Imperial Grunt

Awesome paint job on the technicals. That should be used in the main game!

Where did you get that red tracer? Looks very real.

That soldier was shot by a SVD as well, firing a 7.62X54mm round, more powerful that the standard AK-47/74 round.

Lets stop this stuff. The US military makes mistakes all the time. If you read books about WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Beirut, the Gulf war, Somalia, and Iraq and Afghanistan, there are plenty of examples of how US forces learned from mistakes and admitted they made them. Iraq is a great example. Plenty of mistakes made, but they were learned from and corrections were made. The books "Fiasco" and "The Gamble" detail all of that extremely well. I read the British officers AAR on Basra. The Brits ran into very similar problems that the Americans did, even without making a lot of the counter-insurgency mistakes that many American units initially did. The Mahdi Army did not leave Baghdad and move down into Basra though. They were already there, but they chose not to resist in mass, until they saw the politics. That was a terrible announcement by the British government. Basra is very close to Iran, so the Brits had to deal with a significant amount of direct Iranian involvement. Again it is tiring to bicker on "who did better" and what not. There are so many factors that make each battle, every area of operation different. If you want to believe that GK is an accurate portrayal of US Marines at war, then go ahead. No one on a forum is going to change your mind. But at least compare GK to books like "No True Glory" and "Making the Corps". Compare the author's credentials and the audience to which he services. A reporter's motto is ‘charm and betray.’ - Evan Wright

Absolutely concur! I highly recommend the books "Making the Corps", "Fiasco", and "The Gamble". He is a civilian journalist with a distinguished career and he has covered military operations as a Pentagon reporter for decades. "Making the Corps" is about his experience with the Marines in Somalia and his following a recruit platoon through bootcamp and their first year. Great book on the USMC, good and bad. "Fiasco" is about Iraq. An absolutely must read and he details the conflicts between the Pentagon/White House and the senior military leadership. Details the conflict between the Army and the Marine Corps as to how the war, and especially the occupation should be run. Details how the occupation plan was "wished away" for the most part. Details how some commanders "got it" when it came to counter-insurgency, and how many did not. "The Gamble" is also about Iraq. It details the change in strategy under Petraus and how the "awakening". How commander's how didn't "get it" were removed or re-educated. Gen Odierno, the current commander in Iraq is a case in point. During the beginning, as the commander of 4th ID, he did not "get it". But later he had an ephinay and ran a great counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq, under Petraus.

To sum it up, yes. Marines and any enlisted service member have to fulfill a contract and the services do not like kicking them out, unless they have too. The Marines has one of the highest rates of kicking out unqualified personnel or those who are charged with breaking regulations/laws. And a commander cannot simply discharge a Marine because he does not like him, as an employer pretty much can in the civilian world. But a malcontent that does his job competently will continue on. Depending on his reporting senior, the bad attitude may not be even put on paper. But bad seeds usually are the kind of people who are disgruntled no matter what they do in life, so they eventually move on for a greener pasture on the other side of the fence, only to find the grass the same, or worse. I have plenty of cop partners at work with a "bad attitude" towards their department, even a few that I work with on the SWAT team. But they are all competent and when the call comes, they handle it. They get mediocre to decent ratings, and their careers continue. During the war, the Marines in my company and battalion became more motivated, if anything. They were doing what they joined the Marine Corps to do. No barracks to clean, no uniform inspections, just field operations.

I am the first to brag about the Marines, but the Marines are not the end-all-be-all of the US military. The Marines wins battles, the US Army wins wars. The Navy rules the ocean where it goes, the Airforce, the US's truly first responder, dominates the skies. The Navy and the Airforce really soak up that defense budget. It has been said that the Army is working on being like the Marines and the Marines are working on being more like Special Forces (US Army Special Forces). After OIF, the Army really started to work on that by training all soldiers as basic infantrymen first, just the Marines have done all the time. Setting in an "grunt-first, specialist-second" attitude will help the US Army alot over time and has already in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it will take time for the Army's culture to change across the board, it is a huge institution. Oh, and that mostest modern nuclear force costs lots too.

