Any Other Military Members Here?

[ReverendHellh0und]

I've done plenty of joint excercises with the Air Force, being an Air Wing Marine. But we always did them at their bases, and the training was almost exclusively with regards to a/a training, since there were never any GCE's to support during the excercises. So there is some level of inter-training that happens. I see no reason why the A-10s shouldn't reasonably be expected to train with ground forces of all the branches. Whether that's the fault of Marine commands not wanting outside branches in our combined arms excercises, or A-10 squadrons being unwilling to work in the deplorable(in comparison to the Air Force) conditions Marine air units routinely operate in, it doesn't matter. Either way, thats outdated and dangerous thinking IMO.

I fully agree with this assesment..

The worst thing the Army ever did, was let the Air Force seperate from them. The Air Force should,IMO, be a Department of the Army, just as the Marines are a Department of the Navy. With the exception of their special forces, the Air Force is noticably bereft of any kind of warrior mindset.

hey now.... I was TACP, we had plenty of Gameness..... and I slept fine in your ****holes..... :lol: But you are right. 90% of the AF is clerical, office, maintenence, and generally, not warriors....

 

[WI Crippler]

hey now.... I was TACP, we had plenty of Gameness..... and I slept fine in your ****holes..... :lol: But you are right. 90% of the AF is clerical, office, maintenence, and generally, not warriors....

I'll give an example of the difference the Marines take, and what I imagne does not happen in the other services.

Now I was an airwing Marine. The grunts certainley have no love for us, if only because we are not grunts like them. Before 9/11, only the MPs controlled the entry points to our airbase(as well as the perimiters), and the entry point to the squadron flightlines. That was about it for base security. On the day of 9/11, every Marine Squadron on our base had their own Marines patrolling their AOR with loaded M-16s authorized to fire on anybody who did not come forth to be recognized or met the challenge, with a watch roster established and run by the NCOs. I cannot imagine the Air Force, Army, or land bound Navy personnel who worked on aircraft or any other non-infantry jobs, took up the responsibility of unit security, by posting armed guard with their own squadron/unit members. Most likely they relied on an increased MP presence, but that would be about it.

Despite the fact that the "poges" of the Marine Corps are not grunts, the warrior culture permeates all aspects of the Marine Corps. We had several retreads(grunts coming over to the airwing) that had their ideas of how easy it would be to be an airwinger. Once they were exposed to what we do, and how we do things none of them would ever have a bad thing to say about the Marine Airwing. No, its nothing like being a grunt. But the warrior spirit is still there at every level. Its something that is largely missing from other branches when you get away from their combat operations groups.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I'll give an example of the difference the Marines take, and what I imagne does not happen in the other services.

Now I was an airwing Marine. The grunts certainley have no love for us, if only because we are not grunts like them. Before 9/11, only the MPs controlled the entry points to our airbase(as well as the perimiters), and the entry point to the squadron flightlines. That was about it for base security. On the day of 9/11, every Marine Squadron on our base had their own Marines patrolling their AOR with loaded M-16s authorized to fire on anybody who did not come forth to be recognized or met the challenge, with a watch roster established and run by the NCOs. I cannot imagine the Air Force, Army, or land bound Navy personnel who worked on aircraft or any other non-infantry jobs, took up the responsibility of unit security, by posting armed guard with their own squadron/unit members. Most likely they relied on an increased MP presence, but that would be about it.

Despite the fact that the "poges" of the Marine Corps are not grunts, the warrior culture permeates all aspects of the Marine Corps. We had several retreads(grunts coming over to the airwing) that had their ideas of how easy it would be to be an airwinger. Once they were exposed to what we do, and how we do things none of them would ever have a bad thing to say about the Marine Airwing. No, its nothing like being a grunt. But the warrior spirit is still there at every level. Its something that is largely missing from other branches when you get away from their combat operations groups.

I agree 100%.....


I would argue though at least in the case of the Air Force. it is not needed in many cases.

I would say besides Pjs, CCT teams, and TACPs, in wich there is no option not to be in the warrior mindest that most of the rest of the Air Force lacks this......


