Marines vs Rest of the US armed forces vs Eurowimps

[a completely inoffensive name]

This thread shall serve to promote discussion about the advantages or disadvantages between the US Marines and all the other slops out there that don't even have proper bayonet training.

[ Please fill me with relevant information about Marines, US armed forces and Eurowimps and come to some conclusion based upon these sources - T ]

Please have all your arguments based on homo erotic fantasies facts.

[Centurion1]

first of all i dislike this sort of thing as very few of us were in the military and really have no right to proclaim any one services supremacy over the other since as fighting men they are all superior to us.

second of all homo erotic fantasies they are not for many people but are a stark reality of their futures, presents, or pasts.

[tibilicus]

From my personal exposure to military personnel and military culture it seems this sort of argument is rife and, at the end of the day, nonsensical. Speaking from a British perspective the Royal Marines and the paras tend to hold the kind of dubious superiority complex US Marines seem to have. I know a couple of people who have gone for the Para program P-Coy training (with mixed results) and their ego becomes inflated even before they attempt it. Paras and Royal Marines also have a habit of referring to them and "the rest". Sure, I'll respect you for wearing the maroon beret and having the commando daggers but at the end of the day whilst you're physically superior referring to yourself as better than other soldiers is dumb. Sure the signals don't have the same type of job but I'd like to see such "elite" units try and do their job without various types of signals support or the Royal Artillery to get them where they want/ blow everything to bits.

The worst for me has to be the whole regular/ territorial rubbish. territorial units are constantly berated for being "part-timers" or "soft soldiers". Despite the fact if I want to be in any TA unit one has to meet the requirements of any regular soldier. I despair every time I bring up the TA and a wannabe regular comes out with some unfounded statement. Iv'e seen a Lance Corporal from the RAF Regiment give lip back to a major purely because he identified him as being from a TA regiment, that sort of thing's not right. When deployed the TA does the same thing as the regulars, they just have a second life on top of that.

In short I can't talk in certainties about the US military but if it's anything like the British structure then I imagine it has both an interesting and bizarre micro culture. Also for anyone who has served or has knowledge of the US military do the US Marines have to reach a higher standard of fitness than military personnel say Rangers or US paras?

[Centurion1]

From my personal exposure to military personnel and military culture it seems this sort of argument is rife and, at the end of the day, nonsensical. Speaking from a British perspective the Royal Marines and the paras tend to hold the kind of dubious superiority complex US Marines seem to have. I know a couple of people who have gone for the Para program P-Coy training (with mixed results) and their ego becomes inflated even before they attempt it. Paras and Royal Marines also have a habit of referring to them and "the rest". Sure, I'll respect you for wearing the maroon beret and having the commando daggers but at the end of the day whilst you're physically superior referring to yourself as better than other soldiers is dumb. Sure the signals don't have the same type of job but I'd like to see such "elite" units try and do their job without various types of signals support or the Royal Artillery to get them where they want/ blow everything to bits.

The worst for me has to be the whole regular/ territorial rubbish. territorial units are constantly berated for being "part-timers" or "soft soldiers". Despite the fact if I want to be in any TA unit one has to meet the requirements of any regular soldier. I despair every time I bring up the TA and a wannabe regular comes out with some unfounded statement. Iv'e seen a Lance Corporal from the RAF Regiment give lip back to a major purely because he identified him as being from a TA regiment, that sort of thing's not right. When deployed the TA does the same thing as the regulars, they just have a second life on top of that.

In short I can't talk in certainties about the US military but if it's anything like the British structure then I imagine it has both an interesting and bizarre micro culture. Also for anyone who has served or has knowledge of the US military do the US Marines have to reach a higher standard of fitness than military personnel say Rangers or US paras?

Alot of what you just described is common. Here in ROTC (officer training program at university) there is most certainly a attitude of go combat arms or die. It is reinforced by other military men I know including my father who flew jets. Then yes there is superiority complexes between units.

US Marines should not be compared to Rangers and to draw comparisons is an insult. US Army Paratroopers like the 82nd and 101st are theoretically a special unit but really just have that Para training which is actually very very common throughout the Army. (For example I will likely go to either Airborne or Air Assault school this summer). There are actually quite a few jokes dropped about the 101st at least. But to compare the Marines and Rangers is an insult.

Rangers are elite infantry pure and simple. You have to compare a regular US Army soldier and a US Marine. Then you have to clarify and compare an infantryman in the US Army to an infantryman in the Marine Corp (or a tankman to a tankman, airman to airman, etc.)

No I don't think this ridiculous mythos of Marine corp superiority in the realm of physical fitness is legitimate if you compare infantry in the army to infantry in the marine corp. In ROTC at least the kids who tend to go combat arms are physical studs. I'm nothing special and I get around 80 some pushups 90 situps and a 13:00 min 2 mile with relative ease. I also weigh 195 pounds am 6' and lift alot of weights. I allude to this because it means since I lift so many weights I have alot of short fiber muscle (I'm obsessed with basketball and if I couldn't dunk I would die a little). That sort of muscle doesn't lend itself any favors in the APFT (test) yet I still "max" out the test. I consider myself a superior athlete than most of my friends in ROTC and even in the military as a whole but im nothing special fitness wise. I've taken the Marine Corp PT test as well and tbh its not too hard. I easily max out the situps and pull ups (i mean you can do chin ups for goodness sakes) though it isnt easy to get the 18:00 3 mile to max. It should also be noted I am a horrendous runner, absolutely terrible and its something I do every single day sometimes twice a day because im so naturally bad at distance running.

tl;dr So no i dont think the marine corp is anything special fitness wise.

[CountArach]

second of all homo erotic fantasies they are not for many people but are a stark reality of their futures, presents, or pasts.
Are you saying that homo erotic archetype of the soldier are real or am I just mis-reading your statement?

[Sigurd]

Eurowimp here...
From my experience the US navy is a bunch of wannabe best in the world with the mouth to fit, but when it comes to the doing, they have been found wanting.
Of course I realize that I haven't met every one of the mighty US Navy, but those that have found our waters were all steam and no material.
I wonder if they have had naval training at all?

Examples you say? We have had u-boats resting directly under an American vessel without being detected. And it was a training exercise where they were looking for it.
The Americans have no discipline to keep a low energy signature on their ships when entering enemy waters. They light up as a Christmas tree easily spotted by gun-forts and other smaller stealthier crafts. Its like bringing a marching band to a hide and seek game.

Many times I and collegues have been
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/polar_bear_penguin.jpg

You could claim a ruse... let them think we are ignorant. Since the Russians are watching let's just play drunk.. :sneaky:

[Fragony]

Isn't the Norwegian army specialised in coastal defence with all the fjords, good thing they come training with you guys no.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eurowimp here...
From my experience the US navy is a bunch of wannabe best in the world with the mouth to fit, but when it comes to the doing, they have been found wanting.
Of course I realize that I haven't met every one of the mighty US Navy, but those that have found our waters were all steam and no material.
I wonder if they have had naval training at all?

