Military: Army vs Marines

[nojmaster]

No, not one of those threads!

I just wanted to know what distiguishes the two? What do marines do that is so different from the army? As far as I'm concerned they both dress up in green, march around and fight wars. Where does the similarity end? I'm talking in universal terms, not just the American services, unless theres something specific about the USMC compared to the US Army that isn't seen elsewhere.

[Fearfisch]

AFAIK Army is the primary land force, while marines were meant for infantry-type fights at sea, as well as attacking on land directly from water.

Not really accurate anymore, but that's what they were originally meant for.

[gYmBaG]

yeah Army was originally created for land battles, Marines were made actually to protect the navy, and nowadays, the Army still fights on land, while the marines do to, mostly on land too. the marines are different from the army because since they are on ships, they can easily be deployed faster then the army to a conflict zone

[Toastar]

originially they were navy borne fighting men, helping the crews of ships, raids and protecting from mutiny, now they're more of a quick reaction force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_army

:o

[Wallrod]

By the way, if you didn't catch it, marines were originally to fight on ships and protect the navy.

Not really sure about the US marines, but marines in general are, afaik, a kind of halfway special forces - normal land forces, but with higher training standards and so on.

[CheeseSteakJim]

IIRC the US Marines are the only ones directly controlled by the President, so he can deploy them immediately without the political aspects that delay the deployments of other branches.

[GoatChomper]

Something y'all might not have known.....despite all the hoorahing about Marine amphibious assaults in the Pacific in World War II, the fact is that almost all of them were actually Army operations. Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima were simply two of the largest, hence the great fame.
.....the marines are different from the army because since they are on ships, they can easily be deployed faster then the army to a conflict zone
Only if they already happen to be cruising in the area. A shipborne MEU at San Diego simply isn't going to get boots on the ground as quickly as one of the airmobile components of the XVIIIth Airborne Corps or JSOC.
IIRC the US Marines are the only ones directly controlled by the President.....
No, any and all units of any service are subject to the direct control of POTUS in his role as CinC.....micromanagement down to battalion level in Vietnam was a hallmark of the Johnson administration.

[Memorex]

Wiki always has an answer. But of course im bias, my uncle was in the marines and drills how awesome they are in my head. but Im a fan of both. I just think marines are more.. "special" is that thte word?>

[SWATJester_os]

I hate the whole "Oh, the marines can be the first ones on the ground" kinda thing......the 82nd airborne can have a battalion on the ground anywhere in the world in 24 hours, and a brigade in less than 90.

the XVIII airborne corps is america's rapid reaction force: whether it's the 82nd or 101st on corps ready status, THEY are the first full unit to deploy in most cases.

[gYmBaG]

yeah swat, but we are talking about a division, we are talkin about an entire branch. and as for the ships not being close, im sure our navy and marines have ships just off shore to alot of places that are "under watch" for conflicts and whatnot. just in case they need to go in there and stop something

[SWATJester_os]

This is true, but MEU's do not generally have a lot of armor. they are infantry heavy. Something like 4 abrams vehicles per battalion?

Not all marines are in meus. Most are still based out of lejeune or pendleton. Soem are on forward deployments, but some are in other places on training assignments. Those guys will always take a while to pack up and activate. They physically cannot do what the 82nd airborne can, which is have the entire division on planes ready to go, in 3 days. That is what the 82nd is designed to do...they are constantly on alert for that. The USMC does not have a capability for rapid deployment at that size. The USMC's rapid deployment capability comes from having MEU's out on float, but those also have travel time, and the fact is a MEU is simply not comparable in size to the 82nd.

[gYmBaG]

This is true, but MEU's do not generally have a lot of armor. they are infantry heavy. Something like 4 abrams vehicles per battalion?

Not all marines are in meus. Most are still based out of lejeune or pendleton. Soem are on forward deployments, but some are in other places on training assignments. Those guys will always take a while to pack up and activate. They physically cannot do what the 82nd airborne can, which is have the entire division on planes ready to go, in 3 days. That is what the 82nd is designed to do...they are constantly on alert for that. The USMC does not have a capability for rapid deployment at that size. The USMC's rapid deployment capability comes from having MEU's out on float, but those also have travel time, and the fact is a MEU is simply not comparable in size to the 82nd.
Very true yet again, but once again, i have to tell you, that we are NOT talkin about divisions, we are talkin about divisions. over all, the army is basicly a ground force, you cannot compair the two when the army is based on ground, and has to fly to a zone, while marines, are mainly based out in sea, and can get to almost any conflict zone. http://205.110.170.168/video/EF.asf

[Gunstar9]

dont know if its changed since then.. but my dad tells me when he was in the Corps, during Vietnam. That shooting Expert in the Army is the equivilent of shooting marksmen in marine corps.