Now its needed in the security forces and its there in some units, missing in a lot of others, and I am sure I am missing some other afsc, but I don't think it's needed is some personel pogue chick..... :shrug:

But of course this is not force wide, and I always thought it should be... but reality showed me that most of the airforce is clerical and a waste of time. Many of these people couldn't handle the rigors of being combat ready... :lol:


I do think a whole hell of a lot more in the USAF need to be.... but not everyone.....

 

[WI Crippler]

I do think a whole hell of a lot more in the USAF need to be.... but not everyone.....

The Air Force, with its refueling capability and long range bombing runs, has the benefit of being well far away from the enemy's capability to strike them. But the base we flew our air support missions out of during OIF was a long time Air Force base during OSW. Other than the MPs, not one Air Force personnell person I saw was armed. When we showed up every Marine had his/her rifle and a bayonet. We weren't under direct threat like grunts are, but there were incidents of enemy operatives being caught on base. We didn't carry our rifles to the flightline(kept them in the maintenance tents, under watch), but we had a fire
plan in place, and dug our own bunkers in case we did come under an attack of some sort. The Air Force people had no such thing, and they would have been woefully underprepared and an easy target for any attack. It was no suprise that the operatives were caught on the AF side of the base. If I was planning an attack behind enemy lines, and doing recon, I'd attack the unarmed and unprepared for combat side every day and twice on Sunday.

With the Marine Corps getting into the JSF I would imagine the airwingers will be sent even closer into combat in the future, as there will be an increase in demand for FARP sites for refueling the VSTOL aircraft. And it will not require we revamp our training, as we still train and maintain our knowledge of what it is to be a basic rifleman.

 

[Scorpion89]

Crip,

Let me speak on A-10 Training since I have TDY with quite a few different A-10 units over the past few years.

First all A-10 Pilots form the top A-10 General down to the 2nd LT must go thru a monthly Armour ID Course. These are broken down intot he following course.

Flash Care and Video req. were a photo or video is shown and the pilot must be able to ID the type of Armour.

Next the pilots go out and look at all the Armour that the US has in it's inventory.

After that they do what is called a Fly By Vis Recon were they are give a route and have to ID all the Armour on the ground. The Pilot must be able to pass with at least 97% on Aerial ID. Next they do a Night Time Recon Mission using Night Vision Goggles were they fly another route and have to Id the armour they must get 95% correct

The location for these class's are located on the East Coast and Aberdeen Proven Grounds and on the West Coast NAS Fallon.

Also all A-10 pilot go thru a ground base FAC with Army and Marine Units, also the Army and Marines send folks to various A-10 units to train with them on FAC items.

Yes accidents happen it's the nature of a flowing ground attacks these things happen they have happen since Attack Aircraft have ben being used.

As for why the Marine or the Navy didn't get A-10s the Warthog doesn't have a Hook nor was it every design to have one. It is one of the few USAF Aircrafts that don't have a hook.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I will BE in the military in september 9. At least, that's the date for now. I actually qualified for a degree program so, we'll see!

It's been a long time since I squidded, so what's the mean, you're gonna be a midshipman?

 

[Oozlefinch]

The excuse that the Army is made up of "types" of units is exactly why so many soldiers find themselves in situations they are ill suited for. A Marine is a Marine. Why isn't a soldier a soldier? Talk all day about the Airborne that drops in on the airfield...but what does that do for the "Jessica Lynch's" who can't even fathom the importance of a clean weapon? It seems like the excuse lends creedance to the idea that if you aren't Army infantry then you are simply a civilian in Army fatigues tasked with a "type" of job. This is exactly what I have been talking about. It is absolutely possible to generalize the branches because the generalization defines them.

And that is pretty accurate.

One thing I loved about being a Marine is that we all looked the same. No unit patches. No unit crests. No branch insignia. You look at 20 random Marines in Dress Blues, and it is impossible to tell one from another.

The Army on the other hand is like looking at somebody in an Italian Opera. Unit crests, Left Shoulder Insignia (Current unit), Right Shoulder Insignia (unit they did a combat tour with), Branch Insignia, battle deployment stripes, and NCOs have felt behind their unit crest. You can often times tell what a soldier has done their entire career just by looking at their uniforms.

