Hi list!
Me again.
I've been working on some game stuff. I've also been doing some reading. This
has left me with a variety of questions which someone or some several someones
of this list can undoubtedly answer authoritatively (we have all kinds
aboard). So, with that in mind, I submit these questions:
1) USMC (or US military in general): What ranks are accorded the title "sir"?
This seems like an odd question except that I think the US military differs
notably from British traditions here. IIRC, in Canadian tradition, an officer
(carrying a commission from the Queen) is called
"sir". Non-commissioned members are not. Generally, if you call a
Sergeant "sir" here, you get a lecture about how he works for a living and not
on his knees. There are certain rare occasions where it might be okay to call
a Canadian NCO "Sir" (I believe some officers holding a Warrant from the Queen
find this acceptable) but there aren't many cases. From a lot of the Hollywood
products I've seen, I've seen people
calling NCO D.I.s and other senior non-coms in US forces "sir". What
actually is the US tradition in this regard?
2) Cavalry soldiers are called "troopers". Cavalry forms themselves into
"troops". What organizational level is a troop equivalent to
(Platoon/Company/Battalion)? Does "Squadron" enter into the picture or
is that uniquely a UK/Canada armoured organizational element? Where does
it fit? (Platoon/Company/Battalion)?
3) Do mobile (mechanized or armoured) infantry or cavalry scout formations
tend to orient their squad breakdown around vehicular capacities? Or do they
tend to retain squad or section breakdowns around some administrative or
doctrinal vision and then just divide the squads out between vehicles? This
latter situation seems less ideal (having half of a squad potentially far from
another half) but the former situation seems to restrict your doctrine
somewhat. How does this tend to be done? And if the type of vehicle (and hence
capacity) changes,
does unit section/squad organization similarly get changed? This all has
implications for logistics and long distance transport as well as how mobile
combat ops get executed.
4) (USMC) Marines are "Marines", not "Soldiers". Soldiers are Army. I know
Marines refer to the Army (or have) as "Doggies" (or <expletive> Doggies). I
have heard Army soldiers called "Dog Soldiers" before. Where did this term
originate? Is there a historical antecedent? Is it still true (that Marines
refer to Army this way)?
5) What is the common ratio of mechanics/motor pool techs/vehicle repair
techs/etc. to vehicles in a modern force? If I have a tank platoon of 4
tanks, or a tank company of 16 or 17, how many mechanics are likely directly
required in support of independent operations of this force? At what level are
such support services attached (Battalion or Brigade level)? Is vehicle
recovery part of the same support unit? Or is that a separate organizational
unit?
6) (USMC) "Every Marine is a Rifleman". Is this still true? Does it apply to
Marine Aviators etc. too?
7) (USMC) Does the Marine corps still use Navy Doctors and Corpsmen? Or
do they have integral marine medics or life-savers?
These are only getting me started. But it'd be a help if people who were "in
the know" could answer some of these. I'm developing TO&Es for a number of
GZGverse forces, and some of this will help.
> On 6-Dec-01 at 12:32, Tomb (tomb@dreammechanics.com) wrote:
Officers only. The one exception is boot camp where the senior enlisted in
charge of a group of recruits (company in the Navy) is called sir.
The rest I will leave to the ground pounders.
I'll try to answer what I can. Mind you, I'm a civilian, but have oodles of
friends and family in several branches.
> 1) USMC (or US military in general): What ranks are accorded the title
AFAIK, this is the same in the US Military.
> 2) Cavalry soldiers are called "troopers". Cavalry forms themselves
I believe that US Cav,, at least Air Cav, still uses the Squadron designation.
YMMV.
*snip*
> 6) (USMC) "Every Marine is a Rifleman". Is this still true? Does it
Again, AFAIK, yes. Even basic rifle qualifications for the USMC are somewhat
more stringent that the US Army, and even commissioned officers are required
to maintain their qualification.
> 7) (USMC) Does the Marine corps still use Navy Doctors and Corpsmen? Or
Still using the Navy. Remember, even though for practical purposes it is an
independent force, the USMC is still "officially" part of the Department of
the Navy. This rankles Marines to no end, especially if you are brave or
stupid enough to tell them that MARINE is an acronym for My Arse Rides In Navy
Equipment.
