Hello!

The difference is that in the Corps every Marine is a rifleman, taught and trained, regardless of MOS. Time and again in history Marine lines have been augmented by admin, supply, winger's, etc. They don't send you to an admin school then assign you to an infantry unit.

Moreover, when Marines deploy, all units are responsible for their own security. You may be an engine mech. but you'll also spend time patrolling and setting up ambush sites in your AO. This has always been foreign to the Army. However, I understand the Army has come up an epiphany (to them) that everyone in the Army should be a soldier first, versed in infantry skills. I've seen this somewhere before...
 
Trying to say they are copying from the Marines? My son was lucky and his DI's were Special Forces and his senior drill was a former Marine.... His SF DI's were teaching them several levels higher of hand to hand combat skills. My son enjoyed that. The Army I think has found that in this war what would constititue front lines is a very grey area,and more and more support groups are finding themselves on the front lines.
 
It actually has been this war that appears to have woke the Army up a little bit. You're right, there are no 'front lines'. However, we began seeing this in Korea followed by a large extent in Viet Nam. The Army is finally realizing the doctrine of the Corps works and has at least acknowledged the fact but has not yet started to employ it.

Example, the convoys. No offense to the troops on the ground, but how many times have we seen (or heard) "I drive trucks. I'm not going into combat."

With no 'front lines', everyone is in combat and should be prepared. My opinion is the Army has always had the 'specialist' mentality and it has cost lives.
 
Actually it was probably the Jessica Lynch episode that woke the Army up some. She was a supply clerk. Which they all think are on the back lines. I think they are starting to employ some of this. My son's basic was longer. He said they were also teaching them alot of what they had learned in Iraq,and implementing some of this into their training to keep them alive. I was actually trained for a supply motorpool,(like Jessica Lynch) most going into that never think they will be on the front line. I use that as an example because I can relate to it,it could have been me. I was one of the lucky few that landed in an MI unit. Most figure they will be in some building somewhere doing their job. What they forgot is parts still have to get to the troops that need them. I'm sure at some point the Army will do a major overhaul, and I really think they need to. Especially since all jobs are crossing into that grey area.
 
The Jessica episode received the most media attention along with those that refused to drive the trucks. The Army is all about numbers. "We have a million man army that we can bring to bear!" Well, only about 15% of that is combat related. The Army did a great job marketing themselves to get enlisted numbers. Join the Army, learn computers, get money for college, etc, etc.

The Corps has less than 200,000 from top to bottom, all MOS'. The Corps has always been marketed that regardless of your MOS, you will fight.

I think the Army is trying to figure out a way to implement some of that mentality without scaring off new recruits that are only 'in it for the money', so to speak.

The Jessica debacle is also a prime example of my philosphy that women should not be in combat. But, that's a different topic.
 
HMMMM, do we really want to debate that with me????? [twisted] I'm game. You might also find my views are probably better than most. Unfortunately the Army Guard and Reserve were really marketing the college money,and I don't know how many I heard say I was only in it to get their education paid. Even though there is always the possibilty that you will go to war. I knew going active Army that it was a ppossibilty,but then I served during the cold war. I landed in a city surrounded by East germans.
 
Don't get me wrong. Not once did I say that females can't pull the trigger or shoot just as straight. That is not the reason and I'm more than willing to give my reasons for my philosophies.
 
I might be but most of the WM's I knew didn't want to be in combat. The fact is, warfare, and combat more specifically, can be very psychological. In America, it is a trait to protect our women. I know that might sound chauvanistic but it's not. It's chivalry and it's not dead. For the most part, we are raised to respect and protect the female of the species. And that fact is just one reason it can be used against us in combat. Take Jessica Lynch for example.

In combat you have to have the absolute confidence and expectation that the man next to you can physically get you out of a jam, and you him. Chemicals aside, women are not as physically strong as men. That in itself should be the end of the discussion but it doesn't seem to be.

And there's more. However, I'll let you respond to that much first.
 
TonyD said:
The difference is that in the Corps every Marine is a rifleman, taught and trained, regardless of MOS. Time and again in history Marine lines have been augmented by admin, supply, winger's, etc. They don't send you to an admin school then assign you to an infantry unit.

Moreover, when Marines deploy, all units are responsible for their own security. You may be an engine mech. but you'll also spend time patrolling and setting up ambush sites in your AO. This has always been foreign to the Army. However, I understand the Army has come up an epiphany (to them) that everyone in the Army should be a soldier first, versed in infantry skills. I've seen this somewhere before...
Click to expand...

