Anyone else counting the days until this movie opens? The first preview I saw got me hooked, and each one following it adds another boost of enthusiasm. Jarhead has been the first movie I've been highly anticipating since Batman Begins. I didn't think it'd be possible for any war movie succeeding Saving Private Ryan to live up to it, but this one looks like it has a good chance. It appears to have been finely casted as well. As much as I've disliked Jamie Foxx and every movie he's starred in to date, his character too seems interesting, and I'm looking forward to his part in the movie.
Can't wait...
I bought the book a few years ago and loved it. So what if they are jarheads...Go Army
Eh, I dunno. As a Marine Officer Candidate, I'm not so sure. The book was mainly from a grunts perspective who didn't exactly enjoy his time in the Corps. Many of his stories in the book are urban myths among the Marines that he pooled together to form a first person perspective of them. So, I do think it will be a good, well acted, well performed movie, but I don't think it's going to be a positive outlook on the war or Marines. Somewhat similar to Blackhawk Down, in where it was a very well put together movie, but all in all, it's message about the war and adminstrative direction during the war was pretty depressing. But at the same time, it's uplifting to see that there are such brave men over there fighting every day. As the Delta said, "At the end of the day, you're just fighting for the man next to you."
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Eh, I dunno. As a Marine Officer Candidate, I'm not so sure. The book was mainly from a grunts perspective who didn't exactly enjoy his time in the Corps. Many of his stories in the book are urban myths among the Marines that he pooled together to form a first person perspective of them. So, I do think it will be a good, well acted, well performed movie, but I don't think it's going to be a positive outlook on the war or Marines. Somewhat similar to Blackhawk Down, in where it was a very well put together movie, but all in all, it's message about the war and adminstrative direction during the war was pretty depressing. But at the same time, it's uplifting to see that there are such brave men over there fighting every day. As the Delta said, "At the end of the day, you're just fighting for the man next to you."
Grunts are the ones who see the wars firsthand; I would always like to hear their opinions on these types of issues. I read about 1/2 the book on my way home from Djibout two years ago, then just forgot about it.
I disagree with your take on Blackahawk Down; there is very little political information on it, minus a line or two. And having read about every book out there on the subject its a somewhat inaccurate movie, but yes very well done.
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
but I don't think it's going to be a positive outlook on the war or Marines.
As in the current war? Isn't this movie set in the Gulf War?
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
but I don't think it's going to be a positive outlook on the war or Marines.
As in the current war? Isn't this movie set in the Gulf War?
Yes it is. i.e. Operation Desert Shield/Storm
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Grunts are the ones who see the wars firsthand; I would always like to hear their opinions on these types of issues. I read about 1/2 the book on my way home from Djibout two years ago, then just forgot about it.
I disagree with your take on Blackahawk Down; there is very little political information on it, minus a line or two. And having read about every book out there on the subject its a somewhat inaccurate movie, but yes very well done.
Oh and I'm CERTAINLY not saying that I don't want to hear that perspective of the war. The grunts deserve every bit of respect that I or we can possibly give them, and their story definitely deserves to be heard. I'm simply saying that the movie might not be as positive as it seems in the previews, but it still looks to be a good movie.
I agree that Blackhawk Down doesn't intentionally poke at the political side of war. I guess I meant to say that when you stand back and look at the loss of soldiers in comparison to the mission objective, Blackhawk Down was a large failure, as I'm sure you know from reading about it. A failure in theory, but it was certainly not a failure in execution and bravery of the soldiers that were there. They exceeded many of their expectations in that situation and were a great example of just how incredible those men in our armed forces are.
BTW, have you read "Gift of Valor" by Michael M. Phillips? It's a great, accurate account of the 3rd CMOH recipient since the Vietnam War, Jason Dunham. The other 2 being the two snipers that voluntarily went into almost certain death, simply for the hope of giving another man hope, i.e. the snipers in BlackHawk Down.
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
but I don't think it's going to be a positive outlook on the war or Marines.
As in the current war? Isn't this movie set in the Gulf War?
Yep, I meant the war as in the scene of modern war. Not that it's going to be some political mumbo jumbo, just that it could have a somewhat negative outlook on how war is conducted in today's world. (Post WWII)
I have not read that book, but since its got Schugart and Gordon's stories in it, I'll pick it up. Thanks :-)
Bullet Catchers is what the movie should have been called
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
Bullet Catchers is what the movie should have been called
don't be jealous AF Pansy! :-P
Bowden wrote one of the best blow-by-blow narratives on urban conflict with Blackhawk Down, but it certainly didn't focus on the political aspects or really make any inditements of the Clinton administration in the "meat" of the book. Now the epilogue is entirely different and it's an excellent and entirely accurate summary of the political musings on the battle.
To me, it's yet another affirmation on how mass media has an immense power over public opinion. It seemed that a couple of Delta or Ranger corpses were flashed on CNN for a few seconds and it instilled an overly heavy defeatist mindset within the US political structure, despite the fact that the Ranger and Delta outfit involved delivered one of the most lopsided bloodbaths towards those that had the balls to face them. I seem to recall that the US lost somewhere around 20 lives and 70 wounded during that battle, where conservative estimates placed Somali casualties at 2-3,000.
Militarily, it was a victory but a rough one; there were LOTS of tactical mistakes made at the command level that could have saved lives. The US troops entered into the mission with a bit too much "swagger" as well; this entire mindset and the way that previous operations were carried out galvanized the population of Mogadishu against them, regardless of the fact that their main mission was one of "keeping the peace".
Politically, the way it and the aftermath was handled was a complete and utter embarassment; the Clinton administration quite literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory because of initial perceptions. It seems as if Clinton's entire 3rd world intervention policy was based off a 10 second CNN clip that had a crowd dragging US bodies through the dirt. Yes, that's a compelling image and scene, but it damn-sure shouldn't have caused the political waves that it did...
Originally posted by JaTo:
Militarily, it was a victory but a rough one; there were LOTS of tactical mistakes made at the command level that could have saved lives. The US troops entered into the mission with a bit too much "swagger" as well; this entire mindset and the way that previous operations were carried out galvanized the population of Mogadishu against them, regardless of the fact that their main mission was one of "keeping the peace".
I disagree with this point. I don't think the 'swagger' had to much to do with it. IMO, its the same thing we are dealing with today, and that is knowing your enemy. We (The US military) do not do a good job at all at understanding how today's current enemy thinks and operates. The philosphy that we 'lost' to in Somali is the same one we are fighting in Iraq and the GWOT.
And the keeping the peace mission changed to "Get Aidid," which is another thing that back fired on them.
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
Bullet Catchers is what the movie should have been called
don't be jealous AF Pansy! :-P
Ya i am a pansy LOL...
[censored] AIRPOWER!!!!!!!!!!!!
B-2 with 16 nukes would have made this movie very short and more interesting 
I see it being the next 3 Kings
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
Bullet Catchers is what the movie should have been called
don't be jealous AF Pansy! :-P
Ya i am a pansy LOL...
[censored] AIRPOWER!!!!!!!!!!!!
B-2 with 16 nukes would have made this movie very short and more interesting
I see it being the next 3 Kings
Broken Arrow anyone? Don't be angry the AF doesn't have any interesting movies about war, at least any true stories....
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Don't be angry the AF doesn't have any interesting movies about war, at least any true stories....
Top Gun was true, wasn't it? 
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Don't be angry the AF doesn't have any interesting movies about war, at least any true stories....
Top Gun was true, wasn't it?
Top Gun is a Navy school....
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Grunts are the ones who see the wars firsthand; I would always like to hear their opinions on these types of issues. I read about 1/2 the book on my way home from Djibout two years ago, then just forgot about it.
I'd love for you to finish it and give your take on it. I thought he came across as an incredibly whiny and confused person, at least for a Marine.
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Top Gun is a Navy school....
But it was true, right? 
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Grunts are the ones who see the wars firsthand; I would always like to hear their opinions on these types of issues. I read about 1/2 the book on my way home from Djibout two years ago, then just forgot about it.
I'd love for you to finish it and give your take on it. I thought he came across as an incredibly whiny and confused person, at least for a Marine.
I'll probably pick it back up after I watch the movie.
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Top Gun is a Navy school....
But it was true, right?
Yes, and the MiG-28 is a badass plane!
i really want to see this movie. Jamie Foxx has been rockingt eh big screen lately.
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Grunts are the ones who see the wars firsthand; I would always like to hear their opinions on these types of issues. I read about 1/2 the book on my way home from Djibout two years ago, then just forgot about it.
I'd love for you to finish it and give your take on it. I thought he came across as an incredibly whiny and confused person, at least for a Marine.
I'll probably pick it back up after I watch the movie.
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Top Gun is a Navy school....
But it was true, right?
Yes, and the MiG-28 is a badass plane!
I've been in a Mig-28 
Oh no sorry that was a T-38 becuase tehre sooo Diff.. LOL
and [censored] broken arrow that was just nonsense....
The coolest AF type movie was Iron Eagle... There can't be any AF type movies becuase we are extremly efficent and End the [censored] quick!!!!!!!!
Unlike the army/navy/marines. 
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
The coolest AF type movie was Iron Eagle... There can't be any AF type movies becuase we are extremly efficent and End the [censored] quick!!!!!!!!
Unlike the army/navy/marines.
The Navy and Marines have plenty of their own Airpower as well, so don't get too cocky simply because your military specialization is in the air! You chair force guys are all the same! 
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
Unlike the army/navy/Marines.
Fixed for accuracy.
And there can't be any air force movies because no one wants to watch a bunch of guys go through flight procedures all day long
(BTW, I'm going into Marine Aviation as a Naval Flight Officer.)
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
You chair force guys
bwahahaha! that made my day
i love it when i hear the different services talk trash about each other. its so funny. (not in a bad way)
Originally posted by svt4stv:
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
You chair force guys
bwahahaha! that made my day
i love it when i hear the different services talk trash about each other. its so funny. (not in a bad way)
LMAO - me too!
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
Unlike the army/navy/Marines.
Fixed for accuracy.
And there can't be any air force movies because no one wants to watch a bunch of guys go through flight procedures all day long
(BTW, I'm going into Marine Aviation as a Naval Flight Officer.)
Even as a Candidate you've already got it. That irritates the ish out of me when they don't capitalize Marine!
