I certainly do. Others were arguing otherwise.
Then tell me why your above quoted statement about flexibility, specialization, and modularity is wrong...
I certainly do. Others were arguing otherwise.
You’re going to be very popular with the Sailors.You've spent millions of dollars training an aviator to pilot a $100 million plane. The plane and pilot are shot down. It's a tragic death, and on top of that as far as the brass is concerned it's a huge loss. Then you have a mechanic fresh out of high school who gets hit by an IED. It's a tragic death, but as far as the books are concerned, it's a far more expendable loss than the pilot and plane.
This is why I keep saying you’re an idiot. Find where I said the Army doesn’t get more funding.I certainly do. Others were arguing otherwise. Treetop was repeatedly attacking me over stating the Army receives more funding.
You’re going to be very popular with the Sailors.
Then tell me why your above quoted statement about flexibility, specialization, and modularity is wrong...
You’re going to be very popular with the Sailors.
This is why I keep saying you’re an idiot. Find where I said the Army doesn’t get more funding.
Is Sculpin the re re re emergence of radical douche?
You still haven’t shown that the Army spends more to train infantry, despite your two random dated links comparing dissimilar courses.What are you referring to exactly? That the Army is able to accommodate and train across a broader range of functional and operational specializations overall? I think what people are missing is that "similar" MOSs between services don't necessarily there's always going to be a one-to-one. For example, the Army doesn't do amphibious warfare these days like the Marines do. They don't have guys floating around on boats simply because it a niche role they simply don't need to bother with. What's also being missed is the functional, operational, and fiscal differences determine what is and what can be operationally achieved. It's why the Army goes crazy covering ever base possible in land warfare and always looking to come up with more niches to fill. The Marines simply don't have the same functional roles, funding, or need to cover bases already well-covered by the Army. The Marines are also far more combined arms oriented than the Army, working with substantial sea and air assets including lots of fixed wing fighters. What does that mean? They're all over the place, which combined with limited funding and other factors, they're not going to be able to fine-tune and specialize every aspect of land warfare as the Army does.
TL;DR: Different services are different but there are specific areas where the Army is simply able to invest in and develop a lot more because that's specifically what they do. That's the whole point I've been making this thread. That there's contention about more or less stating the US Army conducts land warfare more effectively than any other force in the world is surprising more than anything else.
No need to worry about me being unpopular, and I won't be in any role where I'd potentially have to send people to their deaths. It's something I'd have trouble with anyways. However, I'm no stranger to being told many brutal truths across the board, and the one you quote is more or less one I've been told many times. It's just a matter of whether one accepts such things or not. I regularly meet people who refuse to believe their jobs can be replaced with people on the other side of the world who have none of their education and skills but cost a tenth as much. Then it happens and they're in shock. Hurray for outsourcing.
If anything, my problem is I care about people too much. It's why I'll likely never be in a position of any sort where being shamelessly ruthless is required, especially when I've had so much experience dealing with such people.
Not because of that, Rather, you said I am an idiot because Griz appeared to have misunderstood/was confused something I stated which led me to be unsure if he had understood or not or referring to something differently which turned into much ado about nothing. You told me to find you who spends more on training. Army, hands-down, and why is that? They're taking advantage of their substantially larger funding which additionally they can focus almost solely on land warfare and not the broadest spectrum of combined arms you'll see of any individual force in the world.
Did radical douche say plain-as-day things about the Army which upset people because interservice rivalries are very serious business?
You still haven’t shown that the Army spends more to train infantry, despite your two random dated links comparing dissimilar courses.
You still haven’t shown that the Army produces better infantry.
Even if you had effectively argued both of those claims you made, it doesn’t show that Marine infantry is in any way “expendable”, which was a monumentally stupid thing to claim both because it’s not true and it’s impossible for you to prove even if it were true.
So to recap, you haven’t really done anything except flail around and embarrass yourself like Swanee and others have pointed out. At least radicaldouche could articulate an argument from time to time.
If you had claimed that the Marines has more armor than the Army I would have told you you’re wrong because it’s obviously untrue. You could have tried to argue that Army training is superior and the Army is superior in combat and if you actually had something to support your claims I’d be interested.It's certainly clear you were outraged that someone could state a plain-as-day thing that could be interpreted positively about the Army (re: the TL;DR in my last comment), that much is for certain. This tribalistic response was unexpected, I'm willing to admit that. Reminds me a bit about the Iraqi tribalism and their famous "I and my brothers against my cousins" saying. I was certainly warned by multiple senior officers that some people can be very tribalistic, so I can't say I wasn't warned. Is this why "Do you think you are capable of working with people from other services or even foreign militaries?" is a common interview question?
To put things the other way, had I stated it the other way around and said something ridiculous like the Marines have superior and more abundant armor than the Army, I am absolutely certain I would have gotten a lot of yay's and "wow that's very insightful" kind of responses across the board because it's the way tribalism works. I'm absolutely sure you would be one of those people. Rather, as I had not done that, the reality is you have been throwing around ridiculous insults while talking about college football and how you argue with 15 year-olds on YouTube, ironically the flailing about you accuse me of. Other than that, you really haven't made any other contribution in this thread.
Imagine you explained to me the US Army had more advanced artillery than the German military, and then I responded to your calm replies with repeated insults because I was incapable of tolerating the very suggestion anyone could do anything better than the Germans because of how upset such a statement made me. Don't you think that would be a tad ridiculous?
Nobody here has been insulting you. They’ve been telling you to stop embarrassing yourself. You’re clearly a bright young man, but you’re going about this in an entirely counterproductive manner. My advice to you is to STFU for a while, and absorb some of what people are telling you. You need to be in receive mode for a while.We have arrived at a circular loop and I feel there is no use in arguing any further. In fact, it was foolish to do so in the first place. If anything, I wish to apologize as I feel it is the right and mature thing to do. I do not mind the [unwarranted] insults and misclassifications, so there's certainly no worries there. I don't hold grudges especially over silly things, and frankly the only people I have serious issue with are jihadists and terrorists and not without exceptional reason and experiences.