• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

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

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
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.



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.



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 Afghanistan is apparently a very popular MOB for reserve officers in this community.



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, risky work one is forced to do for their family's sake.



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



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.



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.
This is what you said:

“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.”


Every additional response just further illustrates that you have no clue what you’re talking about.
 
D

Deleted member 67144 scul

Guest
Nitpicking a single ambiguous point of confusion and extrapolating it to a broad range of matters is a fallacy of composition. The Nebraska and Miama metaphor was particularly off-topic, if not simply inane. It's very evident from when I point out Force Recon is a better comparison to the Rangers that there was confusion with regards to Griz's comparison.

And to be fair, I am waiting for you to make a point that is not a personal attack. Whether you keep that up or not, that's your choice as I am a very strong proponent of the 1st Amendment rather than the ridiculous laws that Canada is apparently cranking out.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
Nitpicking a single point of confusion and extrapolating it to a broad range of matters is a fallacy of composition. The Nebraska and Miama metaphor was particularly off-topic. It's very evident from when I point out Force Recon is a better comparison to the Rangers that there was confusion between Griz's analogy with the Rangers.

And to be fair, I am waiting for you to make a point that is not a personal attack. Whether you keep that up or not, that's up to you.
Your assertion that Marine infantry is expendable is significantly more insulting than me pointing out how stupid your argument is.

This is like arguing with a 15 year old in YouTube comments about whether a flanker would shoot down a raptor. You have demonstrated that you have no grasp whatsoever of the topic, but rather your ridiculous sweeping accusations are based on talking to a (gasp) real life Iraq vet. The fact that you don’t realize how dumb you sound citing that as credibility on this site is very telling and not flattering for you.
 

ATIS

Well-Known Member
This thread reads much better after a few two-finger neat Caskmates. Actually they were three-fingers but who’s counting.

Sounds close to a tab Vs scroll conversation.

Sculpin, you don’t know me...nor me you, but I would just let this dog lie and pitch out of this one.


Pouring another

ATIS
 
D

Deleted member 67144 scul

Guest
I'm guessing you have experience arguing with 15 year-olds on YouTube? Frankly, I never even bother looking at the comments, nevermind engage in conversation on that website. I guess there's something to appreciate about people willing to enter that realm, so I appreciate your tolerance of YouTube comment sections. On a topic similar of F-22s and Flankers, I've come across Marines telling me the hand-me-down M1A1s they have are superior to M1A2SEPs which the Army possesses but not the Marines. Should I believe them because Marines are under the Department of the Navy, and I'm supposed to believe the Army is bad? You would say probably yes, but I'm sorry I'm going to have to disagree on that.

Furthermore, it is worth noting the confusion began with Griz, when he must have been confused when I alluded to infantry task forces established by Rangers. I wasn't in the slightest referring to the Ranger School in my original comment where I mentioned: "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."

This seemed to have confused Griz. To be more clear and specific, folks from the 75th Ranger Regiment were running new fast response units and rolling in some run-of-the-mill infantry and training and maintaining them practically to their own (Ranger) standards. Had I not mentioned them in the first place, there wouldn't be this confusion in the first place and you would not be going on your string of attacks.

Allow me to explain in a less blunt manner since some require long-winded explanations and the use of euphemisms. Let's do some math. 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. While the gap is nowhere near as extreme with what we're talking about, an Army infantryman is generally quite more expensive than Marine infantry. They really, really take advantage of their funding, which frankly the Marine Corps doesn't have, on all kinds of equipment, training, advanced schools, etc. which the Marines simply do not have available. This isn't difficult to understand. Additionally, this isn't WW2 or Vietnam era where conscripts were a dime a dozen. The Army is a substantially different force. For example, who would have ever guessed Army is leading the way in Cyber? Screamin' Eagles, for example, do not come cheap these days. Even since a decade ago it's changed quite a bit as various units have been shedding lots of personnel. An Army infantryman is simply put a bigger loss than Marine infantry. In any case, I think what is clear is I should use euphemisms for now on.

I think what I've demonstrated is your disagreement with a prior statement:
"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."

