Vet 0369

Sorry Snake, but I can't agree with your assessment. Please compare the following mission of the U.S. Army to the Marine Corps mission I posted above. The U.S. Army's mission is to fight and win our Nation's wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders. The Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) is created based on the specific mission. Granted, as I said, the way Marines were deployed in Korea (with the exception of Pusan and Inchon), Vietnam, and second Iraq/Afganistan, was not in accordance with the mission statement. With regard to the second Irag/Afganistan wars, I wouldn't be surprised if the Joint Chiefs and DoD decided to change the mission because the Army was having so much trouble keeping troops in country, and they were getting a lot of flack from the States Governors about how often the Feds were activating their Guard units. That doesn't change the fact that the Marines were being used outside their mission statement. I find your comment about the Airborne units interesting. In fact, Airborne are used as rapid deployment forces, and are usually relieved by "legs," and withdrawn from the area after they perform their mission. Airborne troops, like Marines are elite units, and are expensive to train and maintain. You don't waste their skills in "normal" operations. As a frame of reference The Army has a strength of 1.3 million active-duty Soldiers and 865,000 Reserve Soldiers. That doesn't include Federalized National Guard. The Marine Corps as of 2017 has 186,000 active-duty Marines, and 38,500 Reserves. That combined is about 1/8 the size of the Army Reserves! So yes, I believe the intention is for the Marines to secure a "beach head" from which the Army could deploy according to their mission whether the beach head is on an actual beach or many miles inland. Marines cannot fulfill their mission of a "rapid deployment force" if they're tied down fighting an Army type mission.

Having all of my experience in the Marine Air Wings, and Infantry, I need to ask what is today's definition of a "field gun?" Is it that the field gun has a relatively flat trajectory? I live about a mile from a National Guard Artillery unit, and see them towing their 155mm guns. I assume they are howitzers, but I'm not really sure. How is the Paladin System classified?

I'm not so sure about that, since the Political Commissars assigned to the Soviet units had a bad habit of setting up machine guns behind the front line to slaughter any retreating Soviet soldiers. That's why board games such as Advanced Squad Leader assigned a higher morale value to units with a Commisar. I don't think it was because they actually increased morale, but that they offered a choice of the troops possibly dying by the enemy or definitely dying by the Commisar.

I'm tempted to ask if it wouldn't be better to have a combination of different "movement over terrain" training scenarios for U.S. Forces. Training needs to be tied to expected the expected mission of the organization. For example, training in the USMC should be heavily biased to perform its mission. The mission of the Marine Corps reads as follows: The official mission of the U.S. Marine Corps was established in the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1952. Marines are trained, organized and equipped for offensive amphibious employment and as a "force in readiness." As far as I'm concerned, that means Marine training should be primarily assaults by the sea and vertical envelopments with minor trading in MOUT unless the landing is in a port. The Marines who landed at Inchon in 1950 during the Korean Conflict had a rather difficult time clearing the city because they weren't experienced in "European style street fighting" as the Army was. The same thing happened in Hue following the Tet offensive in Vietnam 28-years later. No surprise, since most of the Generals and senior officers fought in Korea. We trained for a sort of MOUT in 1969, but it I entailed only some small scale building entry since our mission above doesn' generally involve MOUT. It was mostly movement through jungle ended by setting up a circular perimeter. The DoD and Joint Chiefs of Staff ALWAYS plan to fight the last war. They don't plan to fight te next. In my opinion, the DoD and Joint Chiefs of Staff are not using the Marine Corps as it is supposed to be employed, and haven't since Korea when they were first placed under the command of the Army. Basically, Marines are supposed to assault a "landing site" be it seaborne or vertical envelopments, and after securing the area, turn it over to the Army and withdraw back to the ships. The assault mission and "Force-in-Readiness" missions are why the Marine TO&E is what it is. It is also why I caution players to NOT USE MARINES AS THEY WOULD USE ARMY!