I'm a little more familiar with USN & USMC issues, since I lived for 12 years
in San Diego, which is Spanish for "Hi, Sailor."
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >1) USMC (or US military in general): What ranks are
US Army: Officers only. Warrent officers are entitled to it, but usually are
adressed as "Chief".
> >2) Cavalry soldiers are called "troopers". Cavalry
US Army:
Troop is company. Squadron is batallion. All cavalry regiments use this
breakdown, even those which are
really infantry or armored units (ie--1st Cav Div's
maneuver batallions which are allegedly cavalry but organized and equipped as
either armor or mech infantry).
Allow me to answer the couple of these I know. Hopefully my credentials are
sufficient:-)
> 1) USMC (or US military in general): What ranks are accorded the title
Officers are commissioned and are called "sir" by all junior ranks. Noncom's
are addressed by their rank generally. The exception is in the case of
recruits. While in Boot camp or basic training, all superior ranks are called
"sir". DI's would frequently be addressed that way because of their proximity
to recruits.
> 7) (USMC) Does the Marine corps still use Navy Doctors and Corpsmen?
Or
> do they have integral marine medics or life-savers?
Yes, they do. The use of Navy resources as support allows them to concentrate
on their primary mission of fighting. They do have support people, but they
rely more heavily than most others do on another service (the navy).
And as for the famed antipathy between the Marines and Navy, they are ground
pounders. But _by god_ they are _our_ groundpounders. and whenever the
boats and choppers head for shore, there isn't a sailor in the fleet who'd let
them down.
By the way, Anyone got any ideas on what wet navies might look like during the
time represented by DS and SG?
John Rebori ETN2 (Discharged)
USN 1976 - 1982
ex-USS Pegasus PHM-1
You're the Pegasus man I was just looking for!
> Anyone got any ideas on what wet navies might look like during the
Who knows? But you might try:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/546846.asp?0sp=n5b3&cp1=1
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lpd/index.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a87f4c46192.htm
And there's lots more where that came from!
Darn, I forgot the best one of all!
http://www.clubi.ie/exalted/hydrofoi.htm
> Edward Lipsett wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 12:31:47 -0500 "Tomb" <tomb@dreammechanics.com>
writes: <snip>
> 4) (USMC) Marines are "Marines", not "Soldiers". Soldiers are Army. I
I should know this but don't except the Dog Soldier part. But it might not be
the same thing.
1) WW2 soldiers, IIRC, were called Dogfaces? Why? Sorry, beats me.
2)One or more of the Plains indians (First Americans/Native Americans/or
their nation's word for some version of "The People" - take your PC
pick.)
Some warrior societies (age graded or non-age graded) were "Dog
soldiers."
Black foot (Brave Dogs) Hidatsa (Little Dogs) Cheyenne (Dogs) Piegans (Brave
Dogs) Crow (Big Dog)
Above skimmed from Thomas Mails "The Mystic Warrior of the Plains" _ a
great resource but 600 plus pages of an approximately 18" x 12" x 3" hardback.
Have never 'read it' like a novel, just dive in for information at times.
Alas, Plains Indians rate in interest after South East, California (what
little there is), and Pacific North West
tribes/nations.
But this is heading off topic.
Gracias,
[quoted original message omitted]
> US Army: Officers only. Warrent officers are entitled
I believe that in Canadian (army) service, Warrent Officers (all 3 types)
are entitled to being called "sir", though most/all prefer to be called
by their appointment name. So, for example, the Master Warrent Officer who is
a company senior NCO would be called "Sar'n't Major" and not "sir". A platoon
senior NCO (a Warrent Officer, or WOIII) would be "Warrent", and a Chief
Warrent Officer (WOI) would be "RSM", or something like that.
I have no idea about the AirForce, though...
> US Army:
Whereas in Canadian/British service, a Troop is a platoon-size formation
and a Squadron is a company-size formation.
