Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
As for the Rangers and the Airborne, let me put it this way. The Rangers and Airborne have lost a lot. So have the Marines. But the difference is, the Marines have won the battles, despite what they lost. The Rangers and Airborne, with all their tough training and state-of-the-art, have really been blown out of the water and soundly defeated. Just look at Operation: Market Garden, Grenada (they won, but totally screwed up), Operation: Restore Hope, and others.

The Marines are basically a small family that fights and always wins. A true team. And while being a service, the more secretive Rangers get far more publicity!

I have no problem with you spooging your pants over your deep love of our fine fighting men but I do have a problem with you making erroneus claims againts the Rangers. Your overlooking some key facts, first Id point out is KOREA, look at what happend to our Marines boys there, not to mention the 2nd Battle of the Marne in WW1, you cant really compare the two because their missions are so completely different. Yes the marines have won but they didnt have nearly as much effect in certain theatres like the nam. I cant even begin to document what the Rangers and Green Berets did in Nam, those guys lived in country, lived like the Cong, they were killing machines cut off from ever normal battlefield luxury offered to your marines.

Please explain why the Nighthawk belongs in a museum now because I don't think it should until' all raptors have been delivered along with their JSF counterparts. Until then, I think the Nighthawk should stay in active service.

Let's see:
1. Small Payload
2. More stealthy aircraft out there (B-2)
3. Poor manueverability
4. Improved AAA systems make her detectable
5. Ridiculous maintenance concerns
6. Cruise missiles can do the same job
7. JSOW (look it up)

Enough reasons, or do you need more?

Originally posted by Agent47
I have no problem with you spooging your pants over your deep love of our fine fighting men but I do have a problem with you making erroneus claims againts the Rangers. Your overlooking some key facts, first Id point out is KOREA, look at what happend to our Marines boys there, not to mention the 2nd Battle of the Marne in WW1, you cant really compare the two because their missions are so completely different. Yes the marines have won but they didnt have nearly as much effect in certain theatres like the nam. I cant even begin to document what the Rangers and Green Berets did in Nam, those guys lived in country, lived like the Cong, they were killing machines cut off from ever normal battlefield luxury offered to your marines.

I guess we all make the mistake of comparing things we can't compare. The Rangers are a special operations force, while the Marines are a special operations-capable force. Two different concepts. The Marines are also a contingency force, while the Rangers, or the whole damn army for that matter, is the kick-ass force.

But if you want to compare the two, let me just say the Marines are primitive compared to the army. But compared to the Rangers, they are armed with state-of-the-art firepower, and the devestating power they can call from the naval fleet makes them the single most maneuverable force in the world. They can handle any situation.

i think that the marines and the para's (airborn for u yanks) are the elite i mean come on u gota have guts 2 jump out a moving aeroplane while under fire!
the british marines have lots of respect for paras (due to thier combined attacks in the falklands and such)
the army is basicaly a scary kill everything force while the marines and paras are more like sf forces designed to go in and hold the place till the army comes in and handles the bigger guns
in my view the marines paras are the elite while the army is the true ground troops they are the front line dudes those guys get the worst jobs but are still a scary force

I almost joined the marines. But it came down to my mother signing the papers, since i was 17 at the time, and she told me no way, its army or nothing. I guess cuz she was once with a former Marine who was in nam, and he wigged out, guess she thought i was gonna go nuts. So, i went army.

For the record, EVERYONE in the army gets basic combat training. Marksmanship, just the basic grunt fighting. problem is, once you leave basic, if youre in another non combat job, you wont get the training to keep such skills sharp, because like supply and support units spend almost no time trying to train thier soldiers in such things, even tho they r supposed to be kept fresh. Thus, the disaster Lynch's unit faced when abushed. All soldiers, regardless of job, are supposed to know the basic move, shoot, ect, how to set up defense perimters, respond to attacks, ect. If thier leaders would start placing a bit more emphasis on this and keeping people up to date, they might have a fighting chance.

The U.S. Navy by far has the most resources. You name it, they have it.

Ships
Submarines
Aircraft
SEALs
EOD
Divers
Worldwide Presence

The Navy controls all areas of access into the U.S., and on top of that, patrol every major body of water in the world. They have the military's largest R & D program. They work hand in hand with the Department of Energy.
Without the Navy, the Marines could not even operate. They are part of the Department of the Navy, and without the Navy, they would have no equipment or transportation.

I would definitely give it to the Navy.

