Should we switch some of the Carrier Strike Groups back to full Battle Groups?

[Deleted member 67144 scul]

I’d love to hear your reasoning behind your idea that Marine infantry is expendable but Army infantry is too highly trained to be expendable.

You mean the Army's reasoning or simply how we operate conflicts these days or plenty of former Army and Marine infantry's reasoning? It's because they serve two very different purposes, and have different sets of resources, training, equipment, etc. If you're in any way aware of conflicts since Vietnam or how the Army evolved since the end of conscription, the Army decidedly moved from massive conscripted forces into a substantially smaller force and specialized, elite units with advanced schools and training in airborne / air assault, mechanized, fast deployable task forces, urban warfare, mountain warfare, a dozen other things I'm forgetting (there's just a lot), you name it, the Army has it. Even before that, recruits don't go through standard BCT... they go through OSUT. Hell, there's even standard infantry task forces formed/trained by Rangers... so you have lots of standard Army infantry operating at a special forces level of training and competence but without the special forces designation or missions. Whatever any particular infantry is doing, the Army has the money, resources, equipment, facilities, and innovation to do it. There's a lot more that any Army infantry could give you a 3 hour lecture on and tons of things I'm missing, but there's nothing like an Iraq War combat vet sitting you down and explaining at length how frustrating Marines can be to work with.

Marine infantry are much more of a peanut-butter spread. You go to the same boot everyone does, you go to ITB, both with an overly heavy emphasis on drilling relative to more functional areas, and voila, you're an 03. The Marine Corps is frankly very underfunded and very "traditional" so they're naturally lagging way behind in equipment and training compared to their Army counterparts. Hell, even bayonet drills are still a big thing. Overall, you lose a Marine infantryman, the investment is simply nowhere close to an Army infantryman. They're two different leagues entirely. The one thing the Marines claim to be good at, the Army surpasses them entirely. Considering part of the Army's job is bailing out Marines even in cases where the present Army force is a lot smaller and less equipped than the Marines present (Chosin, Najaf immediately come to mind), the difference in competence is further telling. The Marines can do well with general policing and that's where they shine. The one area the Marines really excel is their propaganda, with President Truman likening it to Stalin's, and the Corps is certainly a lot better at it now than in the 40s-50s.

 

[BigRed389]

You mean the Army's reasoning or simply how we operate conflicts these days or plenty of former Army and Marine infantry? It's because they serve two very different purposes, and have different sets of resources, training, equipment, etc. If you're in any way aware of conflicts since Vietnam or how the Army evolved since the end of conscription, the Army decidedly moved from massive conscripted forces into a substantially smaller force and specialized, elite units with advanced schools and training in airborne / air assault, mechanized, fast deployable task forces, urban warfare, mountain warfare, a dozen other things I'm forgetting (there's just a lot), you name it, the Army has it. Even before that, recruits don't go through standard BCT... they go through OSUT. Hell, there's even standard infantry task forces formed/trained by Rangers... so you have lots of standard Army infantry operating at a special forces level of training and competence but without the special forces designation or missions. Whatever any particular infantry is doing, the Army has the money, resources, equipment, facilities, and innovation to do it. There's a lot more that any Army infantry could give you a 3 hour lecture on and tons of things I'm missing, but there's nothing like an Iraq War combat vet sitting you down and explaining at length how frustrating Marines can be to work with.

Marine infantry are much more of a peanut-butter spread. You go to the same boot everyone does, you go to ITB, both with an overly heavy emphasis on drilling relative to more functional areas, and voila, you're an 03. The Marine Corps is frankly very underfunded and very "traditional" so they're naturally lagging way behind in equipment and training compared to their Army counterparts. Hell, even bayonet drills are still a big thing. Overall, you lose a Marine infantryman, the investment is simply nowhere close to an Army infantryman. They're two different leagues entirely. The one thing the Marines claim to be good at, the Army surpasses them entirely. Considering part of the Army's job is bailing out Marines even in cases where the present Army force is a lot smaller and less equipped than the Marines present (Chosin, Najaf immediately come to mind), the difference in competence is further telling. The Marines can do well with general policing and that's where they shine.

If this is the shit you’re going to keep posting, stop posting until you actually get commissioned.