Examples you say? We have had u-boats resting directly under an American vessel without being detected. And it was a training exercise where they were looking for it.
The Americans have no discipline to keep a low energy signature on their ships when entering enemy waters. They light up as a Christmas tree easily spotted by gun-forts and other smaller stealthier crafts. Its like bringing a marching band to a hide and seek game.

Many times I and collegues have been
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/polar_bear_penguin.jpg

You could claim a ruse... let them think we are ignorant. Since the Russians are watching let's just play drunk.. :sneaky:

You are Vikings though, genetically bred for skulking around and killing people from boats, the fact that your boats are under the water now really does make it unfair. These "Americans" are mostly just Anglo-Saxons, they don't stand a chance.

Seriously though, "diciplined" is never a word used to describe the US military.

As regards her Britanic Majesty's Forces however, it's all about "THEM".

Though I have to say, I was most scared by the Commando Signalman I met a few years ago, that guy was crazy.

[tibilicus]

Wasn't actually aware the Rangers were spec ops. I was just throwing names of forces I knew out there, guess you learn something new everyday.

[Fragony]

Shameless plug as it's cool footage, looks like an FPS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ2Do64NTso

No idea if Dutch marines are any good it just reminds me of COD, but aren't all SAS-type special forces good,or at least better than regulars, Iranian European USA or whatever, wouldn't they all butcher ordinary troops mano a mano

[Kagemusha]

I served at mechanized Jaeger Brigade during my service and i am currently staff sergeant in reserve of the said branch. So i was trained for combat duty. I will already apologize my language beforehand, but as our trainers told:

"It is the supporting branches that do the killing. We just go in and "sexually harass" the carrion´s left behind."

I think in any army there is rivalry between different branches, but any soldier in any combat unit should know that the support units are your best friends and without them you could not do anything. No matter, was it artillery, aviation, signals, engineers, logistics or what ever.wihout them the combat arms would be nothing.

[Kagemusha]

Well of course, its' all friendly ribbing. Even when I talk about Marines.

And since you mentioned it, I suppose it is worth mentioning that many, many people serve in an Infantryman capacity in Iraq who never thought they would have to do so. For Tankers and Cav Scouts, we kind of expected it--we knew it was coming. For Artillerymen, Supply Specialists, Cooks, or any number of other strange non-grunty people it was a very big shock to have to come to Iraq and then go on a patrol. Because our Tankfantry (tm) platoon had only 16 people, we had all kinds of wierdos go on missions with us. We even had a cook get a Combat Action Badge before anyone else in my platoon did. Crazy bastard always wanted to be on the Machine Gun, so we called him the Combat Cook.:laugh4:

I guess there were not many complaints about food in your unit.:laugh4:

[Kagemusha]

Alas, 'tis not so. The Cooks got mad because we kept stealing their manpower to go on missions, and they lacked the manpower to prepare good meals back at the outpost. In fact, our entire company was sick for a week in late '08 because they put out moldy bread.

On the flip side, Bagdhad is full of stuff to eat. There's a lot of chicken stands on the road, and convenience stores are everywhere. Not to mention the falafel shops. By the end of the deployment, our itty bitty little outpost had both a falafel shop and a convenience store, run by very brave and profiteering Iraqis who didn't mind being associated with us. Also, middle-eastern people give the best haircuts. Best haircut I ever got was in Kuwait, second best was in Bagdhad. Regular military barbers should be ashamed.

Also, Boom Booms. Best drink I ever had. I don't know who makes them, or where they are bottled, but it is an AWESOME little blue-raspberry energy drink that you can buy anywhere in Bagdhad.

Well you guys took care of your selves. I can imagine already you driving around with Humwee´s, taking bites of shis kebab along the way. By the way. Can i ask what kind of stuff is US Army serving in their field canteen´s?

[Centurion1]

Wasn't actually aware the Rangers were spec ops. I was just throwing names of forces I knew out there, guess you learn something new everyday.

they aren't. I should have made a more clear distinction between elite infantry and special forces. they also really aren't comparable.

[Vuk]

And I share their distaste for the Navy.

I think everyone does. ~;) Actually, my grandfather, great grandfather, etc, etc, right up until the time my family first came to the US were Navymen. My dad broke the mold by joining the Marines (and only then because it was still part of the Navy). There he learned an intense dislike for the Navy-proper. :P
I gotta say objectively though, I have not heard good things about the Navy (discipline-wise, etc).




*Gah, I might as well says something constructive, too. The Marines are good conventional infantrymen. They have longer basic training, harsher marskmen ship requirements, and generally more difficult physical standards. On the flip side, they are slow to adopt new tactics--it took them forever to adopt the M4 for combat missions in Baghad, even though the average engagement distance there is something like 30-75 meters or something. Certainly not 500 meters, like they train for.


Unfortunately though, the M855, while fragmenting fairly reliably within 200 yards when fired from M16s and M249s with 20" barrels, but from what I have read, rounds fired from the M4 stop fragmenting reliably past 50M or less because of the lost velocity due to the shorter barrel.

Here is an interesting article on the problem created by the M4's shorter barrel. (http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html)
The truth is GC, the M855 already had issues with its fragmentation reliability (esp when thick clothing was concerned), but the M4 only makes that much worse.
I am personally with the Marines here; I would much rather have the M16, because you have a much better chance of actually killing your opponent with it. My friend told me (and I am not sure if it is true) that the Marines want to get their M4 barrels replaced with 16.5 inch ones.
When the Military decides to replace an obsolete assault rifle, why on God's green earth would they pick another DI *#&@box with an even shorter barrel!

During the test, the SCAR suffered 226 stoppages. Since a percentage of each weapons' stoppages were caused by magazine failures, the FN SCAR, XM8 and HK 416 performed statistically similarly.[15] The FN SCAR ranked second to the XM8 with 127 stoppages, but with fewer stoppages compared to the M4 with 882 stoppages and the HK 416 with 233
I just ripped this off wiki. Look at how bad the reliability of that weapon is compared to the competition. Can you really blame the Marines for being reluctant to switch to it?



The Marines have stated over and over that they do not want to be a police force. Neither does the Army, but the Army has tried very hard to adapt and overcome during this long and strange war--the Marines, on the other hand, prefer to just blow everything up. Neanderthals.

Bottom line, however, is that Marines make awful Tankers. You must be disciplined, reasonable, and utterly willing to depend on your Machine to be a tanker. In the Army, in a good unit, you will spend hours most days just checking every little bolt and fastener on the Tank. Marines don't tend to do this--they tend to run them into the ground, and then let someone else deal with it. If you try that in the Army, your mechanics are going to make sure you have a hydraulic leak to deal with the next day.

http://cdn9.wn.com/pd/ac/f2/34cc05ce338d3d1070a395b60009_grande.jpg


The Marines may not be good tankers or good policemen, but they are good Riflemen, and that is the core of the Corps.

[Vuk]

I won't argue with any of that, actually. The M4 has many, many problems. Most of those problems it shares with the M16--Lots of stoppages, very dependant on the user having a thorough knowledge of his SPECIFIC weapon and its defects.

