USNA vs USMA -- I'm wedged on a decision!

scoutpilot said:
When was the last amphibious assault? Inchon? Holy irrelevant tactic, Batman!

Anyhow, yes, dunninla missed some major points.

I spent the day on a Navy ship. Navy flight deck crews are great to work with!
Click to expand...

The Marines feigned an amphibious landing in the Gulf War.
 
Good point about Marines... I was only thinking Navy and Army.

The Naval Academy, in its dual role of preparing officers for both Navy and Marines, offers a tremendous amount of flexibility, keeping in mind that a mid might change his/her mind mid-stream. Marine Ground, Marine Aviation, and the Navy Service communties listed in my original post represents a huge variety possible activity... Still, the 16 Army Branches offer a great variety as well.

There was a post from around 2004 that somebody linked to on this Board about a month ago that was a really amusing answer to the same basic questions: AF, Navy, Marines, Army?
 
scoutpilot said:
there is a good chance you'll do your 5 and get out.
Click to expand...
Scout, what % of JO's decide to extend their AD service beyond the initial commitment (ROTC non-scholarship and OCS 3 yrs., ROTC scholarship 4 years, WP 5 years (not counting Aviation add'l), becoming 6/7/8 respectively using ADSO)?
 
Last edited:
dunninla said:
I did just now find JO retention numbers in a couple of places, most notable here on page 2:
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/Junior Officer Retention May 30 2008.pdf

and here esp. on page 12: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=965
Click to expand...
This statement in the second link is interesting. Any speculation on why this is the case?

Four-year scholarship officers from ROTC
and West Point remained in the Army at the lowest
rates, followed in order by 3-year and 2-year ROTC
scholarship officers, nonscholarship ROTC officers
(NS ROTC), and OCS officers drawn from the enlisted
ranks (OCS-IS).
Click to expand...
 
Packer --

It may have to do with the fact that companies luring away JOs do so, in part, based upon on the history of performance of the JO over an extended period of time... the very same basis upon which the USMA and Cadet Command differentiate between those who gain Appointments/Scholarships, and those who do not. That is simply conjecture. I really don't know. I do know that the same paper noted that the WP Appointment and Scholarship award process have proven to be effective in identifying the most promising future officers -- which ten years down the road serves as shorthand/markers to civilian employers of a JO's capabilities, thus increasing the civilian employer's efforts to lure them away. In short, the "hot prospect" out of HS remains the hot prospect ten years later for civilian employers.
 
Last edited:
scoutpilot said:
Right, so...Inchon.

The 173rd jumped into Iraq. Also on obsolete tactic.
Click to expand...

Well, feinting something would mean it is not obsolete. The purpose was to fix the six Iraqi division on the coast. Not even considering the maneuver might mean it is obsolete (i.e. a horse drawn attack, charriots, etc)

I agree with the airborne assessment.
 
GoArmyBeatNavy said:
Well, feinting something would mean it is not obsolete. The purpose was to fix the six Iraqi division on the coast. Not even considering the maneuver might mean it is obsolete (i.e. a horse drawn attack, charriots, etc)

I agree with the airborne assessment.
Click to expand...

By that logic, we shouldn't have mothballed the Iowa-class battleships, since the USS Wisconsin and Missouri were blasting away with 16-inch guns in 1991 as part of that feint.
 
Both academies offer fantastic opportunities. When I was a senior in HS I had an LOA to USMA, USMMA, and an acceptance to USCGA. Having already made up my mind that I wanted the Army above all else, the decision I made was quick. I would be lying if I said I have not on occasion wondered what my life would be like if I had made a different choice. However, not of those wonderings has ever led to regret. By the end of Rday/Iday wherever you go you will be convinced that your academy is the best and do everything you can to conquer the summer and join the rest of the cadets/midshipman. Take a long shower, clear your head, and make an intuitive leap of faith.
 
scoutpilot said:
By that logic, we shouldn't have mothballed the Iowa-class battleships, since the USS Wisconsin and Missouri were blasting away with 16-inch guns in 1991 as part of that feint.
Click to expand...

A battle ship is a weapon system. An amphibious landing is a tactic.

The battleship became outmoded by cruise missiles and naval aircraft from aircraft carriers. Capability is still needed we just choose to do it differently (better, more efficiently).
 
GoArmyBeatNavy said:
A battle ship is a weapon system. An amphibious landing is a tactic.

The battleship became outmoded by cruise missiles and naval aircraft from aircraft carriers. Capability is still needed we just choose to do it differently (better, more efficiently).
Click to expand...

You're confusing capabilities and tactics, or rather you're arguing both sides.

Yes, a battleship is a weapon. But naval gunfire is a tactic. The inaccuracy of the tactic and the vulnerability of the battleship made the tactic and weapon obsolete. Is the capability to conduct indirect fire on land-based targets still around? Very much so. Is the battleship the modern method? No.

Is a dynamic entry into a hostile country still needed? Yes. Just like Battleships, amphibious landings and the weapon systems designed for them, have become outmoded.

We have much faster and powerful methods of forced entry now than having a flotilla of AMTRACKs and LCACs assaulting a defended beach. That's not to say we won't practice the hell out of it, but we also practice the spirit of the bayonet.

That's not to say an amphib capability is worthless, it's just something that doesn't make sense to do in an opposed fashion anymore. We don't need to take beaches now. We conduct resupply and movement onto uncontested shores.

I suppose if WWIII kicks off, we might get desperate and use. But for now, amphib assault is a footnote capability. Just like parachuting and rappelling en masse from helicopters.

Note: ship-to-shore ops and amphibious landings are not one in the same for the purposes of this debate.

Anyhow, we should probably let this thread get back on topic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top