snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Urban Legends » Military » Marines are tougher than SEALs? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Marines are tougher than SEALs?
Mr. Grinch
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
While Force Recon (and Scout Sniper training for that matter) would be more difficult then anything that I would want to go through, Ive heard countless stories, from Marines no less, of BUDs dropouts that went Force Recon instead. As proud as I am of my Navy, I believe there is a point that you reach where you simply are going to make it or not. I have a somewhat hard time believing that after any Special Forces training, you would be able to just switch to another. But what do I know Im just a lazy NFO! Only tough thing I have to look forward to is SERE school.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rogue1stclass
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rogue1stclass   E-mail Rogue1stclass   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DesertRat:
Rogue;

You make very valid points. Remember, the point of my arguement was never who was tougher--because yes, on an individual basis, the SEALs will win out almost every time. Rather, the questions was whose initial entry-level training was tougher. In most cases, but not all, the SEALs take the cake there as well, though I would argue that BUD/S, though tough as hell, may not be the most productive training program.

Well, yeah. BUD/S is basically a second boot camp. It doesn't really train SEALs for combat, it makes them SEALs. SEALs have to get their combat training elsewhere. Hell, some might even go to SoI, for all I know. If I remember right, both SEALs and Recon get a lot choices of schools and do a lot of crosstraining. If I was given my choice of combat training, I'd sure as hell pick SoI (and I did).

Yeah, Recon guys wash out of BUDS. SEALs wash out of Marine Boot Camp. I mean, sheesh, after being in the pinnicle of your profession, would you want to go through the "low life maggot" stage again? I'm sure some sign up out some kind of personal challenge and then realize that it's all the same crap again.

Posts: 195 | From: Florida | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
overlord
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
All services have a mission and basic training is geared to the mission. [Confused] [Confused]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
overlord
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 301 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Two more cents worth:

Stories from the front are often misreported correspondents often apply the title "soldier" or even "Marine" to those engaged in the fighting on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Many the combatants on the ground are sailors.

When super-secret Task Force 121, reported to be a joint force of CIA operatives and Army Delta Force soldiers deploys on an al Qaeda mission, many of the commandos within its ranks are members of the Navy's crack counterterrorism unit, SEAL Team Six.

Navy SEAL Teams were among the first units on the ground fighting Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. SEALs were also among the first Americans killed in combat: A tragic reality of their being given extremely dangerous missions. Consequently, SEAL training is rigorous, with some SEALs admitting that their training is more intense than the experience of a real operation.

It begins with BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL) school,six months of the toughest training on earth, which all SEAL hopefuls must endure in order to join the elite force.

The program includes swimming, running, obstacle courses, small-boat seamanship, and other physically and mentally toughening exercises. During this phase, SEAL candidates must also endure a seemingly impossible five-and-a-half days known as "Hell Week."

To the outsider, this may sound like nothing more than a college initiation. It is more than that. During "Hell Week," SEAL candidates are allowed only four hours of sleep, Not per day, but for the entire week. Four hours sleep for the entire week!

After basic conditioning is the diving course, and the land-warfare course, in which SEAL hopefuls must master skills in land navigation, small-unit tactics, patrolling, rappelling, weapons marksmanship, and explosives.

And Like most other special-operations forces, SEALs must also undergo airborne training.

Any special operations guy is good, but when Army Delta Force goes into a hostage situation, they parachute in, fly in, or are trucked in.

When a SEAL has to "lockout" from a submarine and swim x distance, carry a lot of extra equipment because of the maritime configuration coming out of a "crappy" environment, "a full day of work is already done" by the time he gets there.

[dunce]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
brkid1
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by overlord:
Two more cents worth:
(snip)
When a SEAL has to "lockout" from a submarine and swim x distance, carry a lot of extra equipment because of the maritime configuration coming out of a "crappy" environment, "a full day of work is already done" by the time he gets there.