From your descriptions, it seems that our peoples have much more in common than differences. I would equate your military "contract" after concription as the same as "re-enlisting" after our time expired after being drafted (conscripted). Point 1. When we re-enlist, it is usually for a period of two or four years. During that enlistment period, you live under the same rules as you did under your "conscripted time." A person in the military is not protected by the Constitution of the United States. Instead, you are protected be the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" which closely, but not completely follows the same protections as the Constitution. Point 2. If you re-enlisted, the only way you got out af that contract is by a Medical Discharge (for wounds or injuries, or mental issues) or by a Bad Conduct or Dishonorable Discharge (depending on the severity of your infractions), usually after serving prison time. If you have a Dishonorable Discharge, you are never again allowed to vote. Point 3. I think we were promised 2 1/2 hours sleep and one hot meal per day, but I never saw that written any where. Point 4. I also didn't marry during my regular service. When the son of family friends was just commissioned a 2nd LT. In the Marines said he was getting married, I counciled him to not marry. I told him deployments were much harder on spouses than on the Marine who was deployed. He married anyway, and was divorced within two years. I believe there are very few reasons for our military to get involved in operations outside this country. I'm not an isolationist, but I believe my government and yours both feel they must get involved for the same reasons. The only way the "common man" can change that is through using their votes. As I said at the start, I believe we have much more in common than in differences.

Who remain are those who feel that they have an obligation to repay their country for the rights and privileges they have received. That doesn't mean they need to blindly support stupid decisions by their governments (mine included). I enlisted, not only to avoid being drafted, but because I felt an obligation to pay back what I've received. My family has served in the militias and regular military since one ancestor was granted a Royal charter here in the 1630's. I respect every one of those who served, including those who were loyalists and fought against the rebels from 1775 and on. I personally don't feel that conscription should be necessary except in extraordinary circumstances. Perhaps a good system would be like that in "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlin.

By the way, women are fully integrated into the U.S. military. They are Navy and Air Force fighter pilots, helicopter pilots in all services, and are even being integrated into the Infantry, Armor, and Artillery. Since there are no longer any restrictions, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have the same six-year obligation to serve that men have.

For all the vile rhetoric from the politicians on both sides, I don't see the U.S. and Canada going at it. We have too much in common. In fact, since you mentioned the War of 1812, during that war, the town of Calais, Maine wanted to celebrate Independence Day, but didn't have enough black powder to make fireworks, so the Canadians in St. Johnsbury, New Brunswick gave them powder so Calais could celebrate. Canada and U.S. share the longest unfenced and undefended border in the world, and the War of 1812 was between the U.S. and Great Britain, not the U.S. and Canada.

Thank you Sublime, I appreciate your comment. I honestly don't know much about the plot. I read a blurb about it in a novel by W.E.B.Griffith. I pulled the following off GOOGLE, If you're interested. The Plot to Sieze the White House by Jules Archer Hawthorn Books: New York 244 pp. I did a Google search foe Smedly Butler, and located an article that referenced the above book and a PBS series on the Depression. I see the real tragedy in how the U.S. Government treated the marchers. Not only did the U.S. Army burn their camp on the Capitol Mall, the Commander of the soldiers, a recipient of the Medal of Honor himself, ordered his machine gunners to open fire on the marchers. That Commander's name was Douglas McArthur. One of Butler's famous quotes (paraphrased) is that he saw only two times for war; in defense of the Country, and in defense of the Bill of Rights. as a side note, if you're still in Boston, we're neighbors. I'm on the Northshore.

I honestly doubt it would do any good to talk to anyone about it. Unless you have been denied a position because you haven't registered, the courts would say "You haven't been harmed, so you have no basis on which to file a complaint." Then they would charge you with failing to register as required by law. No politician is going to vote to change the Selective Service Act because he'd lose all the votes of all the women in his district {I say his because I doubt any female politician would vote to change it}. It's like Qrwell"s "Animal Farm," "All animals are equal, some are just more equal than the rest." Discrimination is discrimination no matter what you call it.

I might be old and worn out, and hurt in places that I didn't know that I hav places, but my sense of self-preservation is as strong as ever

Hmmm,. Washington Post? Now there's a reputable source.

HIT THE DECK INCOMING!

All my musing is based on if the U.S. Returned to conscription. I would want it to be as fair as possible, and to limit the ability for certain individuals such as the rich or politically connected offspring of a politician to avoid service as some have ever since the first U.S. conscription during the U.S. Civil War. As it stands now, men must register for selective service at age 18, but women do not. When you fill out an application for a job in the Federal Government, a man must verify that he has registered with the selective service. If he hasn't, he isn't considered for the job. Women are under no such requirement. Discrimination in hiring for Federal jobs?

