Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by Packer, Jan 21, 2013.
Hi Packer. Your link didn't work I believe this is the correct link.
Is "both" an allowed reaction to the article? If not I'll go with justified. You would think with the millions the Army has thrown at this probem they could have come up with something suitable by now. If Army uses MARPAT then marines commercials would become something like:
"The few (but you can't tell). The proud (except for our daily uniform). The Marines."
Only half tongue in cheek. There are some real understandable issues here.
I was under the impression that way back when in the dawn of MARPAT the USMC offered use to the Army and the Army didn't want it?
I'm all about the services keeping themselves distinct, but we managed to do so in the age before MARPAT/ACUs (and the atrocities that are the NWU and ABU) with the old tricolors: Marines will always have the EGA on the left breast pocket and the 8-point cover, the Army will probably always wear deployment/skill patches, etc.
Each service having its own distinctive field uniform seems sort of silly to me. Figure out what the best is and roll with it for everyone. Being special can happen with service and dress uniforms. It's stupid and petty for the services to get involved in a pissing match over looking cooler (and, yes, I know the USMC is hardly innocent in this regard).
I got a simpler solution, get rid of the Marines.
Anything Marines supposed to, the Army can do.
I really think you stepped over the line here. Every branch of the Armed Forces are equally important. The Marine Corps has a unique purpose from the other branches. As a Marine Option NROTC Scholarship recipient, as well as a USMC DEP Poolee, I do not appreciate your comment, and I think it is safe to say the Marines on this forum do not appreciate it either.
With all due respect, cadet, please state your defense. As a future Marine Officer you need to be prepared to counter the opinion presented by the previous poster. Just stating that you do not appreciate a comment and appealing to a larger body of peers will not be very affective in a budget meeting when you are a COL. (Col.)
Here is an example:
I believe their different service culture brings another way of thinking to the battlefield that can help in solving tough tactical/operational problems. i.e.: the Marine experience in Anbar.
While debatable, it is at least an argument. Must preferred to rhetoric of taking offense.
So where in this comment would you find an argument not based in rhetoric.
First, not every branch is actually needed. Next, you'll find people from other branches don't really are what "Marines appreciate."
Give them all the same operational uniforms. No need to have different ones. Or if you do want to have different ones, start cutting servicemembers to pay for it. They all have "name taps" with their service identification.... why a different pattern?
Nowhere, rhetoric is just the art of arguing. I do have an issue with the cadet's concept of taking offense as a form of rhetoric.
I did not dive into an essay deep response because I am posting this on my phone. However, here goes nothing.
The Continental Congress formed the Marine Corps on November 10, 1775. During this time, their mission was to be a security force for The Navy's ships; The Marines defended their ships from being boarded, as well as launching offensives in the form of shooting at enemy gunners, officers and helmsmen. Obviously, this is much different from the Army's missions, as they are more of "boots on the ground".
That is not to say, however, that the Marine Corps mission did not include land. The United Sates Marine Corps became the amphibious expeditionary force of the United States, capable of assaulting a location from the land, air and sea. Of course, The Army is capable of this as well, but in an analogy, The Marine Corps is the tip of the sword. The Marine Ground-Air Task Force is designed to deploy quickly to anywhere in the world in just a matter of days. Once there, The Marine Corps will launch an attack, hold the position, and then hand it over to the Army once the beachhead is secured. The Army will then finish securing the location, and then utilize the area for other purposes. While this is taking place, The Marines will have moved on to, as before, be the spearhead of the assault on the next location.
In conclusion, could the Army do everything the Marine Corps does? Sure. Would the outcome be as effective (death toll, time in battle, etc.....) as the Marine Corps? In my opinion, no. It is no secret that the Marine Corps training is more difficult than the Army's. Here, let me stress I am not trying to start a "d**k size" contest by saying that. The training for the Marine Corps is different from the Army because the trainings are tailored to the purposes. While The Army is to operate in a larger theatre of war, the Marine Corps is to start the battle and win the battle, as quickly and effectively as possible. And again, this is not to say the Army could not do this. However, since the Army is to operate in a larger theatre of war, their training is not styled towards the "KILL, KILL, KILL!" of the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifle man first; that is because of the Marine Corps Mission.
Again, it is my opinion, and I am entitled to it. Others will feel differently, and that's fine too. Also, please forgive any grammatical errors, it's hard doing this on a phone.
Let's first get rid of our enemies!
"The raising of that flag on Suribachi means a MARINE CORPS for the next 500 years."
JAMES FORRESTAL, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
"We relieved a group of Army soldiers. They said 'we are so glad to see you Marines.' We told them that we were glad to see them too."
Marine Pfc Rudy Pinto, Okinawa, June 1945
Or we could wear what the SEALs wore to get bin Laden: http://www.optifade.com/hunting-gear/products/open-country
Point being, pretty much any pattern out there is better than UCP. The bigger problem is changing equipment color; while uniforms eventually break down and need to be replaced anyways, the nylon gear (plate carriers, equpment pouches, etc.) is built to last much longer and is more expensive to replace.
You have a bright future making commercials for the USMC.
WOW! I'm gung-ho Marines but I can't decide if you swallowed the bait, drank the Kool-aid, or both! I'm going with both!
The Marines need to get over their fashion statement. Our Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen should have an effective camo pattern, on a well designed and manufactured uniform. We save money and logistical effort by using the fewest designs for a BATTLEFIELD uniform. Do we really want the enemy to pick out the JTACs and Corpsmen on the battlefield? Sometimes being different isn't a benefit.
The DoD should go with a common battlefield uniform (or set of patterns), IMO. The unique heritage of each service can be displayed just fine on service dress, mess dress, whites, etc.
This post takes the cake. Best SAF post ever.
"I'm almost maybe a Marine, so you need to back off, guy who's already served in a combat zone."
Aside from your short Wikipedia lesson on the history of the USMC, and barfing back recruiting one-liners, do you actually have an argument of substance to make? By the way, America's true crisis response force does not include the USMC. Fact.
To quote a buddy of mine, "Woah bro it looks like your care factor just went from 0 to 10 in .02 seconds".
But really you care too much, the comment was meant to be tongue in cheek. I think that eloquent rhetoric and or dogma from your HS lunch recruiters seeped too much into your cerebrum.
Agree, and would add Coasties to that.
If there is a pattern that best conceals service members, let 'em all wear it. People will know it's the U.S., and that's the important part.
While Coast Guard has an operational uniform, when deployed to an area that requires a cammo pattern, they take the Navy, with "U.S. Coast Guard" above the pocket. Some how they survive and still identify as Coasties.
That would be the Coast Guard, right?
They do have the legal authority to operate on U.S. soil, in their full capacity. So, maybe. But I'm guessing this would also include the Army National Guard and Air National Guard.
Separate names with a comma.