Well in any tactical unit in the Army we have Allways been in charge of our own security. Nothing new there
or only in the Corps ballpark. Dad was a Marine and he spoke not so kindly of Remington raiders.
In the Army it was well known that if you where there and needed then you pulled a trigger (at least in the cold war days.) Ranger Batts in Mog are a prime example of this. (the rescue missions where manned by support personnel.(Cooks/ SUpply Etc))
This is a matter of taking units that have not done a tour and shoehorning them into a need.
When was the last time a Seabee unit was reclassed to be 0311 (I think I got that right) ? If they had to fight sure they will just like Army Combat Eng.

Truth of the matter is Rumy wants to run two fronts at once Heavily using the Army and there ain't enough combat arms for it. So the NG and reserve are taking up the slack. Thats why the MEU's got cycled back so soon. the Pentigon where dumbasses about the whole thing and couldn't get the numbers right.
 
I won't disagree,most women would not be knocking down the doors to be in an infantry unit. Me included,but that being said,I realize most men are chauvenistic as far as women in combat and would have that protect the woman at all cost,and yes some women that are maybe 90lbs soaking wet,may not be able to physically pick you up,but I am sure they could drag you. Also there were guys in our unit that were extremely,small as far as height and weight,and probably couldn't drag someone either. The guys I have talked to about this said they didn't think they could handle seeing a woman killed in combat. If a women can pass the same standards that men have to pass( not watered down for a female) and they want to be in a combat job shouldn't they have the same oppertunities? We already have women flying combat missions inA-10's,helicopters, etc. I know they are not ground support, but in other countries it has worked. Isreal, and Denmark. I personally feel that it is based on culture and the way we have raised our boys and girls,that it is harder for our society to accept the idea of women in combat. I was the only female in an all male shop for about a year and a half,so I even heard the I didn't belong in the Army,along with oh so many not so nice things, but what I found amazing was once I proved myself to them, that I did know my job,that I could do my job,I never got anymore crap. They were amazed that this blonde actually had a brain. So my feeling is also that maybe if women also proved themselves that maybe (big maybe) that eventually the guys would come around. There are probably a handful of women that would actually want to be in an infantry MOS, but if they can do the job, same standards, and be professional about it I don't see a problem,other than all the chauvenism that would be there.
 
Mr. WW, there is much truth in what you speak. However, the biggest difference is how the 'non combat MOS' were prepared prior to being pressed into service with a line unit.

Also, my understanding, and to some extent my experience, is that Army infantry units will provide security to rear areas, FARP sites, and such. not so in the Corps. I think this is why the Army is re-evaluating the whole situation.

ETA: I messed up addressing the double team. :D
 
Which is why I also think the units going over now are spending time stateside training before going over. So they can actually get an idea of exactly what will be going on. Plus lessons allready learned in Iraq.
 
The fact is Mrs. WW, that women are not held to the same standards in physical conditioning. In fact, it's only been recent that the Corps has made the females run the full 3 miles for a PFT. Yet, they still are not required to do 20 dead hang pull-ups.

Yes, other cultures have been somewhat successful in employing women in combat. Usually they are a culture where less importance is given on the lives of women and where the men of the culture treat women like shit as a general concept. Generally, a woman killed, no big deal. We do place a womans life on a higher plateau in America.

Let's take a look at what happened when the DOD decided it was a good idea to start deploying men and women together for 6 month deployments on ships. Women are just as big as a whore-dog as men. It was a breeding ground (no pun intended) for disater. Many women getting pregnant during a cruise, having to be shipped back and replaced. Whose fault? The powers that decided it was a good idea. Put men and women together for a long, isolted cruise, and nature will take its course.
 
You know what they say about the Navy. A 100 sailors go out to sea for 6 months, 50 couples come back. [lol] [lol] [lol]
 
derek said:
You know what they say about the Navy. A 100 sailors go out to sea for 6 months, 50 couples come back. [lol] [lol] [lol]
Click to expand...

Ha! That's the joke about the sub-fleet. 100 good men go to sea, 50 happy couples come back!
 