[gYmBaG]

im not saying the marines is better then the army, i mean i wont go into why im joining the marines rather then the army, cause we could have tons and tons of flames, and i dont want that, sorry if i make you mad swat, but in general, all marines that ship out for deployment are on ships, combat ready marines that is. they are closer to the zones as is, and all it takes is a couple of helicopter trips or something, to get ashore, while the army, they have to wait for the situation to happen, then go through all the deployment procedures, and then deploy, im talkin in general about the BRANCHES, not individual devisions, and yeah gun i heard something like that too, im not sure if its true, its probably not but what i heard is a marine corps sharpshooter is equivilent to an army sniper, once again probably not true

[solidsnake]

Marines shoot up to 500yrds.

[GoatChomper]

over all, the army is basicly a ground force, you cannot compair the two when the army is based on ground, and has to fly to a zone, while marines, are mainly based out in sea, and can get to almost any conflict zone.
While they can do so if already in the general area, the fact is that MEUs are drastically limited in super-littoral capability simply because an amphibious assault ship provides limited helicopter capability and helicopters have a relatively limited range. Sure, a rifle company of Marines can be heliborne into an interior.....but that pales in comparison to the number of troops one MAC wing can transport onto the ground of an airhead seized previously by an airdrop of a battalion or more of airborne troops.

[gYmBaG]

once again, we are not talkin about divisions, im not talkin about MEUs or MEFs or even the airbone. we are talkin about the whole branch. the army would have to go through all the deployment processes and whatnot, while the marines, are already deployed aboard a ship. and even if we are talkin about divisions,
" A MEU is based on Naval vessels and is normally built around a reinforced battalion, a composite aircraft squadron, and by a MEU Service Support group totaling about 2,000 personnel in all.

Commanded by a colonel, the MEU is employed to fulfill routine forward deployments with fleets in the Mediterranean, the Western Pacific, and periodically, the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

The MEU's very existence is vital because with the decline of American bases abroad, it's possible that the only U. S. forces available to respond to worldwide crisis quickly will be the Marines.

The MEU is an expeditionary intervention force with the ability to rapidly organize for combat operations in virtually any environment."
even if someone does happen in a conflict zone, by the time the ship sails to the area, it would be about the same time, if not faster then having the airborne fly all the way out there. not to mention the MEU's can bring takes, aircraft, amphibious, anything almost needed to do a battle and maintain a hq, all this aboard a ship already. while the airborne will have to fly all this, 10000 miles if not more, making a stop out side the conflict zone to unload and prepair for the assualt into the conflict zone then take off again to drop the soldiers in to battle

[GoatChomper]

So what? All that's been proven so far is a tautology: that an amphibious ship cruising right off a coast can land troops on the other side of the planet quicker than the 82nd AB could jump into there from Pope AFB.....once the gyrenes are on the beach, then what? They still have a much smaller radius of action, fewer trigger fingers, less capability against mech-heavy opponents, and much less sustainability.

[gYmBaG]

right, you're one to talk about having a less capability against mech-heavy opponents, its not like the airborne can drop in some tanks lol, all and all, Marines have more weapons, and more tanks at need be, the 82nd ab doesnt have tanks , all and all, this is pointless to argue about, they both will take about the same amount of time to "fully attach" or fully assemble

[Mr.P]

Really, the answer here is pretty simple......

Both can get to places rapidly.

Marines are designed to operate in places where we don't have friendly forces or a friend staging nation. Completely hypothetical, but say Saudi Arabia decided to not allow our troops on their soil, and suddenly Oman and Yemen joined terrorist forces against the USA. Well, if we had no marines, we'd be pretty screwed. If the army doesn't have a place to land those airplanes, or a port to unload those ships, they aren't worth much. The purpose of the marines is to be able to quickly go in and seize resources necessary for the Army to deliver their weapons and materials. The marines have VERY little ability to fight a protracted war on their own. They utilize very little armor, as what they have is meant to be A. Amphibious, and B. Fast.

The problem we run into is, we haven't had a war or conflict recently in which we haven't had a place for the Army to do their thing. Thus, the Marines have somewhat been forced to homogenize thier roll to do what the Army does. The reason that the Marines get their "hardcore" image is that the Marines field compartively few non-front line troops, whereas the army is largely made up of personel that will never see battle. Thus, when the Marines go to war, they can expect to see combat.

So, the solution is this: Army and Marines should quit badmouthing each other. Without the Marines, the Army could be hamstrung, without the Army, the Marines are basically a very heavily armed band of gypsies there to stay the night.

[GoatChomper]

right, you're one to talk about having a less capability against mech-heavy opponents, its not like the airborne can drop in some tanks lol.....
Time for a small TO&E and operational education, young warrior-buck-in-training.....

