent experiences like the 507 Maintenance Company. They were relatively untrained for that ambush even though several of them put up a hard fight. I wanted to say something to place our debate and banter (good-natured or not) into context. I sincerely appreciate those of you (Gas Mask and others) who are defending our nation. I didn’t want our discussion to cloud this issue. Our military personnel are dedicated, professional, and they should be honored for the excellent job they are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the globe. Gas Mask’s comments about his lost comrades brought this issue back into perspective. When I was a new 2nd Lieutenant many years ago during the 1980’s when President Reagan was facing down the Soviet Union, I was stunned by the rhetoric of many who obviously hated me and my uniform. They had no understanding of the military, its mission or the sacrifices that were being made to defend their freedom. Those feelings exist these days and I’m still dismayed by those who claim to love their country and support the troops but refuse to acknowledge their difficult mission or give them appropriate credit. Now that my son is serving in Iraq on the Syrian border interdicting terrorists, my feelings about this are stronger than ever. So, Gas Mask and those others out there who had the guts to serve our country, I pass along my thanks and appreciation for their service regardless of our earlier discussion.

Nemesis Lead: Well said and I think your comments can serve to end this debate. We can all take pride in the USMC and US Army without the need to rate either as second rate.

“Now, why don't you stop coming on here and attacking the Marine Corps and me?” This whole thing started because of the marginalization of the Army by the “few and the proud.” The whole reason the Army's offensive was moved up a day is because the Marine's were moving a lot faster than they Army thought they would. And I know all about the Battle of 73-Easting. But that fact remains, the Marine's mission was to recapture Kuwait and Kuwait City. They succeeded. The Army's mission was to destroy the Repulican Guard, which they did not do.” Civdiv: Let’s examine this in a bit more detail. The main offensive in Desert Storm was to come from the west by the US Army’s VII Corps. The Iraqis expected a thrust directly north to Kuwait City. So, the intent of the Coalition was to feint with the marines and other allied forces while the VII Corps swung around and struck the Republican Guard. Remember those marines floating about in the Gulf to draw attention away from the main effort? Also, don’t forget that the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Armored Division was attached to the marines to give them some extra punch. They were the lead unit that advanced north to Kuwait City. Marine units weren’t attached to Army formations. Why was it necessary to bolster up the marines? Simply, because they lacked the tanks and mechanized power of the Army divisions. “Also note that the previous Commandant, for the first time in history, was asked to stay on and become CINC-E, which has tradionally been an Army comand. That sure pissed the Army off. And then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs becomes a Marine, for the first time in history.” There is that complex raising its head again. “And the pause in Iraq during the latest conflict was because the 3ID couldn't keep up. IMEF didn't want to stop, but CFLCC ordered the halt because 3ID needed to stop and rest and refit. And in regards to the Army travelling further than the Marines, that is bologny. Go look at the maps. 3ID went directly to An Nasiriya, and then button hooked to the west.” 3rd ID arrived at An Nasiriya first and then continued north after handing the northern bridge over to the marines. “IMEF took Um Qusr and the penisula, and then moved north to An Nasiroya, and came into Baghdad from the east. And then they went all the way up and took Tikrit.” You’re muddling up the campaign details. The marines were given two tasks. The first was to support the drive of the 3rd ID by maneuvering forces through An Nasiriya. The second was to clear the oil fields, the port at Um Qusr, and the seal off the Basra area. Different marine units undertook these separate missions. The marines arrived at Baghdad after the 3rd ID was already there. The marines did move north to Tikrit but that was afterwards. “And again, I am NOT bashing the Army. As a Marine I have much more in common with an Army soldier than I do, even with our brothers in the British Royal Marines, who we have an EXTREMELY close relationship with.” I’m not bashing the marines either. However, you have a need to argue the Army wasn’t avble to accomplish its missions. This is not based upon facts but your own desire to marginalize another military service to bolster the reputation of the Marine Corps. I assure you, your actions are not necessary. Every reasonable person respects the USMC and its achievements. I will never accuse the marines of not fulfilling their mission. Why are you so motivated? “We do some thing better than you guys do. You guys do some things better than we do. We have seperate, but closely related missions.” Wow! An admission that the Army can do some things well. “But the fact remains, we are smaller, and we can be more selective, and we can be elite. While the Army has elite units, the Marine Corps is elite.” This is a ridiculous generalization. True, the USMC is smaller and can be more selective. This is quite beneficial. What is the definition of an elite unit? I would say it’s the ability to function well in adverse conditions. This definition can’t be applied until a unit actually faces those challenges. A new marine private who is just assigned to his rifle company wouldn’t be considered elite just because he is in the USMC. Same holds for any new or unseasoned solider. However, a 20-year veteran senior NCO in the Army that has fought in Desert Storm and OIF would be considered elite because of his experiences and knowledge. Just because he is in the Army, his status doesn’t drop by your definition. Bottom line is that each unit is different, USMC or Army. Training and preparation levels varies as do missions. The 3rd ID deserves the title of an elite unit because of its accomplishments during OIF. “Finally all this inter-service rivalry is a good thing to some extent, it does allow members of a particular branch of the service to boast a little and have some fun at the others expense, but the truth of the matter is that the Marines and the Army are both very good at what they do (the Navy and the Air Force too)and it wouldn't hurt anyone on this board to admit that. BTW I've been in the Army going on 18 years and was in both Desert Storm and OIF, and am going back to Iraq next summer, so I do know that of which I speak.” Splinty makes a good point. Every service member should be proud of his branch and his contribution to our nation. My sole complaint is that some marines feel the need to disparage the Army with falsehoods for some unknown reason.