 

[Griz882]

You mean the Army's reasoning or simply how we operate conflicts these days or plenty of former Army and Marine infantry? It's because they serve two very different purposes, and have different sets of resources, training, equipment, etc. If you're in any way aware of conflicts since Vietnam or how the Army evolved since the end of conscription, the Army decidedly moved from massive conscripted forces into a substantially smaller force and specialized, elite units with advanced schools and training in airborne / air assault, mechanized, fast deployable task forces, urban warfare, mountain warfare, a dozen other things I'm forgetting (there's just a lot), you name it, the Army has it. Even before that, recruits don't go through standard BCT... they go through OSUT. Hell, there's even standard infantry task forces formed/trained by Rangers... so you have lots of standard Army infantry operating at a special forces level of training and competence but without the special forces designation or missions. Whatever any particular infantry is doing, the Army has the money, resources, equipment, facilities, and innovation to do it. There's a lot more that any Army infantry could give you a 3 hour lecture on and tons of things I'm missing, but there's nothing like an Iraq War combat vet sitting you down and explaining at length how frustrating Marines can be to work with.

Marine infantry are much more of a peanut-butter spread. You go to the same boot everyone does, you go to ITB, both with an overly heavy emphasis on drilling relative to more functional areas, and voila, you're an 03. The Marine Corps is frankly very underfunded and very "traditional" so they're naturally lagging way behind in equipment and training compared to their Army counterparts. Hell, even bayonet drills are still a big thing. Overall, you lose a Marine infantryman, the investment is simply nowhere close to an Army infantryman. They're two different leagues entirely. The one thing the Marines claim to be good at, the Army surpasses them entirely. Considering part of the Army's job is bailing out Marines even in cases where the present Army force is a lot smaller and less equipped than the Marines present (Chosin, Najaf immediately come to mind), the difference in competence is further telling. The Marines can do well with general policing and that's where they shine.

Curious. I have a CIB earned in Afghanistan and have Army infantry tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I’d say that not much of what you are writing holds true. A good Army mech infantry unit (M3 Bradley’s) has no more skills, per soldier, than a normally trained Marine 0311. Certainly Army Ranger school is little more than what USMC SOI used to be and I dare say most TBS grads had it as hard as any Ranger School class. Army SF is quite good and deserves more respect than it gets in the SOF world and I don’t know enough about MARSOC to compare. I would say the biggest advantage the Army has over the Corps is the way they assign their rotary assets directly to the unit rather than creating a typical USMC “lash up.” The newer cavalry units and Stryker infantry units are well trained, but again I don’t think they are better than any MEUSOC unit if you rate them man for man.

Overall, I would rate both infantry as about even. Given an Infantry company from any airborne, Ranger, or airmobile unit or one from any Marine infantry unit, I’d take the Marines - all that Semper Fi crap really means something in combat. Given a Stryker company or a Marine LAR company, I’d take the Stryker...they are far more mobile and lethal.

 

[Hair Warrior]

The idea of an adversary... being able to blow several thousand Sailors and Marines

 

[Treetop Flyer]

You mean the Army's reasoning or simply how we operate conflicts these days or plenty of former Army and Marine infantry's reasoning? It's because they serve two very different purposes, and have different sets of resources, training, equipment, etc. If you're in any way aware of conflicts since Vietnam or how the Army evolved since the end of conscription, the Army decidedly moved from massive conscripted forces into a substantially smaller force and specialized, elite units with advanced schools and training in airborne / air assault, mechanized, fast deployable task forces, urban warfare, mountain warfare, a dozen other things I'm forgetting (there's just a lot), you name it, the Army has it. Even before that, recruits don't go through standard BCT... they go through OSUT. Hell, there's even standard infantry task forces formed/trained by Rangers... so you have lots of standard Army infantry operating at a special forces level of training and competence but without the special forces designation or missions. Whatever any particular infantry is doing, the Army has the money, resources, equipment, facilities, and innovation to do it. There's a lot more that any Army infantry could give you a 3 hour lecture on and tons of things I'm missing, but there's nothing like an Iraq War combat vet sitting you down and explaining at length how frustrating Marines can be to work with.

