civdiv
-
Posts
664 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by civdiv
-
-
I'm not a consumer, so I am a little hesitant to wade into the Stryker issue. But from just about everything I have read, the thing is a dog. And I have 3 close friends w/ Stryker Bdes, and they all say the thing is terrible. One guy really wants the M113 varient, and he sent me this;
-The M-113 is 2 feet shorter in height and 6 feet shorter in length.
-The MTVL is 2 feet shorter in height and 3 feet shorter in length.
-All three can carry a nine-man rifle squad.
-The up armored M113A3 has equal protection and weights 6 tons less.
-The up armored M113A3 and MTLV have better hp/ton ratio.
-The M113A3 is air droppable and swim able the Stryker is not.
-The rubber padded tracks on the M-113A3 and the Stryker wheels have the same ground pressure on roads.
-The tracks on the M-113A3 have superior ground pressure off road.
-The M-113 can be fitted with any turret the Stryker can carry and some it can’t.
-The M-113 can be fitted with up to 30mm/RPG protection the Stryker can’t.
-The M-113 can pivot turn the Stryker turns like a bus.
-
Rear Admiral Stark's views on Marines
(taken from a speech at the 220th USMC birthday)
As I tried to think of a way to wrap all this up, it occurred to me that the Services could maybe be characterized by different breeds of dogs...Now I don't want to offend anybody, and I'm sure each of you will have your own opinions, but these are my favorites.
For me, the Air Force was pretty clear. They remind me of a French Poodle. A poodle always looks perfect, like it just came from the hairdresser. It sometimes seems a bit pampered. It always travels first class. But don't ever forget, the poodle was bred as a first-class hunting dog, and in a fight, it's very dangerous.
The Army is kind of like a Saint Bernard. It's big, and heavy, and sometimes seems a bit clumsy. But it's very powerful and has lots of stamina. So you want it for the long haul.
The Navy, God bless 'em, are a Golden Retriever. They're good natured and great around the house. Kids love 'em. Sometimes their hair is a bit long, and it tends to shed a little. They go wandering off for long periods of time, and they love the water.
The Marines were a bit of a problem. I don't see the Marines as an English Bulldog, like Chesty the Marine Corps mascot. In fact, I actually see the Marines as two different breeds, either Rottweillers or Dobermans, because Marines come in two varieties --- big and mean, and skinny and mean. They're both very territorial. They're aggressive on the attack, and tenacious on defense. They've both got really short hair, and they always go for the throat. That sounds like a Marine to me!
-
Shiite, the bold of my name made me miss the rest. Welcome back man, and glad you made it home safe. Thanks for going out there on the pointy end of the spear, and let your fellow soldiers know the same.
"Freedom has a taste the protected will never know"
-
Actually, sort of funny story came to mind from the M249 Para thing. A friend of mine took an Army THT to Afghaniland. He was bitching about their M16s, and needing M4s, and they were told that they only rated M16s. So about 2 months after they got over there the Bn tells them that now they can get M4s, to go along with the FORD trucks they have (They are like the only guys I ever saw with US made civvie vehicle). So they say, hey, sign me up, when do we get them issued? They are told that they have to turn in their M16s, and they will be converted into M4s. So they asked what they were supposed to do w/o rifles? They were told that they had their M9s, so that was enough. SO they turn in their M16s, and like 3 months later they get M4s. So about 6 weeks later they get an email from Bn telling them to turn in their M4s. They are really confused and they ask why, and they are told that since they are a couple of months from leaving country, they need to turn them in to get converted back to M16s, as they can't leave theater until their weapons are back to their authorized TO&E. I am not ******* you!!!
Weird, but sort of in a car wreck sort of way.
-
The 172nd SBCT uses M4s and "para" SAWs almost exclusively now, I would assume the other Stryker units are going the same way. They don't have any Bradleys, just Strykers and Humvees with .50 cal/40mm GL or TOWs. They do seem to have more snipers and marksmen than your average Army unit, however.Originally posted by akd:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv:
Why the heck would the Army issue them to a Mechanized unit? I mean, it's a 'Paratrooper' model. I can see needing the smaller footprint to help getting out the door, I can see SpecOps needing it because of the lighter weight, by why would a heavy Army unit want to get rid of the range?
Oh shoot, never mind. Same reason they went to the M4. You don't need to engage stuff over 300 meters away if you have a Bradley.
