Marine Corps: Get Some!

[Nidan1]

As I have stated before you guys are getting sucked in by (Insert Current Forum Profile Name Here).

Have fun...This is getting good, and there is not much else to do on a snowy Sunday afternoon with no football...unless you are into girls olympic hockey, those Canadian chicks rule on the ice!!!!

Question: What is the difference between the Marine Corps and the Cub Scouts? Extra credit for those who are not Marines and know the answer to this one.

Also it would be great if you guys could learn how to use the Forum UBB code...it would make this hilarious thread a lot easier to read for us older guys. :eek:

[flamingknives]

Last time I checked, the Cub Scouts didn't get issued automatic weaponry.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Last time I checked, the Cub Scouts didn't get issued automatic weaponry.

Wrong!!!!! Haven't you heard of the M-24 Cub Pack Automatic Weapon?

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:

Last time I checked, the Cub Scouts didn't get issued automatic weaponry.

Wrong!!!!! Haven't you heard of the M-24 Cub Pack Automatic Weapon? </font>

[Nidan1]

Shaw , you insufferable boob!!! Only you would seek to further confuse the already muddy waters with your arcane reference to the gradations of Scout hierarchy.

You still haven't answered my riddle.

[ February 12, 2006, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ]

[Nemesis Lead]

Guys,

This whole debate is really silly. Both the Army and Marine Corps are the best trained forces that the US has ever fielded. Both have illustrious histories. Both are more similar than they are different.

But the differences are real and they explain many things. The Army has a much stronger logistical component than the Marine Corps and its heavy units pack more firepower and technology. From every thing that I have read, the Marines needed the logistical pause in Gulf War 2 more than the Army did. In Gulf War I, the Marines were also less capable of cutting off the retreat of the Republican Guard than the Army. The Army did not fail in its mission and the Marines could not have done a better job than the Army BECAUSE THEY ARE ORGANIZED DIFFERENTLY.

In another example....the most effective US unit in the Vietnam War was the 1st Air Calvary Division. The Air Cav killed for more NVA than any other unit (this is a fact), often pacified areas that other Army and Marine units could not pacify, and was the unit feared by the NVA more than any other unit. Why? Because the Air Cav was organized around the helicopter and air mobility was very effective in combatting a jungle insurgency. The Air Cav simply had 10 times the number of helicopters of any other division--Army or Marines. Its mobility left the enemy with fewer sanctuaries and those sanctuaries had to be pushed further away from cities when the Air Cav was in town.

The two examples above do not discredit the bravery of the Marines. They simply are designed to fight with shorter supply lines with conventional combined arms units while the Army is designed for sustained land combat and has some "non-conventional" units in its inventory. Some of the Marines are ignoring this reality and just making things up.

To the credit of the USMC, it has its own Close Air Support and has honed this to a fine art. The Army relies on the Air Force and the Air Force sees CAS has a "third priority." The Marines also have better basic training than the Army and toughen their training every time the Army toughens its training (to maintain their edge). The Marines also train all of their soldiers to an infantry standard which pays dividends in wars with no real front lines. I would not call rear etchelon Army troops warriors by any stretch. The Marines are also a very smart bunch and the charges of the Army being too heavy handed in Iraq are very true. The 82nd Airborne in particular saw every problem as a nail and brought in a hammer to take care of it. The Marines also have a better esprit de corps than the Army does generally. Finally, in a big war the Marines do not rely on conscripts (some exceptions were made in Vietnam). As a result, all volunteer Marine units accomplished more in WW2 Pacific fighting than their Army brethern whose ranks included many conscripts (although it is amazing what the Army did accomplish with its conscripts). The better analogy to make would be the Marines vs. the Airborne. But if a Marine battalion fought an Airborne battalion, the Marines would likely win because they Airborne would lack the firepower to hang with the Marines--BECAUSE THEY ARE ORGANIZED DIFFERENTLY. In the same vein, a Marine Division would be destroyed if it fought an Army Armored Division in the desert BECAUSE IT IS NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT.

The bottom line--the Army and the Marine Corps are different. There are things the Marines do better than the Army and there are things the Army does better than the Marines. Both are staffed by highly motivated warriors who are simply outstanding at what they do.