Marine infantry are much more of a peanut-butter spread. You go to the same boot everyone does, you go to ITB, both with an overly heavy emphasis on drilling relative to more functional areas, and voila, you're an 03. The Marine Corps is frankly very underfunded and very "traditional" so they're naturally lagging way behind in equipment and training compared to their Army counterparts. Hell, even bayonet drills are still a big thing. Overall, you lose a Marine infantryman, the investment is simply nowhere close to an Army infantryman. They're two different leagues entirely. The one thing the Marines claim to be good at, the Army surpasses them entirely. Considering part of the Army's job is bailing out Marines even in cases where the present Army force is a lot smaller and less equipped than the Marines present (Chosin, Najaf immediately come to mind), the difference in competence is further telling. The Marines can do well with general policing and that's where they shine. The one area the Marines really excel is their propaganda, with President Truman likening it to Stalin's, and the Corps is certainly a lot better at it now than in the 40s-50s.

What you just wrote is too idiotic to warrant a response. My advice to you in the future is to keep your mouth shut on the subject to avoid looking like an idiot.

 

[Griz882]

Oh, I see my mistake...I thought his screen name was “Sculpin,” when it is actually “Gulpin.”

 

[Brett327]

Words.

I can only presume you’ve formed your opinion based on Army bros you’ve talked to, and not on your experience operating with either service, which, as best I can tell, equals zero.

Am I missing something?

 

[RotorBoy83]

You mean the Army's reasoning or simply how we operate conflicts these days or plenty of former Army and Marine infantry's reasoning? It's because they serve two very different purposes, and have different sets of resources, training, equipment, etc. If you're in any way aware of conflicts since Vietnam or how the Army evolved since the end of conscription, the Army decidedly moved from massive conscripted forces into a substantially smaller force and specialized, elite units with advanced schools and training in airborne / air assault, mechanized, fast deployable task forces, urban warfare, mountain warfare, a dozen other things I'm forgetting (there's just a lot), you name it, the Army has it. Even before that, recruits don't go through standard BCT... they go through OSUT. Hell, there's even standard infantry task forces formed/trained by Rangers... so you have lots of standard Army infantry operating at a special forces level of training and competence but without the special forces designation or missions. Whatever any particular infantry is doing, the Army has the money, resources, equipment, facilities, and innovation to do it. There's a lot more that any Army infantry could give you a 3 hour lecture on and tons of things I'm missing, but there's nothing like an Iraq War combat vet sitting you down and explaining at length how frustrating Marines can be to work with.

Marine infantry are much more of a peanut-butter spread. You go to the same boot everyone does, you go to ITB, both with an overly heavy emphasis on drilling relative to more functional areas, and voila, you're an 03. The Marine Corps is frankly very underfunded and very "traditional" so they're naturally lagging way behind in equipment and training compared to their Army counterparts. Hell, even bayonet drills are still a big thing. Overall, you lose a Marine infantryman, the investment is simply nowhere close to an Army infantryman. They're two different leagues entirely. The one thing the Marines claim to be good at, the Army surpasses them entirely. Considering part of the Army's job is bailing out Marines even in cases where the present Army force is a lot smaller and less equipped than the Marines present (Chosin, Najaf immediately come to mind), the difference in competence is further telling. The Marines can do well with general policing and that's where they shine. The one area the Marines really excel is their propaganda, with President Truman likening it to Stalin's, and the Corps is certainly a lot better at it now than in the 40s-50s.

Holy shit! I spit out my beer!

I’m printing this out and sending it to my marine brother!

 

[Deleted member 67144 scul]

If this is the shit you’re going to keep posting, stop posting until you actually get commissioned.

Or yet another "contract" to the "sandbox" where I have to more-or-less work with 'grunts' from both services. But I'm not so crazy these days and don't have the same nerve to act on an anti-jihadi vendetta.

Certainly Army Ranger school is little more than what USMC SOI used to be and I dare say most TBS grads had it as hard as any Ranger School class.

Genuinely curious as this is the first time I've ever heard TBS compared in any manner to Ranger school. They're two functionally different things. Are you confusing TBS with something else like Force Recon? TBS is for any Marine officer, no matter what they do, not just infantry. It's a peanut butter spread school for all officers. Ranger school is for elite special forces and the standards and qualifications are much higher than even other Army infantry units, nevermind TBS. I mect TBS grads every now and then who struggled to meet basic qualifications which are well below Ranger (or within the Corps, Force Recon), even people who were given passes on some things because they just wanted to move them along.

