Subject:
|
Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 19 Feb 2000 09:53:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
728 times
|
| |
|
|
"Bill Farkas" <kfar@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Fq5B2D.I06@lugnet.com...
> Misconception. The Marines do far more than secure beaches. Why else were • we in
> the forward areas of the desert and Viet Nam (and most conflicts for that
> matter)? The Marines, pound for pound, pack far more punch. We have • staying
> power and fire power. The main difference is force size and budget.
> Historically, we operate with one quarter the personnel and even less of a
> budget and still accomplish more. We are far more effective at greater
> distances than any force on the planet (we are required to be accurate • with the
> M16 at 500 meters). There have been many instances in history where the • Marines
> have been the *main* element and for good reason.
Well, I wasn't going to mention the debacle that was Viet Nam, but since you
brought it up...
First, I don't see how you could call the Marines in Viet Nam the *main*
element, even ignoring all the REMFs, there were far more soldiers than
Marines deployed on any given day.
Second, one of the main reasons (from my perspective) that we lost the Viet
Nam War was that we used soldiers and Marines both like they were Marines,
i.e., go out, kill something, and come back. Success was measured by enemy
killed, not by taking and holding ground (why do I keep coming back to
that?). Killing the enemy is not necessarily the way to win a war (although
most of the time it helps). Warfare is a political tool, and killing the
enemy is *not* a political objective. Seizing key terrain and forcing the
enemy to do what you want is. So success in war measured by enemy
casualties is patently ridiculous.
As to your "pound for pound" comment, I have to agree with you there, since
*every* Marine is a rifleman first, whereas the Army tends to specialize
more. But I don't believe that the Marines have either firepower or staying
power, relatively speaking. The Marines are intended to be in quick and
fast, which means they have to be light fighters. This translates to a
short logistical train, and lack of heavy firepower. If you've ever seen a
battery of MLRS launch (and I have, it's great to watch!), then you couldn't
even begin to compare the Marines' firepower to that of the Army's. A
mechanized division will *always* be able to deliver more steel on target
than an equivalent Marine unit (MAU, MEU, MEF? I can't ever keep them
straight, and I thought the Army was acronym happy!).
You also state that the "main difference is force size and budget." This
illustrates my point exactly. Marines are light and quick, and provide the
quick jab. The Army is slow, heavy, and methodical, and we deliver the
knockout punch.
>
> >
> > Hope I don't come off as too hostile here.
>
> Not at all, nor is it my intention. My initial reaction was due to your
> "playing decoy" comment, which was totally false.
Not totally false, it was a major part of Schwarzkopf's plan, and worked
brilliantly. Granted there were Marines on the ground, and even some in
front, but so was the All-American division and VII Corps. In fact, I went
to school with a former Marine (wised up and went Army ROTC) who was in the
Gulf and on the ground. But had it been Marines making the heavy punch into
Iraq, the war would have turned out quite differently, and much bloodier.
>
> > My main point is that each
> > service has a unique and vital mission, and that no service can • accomplish
> > its mission without some help from the others,
>
> (In my best Hulk Hogan imitation) Amen, Brother!
>
> > but the bottom line is that
> > to a certain degree, ALL of our "sister" services support the Army in one
> > way or another.
>
> As I was part of a unit named ANGLICO, I cannot disagree with the support
> remark in totality, yet it's not entirely accurate. Navy/Marines can • provide
> their own air support.
Air support is a far different thing than air supremacy, and I wouldn't even
come close to calling the Harrier an air superiority fighter. Granted a
fleet carrier has more air power than 75% of the countries in the world, but
carrier-based aircraft have notoriously short "legs," and thus lack the
staying power of the Air Force for extended time on target.
>
>
> Semper Fi,
> Bill
--
William A. Swanberg
CPT, SC
Commander, 229th Signal Company (TACSAT)
swanberg@msn.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
| (...) My reference to Viet Nam was soley to point out the non-beach landing aspect, not that they were a main force. I agree with your assessment of the debacle over there, but that was due to politicians and not tacticians. Viet Nam had far more to (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
54 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
