I think he changed his mind when i talked to him yesterday said hes going active duty on the east coast . They made him a radio operator hes trying to get that changed to rifleman .

"You could even expand the Marines to, say, ten to twelve divisions, because they are "more effective" the Army infantry and then you know what you'd wind up with? An army that doesn't know how to properly roll its sleeves up." Ya ever read one of these and wish you'd have thought of that first?

RE: Marines are more effective? 9/11/2003 11:21:36 AM It always struck me that the Marines had a similar esprit to the 82nd and 101st divisions. And for many of the same kinds of reasons (small size, light weapons mix and large missions). It would be hard to get that same kind of esprit in an organization the size of the Army, however, the USMC had over 500,000 men in WWII and maintained its esprit very well, thank you very much. As for expanding the the USMC to take over the Army's roles, who would we steal supplies from? Size is only a small part of Marines success. Attitude is the major factor. The Marine Corps managed to prevent most of the political correctness that infected the other services. The Marine Corps does not have co-ed basic training, has fewer married personnel, fewer single parents and fewer dual military spouses as a percentage of their strength. There is even a difference in the approach to war. The Marine Corps Hand to Hand combat system is based upon more lethal blows and holds than the Army's which has more techniques for subduing and opponent rather than killing him: War vs. Peace Keeping. Another Marine advantage is a service identity. Everybody is a Marine and every Marine is at least trained as a rifle man on a basic level. The Army's Branch system is like a bunch of competing tribes whose members primary loyalty is to the tribe and not the Army as a whole. Each Branch has its own insignia, song and traditions. Being a Tanker, Engineer or "Fighting Quartermaster" takes on more importance than being a soldier. Look at their dress uniforms. A Marine uniform tells you only that he is a Marine. The Marine jet engine mechanic has nothing on his uniform that makes it different from the Marine Grunt. The Army uniform in contrast has so many devices on it that an Army Private looks like a Latin American Dictator. The Army has few actual regiments but everybody has a Regimental Badge along with Branch insignia and not only personal decorations but awards the unit may have won decades ago. Odds are the average soldier has no idea what those awards are for. The Army is also overly generous with its awards. The Army gives soldiers awards for what they are supposed to do. Complete MOS training and you get an Army Service Ribbon. Complete Leadership training, required for promotion and you get an NCO education Ribbon. Drive a military vehicle without getting into an accident and you get an expert driver badge. It is or was expected that for merely completing a tour of duty with a unit without getting into trouble and you get an Army Achievement Ribbon. During Gulf War I & II the Army tended to give out Bronze Stars like lunch. . It is not a special cover, badge or device that makes a unit elite, it is their actions that make them elite. Giving everybody in the Army Black Berets does not make them Rangers anymore than pinning wings on a tanker makes him a fighter pilot. Every now and then the other Branches in the Army want an "expert" badge similar to the Expert Infantry and Medic Badges. This has included recommendations for an "Expert" Finance badge. Exactly what one would have to do to earn this badge was never explained. I can only assume that it would require the ability to type so many words per Berets minute and identify a Leave and Earnings Statement at 50 feet. Other Branches have also wanted an equivalent to the Combat Infantry Badge. The Marine Corps get along just fine without most of this stuff I am sure the Army can to. The Army needs to concentrate on creating a core identity of being a Soldier, not an engineer or Medic. It needs to change form being a Job Corps for single parents (ALL services, need to return to a policy of not allowing first term soldiers to be married or have dependents). It needs to do away with co-ed boot camp and realize that an award does not really mean much if everybody gets one. The Army needs to move from peace keeping to a war fighting mentality. It is OK to kill the enemy guys. And while we are at it this is the United States Army not a European Army-LOSE the stupid Berets.