The advantage of a shorter firearm when you ride around in an armored vehicle and spend a lot of time clearing urban areas would seem to be obvious. </font>
-
With the short barrelled SAW he is either SpecOps or airborne. </font>Originally posted by Angryson:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv:
-
With the short barrelled SAW he is either SpecOps or airborne.Originally posted by GasMask:Intresting. It took a while for my dad to understand that Marines don't wear patches. I never really talked to him much about how the army does their's, I just know he's got a lot of them.
I wander why he decided to go from Marine Infantry to Army Infantry. Stranger.
-
That's the combat patch, for the army. You wear your unit patch on your left shoulder, and the patch of the unit you first saw combat with on your right. So this guy is a soldier who first saw combat with the Marine Corps.Originally posted by GasMask:I looked at the picture and I noticed what seems to be the 2nd Mar Div emblem. So... what's all that about, and how do you know he was in combat as a Marine? Is there a web site that goes with it for story purposes?
-
That is a soldier, who first saw combat as a Marine!! So I guess he is both. Talk about one-stop shopping!Originally posted by akd:Look more closely at the picture.
-
While the attackers do indeed have more effective weapons, during an amphibious assault they are not in a position to use them. Battleships are gone as they are entirely one-dimensional, so fire support is limited to a few billion dollar Aegis class CGs, or Arleigh Burke DDGs. And Naval Gunfire Support is already like the 87th priority for the Navy as it is. Say you have a well camauflaged timber bunker like the Japanese had at Tarawa. It cannot be spotted from the air (or by satellite) as it has almost no thermal signature. What are you going to use against it? 5" guns, using basically the same tactics and techniques used during WWII. But now you have a vastly less-lethal round (As opposed to 14" or 16"). ICM has no effect on a bunker, due to the overhead cover. You can't ask the Germans for the blueprints because it was built in the field by a rifle squad.Originally posted by flamingknives:Oh, I probably am splitting hairs. My alter-ego, Mr. flamingpicky, surfacing no doubt. However, if we're sending them back in time to 1944, I see no reason to assume that they are the latest model. I guessed that you picked the SAGGER for the reasons that you've given, and assumed that you meant the original MCLOS version, as otherwise you might have picked first gen. TOW, Milan 1 or whatever.
However, these things do not operate in a vacuum and if the defenders have greatly increased firepower, then so do the attackers. Plus suppressive fire is supposedly disproportionately effective against even SACLOS.
The mines laid at the water's edge are just as effective as their WWII counterparts, but they are probably Italian mines with plastic casings so they are virtually undetectable, even if a guy with a metal detector is willing to brave MG (And SAGGER) fire. You can't use stuff like MICLIC until you are actually ashore, you that's a non-player. You could try FAE bombs, but you are basically replicating the massed shipborne firepower that was already in existance in 1943.
Your mode of transport is basically the same that you had in 1943; slow moving and vulnerable AMTRACS and LCUs. Yes, you have incredibly effective M1A1 tanks, LAVs, TOWs, Hellfire missiles, Predator, the SMAW, etc. But none of them are a player until AFTER you are ashore. So though both sides have vastly increased firepower, lethality, range and accuracy, for the most part it is only the defender that can deploy it.
Modern combat is based on maneuver, not on head-to-head confrontations. Yes, the US Military, and the USMC in particular, is very effective fighting man-on-man, but in an amphibious assault, it is not man-on-man, it is SAGGER, MILAN, KORNET, 30mm Chain Gun, Howitzer, Mortar, AG-17, etc, versus basically WWII AMTRACs and LCUs. Plus, with current and near-future capabilities such as Osprey and AAAV, we don't need to do the direct assault, we go around the enemy. Seize an expeditionary airfield, air-deploy follow-on infantry forces, helo assets, and light armor, and the vaunted beach defenses have now become a self-sustaining POW camp. In WWII we didn't have the option of air assault, now we do. So we don't hit the enemy where it is the most prepared, and we are the most vulnerable.
Beaches that are feasibly assaultable are required to have slight grades and easy access to the enterior. Conversely, they have good lines of sight for the defender. And by the very nature of an amphibious landing, the terrain is very flat, almost uniformely at sea-level, because it is the sea! Bad weather that affects the visibility of the defender will 99% of the time more seriously hinder the attacker. And in terms of obscurants, simple smoke doesn't block thermal sights.Perhaps I'm being picky again, but your example favours the defenders in the best possible basis - long lines of sight, lack of overwhelming support fire for the attackers etc. Assault landings could still be concievably made against defended positions, provided they made use of weather, obscurants and supporting fire.