[ February 12, 2006, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Nemesis Lead:

This whole debate is really silly.........

Thank you sir...in a few short words you have identified the crux of the matter.

I'm still saying that the guy who started this thread has done so with ulterior motives..but your analysis is quite correct if this were a logical and valid debate. So please do not think I am disparaging your remarks.

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

Shaw , you insufferable boob!!! Only you would seek to further confuse the already muddy waters with your arcane reference to the gradations Scout hierarchy.

You still haven't answered my riddle.

You had a riddle? Was it the one about "black and white and red all over"? Because I can't imagine you having a riddle more complicated than that.

By the way, are you going to let Nemisis Lead denigrate the fighting capabilities of OUR Cub Scouts? You can clearly see that, by NOT mentioning them in the same post he's practically slapping them in the face with an official Cub Scout bandana. Are we going to stand for that?

The 1st Air Cav may have destroyed more NVA, but the Cub Scouts have destroyed more church basements than can be counted.

Joe

[Nidan1]

We are talking about the newspaper collection drives...not the Tet offensive or Gulf War One.

Compared to a ravaging pack of Cub Scouts descending on a community in search of recyclables. The battle of Medina Ridge looks like a teenaged girl's sleep-over party.

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

We are talking about the newspaper collection drives...not the Tet offensive or Gulf War One.

Compared to a ravaging pack of Cub Scouts descending on a community in search of recyclables. The battle of Medina Ridge looks like a teenaged girl's sleep-over party.

Exactly right Midan1, those who disparage the Cub Scouts do so at their own peril!

Joe

[Fusilier9]

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.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Fusilier9:

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.

Hey we can't close this until someone answers my earlier question....

...and Joe please spell my name correctly.

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fusilier9:

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.

Hey we can't close this until someone answers my earlier question....

...and Joe please spell my name correctly. </font>

[Nidan1]

Joe , check your in box.

[civdiv]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

CivDiv,

1. Don't know.

Barney Fife, otherwise known as Don Knotts.

2. I am sure there is a Marine answer, but I would say that was Douhot provided the theoretical base, Fuller the tactical, and guys like Gudarian the first real implementation. Sorta depends on how you define CAS, I guess.

Douhot theorized on Strategic Bombing, not tactical. The USMC invented it during the Banana Wars.

3. Hmm...how about the French moving troops around during the latter stages of Indochina? That would be early to mid 1950s.

USMC during the Korean War.

4. Don't know.

Union Captain Robert Ellicombe was checking the pickets one night during the American Civil War. At about that time there was an exchange of fire between the Union and the Confederate pickets and Captain Ellicombe went to investigate. Several Confederate soldiers had been killed, and Ellicombe helped pull one body out of a creek that lay between the lines. The body belonged to his son, who though born in the North, pledged his allegence to the South. Ellicombe went through his son's pockets, and found a scrap of paper with some musical notes scribbled on it (His son was a bugler.). Captain Elliscombe asked General Grant to allow his son to be buried with full military honors, and Grant granted permission. Captain Ellicombe had the notes played by a military bugler at the service, and it was 'Taps'.

5. I'm guessing, it's from a Springfield-trained rifleman using an M-1, and smashing his thumb on the chamber clearer after each shot, since he was trained to operate a bolt.

Correct. It had to do with the bolt slamming home on the firer's thumb as he was loading the clip. Many veteren's have damaged thumbnails to this day.

6. Japanese WW2 Naval Base. No, just kidding. Uh...since I doubt Studebaker's the answer, don't know.

The truck is the big ball at the top of a flagpole. True 'trucks' only exist on Commanding General's flagpoles. They contain a 45 caliber bullet, a match, and instruction for burning the flag. In the event the base is overrun, the flagpole is to be knocked down, the flag burned, and the person burning the flag shoot themselves with the bullet to avoid capture.

7. Another guess, but I'm pretty sure it's because the Marines kept the high-neck, closed-throat tunic a good deal longer than the other services, I'm pretty sure into WWI.

Correct. It was due to the high leather collars worn by the Marines up until somewhere around the beginning of the 20th century. Their is an ongoing dispute as to whether the origins of the nickname are with the British Royal Marines or their superior descendants.