I think a much more accurate comparison would be Force Recon and Ranger school.

What you just wrote is too idiotic to warrant a response. My advice to you in the future is to keep your mouth shut on the subject to avoid looking like an idiot.

I get it. Interservice rivalries are very real. It's almost criminal for someone from the DoN to say something and another department does some particular better, and vice versa. I regularly hear Airmen claim the Navy doesn't know how to do aviation. Or Marines claiming the Army doesn't know how to use Apaches. I've regularly been told by Marines that they do armor better than the Army. They weren't joking either.

But let's look at it realistically: if Group X has much better funding, equipment, training, competencies, development, etc. in a certain job function (eg. infantry) than Group Y, then on what basis on which Group Y is better? That's what you need to explain.

Oh, I see my mistake...I thought his screen name was “Sculpin,” when it is actually “Gulpin.”

Hehe. No need to misconstrue the name of one of America's greatest beers like that.

Army bros you’ve talked to

Mostly Marine bros actually, and Marine-turned-Army bros, and Army bros who worked with Marine bros. To be fair, I thought any random Marine infantry were futuristic super soldiers and Army infantry was a joke until I got to know them and deal with them. The Marines have always done the media outreach much, much better than the Army. Heck, even the "devil dog" nickname was invented by American journalists, not German soldiers as they claim.
Not working specifically within the services, if that's what you mean.

I’m printing this out and sending it to my marine brother!

Ask him if he thinks the Marines know how to operate tanks better than the Army, too! I'll spit out my beer when he says yes. If there's anything to be learned from the Marine-Army rivalry, it's that the Army isn't so big on blowing hot air. It's no coincidence that a POTUS compared the Marine Corps to Joseph Stalin in this regard.

 

[BigRed389]

Words.

I’m really only saying this because based on your previous posts you’re trying to go into my community. And if you go into service with this attitude you are a fucking liability. Otherwise I wouldn’t give a shit.

You’re not a warfighter. You’re not even (if commissioned) going to be a warfighter. So all stop on commentary on warfighter proficiency or training because your qualifications on it in any regard are zip and shit.

If you form opinions like these based on sandbox contract gigs, and random anecdotal shit you hear, you really should think before you speak. The ignorant tone deaf arrogance of your post was absolutely astounding.

 

[Random8145]

Or yet another "contract" to the "sandbox" where I have to more-or-less work with 'grunts' from both services. But I'm not so crazy these days and don't have the same nerve to act on an anti-jihadi vendetta.

Sculpin...a couple tips. I don't think you realize how arrogant you are coming across. According to your profile, you do not have any military service. But you are talking like a straight up "Been There, Done That." It just comes across as extremely arrogant and very disrespectful.

Genuinely curious as this is the first time I've ever heard TBS compared in any manner to Ranger school. They're two functionally different things. Are you confusing TBS with something else like Force Recon? TBS is for any Marine officer, no matter what they do, not just infantry. It's a peanut butter spread school for all officers. Ranger school is for elite special forces and the standards and qualifications are much higher than even other Army infantry units, nevermind TBS. I mect TBS grads every now and then who struggled to meet basic qualifications which are well below Ranger (or within the Corps, Force Recon), even people who were given passes on some things because they just wanted to move them along.

I think a much more accurate comparison would be Force Recon and Ranger school.

My own experience with military is I went through Army OSUT for Infantry and then got discharged (honorably) for medical reasons. But from what I learned before joining and during, Ranger School is for anyone who can attend. Ranger School is not the same as the Ranger Regiment, which is a Special Operations force, same as SEALs, Special Forces (Green Beret), etc...although most Rangers in the Regiment are expected to attend Ranger School. Ranger School itself is a very tough infantry leadership school.

But let's look at it realistically: if Group X has much better funding, equipment, training, competencies, development, etc. in a certain job function (eg. infantry) than Group Y, then on what basis on which Group Y is better? That's what you need to explain.

The Army is generally better-funded, but that doesn't mean better trained. Marines have always lacked funding going back to World War I and II, but have always had legendary fighting prowess.

If there's anything to be learned from the Marine-Army rivalry, it's that the Army isn't so big on blowing hot air. It's no coincidence that a POTUS compared the Marine Corps to Joseph Stalin in this regard.