[dunce]

OL,

All SOF undergo brutal amounts of swim training. SEALs preferred method of insertion is by swim, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are that much superior as swimmers:

PJ standards

SEAL standards

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
overlord
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 302 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
O.K. [fish]
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/RS21048.pdf

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 24 posted      Profile for Richard W   E-mail Richard W   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malruhn:
If only the world would realize that the Coast Guard is the best - and the Marine Science Technicians are why the USCG is there in the first place - the world would be a MUCH better place to live!!

Blinking flip, I agree with Malruhn...!

(edit) That's not to say that I haven't enormous respect for the people in special forces units, whichever ones worldwide. I've done (and mostly hated) enough physical activity to know that I'd never be able to get through these programs even if I wanted to. I just wish that the whole thing was unnecessary...

Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
overlord
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malruhn:
The huge majority of the "Mine is better than yours" claims are cultural indoctrination and propaganda. Every basic training/boot camp class is told that they are the bestest that has ever gone through that installation. Each branch (infantry/finance/basket weaving) is told that the rest of the military could not possibly function without them, and the services revolve around them. Each service puts out that their special ops guys are better than the other services' forces.

The inter and intra service rivalries get me sick.

If only the world would realize that the Coast Guard is the best - and the Marine Science Technicians are why the USCG is there in the first place - the world would be a MUCH better place to live!!
[fish] I got it...

I TOTALLY AGREE! [dunce]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
NovaSS
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NovaSS   E-mail NovaSS   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brkid1:
quote:
Originally posted by overlord:
Two more cents worth:
(snip)
When a SEAL has to "lockout" from a submarine and swim x distance, carry a lot of extra equipment because of the maritime configuration coming out of a "crappy" environment, "a full day of work is already done" by the time he gets there.

[dunce]

OL,

All SOF undergo brutal amounts of swim training. SEALs preferred method of insertion is by swim, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are that much superior as swimmers:

PJ standards

SEAL standards

Seals dont swim, they turn into fish. I have worked with teams in lock out situations from submarines. While a sub tries to hover these guys are climbing all of the exterior pulling equipment from storage while keeping an eye on the depth, unless the sub is grounded there is always the chance of a sudden depth change. Just a few feet either way can be fatal to them or their mission.
Posts: 162 | From: Maryland | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
overlord
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 301 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
SEAL commandos are considered the best trained combat swimmers in the world.

see; posted 05 July, 2005 03:26 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O.K.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/RS21048.pdf in my previous post.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
overlord
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
This is what I have heard, is this true?

The special operations was composed of joint teams of Army, Navy and Air Force special forces. Now the Marines have finally come aboard.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DesertRat
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DesertRat     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
SOCOM has traditionally been composed of all SpecOps elements of the Army, navy, and Air Force. Generally speaking, individual service components and units retained their unit integrity, though such is not always the case in a deployed environment.

The Marines only recently came on board, and I guess you could say that MARSOC is still in its "Beta" version. There has long been an insitutional fear that loss of assets and control incurred by detaching units to SOCOM would outweigh any gains, and there are many (myself included) who still share that concern.

--------------------
High on the wind, the Highland drums begin to roll, and something from the past just comes and stares into my soul... --Mark Knopfler

Posts: 3402 | From: New Bern, NC | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Senior
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Senior   E-mail Senior       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Stephens:
Question for any Navy types: I am in possession of the Navy Landing Party Manual, vintage 1960. Basically it covers how to organize and train sailors to perform limited ground combat operations. Every ship and shore station was required to maintain a force of a certain size for emergencies. Is this sort of thing still done?

The short answer is no.

The long answer is that ships and shore stations have to provide their own security. I spent many hours as Topside Watch or Topside Petty Officer, essentially doing guard duty on a ship.

Shore stations have sailors and civilians (officially, DOD Police) providing security. These folks are given specialized training.

Large ships (cruisers and larger) have Marines to provide landing parties. Small ships don't have anything like that. Most sailors are given "familiarization" training in small arms, but no type of infantry or landing party training.

I'm a retired submariner Chief. In all my years in four different subs, I never had any landing party training.