Yippie im soo proud of the Marine pilots, Let me know when you Get a real Aircraft!!! Hold on while i get Excited for F-18's and A-6's
And by the way I have over 1k sim hours in one of the most advanced flight sims ever...
And when I finish my Degree(1.25 yrs) Ill be a ANG pilot as well.
And i didn't spend too much time in a Chair when i was in but its ok I needed people like you to catch the bullets that where being fired at me while i was working on the B-2A Stealth Bomber!
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
Yippie im soo proud of the Marine pilots, Let me know when you Get a real Aircraft!!! Hold on while i get Excited for F-18's and A-6's
And by the way I have over 1k sim hours in one of the most advanced flight sims ever...
And when I finish my Degree(1.25 yrs) Ill be a ANG pilot as well.
Marine Corps pilots have a mission that AF pilots can't do for [censored] and can't drop bombs fer chit without their 'smart bombs.' A-6s have been out of service for years. And IMO, the only 'well rounded' aircraft the AF has is the F-15E. Otherwise, the F/A-18 (be it Super Hornet or not) is the most well rounded plane in our inventory currently.
F/A-18, EA-6B (where's the AF EA planes? Or right, they retired them after the Gulf War), and the AV-8 (ok, laugh at that one, I will too, its grounded more than it flies).
For your sim hours...
so what? I have 500+ or so in a sim too.....and?
Now, when an AF pilot and effectively (keyword) do ground support, FACA, and air combat, then I'll be impressed. Otherwise, the majority of AF pilots are [censored] compared to Navy/Marine Corps pilots. End of story.
On another note, if you notice, from my experience with AF pilots their call signs are the 'tough guy' type (i.e. 'Thor,' Killer, etc) Navy/Marine Corps, its the polar opposite.....
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
Yippie im soo proud of the Marine pilots, Let me know when you Get a real Aircraft!!! Hold on while i get Excited for F-18's and A-6's
And by the way I have over 1k sim hours in one of the most advanced flight sims ever...
And when I finish my Degree(1.25 yrs) Ill be a ANG pilot as well.
And I didn't spend too much time in a Chair when i was in but its ok I needed people like you to catch the bullets that where being fired at me while i was working on the B-2A Stealth Bomber!
Oh ha! The F/A-18 is arguably THE most versatile aircraft in the armed forces right now. Just wait till we get our Osprey's in '07! And let's not forget about the AH-Cobra 
And no worries about your qualifications, I'm by no means disrespecting you there, just having some fun with you in the eternal forces rivalry!
And that's fine if you want to consider us the "Bullet Catchers" I'm assuming most Marines out there would be honored to be considered that title, given it's assumption of courage.
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
On another note, if you notice, from my experience with AF pilots their call signs are the 'tough guy' type (i.e. 'Thor,' Killer, etc) Navy/Marine Corps, its the polar opposite.....
Heh, I'm already hearing horror stories about what's to come for me. Met one NA with the name of Sifob. This was when I thought Navial Aviation got "cool" call signs. I soon found out it was the opposite. Their call sign is dependent on when/how they f*** up the most. Sifob= sh$# for brains
I wouldn't go all crazy over the Osprey....lots of $$$$ no results....as of yet.
The AF doesn't need EF planes,
Im a EW guy trust me i know EW [censored] that would blow your mind.. The B-1 can do everything the EA-6 can do and Drop bombs and go SS.
As for the F-18 I know just givin ya [censored]. For the longest time my Fav Aircraft was the F-14.
Now that honor is held by the B-2 (the technology in the aircraft is mindblowing) and the yF-23
The F-22 is a close third just wish some of the Flight controls/Trust vectoring could be worked out alot sooner before more planes crash
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
I wouldn't go all crazy over the Osprey....lots of $$$$ no results....as of yet.
For sure.. Right now thats thing ranks right up there with the commanche in my book....
Ohh yes and there is a Air Force movie....
I totally forgot about it. It plaied at the Imax and was call
Fighter Pilot: Operation Red Flag
Dealt with what the pilots go threw during red flag and the operations behind it. I loved it. Even though I've dealt with red flag it was cool to see what the Acctual fighter pilots went threw... Good Stuff!
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
I wouldn't go all crazy over the Osprey....lots of $$$$ no results....as of yet.
For sure.. Right now thats thing ranks right up there with the commanche in my book....
Heh, yep! Was kinda throwing it out there as a joke. It's been great on paper, horrible in testing. The thing has some huge potential for what it could do with the Marine Corps though.
Ahhh.. red flag. A very distant dream of mine. 
Steeda, do you know where I might be able to pick up a DVD/VHS copy of that? I would love to watch it, even if I'm going NFO, not NA.
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
The AF doesn't need EF planes,
Im a EW guy trust me i know EW [censored] that would blow your mind.. The B-1 can do everything the EA-6 can do and Drop bombs and go SS.
As for the F-18 I know just givin ya [censored]. For the longest time my Fav Aircraft was the F-14.
Now that honor is held by the B-2 (the technology in the aircraft is mindblowing) and the yF-23 The F-22 is a close third just wish some of the Flight controls/Trust vectoring could be worked out alot sooner before more planes crash
I don't know the workings of the AF stealth aircraft, but makes sense it as an EA capability. However, my point was that the AF comes to the Navy/Marine Corps when it needs an EA capability. They've been struggling to find a replacement since they got rid of the EF-11.
The F-22 isn't operatonal yet, so I don't consider that one in the discussion :-P.
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
And that's fine if you want to consider us the "Bullet Catchers" I'm assuming most Marines out there would be honored to be considered that title, given it's assumption of courage.
Speak for yourself! I'm no damned bullet catcher! I'm too smart to be one! :-)
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
And that's fine if you want to consider us the "Bullet Catchers" I'm assuming most Marines out there would be honored to be considered that title, given it's assumption of courage.
Speak for yourself! I'm no damned bullet catcher! I'm too smart to be one! :-)
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
And that's fine if you want to consider us the "Bullet Catchers" I'm assuming most Marines out there would be honored to be considered that title, given it's assumption of courage.
Speak for yourself! I'm no damned bullet catcher! I'm too smart to be one! :-)
In the rear with the gear baby! :-)
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
And that's fine if you want to consider us the "Bullet Catchers" I'm assuming most Marines out there would be honored to be considered that title, given it's assumption of courage.
Speak for yourself! I'm no damned bullet catcher! I'm too smart to be one! :-)
In the rear with the gear baby! :-)
Get caught up, kids. The F/A-22 is indeed operational; the first squadron is the 27th FS at Langley AFB and they're already going on training deployments. And the V-22 is going into full-scale production now, so there should be a squadron of those in operation before too long.
as far as the movie maybe IMAX.com? no clue honestly
and the 22 as jeb stated is operational per say, i give it 3 to 5 years before it sees a conflict though, still alot of bugs to be worked out
and it was the EF-111 Ryan...
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Get caught up, kids. The F/A-22 is indeed operational; the first squadron is the 27th FS at Langley AFB and they're already going on training deployments. And the V-22 is going into full-scale production now, so there should be a squadron of those in operation before too long.
I didn't think the F-22 was to become operational 'til 07. I guess when you have an unlimited budge as the AF does, things move quicker.
I still think the Osprey needs lots of work; at least from previous readigns about it. I know I wouldn't want to fly on one!
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
and it was the EF-111 Ryan...
that's what I meant, just did't hit the 1 button enough. :-)
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
and it was the EF-111 Ryan...
that's what I meant, just did't hit the 1 button enough. :-)
Lets just say the B-1b could become the next EF-111 but i dno't think it will ever see that role.. Its pretty much the same plane except larger and can carry more weapons
theres also a couple EW f-16's around, they don't see much action though
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
I still think the Osprey needs lots of work; at least from previous readigns about it. I know I wouldn't want to fly on one!
Interesting article I just found follows; Whether it still needs work or not, it's going into production! I dunno, I'm getting the feeling that although the V-22 has had many development failures, it's almost an entirely new type of aircraft, as far as integrating other types of flight into one craft. To be expected, and I'm sure they've worked most of the bugs out if they're trusting them enough to put Marines on when they start coming out of production..
US Navy confirms V-22 incident, denies danger
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
Reuters
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 8:25 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An incident involving a V-22 tiltrotor aircraft has prompted charges by a watchdog group that it cannot fly through clouds, but the U.S. Navy denies the engines stalled or that the crew was in danger.
The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) said it had learned from unnamed sources that both engines of the Air Force version of the V-22, or Osprey, had stalled last week after flying into a cloud at 18,000 feet, presumably because of ice.
V-22 program office spokesman James Darcy confirmed an incident involving icing took place on October 18 when the CV-22 aircraft - the name of the Air Force version -- was en route to Edwards Air Force Base, California for systems testing -- prompting an unscheduled landing in Prescott, Arizona.
But he denied that either engine stalled out and said the crew was never in any danger: "The POGO report is completely false. The aircraft was never out of controlled flight, the engines never lost power, the landing was precautionary."
The Pentagon last month approved full-rate production of the Marine Corps version of the V-22, which takes off and lands like a helicopter but can fly like a plane. It is built by Textron Inc. unit Bell Helicopter and Boeing Co..
Eric Miller, investigator with POGO, said the incident was troubling, despite the Navy's denials.
"This is very disturbing," he said. Only last month the Pentagon approved the Marines version of V-22 for full-rate production. And now we find out the aircraft can't even fly into a cloud."
Darcy said the CV-22 -- a prototype that was not equipped with the de-icing equipment that will be standard on operational aircraft -- began flying on instruments after hitting severe thunderstorms and icing conditions.
He said an investigation was still underway, but early data showed that some ice was sucked into the engines, prompting the digital engine controller to cycle the engines through several recovery modes, although they never stalled.
He said the MV-22, the Marine Corp version just cleared for full production, had been through two five-month periods of de-icing tests, with another round due to begin in November.
The program office had not yet issued a flight clearance for the de-icing equipment because it needed to test it under further environmental conditions, Darcy said, noting that most Navy helicopters do not have de-icing equipment.
He said the equipment should be flight-cleared in time for operational use of the V-22s, scheduled for September 2007.
The Air Force plans to buy 50 CV-22's to replace its fleet of MH-53J Pave Low helicopters used to insert and extract special operations force from enemy areas. Operational tests of the CV-22 are planned for late next year.