Firstly, you make the mistake of equating "airborne" with "airdrop" and "anti-armor" with tanks. That's not how it goes. The light forces might parachute in, or they might go in by helicopter if the 101st is used, for the purpose of seizing an airhead to be used by the follow-on forces delivered by C-130, C-141, C-5, or C-17. Any of those can bring in TOW-armed Hummers, and each of those can deliver more Hummers than a Chinook or Sea Stallion. The latter three can deliver LAVs, Sheridans, Abrams', or TOW-armed Strykers by either landing or LAPESing.

But if you insist on an airdrop then yes, Hummers can be airdropped. In any event, the preferred method of delivering even parachute-capable units is by landing them in aircraft.
.....all and all, Marines have more weapons, and more tanks at need be.....
You have been misinformed. Not only does the USMC not have "more weapons" than the Army, they certainly do not posess more tanks at their disposal.....Marine armor all told amounts to roughly the equivalent of one Army tank brigade.
.....the 82nd ab doesnt have tanks.....
Only partly correct. The 3rd Battalion, 73rd Armor gave up its Sheridans some time in the last decade, but currently fields LAV-25s.....not a few of them TOW-armed.

And yes, the XVIIIth Airborne Corps does indeed have tanks.....the 24th Mech is permanently attached as the XVIIIth's heavy force.

[gYmBaG]

lol goat your funny, you keep on going back and forth, from divisions and branches lol. but once again, to bring in takes, listen to me on this. with the ARMY you arnt really out of the states, unless you are already in a conflict zone or war, so if a NEW CONFLICT comes up, the ARMY would have to go about processing more soldiers from the states, and having them process their deployment papers and whatnot, and have them fly out there, most likely stop in a near by friendly zone to unload their tanks and whatnot, and have their troops gear up, and re-fuel/supply the planes, make mission plans, and then take off to preform these actions. taking about what? a day or two min time?

With the MARINES doesnt have to generally be MEU's or MEF's but most likely is, they are already in ships, all accross the world, in general areas ready for concflicts to occur, and all they have to do, is sail over there, taking about a day , possibly even less, and while they are over there, they are already planning out the mission, and gearing up, then by the end of the day, or even the begining of the next, they fly out, and go ashore with tanks, hummers, anything needed to stable it before larger numbers arive for back up. either way, both of them take about the same time. going about it in different ways, but getting it done in about the same time

[GoatChomper]

lol goat your funny.....
LOL, you're inexperienced.
with the ARMY you arnt really out of the states, unless you are already in a conflict zone or war.....
That would come as quite a surprise to the Army units in Germany and Italy.
.....so if a NEW CONFLICT comes up, the ARMY would have to go about processing more soldiers from the states.....
What, you think the entire Marine Corps is at sea at all times?
.....most likely stop in a near by friendly zone to unload their tanks and whatnot.....
Did you somehow miss what I posted about using forces to seize an airhead? Hint: that's not something you do in a nation where you aren't going to expect shooting.
.....and have their troops gear up, and re-fuel/supply the planes.....
Ever heard of in-flight refueling? That's what the 173rd Airborne Brigade did.....one hop from Vicenza to the drop zone in Iraq, and out the door under silk.
.....make mission plans.....
You've forgotten that contingency plans are always in the safe.....and what makes you think that further planning doesn't get done en route? You don't have to be on the ground to do that.
With the MARINES doesnt have to generally be MEU's or MEF's but most likely is, they are already in ships, all accross the world, in general areas ready for concflicts to occur, and all they have to do, is sail over there, taking about a day , possibly even less.....
Wrong.....it takes much more than a day for an MEU to get from Diego Garcia to the Straights of Hormuz, but only eight hours for the 173rd to fly there.

[Mr.P]

So did nobody bother to read my post and try to get a truce going here.....

With today's services all trying to be full service, even the freaking Air Force can field a strong ground presence in a short period of time. That doesn't mean its the Air Force training philosophy, nor is it the Army's. Every branch has its purpose.

[GoatChomper]

Huh? I've seen no service-bashing here, merely misinformation being posted and then corrected.

[gYmBaG]

wow goat, get the picture, both would take as long to get there, and ready for the attack, im not sayin the marines are better, neither is better. im just saying, that they would take as long to get there. and for one, MEU shipts arnt just sitting out in diego garcia, there are more in the mediterranean sea i bet, or even the red see, you dont really know. but goat, relax, and chill im not saying the marines is any better, im just saying both would take as long to get there and start the job

[GoatChomper]

wow goat, get the picture, both would take as long to get there.....
You still don't get it.....an MEU under weigh out in the middle of the Indian Ocean simply cannot get to all points within the same time, while the flight time from a fixed base is a known factor.