Exactly, use your mobility to go inland. We wouldn't invade Tarawa in modern combat, because we don't need it. Either the land area is big enough that we can go inland and avoid the defenses, or small enough so we can isolate it and starve it out.Going somewhere else, on the other hand, is infinately preferable than charging headlong at an ambush, but sometimes you're not going to have that option. Sea-going amphibs seem to have little point if they are only used for unopposed landings - too many comprimises in their construction are required to attain it, IMHO.Amphibious shipping is there to forward deploy the Marines. The USMC/USN team can seize an airfield or a port in virtually any part of the world. I mean, look at Afghanistan. The USMC deployed from hundreds of miles away and took Camp Rhino near Kandahar, hundreds of miles from the ocean. Or we can deploy ashore right into a US Embassy compound without ever touching the ground outside the walls. That's maneuver warfare. And that's the USMC.
-
You are splitting hairs here. Today, if you encounter a SAGGER, overwhelming chances are that has an upgraded guidance module so it is SACLOS. But the point is that the range and lethality of modern weapons has increased to the point that direct assualts on well defended beaches are no longer feasible. And I made my analogy because Omaha was a very close thing, and the US Command considered cancelling follow-on waves and sending them to Utah. Based on my example, I think it is very valid, that if you add just a few, modern second line weapons to the defenses, Omaha doesn't succeed.Originally posted by flamingknives:Given that Saggers, IIRC, are Manual Command-to-Line-Of-Sight, you'd be better off engaging landing craft with 75mm guns, which were present on the day.
With the SAGGER, or any other ATGM, infantry now possess a man-portable weapon with very high first round hit chances, and virtually 100% kill chances against anything taking part in an amphibious assault from ranges out to around 2000 meters. I used the SAGGER in my example as it is the oldest ATGM still commonly being used.
-
Well, sort of, but the days of the D-Day or Tarawa style amphibious assault or gone. Technically it's an accurate descriptive phrase, but it tends to be mis-understood. The current byword is 'forced entry'. Yes, we assault, and we do it from the sea, but we no longer have the capability due to the advances in the destructiveness of weaponry, to 'storm' ashore in the face of a dug-in defender. I mean, give the defenders at Omaha Beach a dozen SAGGERS each with a couple of reloads, and the French are growing Gewurztraminer to this day.Originally posted by flamingknives:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well, the Doctrine of the Marine Corps has always been amphibious assault. All our tracked vehicles other then tanks are amphibious. Our AAVs, and LAVs can hit a beach hard and drop Marines out the back. We also utilize LCAC vehicles (SP) which are huge hover craft and are really loud, but they can drive on up on the land as far as you want.
We are designed really for coming off the water, thus "marine." In the old days were were just made to protect naval ships by shooting rifles at other ships crews, but that's all changed.
</font>
-
Follow whatever tech support/order support instructions you can find, and follow ALL of the instructions, and document everything (I sent them an email at this time on this day, etc). Follow all the instructions and give them 2 or 3 days to respond. If you don't hear from a human being within 2 or 3 days, call your credit card company and challenge it. They will send you paperwork, and part of that will be the things you did to attempt to resolve the issue. That's where you put all of your documentation.Originally posted by Beezer:You are so right. I wish I had not been so impatient. I had a bad feeling about paying for this, I don't know why, the whole Direct2Drive setup just did not feel right. I actually hesitated for a good five minutes before hitting the 'Place Order' button. And the download speed was very slow as well.
I've never 'challenged' a credit card payment before. Is there anything I should know before I do?
And if you get an autoresponse, I wouldn't count that as a response. The above isn't like a law or something, but it demonstrates that you tried to fix the problem before you resorted to challenging the charge.
I will never pay and download a program from a place like D2D, especially as you only pay to download it once. At least if you buy Nero or Registry Mechanic or something like that, if you need to reinstall it you can download it again. With D2D it is one time only. So that patch screws up your install and you need to reinstall, you are screwed.