The Air Force version of the V-22 is modified for longer flights with advanced radar that should improve night operations and low altitude flights in bad weather.
sign me up to fly that heap!!
Way to many problems still IMHO... The F-22 is gonna be bad for anyone
and if you ever get to go to red Flag Its a blast!!!!!!!! Theres some major planing that goes into it.
I still remember one day sending out a b-2 at like 11pm it flew around for a while and at day break There where no Red Team Planes left. I have a Video on my laptop at home that used to be classified its not anymore of the Strike Capabilities of the B-2 with 80 Jdams on it.
Im talkin like putting a 500lb bomb in the window of a Jeep.. Rather insane!
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
sign me up to fly that heap!!
And that's why you're in the Air Farce. 
(I've got no more Air Force insults after that, so please don't make me back that up)
Don't get me wrong, it can fly. Its the transitional period that would scare me and where it seems to have its biggest issues.
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Don't get me wrong, it can fly. Its the transitional period that would scare me and where it seems to have its biggest issues.
But if you'll recall, they were just as afraid to put the Harrier into action back in the 70's. Things turned out(kinda) once it saw duty, but people were VERY wary of trusting it's capabilities. More so with the Osprey now, because it will be carrying so much cargo/grunts.
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
sign me up to fly that heap!!
And that's why you're in the Air Farce.
Was in the air force
OMG. I read that POGO report and the "watchdog" is a choad. He's totally out of his depth. This is a case of a guy with a little knowledge of the V-22 program history finding out about an unscheduled, non-emergency landing of a non-production model and that there was some icing and went into full-presumption mode. The POGO report doesn't even have any corroboration...only "sources say"-type references and a few quotes from an old report.
http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-051001-v22.html
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Don't get me wrong, it can fly. Its the transitional period that would scare me and where it seems to have its biggest issues.
But if you'll recall, they were just as afraid to put the Harrier into action back in the 70's. Things turned out(kinda) once it saw duty, but people were VERY wary of trusting it's capabilities. More so with the Osprey now, because it will be carrying so much cargo/grunts.
the Harrier gets grounded all the time for issues. Another plane, although good theory, I don't much care for...
Can't disagree with you there. From what I hear, mechanical gremlins all over that plane no matter how hard you fight it.
Man did we steal this thread or what!
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
But if you'll recall, they were just as afraid to put the Harrier into action back in the 70's. Things turned out(kinda) once it saw duty, but people were VERY wary of trusting it's capabilities.
Disclaimer: I know enough about the Harrier to fill a thimble, and 100% of that from 'Modern Marvels' or some such program Isn't the number of non-combat deaths per flight hours (or whatever metric they use) some insanely high figure?
Still LMAO at the chair force comment!
Originally posted by bigMoneyRacing:
Still LMAO at the chair force comment!
My favorite is 'No-Go' for the National Guard.
The Chair force is extremly true for alot of Higher NCO's...
When i fist got there NCO's would bring in like 3 dozen dognuts for like 11 people and then wondered why everyone made fun of the AF for being out of shape.....
Originally posted by bigMoneyRacing:
Disclaimer: I know enough about the Harrier to fill a thimble, and 100% of that from 'Modern Marvels' or some such program Isn't the number of non-combat deaths per flight hours (or whatever metric they use) some insanely high figure?
Yeah, it's high. I don't know the percentages but vertical landing and hovers are an exceedingly tricky thing to deal with, especially in a single-engine airframe. If you're hovering and you lose thrust for ANY reason, you might as well punch out. I imagine the later (latest) blocks of production aircraft aren't AS bad, but since a hover is basically the jet balancing itself on a column of superheated gas, any force that causes it to "slip" off means that it'll be moving both sideways and down while the pilot tries to regain that balance. I've got a video clip of a Harrier doing an airshow hover over water and it looks like either the engine loses power or the pilot just slips it and next thing you know...SPLASH.
I really, really hope that the F-35 STOVL variant has some really advanced flight controls to make life easier for its Marines.
I always liked the warthog, a good, tough machine, did they retire it?
Originally posted by Stazi:
Originally posted by svt4stv:
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
You chair force guys
bwahahaha! that made my day
i love it when i hear the different services talk trash about each other. its so funny. (not in a bad way)
LMAO - me too!
Just thought I'd get in on this...
Not everyone has it cushy in the AF... this is the kind of stuff we did for the Army in Kuwait:
.JPG)
.JPG)
And yes, I know I don't know how to use a torch! The structures guys were letting my play around with it.
-------
I like to tell people I fly the space shuttle when they ask "Where's your plane??? Yuk Yuk Yuk!" Check out my pimpin uniform:
.JPG)
Originally posted by loggerbomb:
I always liked the warthog, a good, tough machine, did they retire it?
Nah, the USAF has tried a couple of times but they tend to end up modernizing it instead. It's a good jet, just takes forever to get around, compared to other combat jets.
Kane
Your post needs More Stripes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
509th Bomb Wing Air Combat Command
Originally posted by SteedaSVT:
Kane
Your post needs More Stripes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
509th Bomb Wing Air Combat Command
I know! I got kinda screwed out of BTZ (well, not really, but)... so I get another around springtime.
I'm in a small unit, but we had a large number of people go up for BTZ when I did... so instead of a few people going up, I went against 15 or so people. Then they usually choose 1 person that's deployed, 1 that's at home station...
So then 4 of the nominees were deployed with me... so of us, they took the one with the most community service, which was a utilities guy that had 4 more months than I did since their tech school is 4 months shorter than mine.
But I'm not saying he didn't deserve it, even though he wasn't the greatest at his job, he obviously had the most desire to help people since he did a ton of community service... which is what the BTZ thing is all about.
Now I probly just confuzed a bunch of people... Muhaha!
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
The F-22 isn't operatonal yet, so I don't consider that one in the discussion :-P.
Talk to some of the test pilots on that program, oh, sorry most of them were killed flight testing the POS. It had a horrible safety record before it ever saw service. Too many single point failures that result in loss of control. My friend did the sounds for the flight sim for it www.simphonics.com and it's nickname is the "twin-rotor marine mauler". I'll fly about anything and I wouldn't touch that thing.
Jim
Originally posted by jthursby:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
The F-22 isn't operatonal yet, so I don't consider that one in the discussion :-P.
Talk to some of the test pilots on that program, oh, sorry most of them were killed flight testing the POS.
it's nickname is the "twin-rotor marine mauler". I'll fly about anything and I wouldn't touch that thing.
Do you not read, or are you just so much of a wannabe that you can't even tell a Raptor from an Osprey? And oooh, you have a friend who worked on a flight sim, so that makes you more in the know than me, who's talked to the program director while standing inside one of the airframes? Nice try.
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Originally posted by jthursby:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
The F-22 isn't operatonal yet, so I don't consider that one in the discussion :-P.
Talk to some of the test pilots on that program, oh, sorry most of them were killed flight testing the POS.
it's nickname is the "twin-rotor marine mauler". I'll fly about anything and I wouldn't touch that thing.
Do you not read, or are you just so much of a wannabe that you can't even tell a Raptor from an Osprey? And oooh, you have a friend who worked on a flight sim, so that makes you more in the know than me, who's talked to the program director while standing inside one of the airframes? Nice try.
Wasn't trying anything. It's a POS but the Marines love it because it's fast. It will kill Marines fast too. I've got logged (read signed in my logbook)C5A Galaxy sim time. What's that mean about my knowledge of a C5A? Jack shizit. Wannabe that azzhole.
Jim
Originally posted by jthursby:
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Originally posted by jthursby:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
The F-22 isn't operatonal yet, so I don't consider that one in the discussion :-P.
Talk to some of the test pilots on that program, oh, sorry most of them were killed flight testing the POS.
it's nickname is the "twin-rotor marine mauler". I'll fly about anything and I wouldn't touch that thing.
Do you not read, or are you just so much of a wannabe that you can't even tell a Raptor from an Osprey? And oooh, you have a friend who worked on a flight sim, so that makes you more in the know than me, who's talked to the program director while standing inside one of the airframes? Nice try.
Wasn't trying anything. It's a POS but the Marines love it because it's fast. It will kill Marines fast too. I've got logged (read signed in my logbook)C5A Galaxy sim time. What's that mean about my knowledge of a C5A? Jack shizit. Wannabe that azzhole.
Jim
Before you add your worthless .02, read my posts more carefully in discussion the OV-22....
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by jthursby:
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Originally posted by jthursby:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
The F-22 isn't operatonal yet, so I don't consider that one in the discussion :-P.
Talk to some of the test pilots on that program, oh, sorry most of them were killed flight testing the POS.
it's nickname is the "twin-rotor marine mauler". I'll fly about anything and I wouldn't touch that thing.
Do you not read, or are you just so much of a wannabe that you can't even tell a Raptor from an Osprey? And oooh, you have a friend who worked on a flight sim, so that makes you more in the know than me, who's talked to the program director while standing inside one of the airframes? Nice try.
Wasn't trying anything. It's a POS but the Marines love it because it's fast. It will kill Marines fast too. I've got logged (read signed in my logbook)C5A Galaxy sim time. What's that mean about my knowledge of a C5A? Jack shizit. Wannabe that azzhole.
Jim
Before you add your worthless .02, read my posts more carefully in discussion the OV-22....
Yep, despite the fact that I think jthursby is very confused on the difference between a jet and tilt rotor, let's still consider the very obvious fact that the Marines have put it into full production. I'm sure they did so without care or caution of what that could mean for the grunts riding it.
Obviously there are going to be alot of reservations about this airplane, as I said earlier, it's an entirely new type of aircraft, and MUCH testing (testing=failures, no way around it) has had to go into developing it. But due to the simple nature of TESTING, the plane has become a stout pig in the skies, or the Marines wouldn't be trusting their own in it. C'mon at least try and have some faith in the decisions of the higher-ups, even if this plane had some rocky starts, which is inevitable in this situation.
EDIT: Some good info from a website mostly composed of the guys that actually do the flying out there, might want to give it a search or two and read up. If these guys (the pilots OF the Osprey) are pretty confident in the machine, I'll trust it. AirWarriors
Originally posted by jthursby:
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Originally posted by jthursby:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
The F-22 isn't operatonal yet, so I don't consider that one in the discussion :-P.