[gYmBaG]

sure yeah, planes have mishaps too, but its ok , think what you want, all and all, everyone knows that they are both about the same, no disrespect to the army, or the marines, or the navy or the air force

[Mr.P]

I still fail to grasp why this became an source of contention.....

Air deployment is EXTREMELY inefficient and requires mountains more logicistical support then deploying a MEU. Now, in a situation like Iraq, the ability to get to an inland target quickly was important, but it took a massive undertaking to get the needed troops and supplies there. For taking anything near a coast though, it would be silly to try to airlift. Beyond that, if you don't have a friendly airstrip, you're SOL. Even IF You have a friendly airstrip, it has to be able to handle a heavy aircraft if its carrying anything armored. Airlifting requires waaaay too many variables to be in place for it to be an effective response to most situations. If you're trying to airlift against an enemy with anything resembling an air defense system, you're also in for a world of hurt as C-17s last I heard haven't gone stealth yet.

So, if you're going against an out matched enemy with no air force and little anti-aircraft ability and you're destination is a desolate patch of desert with few enemy combatants, and a large contingent of friendly Kurds to secure drop zones and landing sites for you, then yes, airlifting can be a viable option.


As a maybe interesting aside though, the Marines get less then 10% of the military budget, but often account for a staggeringly higher casualty total in recent conflicts. Don't think I'll enlist any time soon....

[knute]

Even IF You have a friendly airstrip, it has to be able to handle a heavy aircraft if its carrying anything armored.

Bullshit. The C-17, C-5, and C-130 all have rough field capability. They don't even have to be paved. As for an unfriendly airfield, as Goat mentioned, we drop some paratroopers on the field, and take it. It's a common mission, one they train for all the time.

And no, they don't have to worry about unfriendly skies, generally speaking, because air superiorority something we spend a lot of money on achieving. It's why we have all them fancy F-117s, B-2s, F-15Es, F-22s, F/A-18s and so forth.

[Mr.P]

Trust me, unless you have NO other option, you're not going to be landing fully loaded C-17s on a completely crap runway. The C-5 is -not- a rough field plane, and requires a lot of take off distance at anything close to load. The C-130, yeah, it can land anywhere, but it can't carry much.

That, and once again, you can spend this ENORMOUS amount of resources, hundreds of air superiority and ground attack aircraft, then paratroopers just to capture an airfield.....or you could send the marines to do the job they were intended for.

Iraq being a completely land locked country, we had to get creative, so yeah, the airlift worked there. Our military is trained to take on all comers, this includes any potential of taking on a major military power. We can't always count on our air superiority. Its something we've had a luxury with as of late, but when we start to count on that luxury as a military that's kind of scary.

[knute]

Trust me, unless you have NO other option, you're not going to be landing fully loaded C-17s on a completely crap runway. The C-5 is -not- a rough field plane, and requires a lot of take off distance at anything close to load. The C-130, yeah, it can land anywhere, but it can't carry much.

Regardless, the C-5 has high-floatation landing gear and can take off fully loaded from 8000 foot runways.

That, and once again, you can spend this ENORMOUS amount of resources, hundreds of air superiority and ground attack aircraft, then paratroopers just to capture an airfield.....or you could send the marines to do the job they were intended for.

You'll have to secure a beach head too, the Marines aren't going in to an unprepared environment, and the Navy's not going to send in landing ships anywhere they don't have air superiority.

Iraq being a completely land locked country, we had to get creative, so yeah, the airlift worked there. Our military is trained to take on all comers, this includes any potential of taking on a major military power. We can't always count on our air superiority. Its something we've had a luxury with as of late, but when we start to count on that luxury as a military that's kind of scary.

Iraq has 53km of coastline on the Persian Gulf.

The Marines and the Airborne both aren't going to fight a major combat operation on their own. They're going to go in, establish a beachhead or airfield, and use that to bring in the grunts to do the heavy lifting.

[Mr.P]

The Marines and the Airborne both aren't going to fight a major combat operation on their own. They're going to go in, establish a beachhead or airfield, and use that to bring in the grunts to do the heavy lifting.


Yes, exactly what I've been saying for about 6 posts now......all I'm trying to argue is that NO service can do it alone. Just because the army CAN airlift things in, does NOT make it the best option. 1 ro/ro ship can hold a divisions worth of tanks and costs signifigantly less. Slower, yes, but how often do we need to drop a division of tanks behind enemy lines?

[Karaya1]

Goat has pretty much nailed down the who can deploy first arguement.
The only added capibility i see the Marines having over the Army is that they have more naval capibility and they have their own Airforce. I have no idea whether the army has their own jets now, but last time i checked they did not. The Marines have LCACS and LAVs in addition to F/A18'S and Harriers. From what i recall the Army only has attack helo's and transport planes. I could be, and probably am a bit wrong.
Whether a combat division of Marines is better than a division of Army Soldiers, be it Air assault or what have you, i don'T think it's worth arguing either way. I'll just say whoever comes up against either is going to be doing a lot of dying.