“Here we go again. Stop trying to make it sound like we're psychologically inferrior, or we're scared children deep down man. If anyone is defensive it's you.” I’ve never uttered one criticism of the USMC or its illustrious service. I criticized some of you for your erroneous depiction of the United States Army and its own illustrious service. Feel free to tout the accomplishments of the USMC. They are tremendous but don’t denigrate the contribution of the Army while doing so. We can go on and on. Bottom line is that the Army is not a mere occupying force, it didn’t fail in its mission in Kuwait or Iraq, it doesn’t have poor tactics, and its soldiers are not lax. These are the inaccurate words of marines in describing the Army. You don’t need to falsely report history to tout the tremendous achievements of the USMC. These stand on their own laurels.

“Hmmm, I have to chime in as I pareticipated in both operations. The reality is that in Desert Storm the USMC completed its mission while the Army failed to. The USMC's mission was to force the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. And they succeeded, a lot faster than was planned. The Army was supposed to cut-off the Iraqi forces as they retreated and destroy them. They failed to do this.” You should study the campaign a bit more to have a better understanding of how it unfolded. The Iraqis fled from Kuwait because they were about to be encircled. Overall, the Iraqi Army was destroyed but it was a combination of air and ground forces (yes, Army too). You might read about the Battle of 73 Easting. The Army destroyed some of Iraq’s best units (Republican Guard) there. ”In regards to Iraq (the latest edition), it's actually the Army that is very jealous of the Marines, because we got all the press. An Nasiriya was the most publicized engagement of the war. And it was the USMC that essentially saved the remainder of Jessica Lynch's unit, Lynch herself, and all the other Army POWs.” CFLCC (The Army Command) was very upset that the USMC in Iraq was getting all the press, and after An Nasiriya they really made an attempt to push the USMC out of the limelight. And The same thing happened between IMEF and IIMEF on the USMC side. IMEF had the bulk of the forces, but An Nasiriya was a IIMEF fight (TF Tarawa). IMEF was upset that IIMEF got all of the press.” Not sure who received the majority of the press or if someone was jealous of another. There were correspondents with all units. The Battle of An Nasiriya was an important engagement but not the primary effort. It was the capture of Baghdad that caused the collapse of the Iraqi regime. I seem to recall much reporting on the thunder runs into the city. Press coverage is a moot point anyway. ”And don't forget, that just like in Kuwait, it was the Army that neeeded the pause in Iraq, because they couldn't move fast enough, and it was the USMC that fought so hard against it.” Don’t think there was any pause in Kuwait. The Army’s pause around Karbala was typical of blitzkrieg-style operations and tactics because they had advanced so far (much farther than the marines had) and were preparing for the final thrust to take Baghdad. I seem to recall the marines were slowed by the sandstorm as well. Regardless, it was the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division that was driving through the streets of Baghdad first. Not bad for “having to take a pause.” ”Hey, don't get me wrong, I love the Army. But Marines jealous of them? Please!” I love the marines as well. However, your spin on the facts tends to show your defensiveness over something.