--------------------
Ad astra per asparagus.

Posts: 4806 | From: Groton, CT | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Buzzbomb
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Buzzbomb   E-mail Buzzbomb   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I have a quick question from the unititiated: Are all the men who go through BUD/S SEAL training Navy sailors?
A friend told me once that many SEALs are Marines who were allowed to enter the program then transferred to the Navy if they completed.
I was skeptical, but since the USMC is part of the Navy Department, it didn't sound completely implausible.

Posts: 34 | From: Illinois | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ASL
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for ASL   E-mail ASL   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Peter H:
quote:
Originally posted by John Stephens:
Question for any Navy types: I am in possession of the Navy Landing Party Manual, vintage 1960. Basically it covers how to organize and train sailors to perform limited ground combat operations. Every ship and shore station was required to maintain a force of a certain size for emergencies. Is this sort of thing still done?

The short answer is no.

The long answer is that ships and shore stations have to provide their own security. I spent many hours as Topside Watch or Topside Petty Officer, essentially doing guard duty on a ship.

Shore stations have sailors and civilians (officially, DOD Police) providing security. These folks are given specialized training.

Large ships (cruisers and larger) have Marines to provide landing parties. Small ships don't have anything like that. Most sailors are given "familiarization" training in small arms, but no type of infantry or landing party training.

I'm a retired submariner Chief. In all my years in four different subs, I never had any landing party training.

The even longer answer is that the Navy is considering bringing this capability back. They are actually hoping to begin production (it will be at least a few years due to the budget and all, plus no finalized design has been chosen yet) of next generation ships designed for littoral (coastal) warfare. They are even considering the idea of a rate of essentially ocean-borne infantry. Essentially, people trained to operate ships and fight on land as well. However, there's more to it than that. Littoral warfare isn't just landing troops against coastal targets, it's attacking them in general. That means more research into extended range guided munitions that can essentially be fired from a 5" gun like those aboard a destroyer or cruiser and then be guided to the target like a cruise missile (but with a much shorter range and smaller warhead) as well as advances in more conventional cruise missile technology (TOMAHAWK Block IV is the latest).

You might be interested to know that Marines security detachments are actually no longer permanately attached to even the largest of ships: carriers. The Navy's started to expand the master-at-arms rate and increase security training in general. However, in some cases Marine detachments are "temporarily" placed aboard Carriers on deployment for the duration.

The Navy is also trying to increase its capability to execute forced boardings of uncooperative vessels. Many ships in the destroyer, frigate, and cruiser class are now required to have at least a couple teams made up entirely of the ship's crew (as opposed to a Coast Guard or SEAL detachment) who go through specialized schooling and training for this purpose.

--------------------
"Dear Lord, please protect this rockethouse and all who dwell within..."

Posts: 1093 | From: Japan | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
CannonFodder Global Trotter
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 1 posted      Profile for CannonFodder Global Trotter   Author's Homepage   E-mail CannonFodder Global Trotter   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Buzzbomb:
I have a quick question from the unititiated: Are all the men who go through BUD/S SEAL training Navy sailors?
A friend told me once that many SEALs are Marines who were allowed to enter the program then transferred to the Navy if they completed.
I was skeptical, but since the USMC is part of the Navy Department, it didn't sound completely implausible.

Yes, Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training is a Navy course. It's speckled here and there with servicemen who were previously Marines, or Soldiers and have transferred into the Navy, but every set of boots in those swim fin footprints belongs to a Sailor.

--------------------
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."

Posts: 2776 | From: LSA Anaconda, Iraq | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DesertRat
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DesertRat     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Ahhhh, ship's security and MIO. To me, this are traditionally "Marine" jobs, and it's unfortunate to me that a combination of politics and manpower issues have resulted in the Navy having to train and fund their own to do what once was, and still should be, our job.

There's a far more cost effective solution... increase the existing size of the Marine Security Forces, and det them out as ships company and MSPF forces. (Or maybe we could scrap MARSOC and put Marines back at work being Marines.)