Both the Canadian and British armies don't have armoured units (or cavalry
for that matter) larger than a battalion - and are called as such
"Regiments". Wait - they can/do have armoured brigades/divisions (well,
the Brits have divisions - Canada hasn't had a brigade size *exercise*
in years, let alone an actual formed division...) but in an armoured brigade,
you'd have two or three armoured regiments (battalion size forces). So, the
Royal Canadian Dragoons, one of our armoured regiments, is a single armoured
battalion. The US, of course, does this stuff on a larger scale,
so you have multiple-battalion units like the "Armoured Cavalry
Regiments"
- which are basically pocket divisions (seriously reinforced brigade
size unit, IIRC). Speaking of which, are any of them still around?
********************************************
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/
From - Mon Dec 17 12:34:34 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.247.225])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA09648;
Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:39:40 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.6/8.11.4) with SMTP id
fB77cJb95193;
Thu, 6 Dec 2001 23:38:19 -0800 (PST)
(envelope-from owner-gzg-l)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 6 Dec
2001 23:38:16 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.6/8.11.4) id fB77cFS95169
for gzg-l-outgoing; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 23:38:15 -0800 (PST)
(envelope-from owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU)
Received: from tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts10.bellnexxia.net
[209.226.175.54])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id
fB77cDE95164
for <gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 23:38:13
-0800 (PST)
(envelope-from adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca)
Received: from J ([64.229.67.204]) by tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP
id <20011207073807.RBAE17034.tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net@J>
for <gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>;
Fri, 7 Dec 2001 02:38:07 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011207024003.008eb900@POP2.sympatico.ca>
X-Sender: b1mriy72@POP2.sympatico.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 02:40:03 -0500
To: gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
From: adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca
Subject: Re: Why we fight (there was an old B&W movie by that name IIRC)
In-Reply-To: <200112070116.fB71GBb87358@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00004e41
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3819
Lines: 73
Just FYI ('cause the points are very valid),
> On the other hand, if you have rational options, panic inducing
Actually, they fired him for two reasons. The first was that even though he
wasn't actually the person supervising the fueling, and the error was a
groundcrewman's mistake in converting gallons and litres, he is ultimately
responsible for everything that happens on the plane. He's the Captain...
The second was that he picked a *closed* runway to land on. When the plane ran
out of fuel, it was over (IIRC, Manitoba). The pilot had, in his early career,
been a fighter jock with the CAF based in the area, and remembered that very
close to his current position was his old fighter base. He glided the airliner
to a landing on one of the runways of the base. However, the base had long
been closed, and that runway was deactivated.
It was being used as a drag-strip, and the plane's landing gear was
quite seriously damaged as it crashed through stuff during the landing. The
reason he was fired was that in all cockpits, the pilots are required to
carry a book, the "AIP" - Aeronautical Information Publication. It is a
guide to every open and closed airfield in Canada, and has all pertinent
information. The book is regulary updated (like every few months), and if he
had actually *checked* his book, as called for in the emergency procedures, he
would have seen that the runway was closed, but there was an adjoining runway
that was not only still open, but still used as a civil airport.
So, he was fired for needlessly endangering the plane (well, more than it
was already endangered by the situation) by not checking his AIP - which
he certainly had time to do.
HOWEVER, having said all that, it was still a bloody ballsy thing to do
(pardon the emphasis) and he deserved a medal...
The public outcry at his firing was enough, IIRC, that the Pilots' Union got
him reinstated in short order. I remember all this in the news quite clearly.
I think it was in Sioux City that an aircraft actually made
> it to the ground, with no hydraulics and only the having the throttle
Actually, NASA took a big interest in that particular situation. The pilot
managed to use differential engine thrust to get himself and the plane all the
way to an airport, steer to the runway, land almost properly, but one of the
wings dipped and his control wasn't fine enough to get it up again before the
wingtip hit and the plane rolled. As you said, he saved more than half the
passengers and his flight crew, by *inventing a method of flying that was
never taught, discussed, or anything* because he had to do *something*.
This guy had great big brass ones... He *really* deserved a medal.