I know in the Army I was not held to the same standards for a PT test. I only had to do 16 push ups,and I believe I had something like 24 minutes to do a 2 mile run. My husband also went through basic training with females in his company, He went through in 81,in 82 when I went through it was back to segregated units. It was all female. He told me of the women whining and getting their way and instead of doing the road march were trucked back. Not right. Where as that didn't happen with us unless you had a profile. I won't say women aren't as much whore dogs as the men are,I saw both. It takes 2 to tango, I am absolutely in no way saying it is right. I think male or female should have a professionalism about them. I know there is alot of double standards in the military. The one thing all branches of the miltary need to work on is womens upper body strenghth. We had never really been made to do push ups,or pull ups. I don't know how many guys we had screwing around on their wives,while waiting for spouses to come to germany. 1 was my boss. I know that no matter where it is you place men and women together,and it will happen. Also seeing how some can't resist,then mandatory long term birthcontrol. As far as I know they still deploy women on ships correct? They haven't changed that as far as I know. In all honesty I think it can work,just men would have to get used to it,women would have to pass the same standards,and prove they are capable to do the job. Here we put women on a pedestal, someone to take care,have children,and take care of you guys. If men can get past that then it might work.
 
MrsWildweasel said:
I know in the Army I was not held to the same standards for a PT test. I only had to do 16 push ups,and I believe I had something like 24 minutes to do a 2 mile run. My husband also went through basic training with females in his company, He went through in 81,in 82 when I went through it was back to segregated units. It was all female. He told me of the women whining and getting their way and instead of doing the road march were trucked back. Not right. Where as that didn't happen with us unless you had a profile. I won't say women aren't as much whore dogs as the men are,I saw both. It takes 2 to tango, I am absolutely in no way saying it is right. I think male or female should have a professionalism about them. I know there is alot of double standards in the military. The one thing all branches of the miltary need to work on is womens upper body strenghth. We had never really been made to do push ups,or pull ups. I don't know how many guys we had screwing around on their wives,while waiting for spouses to come to germany. 1 was my boss. I know that no matter where it is you place men and women together,and it will happen. Also seeing how some can't resist,then mandatory long term birthcontrol. As far as I know they still deploy women on ships correct? They haven't changed that as far as I know. In all honesty I think it can work,just men would have to get used to it,women would have to pass the same standards,and prove they are capable to do the job. Here we put women on a pedestal, someone to take care,have children,and take care of you guys. If men can get past that then it might work.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Did you ever notice how many women suprisingly had their menstral cycle the day there was a scheduled gas chamber visit? That was one thing I couldnt stand. 20 women in the unit and 19 of them couldnt train in the chamber because "It was their time of the month". It's attitude like that that ruin it for the rest of the women who want to be treated equally.
 
Geez, I didn't know that was an option...... We all went through it. I for one have always had to prove I could do the job,even on the outside as a civilian. I unloaded trucks at one time. Try proving yourself to them. Took awhile,but I got alot of respect from them. There are good and bad in both sexes. Unfortunately it is always the vocal shitbags that make it harder on those like me,but I always try to dispel the stereotypes too.
 
MrsWildweasel said:
Geez, I didn't know that was an option...... We all went through it. I for one have always had to prove I could do the job,even on the outside as a civilian. I unloaded trucks at one time. Try proving yourself to them. Took awhile,but I got alot of respect from them. There are good and bad in both sexes. Unfortunately it is always the vocal shitbags that make it harder on those like me,but I always try to dispel the stereotypes too.
Click to expand...

It does go both ways. There were the non-hackers that were put on "light-duty" just before a big hump. After 3 or 4 times you would think the command would notice. The good thing was these were the same guys who struggled on their PT tests. So they were only doing damage to themselves.
 
The problem is that women do not posess the upper body strength of men, anatomically speaking. We really are built different. That is not a slight by any means. We are just different and built for different things, it's natures way.

I will say that I never cheated or screwed around when I was deployed. However, port was the only time I was exposed to females. If they had been aboard ship during my deployment, who knows. I'd like to think it would have been the same. However, as I said, seperate men and women from their home and deploy them under harsh circumstances for long periods of time, and then put them together during this duress. What do you think will happen? I'd like to think I have the patience of Job. Fact is, we don't.

It use to be that men shared an experience in combat, and a love for one another that could not be expalined unless you experienced it. A trust and confidence in one anothers life. Now enter women and sexuality. It changes the mind. We all know it but everyone is afraid to address it.
 
Tony,I don't disagree. I feel there still should be some professionalism on both sides. Should have been me,only female,white, in an all male shop. Some of what I had to endure you would not believe. Lets just say it was interesting. I also know the brotherhood of combat is very strong,the things you see and do,no one but the person next to you would understand.
 
TonyD said:
Mr. WW, there is much truth in what you speak. However, the biggest difference is how the 'non combat MOS' were prepared prior to being pressed into service with a line unit.