At the end of the day, the Marines are still Naval Infantry. It's a bit silly to me that the Navy is having to equip seperate security and even (prospectively) infantry assets (see last weeks issue of Navy Times) to do what is essentially a traditional Marine job.

--------------------
High on the wind, the Highland drums begin to roll, and something from the past just comes and stares into my soul... --Mark Knopfler

Posts: 3402 | From: New Bern, NC | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I thought the reason the Navy had Marines on board ship was because sheep would be too obvious.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DesertRat
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DesertRat     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Haze yourself.

--------------------
High on the wind, the Highland drums begin to roll, and something from the past just comes and stares into my soul... --Mark Knopfler

Posts: 3402 | From: New Bern, NC | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
overlord
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
There is much at stake, possibly including Marine Corps control over aviation units that are specially trained for close air support and integral to Marine ground operations. Every service branch except the Marine Corps provides special operations units to SOCOM, and that is a situation the Rumsfeld intends to change.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200504/ai_n13617194#continue

It goes back to the old arguement, the Corps does not want to lose control, as stated by D/R earlier.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DesertRat
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DesertRat     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The following is merely my personal opinion, nothing more.


We have traditionally been VERY, VERY resistant to losing tactical and operational control of our aircraft to theater CFACCs. Doctrinally, Marine Air is a critical component of the MAGTF (Marine-Air Ground task Force), operating in tandem with and in direct support of the associated Ground Combat element.

Lacking a lot of the more sophisticated ground-based fore support assets of the Army, our reliance on precision close air support has been a mission-making and life-saving asset. We hav traditionally been willing, as a matter of compromise, to give up FW strike assets to theater CFACCs on a case by case basis, but we simply [wi]will not[/i] relinquish control of those CAS assets (primarily RW) which we consider mission essential.

Any time you give up control, you invariably lose the asset when we need it the most. There has to be a substantial gain in order to justify that loss. In the case of FW strike and EW assets, we gain as much as we lose--Navy and USAF FW and EW assets can provide more than sufficient overlap, and some special capabilities that Marine assets do not have.

RW CAS assets are s different story. Those are directly tailored to the MAGTF--our FACs train specifically to work with Marine aviators, and vice versa. Consequently, this is why the Corps is the recognized subject matter expert on close air support in the US military-- it's the primary mission for these assets, and they train rigorously for it. The loss of these assets cannot be compensated for by comparable Army or Air Force assets-- with no disrespect to our Army and Air Force bretheren, no one can do CAS like we do, and there's a catalogue of friendly fire incidents to prove it. Those CAS assets are ours, and the loss of these assets is simply, to me (and many others) unacceptable. That would be like the Army handing over control of the 2d Armored Division to SOCOM--that is their relative importance to us.

Which is not to say that we're greedy or won't share. MAGTF commanders know their job is to support all American forces on the ground, not just Marines, and have been historically extraordinarily generous with their assets based on usually nothing more than a handshake and gentlemen's agreement. During OIF I, Marine RW CAS assets provided much-needed support for British forces operating in the Basra area. That's just one example, and a thorough examination of OIF as a whole would provide many more.

Additionally, on a case-by-case theater-by-theater asset, Marine Air has been more than happy to support special oeprations forces as needed. (Hell, we're Marines-- doing another community's job gives us a hard on and bragging rights.) While I can't go into details, the last few years have seen not only CAS assets, but Marine Air assets of all varieties provide diverse and effective support to SOCOM units operating throughout the world in support of the GWOT. It has been my privilege to participate in some of these situations, and rest assured, our support was proactive and quite willing. Suffice it to say, the snake-eaters came away very satisfied.

All of these professional relationships have all beeen handled on case-by-case, commander-by-commander basis, usually based on a handshake. In fact, I cannot think of a single circumstance within my breadth of experience that Marine Air has failed to support any service component when requested.