Random8145 has invaluable experience no doubt about it, but like the M1A1's, should I disregard personal experiences and dozens of experts' experiences over the years and simple basic math/economics because Random has an anecdote? He also had another anecdote a long while back that Iraq is a country with free press and the only functioning democracy in the Mideast, despite empirically having among the worst press freedoms in the world, an extremely repressive regime (Einsatzgruppen-style death squads anyone?), and there being frankly being very little about Iraqi democracy and far more functional democracies in the Mideast (Israel, Turkey even now, Lebanon anyone?) anyways. So are you saying I should toss aside everyone and everything universally saying the same thing with clear evidence, metrics, etc because someone has their own anecdote? That would be a ridiculous suggestion.

Yes (gasp) I have worked/spoken in various capacities with many real life Afghanistan/Iraq vets. Why is that surprising? That coupled with how simply how either evolved their infantry composition and functions/roles (dollars have a lot to do with it) and you'll see some big differences. I even discount my own intimate experiences when I have dozens of actual experts more or less telling me the same stuff: Army infantry are more expensive due to training, resources, equipment, etc. and generally play more specialized/advanced roles. In fact, it was actually "playing" in the "sandbox" that broke the myth I mentioned earlier that I had believed that Marines were gods amongst men in every MOS and the Army and Navy were inferior anywhere there was any overlap.

In an ideal world, the Marine Corps would have as much funding and resources available for all the kinds of training, programs, equipment, etc. available to the Army, but the Marine Corps has to do with what they're handed. I'm having trouble understanding why that's difficult for you to comprehend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
I'm guessing you have experience arguing with 15 year-olds on YouTube? Frankly, I never even bother looking at the comments, nevermind engage in conversation on that website. I guess there's something to appreciate about people willing to enter that realm, so I appreciate your tolerance of YouTube comment sections. On a topic similar of F-22s and Flankers, I've come across Marines telling me the hand-me-down M1A1s they have are superior to M1A2SEPs which the Army possesses but not the Marines. Should I believe them because Marines are under the Department of the Navy, and I'm supposed to believe the Army is bad? You would say probably yes, but I'm sorry I'm going to have to disagree on that.

Furthermore, it is worth noting the confusion began with Griz, when he must have been confused when I alluded to infantry task forces established by Rangers. I wasn't in the slightest referring to the Ranger School in my original comment where I mentioned: "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."

This seemed to have confused Griz. To be more clear and specific, folks from the 75th Ranger Regiment were running new fast response units and rolling in some run-of-the-mill infantry and training and maintaining them practically to their own (Ranger) standards. Had I not mentioned them in the first place, there wouldn't be this confusion in the first place and you would not be going on your string of attacks.

Allow me to explain in a less blunt manner since some require long-winded explanations and the use of euphemisms. Let's do some math. 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. While the gap is nowhere near as extreme with what we're talking about, an Army infantryman is generally quite more expensive than Marine infantry. They really, really take advantage of their funding, which frankly the Marine Corps doesn't have, on all kinds of equipment, training, advanced schools, etc. which the Marines simply do not have available. This isn't difficult to understand. Additionally, this isn't WW2 or Vietnam era where conscripts were a dime a dozen. The Army is a substantially different force. For example, who would have ever guessed Army is leading the way in Cyber? Screamin' Eagles, for example, do not come cheap these days. Even since a decade ago it's changed quite a bit as various units have been shedding lots of personnel. An Army infantryman is simply put a bigger loss than Marine infantry. In any case, I think what is clear is I should use euphemisms for now on.

I think what I've demonstrated is your disagreement with a prior statement:


Random8145 has invaluable experience no doubt about it, but like the M1A1's, should I disregard personal experiences and dozens of experts' experiences over the years and simple basic math/economics because Random has an anecdote? He also had another anecdote a long while back that Iraq is a country with free press and the only functioning democracy in the Mideast, despite empirically having among the worst press freedoms in the world, an extremely repressive regime (Einsatzgruppen-style death squads anyone?), and there being frankly being very little about Iraqi democracy and far more functional democracies in the Mideast (Israel, Turkey even now, Lebanon anyone?) anyways. So are you saying I should toss aside everyone and everything universally saying the same thing with clear evidence, metrics, etc because someone has their own anecdote? That would be a ridiculous suggestion.