-
Well, sort of, but the days of the D-Day or Tarawa style amphibious assault or gone. Technically it's an accurate descriptive phrase, but it tends to be mis-understood. The current byword is 'forced entry'. Yes, we assault, and we do it from the sea, but we no longer have the capability due to the advances in the destructiveness of weaponry, to 'storm' ashore in the face of a dug-in defender. I mean, give the defenders at Omaha Beach a dozen SAGGERS each with a couple of reloads, and the French are growing Gewurztraminer to this day.Well, the Doctrine of the Marine Corps has always been amphibious assault. All our tracked vehicles other then tanks are amphibious. Our AAVs, and LAVs can hit a beach hard and drop Marines out the back. We also utilize LCAC vehicles (SP) which are huge hover craft and are really loud, but they can drive on up on the land as far as you want.We are designed really for coming off the water, thus "marine." In the old days were were just made to protect naval ships by shooting rifles at other ships crews, but that's all changed.
The USMC doctrine is to avoid the beach defenses and seize terrain inland via Ospreys and CH-53s, usually from over-the-horizon. We can then use things like AMTRAKs to put the defenders in a vice, by directly coming ashore against light to medium defenses. But LAVs, while amphibious, don't swim ashore. Their amphibious capability is to cross streams and small rivers. And as fast and effective as LCACs are (hovercraft), they are extraordinarily vulnerable to even rifle fire. They are designed to assault UNDEFENDED coastal areas from over the horizon.
-
The USMC, for the most part, is all organized the same. However due to the expeditionary nature of the USMC, we are very much task-organized. Be it a MEU, which is basically an infantry battalion with a platoon of AMTRAKS, Tanks, LAR (LAVs), and arty battery, an air element including cargo and attack helos, and usually Harriers, a tactical and operational level recon element, etc. But this is the traditional, forward deployed peacetime force. In terms of Iraq, it's very much task organized. In Afghanistan, it is almost exclusively, infantry battalions with no other USMC attachments.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?
If you compare infantry battalion to infantry battalion, the USMC comes out just a little heavier, mostly due to their organic Counter-Mechanized platoons (Vehicle mounted TOWs, M-2s, and Mk-19s. If you compare them to Stryker or Mech Battalions, then the USMC battalion is much lighter. Basically a Marine infantry battalion is roughtly equivelent to an Army light infantry battalion.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).As you go up the chain in the organization, the USMC gets increasingly heavier. We still don't have the Mech assets the Army has at Bde level, but we do have a large complement of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, all inherent in the USMC units. But again, these tend to be tasked organized units. Technically tanks, LAVs, AMTRAKS, and Recon are all Division assets. And fixed and rotary wing units are MEF (Roughly Army Corps) assets.
No, they are a division asset, but they are usually task organized to be attached to infantry battalions.However, the USMC does employ amtracks so maybe they are heavy on occasion. Amtracks aren’t organic to USMC infantry are they?
They are also Division assets, though usually attached at a lower level. They are light armored recon, and they do have a VERY small infantry footprint. They are roughtly equivelent to the Army M-3 Bradley units, who also carry a very small infantry footprint.Also, what about the LAV’s? Are they just recon or infantry carriers? -
Several people, myself included, have posted about problems with D2D and thus far anyone from BF.com has not answered. In my one use of D2D I ended up with a corrupted copy of the CM:BB strategy guide. Others have had this same issue. And tyring to get answers from D2D is useless. I know well what you mean going in circles. Hit 'support' and you end up at Gamespy.com. It's ridiculous. If I were you I would challenge the charge through your credit card company, and go to a store, or EBay, and pick up a copy. You can pick up CMBB for around $15 on Ebay, new and in the box.
-
Sort of an example of what Gasmask mentioned, in regards to every Marine being first and foremost a rifleman, when I was in Somolia we had a Marine helicopter squadron stationed at Mogadhishu Airport. They provided their own perimeter security and they ran all their own patrols outside the wire. While I was there an Army helo squadron replaced them. They came with 2 companies of MPs; one for internal security and another to run patrols around the airport.
-
"...two companies of Marines are running all over the island and thousands of Army troops are doing nothing. What the hell is going on?"
Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., USA, Chairman of the the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the assault on Grenada, 1983
[ February 13, 2006, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
The Tokyo Institute of Science, according to the home page tab. </font>Originally posted by Kingfish:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv:
or who owns it.