Why change what isn't broke? We have been doing, and will continue to do whatever's asked for us. Though I don't like it, in the end we're going to have to accept the sacrifice of at least some of our special purpose assets (Force Recon, etc) to SOCOM--that's just the way it's going to be. But touching Marine Air is another story. Sacrificing total adminstrative, training, and operational control of MAGTF-critical assets to SOCOM simply in the interests of politics is not good warfighting policy.

--------------------
High on the wind, the Highland drums begin to roll, and something from the past just comes and stares into my soul... --Mark Knopfler

Posts: 3402 | From: New Bern, NC | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
overlord
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The process of regenerating the American naval infantry is accelerating. There was a time, not too long ago, when the marines where what marines had always been, soldiers who belonged to the navy and served on ships. But since World War II, the U.S. Marine Corps have developed into a truly separate force, no longer available to the navy.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
That would be like the Army handing over control of the 2d Armored Division to SOCOM--that is their relative importance to us.
You probably should change this comparison. The Army would have zero problem handing control of the 2AD to SOCOM, or even the Boy Scouts, because it was deactivated 10 years ago (re-flagged as the 4th Infantry Division).

For the rest of your point, I agree completely. The mission, size, and structure of the Corps is such that giving up CAS or Force Recon units is not to its benefit.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
overlord
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
There was a similar situation in VN and Korea where Marine Aircraft was taken control of by a The joint force commander. Marine commanders fought this "tooth and nail."

M/C lacking heavy artillery relies on air suport, and preferably Marine A/C, trained for close air support.

But, the Joint Force Commander wants his force to be a
total package. Marines, need to decide
whether they want to fit into that package, or
exist in there own "'Zone of Operations'...carved out for a
separate USMC war. Marines may find they are
uninvited, with no zone at all. But, we know this will not happen.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
overlord
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The Navy's new Expeditionary Combat Battalion is expected to be of a higher quality than the marines, something close to U.S. Army Special Forces.

The ECG would be trained in foreign languages and cultures, and be part of the force that provided training to foreign navies. But the ECG would also take over some SEAL functions, like providing boarding parties for dangerous interdiction missions.

Most of these boarding operations are not dangerous, and are handled by specially trained sailors and Masters at Arms.

These folks are also doing a job that has traditionally belonged to “marines.” But since the U.S. Navy no longer has control of the U.S. Marine Corps, and needs marines, it has to rebuild the force under a new name. Or, rather, several new names.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DesertRat
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DesertRat     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Pinqy, color me embarassed.

Overlord, though the Marine Corps' role as (as Truman called it) the "Navy's police force" certainly decreased after WWII, there's no denying our naval origin and character. It was only within the last decade that Marines were removed from capital ships as ships' company, due primarily to manpower issues. We should still be on the ships, IMHO.

And as for the role of naval infantry... we ARE naval infantry. That's what Marines do. While we have certainly increased our capabilities, and our operations in Iraq are currently being conducted devoid of a major naval component (no disprespect intended to the corpsmen or chaplains), there is no denying our fundamental character or role. Our naval roots are our most fundamental seperation from the Army, and the root of why America wants a seperate Marine Corps. If we are going to enjoy the benefits of that tradition, we need to pony up and honoring it--by returning forces, as required, to their roots as old school Naval Infantry.

As for your example... right now, In Iraq, we are discovering the extreme flexability and inter-service operability of the Marine Corps, as Marine and Army units continue to forge closer bonds of mutual support.

However, what your notional JFC fails to realize is that--unlike the Army / Air Force relationship, Marine avation units are not considered seperate maneuever elements designe to provide generic on-call support to a greater JTF. I know this is a huge cultural gulf is hard for a lot of Army commanders to understand, but Marine Air is not an adjacent force-- it is an imbedded subordinate unit of a greater command element, generically known as the MAGTF. Each MAGTF has a command element, which controls both a ground combat element and air combat element. (For purposes of this arguement, let's go to the smallest level, a MEU, which owns a battalion landing team and a composite medium lift squadron.) For purposes of that task organization, that BLT and squadron are sister units, both owned part-and-parcel by the higher command element. Think of them, despite the fact that they are two totally different units, as being merely two co-equal battalions in a regiment, both owned by that regimental CO.