The Marine are the best shooters in the world, outside of SOCOM. You won't find me arguing with that at all--hell, the snipers they produce are out of this world. Army's got good snipers, but the Marines make GREAT Snipers. My problems with them stem from the mindset that they use. They are totally different from the Army in terms of discipline, promotions, initiative, and even basic infantry TTPs. The Army is built around flexibility--we practically re-wrote 7-8 (the Infantry handbook) in the last ten years, and all for the better. Live-fire shoothouse training is commonplace in the Army, and every combat arms soldier could be clearing houses with the SWAT team--we are that good when it comes to watching where you fire, and a willingness to restrict collateral damage.

That's not something the Marines like, at all. When I was in Iraq, it was still common for Marines to clear houses with grenades. I respect that they are killers to the core and don't want to soften up for anything. That's great. Someone at the top should be making sure that they are not being used in delicate operations, then.

I will agree that Marines really should strengthen their weaknesses, such as room-clearing. It is very important to modern combat, and they should be the best at infantry combat. They definitely are not perfect (I mean come on, have you seen their evening dress uniforms? Those things are awful!) and could definitely improve, but they are still probably them best regular infantry we have. (even if their tankers are no good :P)

[drone]

Examples you say? We have had u-boats resting directly under an American vessel without being detected. And it was a training exercise where they were looking for it.

You guys use diesels though, that's, like, cheating or something. None of our real enemies would use diesels!

[Vuk]

Well that depends on what you are using them FOR. Unless I'm mistaken, most Marine units are busy clearing caves in eastern afghanistan--something you can definitely do with a grenade. That seems like a good place for them. :smash:

lol, good point, but you can not always guarantee the situation you are put in.

[tibilicus]

If you don't mind answering Gelatinous Cube, did you serve regular or territorial (reserve)? What's the culture like in terms of that US military wise?

[drone]

Why would a Diesel be quieter? I must confess a complete ignorance of Naval warfare.
Sorry, the official term is "diesel-electric". Battery powered underwater, with diesel engines to power/recharge when surfaced or snorkeling. When running on battery power, they are much quieter than SSNs, which run relatively noisy pumps to maintain the reactor. Diesel-electrics are slower, and not really made for ocean going ops, but for coastal defense they are deadly. The US Navy has a disdain for diesels, their last non-nuclear sub was the Blueback (launched in 1959), but diesels routinely kick their tails in exercises. You would think they would be better at it since NK/China/Iran use them, but apparently the US Navy is still fighting the Sovs in the North Atlantic. ~:rolleyes:

[lars573]

Ahh, thanks drone. That does sound like the Navy.
To be fair Navies in the Anglo-sphere tend to be hard-headed dogmatic tradition loving organizations. Who generally have to be lashed by HUGE failures, or politicos tightening the purse into change and innovation.


You are Vikings though, genetically bred for skulking around and killing people from boats, the fact that your boats are under the water now really does make it unfair. These "Americans" are mostly just Anglo-Saxons, they don't stand a chance.
And the yet diesel electric Canadian (As Anglo-Saxon any Yank) Submarine corp did even better in a war game. Managing to sink the carrier after penetrating the ASW net. When it comes to Anti submarine warfare, diesel-electric might as well be cloaking device to the US Navy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They do work under SOCOM, but unlike most SOCOM forces they are far more strongly rooted in Army behaviour than SOCOM behaviour. As a result, they are usually used as Shock Troops and not as irregulars, and I'm sure that's the intention as well.

*I like this thread, lol. Its making me nostalgiac.

GC, you may be interested to know that modern American "Rangers" are the only survivors of the WWII "Army Commandos" that the Allies used during the war, and that after the war most Allied "Army Commandos" were folded into other regiments, and that's also where we get the modern "Marine Commandos" from.


I think everyone does. ~;) Actually, my grandfather, great grandfather, etc, etc, right up until the time my family first came to the US were Navymen. My dad broke the mold by joining the Marines (and only then because it was still part of the Navy). There he learned an intense dislike for the Navy-proper. :P
I gotta say objectively though, I have not heard good things about the Navy (discipline-wise, etc).




Unfortunately though, the M855, while fragmenting fairly reliably within 200 yards when fired from M16s and M249s with 20" barrels, but from what I have read, rounds fired from the M4 stop fragmenting reliably past 50M or less because of the lost velocity due to the shorter barrel.

Here is an interesting article on the problem created by the M4's shorter barrel. (http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html)
The truth is GC, the M855 already had issues with its fragmentation reliability (esp when thick clothing was concerned), but the M4 only makes that much worse.
I am personally with the Marines here; I would much rather have the M16, because you have a much better chance of actually killing your opponent with it. My friend told me (and I am not sure if it is true) that the Marines want to get their M4 barrels replaced with 16.5 inch ones.
When the Military decides to replace an obsolete assault rifle, why on God's green earth would they pick another DI *#&@box with an even shorter barrel!

I just ripped this off wiki. Look at how bad the reliability of that weapon is compared to the competition. Can you really blame the Marines for being reluctant to switch to it?




The Marines may not be good tankers or good policemen, but they are good Riflemen, and that is the core of the Corps.

I have two words for you. Double Tapp, and not the Gurkha kind.

[drone]

With the advancement in battery tech over the last decade, we should be seeing a huge performance improvement of diesel-electrics in the coming years. I'm sure the admirals in the Pentagon are preparing for this, as the US Navy would never be caught unawares.



I am anxiously waiting for DevDave's post about the superiority of the Air Force. ~D

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Was that whole "Scaling the cliffs at Normandy" thing their first big break, or were there other famous operations before? As a Tanker, I'm pretty ignorant of Ranger lore.

That was 5th Battalion, 1st and 3rd Battalion were already all either heroically dead or captured by that point.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Rangers

Interestingly, the Rangers were in-activated after WWII along with the other army "commando" units but the modern Rangers and descended formally descended from the 1st-6th Ranger Battalions of WWII fame. It's worthy noting that, actually, a lot of the elite WWII formations, including SAS, were dispanded or in-activated after the War, and only later re-activated.

[tibilicus]

Ahh, thanks drone. That does sound like the Navy.



I was in the Regular Army, and served in the 1st Armored Division in Kansas and El Paso, and the 1st Infantry Division in Kansas, San Antonio, and Iraq. So I really couldn't speak for the 'culture' of the greater army. Not even really sure what you mean by that. If you mean attitude/outlook it is very much a work hard/party hard thing. Military posts are surrounded by Strip Clubs, Bars, Clubs, and whatnot for a reason. On the other hand, that too varies from place to place. Its' a big country, and you see parts of all of it during military service. Racially, the Regular Army is pretty evenly split. Maybe a few more white people, but compared to the regular mix of america things are much more even.

Sorry, I completely butchered my original sentence. It was meant to read what is the culture like in terms of regular versus territorial mind sets, It's been a short but mentally tiring day..
By this I mean are the territorial units looked down/ shown with a slight sense of disregard? I ask this because this is pretty rife in the British Military. I've seen Sergeant Majors openly tell OCdts they will salute TA officers but will at the end of the day have no respect for them. The term "weekend warrior" seems to come up a lot.