The other main difference is obviously the fact that the army is like 5 times bigger or something than the Marine Corps. I read in the MArine Magazine that out of every dollar spent on defense, only 6 cents or so goes to the Corps.

[SWATJester_os]

gymbag, how do you want it, divisions or branches?

Division wise, you're fucked because the 82nd can be there faster.

Branch wise, you're still fucked because at any given time, there are only a handful of MEUs out at sea, and plus, the entire ground combat power of the USMC is STILL only 3 divisions active and 1 reserve.

However, the army can immediately (within 3 days) put the 82nd airborne division, 75th Ranger Regiment, 172nd and 173rd AIBs, (equivalent to another division+), and within 5-7 days put 25th ID(light), 101st Airborne, in the air ready to land, and have 3rd ID more than halfway loaded.

In that same first 3 days, you'd get 1 MEU there, and one MEU on the way. Army wins on that one. In the first 5 days, you'd have more Army troops than are in the entire marine corps either there or on their way.

The reason we DO use marines, is because we forward position them, they can be kept offshore as a deterrent. However, when a flashpoint flares up it's nearly always the 82nd that's wheels up heading over there, usually beating the MEU unless it already happened to be there.


To correct your other errors, btw, the USMC has FAR less tanks than any one division of the army does. The 82nd does have anti-armor capability, especially organic to their infantry, and besides: the 82nd comes with the best anti armor out there: apaches with Kiowa-D warriors.

[gYmBaG]

swat, wasnt talkin about size, i or power, i was simply saying who would get there first. and all and all it sounds like both would get there about the same time, it all depends on different situations. and also this brought me to my well i think it was my first point, way back towards the begining of this, no matter what no branch can win a war, each branch relys on each other branch to help them. i cant think of one conflict or war where there was only one branch involved, mainly because they all help out eachother in their own ways.

[SWATJester_os]

It just depends. If a MEU was already in the region, it would obviously get there first, assuming that the country has an amphib landing site.

If the meu was not in the region already, Army Airborne units (rangers, then 82nd or 173rd) would be the first to get there. I know at one time Ranger bat kept a company on 1hr recall for instant deployment, meaning they'd be wheels up within 1hr of the call, ready to go, with the rest of the battalion shortly behind. I don't know if that's still in force yet.

[gYmBaG]

lol!! swat, you know what i just realized....the what? hundreds if not thousands of counties or conflict zones that dont touch water and cant be reached by amphibious assaults :p i feel as smart as a chicken right now

[GoatChomper]

.....think what you want.....
What I might "want" is irrelevant.....I speak from experience of the years I studied these matters professionally.
Air deployment is EXTREMELY inefficient and requires mountains more logicistical support then deploying a MEU.
Nobody's argued about the efficiency of it all, but rather the speed and volume of logistic delivery for sustainability.....in that, an MEU comes up a distant second.
If you're trying to airlift against an enemy with anything resembling an air defense system, you're also in for a world of hurt.....
That's why the Air Force and Navy have dedicated SEAD formations aka Wild Weasels to the uninitiated.
That, and once again, you can spend this ENORMOUS amount of resources, hundreds of air superiority and ground attack aircraft, then paratroopers just to capture an airfield.....or you could send the marines to do the job they were intended for.
Yes, of course.....if they have the lift capability to get that far inland. Remember Eagle Claw? They had to have Air Force tankers waiting for the USMC helicopters at Desert One, and that was a site chosen specifically for its unlikleyhood to present a hot LZ.
I have no idea whether the army has their own jets now.....

From what i recall the Army only has attack helo's and transport planes.
Correct. Pursuant to the National Defense Act of 1947, the Army is limited to a small handful of fixed-wing assets.....all of them small, unarmed liaison types.

[gYmBaG]

While they can do so if already in the general area, the fact is that MEUs are drastically limited in super-littoral capability simply because an amphibious assault ship provides limited helicopter capability and helicopters have a relatively limited range. Sure, a rifle company of Marines can be heliborne into an interior.....but that pales in comparison to the number of troops one MAC wing can transport onto the ground of an airhead seized previously by an airdrop of a battalion or more of airborne troops.
http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/7e931335d515626a8525628100676e0c/8a583a9bef2c6f8d8525626e0048f5fc?OpenDocument
not to bring back this argument, its just i remember this heli but i didnt remember the specific facts till i took time and actually looked it up, but holds 55 troops, can be refeuled in air, has two .50 cal machine guns to cover fire when landing, and can transport vehicle. and say the standard ship has 2 or 3, thats about 100 to 150 marines on the ground in one trip. just had to say that, i still know the airborne can fly in more, and faster, and way safer.

