- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Green Beret Strangled in Mali - possible illicit cash scheme coverup
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:17 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:17 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Dude I fricking hated those guys. A bunch of shite bags who don’t give a frick and steal all your shite. Uncivilized motherfrickers
Lego-headed sumbitches.
This post was edited on 11/13/17 at 5:20 pm
2
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:18 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Dude I fricking hated those guys. A bunch of shut gas who don’t give a frick and steal all your shite. Uncivilized motherfrickers
Putin got yo back bruh
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:21 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Putin got yo back bruh
Yeah, he dirt rolled those S Ossetia baws
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:22 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Yeah, he dirt rolled those S Ossetia baws
Lol
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:22 pm to MrCarton
Slightly off topic, but if we want to have an efficiency and lethality conversation WRT the Army, destroying the BCT concept and going back to Division focused formations should be damn near at the top of the list.
If this is too far off topic I’ll save it for another day.
If this is too far off topic I’ll save it for another day.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:23 pm to Foch
quote:
Slightly off topic, but if we want to have an efficiency and lethality conversation WRT the Army, destroying the BCT concept and going back to Division focused formations should be damn near at the top of the list.
If this is too far off topic I’ll save it for another day.
I agree honestly. I think it's right on topic actually. Let's hear it.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:30 pm to MrCarton
quote:
I'm saying that SF has been advising units that could be advised by conventional forces. I WANT conventional forces doing these jobs. Not SF. Sfab is a great idea.
Okay. Well there is the disconnect. Not sure how long you’ve been out but SFAB is replacing what conventional forces have already been doing for awhile now. As of right now they aren’t replacing what SF does.
This post was edited on 11/13/17 at 5:33 pm
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:34 pm to 13SaintTiger
quote:
Okay. Well there is the disconnect. Not sure how long you’ve been out but SFAB is replacing what conventional forces have already been doing for awhile now.
I understand that part. They will also replace what SOF has been doing with SFA, where appropriate. If SFAB is successful, it will make all SFA ops more efficient for everyone involved. Milley did state this to members of the SOF community.
Glad we cleared that up.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:35 pm to MrCarton
Returning assets to a division commanders direct control is a flat out requirement for a big fight (the peer vs peer thing big army pays lip service in so many ways to being ready for). In terms of fires and Intel support, one leader must have true control over high demand low density assets that require careful planning so that effects can be massed.
A bn of 155mm under the direct control of an infantry/armor full bird doesn’t answer the mail. What is really needed is a USMC like organization that is built for division ops, but trains down to combat team expertise at smaller echelons (BN or REG for meu/meb). Just as Marines focus on the MEU/Infantry BN fight the Army would focus on the division fight. Both services would then have it in the mission essential tasks to be trained up for the brigade fight if they are needed for it.
To put it another way, why have an armored BCT? If we are going in heavy bring the division or a division(-) to play. All should be done to support a division commander (who is answer to corps if the fight gets big enough).
As far is the topic at hand goes, manpower management for security force advisor rotations would be much easier with a division pool verses various BCT pools.
A bn of 155mm under the direct control of an infantry/armor full bird doesn’t answer the mail. What is really needed is a USMC like organization that is built for division ops, but trains down to combat team expertise at smaller echelons (BN or REG for meu/meb). Just as Marines focus on the MEU/Infantry BN fight the Army would focus on the division fight. Both services would then have it in the mission essential tasks to be trained up for the brigade fight if they are needed for it.
To put it another way, why have an armored BCT? If we are going in heavy bring the division or a division(-) to play. All should be done to support a division commander (who is answer to corps if the fight gets big enough).
As far is the topic at hand goes, manpower management for security force advisor rotations would be much easier with a division pool verses various BCT pools.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:35 pm to Foch
quote:
Slightly off topic, but if we want to have an efficiency and lethality conversation WRT the Army, destroying the BCT concept and going back to Division focused formations should be damn near at the top of the list.
If this is too far off topic I’ll save it for another da
Would love to hear your reasoning but I agree.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:36 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Yeah, those dudes were all over Helmand before Leatherneck closed. I could tell hate stories about them for days.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:37 pm to MrCarton
quote:
They will also replace what SOF has been doing with SFA
When that day comes, I’ll have to buy you your choice of beer
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:37 pm to upgrayedd
quote:Im no expert on the Russo-Georgian war but from Ive read the Russians performed pretty poorly. In fact, I believe that’s what spurned Putin into investing so heavily in his military.
Yeah, he dirt rolled those S Ossetia baws
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:41 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Im no expert on the Russo-Georgian war but from Ive read the Russians performed pretty poorly. In fact, I believe that’s what spurned Putin into investing so heavily in his military.
I'm no expert either. I just remember what I saw on the news and it didn't look good. I'll yield to the experts on this one.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:42 pm to Foch
quote:Agree with just about everything you said. If we’re going to have a massive active duty Army, and I don’t think we should, then it should be structured and trained to fight a massive land war. Let the Marines and SOF(I still think we have too many of these units) handle the brush fires and low intensity conflicts that don’t require a frickton of troops.
Foch
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:43 pm to upgrayedd
quote:I mean they won because it was fricking Georgia but they took it on the chin for sure.
I'm no expert either. I just remember what I saw on the news and it didn't look good. I'll yield to the experts on this one.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:43 pm to Loserman
Loserman
With quotes like this you show how truly ignorant you are:
No sir, in organizational structure. If you take just a few minutes and do a Google search you will see they are Co-equal.
So you think the Army can successfully conduct amphibious operations? I mean they obvious did it during WWII without Marine Advisors....that’s right they did have Marines advising them then! What about modern Amphib Ops? I bet they have the corporate knowledge and equipment to do it.....oh yeah they don’t do they? Well I bet they would be real good at doing MEUs or having maritime propositioned squadrons....Needless to say everything you stated was so assine and laughable that you should be ashamed at how incredibly stupid you are.
With quotes like this you show how truly ignorant you are:
quote:
Only equal in a Jarheads mind.
No sir, in organizational structure. If you take just a few minutes and do a Google search you will see they are Co-equal.
quote:
The marines corps should be disbanded. It doesn't have a function that the Army doesn't already fill.
So you think the Army can successfully conduct amphibious operations? I mean they obvious did it during WWII without Marine Advisors....that’s right they did have Marines advising them then! What about modern Amphib Ops? I bet they have the corporate knowledge and equipment to do it.....oh yeah they don’t do they? Well I bet they would be real good at doing MEUs or having maritime propositioned squadrons....Needless to say everything you stated was so assine and laughable that you should be ashamed at how incredibly stupid you are.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 5:44 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
RUS still holds that territory, right?
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:05 pm to Foch
I agree with pretty much everything you said. Especially this:
quote:
In terms of fires and Intel support, one leader must have true control over high demand low density assets that require careful planning so that effects can be massed
Posted on 11/13/17 at 6:23 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
If we’re going to have a massive active duty Army, and I don’t think we should, then it should be structured and trained to fight a massive land war.
This is really the key point, an action which requires an Army commitment should merit no less than a division. If we are committing forces then in division sized elements let’s get the Army back to training and organizing like that.
It’s hilarious to me that an army division commander could get to the culminating point of an operation and need to mass assets but would be forced to call up his subordinate BCTs to ask if those assets are in position/capable of support. This isn’t the rule in all situations or amongst all of the army’s divisions, but it should never be the case.
The army exists to dominate peers (and lessers) on land. A BCT centric force won’t do that.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News