[rajpoot]

This is probably one of the best Backroom threads ever, in my opinion. Before today I did not know that Marine Core was a distinct entity and not just a part of the US Army.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry, I completely butchered my original sentence. It was meant to read what is the culture like in terms of regular versus territorial mind sets, It's been a short but mentally tiring day..
By this I mean are the territorial units looked down/ shown with a slight sense of disregard? I ask this because this is pretty rife in the British Military. I've seen Sergeant Majors openly tell OCdts they will salute TA officers but will at the end of the day have no respect for them. The term "weekend warrior" seems to come up a lot.

WO's don't respect any Commissioned Officers though - they have 51-20 years experience and yet they take orders from people with one tenth of that.

There's a running joke that the worst thing an officer can do is try to run his Command, and not let his WO and NCO's do it.

Of course, NCO's have their own version of this, namely, "don't call me sir, I work for a living!".

On the other hand, a significant percentage of TA officers are martinets, or bigger wallies than I am, and that takes some real doing - I have a head start.

[tibilicus]

WO's don't respect any Commissioned Officers though - they have 51-20 years experience and yet they take orders from people with one tenth of that.

There's a running joke that the worst thing an officer can do is try to run his Command, and not let his WO and NCO's do it.

Of course, NCO's have their own version of this, namely, "don't call me sir, I work for a living!".

On the other hand, a significant percentage of TA officers are martinets, or bigger wallies than I am, and that takes some real doing - I have a head start.


This is of course true. I guess there's still a reason why everyone hates the RSM though.. Being in the forces for 20 years+ tends to lead to a depressing personality, the worst is the quarter master working in the storeroom in a desperate attempt to avoid "civvy street". I guess there's a certain admiration in going to the higher ranks but at the point I'm handing out kit to servicemen I'd probably call it quits. I am of course biased, I've only really been exposed to officers with big egos. Most Second lieutenants aren't much past the age of 21 but I guess that's the way it works. Junior officers tend not do to much anyway. One Major made a point of telling us its the Lance Corporals which win battles.


On the other hand, a significant percentage of TA officers are martinets, or bigger wallies than I am, and that takes some real doing - I have a head start.

It is a little bit frightening that all it takes is a 3 week commissioning course to be granted a commission. Speaking for the TA of course, does make me chuckle that regulars have to go through 44 weeks to come out with the same rank. :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is a little bit frightening that all it takes is a 3 week commissioning course to be granted a commission. Speaking for the TA of course, does make me chuckle that regulars have to go through 44 weeks to come out with the same rank. :laugh4:

Well, he has to do basic as well. I forget, but it's a bit more than three weeks. Don't forget that a lot of that 44 week course is either training or mental torture designed to make you quit - the training you do evenings and as a TA soldier you're more likely to quit anyway.

Even so, TA officers have to pass the same Commissioning Board as regular soldiers, even if they are only going for a Class B (stay home) commission.

As to the RSM, well everyone hates him because he's God, and he's the only non-Com to wear a cloth cap badge.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

RSM = Regimental Sergeant Major?

yup, God, Badge (because of the cloth cap badge), etc., etc. The rank is Warrent Officer Class 1, that's E-7 to you, highest non-Commissioned rank in the British Army. HOWEVER, while all RSM's are WO1, not all WO1's are RSM's because "Regimental Sergant Major" is an "appointment", not a rank, for historcal reasons. Just to further confuse you, we distuingish between NCO's and Warrent Officers because the latter are issued Royal "Warrents" conferring their ranks, while the former are just enlisted. Warrents are not to be confused with Royal Commissions, which is how you get your first pair of stars, one per shoulder, as a 2nd Lieutenant.

Finally, when addressing a WO of either grade one comes to attention and addresses them as "sir", but does not salute. If memory serves, saluting a non-Commissioned Officer gets you up on a minor charge, just as failing to salute a Commissioned Officer does because all Commissioned Officers are royal proxies, so it's like failing to salute the queen.

Although, we stopped execution by firing squad in 1993 so the worst you'd get is a horsewhipping.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040408/Prince-Williams-friend-Nicholas-van-Cutsem-accused-horse-whip-attack-soldier.html

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well there are people here sticking up for the army and the marines, so I'll have to stand up for the Euroweenies (not Eurowimps!).

IMO there are a lot of reasons why Euroweeines make better soldiers than Americans.

First off, since Europe is a socialist monstrosity, half its population depend on the government for their livelihoods in the form of benefits. This means they are more willing to die for the state in their slavish devotion to it.

Second, Europeans are all atheists, and so while God-fearing Americans might be reluctant to kill a fellow human being, Europeans don't have any morals and so won't have any qualms about killing people.

And finally, while the many wars fought in the defence of the free world have left the American people wearied by the realities of war, Euroweenies have no such experience. Instead, they have a ridiculously glorified view of war and will therefore be less reluctant to sign up and fight.

So, Euroweenies win. :yes:

[Centurion1]

I have a heinously strange view of the military. Since my father was a career naval officer I lived in a lot of military towns. I grew up with my car being saluted and my daddy getting people snapping too when he was in uniform. Military brat to the core here. Then you have to factor in that the man was a jet pilot. Pilots associate with other pilots and besides their chiefs don't have too much contact with the junior enlisted men like say a 2LT or CPT in like an infantry unit would. Especially not the kind of contact where the officers family would ever meet them. My father was a 20 year man at an o-5 ranking (so a lieutenant colonel in the army or a captain in the navy).

To top it all off by the time I was born (my father married late) he wasnt really in battle groups as much anymore. I was born in San Diego where he was part of the regular fleet, then moved to Corpus Christi where my dad did a very short leadership position for the area, then we went on the virginia beach for more regular fleet stuff and stayed there for awhile. then onto maryland to one of the biggest testing bases in the country where he did some flying but mostly staff work (tail end of the career coming here) then it was on to Connecticut where he did work with the subs there (i assume more theoretical and staff work it is a sub base not an air base) then he reitred and we moved back to maryland and hes an engineer and contractor now.

So I still dont really see or meet any junior enlisted men. So the only ones I really know are friends and family. luckily there are alot of those types.

I do have a pretty military affiliated family. My uncle (mothers side) is an Army officer retired at 20 years as well. 4 of my cousins have been in the service. 2 as an officer and the other two enlisted. One is in blackwater (XE) now. luckily no injuries or deaths so far.

But my point is growing up I thought the military was composed of not only officers but pretty senior officers haha. My only friend whos fathers were enlisted dads were like e-7's or even e-9's. And knowing an E-9 as a child growing up who is your fathers friend or your buddies dad is far different than an E-9 as GC meets them. One of the nicest most aw shucks men I have met is a Naval E-9. I cannot imagine that man being even slightly frightening or mean but since he is an e-9 i guarantee he is. Also of note my father is an old man so all the current enlisted men i tend to meet and junior officers treat him like something of a legend. Because he knows them from his work as a contractor and he is in charge of the program that takes care of his old plane which is a very small and shrinking program. (He essentially was one of the first test pilots for the aircraft basically)

So all my friends dads are captains commanders, even admirals the enlisted sons dads are SNCO's (especially since i went to catholic schools growing up) and its not the same if they are family or friends (like my cousins)

Then i got to ROTC. Which is also unnatural. We have two SNCO's a master sergeant and SFC and then a crap load of junior officers and three lieutenant colonels and a couple majors as cadre. Not the traditional make up of the armed forces in other words. Thank god my father was the kind of officer who understood the listen to your nco's and treat them with deference as a junior officer especially or I could be hit with a really big bat come time for my platoon.......

so GC's time living military life and the military life i grew up around are radically different. Also Navy NCO's and Army NCO's are radically different.