“but to attack Marines by saying we are exagerating and we have inferiority complexes is not simply disagreeing with tactics, or the way we do things, it's actually attacking Marines as people on a personal level. That is wrong. State you opinion all you want, but I would expect that you would keep it from being personal.” I don’t think I was attacking anyone but just responding to your inaccurate comments. “Hell, when I said the army is an occupying force, maybe I was wrong,” Progress has been made.  “but I never said that Army guys are "THIS." No, just an occupying force that is lax with bad tactics and a propensity to be ambushed. “You know, instead of coming in hear calling me names, you should try to talk with some respect and with some maturity. You can't call me a Tool over my opinions and then tell me to grow up. You should take your own advice. As you can see, I didn't call any names. If you don't like what I say, then fine, to each his own, but don't come in here acting like that. Call me a Tool to my face, then I'll actually respect that, but name calling behind a computer is cowardice.” Never called you a name or told you to grow up. If you were standing before me right now, I would state the same opinion. I served with about 17 marine second lieutenants when I went through Officer Basic Course in 1986. They are fine officers and excellent warriors. We enjoyed some friendly banter but we also had mutual respect and a desire to cooperate with one another. I have worked with many ex-marines and have several that are my subordinates now. We enjoy a bit of inter-service rivalry surely. However, they don’t take it to a personal level. ”I would like to end this conversation, actually, it's becoming an argument, and that's not what I intended to happen. So do you think we can chill out and respect each other as military men? And if you aren’t in the military, I don't think you have any bussiness telling any of us what's right or wrong. Again. All branches are needed, please forgive my statement about the "occupying force," surely I do realize the army has the capacity for being an aggressive force. Fusilier9, thank you for being respectful, but I still feel your comments in the beginning were to personal, but hey, water under the bridge. No hard feelings.” Yep! I can chill out and let’s move on. Looking forward to the next CM game and hope they will quickly add a module that includes the USMC.

Gas Mask: You should feel rightly proud of your service with the USMC. As I’ve already said, marines are first-rate warriors. You have nothing to defend because the Corps is not under attack by me. I am merely responding to your gross exaggeration of the current and past role of the Army. These are your words, “the army is mainly an occupying force (nothing wrong with that) and the Marines are the shock troops.” Not sure the Army units that assaulted into As Samawah, An Najaf, around Karbala, Baghdad Airport or the thunder run into the city (along with many, many more situations in OIF) would feel they are a mere occupying force. “Sure, the army has some good weaponry, but your tactics suck,” How do you know that? Give some examples? “I feel that some of the Armies tactics arn't great, but that's my opinion. It's not like I hate the army or anything; because my dad served as a Tanker for 24 years and was in Vietnam a while. Even he however, tells me that the Army just isn't like it used to be. He tells me it's gone soft.” The Army wasn’t soft when I was serving and my son tells me his training, unit cohesion, and morale are tops at the moment. Some units are better than others whether they are marines or soldiers. “The point is I was just talking about how cool the Corps would be in this game and then someone came in here saying that we exaggerate and have an inferiority complex, but apparently no one calls his comments arrogent or upsetting,” Clearly, my comments were upsetting. However, your assertions are exaggerations and not based upon history. If you would like to calmly discuss the issue, I feel confident in my ability to demonstrate the inaccuracy of your statements.

“I could name some combat units famous for wearing spiffy black uniforms that not only thought they were the best, but arguably were the best.” I won’t even comment, as there is no comparison. “You want to win a battle, Marines (and other expensive combat forces) are great. You want to win a war, you better use a strategy more sophisticated than: Super troops = Automatic victory.” The reality of war extends far beyond the banter of which service is better or which unit is the best. Such generalities hold little truth. Look at Gas Mask’s comments, “the army is mainly an occupying force (nothing wrong with that) and the Marines are the shock troops.” He is obviously very proud of the USMC and rightfully should be. However, his comments demonstrate a superficial appreciation for the realities of modern war. The USMC and Army have differing organizations, tactics, capabilities, and specialties. One service compliments the other in many ways but differences still exist. Such discussions and rivalry are becoming archaic anyway in this new era of joint operations. The Army is transforming into an expeditionary force much like the current manner in which the USMC is trained and deployed. Brigade-sized units of both services will continue to rotate through deployments overseas. USMC and Army units will both have duties as “shock” forces and “occupation” forces as they have in the past. There is much each service could learn from the other and cooperation will be a necessity in the future. Look at the Battle of Fallujah as an example. Two Army mechanized battalions served under the USMC-led assault on the city. The Army units were complimented by the infantry heavy-based formations of the USMC fighting in urban terrain while the USMC benefited from the firepower and tactical mobility of the Army’s tanks and Bradleys. The ability of commanders of both services to work together brought about victory in Fallujah. This example has been repeated in the recent past and will continue to be the trend in the future.