When I was in the Corps, we were all Marines. In the Army however, it's "I'm Infantry", or "I'm Signal Corps", or "I'm Air Defense". Even in the same unit, there is less cohesion because people identify so strongly with their Branch as oppose to the Service as a whole.

In the Corps, we had 1 song. And about the only rivalry was FMF with the Air Wings. In the Army, it is each Branch against the other. They even have their own songs. I am expected to know the Army Song, and the Air Defense Artillary March. If I was in Logistics, I would also be expected to know the Quartermaster March.

I just sit back, do my job and laugh. Because I find it all so silly.

And you are dead right about Jessica Lynch. She was in 5-52, a Patriot Unit I am actually working with. Most ADA do not take the "Infantry Crap" seriously enough in my opinion. Many in my branch claim ADA stands for "Another Damned Army".

 

[jamesrage]

I am new to this site and am wondering if there are any other military members here such as myself. I'm a 35S in the Army. Feel free to post here or drop me a pm.

I was an 11m and 11b in march of 2000-2003.So I was wondering how basic training has changed.

Is it true they hand out time out cards or something similar(In case no one else asked this).
Do they still make you breath cs/tear gas or is that optional now?
Do they have you low crawl through a field while live ammo is being fired over you?
Are the drill sergeants not allowed to curse at you?

 

[G.I. Joe]

I was an 11m and 11b in march of 2000-2003.So I was wondering how basic training has changed.

Is it true they hand out time out cards or something similar(In case no one else asked this).
Do they still make you breath cs/tear gas or is that optional now?
Do they have you low crawl through a field while live ammo is being fired over you?
Are the drill sergeants not allowed to curse at you?

Lol, I heard the whole "time-out card" rumor as well. They didn't have them when i went through. From what I was told, it was experimented with for one cycle and was a miserable failure so they ditched it. The CS gas is not optional. I actually had to go through twice cos I failed to clear properly. That was a long day. Yes, we still do the low crawl for a few hundred yards with rounds over our head. We call it Nic-at-night (night infiltration course). The rounds didn't bother me as much as having to low crawl that freaking far, lol. And I can't speak for anyone else's DS's, but ours cursed every other word. Of course they were all infantry, even though I went through in Relaxin' Jackson.

 

[DarkWizard12]

It's been a long time since I squidded, so what's the mean, you're gonna be a midshipman?

no...I'll be an officer....hopefully.

 

[apdst]

When I was in the Corps, we were all Marines. In the Army however, it's "I'm Infantry", or "I'm Signal Corps", or "I'm Air Defense". Even in the same unit, there is less cohesion because people identify so strongly with their Branch as oppose to the Service as a whole.

That's because, traditionally, army units were infantry, signal, artillery, cavalry and so on. It wasn't until after WW2 that the arms were combined.

All-n-all, I agree that the support arms don't take the infantry crap seriously enough. I did secondary duty with a couple support units; in garrison it was normal enough, but when we went to the field I was like, "are you serious?"

I would have thought that general attitude would have changed in the past tens years, but form what you've posted it sounds like it hasn't.

 

[MSgt]

Did you ever stop to think that the reason soldiers are hesitant to take criticism from you is because you present it in a way that is basically just a pissing contest? Of course I suppose that is just the Marine way. That is why you're designed for short engagements.

Ummm...I am in the habit of writing clearly and with depth (sometimes too much). I have offerred criticism which is based on historical events and episodes. I have even produced where Army generals have acknowledged the grand difference between a soldier and a Marine. Perhaps you are arguing against the general mood between the two branches, but this is "you" and "me." I have not offerred insult nor I have I spewed insignificant quips.

You, however, have. You engaged in the pissing contest and was met with actual discussion rather than what you seemed to have intended to set up.

But above you stated that "...soldiers are hesitant to take criticism from you..." Perhaps the Army should start criticizing itself and fix what it obviously already knows is broken rather than continuing to send soldiers into situations they are ill trained for.

 

[MSgt]

There is no feeling like the empty shells of the 30mm raining down on you...