8. Don't know, but would love to find out.

It was a nickname given to the Marines during the Battle of Belleau Wood during WWI. They called the Marines Teufelhunden, german for 'Devil Dogs'.

[civdiv]

Ok, really obscure follow-up question for extra credit;

Why did the Marines stop wearing leggings during the Korean War?

[civdiv]

Luckily levity has entered this discussion before too many electronic blows have been struck. I won't attempt to get in the last word other than to say that if anyone cares to do some research they will discover that the points I have made are all true, and well documented. Whether you want to do internet research, go to your local library, or whatever, fact support all of my points. Read some books, whether they be from military professionals, the embedded, or from whomever.

However, one loose end to tie, Maneuver Warfare is not a USMC invention. Is has actually been championed by a former US Army officer named Bill Lind. It was first proposed as doctrine by the USMC, in 'Forward, From the Sea'. In terms of published doctrine, I'd guess that it was a virtual tie between the Army and the Corps.

That said, however, it is just a rehashing of old tactics. The Germans invented maneuver warfare in about 1917.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by civdiv:

Ok, really obscure follow-up question for extra credit;

Why did the Marines stop wearing leggings during the Korean War?

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.

[GasMask]

Posted by Nadin1

"Thank you sir...in a few short words you have identified the crux of the matter.

I'm still saying that the guy who started this thread has done so with ulterior motives.."

I just started the thread to say hi to everyone and to say how great of an idea it is to put Marines in the game. I have no other motives. It was meant for Marines to reply back and say what's up you know? Not that I mind other people replying, I just wish you guys wern't so hostile. This was my first post and most of you guys did nothing but insult me. Oh no, I misspelled a word... oh no, I'm a retard... grow up guys, really, stop trying to act perfect.

Send me a video of you walking on water and then we'll talk. necranight@hotmail.com

[Scott B]

Originally posted by civdiv:

Luckily levity has entered this discussion before too many electronic blows have been struck. I won't attempt to get in the last word other than to say that if anyone cares to do some research they will discover that the points I have made are all true, and well documented. Whether you want to do internet research, go to your local library, or whatever, fact support all of my points. Read some books, whether they be from military professionals, the embedded, or from whomever.

However, one loose end to tie, Maneuver Warfare is not a USMC invention. Is has actually been championed by a former US Army officer named Bill Lind. It was first proposed as doctrine by the USMC, in 'Forward, From the Sea'. In terms of published doctrine, I'd guess that it was a virtual tie between the Army and the Corps.

That said, however, it is just a rehashing of old tactics. The Germans invented maneuver warfare in about 1917.

Speaking of your well documented facts, perhaps you could point out who here said maneuver warfare was invented by the Marines?

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.

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

[civdiv]

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?

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>

[civdiv]

Speaking of your well documented facts, perhaps you could point out who here said maneuver warfare was invented by the Marines?

You said it;

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.

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.

Here;

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/sitb-next/086531862X/ref=sbx_rec/103-9140485-8547047?%5Fencoding=UTF8#bort

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

Agreed, you can make the argument it goes back further than 1917. But the Germans were definately using it in 1917.

[ February 12, 2006, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

[Scott B]

Originally posted by civdiv:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Speaking of your well documented facts, perhaps you could point out who here said maneuver warfare was invented by the Marines?

You said it;</font>

[civdiv]

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;

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0891415181/sr=8-11/qid=1139792466/ref=sr_1_11/002-0818255-0300019?%5Fencoding=UTF8

I think Col Boyd and the OODA loop is in there. My copy is in storage.

And;

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1853671983/qid=1139792699/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-0818255-0300019?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[Wisbech_lad]

At a tangent - what is the current thinking/ practise on repatriation after a tour in Iraq/ Afganistan?

I.e. if serving in a combat unit, do you fly straight home, or is there a phase of "decompression" first?

ISTR discussion that one of the factors behind higher PTSD rates of Vietnam vs WWII was that in WWII veterans went home slowly (by boat) - and that the almost instant repatriation now available gave no time to transition between very different worlds.

For pure, unadulterated vicious warriors I give you the Brownies. Those girls could teach the Finns a thing or two.