I don't know of anyone who has warmed up to GK in the USMC. As far as the Marines careers go, unless formal charges were ever pressed, they would not be forced out or get a bad conduct discharge or worse. GK and the book Jarhead are generally loathed and they are pretty much written off as garbage overall. There is a marked difference in an analysis of the Marine Corps by a professional journalist, like Thomas Ricks than by a Rolling Stone reporter who is trying to sell a book to a liberal, hollywood-centric crowd. Read Rick's book "Making the Corps". He was an "embed" for Somalia and then researched the Marines after that. He covers the Marines, good and bad. It is much more accurate and everything is fully researched. He also has two great books about Iraq, "Fiasco" and "The Gamble". I highly recommend them both as well.

I am not sure what you mean, unless you are talking about how a US Marine is not a good as skier as Finnish soldiers, not as good as mountaineer as a Royal Marine, or not as good as jungle soldier as a Thai Marine. Sure all of them have better field skills in their own environments. But they only train for those environments, with the exception of the Royal Marines (who do emphasize mountain warfare). I served with a commander that served with the Norwegian Marinejegerkommandoen. He praised their field skills and said they could all ski circles around the US Marines with him, except for one guy from Colorado who grew up sking. But when it came down to marksmanship and shooting skills, the Marines were always on top, hands down. That is because that is emphasized by the USMC, much more so that trying to be expert in field skills in all environments. As an assault infantry force that can operate anywhere, striking from the sea or operating on land, US Marines account for themselves very well. And in terms of small unit tactics, use of combined arms, marksmanship, etc..they are among the best in the world. Coupled with the operational and strategic might of the US military, they are the best in the world. Same for US Army combat forces. Any military unit will make mistakes, use the wrong strategy, make a wrong assumption and blunder. That happens. But in terms of training and manning its military, the US had adopted for what works for its Nation and the demands on its global commitments. The US could for example, adopt the British Regimental system, and try to work that way, although there is no historical support for that (the US historical system is the use of civilian militia and a restricted military). That would create "better" US infantry in my opinion, man for man. But it would limit how many brigades and battalions were available, and there would certainly not be enough to cover the US's global commitments. Because of the high amount of opportunity in the US, the military would have to pay a man alot to stay a corporal for 10 years as well. So such a system would even be more expensive. One way the US military would become hugely more efficient would be to simply revamp the process of how military contracts are given out and procurement. That is one reason why the budget is so large. I am all for that, but their is a reason why all that bureaucracy is in place, although it is very frustrating at times. I am sure back in the day, some non-Spartan would say, "well..they might be the best at forming a shield wall and holding a line, but they suck at riding horses". So, they are not the best they could have been? Right? Every military force has its strengths and weaknesses. No one is the all out best at everything. But the US can beat any one rival easily and can beat more at the same time (although holding those victories and spreading democracy is much harder-another topic), and that is without so much as a hiccup with its domestic life.

Well, I would not go along with the word "often". One of the reasons I am still in the reserves is that I have always been impressed by the discipline, espirit de corps, and camaraderie that exudes from young Marines. During both of my tours in Iraq, it was awe inspiring. Throughout my career, there have been bad seeds-both enlisted and in the officer ranks, but the Marine Corps is usually efficient of getting rid of them most of the time, but every organization has its malcontents. The main characters in GK definably fall in that category, but they are the exception and not the rule. Most enlisted Marines work very hard and are very professional. I have been told by several Brit and Australian military guys that they loved their experience working with American Marines. (It is kind of funny to me that so many Brit and Australians say "American" Marines, when we always call ourselves "US" Marines). The 10% rule (consisting of less than average performers and malcontents) for a smaller force is always going to show less "bad" things happen. So when you compare the US Army and Marine Corps to the Brit Army and Marine Corps, of course there are going to be less "incidents" for the Brits. The biggest difference in capability between US and Brit military capability (and any other military on the planet) is the US's ability to project power abroad at the operational and strategic level. No one comes close to the US military. No one can bring the combined arms combat power to the fight-anywhere in the world- like the US Army and US Marine Corps can. And that machine works 24/7 at a very high tempo. It was so awesome to see during OIF.