I will note though that I understand GC's feelings regarding SNCO's as someone under their direct command. If anything its worse because we see nco's daily gc would only see if he murdered someone haha My master sergeant is god and we rightfully fear his wrath.

[lars573]

Well in the Commonwealth style military there are only 7 o 8 formal enlisted ranks*. But dozens of appointments that a person can hold. And the title of such always supersede the formal rank. In most cases the top NCO in a formation will have an appointment. In the combat arms you'll have a Regimental Sergeant-Major (or Regimental Corporal-Majors in the Cavalry) at the Battalion (Infantry) Regiment (artillery, and armoured/cavalry), and Commando (Special forces). Down from that you have a Company Sergeant-Major (if it's called a company), Squadron Sergeant-Major (for SF Squadrons), and Squadron Corporal-Majors (Cavalry). Canada also uses an appointment of Platoon/Troop Sergeant as it might not be a person ranked as Sergeant (IE a WO) in the role. Some other things is that in the Commonwealth style armies a Major commands the Company/Battery/Squadron sized units (as in the days of empire sending a company out to police the colonies without adult supervision was though to be a bad idea). And in the artillery it's Bombardier in stead of Corporal. And the title of private can be different for types of units. Like trooper is used in Cavalry or SF. If your a member of an infantry regiment who's title is rifles your called a rifleman, Fusilier in such titled regiments, Guardsman in the foot guards, gunner in the artillery, craftsman in the trades, Pioneer in the Engineers. Basically there is about 3 units where a Private is called a private.










* The traditional style is Private (no insignia), Lance Corporal (one chevron), Corporal (2 chevrons), Sargent (three chevrons), Staff Sargent (three chevrons surmounted by the royal crown), Warrant officer II (Royal crown), Warrant Officer I (UK coat of arms). Canada uses a variation of dropping lance Corporal and Staf Sargent. In favour of Master Corporal (2 chevrons surmounted by a maple leaf), and 3 WO ranks, WO (Royal Crown), Master WO (Royal Crown with laurel wreath), and Chief WO (Canadian coat of arms). And our Sargents insignia is 3 chevrons surmounted by a maple leaf.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow, that's interesting. The US Army rank structure is a bit different. WOs and CWOs (Chief Warrant Officers) are all over the Army, and usually fill specialized roles that leave them largely unbothered by other, less knowledgable people. They tend to be the guys who really run any of the shops, behind the scenes. Also, a special forces company is co-run by a Captain (who will only stay for awhile before being rotated out and replaced with a different captain) and a Chief Warrant Officer (who is permanent, and functions like an XO would in most units).

You can break the enlisted Army rank structure down kind of like this:

Bottom of the Totem Pole: A private very rarely has to stand at parade rest when talking to another private, although I have heard of units that enforce standing at parade rest when talking to any enlisted man of a higher rank than you.
E1 - Private (no visual rank) Bottom of the Barrel. Either this guy just got out of Basic or he's a trouble-maker.
E2- Private (one stripe) Most up-and-coming enlisted men will spend their first year in the Army as this.
E3 - Private First Class - Like an E2, but generally gets a bit more benefit of the doubt.

E4 - Specialist/Corporal - This is a wierd rank. Corporal has been phased out of the Army for the most part, although you'll see it when a unit really needs an NCO but doesn't have any available and can't promote anyone to E5 yet. Pay is the same, but a CPL is an NCO and must be treated like one. Specialists get treated great--this is where lower enlisted soldiers shine. A SPC can do almost anything in any capacity, go to any school, and as long as you are a good soldier you will get plenty of respect and benefit of the doubt. I really enjoyed being a SPC. I did not enjoy being a CPL (which was as high as I got--they wouldn't promote me to E5 without re-enlisting).

E5 - Sergeant - The man. It gets serious at this point. If you're an E4 or lower, you better stand at parade rest when you talk to an NCO, until till they tell you to relax. Most will, some won't.

E6 - Staff Sergeant - Most soldiers who make a career out of the military will spend most of their time at this rank. Promotion to E7 is relatively rare, as you have to be selected and reviewed by a panel from your branch (artillery, armor, infantry, quartermaster, ect). Staff Sergeants are important people. They are the Squad Leaders and the Tank Commanders.

E7 - Sergeant First Class - You are a senior NCO at this point. You are probably in charge of a platoon. It takes an act of congress to demote you at this point, and most SFCs are quick to point that out.

E8 - First Sergeant/Master Sergeant - Big Daddy. Often referred to as "Top" by the platoon sergeants and officers. A 1SG will run a company with the help of the officers. You don't see Master Sergeants much as a tanker, aside from the Motorpool or the chow hall. I'm not sure what most MSGs do, honestly.

E9 - Sergeant Major/Command Sergeant Major - These dudes have worked very long and hard to get where they are. The only difference between a SGM and a CSM is what you are doing, and not actually a matter of rank. Every commander in the Army (whether he be a Batallion Commander or a Division Commander or a Corps Commander) will have a Command Sergeant Major to advise him. As a lower enlisted man, you generally don't want to see this guy or be within shouting distance of him. A regular Sergeant Major is kind of like a Master Sergeant--they do stuff, I'm just not sure what.

*And you never, ever say "Sir" to an NCO. You stand at parade rest (hands resting in the small of your back, feet shoulder width apart) when speaking to any NCO until they tell you otherwise. Officers are always adressed as sir, saluted (unless inside), and must be adressed while standing at attention until told otherwise.



Many Euroweenie countries have mandatory service. I like that. Despite all my Libertarian leanings, I do honestly think most americans could benefit from the discipline and the exposure to new things, people, and places.

It's really interesting to have it laid out like that.

The UK Army works like this:

E1 Private - most guys I know spent several years hear after basic, depending on branch.

E2 Lance Corporal - this used to be a provisional rank before heading up to Corporal, payed like a Private but you got in trouble like an NCO, easily busted if you didn't work out, and you went up or down one notch after six months. More recently, these guys are specialists in signals etc., all Inteligence Corps enlisted men are at least Lance Corporal. Lance Corporals are also typically 2nd in Command of an infantry section and manage the second fireteam.

E3 Corporal - most guys know spent years as corporals, in the infantry he commands a section of eight men or its equivilent. In the cavalry (not armour) this is Lance-Serjant, he's also the tank commander, and he's got about 7 years under his belt. I think this is the lowest rank they're happy for you to stay in for a while.

E4 Sergeant - 2IC to the Platoon/Troop Commander.

E5 Colour/Staff Sergeant - Like a Seagant but more? Sometimes comes without attached officer if he's leading a detachment, possibly one of considerable size, although you can get that with Seagants as well.

WO2 Seagant Major - "Crap, it's the CSM", runs a company or squadron.

