Vet 0369

Perhaps it isn’t a lie. Perhaps those are the total number of under strength crew on the boat?

Thank you, that was excellent! The music sounded like a “ Sea Chanty” to this old Devil Dog New Englander! The fiddle and drum beat actually had me tapping my foot and smiling from ear to ear!

Well, to be fair, there is a specific reason that NO NATO country will sell (or give) their latest and greatest weapon systems to Ukraine. Please reference the pictures of the knocked out Abrams (along with others of Leopards, Bradley’s, et Al). It is a thing called “technological security.” One just doesn’t send their best and highest technology to a situation where the technology can end up being looted! Case in point, when I was stationed in Japan as a mechanic on USMC F4-J Phantom II in 1970, the USN wouldn’t allow Us to send any into Vietnam because they were “too new, and would constitute a security risk!” And those would have been used in Direct Support of our own Marines on the ground!

Yes! This is one of the main reasons that gun cameras were added to fighters. A kill also had to be confirmed by another pilot.

The big question I have is what happened to all the Abrams and 155mm long-range Arty from when the Commandant restructured the USMC. Were they transferred to the Army in case Canada or Mexico attack us, or Russia arracks U.S. across the Bering Straites? Why can’t those weapons be sent to Ukraine?

Here in the U.S., it rests with the Legislative Branch (Congress), not the Executive Branch (President). That is how it is specified in our Constitution. Only Congress can declare war! Of course, the Executive Branch has found ways to get around that little speed bump and Congress has lost the guts to stop the President from doing it, but I don’t think even the Cowardly U.S. Politicians in Congress can claim it is not a war if NATO declares an Article 5.

Hmm. 40+50+10+10 = 110%. How does that work?

Why does 19th century US Cavalry Officer Fetterman come to mind?

I have seen exceptions. When I lived and worked in Wichita, KS, in the 1970s, a “first-timer” was running for Congress. He promised to send a synopsis of all major bills to his constituents each month to poll how they wanted him to vote on the Bill. I took a chance and voted for him, even though his party wasn’t the one which I usually agreed. He followed through on his promise by sending the poll to ALL constitutes in his District. Until he was appointed Secretary of Agriculture by President Obama. Even though I didn’t necessarily agree with all his positions, I respected him.

I believe you are misremembering. Ron Weasley had a hand-me-down familiar that was a rat named Scabbers. It turned out that was a wizard named Pettigrew who gave the location of Harry Potter’s parents to Voldemort who killed them.

I can completely agree with this assessment.

Yes, this is correct! Grant’s victories in the West, some times against the express “wishes” of his Commander, against his former West Point classmates, were where he gained the nickname “Unconditional Surrender” (US) Grant for his refusal to accept an enemy commander’s surrender with “terms.”

I have to agree with Billdc 100%. For the most part, politians should set the limits, and then get the hell out of the way and let the military minds guide and control the battle. As I see it, most of the issues I saw during the Vietnam Conflict, a strictly political conflict, were caused by the politicians butting in and controlling the military. Before that, the most public incident was during the Korean Conflict and involved MacArthur publicly challenging Truman, and was removed from command because of it. The Zalushny sounds almost identical to MacArthur in that he is publicly challenging his Commander in Chief. I expect it will have the same result if he doesn’t back off.

Hmmm, what does Department of Transportation pop into my mind?

Not really sure what “early assault failures” you are referring to. The only amphibious assault “failure” that I remember reading about was the initial Japanese amphibious assault on Wake Island shortly after their attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese launched an amphibious assault that was defeated by the U.S. Marine Detachment, who not only defeated the only amphibious assault to fail (in the Pacific), but also sank a Japanese destroyer while they vwere doing it. Yes, the Marine and Army amphibious assaults were very costly for the Marines and Soldiers who made them (especially during the Navy’s island hopping campaign), but NONE of them “failed!”

Of course there were. At that time, they were known as Women Marines or WM. The Marine corps has since dropped the “Women” qualifier and all males and females are simply “Marines.” Women recruits train alongside the male recruits at Paris Island and San Diego, including weapons and combat tactics. However, I don’t believe that women are integrated in combat units yet. The statement still applies that “every Marine is first and foremost a rifleman.” Including Females.

It was the considered opinion of virtually every Grunt that the main purpose of Staff Officers was to bring the coffee the Junior Officers had made to their bosses in the Pentagon, to come up with plans that would increase funding and prevent the other services from receiving a portion of said funding, and mostly to come up with idiotic ways to screw with said Grunts! Present company excluded of course!

LOL, I love the sound of social discourse in the evening! It’s the sound of freedom (just like the sounds of a target range)! It’s amazing what an old grunt in his mid 70s can get started when he reminisces about training fifty years ago. If tactics haven’t changed in that interim, I’d be terrified for our service members!

Well then, I stand corrected, thank you. It was my understanding that Patton was ordered to halt, which enabled the escape corridor to remain open. About the urban combat, the purpose of us driving the enemy down was to drive them into a kill zone as they exited the building. I honestly don’t know how the Army was trained to do it though, so you are probably right. As a side note, until WWII, Marines never even trained for urban combat as that was the mission of the Army, and not the Marine Corps. Later DoD and JCS policies were different.

Well, I respectfully disagree. Patton was furious and very vocal about Eisenhower ordering him to stop his advance to close the pocket. Why would that have been done if the supreme Commander hadn’t wanted to ensure they had a way out? Yes, granted, the corridor was very narrow and under almost constant Air and Artillery attack.Many died attempting to escape through the corridor. But it probably allowed the remainder to consider surrendering vs. the high risk of attempting to escape by way of the corridor. When I was training for urban combat in the 1970s, we were trained to enter the building from the highest point possible (sometimes we would have up to three Marines on each others shoulders so the rest of the assault team could climb up them and enter from the roof. The reasoning was that if we entered from the ground floor and drove the enemy up, they would be trapped and die fighting. Also, as we’ve all seen in multiple videos, it allows the enemy to toss grenades down the stairs. I don’t know what the circumstances were that caused the change of tactics, I just know how we were trained to do it.

Not really. Just take away everyone’s digital phones and cameras. In the Vietnam war, it was common practice to ensure that any Marine “in the field,” I.e. on patrol or on an operation, carried only their ID card and the “Geneva card” with them, of course, we had an NCO core that could and did make that happen. If the men in the unit don’t have enough discipline to surrender their electronics before combat, then they deserve to die and lose.

There could be another reason. Sun Tsu in “the Art of War” suggests that one should leave the enemy a means of retreat if possible. A cornered enemy with no way to retreat will fight like, well cornered rats! If Ukraine drops the bridge, the Russians in Crimea will fight “like cornered rats,”as they have before. What do you think was the real reason that Eisenhower refused to allow Patton to close the Falaise Gap and prevent the Germans from retreating?

Believe it or not, this type of Soviet movement wasn’t unknown during WWII. If anyone here has ever played Avalon Hill’s “Squad Leader,” (the Great Grandfather of Combat Mission) sewer movement was a method of moving in Stalingrad missions, so it was most likely an actual thing!

Welll, unless they’ve also put in place a comprehensive method of eliminating said drones if they violate the “drone no fly zone,” it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, because, criminals being criminals, couldn’t care less if it’s illegal! It only affects law abiding individuals.

What we call JP4 is pretty much the universal fuel for turbine engines. It’s basically kerosene, or what the British call Paraffin in. It is also used in most turbine powered vehicles such as tanks.