Different Branches, Different Cultures, Different Roles on the Battlefield... Unlike the USMC, the Army provides heavy maneuver forces i.e. Armor and Mechanized divisions with organic sp artillery, without which the USMC could never have made it across the berm at the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Army Light Infantry is distinguished from Naval Infantry by their organic air assault assets (ok with exceptions). The Army can learn a lot from the USMC in terms of Stability and Support Ops(SASO) which have been historically the Corps' specialty. The Stryker Brigade Combate Team concept has the potential to eventually excede USMC SASO capabilities while bridging the gap between light and heavy forces. The USMC can be said to be inferior to the Army in the realm of Special Operations forces; Recon Platoons have no greater utility to a commander than say an Army LRSD or even a BRT. You're probably thinking, "Hey wait a minute, what about Navy SEALs?" which possess a significant advantage in organic mobility unique to SOFs. But they lack the capability to recruit, train, and lead foreign insurgents who speak obscure languages(SF). They lack the long duration self-sustainment training of our Ranger BNs. If it seems we are a bunch of seperate competing "tribes" it is because unit cultures are as different as the task organization of our units.

"Army gets the leftovers and people who need cash to go to college. SFTT.org has a interesting thing on "Porcelain Soldiers",I'd be worried." i hardly consider myself "leftovers." i went to the army before considering any other branch. i think it's a damn shame this pissin' contest was even initiated. every branch is fighting for the same thing and they all bleed just as easily as the other ones.

Note: Almost all my info comes from briefs...not personal experience. Just as a disclaimer. Marines generally seem to have gotten a reputation for being dumb stupid louts who LOVE to fight. However, a recent incident kinda puts that into perspective. Recently in Iraq, during a confrontation resulting from a misunderstanding, a Marine officer defused the situation by ordering his men to point their guns down and "smile." Unconventional thinking which was perfect for the situation. Another incident is Grenada, where you get the quote from the Army CoS I believe who asked why the hell the Army was pinned down while two compaines of Marines were charging around the country like mad dogs. As for naval SpecWar, I would say the utility of each group is different, not less important. You wouldn't exactly expect your SF guys to swim under water to blow up ships in harbor or swim ashore and callin targets for their basing SSGN. And the Marine Recon may not be as useful to a joint force as a SF unit, but their purpose is to serve as the recon element for the MEU. If it's SOCOM you want, look up Marine Detachment Six.

USN-MID- I think you reaffirm my point about SOFs, I was not implying that SEAL Teams were any less of a SOCOM player, like you said "the utility is different" however Marine Det. Six with only 4 teams of 6 operators is not yet worth mentioning. In regards to Grenada, there was a major issue in regards to Army Fire Support being able to coordinate naval gunfire(reference CALL). USMC and Navy info. infrastructure was already tailored for combined/joint ops, the Army was unable to achieve comparable freedom of movement becase of this. We did learn from this. You might have heard such buzzwords as C4ISR and ABCS? -An Army Intelligence Officer >Another incident is Grenada, where you get the >quote from the Army CoS I believe who asked why >the hell the Army was pinned down while two >compaines of Marines were charging around the >country like mad dogs. > >As for naval SpecWar, I would say the utility of >each group is different, not less important. You >wouldn't exactly expect your SF guys to swim >under water to blow up ships in harbor or swim >ashore and callin targets for their basing SSGN. > >And the Marine Recon may not be as useful to a >joint force as a SF unit, but their purpose is to >serve as the recon element for the MEU. If it's >SOCOM you want, look up Marine Detachment Six.

USN-MID- It seems that the "Marine" Officer you refer to was not a Marine but actually an Army officer, LTC Hughes of the 101st Airborne Div. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/heroes/chrishughes.html -.OO

OK DoubleO, the army wins this round. But let me just point out that there are some guys who were never in the service reading all this stuff and admiring the hell out of all you guys. I see a couple of angles here. The Marines are, and always have been, an elite force. That's something to be proud of, maybe expressing the pride in ways that doesn't knock the Army down so much. The issue of Political Correctness is another story. The Marines resisted this better than the Army, so they are now stronger. Somehow, as a society, we must mount an offensive against Army PC. The goal of the Left is not to sensitize the Army to Women & Family issues. It is to degrade the US Army's ability to fight, because the freedom of the US and Freedom throughout the world depends on it. Bye the way, thank you all for your service.

maybe the army needs to reboot its image as elite fighters like the marines. just from seeing commercials and recruiting strategies it appears that the corps. is trying to recruit elite warriors and the army is showing off different MOSs and technology. maybe the army should try a little of both.