Never been rained on. Had a friend that was. Screw that.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Never been rained on. Had a friend that was. Screw that.

:lol: i guess it depends on where the business end of those 30mm shells are going... :shrug:

 

[MSgt]

And that is pretty accurate.

One thing I loved about being a Marine is that we all looked the same. No unit patches. No unit crests. No branch insignia. You look at 20 random Marines in Dress Blues, and it is impossible to tell one from another.

The Army on the other hand is like looking at somebody in an Italian Opera. Unit crests, Left Shoulder Insignia (Current unit), Right Shoulder Insignia (unit they did a combat tour with), Branch Insignia, battle deployment stripes, and NCOs have felt behind their unit crest. You can often times tell what a soldier has done their entire career just by looking at their uniforms.

When I was in the Corps, we were all Marines. In the Army however, it's "I'm Infantry", or "I'm Signal Corps", or "I'm Air Defense". Even in the same unit, there is less cohesion because people identify so strongly with their Branch as oppose to the Service as a whole.

In the Corps, we had 1 song. And about the only rivalry was FMF with the Air Wings. In the Army, it is each Branch against the other. They even have their own songs. I am expected to know the Army Song, and the Air Defense Artillary March. If I was in Logistics, I would also be expected to know the Quartermaster March.

I just sit back, do my job and laugh. Because I find it all so silly.

And you are dead right about Jessica Lynch. She was in 5-52, a Patriot Unit I am actually working with. Most ADA do not take the "Infantry Crap" seriously enough in my opinion. Many in my branch claim ADA stands for "Another Damned Army".

I've always believed that this is a very big part of the problem. Unit cohesion is so very important at the branch level. Dismissing each other over the patch they wear is why "types" of units exist in the Army. This is institutional. It becomes OK that some are trained in combat skills while others are not.

Iraq proved to the Army that even thier cooks and box kickers are on the front line. They only need to be traveling between bases to risk possible enemy contact on a convoy. The fact that "call for fire," calling in a medevac, or the conduct of a "react offensive drill" when caught in an ambush is obviously absent outside Army infantry is unfathomable to a Marine of any MOS. It makes no sense to us. I can only conclude that after so many ignored lessons, those in leadership positions in the "special" units that receive this training wish to remain special. And thus the institution never changes.

Nobody's actually looked to criticize the Marine Corps here. To be fair and to not appear as a "basher," the Marine Coprs has a very serious problem with DUIs and suicides. The reasons are clear enough. But try as we may, we can't seem to find a solution.

On a logistics note, our GCE (with new COMMs) has every ability to completely leave our logistic support behind in an assault. We discovered that (along with the Army) in 2003. While our support can take care of itself, the GCE needs that supply. We are currently still working out our support systems and doctrines to meet the speed of our assault capabilities.

 

[apdst]

The excuse that the Army is made up of "types" of units is exactly why so many soldiers find themselves in situations they are ill suited for. A Marine is a Marine. Why isn't a soldier a soldier? Talk all day about the Airborne that drops in on the airfield...but what does that do for the "Jessica Lynch's" who can't even fathom the importance of a clean weapon? It seems like the excuse lends creedance to the idea that if you aren't Army infantry then you are simply a civilian in Army fatigues tasked with a "type" of job. This is exactly what I have been talking about. It is absolutely possible to generalize the branches because the generalization defines them.

Hell, the pilots across the branches are even in capability, but the dogfighting edge continues to go to the Navy. In Iraq, it was the Army medevacs that proved to be the quickest responders when Marines went down thanks to the Blackhawks and ambulances. And the Air Force probably has the best airfield security force amongst the branches. Strengths and weaknesses. Only the Army absolutely refuses to admit flaws. There's always an excuse like "numbers," or "types," or anything else that might excuse accepted failures and this is why the ambushes, prisoners, and tactical blunders persistantly belong to the Army. Ever notice how Marine bashing from other branches always entails some untrue simpleton stereotype instead of an actual tactical or institutional problem? We learn and develop the institution....not just a few units that are not of the other "types."

That's a holier than thou post if I ever heard one. The Corps can take criticism, but ya'll never make mistakes. Is that right?