WO1 Regimental Seagant Major - God's representative on Earth, runs a Battalion or Regiment where that is a single formation, i.e. tanks. When I was a military cadet as a teenager we feared nothing so much as a Regular Army RSM, because once you get to 16-17 you're as old as the enlisted privates in a unit, so they would rip you apart just the same if you gave them a reason to.

British Army Officers, on the other hand, are all gentlemen, they aren't allowed to shout.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well in the Commonwealth style military there are only 7 o 8 formal enlisted ranks*. But dozens of appointments that a person can hold. And the title of such always supersede the formal rank. In most cases the top NCO in a formation will have an appointment. In the combat arms you'll have a Regimental Sergeant-Major (or Regimental Corporal-Majors in the Cavalry) at the Battalion (Infantry) Regiment (artillery, and armoured/cavalry), and Commando (Special forces). Down from that you have a Company Sergeant-Major (if it's called a company), Squadron Sergeant-Major (for SF Squadrons), and Squadron Corporal-Majors (Cavalry). Canada also uses an appointment of Platoon/Troop Sergeant as it might not be a person ranked as Sergeant (IE a WO) in the role. Some other things is that in the Commonwealth style armies a Major commands the Company/Battery/Squadron sized units (as in the days of empire sending a company out to police the colonies without adult supervision was though to be a bad idea). And in the artillery it's Bombardier in stead of Corporal. And the title of private can be different for types of units. Like trooper is used in Cavalry or SF. If your a member of an infantry regiment who's title is rifles your called a rifleman, Fusilier in such titled regiments, Guardsman in the foot guards, gunner in the artillery, craftsman in the trades, Pioneer in the Engineers. Basically there is about 3 units where a Private is called a private.










* The traditional style is Private (no insignia), Lance Corporal (one chevron), Corporal (2 chevrons), Sargent (three chevrons), Staff Sargent (three chevrons surmounted by the royal crown), Warrant officer II (Royal crown), Warrant Officer I (UK coat of arms). Canada uses a variation of dropping lance Corporal and Staf Sargent. In favour of Master Corporal (2 chevrons surmounted by a maple leaf), and 3 WO ranks, WO (Royal Crown), Master WO (Royal Crown with laurel wreath), and Chief WO (Canadian coat of arms). And our Sargents insignia is 3 chevrons surmounted by a maple leaf.

Yuh beat me.

So, basically, the Canadian military uses yeomanry ranks, or a varient thereof? Wierd.

[tibilicus]

ROTC is still something I'm considering. I'm not really sure if civilian life is for me, to be honest, but I'd never go back in as an enlisted man. Too much BS if you get caught in the wrong unit. At least as an officer you get paid good money for the BS.

I think its cool to hear a military brat perspective. I never even thought of joining the Army until I turned 18 and realized there was no way I was going to get a scholarship (since I hadn't done my homework in about six years). I still had other options, but once the idea got stuck in my head I just had to do it. Who wants to be an old man, fifty years from now, and say he missed the war? Not this guy.

What is the ROTC like in the US? Is joining the same as enlisting so binding to a military contract? I'm part of the UK equivalent OTC and ours doesn't seem quite as focused as I imagine your training corp is. Essentially OCdts are Category B TA, paid but not eligible for deployment unless national emergency is called. The training program essentially follows regular training except spaced out over two years to fit in with term time commitments. Tends to be a mix of people who have genuine military potential and those who just use it as a drinking club. Only about 10% tend to go on to commission although others do go into the forces in some other capacity. I'm current at the stage of applying for selection board but still weighing up if I'm going to go for commission. If I do I preferably want to go to the intelligence corp but if they don't want me I'm not really sure which other regiment I would want to join. Signals is a possibility but I really don't want to be stuck doing purely comms. Joining one of the regional regiments would put me in a front line role which doesn't particularly bother me, assessing my own personality though I think I'm probably more suited to a more specialist role.

Interestingly what made you go for being a tanker? Defiantly not an option for me, can't even drive a civilian vehicle! Do you also plan on joining Centurion1? If so which corps/ branch?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What is the ROTC like in the US? Is joining the same as enlisting so binding to a military contract? I'm part of the UK equivalent OTC and ours doesn't seem quite as focused as I imagine your training corp is. Essentially OCdts are Category B TA, paid but not eligible for deployment unless national emergency is called. The training program essentially follows regular training except spaced out over two years to fit in with term time commitments. Tends to be a mix of people who have genuine military potential and those who just use it as a drinking club. Only about 10% tend to go on to commission although others do go into the forces in some other capacity. I'm current at the stage of applying for selection board but still weighing up if I'm going to go for commission. If I do I preferably want to go to the intelligence corp but if they don't want me I'm not really sure which other regiment I would want to join. Signals is a possibility but I really don't want to be stuck doing purely comms. Joining one of the regional regiments would put me in a front line role which doesn't particularly bother me, assessing my own personality though I think I'm probably more suited to a more specialist role.

Interestingly what made you go for being a tanker? Defiantly not an option for me, can't even drive a civilian vehicle! Do you also plan on joining Centurion1? If so which corps/ branch?

Join logistics, there's no one more important.

[tibilicus]

Join logistics, there's no one more important.

A corp which doesn't gain the respect it deserves. Often laughed at for being posties yet they're also the ones who have to disarm IEDs. Something which would turn most peoples pants brown.

[Centurion1]

What is the ROTC like in the US? Is joining the same as enlisting so binding to a military contract? I'm part of the UK equivalent OTC and ours doesn't seem quite as focused as I imagine your training corp is. Essentially OCdts are Category B TA, paid but not eligible for deployment unless national emergency is called. The training program essentially follows regular training except spaced out over two years to fit in with term time commitments. Tends to be a mix of people who have genuine military potential and those who just use it as a drinking club. Only about 10% tend to go on to commission although others do go into the forces in some other capacity. I'm current at the stage of applying for selection board but still weighing up if I'm going to go for commission. If I do I preferably want to go to the intelligence corp but if they don't want me I'm not really sure which other regiment I would want to join. Signals is a possibility but I really don't want to be stuck doing purely comms. Joining one of the regional regiments would put me in a front line role which doesn't particularly bother me, assessing my own personality though I think I'm probably more suited to a more specialist role.

Interestingly what made you go for being a tanker? Defiantly not an option for me, can't even drive a civilian vehicle! Do you also plan on joining Centurion1? If so which corps/ branch?

I'm already in ROTC. And since im past my freshmen year im essentially part of the army now legally. Either I commission or I get kicked out and have to pay it all back or enlist to pay it back.

I actually got into west point off the waiting list but i dont know i dont think it was really my cup of tea and by the time i found out i was pretty committed to going rotc. i probably could have gotten into west point off the bat if i had wanted to actually play football for the team but i was done with that sport after my senior year.

as for rotc we all want to commission and go active duty. all but the bottom tier will go on active duty (or if they dont want to).

Numbers are a little skewed in ym company even within the battalion because we are the superior company of a battalion in the top 10% in the country. Over half the kids this year went combat arms. I am including female cadets in those ratios even though they cannot legally go combat arms.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A corp which doesn't gain the respect it deserves. Often laughed at for being posties yet they're also the ones who have to disarm IEDs. Something which would turn most peoples pants brown.