“Wow, I'm a little taken back by your lack of tact and inmaturity. (sp) How can you just come right out from left field calling Marines exaggeraters and saying we have inferiority complexes? Why turn a perfectly good discussion into crap?” Slow down Flicka! You may call it immaturity but I was just engaging in some fun inter-service rivalry banter. I saw your original post and just jumped in. I didn’t take offense to your definition of the Army’s role and you shouldn’t either. “How would you know we exaggerate if you're not a Marine? Why must you instantly feel that we are lying?” No accusations from me regarding your veracity. I feel you earnestly believe what you are saying. “Maybe you're the one with the inferiority complex and are jelious.” Yep, maybe I am jealous. “The only reason soldiers don't join the Marine Corps is because they are scared of what it's like, because if you want to be the best fighting man in the world, that's just what you do, join the Marine Corps, and if you want to be a SEAL, you join the Navy, that's that.” Well, I would say that many service members feel their unit is the best no matter what service they are in. All military personnel should take pride in their selfless sacrifice to our nation. “There is a reason the army is called "regular." Now I don't know if you are in the military, but usually that's the kind of crap I hear from Army dogs, and I don't want to hear any more attacks like that.” Well, I certainly didn’t feel like a “dog” when I was serving in the Army and I’m sure my son, who is currently serving with the 1st Armored Division in Iraq, doesn’t feel like a “dog.” I’d rank his unit as good as any other. “Can't I feel my Corps is the best with out a lot of complaining? If you don't believe you're the best, you die.” I believe you should feel the Marine Corps is the best. If you read my post you would see I complimented the USMC but just took some exception to the secondary role you, undeservingly, gave to the Army. “Any how, the Marine Corps played important roles in both those wars. If you pull up a map of the invasion of Iraq, there is on MEU invading from the east... a whole MEU, and to say that that is nothing shows how much you really know.” Agreed, the role of the USMC was a key component of victory in both wars. However, let’s talk some reality here. In OIF, the 3rd Infantry Division was the main offensive effort. The MEU undertook a difficult but supporting attack to the east. Likewise, the marines attacked north into Kuwait through a difficult defensive belt during Operation Desert Storm. However, the main effort was with the armor and mechanized divisions of the VII Corps. “Now it's late, and I'm tired, so I don't want to ramble on but it's been my experience that much of the army does things pretty laxed and messed up durring combat. Such as having about a few miles of feul trucks in a convoy protected by a small handful of gun trucks and then you guys wannder why you get ambushed so bad. Sure, the army has some good weaponry, but your tactics suck, and no one can bring it on harder then the Corps with our close air support, arty, tanks, amphibious vehicles, snipers, and most importantly the Marine. Cause when it all comes down to it, if that Marine isn't thinking like a Marine, and hard charging, none of the above matters.” Since you’re so tired, I won’t elaborate further as it will tend to provoke you. “Anyways, please, if you don't agree with what Marines say, keep to your self, or say it to our faces, don't ambush us on a fricken website, that's cowardly, and if you read my post that you replied to, I made no attacks on the army or any other branch, I believe they are all needed in there own way, and like I said, the army is mainly an occupying force (nothing wrong with that) and the Marines are the shock troops. The only reason Marines are in Iraq now is because the Army couldn't hold Iraq by them selves, just like in Vietnam. NUF SAID.” Sorry to cause your blood pressure to skyrocket. I sincerely didn’t mean to offer offense. You offered an incorrect assessment of the Army’s role and I was having some fun with you and your fellow marines. I don’t mean to disparage the USMC, as it is a fine fighting force. However, the Army is also a fine fighting force. Can’t we celebrate the contribution of all our forces?

"I'm also very happy to read that you will have Marines in the game, because let's just face it, the Army is in Iraq to stabalize it, while the Corps is in Iraq to hunt down terrorists..." The Marine Corps is full of first rate warriors but the ability of many of you to exaggerate is also remarkable. I think there is also a bit of an inferiority complex among some marines. Just because the marines weren't assigned the main offensive effort in either Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Desert Storm doesn't mean you should feel slighted. "and who wouldn't want to play a game where you're using some hard core Marines to take out a few terrorists." I find the Army TO&E more interesting due to the greater variety of forces (light infantry, Stryker, heavy).