Talk to some of the test pilots on that program, oh, sorry most of them were killed flight testing the POS.
it's nickname is the "twin-rotor marine mauler". I'll fly about anything and I wouldn't touch that thing.
Do you not read, or are you just so much of a wannabe that you can't even tell a Raptor from an Osprey? And oooh, you have a friend who worked on a flight sim, so that makes you more in the know than me, who's talked to the program director while standing inside one of the airframes? Nice try.
Wasn't trying anything. It's a POS but the Marines love it because it's fast. It will kill Marines fast too. I've got logged (read signed in my logbook)C5A Galaxy sim time. What's that mean about my knowledge of a C5A? Jack shizit. Wannabe that azzhole.
Jim
Yippie The C5 is soooo COOL!!!!!
Fly some of the Jersey Sims!!!! Don't know what im talking about Hmmm Sucks to be you!
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Obviously there are going to be alot of reservations about this airplane, as I said earlier, it's an entirely new type of aircraft, and MUCH testing (testing=failures, no way around it) has had to go into developing it. But due to the simple nature of TESTING, the plane has become a stout pig in the skies, or the Marines wouldn't be trusting their own in it. C'mon at least try and have some faith in the decisions of the higher-ups, even if this plane had some rocky starts, which is inevitable in this situation.
The biggest stink around the Osprey isn't even in the airframe, but in the program management. Some no-load supervisors who didn't want to look bad when the most advanced VTOL aircraft design in decades started to fall behind in development milestones were making stuff up instead of owning up to problems that *were fixable* with the appropriate attention. That's what killed Marines...the desire not to look bad on the books.
so umm... what does everyone think about that Jarhead movie?
Well, there's a sneak preview screening at my college tonight. Free admission, first come first serve. Hopefully I can get my shift off/traded tonight and make it to the show. If so, I'll let you know how it goes! Well, to a certain extent. Good or bad, I believe that I'll endorse the movie, even if I may not agree with this particular Marine's stance. But we'll just wait and see.
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
even if I may not agree with this particular Marine's stance. But we'll just wait and see.
UG! Its not a politic 'stance' movie! Its about his experiences in the Corps during Operation Desert Shield/Storm.
PEOPLE IT IS NOT A POLITICALLY DRIVEN MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
even if I may not agree with this particular Marine's stance. But we'll just wait and see.
UG! Its not a politic 'stance' movie! Its about his experiences in the Corps during Operation Desert Shield/Storm.
PEOPLE IT IS NOT A POLITICALLY DRIVEN MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!
ACK! I'm not saying it's political! I'm saying that the book comes off as him regarding the Marines as negative! That's all I meant by "stance"!
!!!! -
I didn't even notice it was you...I wouldn't have responded if I did...
Well in that case, Good Afternoon, Sir. Thank you for your service, and I'll keep you in mind if I have the chance to see the film tonight.
P.S. (Is it good or bad that you wouldn't have responded?)
EDIT: And here's some Marine info for you to chew on RT-
Marine Special Forces
good because I know what you meant. I've read too many response on various board where dipshits think this is a movie about the current times and think its a politically driven type movie.
I'm A Marine "Grunt", "Groundpounder", "Bullet Catcher", "Human Shield", "Jarhead", "Leatherneck", If You Will, And Id Never Be Caught Anywhere Near That GD Osprey!! It Is A Great Theoretical Piece Of Machinery, But The Inherent Liabilities That Come With Deploying That Thing In A Combat Scenario Are Disgusting! I Would Rather Hump 30 Miles Into A Combat Zone Than Ride The 15 Minutes It Would Take In That Piece!!! There's Something Wrong With Landing That Craft Anywhere Near A Combat Zone Making The Transition From Forward Facing Rotor To Overhead. God!!!! Think About How Much Time An Enemy Would Have To Engage You! You Could Get Shot Down With Small Arms Fire Much Less Some Sort Of Rocket Or RPG!!! If It Were Up To Me Id Live With The Blisters On My Feet!
To Address The Movie:
If You Havent Read The Book, Dont Assume This Has Some Sort Of Political Agenda To It...It Doesn't. It Is Solely About A Marines Experiences/Confusions/Inner Demons/And Overcoming Mental Obstacles!
In Short He Really Didn't Know What He Was Getting Himself Into When He Joined. (As Most Any Marine Will Tell You Is The Case, Especially If You're An Infantry MOS)
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Your damn typing drives me nuts!
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Your damn typing drives me nuts!
x 2! ROFL! Where did you learn to type like that?
probly from me
No, he can spell, you can't.
Originally posted by Pale Horse:
There's Something Wrong With Landing That Craft Anywhere Near A Combat Zone Making The Transition From Forward Facing Rotor To Overhead. God!!!! Think About How Much Time An Enemy Would Have To Engage You! You Could Get Shot Down With Small Arms Fire Much Less Some Sort Of Rocket Or RPG!!!
You're telling me that standard operating procedure is for troop-carrying helos now to fly into the thick of enemy fire to disgorge troops? Or that a CH-46 is more survivable than an Osprey? For that matter, how do YOU know what the mission profile for an Osprey is if they haven't even been put into production, let alone formed into squadrons to train and develop tactics? Come on, use your brain for more than a cushion for your helmet.
Nice Jeb!!!LOL!!
Merely Stating That If The Need Were To Arise To Insert Troops In A Combat Zone...Reported "Hot" Or Not That There Is A Lot To Be Worried About...Of Course Id Rather Ride In On Helo Ass!!! That's A No-Brainer!! Do You Not See The Point I Am Making??
I Realize The Overall Development Of This Aircraft Is To Deploy From Ship Or Short Make Shift Runways...But Why Do You Think The Marines Are Wanting To Employ This Thing. Its To Deploy Troops Into Areas Where Time Is Of The Essence! Can You Honestly Tell Me That This Craft Will Never Put Troops On The Ground In An Area That May Be Considered Hostile??? If So Then I Question Your Thought Process Within The Military.
And Secondly: Since When Did The Idea Behind The Osprey Come To Being Able To Stop On A Dime??? Think Logically Here. What Is Going To Be The Better Option: Land A Bulky Tilt-Rotor Plane Near A Combat Zone Or Land A More Agile CH-46/CH-43 Near A Combat Zone??
What Are You Thinking The Overall Purpose Of This Craft Is Jeb?? Do You honestly Believe The U.S. Gov't Is Just Out To Spend Money??? [sarcasm/on] Surely Not!![sarcasm/off]
Why Do You Capitalize The First Letter Of Every Word?
I'm really starting to believe you might not be a Marine, or at least not a very bright one. An Osprey will NEVER operate in a vacuum. If there are surface-to-air threats that might endanger it, those threats will be attacked by Hornets, by Harriers, and by SuperCobras, probably in that order. If the threat on the ground is still significant enough to endanger a trooplifter coming in to land, then you really don't want to be dumping out squads of Marines, no matter how gung-ho they are. You'll keep pounding the target zone from the air or you'll run in a platoon of tanks or LAVs to provide some heavier ground forces, and if you're doing that, then your troops can ride in on the LCACs with the armor. You don't expose your cargo assets to hostile fire EVER if you can avoid it, and if you have to, you don't send them in naked and dumb.
But that seems to be just what you think is going to happen. Am I mistaken?
Are You Even In The Military Jeb??? If So Then I Would Like To Know The Branch That You Joined. Apparently It Is An AllKnowing One. If Intelligence Were So Accurate Then We Would Never Be In War!!! There Will ALways Be Some Enemy Or Insurgent That Gets By Somewhere!!! What Kind Of Reality Are You Living In??? Does Anyone Here Understand What Is Going On Here???
Anyway...I Still Cant Wait For This Movie To Come Out!!!
I wouldn't go see that movie , even if I had a free pass & a limo took me to the theater ... or if it was playing in my living room and they duct-taped my arse into my recliner & force-fed me Junior Mints .
I have yet to see a promo that made me want to spend my hard earned money to buy a ticket , and I LOVE a good action movie .
Originally posted by Pale Horse:
Are You Even In The Military Jeb??? If So Then I Would Like To Know The Branch That You Joined. Apparently It Is An AllKnowing One. If Intelligence Were So Accurate Then We Would Never Be In War!!! There Will ALways Be Some Enemy Or Insurgent That Gets By Somewhere!!! What Kind Of Reality Are You Living In??? Does Anyone Here Understand What Is Going On Here???
Anyway...I Still Cant Wait For This Movie To Come Out!!!
Genius, intelligence isn't there to prevent wars, that has NEVER been its purpose.
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Originally posted by Pale Horse:
There's Something Wrong With Landing That Craft Anywhere Near A Combat Zone Making The Transition From Forward Facing Rotor To Overhead. God!!!! Think About How Much Time An Enemy Would Have To Engage You! You Could Get Shot Down With Small Arms Fire Much Less Some Sort Of Rocket Or RPG!!!
You're telling me that standard operating procedure is for troop-carrying helos now to fly into the thick of enemy fire to disgorge troops? Or that a CH-46 is more survivable than an Osprey? For that matter, how do YOU know what the mission profile for an Osprey is if they haven't even been put into production, let alone formed into squadrons to train and develop tactics? Come on, use your brain for more than a cushion for your helmet.
Funny you should say that... Im a marine... stationed @ Cherry Point NC... we have Ospreys landing here almost daily... the are in production now, and they do have a training squadron formed at MCAS New River, NC...
Are you military? Alexandria, VA... you navy?
On topic- Jarhead- the book, was hilarious to read as an ENLISTED Marine, Officers, unless prior enlisted, will never understand... Its well known by the enlisted, its two entirely different worlds. It was hilarious b/c I remember the bootcamp chapter in the book, and I remember it really being that way, not to mention the accounts of their free time and what happened while overseas, was all pretty congruent with how enlisted marines really act while under the pressures of war... All in all, I really hope this movie is true to the book...
Originally posted by Ice992:
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Originally posted by Pale Horse:
There's Something Wrong With Landing That Craft Anywhere Near A Combat Zone Making The Transition From Forward Facing Rotor To Overhead. God!!!! Think About How Much Time An Enemy Would Have To Engage You! You Could Get Shot Down With Small Arms Fire Much Less Some Sort Of Rocket Or RPG!!!
You're telling me that standard operating procedure is for troop-carrying helos now to fly into the thick of enemy fire to disgorge troops? Or that a CH-46 is more survivable than an Osprey? For that matter, how do YOU know what the mission profile for an Osprey is if they haven't even been put into production, let alone formed into squadrons to train and develop tactics? Come on, use your brain for more than a cushion for your helmet.
