• 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?

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
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.
You’re going to be very popular with the Sailors.
 
D

Deleted member 67144 scul

Guest
Then tell me why your above quoted statement about flexibility, specialization, and modularity is wrong...

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.

You’re going to be very popular with the Sailors.

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.

This is why I keep saying you’re an idiot. Find where I said the Army doesn’t get more funding.

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.

Is Sculpin the re re re emergence of radical douche?

Did radical douche say plain-as-day things about the Army which upset people because interservice rivalries are very serious business?
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
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.
 
D

Deleted member 67144 scul

Guest
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.

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?
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
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?
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.

You didn’t though. You said we always need expendable infantry and Marine infantry is expendable. You haven’t supported this ridiculous claim. At all.

Yet you’re still here deflecting and arguing. Frankly it makes me think you’re an idiot.
 
D

Deleted member 67144 scul

Guest
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Random8145

Registered User
Sculpin, you seem very bent on convincing everyone here of your arguments, hence your very long posts. The thing is, due to how you came/come across in your first posts, you did the equivalent of take the lid off of a garbage can and serve everyone the dinner you cooked on it, i.e. even if the dinner (your arguments) are good, people are not going to take well to them because of how you served them.

I don't think you realize that not having military and/or combat experience and saying the things you have is just incredibly disrespectful. If you were a Marine infantryman with twenty years experience and multiple combat tours and said you honestly think that Marine infantry are expendable but Army infantry are not, then this would kick off a genuine discussion in which people would respect your opinion based on much first-hand experience. But to just make such statements and others based on what you've read is very disrespectful.

Try to be humble and follow the Ears-to-Mouth rule, i.e. listen twice as much as you speak.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
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.
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.
 
Top