That ACE exists, in truth, not even to support Marines (generic term)-- it exists specifically to function as tasked by the MAGTF command element, and its primary (indeed, sole unless specifically approved by the MAGTF CO) purpose is support of THAT particular BLT. (Case in point, 22 MEU, currently in work-ups... HMM-261 (REIN) is BLT 1/2's personal airline and CAS asset. No one else can tas or touch 261.) For the reasons you and I both described, this relationship is not merely a nice-to-have--it is an essential character of our warfighting doctrine, and one which we cannot give up and continue to retain our warfighting capability.

As I said, FW is negotiable. Our FW strike, air superiority, and EW assets are good, but they are certainly not the acknowledged masters-- that is NavAir / Air Force terrirory. Though it still doesn't sit well with us, we accept that--by giving these up--we get just as much as we give, in the form of truly spectacular JFAC support from Air Force and Navy air superiority, strike, and EW assets who truly are the masters of their craft.

But no one--and I do mean no one--does CAS like we do. And no Marine commander anywhere is going to willfully sacrifice his own organic CAS and assault support assets for substandard performance from Army or Air Force units. (Again, not slurring the Army or Air Force... just being objective.) And in the realm of CAS, there really is no room for error, as evidenced by the alarminly high history of wartime fratricide from non-Marine CAS platforms. Ours really are the best, and we trained them that way for a reason--to support Marines. We are happy to loan them out as needed (share the wealth, right), but we will not willingly divest ourselves of a mission critical capability when there is simply no comparable capability to be garnered in return.

(Again, this is all merely my own opinion, I speak for no one else.)

ETA: Damn, I can't type.

--------------------
High on the wind, the Highland drums begin to roll, and something from the past just comes and stares into my soul... --Mark Knopfler

Posts: 3402 | From: New Bern, NC | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DesertRat
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DesertRat     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Forgot to mention....

Though they have a totally different T/O and mission, compare the MAGTF with a US Army Amored Cavalry Regiment. The basic command relationships are the same between the ACE, the ground battlaions, and the command element. It might give a better understanding of how the MAGTF works.

--------------------
High on the wind, the Highland drums begin to roll, and something from the past just comes and stares into my soul... --Mark Knopfler

Posts: 3402 | From: New Bern, NC | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Buzzbomb
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 601 posted      Profile for Buzzbomb   E-mail Buzzbomb   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CannonFodder Global Trotter:

Yes, Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training is a Navy course. It's speckled here and there with servicemen who were previously Marines, or Soldiers and have transferred into the Navy, but every set of boots in those swim fin footprints belongs to a Sailor. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Thanks for the response.

Posts: 34 | From: Illinois | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Malruhn
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Malruhn   E-mail Malruhn   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I still think that it is quite funny that the new boarding teams that the Navy uses to do standard blockade-style boardings (keeping contraband out of somewhere) are all trained by the US Coast Guard. We still have teams on the Navy ships and help out with "co-boardings" or assists from time to time.

Yeah, something we do on a daily basis will be considered SOCOM for the Navy... [Wink]

--------------------
Opinions aren't excuses to remain ignorant about subjects, nor are they excuses to never examine one's beliefs & prejudices...

Babies are like tattoos. You see other peoples' & they're cool, but yours is never as good & you can't get rid of it.

Posts: 5622 | From: Jax, Florida | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DesertRat
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DesertRat     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, I love the way the Navy uses Coast Guard officers to "bend" the rules... when a Coastie has the conn, a Navy ship, for that duration, becomes a Coast Guard ship, with all the rights and special privileges...

--------------------
High on the wind, the Highland drums begin to roll, and something from the past just comes and stares into my soul... --Mark Knopfler

Posts: 3402 | From: New Bern, NC | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
overlord
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
DR-- Ah yes close air support.

Apples and oranges.