Funny you should say that... Im a marine... stationed @ Cherry Point NC... we have Ospreys landing here almost daily... the are in production now, and they do have a training squadron formed at MCAS New River, NC...
Are you military? Alexandria, VA... you navy?
On topic- Jarhead- the book, was hilarious to read as an ENLISTED Marine, Officers, unless prior enlisted, will never understand... Its well known by the enlisted, its two entirely different worlds. It was hilarious b/c I remember the bootcamp chapter in the book, and I remember it really being that way, not to mention the accounts of their free time and what happened while overseas, was all pretty congruent with how enlisted marines really act while under the pressures of war... All in all, I really hope this movie is true to the book...
I still wouldn't trust the Osprey, at least right now. I remember in my time there were the maintenance issues/scandals whatever you want to call it. Hopefully they have the transition issue 'fixed'. I think eventually it will be a great platform, but I don't think it will ever be able to replace the insertion capability of a CH-53 or 46. But that's just me.
Originally posted by Pale Horse:
Does Anyone Here Understand What Is Going On Here???
God knows I don't! Instead Of Answering His Questions You Just Spit Back With Accusations And More Questions. Seems Kind Of Fishy To Me, But Maybe That's Just The Way You Do Business.
Originally posted by Buddy Palumbo:
I have yet to see a promo that made me want to spend my hard earned money to buy a ticket , and I LOVE a good action movie .
I think I understand you partially here. The trailers really haven't shown much "action" and I don't think it really is going to be chock full of it. I think this movie is more narrative of his time in Desert Storm, and as I recall from the book, it was mostly griping about sitting around waiting for the WMD's and "Mother of all Wars". But I also think that coming from the director of American Beauty, it's going to be worth seeing, if not for the action, then to at least hear this Marines story, despite that it's been "Hollywized".
Originally posted by Ice992:
Im a Marine...
C'mon Ice! You earned the right to be a Marine with a capital M.
Originally posted by Ice992:
On topic- Jarhead- the book, was hilarious to read as an ENLISTED Marine, Officers, unless prior enlisted, will never understand... Its well known by the enlisted, its two entirely different worlds. It was hilarious b/c I remember the bootcamp chapter in the book, and I remember it really being that way, not to mention the accounts of their free time and what happened while overseas, was all pretty congruent with how enlisted marines really act while under the pressures of war... All in all, I really hope this movie is true to the book...
It's pretty well known among any Marine, officer or enlisted. The difference I've seen is that most officers find the book slightly offensive, but still worth reading. Why do you say that officer's will "never" understand? Are they not out there with you everyday? Are they making less of a sacrifice to be out there because they've got a degree and done a minimum 10 weeks OCS, 6 months TBS, and whatever MOS training had to be done? I just don't understand why there is such a 'rivalry' between officers and enlisted. In my mind, and hopefully this is what my actions show when I am assigned my squadron, an officer is there for the enlisted. He serves them just as much as they serve him and respect/loyalty should go both ways. Of course, I'm not yet in the Corps, but I'd like to think that my ideals will stand when that happens. I'm not trying to give you a "Your wrong, I'm right" speech by any means, just trying to get a better picture of why and how things are while in duty. I have the utmost respect for you and any enlisted military, Marine or not, so understand that I'm not trying to attack you, just get a more clear picture of the situation.
Oh and I couldn't get worked covered last night, so I'll be seeing it later today.
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
It's pretty well known among any Marine, officer or enlisted. The difference I've seen is that most officers find the book slightly offensive, but still worth reading. Why do you say that officer's will "never" understand? Are they not out there with you everyday? Are they making less of a sacrifice to be out there because they've got a degree and done a minimum 10 weeks OCS, 6 months TBS, and whatever MOS training had to be done? I just don't understand why there is such a 'rivalry' between officers and enlisted. In my mind, and hopefully this is what my actions show when I am assigned my squadron, an officer is there for the enlisted. He serves them just as much as they serve him and respect/loyalty should go both ways. Of course, I'm not yet in the Corps, but I'd like to think that my ideals will stand when that happens. I'm not trying to give you a "Your wrong, I'm right" speech by any means, just trying to get a better picture of why and how things are while in duty. I have the utmost respect for you and any enlisted military, Marine or not, so understand that I'm not trying to attack you, just get a more clear picture of the situation.
Oh and I couldn't get worked covered last night, so I'll be seeing it later today.
You are not in the FMF yet. There is a HUGE difference in Enlisted and Officers. Lifestyle and treatment. Like I told you in PM, the majority of Officers don't understand the Enlisted man and/or respect them enough. They basically think they (the officer) are at a 'higher level.' Typically teh best Officer is prior Enlisted. I hope your wanting to learn and understand the Enlisted man carries over to your time in the Corps. It will make you a better officer. Time will tell.
It would be interesting to get Tom's take on it since he's been on both sides in different services....
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Originally posted by Pale Horse:
Does Anyone Here Understand What Is Going On Here???
God knows I don't! Instead Of Answering His Questions You Just Spit Back With Accusations And More Questions. Seems Kind Of Fishy To Me, But Maybe That's Just The Way You Do Business.
Originally posted by Buddy Palumbo:
I have yet to see a promo that made me want to spend my hard earned money to buy a ticket , and I LOVE a good action movie .
I think I understand you partially here. The trailers really haven't shown much "action" and I don't think it really is going to be chock full of it. I think this movie is more narrative of his time in Desert Storm, and as I recall from the book, it was mostly griping about sitting around waiting for the WMD's and "Mother of all Wars". But I also think that coming from the director of American Beauty, it's going to be worth seeing, if not for the action, then to at least hear this Marines story, despite that it's been "Hollywized".
Originally posted by Ice992:
Im a Marine...
C'mon Ice! You earned the right to be a Marine with a capital M.
Originally posted by Ice992:
On topic- Jarhead- the book, was hilarious to read as an ENLISTED Marine, Officers, unless prior enlisted, will never understand... Its well known by the enlisted, its two entirely different worlds. It was hilarious b/c I remember the bootcamp chapter in the book, and I remember it really being that way, not to mention the accounts of their free time and what happened while overseas, was all pretty congruent with how enlisted marines really act while under the pressures of war... All in all, I really hope this movie is true to the book...
It's pretty well known among any Marine, officer or enlisted. The difference I've seen is that most officers find the book slightly offensive, but still worth reading. Why do you say that officer's will "never" understand? Are they not out there with you everyday? Are they making less of a sacrifice to be out there because they've got a degree and done a minimum 10 weeks OCS, 6 months TBS, and whatever MOS training had to be done? I just don't understand why there is such a 'rivalry' between officers and enlisted. In my mind, and hopefully this is what my actions show when I am assigned my squadron, an officer is there for the enlisted. He serves them just as much as they serve him and respect/loyalty should go both ways. Of course, I'm not yet in the Corps, but I'd like to think that my ideals will stand when that happens. I'm not trying to give you a "Your wrong, I'm right" speech by any means, just trying to get a better picture of why and how things are while in duty. I have the utmost respect for you and any enlisted military, Marine or not, so understand that I'm not trying to attack you, just get a more clear picture of the situation.
Oh and I couldn't get worked covered last night, so I'll be seeing it later today.
You want to be a good Marine Officer? When you take over a platoon, company, division whatever you end up the OIC of, best way to start off, is do nothing... sit back, take 2-4 weeks, and honestly learn your marines, get to know them as PEOPLE, not as officer to enlisted, enlisted have a grudge against officers due to the holier than thou complex most have. In my MOS, I dont have to worry about it as much, bc without me, the officer doesnt get to fly his jet that day... I control all the support equipment/test equipment for the squadron... and in an airwing environment, the officers quickly learn just how important the enlisted who maintain his multimillion dollar toy...
Your values sound good... but the corps changes people... and TBS will change you, you may never see it but others will... Every enlisted has had the OIC whom was their best friend and they'd bend over backwards to put out and get things done for their OIC in return... then everyone has had the a hole whom nobody liked and nobody would do a thing extra to help their oic out... beleive me, you want to be the first of the two, this is why the enlisted to officer are the best officers 8 out of 10... B/C they have experianced both sides of this, and tend to emulate the better of the two... Just food for thought...
Are you a Plane Captain, Dan?
Originally posted by Viva El Todras!:
Are you a Plane Captain, Dan?
actually i orginally was Flight Crew... but Im now an IMRL manager
Originally posted by UnBan Barge!!!!!�®:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
I wouldn't go all crazy over the Osprey....lots of $$$$ no results....as of yet.
For sure.. Right now thats thing ranks right up there with the commanche in my book....
Ok. Don't go there on the whole Army Aviation thing! Or the Marines for that matter. 
The comanche is a badass aircraft that costs too damn much money. There isn't anything wrong with it....or course they wouldn't know that since they got it all developed then decided it was too expensive to buy right now while at war. The 5 billion dollar project would have paid for all the development and testing and about 100 aircraft or something like that. THe scrapped it at the 3 billion dollar point and with the remaining 2 billion were able to upgrade every other aircraft in the Army fleet plus buy new models of existing aircraft. Economically it makes sense but seems like such a waste. Well, at least the technology is there for the future. I really wanted to fly that thing too.
Now I'll just have to make do with an Apache Longbow. Yes, it is official. I was selected for the AH64D.
Thinks:
<eat crow AF and Navy biotches >
waits a moment then thinks:
<Hmm. How easy is it to pop up from behind a tree when a ChairForce plane goes over and put a seeking missile up its butt? >
Originally posted by warmonger:
Now I'll just have to make do with an Apache Longbow. Yes, it is official. I was selected for the AH64D.
Congrats! Want anything from the assembly line? Going out to it next month ;-)
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by jthursby:
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Originally posted by jthursby:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
The F-22 isn't operatonal yet, so I don't consider that one in the discussion :-P.
Talk to some of the test pilots on that program, oh, sorry most of them were killed flight testing the POS.
it's nickname is the "twin-rotor marine mauler". I'll fly about anything and I wouldn't touch that thing.
Do you not read, or are you just so much of a wannabe that you can't even tell a Raptor from an Osprey? And oooh, you have a friend who worked on a flight sim, so that makes you more in the know than me, who's talked to the program director while standing inside one of the airframes? Nice try.