If soldiers in support units perceive their job to be no more than, "civilians in uniform", then there's a leadership problem within that unit. Have i seen units where that was a mindset? Yes. Have I seen alot more units that were just a technically and tactically proficient as any infantry units? You bet I have.

 

[Caine]

That's a holier than thou post if I ever heard one. The Corps can take criticism, but ya'll never make mistakes. Is that right?

If soldiers in support units perceive their job to be no more than, "civilians in uniform", then there's a leadership problem within that unit. Have i seen units where that was a mindset? Yes. Have I seen alot more units that were just a technically and tactically proficient as any infantry units? You bet I have.

Usually that has something to do with which "Corps" they are a part of, or even which division.

"Types" of units. Not "Types" of soldiers, which I think gunny got confused with when I said this.

 

[Oozlefinch]

That's a holier than thou post if I ever heard one. The Corps can take criticism, but ya'll never make mistakes. Is that right?

If soldiers in support units perceive their job to be no more than, "civilians in uniform", then there's a leadership problem within that unit. Have i seen units where that was a mindset? Yes. Have I seen alot more units that were just a technically and tactically proficient as any infantry units? You bet I have.

Actually it is one I tend to agree with. ANd I have seen both the Corps and the Army from the inside.

One problem that the Army has is simply in it's size. It is so big, that you have units that have spent the last 8 years doing nothing but garrison duty. And at the same time there are units that have spent half of the time rotating in and out of combat duty.

My unit spent most of the time since 9/11 in Korea. Now that is important, but 2 years ago they finally rotated back to the US. And without some hard work by some people in higher echelons, we would be right back there now. Instead they did some switching, and sent us in theatre and sent a unit that has been here twice before to Korea instead.

Now granted, I have seen the same thing in the Corps. I did 2 deployments to Okinawa, without doing a Float. But their deployments are only 6 months, as opposed to the 1 year deployments that we do.

And since my branch has not been involved in active combat since the fall of Iraq, there are a lot of people that feel we are just wasting time. This is not the fault of anybody, simply the way things are. And unless Iran or North Korea do something stupid, that is the way things are going to stay.

 

[apdst]

I've served with members from all branches, except the Coast Gaurd, in several mixed units, both operational and training units. I hated all that interservice bickering. it pissed me off how people would ride down their fellow service members like that.

 

[MSgt]

That's a holier than thou post if I ever heard one. The Corps can take criticism, but ya'll never make mistakes. Is that right?

The Corps does make mistakes. And the Corps continually improves to deny those mistakes to be repeated. The reason why members of the other branches always resort to the simple stereotype bashing of Marines is that they really don't have anything else. This is a product of the Marine Corps always seeking to correct or improve. Perhaps if the Army did more of this instead of taking on the attitude that constructive criticism is just mere "bashing," they would improve on their mistakes instead of repeating them from one conflict to the next.

As I produced earlier, plenty of Army generals throughout the twentieth century have acknowledged and questioned why the Marine Corps does things better than the Army. General Pershing remarked on how we all come from the same culture and are the same people....yet soldiers can't seem to do what Marines can.

If soldiers in support units perceive their job to be no more than, "civilians in uniform", then there's a leadership problem within that unit. Have i seen units where that was a mindset? Yes. Have I seen alot more units that were just a technically and tactically proficient as any infantry units? You bet I have.

Actually, it is an institutional problem. If a soldier is a soldier than he/she should receive the same training throughout career. Not just in basic. There is absolutely no reason non-infantry Army convoys should be viewed as "soft targets." There is no reason a soldier in supply shouldn't be able to pick up any of our weapons and assume a patrol with the infantry.

But this doesn't happen. And the reason isn't because "one unit is different from another." It is because the institution has set it up that way. The "other type" units are set aside from the infantry and the training reflects this. Thusly, so does the attitude within the Army.

 

[MSgt]

I've served with members from all branches, except the Coast Gaurd, in several mixed units, both operational and training units. I hated all that interservice bickering. it pissed me off how people would ride down their fellow service members like that.