> --- adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> armoured battalion. The US, of course, does this
2nd ACR is a HMMWV-mounted version of that, to be
converted into an Interim Brigade (thank GOD they found something to convert
that abortion to) out of Ft. Polk.
3rd ACR is out of Ft. Carson.
11th ACR is the OPFOR unit at Ft. Irwin.
> --- Tomb <tomb@dreammechanics.com> wrote:
> 3) Do mobile (mechanized or armoured) infantry or
It depends. Cav Scout squads all fit in one vehicle because scout squads are
small. Bradley dismounts are theoretically organized into 2 squads of 9 each
plus a platoon HQ element. Obviously they have to play
mix-and-match.
This latter situation seems > less ideal (having
> half of a squad potentially far from another half)
Platoons don't really tend to disperse a great deal.
> 4) (USMC) Marines are "Marines", not "Soldiers".
before. Where> did this term originate? Is there a historical> antecedent? Is
it still> true (that Marines refer to Army this way)?
Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about what the
Marines think/say/do about us. The only usage of
"doggie" that I'm familliar with in regards to troops is the phrase "Line Dog"
or "Line Doggie." I've only heard it in the Engineers and Infantry, and it's
an expression of pride in being a Line Dog.
> 5) What is the common ratio of mechanics/motor pool
That depends on how reliable your vehicles are. Tanks
take a lot of lovin'--more mechanics than tanks.
M-113s can get by with less.
At> what level are such support services attached
> (Battalion or Brigade > level)?
(Non-Force XXI Answer, because Force XXI's solution
sucks ass) All of them. Batallion and up. If your attached mechanics in your
batallion can't fix it, then you call in "Third Shop" from your FSB (support
elements attached to your brigade) and if they can't fix it it goes higher.
Alternately, your CRT can be split off of the batallion HHC and attached to
company
HQ. I like that way better--more responsive and
better control over them from the company XO. Then batallion just coordinates
supply issues and maintinence management, plus hangs onto a few specialists
(the 1 generator repair guy, the welder and welding truck) that the unit
doesn't have multiples of.
Is vehicle recovery part of the same support > unit? Or is that a > separate
organizational unit?
We (Engineers) have them in batallion as part of the maintinence platoon.
> On 7-Dec-01 at 07:30, John Atkinson (johnmatkinson@yahoo.com) wrote:
> Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about what the
That kind of begs the question "Why do we have Marines?" I thought it was
because there were many shipboard security duties that sailors weren't
qualified to fill. They opted out of that in the late '80s. Now I don't see
any special skills required that regular army doesn't have.
Those security duties? Sailors with firearms. Scary thought.
> --- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
We have Marines because they once filled a useful
position in the Navy--sniping from the rigging and
boarding parties. We just kept them out of tradition.
> Roger Books wrote:
> That kind of begs the question "Why do we have Marines?"
As for sailors with Firearms: Back in my dad's day, that wasn't as scary a
concept. While at home port in San Diego, his ship, along with many others,
was the frequent target of SEAL practice "Raids". My dad's destroyer was proud
of their rep as a tight ship, and they often foiled the SEALS when
larger ships were regularly embarassed.
In response to the question about the marines: For one thing, Tradition. Any
Marine will point out that the Marine Corps was the first branch of the US
Military officially commissioned by Congress. They have a great tradition and
it would be sad to see it go.
For another thing, they definitely fill a niche. Granted, the Army has several
rapidly deployable units, but the entire USMC is supposed to be so. And the
MEU's and their Navy rides guarantee that there are several out there poised
to go beforehand.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In response to the question about the marines: For
Really?
Seeing as how the United States Army was established on June 14, 1775 and the
On November 10, 1775 Congress authorized raising a Corp of Marines I don't see
how you get this conclusion. Furthermore, the US Army had been de facto in
existence for some months prior to it's authorization, where the Marine Corps
did not begin recruiting until late 1775.
I stand corrected. It's a point I'd had made by a Marine friend, maybe he was
just referring to "Before the Navy."
Brian B2
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
Oh, Marines believe they are older than the Army. They're really not that
bright.