You are probably correct, my knowledge is from conversations with Norwegians in 1976 when I was in the infantry and participating in a NATO exercise (it turns out we were there as a deterrent because the Soviets had massed troops on their northern border with Norway, and we were the "speed bump"). No, I wouldn't have any exemptions or alternative social welfare program service. Conscientious Objectors would serve in noncombatant roles such as medics. I would suggest say two years in the Army or Marine infantry, and four years in the Navy, Airforce, or Marine or Army Air because of the higher training requirements. I would not allow women to opt out or be exempted. In the U.S., under the law, no one may be discriminated against because of who or what they are, or what they believe. Exempting women, or allowing them to opt out is discriminatory to the men who would be required to serve. Sorry girls, if you want equality in everything else, you have to have an equal obligation to serve the country.

This was also basically the official position of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in the 1970's and 80's. Although there could have been a hidden reason in the positions of both countries. Round about 1977, I was discussing reasons with Gunnery Sergeant of why the U.S. Congress and DoD were making it so undesirable for service members with cuts to benefits and not increasing pay for service members. The Gunny suggested the possibility driving out service members because of fear that if military service was too good of a profession that the allegiance of the service members could transfer from the nation to the service, setting up conditions for a coup. That concept was based in fact. In the 1930's, a group of Officers, including, I believe a Marine General, actually began planning to overthrow the U.S. Government. The plot was discovered, and very quietly, ended and buried.

I completely agree with above posters regarding "holes" in the last U.S. selective service conscription methods. When I graduated High School, I was 19 and classified 1A for the draft. I enlisted in the USMC for four years with an aviation guarantee so I wouldn't be drafted into the Army infantry for two years (a ticket straight to Vietnam). After I was in Bootcamp at Parris Island, South Carolina for a few weeks, the Selective Service instituted the new lottery system. My lottery number was 356, which meant I probably wouldn't have been drafted. I ended up serving for 12-years, four regular Air Wing and eight Reserves in the Marine infantry. i would prefer to see a conscription system like Norway's where EVERYONE, MEN AND WOMEN, who are not physically or mentally incapable of serving, serve a specific period of active duty from the time they leave their secondary education, followed by active Reserves until age 45, and then inactive Reserve until age 65. At the same time, I would eliminate the States National Guards as a an alternative to National service. I would allow those who have completed their active duty obligation to transfer to the State National Guard for their Reserve time. At the same time, I would prohibit the Federal Government from activating State National Guard and deploying it in a combat role outside the U.S. That, in my opinion (my opinion is never humble) is the most fair and effective method of conscription. As an added note that many may not realize, the States National Guards are actually the Federalized evolution of the militias specified in the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The right to maintain a militia was included in the final version because even then, the states feared a possibly "Tyrannical Federal Government." Who is it that can now activate the National Guard to use as they see fit?

Well, the total learning curve can be long, not difficult, but long. I've been playing CM since CMBO (the first CM title). I find that I have to readjust my mindset not only for each family, but for the side I'm playing since I try to play each faction as that faction actually was used. This can get particularly difficult playing Soviet after playing U.S. or German. Soviet tactics demand that you follow the plan to the letter, and pursue victory at all costs. You might end up with three Soviet troops on a victory location with the rest of the Batallion lying dead on the field, and be granted a total victory. Each family and module can require rethinking your strategies even if their time frame is only a few months apart. That's the real beauty if the Combat Mission line. without a doubt though, it is well worth the time and effort!

Since you asked so nicely, Steve posted the following on August 9 ( or is that 9 August to you) on page 15 in the"state of CMSF2" thread. The bolding is mine. And that's it, I'm done feeding the Troll. "Seriously, this is just another example of the futility of release dates. If I post wrong ones we get skewered for not delivering on expectations those dates set. If I post no dates we get skewered for not doing things which set expectations which we aren't sure we can meet. Damned if we do, damned if we don't is a really unfair position to be in, but we accept that is the way things work. Given that we have to make a choice between being damned for setting up expectations that aren't met or damned for not setting up expectations, I think the right choice is the latter. If someone wants to lay out a rational case for doing things differently, I'm all ears. Steve P.S. one of the beautiful things about being an independent, self publishing game developer is we don't have any problem with someone tuning out for a year and then coming back to see what we have. We don't have a 60 day window to make or break our future like other game companies. So if people want to check back with us in a year because that works best for that person, it works fine for us too. No pressure."

