Military cadence

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's nice that you liked your hazing and think it was great experience, you bonded and so...

On the other hand, there's a picture in my mind. It's late August, I'm in Greece, Aegean coast, near the beach, around 9pm... There's a properly cooled bottle of white wine, next to a rather big salad bowl, filled with tomatoes, paprika, thinly sliced fresh cucumbers and huge amount of olives, with a modicum of vinegar and just a light sprinkle of olive oil on top, and Feta cheese added in liberal amount. Next to me there's a beautiful brunette, about 25 years old, with wet hair, bronze tan and not an abundance of clothes... And I'm about to bond with her.

So, you guys can say what you want, but my bonding beats your bonding.

Just remember to keep a proper cadence and have her do the callbacks as appropriate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Standard Army deployment was 12-18 months. 6 months for Marines.

Why did the big green machine opt for the longer deployments instead of the approach taken by uncle sam's misguided? The shorter version -- even on an a 6/off 6 basis -- would be less of a grind for the squaddies. It's not like the military hasn't known about the 100 day rule since the 40's.

[Myth]

Aren't the marines the ones who have the highest mortality rate? Even in the cadence Kad posted the SEALS sing "bullet sponge Marine Corps".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Aren't the marines the ones who have the highest mortality rate? Even in the cadence Kad posted the SEALS sing "bullet sponge Marine Corps".

The USMC had the highest per capita death rate in ww1, ww2, Vietnam, and gulf 1. The army has the higher rates in Korea and GWoT. Korea would actually have been higher per capita among the marines as well, but they didn't have to do the retreat to Pusan part.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Per Capita, only slightly. In the Pacific Theater of ww2 the Army suffered far, far more casualties than the Marines, even if the Marines insisted on fighting to the death over islands like Iwo Jima and Tarawa that would have been bypassed and starved out had the Philippine campaign been the main thrust. The Marines died disproportionately in strategically less important battles, because they were under the control of the Navy which just had to do things different from the Army. Blame Nimitz. That said, more Army soldiers died in the campaign by far. The same can be said of ww1, Vietnam, and Korea. Maybe the short deployment times was the Marines' way of saying "This time, let's not needlessly throw lives away." Of course, that would be ignoring the tactics certain Marine units used in the initial invasion of Iraq. The same units that got a whole TV mini-series.

I'm afraid the only positive thing I have to say about Marines is that they have wonderful esprit de corps and outstanding uniforms. They also have tougher physical standards than the Army, and are able to conduct their institutional business with an independence that most Army units can only dream of, because they are much smaller. In terms of their soldiering mentality... I never enjoyed working with them, I never enjoyed working with Soldiers and NCOs who were former Marines, and nearly all of my interactions with Marines on a professional level have been negative. Of course, a lot of that is institutional bias--when Soldiers and Marines meet, there's going to be friction. Marines think they're high and mighty, and the Army as an institution has been slighted in the historical record because they are simply less glamorous.

Army casualties AFTER Corregidor were not inordinate. Iwo was strictly grabbed to serve as a fighter base, a role it fulfilled well. I have to say that a number of the Marine ops -- Pelilieu for example -- seemed to serve less of a strategic goal than Iwo or Tarawa. Frontal attacks on beaches are not a recipe for minimal casualties.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well that's really the only way to attack a beach. The Army assaulted the beaches in the Philippines frontally, but it was the Philippines which are huge.. the Japanese couldn't defend every beach and they had to deal with partisans that were fighting for us against them. The Marine island battles which, at best, supplied small air bases and at worst cost lives needlessly (you don't need to take an airfield to deny it to the enemy if you can achieve the same by cutting it off--because its an Island, and you control the water and the Air). They are romanticized as episodes of valor, which is surely fair, but in that the fact that they were largely pointless is forgotten. The Philippine campaign never actually finished--it was considered a second front even though it was bigger, more costly, and strategically more valuable (you can control the Solomon Islands by controlling the Philippines but you can't control the Philippines with the Solomon Islands), and in the end there were more Army Soldiers on Okinawa than Marines.

I'd go as far as to say that Nimitz' Island hopping was almost bureaucratic completionism. A total refusal to allow these little islands to die slowly, instead insisting that they be stormed. You can't really blame the Marines for being used poorly.

I think the concept of the islands as bases for control idea was sound, but some of the ones they picked were really a waste. Tarawa's strategic value lasted a week. Half of the Solomons they bothered with they needn't have. So yeah, I concur, too many Marines were used wrong.

[Kadagar_AV]

I will probably receive some hate over this, but it's my honest view that US Marine Corp guys tend to be... a little dim...

The Esprit de Corps is absolutely GRAND though. I guess you need that to storm beaches, huh?

It's not just in USA, heck, Sweden's answer to "Marine Corp" have the same stigma. Regular soldiers and other elite regiments see them as somewhat stupid.

Their uniforms look GREAT in Hollywood films though, and they have a very successful PR-machine going for them - no doubt.