-
I chanced across this site. It has a bunch of full books and stuff, but as it's FTP, I'm not sure what it is, or who owns it. Nor can I find http: docs to help understand it ('cause it's FTP). But there is a bunch of info for anyone who wants to search through it;
http://sunsite.tus.ac.jp/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/
-
Scotty B,
I am wrong, Lind is not a military guy, except for service as an aide to Armed Services Commission for a while;
William Sturgiss Lind, Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation, is a native of Cleveland, Ohio, born July 9, 1947. He graduated magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1969 and received a Master's Degree in History from Princeton University in 1971. He worked as a legislative aide for armed services for Senator Robert Taft, Jr., of Ohio from 1973 through 1976 and held a similar position with Senator Gary Hart of Colorado from 1977 through 1986. He joined Free Congress Foundation in 1987.
Mr. Lind is author of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook (Westview Press, 1985); co-author, with Gary Hart, of America Can Win: The Case for Military Reform (Adler & Adler, 1986); and co-author, with William H. Marshner, of Cultural Conservatism: Toward a New National Agenda (Free Congress Foundation, 1987). He has written extensively for both popular media, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Harper's, and professional military journals, including The Marine Corps Gazette, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings and Military Review.
Mr. Lind co-authored the prescient article, "The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation," which was published in The Marine Corps Gazette in October, 1989 and which first propounded the concept of "Fourth Generation War." Mr. Lind and his co-authors predicted that states would increasingly face threats not from other states, but from non-state forces whose primary allegiance was to their religion, ethnic group or ideology. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the article has been credited for its foresight by The New York Times Magazine and The Atlantic Monthly.
Mr. Lind is co-author with Paul M. Weyrich of the monograph: "Why Islam is a Threat to America and The West." He is the author of "George W. Bush's `War on Terrorism': Faulty Strategy and Bad Tactics?" Both were published in 2002 by the Free Congress Foundation.
from: http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Lind_070804,00.html
In regards to my thinking you had attributed Manuever Warfare to the Corps, I'm not sure if you are saying you did, or you didn't, but if I made the assumption you did, and you didn't (whew!!), than others would have made the same assumption, so I apologize. So I'm not sure if you are saying that, or you aren't, and yes, I'm confused, but it isn't important. While the Corps may have adopted it, they didn't invent it. So I'm making sure others realize I am not claiming it as a USMC invention.
If you have Lind, you need to check out;
I think Col Boyd and the OODA loop is in there. My copy is in storage.
And;
-
You said it;Speaking of your well documented facts, perhaps you could point out who here said maneuver warfare was invented by the Marines?
That said, it can be irritating. I've a high opinion for Marines in the abstract - perhaps but probably not entirely a result of their excellent PR machine - but I've never met a Marine in person that was actually willing to compare notes and practices. They have all pretty much started from the assumption that they have nothing to learn from the Army. Given their service's reputation as being the most intellectually sophisticated ("maneuver warfare" and all that), I'd have thought they'd be more open to that sort of thing, although it's not really a surprise that that's not happening much at the junior officer level.
Here;While you're at it, you could point out a source on Lind's military background - a quick check of his bio indicated nothing. While your attempt at even-handedness is laudable, I don't think you can argue Marine implementation of "maneuver warfare" is a USA-USMC tie. Al Gray deserves more credit than that.
Agreed, you can make the argument it goes back further than 1917. But the Germans were definately using it in 1917.Finally, I think you can go back a lot farther than 1917 to find maneuver warfare. I'd say start with Sun Tsu. It's probably older, but I don't know what all was written about it before him.Just sayin'.
Scott
[ February 12, 2006, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
Because Communist forces were instructed not to attack the "yellow legs" i.e Marines, so they took off the leggings which distinguished them from their US Army comrades. </font>Originally posted by Nidan1:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv:
Ok, really obscure follow-up question for extra credit;
Why did the Marines stop wearing leggings during the Korean War?
-
Ok, a couple more that may be of help;Originally posted by Kingfish:Thanks. I already knew of that one, and in any event I have all of Desert Fox's Operation Perch maps, so I'm well covered in that sector.
I've changed my mind on what sector I plan on designing around, and am more interested now in the projected path of the 51st Highland division, as well as the 1st UK Airborne's LZs.
The gears are turning
http://warlinks.com/armour/4th_armoured/index.html
and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1951373
and here you may actually be able to ask some questions of the participants;
Marine Corps: Get Some!
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Why are you guys bashing this guy so much? I just got out of the USMC and he sounds like a Jarhead. But what could he possibly do to remove your doubts?