First of all, my statement wasn't "weak." Your own quote from BF was "We're aiming for no later than the end of September.." Please explain to me just how that equates to "We WILL release no later than the end of September!" If you purchased a preorder, then you purchased it knowing that the release might not happen by the end of September. Unless you've actually read Steve's threads about what has been involved, the only thing you've participated in is whining and complaining. Every long-time member of this Forum knows that Steve and BF don't generally give updates and estimates for exactly the reasons highlighted by this thread. Whether we like it or not, BF doesn't engage in frequent updates no matter how much users whine and complain about how "THEY" would do it if it was "THEIR" company. I don't defend any company unless someone makes unfounded accusations about that company. It is what it is, and no amount of toxic whining, complaining, and "bovine scatorium" comments are going to change that. It will not force BF to issue any more status updates than they do now. If you bought the preorder, and are that upset, vote with your Dollars, or Pounds, or Punts, or Euros, or whichever exchange you use, and CANCEL YOUR PREORDER! Then you can buy it at full price after it's released. That could have a larger impact than whining about it here.

Has any one stopped to consider that BF might actually be anticipating releasing the Demo by 9/30, but isn't saying anything in case some of those horrible little software bugs start munching the code? Come on, give it a rest. It's not like any of you have shelled out any money for the demo. If you already bought a preorder, well IT'S A PREORDER! You made the choice to buy it!

That's because after you've gone through a few months of intense physical and mental stress in the swamps of South Carolina or desert of Southern California bullets and explosions don't mean much, and your body works on muscle memory. The training differences between the Army and the Marines are quite different because their basic missions are different.

Based on my experience, I'd phrase this a little different. I'd use a business analogy. The Battalion Commander is the Plant Manager responsible for managing, the engineering Section, the IT Section, and the Production Section. The Company Commander is the Section Manager, responsible to manage the different Units in the Section. The Rifle Platoon Commander is the Unit Manager, responsible to manage the different teams in the unit. The Rifle Platoon Sergeant or Section Leader is the team leader, and the Rifleman, Weapons Crew, or Scout team, are the workers. Each has the responsibility to advise their "boss" if they feel a direction from the boss isn't right, but the boss still makes the final decision. The biggest difference is that in business, it's a lot easier for a boss to blame someone else and avoid taking responsibility for the decision.

You might also want to consider the USMC field manual. Believe it or not, since each Marine squad has four more members than an Army squad, and for the most part difference weapons, a Marine platoon has a squad more than an Army platoon. Plus, because of the differences in weapons, such as Marine Javalins at Company level, but not usually Platoon level, the tactics used are different. Then, if you have the "Big Bundle," the tactics and compositions of the British, Canadians, Dutch, and Germans are different than those of the U.S. CMSF2 is a career rather than just a few months or a year or two game play.

Regarding the M2 60mm mortar, in the U.S.M.C. in Vietnam and 1970's, the M2 was company level. Usually, the weapons in the Company Weapons Platoon were parceled out to the Rifle Platoons. I was a Weapons Section Leader, and was assigned to a rifle Platoon along with a 60mm mortar section (three guns), a machine gun squad (two M60 machine gun teams), and an antitank assault team (M202 multishot rocket launcher and LAAWs. We used the tubes (M2s) mainly for direct fire (targets we could see),and illumination at night. Whenever the section set up in a fixed position (perimeter), the mortar crew would register their tube by aligning a side of the baseplate to north. They would then set out aiming stakes at specific azimuths to register for indirect fire (fire emissions that they couldn't see or at night). If we received a fire mission from the Company through the Commander of the Rifle Platoon to which we were assigned to support another unit that was outside the azimuth range for the mortar, the gunner would physically pick up the bipod legs and move them until the sight was alined on an aiming stake, and then dial in the coordinates of the target. In Vietnam, many Marine M2 crews wouldn't even bother to use the baseplate or bipod to deploy their weapons quickly. They would just put the ball of the tube on the ground, and walk in the rounds like a grenade launcher. Of course you can't do that in CMSF. M2 60mm mortars assigned to the Rifle Platoons are used primarily in the direct fire mode. Those retained at the Company level are primarily used in the indirect fire mode. Marine 81mm mortars are Battalion level, are indirect (except maybe in an extreme situation), and are rarely, if ever, parceled out to Company level. Thus, Marines use 60mm mortars for both direct and indirect fire missions. This can affect how you select weapons and units for a quick battle or deploy Marines in CMSF2 if you have the Marines Module. The Marine formations are very different from Army units in both their composition and how you use them.