If nothing else, the article makes for some good reading.

WHO HAS THE BEST PILOTS? No mention of close air support!

http://strategypage.com/dls/articles/200543025537.asp

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DesertRat
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DesertRat     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Infantry might take and hold ground, but airpower decides who ultimately wins or loses a war.
I'm as firm a proponent of air power as anyone, but I find this statement absurd. While air power is without question a force multiplier, it is the grunt on the deck who asserts our national will on the enemy.

I can't really dispute the rest of the article... it sounds about right. Among the American air forces, the USAF is the undisputed master of air superiority--the art of being the fighter pilot.

However, the article neglects the many, many other essential aspects of combat aviation. Were it not for these other essential functions, the air superiority battle would essentially be mutual masturbation--a conflict with no impact to ground forces.

The Marine Corps has quantified its air mission into the six essential functions are Marine Aviation, of which Air Superiority (Anti-Air Warfare)is only one area (the others being Offensive Air Support, Aerial Recon, Electronic Warfare, Control of Aircraft and Missiles, and Assault Support). Air Superiority is conducted only to allow a favorable operating environment for these other functions, and to deny the enemy the capability to do the same--it is a means to an end, not an end to itself. The Air Force are, without question, the absolute subject matter experts in the world of Air Superiority--they do indeed own the skies--but sometimes I think they may forget the purpose they serve.

Even these don't cover the breadth and scope of air operations-- they are very Marines centric. Strategic bombing, etc, are the full purview of the Air Force, and represents a key component of our national defense strategy. The article also neglects those fields.

Bottom line, the article is a very interesting comparison piece, and I learned from it. I chuckle however at the somehwat myopic view fighter jocks of allbranches of service have of their craft. Still a good article, definitely worth reading.

ETA: The article also displays the typical FW pilot's complete neglect of the rotary wing side of the house... and there can be no doubt that the RW community are the absolute masters of CAS.

--------------------
High on the wind, the Highland drums begin to roll, and something from the past just comes and stares into my soul... --Mark Knopfler

Posts: 3402 | From: New Bern, NC | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Malruhn
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Malruhn   E-mail Malruhn   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DesertRat:
Infantry might take and hold ground, but airpower decides who ultimately wins or loses a war.

May I be so bold as to introduce the authors to the Korean war, where the brand new USAF boldly said, "Go play your infantry and tank games. The Air Force will keep the yellow bastards out of the peninsula - nothing larger than a rabbit will be alive when we are done."

Damned shame all those rabbit sized Chinese and North Korean soldiers invaded... [lol]

I hear you DR. I hear you well.

Oh, and overlord, don't forget that when CAS goes out, it is under good conditions. When the weather gets bad enough to send CAS home to evacuate, the Coast Guard fires up the turbines as it is getting time to go to work.

(nah - I ain't biased!!) [lol]

--------------------
Opinions aren't excuses to remain ignorant about subjects, nor are they excuses to never examine one's beliefs & prejudices...

Babies are like tattoos. You see other peoples' & they're cool, but yours is never as good & you can't get rid of it.

Posts: 5622 | From: Jax, Florida | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DesertRat
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DesertRat     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Malruhn, in case you missed the other thread specifically devoted to this issue, Happy Coast Guard Birthday! Semper Fi and Semper Paratus. [Smile]

--------------------
High on the wind, the Highland drums begin to roll, and something from the past just comes and stares into my soul... --Mark Knopfler

Posts: 3402 | From: New Bern, NC | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Malruhn
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Malruhn   E-mail Malruhn   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hey, thanks, and I got the note... I just can't resist some inter-service barbs from time to time.

Especially amongst friends. Try this in a bar and you can get your butt kicked!! [lol]

--------------------
Opinions aren't excuses to remain ignorant about subjects, nor are they excuses to never examine one's beliefs & prejudices...

Babies are like tattoos. You see other peoples' & they're cool, but yours is never as good & you can't get rid of it.

Posts: 5622 | From: Jax, Florida | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2