You are talking about the simple stereotype bashing. But the facts are facts. A Army PsycheOp team (we have none) traveled with us (7th Reg) all the way to Baghdad. They preferred to be with a Marine unit. An Air Force 1stSgt is a current member of my Advanced Course Class. She stated that it looks good on her record to have attended a Proffessional Marine Leadership Course.

I used to feel like I was supposed to be quite about Marine pride around other branches because they automatically rush to defend their branch. But why would they feel that they have to defend whenever a Marine is around? Or in a group, why is it always a soldier that speaks of the brain dead Marine in the group wen he finds out there is one? I no longer feel that I have to pull my pride anymore just to satisfy the fragility of others who have a complex.

 

[apdst]

The Corps does make mistakes. And the Corps continually improves to deny those mistakes to be repeated. The reason why members of the other branches always resort to the simple stereotype bashing of Marines is that they really don't have anything else. This is a product of the Marine Corps always seeking to correct or improve. Perhaps if the Army did more of this instead of taking on the attitude that constructive criticism is just mere "bashing," they would improve on their mistakes instead of repeating them from one conflict to the next.

As I produced earlier, plenty of Army generals throughout the twentieth century have acknowledged and questioned why the Marine Corps does things better than the Army. General Pershing remarked on how we all come from the same culture and are the same people....yet soldiers can't seem to do what Marines can.

That's because of the numbers factor. The Corps is smaller in size, so it's easier to create a more fluid unit. It's always easier to run a squad than a battalion. Right?

The Corps has a better record, because they have less trigger time. Marines never participated in a large pitched battle, alone, before Belleau Wood. Before that the biggest fight Marines had ever been in was Chapultepec Castle, even then it was only a handful--120 I think--that were attached to an Army division. There was a battalion of Marines at 1st Manassas that was routed with the rest of the Federal forces.

Actually, it is an institutional problem. If a soldier is a soldier than he/she should receive the same training throughout career. Not just in basic. There is absolutely no reason non-infantry Army convoys should be viewed as "soft targets." There is no reason a soldier in supply shouldn't be able to pick up any of our weapons and assume a patrol with the infantry.

But this doesn't happen. And the reason isn't because "one unit is different from another." It is because the institution has set it up that way. The "other type" units are set aside from the infantry and the training reflects this. Thusly, so does the attitude within the Army.

Again, it's because of the Army's size. I disagree that soldiers don't get any basic combat training after basic, but you're right that it isn't focused on as it is in the Corps. That finance company just isn't expected to see the battlefield. It's the product of the low intensity warfare mindset that took post Vietnam.

A convoy is considered a soft target, because that's just what it is. Truck convoys aren't armored, nor do they have heavy weapons systems. Doesn't much matter what branch the convoy belongs to, it's going to remain a soft target.

I've seen support arms units that were as proficient as any infantry unit and i've seen support arms units that had taken 50% casualties and they've never left the barracks, so to say that it's an occurence across the board isn't accurate.

 

[apdst]

You are talking about the simple stereotype bashing. But the facts are facts. A Army PsycheOp team (we have none) traveled with us (7th Reg) all the way to Baghdad. They preferred to be with a Marine unit. An Air Force 1stSgt is a current member of my Advanced Course Class. She stated that it looks good on her record to have attended a Proffessional Marine Leadership Course.

I used to feel like I was supposed to be quite about Marine pride around other branches because they automatically rush to defend their branch. But why would they feel that they have to defend whenever a Marine is around? Or in a group, why is it always a soldier that speaks of the brain dead Marine in the group wen he finds out there is one? I no longer feel that I have to pull my pride anymore just to satisfy the fragility of others who have a complex.

I never met a modest Marine...LOL!!! I was in a school at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and saw Marines get all hyped up about cleaning the classroom at the end of the first day of class, because they were, "always first" and all that crap.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I never met a modest Marine...LOL!!! I was in a school at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and saw Marines get all hyped up about cleaning the classroom at the end of the first day of class, because they were, "always first" and all that crap.

Well, Mac Davis said it perfectly.

Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble,
When you're perfect in every way! :mrgreen:

 

[apdst]

Well, Mac Davis said it perfectly.

Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble,
When you're perfect in every way! :mrgreen:

Great analogy...LOL!!!