Yes (gasp) I have worked/spoken in various capacities with many real life Afghanistan/Iraq vets. Why is that surprising? That coupled with how simply how either evolved their infantry composition and functions/roles (dollars have a lot to do with it) and you'll see some big differences. I even discount my own intimate experiences when I have dozens of actual experts more or less telling me the same stuff: Army infantry are more expensive due to training, resources, equipment, etc. and generally play more specialized/advanced roles. In fact, it was actually "playing" in the "sandbox" that broke the myth I mentioned earlier that I had believed that Marines were gods amongst men in every MOS and the Army and Navy were inferior anywhere there was any overlap.

In an ideal world, the Marine Corps would have as much funding and resources available for all the kinds of training, programs, equipment, etc. available to the Army, but the Marine Corps has to do with what they're handed. I'm having trouble understanding why that's difficult for you to comprehend.
You have not proven in any way that Marine infantry is expendable. You have not cited a single source to even suggest it.

You have not proven that it costs more to train Army infantry. You haven’t cited a single source to suggest it.

You have not proven that a higher cost to train produces a superior product.

What you have done is repeatedly demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the subject, mixed with dubious second hand anecdotes. I’m starting to think you believe Marines finish boot camp then deploy whereas the entire Army is a special forces unit.
 

BarryD

Well-Known Member
Contributor
We should respect those who are on or have ever been on the tip of the spear.

That's all I got.
 

Hotdogs

I don’t care if I hurt your feelings
pilot
In an ideal world, the Marine Corps would have as much funding and resources available for all the kinds of training, programs, equipment, etc. available to the Army, but the Marine Corps has to do with what they're handed. I'm having trouble understanding why that's difficult for you to comprehend.

Man this is a stupid conversation.

Look my dude. First you're arguing over shit that sounds like a bunch of high school wannabes jacking off to a Tom Clancy novel. It's immature and an absolutely ridiculous way to compare services. Not to mention both services are tasked with different missions that are not exactly comparable on an operational level. Not a single soldier or Marine that is getting shot at in combat cares about how much it costs to train a specific unit or themselves for that matter. Most of them don't even know or care about what type of M1 is firing on a building to clear a sniper out or what type of attack aircraft is laying down hate and discontent to cover their asses while they maneuver. They want to kill the enemy and go home. Your stupid examples about how much money is used training a dude and the result is combat is naive and misguided. An Army or Marine Infantry platoon would eat you alive if you made statements that you have with no experience. Your entire dialogue is based off of contract work and second hand opinions. Opinions that lack context and education. The people that you are talking with on this forum have hundreds of combat hours on the deck and in the air over Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and other places best not discussed on this forum.

Secondly, you could cite all kinds of sources on how much money and where the Army spends on training its soldiers based on doctrine and how that makes them more combat effective. What you are missing and what is documented in multiple different historical anecdotes is that ultimately formulative experiences in combat change a service culture altogether and not just doctrine or training. Those experiences define a service's culture. It is hard for a service to change it's war fighting ethos based off of doctrine and money. The biggest difference between any Marine and Army unit is the culture. That culture has been formed through hundreds of years of combat experience and some extremely adverse conditions. So take your money and qualitative comparisons and go somewhere else. We bitch about a lot of things on this forums about how being in the Marines or Navy can suck, and those things typically relate to focusing on things that are not our primary job. However when it comes down to executing in an operational or tactical environment, I would make no mistake that the Navy/Marine Corps and the Army would conduct themselves in the most violently professional manner.
 
Last edited:

Swanee

Cereal Killer
pilot
None
Contributor
more words.


Dude- take your Army circle jerk to an Army wannabe website. It doesn't belong here and no one is buying it.


It sounds like your information was gathered by listening to a few Lance Corporals.

Officers are talking now, and they're telling you how it is.

This community is a lot smaller than you think it is. Ask Jobogiespotterwrote8 if you don't think what you say here won't follow you around.


IF you've served anywhere near the military you would know that our #1 rule is to not be a douchebag. You're breaking rule #1.
 
D

Deleted member 67144 scul

Guest
I’m starting to think you believe Marines finish boot camp then deploy whereas the entire Army is a special forces unit.

It is evident you have not read my comments, since I've certainly stated otherwise.

Let's start with basic. Here's something from the Navy itself. https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/2857/06Mar_Baczkowski.pdf?sequence=1
"The recruit depots indicate that the average training cost per recruit is $14,320" over the 13 week period.