Also, my understanding, and to some extent my experience, is that Army infantry units will provide security to rear areas, FARP sites, and such. not so in the Corps. I think this is why the Army is re-evaluating the whole situation.

ETA: I messed up addressing the double team. :D
Click to expand...

Two talks going on here. :D I think it is the FOB issue over there that you may be addressing, If so then all units/doggies should be ready to head to the wire. It is a leadership issue more than anything. and the preception of a "Non-combat" MOS it is and allways has been "Non-Combat Arms" MOS where it isn't your primary task but you are expected to do it. Bunch of the dumbasses I served with never took alerts seriously.
(the O's too!) For the record I have been both 12B and 33S Electronics subsystem repairer Non-combat duties.
I was on alert units in my fixed site unit in Berlin and we where expected to do 11B work as a 12B Combat engineer.

The biggest Issue is trigger time for non-combat arms folks. It was allways lacking and still is. (other than yearly quals. ) Riflemanship needs to be encouraged by having arms and ammo avalible at ranges for down time/weekends we could at little cost get the training needed. But the beancounters won't do it. :x

Hooah carry on.

One thing we are going to do with the boys time home is shoot and lots. I know once he starts in his dutys over there he ain't gonna find time to do it then.
 
MrsWildweasel said:
Tony,I don't disagree. I feel there still should be some professionalism on both sides. Should have been me,only female,white, in an all male shop. Some of what I had to endure you would not believe. Lets just say it was interesting. I also know the brotherhood of combat is very strong,the things you see and do,no one but the person next to you would understand.
Click to expand...

Yes, there should be professionalism. However, on long deployments, that goes out the window. I too, saw the same things. Can a female fix a jet engine as good as a male? Yes! Can a female mete out supplies as good as male? Yes! Can a female run a computer network as good as male? Hell, yes!

However, when you get into combat, spending weeks in the field, sharing the same fighting hole where you piss down the grenade sump, shit in MRE bags, grab your 80 pounds of gear and hump another 25 miles to do the same thing... How well do you think it can work? Let's not forget hygiene.
 
Wildweasel said:
TonyD said:
Mr. WW, there is much truth in what you speak. However, the biggest difference is how the 'non combat MOS' were prepared prior to being pressed into service with a line unit.

Also, my understanding, and to some extent my experience, is that Army infantry units will provide security to rear areas, FARP sites, and such. not so in the Corps. I think this is why the Army is re-evaluating the whole situation.

ETA: I messed up addressing the double team. :D
Click to expand...

Two talks going on here. :D I think it is the FOB issue over there that you may be addressing, If so then all units/doggies should be ready to head to the wire. It is a leadership issue more than anything. and the preception of a "Non-combat" MOS it is and allways has been "Non-Combat Arms" MOS where it isn't your primary task but you are expected to do it. Bunch of the dumbasses I served with never took alerts seriously.
(the O's too!) For the record I have been both 12B and 33S Electronics subsystem repairer Non-combat duties.
I was on alert units in my fixed site unit in Berlin and we where expected to do 11B work as a 12B Combat engineer.

The biggest Issue is trigger time for non-combat arms folks. It was allways lacking and still is. (other than yearly quals. ) Riflemanship needs to be encouraged by having arms and ammo avalible at ranges for down time/weekends we could at little cost get the training needed. But the beancounters won't do it. :x

Hooah carry on.

One thing we are going to do with the boys time home is shoot and lots. I know once he starts in his dutys over there he ain't gonna find time to do it then.
Click to expand...

Will the boy be able to make it to the clinic?
 
Lynne said:
Ummm...for those of us not eduucated in military lingo... :D MOS? (MP I understand) and 11B"s??
Click to expand...

MOS is Military Occupational Specialty (your actual job)

11B is the Army's designation of infantry. In the Corps, it's 0311.

ETA: I'm not sure what it is for journalist. [wink]
 
However, when you get into combat, spending weeks in the field, sharing the same fighting hole where you piss down the grenade sump, shit in MRE bags, grab your 80 pounds of gear and hump another 25 miles to do the same thing... How well do you think it can work? Let's not forget hygiene.
Click to expand...
You got me on that one. You guys do have an advantage there that we don't. I'll concede that. :)
 

Similar threads

Hello, new guy reporting in...
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
426wedge
426wedge
Hello NES my old friend.
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
straightshooterjake
S
Hello ATF
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
Christian
Christian
Hello Utah - Gun Permit That Is!
Replies
29
Views
1K
SKumar
SKumar
Say hello to my little friend
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
namedpipes
namedpipes
Back
Top Bottom