Mr. M

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf,

Wow, sounds like the Marines may have been too much for your mom!

The army is doing something in the tradition of the Marines. General Shoomaker is proposing that Objective Force make it so it'll emphasize basic combat skills to make each soldier a rifleman first. That is the mistake they have made for so many years, not emphasizing combat, the first in combat.

Even so, I see it as a long-shot. One advantage the Marines has is it's smaller numbers. Thus, each Marine has to be able to do the tasks of four soldiers. Kind of like a Boy Scout, where he can earn merit badges. As opposed to the army, where they have such a large contingent that having one soldier for this and another for that is a luxury. I seriously don't see the army spending that much money on one soldier when all they really have to do is assign one job to each soldier.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
By our, I asume you mean the US...

I'd say
1)army
2)Air Force - (think about it: F-22,JSF,B-2,F117, the Undeafeted F-15, Airborn and soon to be Spac based lasers)
3)ALL OF THEM
4)Navy - especially when you consider that the marines used to be part of them
5)AF
6)AF + Navy

the US is stacked and is probably at or near the top in every catagory if you were to compare to other countries

correction. the marines are navy during peace time always. during times of war they are their own little branch

correction. the marines are navy during peace time always. during times of war they are their own little branch

Correction, the marines have been and always will be under the Department of the Navy. They do not get their own department in times of war.

Correct. The U.S. Marines fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy. The only execption to that (and this relates to the DON's ultimate AOR) is the Marine Force Recon units. They are not assigned to SOCOM as the rest of the Special Forces are. Force Recon has there own special command, although they usually work with SOCOM on occasion.

Mr. M

Originally posted by StarChild
Correct. The U.S. Marines fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy. The only execption to that (and this relates to the DON's ultimate AOR) is the Marine Force Recon units. They are not assigned to SOCOM as the rest of the Special Forces are. Force Recon has there own special command, although they usually work with SOCOM on occasion.

Mr. M

That all changed two years ago. Now Force Recon falls under SOCOM and the Marines have also set up their own dedicated SF unit.

When did this happen again? I've been out for a while, so I'm not suprised that things have changed while I've been gone. What is the new unit called?

Mr. M

Originally posted by StarChild
When did this happen again? I've been out for a while, so I'm not suprised that things have changed while I've been gone. What is the new unit called?


It doesn't really have a name yet. I do know that they have received training from the SEALs and Delta. Let me see what all I can dig up.

What were you when you were in?

I was in the Navy. (Sorry for not elaborating.)

Mr. M

Originally posted by StarChild
I was in the Navy. (Sorry for not elaborating.)

Mr. M

What did you do? I'm in now.

Oh yeah? Were are you stationed?

Mr. M

East Coast (for now).

Matter of fact, lets take it to U2U. But give me a second (20 minutes). I have to go somewhere real quick. But I'll be back shortly, and we can share war stories.


Mr. M

Our military may spend more than any other military on the face of the earth, but where's the "bang for the buck?" That is a worn phrase, but take it into counsel for what it means, not how it tends to be used.

Think about it on just one level of current "privatization," the $28 military meal from Haliburton. It is not even the same meal the military used to cook for no more than a few dollars. Cleanliness is a problem, since instead of military cooks preparing food, and looking out for the troops, you have outsourced labor to boot! That is only one example of overcharging in the "new military."

Also logistics is being privatized. That means all soldiers will be front line soldiers, with no chance, no relief, and no relative safety and reserve makup behind our forces.

We need and require a strong military, but the recent experiments in rewarding favored defense contractors and locking them into our way of doing business, looks like a weakening condition of dependency. It looks like a breakdown of traditional strengths.

Depleted Uranium is no more safe than asbestos was declared to be "safe," for years. When anti-science rules, and objective judgments of intelligence services are dictated top down, rather than from existing conditions, the failure shows.

When you jab people with untested vaccines, then cut their VA benefits after they return home and call them "mental cases," for physical symptoms, you are not running a strong military.

Politics has in history, weakened military power, do a good analysis. We have not learned from history, but fraud, waste, and abuse apparently learned some new thresholds just outside of total collapsing their own entire edifice.

It is time to return our military power to objective evaluation, and actual C4I2 based upon that premise. Look at some writings of Thomas Pepper from the Hudson Institute, for more clues about what a sound C4I2 can do, something beyond only communications, command, and control.

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by SkipShipman]

just asking do ur armed forces make units from all diffrent forces?