 

[Griz882]

Genuinely curious as this is the first time I've ever heard TBS compared in any manner to Ranger school. They're two functionally different things. Are you confusing TBS with something else like Force Recon? TBS is for any Marine officer, no matter what they do, not just infantry. It's a peanut butter spread school for all officers. Ranger school is for elite special forces and the standards and qualifications are much higher than even other Army infantry units, nevermind TBS. I mect TBS grads every now and then who struggled to meet basic qualifications which are well below Ranger (or within the Corps, Force Recon), even people who were given passes on some things because they just wanted to move them along.

I think a much more accurate comparison would be Force Recon and Ranger school.

1. You are probably confused because this is the first time you have heard from an Army combat veteran with more than five years of combat under his belt tell you the truth. That said, I am not confused...you are ill-informed.

2.I did not compare TBS to Ranger School, I said things were as tough at TBS as they are at Ranger School. Let’s get something right here, Ranger School is 61 day’s long, TBS is over six months long. In Ranger School you learn to tie knots and stay awake. You learn some advance infantry skills, especially for ambushes, but not much else. In TBS you learn to be a leader. Not every person that finishes Ranger School is a steely-eyed killer, and not all TBS graduates are good leaders, but TBS is likely the best infantry-focused introductory military training course in the entire world.

3. You clearly have no, I mean zero, idea of the capabilities of an Army infantry battalion. They are good, if well trained and well led, but they are not getting high-end SOF training. The Army basic marksmanship training is a shadow of the Marine system. I don’t know many Army 11B’s at the E4 level who could lead a double envelopmemt...every Marine Infantry corporal I know can.

4. For some of your other comments, yes, the Army is better with armor...they had better be. No, OUST is not a good infantry program and even the Army knows this. Until this summer, Army infantry training (counting basic training) was 14 weeks. USMC boot is 12 weeks and then, then they start an eight week infantry course (for basic grunts, others take longer). In June the Army realized its training was poor and extended OUST to more or less match the Marine training timeline. Yes, Marine snipers are far superior to Army snipers. Yes, Army helicopter pilots are extremely well trained and often better then their Marine counterparts at specific missions...that said, the Army has to hope the Air Force is working the day CAS is need, Marines have it built in.

5. I get it. I often get in operational and doctrinal pissing matches here on AW, but I am usually careful enough to back away when an expert comes on the discussion. They know, I guess. In cases where my experience is better than theirs I push back, but here, you are just guessing my friend.

 

[Random8145]

4. For some of your other comments, yes, the Army is better with armor...they had better be. No, OUST is not a good infantry program and even the Army knows this. Until this summer, Army infantry training (counting basic training) was 14 weeks. USMC boot is 12 weeks and then, then they start an eight week infantry course (for basic grunts, others take longer). In June the Army realized its training was poor and extended OUST to more or less match the Marine training timeline. Yes, Marine snipers are far superior to Army snipers. Yes, Army helicopter pilots are extremely well trained and often better then their Marine counterparts at specific missions...that said, the Army has to hope the Air Force is working the day CAS is need, Marines have it built in.

Army Infantry OSUT, at least when I went through it in '05-'06, just taught us the very, very basics of infantry. Basically just enough so that when a soldier gets to a unit, they can then be taught by the unit (the Drill Sergeants told us that most of our training would come at our unit).

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Jesus Sculpin, you’re so turned around it’s difficult to even know where to begin.

I’ll start here I guess: please cite some examples (doctrinal, historical, any kind of factual) calling for expendable infantry. Show me a time a commander said, no let those guys take the hill, these guys cost too much to train. This is the entire premise of what started this, and is idiotic. And insulting if it wasn’t so ridiculous.

Ranger school isn’t a special forces school. It’s a finishing school for infantry. By the way, Marines attend lots of these super elite Army schools, but I’m sure you knew that despite your posts.

You comparing TBS, the initial officer training for all Marine officers to Force Recon, an operational force is just flat out dumbfounding to be perfectly honest. It’s like if you were arguing about whether Nebraska or Miami was the better football program of the ‘90’s and you say Miami because they had more homeruns. You’re absolutely lost.