Isn't it, strictly speaking, Sappers who disarm IED's?

[Vladimir]

Well there are people here sticking up for the army and the marines, so I'll have to stand up for the Euroweenies (not Eurowimps!).

IMO there are a lot of reasons why Euroweeines make better soldiers than Americans.

First off, since Europe is a socialist monstrosity, half its population depend on the government for their livelihoods in the form of benefits. This means they are more willing to die for the state in their slavish devotion to it.

Second, Europeans are all atheists, and so while God-fearing Americans might be reluctant to kill a fellow human being, Europeans don't have any morals and so won't have any qualms about killing people.

And finally, while the many wars fought in the defence of the free world have left the American people wearied by the realities of war, Euroweenies have no such experience. Instead, they have a ridiculously glorified view of war and will therefore be less reluctant to sign up and fight.

So, Euroweenies win. :yes:

Clever. :bow:

[tibilicus]

Isn't it, strictly speaking, Sappers who disarm IED's?

Logistics are responsible for ordinance disposal which regrettably over the past decade has encompassed IED disposal. Engineers have traditionally been the main mine disposal units but because logistics are ammunition technicians and IEDs from what I gather are more unpredictable and complex. Sappers do act in a capacity which means they are capable of IED disposal but strictly speaking different branches have their own area so for the navy that's off-shore mine disposal and for the engineers land mine disposal. It just seems to be that as IEDs have become more common weapons of war, the main share of the work has been given to logistics. Sappers are more than capable of carrying out IED disposal though.

[Kagemusha]

Isn't it, strictly speaking, Sappers who disarm IED's?

Off the topic bit but one thing quite funny is that every country seem to have different term for engineers,pioneers, sappers and what ever other names they have. I think it could be the low number of those guys in British army that forces the logistics to deal with IED´s or is therre some other reason? EDIT: Apparently tibilicus answered that already before i posted this.:bow:

About private and NCO ranks in Finnish army we have:

Privates,

sotamies, (private ) can be called also based on their branch.for example Jääkäri,(Jaeger), tykkimies (artillery private), panssarimies, (tanker) etc.

korpraali, (lance corporal), decorated private.

NCO´s

alikersantti (Corporal),lowest grade of NCO´s, usually a squad leader or second- in- command of squad

kersantti (Sergeant), second grade of NCO´s, usually a Squad Leader, second-in command of Platoon or specialist.

ylikersantti (Staff Sergeant), third grade os NCO´s. Usually second- in- command of platoon.

vääpeli ( Sergeant first class), fourth grade of NCO´s. Usually a quartermaster of Company, or second- in- command of platoon. More rarely a Platoon leader.

ylivääpeli ja sotilasmestari (Sergeant Major) Both are equal roles then Sergeant major, but sotilasmestari outranks the ylivääpeli. ( quartermasters of company,other staff level job.)

The difference with at least the US system is that there are no Battalion or higher level NCO´s in quartermaster roles. Those job´s are handled by officers.

[Major Robert Dump]

I got in an engineering company which means I am running RCPs supported by gunner from a truck company. I am National Guard. The vast majority of all my soldiers above PFC have had a deployment already. All of my NCOs have had multiple deployment. Several are former Marines. Even more are former regular army. In my particular BN, all of the field grade officers minus a few were former Marines

We are not a combat arms branch, but we get far more action and time outside than the 11Bs who spend a week planning a 30 minute mission only to have it cancelled because of rain clouds. The only soldiers in this BDE who get more trigger time than us are the MPs because they are out doing it right: being police and patrolling, which is a far better COIN strategy than night raids. In fact, the majority of combat operations in Afghanistan start and end as mounted, so for most intents, 11B are glorified Cav, and Cav are glorified truck drivers.

People who hate the NG have good reasons in some cases, but in others they just have the Army mindset. Some of the most miserable people I have ever met were career military at CONUS installations. At the end of the day, I have multiple skill sets to fall back on AND bring to the military, and I have a nice job back home, whereas as MSG or MAJ jerk does not. Did you know NG were the first troops in Iraq to uparmor vehicles because they brought soldiers who were welders and carpenters and mechanics back home.

I fast tracked from enlisted to officer because the time was right and I knew I could get into war quickly. Those days are over with the drawdown, although I am already penciled in for another RCP next year because all of the PLs have never had a deploymen, as well as most of the senior officers and NCOt. I don't understand how you make it to LTC without a deployment when there have been 2 wars in 10 years, that takes a lot of effort, even for the NG. Well now their ticket is up because my state was bled dry for the past 4 years and there is nowhere left to hide. It concerns me deploying with these people, but so far they have been very willing to listen to what I have had to say, unlike the unit I am with now, who did not listen until 4 months in

And I will say that Rangers are not SpecOps, although they do run missions with them frequently. Rangers are just like any other branch, to be honest. good ones and bad ones. I cannot go into details at this time, but one of the worst incidents I have seen this deployment was a former ranger E6-turned-2LT who did something so utterly stupid that his family and the families of the 3 people it got killed were not told the truth about what happened. In fact, the official Storyboard was incorrect, as we all found out when the helmet cam was released 2 months later. Had this lowly transportaion officer been in charge of that group (like I should have,and I mean that literally, ithappened in my former AO, the whole reason I volunteered again) they would all still be alive now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Logistics are responsible for ordinance disposal which regrettably over the past decade has encompassed IED disposal. Engineers have traditionally been the main mine disposal units but because logistics are ammunition technicians and IEDs from what I gather are more unpredictable and complex. Sappers do act in a capacity which means they are capable of IED disposal but strictly speaking different branches have their own area so for the navy that's off-shore mine disposal and for the engineers land mine disposal. It just seems to be that as IEDs have become more common weapons of war, the main share of the work has been given to logistics. Sappers are more than capable of carrying out IED disposal though.

That actually makes perfect sense, thanks.

Kage, in the UK "pioneer" is a term applied to bridge builders, etc. in a Battalion/Brigade. Sapper is the general slang for engineer who builds/blows stuff up. We have seperate corps for all the electrical mechanical stuff, from to fixing tanks to wiring up coms, R.E.M.E. sometimes called "spanner bashers".

The reason I asked about R.E.'s is that they have a T-shirt with the RE badge on the front and, "I am a bomb disposal expert, if you see my running try to keep up." on the back.

[lars573]

Logistics are responsible for ordinance disposal which regrettably over the past decade has encompassed IED disposal. Engineers have traditionally been the main mine disposal units but because logistics are ammunition technicians and IEDs from what I gather are more unpredictable and complex. Sappers do act in a capacity which means they are capable of IED disposal but strictly speaking different branches have their own area so for the navy that's off-shore mine disposal and for the engineers land mine disposal. It just seems to be that as IEDs have become more common weapons of war, the main share of the work has been given to logistics. Sappers are more than capable of carrying out IED disposal though.
That would be because when you speak of an IED it means (more often than not) ammunition (tank, artillery, even a bunch of mortars tied together) wired to go off when someone presses a button. And said wiring is done by tampering with the detonator. Which makes the shell unstable. And since these things are created ad-hoc, there is not fixed set-up like with a factory produced mine.