It was at Quantico, back in 1998.

I have trained with Royal Marines and worked briefly with the Black Watch when a battalion of them relieved us (26 MEU) in north Babill province. Brit forces are universally professional and their soldiers are older and usually more experienced. US forces tend to be younger and on their first enlistment. The US has more of a quality spread amongst different kinds of units, especially between combat units and support units. But in terms of combat power and tactical capability, I observed little difference, just different techniques. And in some cases US skill sets exceeded Brit skill sets. For example when I was doing some sniper training with Royal Marine snipers, we found out that they rarely train to shoot past 600 yard whereas Marine snipers routinely practice out to 1000. Its all relative, and the bottom line is that we are allies in the same fight.

I concur. That is why I have not watched it. I don't want to get frustrated, even though I now it is all a result of the journalist and disgruntled Marines. Same with the book. And movie "Jarhead". All vile trash.

From a veteran that served with 1st Marines for the push and again in 04, I would just add that while GK is entertaining, but the reader should keep in mind that the book was written by a journalist who writes for Rolling Stone magazine and he choose to use a disgruntled recon Marine as his main source/character. There is a great post called "a rebuttal to Generation Kill" which was posted awhile back. Its author was the recon battalion operations chief, who was mad to look like a clown in the book. I highly recommend the book "No true Glory" by Bing West. He also wrote "The March Up", and other books, but No True Glory is great. It is right up there with his Vietnam classic, "The Village". HBO did do a great job with the look, sounds, and overall portrayal of Marines at war from what I have seen (just a little of it).

All good advice. I would add that I believe that an IBCT has an aviation battalion, which has some Apaches and Blackhawks. I believe that there is enough lift for one rifle company, minus vehicles. HMMWVs would have to be sling loaded using CH-47s. For a MEU, there is enough lift for one rifle company, as long as the CH-53Es are not carrying heavy equipment. They can sling load HMMWVs the same way CH-47s can. A Marine regiment as part of a MEB would have the enough aviation support to lift a battalion. When 8th Marines attacked into Helmand this summer, the lead battalions went in by helicopter, the largest helicopter assault the Marine Corps has done since Vietnam. It was done at night and it took the Taliban by surprise. One day all is fine, the next morning there is a regiment of US Marines hunting you!

Glad to hear that things are going well, and Bravo Zulu for the British module selling well. CM2 has become a great tactical wargame, and despite all the games out there, nothing matches CM2 for tactical realism. Really looking forward to more!

Well, my house nearly burned down this weekend, but didnt! I will try for next weekend.

What time on Sunday?

So when are people playing? My kids are starting to sleep more, giving me some trigger time these days. Anyone have an update about WWII or if DT is ever going to get the sci-fi makeover it really deserves?

Great job Normal Dude, I really like that woodland MARPAT. The Urban block style camo looks just like an pattern the Marine Corps experimented with back in the 90's.

Brits don't ever spray and pray and US forces always do? Get real. And everyone uses suppressive fire when necessary. Plenty of spray and pray here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FcXWZ0XVuw&feature=related I have also trained with British Royal Marine snipers and they were the same in marksmanship level with USMC snipers, but they do not regularly shoot out to 1000m, so at long range they were not as accurate.

I would like a "consolidate" command which would reinforce existing rifle squads with the individual survivors from teams and weapons crews that have sustained casualties. For example, you have a rifle squad that has taken 3 casualties and a near-by MG team that is down to one man. You move them together and give the "consolidate" command, and then the single-man MG team goes away, and the squad is plus-ed up by one.

As long at the animations can be made, I definitely support this feature.

This sounds great. I think you could just list the actual ordnance with the definitions of "light", etc.. For example, heavy AT loudout for a Cobra would mean the helo is armed with nothing but 8 Hellfires. A medium would be a mix of 4 TOWs and 4 Hellfire, and light would be a Hydra rocket pod and 4 TOWs.