 

[Deleted member 67144 scul]

I am not confused...you are ill-informed

Not ill-informed. Rather, I was confused. You make it more clear you're referring to the Ranger School and not the 75th Ranger Regiment. Huge difference. That's why I mentioned Force Recon as a comparison (to the Rangers), which should have made the confusion evident.

And if you go into service with this attitude you are a fucking liability.

In all frankness, my only belief is that if Group A has a lot more resources and development to be a lot better at X function than Group B, it's no surprise is Group A is better at X. If some entity is doing something better than another, I'll say it how it is. There is no "liability" or "attitude" of any kind from my part. It just seems some people have strong emotions regarding certain matters. Let's forget about infantry. Talk about armor, and there are Marines and ardent supporters of the Marines who will become less-than-orderly if you suggest the Army does it better.

As an example, if you were an engineer, most of your job would be looking at a problem or even something already working "well", and asking yourself how you can make this better or create something better, or what you are doing wrong that so-and-so is doing better. Having worked at companies where others just simply outdid us in certain areas, you learn to very readily accept it and consider what you can do better. If you blow hot air as an engineer, you're doomed to fail. I've seen it a million and one times. Regardless of that, the crusaders are limitless. If you tell people Apple makes a better SOC than Samsung, you're going to start a war even though what you said is absolutely true.

And forget about my own personal experiences or opinions, because I'm talking about the experts' experiences and opinions. Even if I was lecturing you on subjects I've at various points been considered an SME with, like Intel and AMD processors and architectures, my rich personal experience is nothing compared to the experts. And when you talk to the experts, you come to understand why Intel makes higher-performance processors. This doesn't prevent AMD, however, from massively marketing why everything they make has the Midas touch and Intel products are basically scrap metal. Now you may ask me, "Why?" Because that's just how competition works. However, when infantry from the Marines, Army, and both tell you more or less the same things and they walk you through what they do, how they train, what they use, their experiences in both roles, etc. you then understand things.

Is it possible I dealt, worked, or spoke with all the "wrong" people in the "wrong" contexts/places with the "wrong" combat experience who were infantry in the Marines, Army, or in both services? Certainly. We can see Random8145 has a very different anecdote himself.

With that said, in areas such as armor or artillery where there's no debate about who reigns supreme, you will still find people (evidently on this forum too) who would claim the Marines are a lot better. It's just the competitive nature of things.

You’re not a warfighter.

Believe me. I'm very thankful I will not be doing anything in that capacity again. However, I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch because hot zones in Afghanistan are apparently very popular MOBs for reserve officers in this community. Maybe it's scare tactics, but when enough officers tell you there's a high likelihood you will be shot at and return fire, that's something you have to consider.

you do not have any military service.

Imagine this. You're a teenager. A family member needs a very expensive life-saving surgery which you have no idea who's going to pay for, and of lesser concern you have no idea how you're going to pay for eventual college for yourself and a sibling on your own. Do you A) take advantage of an opportunity to qualify and do something seasonal taking advantage of particular "skills" you have, and make loads of money to do crazy things (which you're eventually very fortunate to mostly forget), even if you know it's an almost guaranteed death sentence, or do you B) go away for 4 years (even maybe sitting on a comfy Air Force base if you go that way), making jack in pay, said family member almost certainly dies, sibling is barely scraping by, but hey you get the GI bill? At least at the time, the choice was very simple.

No disrespect meant at all. If I'm going to be arrogant about anything, it'll be my professional achievements, but even there I feel no impulse. If I was arrogant, I certainly would have gone with choice B. Getting seen as a superhero for doing anything in a uniform plays far more to the arrogant mind than frankly thankless work one is forced to do for their family's sake.

discharged (honorably) for medical reasons.

I hope it wasn't anything serious, but I think it would be very strange if you were dishonorably discharged for medical reasons.

Ranger School is for anyone who can attend

Okay, you mean the Ranger school. Yes, that's for anyone who is qualified to attend, including outside of the Army. That's a substantial difference from the proper 75th Ranger Regiment.

You comparing TBS, the initial officer training for all Marine officers to Force Recon,

Nope, I was comparing Force Recon to the Rangers. Griz clarified specifically Ranger School and not the 75th Ranger Regiment and their ridiculously high standards. The confusion was I mistook him as comparing TBS to the Rangers, which is why I suggested Force Recon would be a better comparison to the Rangers.