Wasn't trying anything. It's a POS but the Marines love it because it's fast. It will kill Marines fast too. I've got logged (read signed in my logbook)C5A Galaxy sim time. What's that mean about my knowledge of a C5A? Jack shizit. Wannabe that azzhole.
Jim
Before you add your worthless .02, read my posts more carefully in discussion the OV-22....
Yep, despite the fact that I think jthursby is very confused on the difference between a jet and tilt rotor, let's still consider the very obvious fact that the Marines have put it into full production. I'm sure they did so without care or caution of what that could mean for the grunts riding it.
Obviously there are going to be alot of reservations about this airplane, as I said earlier, it's an entirely new type of aircraft, and MUCH testing (testing=failures, no way around it) has had to go into developing it. But due to the simple nature of TESTING, the plane has become a stout pig in the skies, or the Marines wouldn't be trusting their own in it. C'mon at least try and have some faith in the decisions of the higher-ups, even if this plane had some rocky starts, which is inevitable in this situation.
EDIT: Some good info from a website mostly composed of the guys that actually do the flying out there, might want to give it a search or two and read up. If these guys (the pilots OF the Osprey) are pretty confident in the machine, I'll trust it. AirWarriors
Exactly. THe Blackhawk used to be known as the LawnDart back in its early days as the rear stabilizor wing would just randomly go down driving the helicopter into the ground. Deaths, testing, fixing and now its the greatest thing since sliced bread!
AFter Blackhawk down so many people want to fly one of those now.
Originally posted by Pale Horse:
I'm A Marine "Grunt", "Groundpounder", "Bullet Catcher", "Human Shield", "Jarhead", "Leatherneck", If You Will, And Id Never Be Caught Anywhere Near That GD Osprey!! It Is A Great Theoretical Piece Of Machinery, But The Inherent Liabilities That Come With Deploying That Thing In A Combat Scenario Are Disgusting! I Would Rather Hump 30 Miles Into A Combat Zone Than Ride The 15 Minutes It Would Take In That Piece!!! There's Something Wrong With Landing That Craft Anywhere Near A Combat Zone Making The Transition From Forward Facing Rotor To Overhead. God!!!! Think About How Much Time An Enemy Would Have To Engage You! You Could Get Shot Down With Small Arms Fire Much Less Some Sort Of Rocket Or RPG!!! If It Were Up To Me Id Live With The Blisters On My Feet!
To Address The Movie:
If You Havent Read The Book, Dont Assume This Has Some Sort Of Political Agenda To It...It Doesn't. It Is Solely About A Marines Experiences/Confusions/Inner Demons/And Overcoming Mental Obstacles!
In Short He Really Didn't Know What He Was Getting Himself Into When He Joined. (As Most Any Marine Will Tell You Is The Case, Especially If You're An Infantry MOS)
You aren't/weren't the only one.
Hehehe And you would TOO be caught in it if you were still honoring your oath, if they assured you it was fixed. A true Marine will do his duty despite the fears.
Originally posted by Viva El Todras!:
Originally posted by warmonger:
Now I'll just have to make do with an Apache Longbow. Yes, it is official. I was selected for the AH64D.
Congrats! Want anything from the assembly line? Going out to it next month ;-)
Umm yeah sure! I'm a packrat so I'll take one of them widget thingymabobbies in case one of mine goes out during flight.
Originally posted by Viva El Todras!:
.....
It would be interesting to get Tom's take on it since he's been on both sides in different services....
Wow, this is always a touchy subject and the sides vary greatly even among enlisted based on how they were treated by the officers.
But here goes:
Some officers just don't and never get it. They just aren't troop officers. They are better suited to staff. Good, staff weenies are important, and we ALL do at least some time on staff.
The other officers DO get it, and it really doesn't seem to matter if they were prior enlisted, or straight academy. Now if you are an officer that 'gets it' and you have the benefit of the enlisted side....well that just makes you more effective early on versus later on as the academy guys still have to learn that stuff.
That is where the perception of enlisted first makes a better officer. I've seen with my own eyes where it has made a worse, The Worst officer I have ever known. That enlisted experience can give a Weak officer the leg up he needs to make it to commissioning and maybe a little way beyond whereas he might never have made it without that training.
Many enlisted officers have seen/done everything and you can't tell 'em Nuthin! Those are the ones that given some pressure they resort back to "NCO" mode and fail to be the commissioned officer leader. Don't get me wrong, the NCO is the backbone of the services and NOTHING gets done without their help leading the junior soldiers. They know what it takes to take care of the soldier and hone them razor sharp for the mission... (excluding the turds on both sides of the fence here). But when you take up the Commissioned Officer hat then you have to do that job. Sometimes it contradicts enlisted training, sometimes it can be helped by it. Worse, the enlisted and officers that are excellent, high speed soldiers always have to accomodate the weak ones and take up that slack. You're only as strong as your weakest link.
Since we are all human that means that we never truly 'know' until we do it ourselves, even if just told about it. So you can't really understand these things fully until experienced. However, one can relate a few things to show the difference and why there will never be peace/cooperation in the way that was asked above:
-Both go into combat so that isn't the issue.
-The officer plans and leads the troops into combat. The perception is that he "sends" them into harms way. Sometimes he does. THAT is the first issue; no one likes to be told to get out on point.
-The NCO looks to his troops and to his mission; the officer looks to his mission and his troops. You can't have one without the other but in the end that slight wording change might make the more intuitive among you realize the difference.
-At the end of the day the officer is responsible for everything that went right or wrong. Behind closed doors he will hear it if ANYTHING went wrong and made his commander feel put out for any reason...even if the decorations on the company party were the wrong shade of green. The enlisted soldier will fall back on "Well that's how you told me to do it sir...you're the leader"
The officer can have no excuse (despite trying) and the commander will say "You should have figured out a way to accomplish getting the right shade of green...asked the right question...sought the right advice....mixed your own colors....found an expert....yada yada yada."
-And if it is a serious issue of life and death, you have to have the balls to stand by the decision that might get someone killed. AND you'd better be the fugging BEST at your job and made the best assessment before hand because how can you live with yourself if you sent someone in harms way and they die because you didn't do your job right or didn't know enough. It's all good being an officer in peacetime but when wartime comes around it is not so easy to find the right stuff.
There are always going to be differences between the two corps and just some of the fundamental differences are illustrated in the concepts I put in the scenarios above. That's as it should be. I see nothing coming down the pike that will change it either.
I can remember 2 Osprey crashing out side Cherry Point NC in the last 10yrs. I grew up only 30mins from there. One landed in a friend of my Grandfathers field.
Found this and thought it was a sweet pic.
I just got back from watching it. It completely blew my mind. I went with three girls. Two of them have little to no connection to a military life, while one of the girls and myself both have fathers that have served 20+ years in the armed forces.
They thought the movie was boring. The one girl and I thought it was spectacularly psychological. If you have a connection to the military lifestyle, it will really hit home a lot more than that of a purely civilian lifestyle.
-SAV
So V-22 frames are making it to the field? That's cool. The last I'd heard was production started, but I didn't know how long it took to get them out. Kinda interesting that Ospreys & Raptors have come to fruition at the same time, give or take a few months.
Originally posted by SAV:
I just got back from watching it. It completely blew my mind. I went with three girls. Two of them have little to no connection to a military life, while one of the girls and myself both have fathers that have served 20+ years in the armed forces.
They thought the movie was boring. The one girl and I thought it was spectacularly psychological. If you have a connection to the military lifestyle, it will really hit home a lot more than that of a purely civilian lifestyle.
-SAV
Just got back from it as well. I "enjoyed" it, but it certainly is not the gung-ho movie that many thought (including myself) it might be. Not that I thought it was going to be some up beat warlike movie, but it really does just seem to focus solely on this one man's experience, and it wasn't a great one at that. On the other hand, I did think that it was certainly worth watching, and should be seen. But as I thought, it does appear to focus on what I assume to be the dark side of Marine enlisted life, especially with the Desert Storm scenario. But I think if you look hard enough, you'll find a relatively positive message come out of the movie in the whole and glimmer in certain scenes. All in all, I'm satisfied with it and recommend it, despite that it didn't cater to my "Go America, kick some @SS!" palet.
Warmonger, thanks for your post, very much appreciated. That was some great advice, and I'll certainly chew on it in my mind for quite some time, as I have the advice given to me by RT. Gotta have something to think about while I'm trying to get that 3 mile down to 18:00!
Originally posted by warmonger:
You aren't/weren't the only one.
Hehehe And you would TOO be caught in it if you were still honoring your oath, if they assured you it was fixed. A true Marine will do his duty despite the fears.
Of Course You're Right Warmonger...The Military Is Filled With Nothing But Overcoming Fears. I Would Obviously Obey An Order To Board That Trap If Given, But I Would Be Sh!!ing Myself The Entire Trip!! I'll Take A Ride In The 46 Or Sea Knight Any Time In Comparison...Both Are Actually Fun Rides.
Me TOO! I think the osprey will be great if they ever prove its reliability but it would be a pant changing ride I think.
Originally posted by Goonz SVT:
I want my money back 
It's from the director of American Beauty. You didn't really expect it to be full of action and happy times did you?
i really liked it i think it showed the real day to day life of what happens over there rather then your average war movie of just killing and killing. idk i liked it i guess it could go either way
I thought the movie was pretty good. Had some funny parts and some serious ones. More of a psychological military life movie than your normal shoot-'em up, bang-bang type. I will most likely add it to my DVD collection when it comes out.
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Just got back from it as well. I "enjoyed" it, but it certainly is not the gung-ho movie that many thought (including myself) it might be. Not that I thought it was going to be some up beat warlike movie, but it really does just seem to focus solely on this one man's experience, and it wasn't a great one at that. On the other hand, I did think that it was certainly worth watching, and should be seen. But as I thought, it does appear to focus on what I assume to be the dark side of Marine enlisted life, especially with the Desert Storm scenario. But I think if you look hard enough, you'll find a relatively positive message come out of the movie in the whole and glimmer in certain scenes. All in all, I'm satisfied with it and recommend it, despite that it didn't cater to my "Go America, kick some @SS!" palet.
It was exactly what I expected it to be. I didn't find it to be a 'darkside' of enlisted life. Its a very good account IMO of it.