[Major Robert Dump]

The most common IED now is homeade HME. Fertilizer sometimes, and sometimes a concoction cooked up in a meth lab. The stuff I have seen up close looked like dish detergent and toothpaste, but I know thats not what it was because the Taliban smells like ****. It's unstable and can be set off by various things.

The most common suicide vest and vehicle-born is still ordinance.

[Strike For The South]

Im here for the Yurofags

[lars573]

The most common IED now is homeade HME. Fertilizer sometimes, and sometimes a concoction cooked up in a meth lab. The stuff I have seen up close looked like dish detergent and toothpaste, but I know thats not what it was because the Taliban smells like ****. It's unstable and can be set off by various things.

The most common suicide vest and vehicle-born is still ordinance.
Oh so they're using Nitroglycerin now, that's explains the dangerously unstable bit. What your describing is home brew Nitroglycerin. If you watch fight club they tell you exactly how to make it. And from watching the soap making segment of worst job in history, that it smells like a boiled carcass. Using fertilizer in a bomb is also making a nitroglycerin explosive. You take fertilizer and pour some kind of caustic mix on it (certain cleaning solvents will do the trick). The causes the nitrites in the fertilizer to become nitroglycerin. Then all you'd need is some kind of detonator, and knowing the taliban it's gun powder.

[Vuk]

lol, is explaining how to make a bomb on a forum full of unstable, anti-social, dangerous gamers really the best idea? ~;) (well, that is the stereotype...:beam:)

[lars573]

Like 30 seconds on google wouldn't yield better results. :book2:

[Vuk]

Like 30 seconds on google wouldn't yield better results. :book2:

Don't get me wrong, I made that comment (half) jokingly. It is pretty easy to find things like that out, and I honestly don't think there is anything wrong with people who do, as long as their reason is not to blow people up. You should still be careful though, as people are very paranoid and freak out if people mention bombs or explosives. If someone on this forum were to do something stupid, even if it had nothing to do with your post, you don't want people accusing you of teaching crazies how to make bombs.

Maybe I am just being overly caution, but I would avoid the subject.

[Centurion1]

should always watch what you say online everything is remembered and everything comes around.

[Major Robert Dump]

Yes because the HME video starring Gary Sinise that they make us watch 40 times a year and is available online is totally classified.
I sure hope the Taliban doesn't find out we are using MRAPs, we may be screwed

there is an entire political undercurrent regarding fertilizer. We are banning one of the most effective fertilizers in a country that could really use some fertilizer. Pakistan sells it illegally to Afghan "farmers" who dont have permits, and people can easily pay off the government to qualify for a permit. This whole thing is a big giant joke

[Vuk]

I agree MRD, but that does not change the fact that people are paranoid and that people get in trouble all the time for things that they should not. It is better to stay on the safe side.

[Kadagar_AV]

I know who'd win a pissing contest..

[Link Removed - Tiaexz]

Sooo.. I guess the US marine corps win the day?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know who'd win a pissing contest..
[Link Removed - Tiaexz]

Sooo.. I guess the US marine corps win the day?

You're back! :smitten:

[Kadagar_AV]

You're back! :smitten:

... And in style, I might add!

I noticed BQ was gone.

Had to go to my New Years box to find the party hats and stuff. Anyway, with this topic, and someone mentioning pissing contest, I just could not resist to show what our good friends The USMC are up to these days.

[TinCow]

USSOCOM could take USMC any day of the week.

[Kadagar_AV]

USSOCOM could take USMC any day of the week.

In a pissing contest on dead bodies? I beg to differ!

You need the few, the proud, the...

[TinCow]

In a pissing contest on dead bodies? I beg to differ!

I certainly give plenty of credit to the USMC. They are far and away the most highly trained of the four traditional services, and bore the brunt of all significant combat prior to the 21st century. However, their entire purpose is largely being subsumed by SOCOM. For big wars, the Army is the go to branch, just like it always has been. For small wars, SOCOM is now the preferred choice, and has taken over from the Corps. SOCOM excels in exactly those areas where the USMC used to be top-dog: the best training in the DoD and rapid deployability. USMC shot themselves in the foot by resisting SOF units for so long, and they could well find themselves increasingly sidelined in the coming years as a result. The future of the US military is SOF and drones, not conventional units, even well-trained conventional units.

[TinCow]

Apologies, I was way broader with that statement than I had intended to be. I was thinking exclusively post-Vietnam but for some reason did not write that. In addition, having now gone back and actually looked up the statistics, I see I was totally wrong in even that narrower statement, and the Army has suffered far more casualties in pretty much every conflict of significance post-Vietnam. So, in short, I was wrong and I deserve to be beaten severely.

[Hooahguy]

I know who'd win a pissing contest..

[Link Removed - Tiaexz]

Sooo.. I guess the US marine corps win the day?


They also win when it comes to throwing puppies off cliffs. In front of cameras. Seems like Marines tend to do really dumb things in front of cameras. You think they would learn...

But yeah, the media loves the Marines, totally an over-hyped branch, IMO. I was just talking to a deployed Army EOD specialist (friend of mine) who ranted to me how the Marines seem to have little respect for the EOD guys of any branch, at least in his sector of Afghanistan. He threw around terms like "cavemen" and "prima donna." As well as a few other not so nice words that would get me a warning if I posted them here.

Its kinda annoying yet amusing when I hear people rave about the Marines, yet have no idea why they love them so much. Last year I was among a few friends. One of them's brothers was a Marine deployed to a ship off the coast of Libiya. She made the comment that the Marines is better than the Army. Out of curiosity, I asked her why. She said because her brother was in it. I replied, "well, my grandfather was in the Army and fought in Korea. I guess this means the Army is better. :wall:
People these days...

[Hooahguy]

Apparently so. They were stuck on their assault carriers for a few months, until POTUS decided to not use any ground forces in Libiya. Last time I heard they were in Romania training with the Romanian military.

[Centurion1]

I certainly give plenty of credit to the USMC. They are far and away the most highly trained of the four traditional services, and bore the brunt of all significant combat prior to the 21st century. However, their entire purpose is largely being subsumed by SOCOM. For big wars, the Army is the go to branch, just like it always has been. For small wars, SOCOM is now the preferred choice, and has taken over from the Corps. SOCOM excels in exactly those areas where the USMC used to be top-dog: the best training in the DoD and rapid deployability. USMC shot themselves in the foot by resisting SOF units for so long, and they could well find themselves increasingly sidelined in the coming years as a result. The future of the US military is SOF and drones, not conventional units, even well-trained conventional units.


Apologies, I was way broader with that statement than I had intended to be. I was thinking exclusively post-Vietnam but for some reason did not write that. In addition, having now gone back and actually looked up the statistics, I see I was totally wrong in even that narrower statement, and the Army has suffered far more casualties in pretty much every conflict of significance post-Vietnam. So, in short, I was wrong and I deserve to be beaten severely.

I was very insulted for a minute there. Personally I think its one of the greatest travesties of American military history as to how glossed over the armys involvement was in ww2