[knute]

http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/7e931335d515626a8525628100676e0c/8a583a9bef2c6f8d8525626e0048f5fc?OpenDocument
not to bring back this argument, its just i remember this heli but i didnt remember the specific facts till i took time and actually looked it up, but holds 55 troops, can be refeuled in air, has two .50 cal machine guns to cover fire when landing, and can transport vehicle. and say the standard ship has 2 or 3, thats about 100 to 150 marines on the ground in one trip. just had to say that, i still know the airborne can fly in more, and faster, and way safer.

And if the Osprey ever quits falling out of the sky, we'll have means for some serious air assaults.

[Mr.P]

And if the Osprey ever quits falling out of the sky, we'll have means for some serious air assaults.

You mean they're not supposed to do that? I thought they were just really expensive kamikazi bombs.....

[gYmBaG]

You mean they're not supposed to do that? I thought they were just really expensive kamikazi bombs.....
lol didnt like every other branch give up on that thing? but we are still tryin it for some odd reason...and with this whole 6 cents out of a dollar given to national defense, you think we should try spending our money on something else:p

[Mr.P]

If anyone reads any Dale Brown books, he had a whole book on this elite squadron of heavily armed Ospreys that went around saving the world......in reality its killed more poor test pilots then any enemy combatants

[GoatChomper]

lol didnt like every other branch give up on that thing?
The sticking point was size. The Army and Air Force wanted a smaller version better suited to operations in forested/urbanized terrain, but the Navy and Corps won with their desire for the larger version.
If anyone reads any Dale Brown books, he had a whole book on this elite squadron of heavily armed Ospreys that went around saving the world......
Hammerheads.....not saving the world, but operating as an interdiction tool with the Coast Guard.

[Mr.P]

Hammerheads.....not saving the world, but operating as an interdiction tool with the Coast Guard.

Yeah, that's the one, but he used Osprey's A LOT in a few of his books. I read pretty much every one of his up until Tin Man, then I kind of got wore out. Same goes for Clancy, read everyone one for awhile, then, just kind of lost interest in the genre.

[SWATJester_os]

Ospreys are NOT AS CRASH-PRONE AS PEOPLE BELIEVE!!!!!!

A lot of the osprey testing was done right near my airfield back at home...the pilots said most of the crashes came from pilots trying to descend into a hot LZ like an airplane, but entering Vortex Ring State with the props, and losing lift, and crashing. If descent is managed to 300 FPM or less at low speeds, in helicopter mode, then it'd be fine.

[Mr.P]

Yeah, you're right. The aircraft itself isn't really unsafe, but its a very complex machine to fly. For that matter, helicopters in the military already crash at a VERY high rate, let alone something as big and complicated as the Osprey.

[SWATJester_os]

And the number 1 reason for pilot error induced crashes in the military is Vortex Ring State.


basically what it is, is you have rotor downwash from your main rotor blades. If you descend too quickly, over 300fpm with a low forward speed, what happens is you descend INTO your downwash....your rotor blades cannot push the unsettled, vortex filled air, and you begin to fall rapidly....you will continue to fall until you tilt the rotor disc in a way that the downwash is not going in the direction of travel. It can also happen with strong tailwinds, especially from the 4 clock and 7 o clock directions.


Now imagine the osprey's props as it comes into a DZ....it's tilting from forward to vertical props.....how easily do you think it comes into Vortex Ring state..........super easily.....thus they crash. It's a pilot error issue, regretably.

[BattleWhack]

Well, I'm not going to jump in the quasi flame war going on here. I'm a Marine. I love my Corps, but I'm not going to bash any other branch, because we are on the same.

There are differences, and similarities. Period.

E: And a bunch of Ospreys flew overhead today, dunno what they were doing. Unless you've seen them in real life man, you don't understand. Awe inspiring aircraft, in my opinion.

[meifunk]

Hey, at least they're not the Whistling Shitcans we so lovingly refer to as the HH-65B/C Dolphin.

Although the way they're using them for interdiction these days rules.

"Hey, NR 1 Turbine is at fault, overheating."
"What!? We're in Antarctica... It's barely in the teens outside!"
"Hey, I'm just the Pilot, you're the FM"
"Well, how's NR 2?"
"Well, better than NR 1, sort of."
"How far to the pad?"
"2600 yards or so..."
"Oh, well we can probably make it then. Shut down NR 1."

That's a real conversation between the PIC and Flight Mechanic on the way from our ship which was hove-to in the ice, to McMurdo Research Station that I overheard. I was riding just to pick up some parts for propulsion systems on the ship. According to the Flight Mechanic, that's not uncommon. At all. Conversion from Bravo to Charlie is supposed to fix that. Unclas Mishap reports on the Message boards corroborate his remark.