But then again, I did read the majority of book and knew what I was walking in it...
Originally posted by Goonz SVT:
I want my money back
Why? Because you expected some ask kicking depiction of the Marine Corps? It was an AWESOME representation of the book.
i like how it told about the what the marines really did during the gulf war, one and two, absolutly nothing. and for any of you are going to say "how would you know!" i was an E-5 in the US army and have 2 purple heart, i was discharged in early may of 05 and bought my SVT, trust me i know
Originally posted by Number47:
i like how it told about the what the marines really did during the gulf war, one and two, absolutly nothing. and for any of you are going to say "how would you know!" i was an E-5 in the US army and have 2 purple heart, i was discharged in early may of 05 and bought my SVT, trust me i know
Yes you are the all knowing. We will all bow to you. *coughAin'tReadytobeaMarineYetcough*
It Is An Exact Representation Of Not Only The Book, But What We Really Do With Our Down Time...I Related On Every Level.
ARMY: Aren't Ready for the Marines Yet.
Very Good!!
Two Purple Hearts?? Who Were You With??
1st ID???
How Would You Know What We(Marines) Were Doing There?
Interested.....
Originally posted by Viva El Todras!:
It was exactly what I expected it to be. I didn't find it to be a 'darkside' of enlisted life. Its a very good account IMO of it.
I Think Everyone Whom Is Civilian Would Consider It To Be A Darkside Because They Have Never Experienced It. I Guarantee You The Movie Critics Will Mention Something About Being 'Dark', And 'Psychological', When In Reality It Is Exact. The 'Deer Hunter' Scene Really Hits Home Though!!
I Can Relate...Not Exactly, But Close Enough To Say:
'OH SH!T' When That Scene Came To Fruition.
no i was with 160th i got shot in in afghanistan(1) and got hurt recovering a helicopter(2)in the gulf. i say it again trust me i know and i say if for a reason
Originally posted by Number47:
no i was with 160th i got shot in in afghanistan(1) and got hurt recovering a helicopter(2)in the gulf. i say it again trust me i know and i say if for a reason
I'm not trying to bash ya (cause the Army and Marines are the "real" military... and I totally respect that), but did you work with the Marines?
I learned A LOT about the Army that I didn't know from working with them. Changed my perspective...
Hm, the Marine's did nothing in the Gulf? Wow, you really missed a LOT of the war then, didn't you?
The airbase at Al Asad, did you happen to pass it? There is a small control tower there, run by a group of Marines. They managed to do ATC for 70% of the sorties that were flown during the war. That (at least to me) is a considerable contribution, considering the number of sorties we flew. And that's just one small group of under 20 Marines.
Then there's the intel Marines, one person in charge of keeping thousands safe.
Oh yeah, and then you've got the fact that the Marines were the first in, dealt with some of the worst hotspots, etc.
Of course, soldiers hardly ever recognize it, because when the Marines come in its usually because the soldiers either a) just got their asses kicked, b) need an area softened up before they go in.
E1
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Of course, soldiers hardly ever recognize it, because when the Marines come in its usually because the soldiers either a) just got their asses kicked, b) need an area softened up before they go in.
E1
Yeah, get an Army guy to admit to either of those!
Originally posted by Number47:
i like how it told about the what the marines really did during the gulf war, one and two, absolutly nothing. and for any of you are going to say "how would you know!" i was an E-5 in the US army and have 2 purple heart, i was discharged in early may of 05 and bought my SVT, trust me i know
So how's an Army sergeant know what it was like to be in the corps in that war at that time? Oh, and the two purple heart thing...Putting them out there on your chest as a sign that you "know" about a 15 year old war and other services in general is in poor taste. I thank you for your sacrifice and service and I am not in any way taking away from what you achieved. Hopefully you have all your arms and legs and eyes and can still walk.
Originally posted by Desea vivo el Todras:
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Of course, soldiers hardly ever recognize it, because when the Marines come in its usually because the soldiers either a) just got their asses kicked, b) need an area softened up before they go in.
E1
Yeah, get an Army guy to admit to either of those!
OH!!! Gimme a [censored] break!
I too once was completely brain washed, but OEF and OIF1,2,3 have definitely changed my outlook on that one.
Originally posted by warmonger:
Originally posted by Desea vivo el Todras:
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Of course, soldiers hardly ever recognize it, because when the Marines come in its usually because the soldiers either a) just got their asses kicked, b) need an area softened up before they go in.
E1
Yeah, get an Army guy to admit to either of those!
OH!!! Gimme a [censored] break!
I too once was completely brain washed, but OEF and OIF1,2,3 have definitely changed my outlook on that one.
HEHEHE, looks like one bite :-P
We all know each service contributes to every world situation one way or another.
And Tom (Sir), you and I both know, that the Marine Corps still is and always will be America's 911 Force :-)
Now go practice popping up from behind mountains...
Wait a minute...OIF3? Is that what the current is being referred to as??
YOu guys are bickering like little girls over how to dress a barbie doll. Are you not on the same side?
Should be though I'm not positive. I was OIF2 on my rotation and I've read in Army times they had planned rotations several years out beyond that.
Oh, and the next time you wonder who's who in ground forces, look at who usually runs the theater commands, who the allied commanders have been, etc.
The army is also getting away from the heavy divisions and transitioning to lighter, more quickly deployable brigades. Think striker brigades and do some reading. Notice any similarities? In short, the Army and Marines are getting more similar all the time in some mission tyeps since the war on terror reared its ugly head.
Another thing is the Army is exhausting their supply of people to send over... So they came up with a great idea... send the Air Force/Navy to do the non-combat (and sometimes convoys, I would say those are sorta combat) stuff like maintain the bases.
I read about this stuff in the AF Times when I was in Kuwait. They were saying that the SF (cops, probly for the convoys and related stuff) and CE (DPW in the Army, like me) are going to be hit up by this. Obviously it's true b/c I did it, and the team that replaced us was some Navy Seabees.
Originally posted by warmonger:
Should be though I'm not positive. I was OIF2 on my rotation and I've read in Army times they had planned rotations several years out beyond that.
Oh, and the next time you wonder who's who in ground forces, look at who usually runs the theater commands, who the allied commanders have been, etc.
The army is also getting away from the heavy divisions and transitioning to lighter, more quickly deployable brigades. Think striker brigades and do some reading. Notice any similarities? In short, the Army and Marines are getting more similar all the time in some mission tyeps since the war on terror reared its ugly head.
Tom, Tom, Tom, you of all people know the Marine Corps does NOT have 4 star Generals to go around like the Army and Air Force does. C'mon!
Also, the Marine Corps isn't changing and most likely won't for any forseen future. They (the Army), along with the pressure from Rummy have realized that the Mairne Corps setup and ability to quickly deploy is where its at in today's war. Gone are the days of huge tank and air battles.
And if you have to 'think' that we are all the same time, then for whatever reasons you've forgotten all about the intra-service rivalary.
I still love anyways.
BTW, you didn't clarify the OIF1,2,3 thing....that lost me...
i got my purple hearts recently(in the last 8 months(afghanistan)) and yes i did work with marines on FARPS we often helped fix eachothers helos but our(army) helicopters were flying 3 to 4 times as many sortires than the marines and we had twice as many choppers. i'm not saying the marines did absolutely nothing, all i'm saying is only a handful of marines did see combat only because the army was to busy. and yes we did often call the marines no it wasnt because we were getting our ass kick and no if wasnt because we need the target softened... well maybe the last one but only because we were streched so thin. i was and E-2 when i was in the gulf i just got done with AIT at Fort Eustis VA. and a quick side not to all you ass holes out there that think the military hasnt done [censored] in iraq you can suck my dick! we have built 100+ houseing areas public sanitaion facilities and several churches (moask) (SP?)
Originally posted by Number47:
i got my purple hearts recently(in the last 8 months(afghanistan)) and yes i did work with marines on FARPS we often helped fix eachothers helos but our(army) helicopters were flying 3 to 4 times as many sortires than the marines and we had twice as many choppers. i'm not saying the marines did absolutely nothing, all i'm saying is only a handful of marines did see combat only because the army was to busy. and yes we did often call the marines no it wasnt because we were getting our ass kick and no if wasnt because we need the target softened... well maybe the last one but only because we were streched so thin. i was and E-2 when i was in the gulf i just got done with AIT at Fort Eustis VA. and a quick side not to all you ass holes out there that think the military hasnt done [censored] in iraq you can suck my dick! we have built 100+ houseing areas public sanitaion facilities and several churches (moask) (SP?)
First, take some damned pride in yourself. Its Army, not army. Its Marine, not marine.
Second, of course you have more helos (duh), the Marine Corps typical size is/was ~187k. I don't konw the Army's specific sizing, but I know its well over twice of that.
If your head is buried that far up your ass that you think the Army kicked Iraq's ass all by itself, then you need a wake up call, or go Active Duty.
In todays battle scheme, no one service can do without the other for any extended period of time and be successful. PERIOD.
Carry on.
I was active duty. and i do take pride in it i just dont use a computer well. i never said army did it by them selfs dumbass i said army did more than the marines and no [censored] one service can function properly what the [censored] do you think kosovo was???
Originally posted by Number47:
I was active duty. and i do take pride in it i just dont use a computer well. i never said army did it by them selfs dumbass i said army did more than the marines and no [censored] one service can function properly what the [censored] do you think kosovo was???
I'm sorry, the army is superior.
Please, enlighten me...what was Kosovo? What was it about? Who did what? Please, tell me oh great Purple Heart winner.
Lets see kosovo was an air war only conducted by the navy and airforce it was to keep a civil war from escalating. and i'm sorry if you have a problem with me being in the service and you couldnt and you want to know another little tid-bit army has more planes than the airforce and more tanks the the marines and once again i have to correct you i never said they they army was superior i just said we did more is that to big a concept your you little mine to grasp??
This gets a BIIIIG L-O-L!!
You are barking up the wroooonnnng tree with "Vive el Todras" there #47... I hate to say it, but you are certainly not helping the stigma that that Army grunts typically receive. That being that they are cocky, ignorant 18 year olds with weapons. The Army does some great things, because they are a great force. And I do mean great as in size, not as in a heroic or outstanding way. I don't mean to knock on the Army here, just simply am trying to point out it's purpose. Let me break it down for you...