Admittedly, this is from the OIF / OEF era when the Marines had a bit more money to throw around. Converted to 2018 dollars, it's about $18,000. From there, your Marine infantry goes to ITB for 59 days then depending on function at some point later (eg. advancement for squad leaders), AITB.

My PDF links from the army apparently don't work anymore, but they were putting figures around ~$70,000 for basic. Looks like these guys agree. Worse is one of them was about Airborne school which did not run cheap at all.

Let's look at budgeting.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/239290/budget-of-the-us-navy-and-the-us-marine-corps/

https://dod.defense.gov/News/News-R...-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal/

The Marine Corps only got $23 billion in 2017, while $148 billion for the Army? I think it's clear the Army certainly has a lot more at its disposal, in case you were refuting that. It's obvious why they can throw so much money at its combat MOS's, especially compared to the Marines.

Oh my, the Army decided it now needs 22 weeks for basic training for infantry recruits before their specialized training. That ~$70,000 is going to be a lot more.
https://www.army.mil/article/207623/army_to_extend_osut_for_infantry_soldiers

Here's something else to consider: Marine infantry go through the same basic as everyone else, and then they go to ITB. Army OSUT, on the other hand, is infantry training from day 1. Then after that they'll go through their advanced schools and training. Air assault school, for example, has about a 50% drop rate.

It's not worth getting into every article of equipment, but in terms of standard firearms, the Marines are finally moving to M4s in the last few years, as M4s don't come cheap.

As this discussion has been entirely about funding/resources, it's evidently clear the Army simply has a lot more to work with and they certainly use it to their advantage. It's the only point I've been making.
 
D

Deleted member 67144 scul

Guest
Most of them don't even know or care about what type of M1 is firing on a building to clear a sniper out or what type of attack aircraft is laying down hate and discontent to cover their asses while they maneuver.

Likewise, I didn't care what the guy next to me had in his hands or was American or Iraqi (actually that was a bit worrying because frankly the Iraqis had no idea what they were doing... when the civil war in Syria started up, I predicted ISIS would eventually expand from Syria and take over huge chunks of Iraq due to the terrible shape of the Iraqi army and it indeed ended up happening). I'm not disagreeing with you, in fact I agree, but I believe you may be going on a tangent. The discussion has been about the roles and functions of the Marine Corps relative to roles covered by other services who have the resources, funds, development, programs, etc. to really make the most of it. Not whether or not who would fight or not, which was never part of the discussion. I've known both to do their jobs well. As for being "eaten alive", take it up with them as it came from them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 67144 scul

Guest
Anyways, to TL;DR this thread:

Me: The Army simply has substantially more funds and resources available to provide far more expensive and comprehensive programs, innovation, equipment, and capabilities for its combat MOSs than the Marines, including infantry. As a result, the Army is able to field specialized and advanced units to excel in a variety of scenarios and roles whereas the Marine Corps lacks the resources/funding to be able to achieve a similar degree of flexibility, specialization, and modularity.

A few users: The Marines have all the same capabilities and funding that the Army does if not better! Prove the Army is any good at anything! How dare you say anything good about the Army!

A few other users: More reasoned discussion.
 

Swanee

Cereal Killer
pilot
None
Contributor
The Marine Corps only got $23 billion in 2017, while $148 billion for the Army? I think it's clear the Army certainly has a lot more at its disposal, in case you were refuting that. It's obvious why they can throw so much money at its combat MOS's, especially compared to the Marines.

184,000 AD Marines vs 476,000 Army.
Marine Corps doesn't have many high dollar programs that the Army has (medical programs, flight school, TRANSCOM, Corps of Engineers, a service academy, etc..) so we don't need the money. 6x the money for a 3x bigger service that has to support itself. (Add in the reserve components and numbers skew even further apart).


A few users: The Marines have all the same capabilities and funding that the Army does if not better! Prove the Army is any good at anything! How dare you say anything good about the Army!

Dude, no one has said that. Quite the opposite. Switch Army and Marines in this sentence- that's how you're coming off.

Again, you're breaking rule #1.
 
D

Deleted member 67144 scul

Guest
Holy Fuck.

Do you even know what the purpose of the Marine Corps is?

I certainly do. Others were arguing otherwise. Treetop was repeatedly attacking me over stating the Army receives more funding.
 
Top