[SWATJester_os]

Oh god oh god. Meifunk, being a helicopter pilot, I love the dolphin/dauphin to death....but you guys have to get rid of those shit US made engines and do what the florida based dolphin crews did: they refused to fly until they got their engines refitted for the original aerospatiale french ones.

The dolphin is really a great helicopter, but their turbine system is just so much dogshit. I know what it can be like to have a turbine failure though, I was riding in a friend's jetranger and well lets just say that we had to make an unplanned practice autorotation to get to the pad in time.

[meifunk]

Well, that's part of the conversion from 65B to 65C, they're moving back to those French engines. I saw first hand a demonstration of the HH-65C. Pretty impressive, if you ask me. They also did something with the blades in the tailrotor to cut down on the whistling shitcan effect.

[Shadow]

In the state of Victoria here in Australia, the Victoria Police use Eurocopter Dauphin IIs, with the Turbomeca engines and they kick ass, no better police helo platform in Australia.

http://airwing.uplink.com.au/images/PH/Policen3.jpg

[SWATJester_os]

Set as wallpaper...........god thats a fucking sexy beast.

[knute]

E: And a bunch of Ospreys flew overhead today, dunno what they were doing. Unless you've seen them in real life man, you don't understand. Awe inspiring aircraft, in my opinion.

Hey, you're at Cherry Point! When I was down there, I saw a shitload of Ospreys out on the tarmac, and they are quite impressive looking. I think they're great aircraft, really, and if they can get the falling out of the sky thing sorted out (which apprarently they can), they're a revolution.

But the thing that struck me was that in all our traipsing around Cherry Point and Lejeune, the only significant equipment we saw were those 20 or 30 Ospreys. The theory postulated at the time was that all the eq that didn't fall out of the sky or otherwise kill the good guys was over in Iraq or otherwise deployed.

So are there any Ospreys in deployment?

[meifunk]

http://www.atomic-dog.org/cam/hh65gunner.jpg

One of our interdiction setups.


http://www.atomic-dog.org/cam/hh65hires.jpg


Didn't want to post that one directly, since the it's pretty good size resolution.

[gYmBaG]

is that a 50 cal sniper rifle in there? jesus lol. i always see them flying at the joint forces base out here and once and awhile i make out what looks to be a machine gun in the door way. but ive never seen both a machine gun and a sniper rifle

[meifunk]

Yes it's .50 caliber. It is not common to see that. Machine gun is more common on a HH-60 Jayhawk than it is on the Dolphin.

[Shadow]

http://airwing.uplink.com.au/images/PH/pvh_do_001.jpg

hahaha meifunk, mine's more sexy than yours...well, apart from the...

LOL Holy fuck ,that's a serious piece of hardware...i'm pretty sure that the Victoria Police don't have one of those sitting in the rear of the cabin! Ma Deuce all the way there :P

Glad you like it SWAT. I saw that particular bird (Registered VH-PVH) out over a paddock near where I live, cross-training with the VP Special Operations Group doing rappelling training. Looked pretty sweet! and looking at it head-on in-flight is fucking deathly.

It's got the cutest ass on it too!

http://erkvicpol.tripod.com/images/vicpol_dec2002_airwing_vh-pvh02_lge.JPG

This is it's sister, VH-PVG - More white on this one because it's a shared Vic Pol/Air Ambulance. Don't let it fool you, it's just as capable as PVH, only difference is one has a high-vis paint job.

http://airwing.uplink.com.au/images/PG/febpvg2002.jpg

Well, this is the the one (or one of it's sisters) that I usually get a ride in (if I ever go up in a helo).

http://www.airventure.de/aia2003pics/aia03_blackhawk_13.jpg

Can't wait for one of our new ones though... it's got teeth... replacing our Kiowas and Iroquois (we used our Iroquois as gunships)

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2005/Sep/20050901a/000177001_05_0033_lo.jpg

This is our Bushranger - same as on We Were Soldiers.

http://www.airventure.de/aia2003pics/aia03_uh1_26.jpg

[Lord Kelvin]

*head explodes from reading this thread from the beginning*

One quick question, how much anti-armor weaponry do airborne Army units generally carry if they're called to deploy anywhere in the world? By that, I mean do they pack AT-4s in their TO&E when they jump, or what?

[GoatChomper]

.....do they pack AT-4s in their TO&E when they jump, or what?
Yes.....and their inventory also includes Javelins and TOWs.

[SWATJester_os]

As well as dragons in some units.

[GoatChomper]

Egads, still? I would have hoped those pieces of junk were all gone.

[SWATJester_os]

Newp, we have some in the arms room though none of us know how to use them, and I don't know why they're still there when we have TOWs, AT-4, and the like.