But if I was USAnian, I wouldn't be proud if a son of mine came home and told me he was about to join the Marine Corp, no.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Heh, because the Army is big and abusable. You abuse the Marines, and Hollywood won't let you forget it. You abuse the Army, and its business as usual.

Nah, it's because the Army's General Staff can't run the army properly.

I'm guessing that it's the same in the US as the UK - average soldier has to spend at least as long at home as on deployment. That being the case - longer deployments are pointless, the only reason for them is because it's mildly inconvenient to rotate units in and out. You don't gain anything though because after the six month point the soldiers' effectiveness starts to decline quite precipitously.

As Kad says - this is well known, so it's a mystery why US planners don't account for it.

[Greyblades]

...forgive my ignorance but why would the national guard be sent overseas?

[rajpoot]

Very interesting thread. I can never overstate how much I learn from the Org, even if at times the facts are somewhat biased.
Also the obligatory Clint Eastwood video about marines and military cadence. Heartbreak Ridge is a nice movie BTW.

[Kadagar_AV]

Short answer would be: Bullet Sponges.

Also: USA don't have that big of an army that many seem to think. When they simultaneously have to fight on two different battlefields (refuse to call them theatres), you actually begin to be stretched quite thin, if they want to keep morale and educational standards up on the home field as well.

[Pannonian]

Not calling them theatres seems ignorant. At the height of the surge there were over 200,000 troops in Iraq.

That's around the size of a WWII-era Army Group, isn't it?

[Pannonian]

And able to cover much more ground. But that aside, they're two different countries with different supply routes, long term strategies, tactics, even uniforms. Theaters, man.

I absolutely refuse to call them theaters. To me, they're theatres.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not calling them theatres seems ignorant. At the height of the surge there were over 200,000 troops in Iraq. And there are no bullet sponges in the US Army, you prejudiced swede. Its sad I can't clarify historical facts without you saying something ignorant for shock value.

I believe my point was lost in translation.

A theater is where you go to watch shows. We also have movie-theaters.

I just don't see any kind of fun in the Iraq nor Afghan "theaters". It's certainly a show I wouldn't go to, nor send my children to!!


About "no bullet sponges in the US army", you are of course wrong. Don't get me wrong, no one would ever call these units "bullet sponges" to their face, except for maybe some SEALs.

EVERY army have bullet sponges. I don't berate the US Marine Corps, I am just saying that they hold the position where you absolutely NEED Esprit de Corpse to be a functional soldier.

The tasks they fill are seen as tasks for the intellectually challenged, in ANY and EVERY nation that I know of. Hollywood has, however, painted them as being some sort of supreme soldiers, they are not. They get selected for bravado, not intelligence or general physical soldier skill.

[Papewaio]

I believe my point was lost in translation.

A theater is where you go to watch shows. We also have movie-theaters.

I just don't see any kind of fun in the Iraq nor Afghan "theaters". It's certainly a show I wouldn't go to, nor send my children to!!

Maybe read up about WWII outside of the European theater:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...f_World_War_II

Technically speaking Iraq and Afghanistan would be campaigns within the Middle East Theatre if using WWII Demarcs.

If using Clausewitz they would be separate theatres:
""Denotes properly such a portion of the space over which war prevails as has its boundaries protected, and thus possesses a kind of independence. This protection may consist in fortresses, or important natural obstacles presented by the country, or even in its being separated by a considerable distance from the rest of the space embraced in the war. Such a portion is not a mere piece of the whole, but a small whole complete in itself; and consequently it is more or less in such a condition that changes which take place at other points in the seat of war have only an indirect and no direct influence upon it. To give an adequate idea of this, we may suppose that on this portion an advance is made, whilst in another quarter a retreat is taking place, or that upon the one an army is acting defensively, whilst an offensive is being carried on upon the other. Such a clearly defined idea as this is not capable of universal application; it is here used merely to indicate the line of distinction."

[Pannonian]

Maybe read up about WWII outside of the European theater:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...f_World_War_II

Technically speaking Iraq and Afghanistan would be campaigns within the Middle East Theatre.

Kad's mind might explode when he sees the term "theatre of operations". A show theatre where they show surgeons at work.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ah, it was a joke. Hurr durr. That's actually kind of funny.

But there really are no bullet sponges. The Iraqi Army served that role, willingly and often. If you didn't want to see them get hurt, you just didn't invite them.

Even the Marines are ultra casualty conscious, despite the reputation. Its a big part of the US Military culture, and part of the bargain in a voluntary army. You just don't waste lives. At least, not overtly. Lives wasted through political incompetence is something else.

I think the militaries efforts/abilities to minimize casualties has grown exponentially since the mass-conscript wars of the first half of the 20th. Political competence has remained static during this same time period.

Now wasn't that a carefully worded comment....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kad's mind might explode when he sees the term "theatre of operations". A show theatre where they show surgeons at work.

TLC already does this. I have seen both a caesarean section and hernia repair. Rather messier than just reading about them.