|
|
|
|
|
#1
08-26-2011, 02:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Looks good to me...well done...anything at Camp David and / or the US Naval Academy?
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom 
|
|
#2
08-27-2011, 12:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Outstanding! Ill be chewing on this for quite some time! Great job!
Heres some feedback you were asking for. First, I notice youve placed additional battalions in with the MEBs, which is cool, but if theres already a MEF level established above the MEB, then the MEB command staff isnt quite as necessary, unless the MEB is going to work independently and alone. It might be easier for the MEF level to call the MEBs "Task Forces" in that case. Second, I see youve reactivated a fourth Rifle Company and established a fifth in the Infantry Battalions (in some cases, still reading and digesting both). Marine Regiments letter their Rifle Companies all the way through the battalions; 1st Battalion Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta Companies 2nd Battalion Echo, Fox, Golf, Hotel Companies 3rd Battalion India, Juliett, Kilo, Lima Companies Adding a fifth Rifle Company would move all the letters down, making 3rd Battalion have a Kilo, Lima, Mike, November, and Oscar Company. No big deal though. this one is kind of a headache and Ive screwed it up too. Third, the Combined Battalion is an awesome idea, but M113s and M1A2s seems..................................out of place for US Marines. LAV-25s, AAV7s and M1A1s.....or even better M60A3 fit in better with what we usually had to work with. Im thinking mostly parts and logistic support instead of practicality, which is usually the route a lot of our officers went. And fourth, I have to disagree with my colleague that Dragon works with, forming Special Operations units in the Corps was something I thought needed to happen for quite some time. We did a lot of the MEU/SOC stuff, but when you asked officers farther up the chain on both sides, it sounded like the Corps didnt want to play nice with USSOCOM. Its turned around now, but you turning it earlier makes me smile. And I like the use of Edson's and Carlson's Raiders. 
|
|
#3
08-27-2011, 12:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I asked the jarhead in my office about calling such formations "Raiders", as I understand this the Marines never really wanted to form Raider Battalions in WWII to begin with, it was pressure from FDR (one of his sons was with the 2nd Raider Battalion) that led to the creation. The Marine viewpoint is that every Marine is qualified to perform any combat mission and there was no need to waste resources on Raiders or Paramarines.
As 1944 rolled in, FDRs son was transferred back to the states and within a couple of months, the Raider Battalions were deactivated and the personnel transferred into the 4th Marine Division. Of intrest is that ever since, the USMC has opposed the formation of Raider Battalions. So where do the Force Recon Companies come from? As the Navy moved away from the UDT teams in favor of SEALs, the Marines still maintained a need for a dedicated reconnaissance element for amphibious warfare, hence the development of the Force Recon to fulfill the role.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#5
08-27-2011, 04:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Raider Battalions were not need after 1943. you dont need to recon a island with people when you fly over and bomb it every day. raids were now being done by regular rifle companys...war makes you better. also it was not that we did not want to play nice with USJSOC...they did not want to pay for us and the navy said we were a redundant unit with there seals. now the war on terror shows all can play and they needed more units then they had.. the army asked for us by name was there when it was forming...
|
|
#6
08-27-2011, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hay Canadian, is the Navy/Marine Corps amphibious forces list as for 1996 as well?
|
|
#7
08-27-2011, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
08-27-2011, 11:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
You had a Delta it was just the combat reserve. Same with 2/9..Juliett was banned in 1928 or so when companys went from numbers to names. no company wanted a woman name. thats what I got from the USMC historical division when stationed in the nations capital. we named a attached company Mike in 2009 when we went to IRAQ. it was a mixed reserve company...asked HQ USMC and they gave us the go ahead. it was a big hit with the vietnam guys..... after Vietnam. they canceled the 4th line company and added a weapons company to each battalion. most of the weapons were in other places...IE regimental TOW's and Mortar platoons and Battalion H&S companys for medium AT weapons.
|
|
#9
08-29-2011, 12:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As I understand it, the US Army and Marines don't use a J Company (and neither did the British), since it's too easy to mix up I and J when written by hand. And when a battle could turn on an order scribbled in pencil on a sweat-stained message order, it seemed like a good idea.
__________________
My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.
|
|
#10
08-28-2011, 07:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