[gYmBaG]

what are they from like the 70's or something?

[Mr.P]

They're still effective against most of the enemies we've been fighting in the past few years. They're a lot cheaper then Javelins and TOW setups, so why not keep them around? Unless we're going up against a army with modern tanks, why waste our expensive weapons?

[GoatChomper]

.....so why not keep them around?
Because as they sit in the locker and age, the propellants and electronics deteriorate. The cracked-propellants issue was what forced us at long last to give up the Sheridan and its Shillelagh missile completely, as firing it had become a serious threat to the vehicle and crew.

Then there's the problem of depending on the Dragon that's been sitting in your arms locker for decades just to find out right before you get overrun that the damn thing you lugged around won't fire.

SWAT, try contacting the Infantry or Armor Schools.....both maintain extensive libraries, and they should be able to send you a copy or two of the pertinent TMs.

[gYmBaG]

goat, how long about have the "dragons" been in use? what age are they from? are we talkin 80's? or early 90's?

[GoatChomper]

They were first given out to units in Europe in January 1975, with production of all models ceasing in April 1981.

[gYmBaG]

dang, you would expect them to give crappy equitment like that to the marines or something :p jk, im surprised they still have them, even though we arnt battling any modern armys, its still a danger and a risk, thats like leaving eggs out for a year, they are bound to go bad sometime

[GoatChomper]

.....even though we arnt battling any modern armys.....
Moot.....not only is the equipment these systems were meant to defeat still encountered in various armies, most of them now have even better vehicles.

[gYmBaG]

but in iraq? the insurgents that we are facing, they have better vehicles? it just seems like the modern tactics of these insurents and the people we are fighting in iraq, doesnt really rely on armored vehicles, mostly its just fill the trunk of a sedan with c4 and drive over there and blow them up.

[Mr.P]

Propellants can go bad, but with inspections and replacement of bad units, they're still a viable weapon. We have a fair number of ballistic missiles that have propellant older then the Dragons. I just hate seeing a potentially useful weapon get thrown away.

[SWATJester_os]

Problem with the dragon is it wasn't useful...it had a minimum lock on range, and was just not very destructive nor useful. AT-4's are much better.

[Mr.P]

Problem with the dragon is it wasn't useful...it had a minimum lock on range, and was just not very destructive nor useful. AT-4's are much better.


All very true I'm sure, but as a guard or reserve weapon it would still beat, say, having nothing.

[marty]

Guard units should have top of the line equipment...

[Airborne506]

Besides, you can use things like the AT-4/SMAW on more things than just armor, i.e. sniper nests, MG's, fortified positions, etc.

Yes it's .50 caliber. It is not common to see that. Machine gun is more common on a HH-60 Jayhawk than it is on the Dolphin.

I'm pretty sure the HITRON squadrons carry both in their MH-68's for drug interdiction patrol.

I've grown to love the HH-65, I usually see the Atlantic City ones going low over the shallows down the shore.

[SWATJester_os]

All very true I'm sure, but as a guard or reserve weapon it would still beat, say, having nothing.

Yes, but guard and reserve almost always have AT-4's anyway.

[meifunk]

Besides, you can use things like the AT-4/SMAW on more things than just armor, i.e. sniper nests, MG's, fortified positions, etc.



I'm pretty sure the HITRON squadrons carry both in their MH-68's for drug interdiction patrol.

I've grown to love the HH-65, I usually see the Atlantic City ones going low over the shallows down the shore.


Although the HITRON squadrons are important, it's not common to see them. Perhaps in your area, yes. Especially near Atlantic City and Elizabeth City. Major training areas. Other common places you'd see them is in Los Angeles, Miama, Key West, Texas, and maybe in New York.

Otherwise, it's usually the vanilla HH-65. Atlantic City and Elizabeth City get to see the demos and training stuff a lot. I envy you being able to see them all the time.

[GoatChomper]

but in iraq? the insurgents that we are facing, they have better vehicles?
No, they generally don't have vehicles at all.....making a Dragon even less useful for deployment. There's no sense in cranking up an ancient Dragon for what an M2 will take out more reliably.
Propellants can go bad, but with inspections and replacement of bad units, they're still a viable weapon.
Not if the components themselves are no longer being produced for replacement.....then you're down to scavenging.
We have a fair number of ballistic missiles that have propellant older then the Dragons.
We do, but remember that ballistic missiles tend to be treated with loving care in a climate-controlled environment.....that's a far cry from some $10,000 Dragon that got tossed into the back room of the armory and left there for a couple of decades.

[yingtsay]

Isnt the marine the ones right now over sea fighting where army is a self defense

[gYmBaG]

Isnt the marine the ones right now over sea fighting where army is a self defense
thats pretty ignorant, lol even though im pro marine, both are doing the same thing :p