Tactical Advantages of each Force
Army - Pure numbers. Largest Force. Great massive ground combat/artillery effort. Does all the heavy lifting of the military.
Navy - Simple enough. A floating country. Launches TLAMS,JDAMS, other missiles, planes, helo's, expeditionary forces, special ops, etc.
Air Force - Air Dominance. Can attack anywhere and anything, using various missiles intended for different purposes on various aircraft intended for different purposes.
Marines - Amphibious, highly maneuverable, small, tactically efficient units. Extremely mobile, go anywhere do anything in a quick amount of time without causing much fuss.
Now then, you have to understand that in today's military EACH force is extremely joint. All are dependent on eachother. Air Force can't hit #$%^ without the Army or Marine forces laser-guidance systems. Same goes for Navy/Marine aircraft and missiles. Army can't do anything quietely or quickly, i.e., huge force=huge attention to there existence in an area and huge amounts of time to deploy and setup command. And none of the forces would be where they are without the aid of the CIA. Huge amounts of intelligence advantages are gained from them, which saves countless lives of guys like you, in an war era where intelligence is EVERYTHING. The Army "does more" because the Army "has more". I hope you can grasp that.
I highly doubt the Army has more planes than the Air Force. I'd like to see some backing of this point. I can't recall ever hearing about an Army F-117 or B-2 or AC-10 executing the latest bombing strike. Or an Army AH-1 Cobra gunship helo attacking the caves in Afghanistan. I do recall Army helos executing cargo and troop deployment, which is what the Army's good at. I hope you can start to see that there are no longer HUGE gaps between services. We truely are becoming one military. And that's the way it should be. Look at the huge military victories we've had in Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq. You can't deny that these have been some of the best fought "wars" in human history. We have had EXTREMELY low comparitive casualties, and it was done through JOINT operations.
It's very simple to look at it this way:
This was something someone showed to me, written by the President of the Naval War College. It's slightly Marine biased(can ya blame me?), but a good way of looking at the forces seperately.
The Air Force reminded me of a French Poodle. The poodle always looks perfect... sometimes a bit pampered and always travels first class. But don't ever forget that the poodle was bred as a hunting dog and in a fight it's very dangerous.
The Army is kind of like a St. Bernard. It's big and heavy and sometimes seems a bit clumsy. But it's very powerful and has lots of stamina. So you want it for the long haul.
The Navy, God bless us, is a Golden Retriever. They're good natured and great around the house. The kids love 'em. Sometimes their hair is a bit long... they go wandering off for long periods of time, and they love water.
Marines I see as two breeds, Rottweilers or Dobermans, because Marines come in two varieties, big and mean or skinny and mean. They're aggressive on the attack and tenacious on defense. They've got really short hair and they always go for the throat. That sounds like a Marine to me!
Originally posted by Number47:
Lets see kosovo was an air war only conducted by the navy and airforce it was to keep a civil war from escalating. and i'm sorry if you have a problem with me being in the service and you couldnt and you want to know another little tid-bit army has more planes than the airforce and more tanks the the marines and once again i have to correct you i never said they they army was superior i just said we did more is that to big a concept your you little mine to grasp??
You don't have to say it; its your 'superior' attitude.
Kosovo was only an air war? Interesting. Maybe I should call my best friend up and ask him what he did in Kosovo for a year? BTW, he's an Army grunt. Or maybe I should walk down the hallway to a Marine I served with, and ask him what he did in Hungary the last time Kosovo got hot? BTW, he's an Intel Marine attached to a Fixed Wing squadron at the time. So, pleae re-read your history.
And BTW, we didn't get involved because it was a civil war. We got involved due to the ethnic cleansing that was going on by Molosevic and Arnac (sp?).
Again, of course the Army has more tanks than the Corps. Um, you are 2x + the size of the Corps, I hope you would be better equipped than us. How bout I'll bring up the fact that the Marine Corps operates with old Army equipment that you (the Army) deems 'old' just as good if not better than their previois owners.
The Army has more planes than the AF? Hmm, I've heard that one before, but I can't remember the last time I seen a C-130, C-5, or C-17 with Army markings on it.
And by your attitude, I highly doubt you were ever 'active duty'. By your attitude, you portray yourself to be a reservist who was called to active duty, which is NOT the same thing. However, that does not diminsh your service.
Originally posted by Desea vivo el Todras:
The Army has more planes than the AF?
Oh, back that one up. The Army is specifically DIS-allowed from having any combat-capable fixed-wing assets, and from having much in the way of ANY fixed-wings. Period. On 06 April 1966, a formal agreement between the Chief of Staff, US Army and the Chief of Staff, US Air Force relinquished Army claims fixed-wing aircraft designed for tactical airlift. It's referred to colloquially as the Key West Agreement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement
The Army since then only operates a small fleet of light cargo planes (C-23 Sherpas) and a few miscellaneous administrative support airplanes, and now the Army and AF are duking it out over the C-23 replacement.
Now, if by "plane" you're including helicopters, you *might* have a case, but I'd love to see a comparison.
Army has more of a *variety* of aircraft that is what was i ment as for all the other [censored] i'm not going to waste my time and read
Originally posted by Number47:
i'm not going to waste my time and read
Rofl! Can't say this is unexpected...
And no, the Army doesn't have more of a "variety". That still belongs to most likely the Air Force, but any other force has more variety than the Army. Like was said before, their #1 aviation purposes are cargo and troop deployment.
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Originally posted by Number47:
i'm not going to waste my time and read
Rofl! Can't say this is unexpected...
And no, the Army doesn't have more of a "variety". That still belongs to most likely the Air Force, but any other force has more variety than the Army. Like was said before, their #1 aviation purposes are cargo and troop deployment.
I have to disagree.
The Army MAY have more aircraft because of the sheer number of helicopters. They also have a large variety of various configurations of those helicopters. I'd say that maybe the Airforce has more variety but not the other services.
The have a chunk of fixed wing but they aren't combat.
The army is especially good at combat and have a large amount of gunships.
BUT, their number one purpose is not troop deplyment and cargo. They have huge numbers of Kiowa and Apache gunships for the purposes of scouting and attack.
They have huge numbers of blackhawks and even still using the UH1 in the guard.
Army doesn't use the AH1 Cobra anymore and sold it to the Marine Corps. However, almost all of the combat pilots in the army are former Cobra gunship pilots and they are some of the best at what they do.
The Apache is now the gunship of choice in the Army and let me tell you, with its avionics it is hands down the best gunship in the military.
When you think of the A10 tank killers, that is what the Apache is also good at. However, they've found a new use for the A10s and Apaches...that is everything BUT cargo!
Convoy escort, security air recon, patrols, attack, etc.
The Army is the best suited for anything to do with ground force combat due to size as you pointed out but also because they have 220 years of producing outstanding officers specializing in ground combat.
IN the long run, there is no victory without the boots on the ground or the way to support them.
Don't forget that the Airforce is just a piece of the Army that was cut off like the long hair they represent.
All the great Airforce commanders of the day were Army officers that started their career with the Army.
The Army is changing because it sees less need for the huge armored force warfare of the 20th century. There is sooooo much work in the light response category that they need to adjust the force...More work to go around than the Marines can handle I guess.
Thanks warmonger, that was very informative, but not disrespectful. I learned alot from that.
Originally posted by warmonger:
IN the long run, there is no victory without the boots on the ground or the way to support them.
And there's no victory without each piece of the military in today's world. That's exactly what I'm saying, but wars are not won solely by any one branch of the military.
Originally posted by warmonger:
There is sooooo much work in the light response category that they need to adjust the force...More work to go around than the Marines can handle I guess.
Heh, and I do agree with you here. Considering that modern ground warfare is basically adapting to become exactly what Marines are trained for. That being small, light armored, mobile units.
So are you implying that we should start actually giving the Marines the financial/equipment backing that they deserve? They've been exceling with Army/Navy leftovers for the past 50 years. Imagine what they could do with more resources! Or the Army could just continue what they're doing and keep learning from the Marines style of combat/training/creative adaptation to any situation.
No ones even talking about the movie anymore......btw...im going to see it tonight
I found it to be a great movie!
Originally posted by Number47:
Army has more of a *variety* of aircraft that is what was i ment as for all the other [censored] i'm not going to waste my time and read
Good, I'd hate for you to become educated on the subject at hand...
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
So are you implying that we should start actually giving the Marines the financial/equipment backing that they deserve? They've been exceling with Army/Navy leftovers for the past 50 years. Imagine what they could do with more resources! Or the Army could just continue what they're doing and keep learning from the Marines style of combat/training/creative adaptation to any situation.
No, if the Marines ever got enough money and backing then they'd turn into the Army! lol
Like a child who grows up hungry to become successful, they will succeed in part because of that background.
Conversely, the children of the self made millionaires are always less likely to work.
They need to stay lean and hungry so that they are always challenged with thinking out of the box, overcoming and adapting in order to snatch victory.
Both styles of ground combat have their advantages and it is in how they are used that success is determined. The Army has its fast, highly deployable units like the 82nd airborne and rangers. Easily as tough as the Marine units I experienced.
The Marines also have their armor units that aren't all that light.
What does that tell you? It's essentially combined Arms doctrine for both Army/Navy though one uses ground/air forces with a Naval perspective in mind. The other uses air/water forces from a ground combat perspective.
Put a light, highly deployable infantry division on an open field of battle against a heavy armored division and there will be only one outcome unless miracles are present. On the other hand, tie that heavy division up in an urban environment where the light unit can gain cover and concealment and it will be the exact opposite.
Originally posted by warmonger:
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
So are you implying that we should start actually giving the Marines the financial/equipment backing that they deserve? They've been exceling with Army/Navy leftovers for the past 50 years. Imagine what they could do with more resources! Or the Army could just continue what they're doing and keep learning from the Marines style of combat/training/creative adaptation to any situation.
No, if the Marines ever got enough money and backing then they'd turn into the Army! lol
You mean like the Army changing to be more like the Marine Corps? :-P
OK, I just got around to seeing this flick. I have to say I didn't get into it at all. The script doesn't "flow" at all... guys get hysterical out of the blue, scenes happen for no apparent reason, relationships between the characters are barely convincing, and in the end it just seems like a budget copy of parts of Full Metal Jacket, Apolcalypse Now, and Three Kings. I was hoping for some depth, and all I got was a bunch of stuff happening for no real reason.