User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:38:18 PM EDT
[#1]
Damn you guys get all technical and shit. Sounds like a nerd convention in here.
You gotta dumb it down for a dumbass former Army engineer that has a curiosity about these things and answer two questions. Can this thing fuck up a carrier? Should I worry? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 12:07:20 AM EDT
[#2]
So the answer is we need more lasers?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 1:55:04 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if true the Russians do not have any ships that pose a threat and we have other means to take care of anything else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. Even if true the Russians do not have any ships that pose a threat and we have other means to take care of anything else. I'm pretty sure the Russian's game plan still revolves around cruise missle bukakke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 5:15:45 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
International code of conduct includes not shooting down passenger airliners, too, but that wasn't of stopping the komrads for mother Russki, did it. Did not stop the United States either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 6:19:53 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can this thing fuck up a carrier? Should I worry? Yes Yes, if somebody starts shooting them at you, especially since a competent enemy won't send them one at a time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 6:44:20 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rapidity of deployability, percentage METs met (DRRS helps hide this), mission sets combatant commanders will assign them to, ability of staffs above BN to operate etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In the pentagon, planner often actually did refer to the guard as the 2nd Land Army because although related to the AC; they are not 100 percent interchangeable In what ways are they not? Rapidity of deployability, percentage METs met (DRRS helps hide this), mission sets combatant commanders will assign them to, ability of staffs above BN to operate etc. I will counter this. 1. We can deploy as rapidly as the regular army. The regular army chooses a different time line, not out of necessity, but choice. 2. The MET % has shown zero correlation to combat capability. McNamara's tool lives on. 3. GCCs make that choice. 4. Relevant and true. If you want to do the thunderrun to Baghdad. After that, the BN staffs on the guard are much more flexible in operating in sub-optimal conditions with less than perfect AOR conditions. IE, less than doctrinal combat support and dealing with civilian laden battlefields. Guard forces are more flexible in their thinking. The biggest issue is flat out fitness. Guard is older. We pay for that at the pointy end. On the other hand, there are advantages to older soldiers in those low intensity conflicts that seem to dominate our post WW2 history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 7:29:58 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will counter this. 1. We can deploy as rapidly as the regular army. The regular army chooses a different time line, not out of necessity, but choice. 2. The MET % has shown zero correlation to combat capability. McNamara's tool lives on. 3. GCCs make that choice. 4. Relevant and true. If you want to do the thunderrun to Baghdad. After that, the BN staffs on the guard are much more flexible in operating in sub-optimal conditions with less than perfect AOR conditions. IE, less than doctrinal combat support and dealing with civilian laden battlefields. Guard forces are more flexible in their thinking. The biggest issue is flat out fitness. Guard is older. We pay for that at the pointy end. On the other hand, there are advantages to older soldiers in those low intensity conflicts that seem to dominate our post WW2 history. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In the pentagon, planner often actually did refer to the guard as the 2nd Land Army because although related to the AC; they are not 100 percent interchangeable In what ways are they not? Rapidity of deployability, percentage METs met (DRRS helps hide this), mission sets combatant commanders will assign them to, ability of staffs above BN to operate etc. I will counter this. 1. We can deploy as rapidly as the regular army. The regular army chooses a different time line, not out of necessity, but choice. 2. The MET % has shown zero correlation to combat capability. McNamara's tool lives on. 3. GCCs make that choice. 4. Relevant and true. If you want to do the thunderrun to Baghdad. After that, the BN staffs on the guard are much more flexible in operating in sub-optimal conditions with less than perfect AOR conditions. IE, less than doctrinal combat support and dealing with civilian laden battlefields. Guard forces are more flexible in their thinking. The biggest issue is flat out fitness. Guard is older. We pay for that at the pointy end. On the other hand, there are advantages to older soldiers in those low intensity conflicts that seem to dominate our post WW2 history. RC cannot deploy as fast as AC because you are already starting behind when you have to give several days from notification to muster; than an ILOC period for up 4 months to both conduct medical/dental readiness and training to be able to deploy GCC makes those choices because RC forces are somewhat less capable based on less training time, leadership etc |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 7:49:27 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
RC cannot deploy as fast as AC because you are already starting behind when you have to give several days from notification to muster; than an ILOC period for up 4 months to both conduct medical/dental readiness and training to be able to deploy GCC makes those choices because RC forces are somewhat less capable based on less training time, leadership etc guard has to be annually certified for deployability for medical and dental. same requirement as the active duty. The mandatory training requirements in AR 350-1 are mostly the same for active and guard. As any guardsman will tell you the mobilization training is mostly bullshit and a waste of time. again, these are all choices the regular army makes in deploying the guard. they are not required. and, right now, there is more combat experience in the guard at the battalion level and below than in the active army. GCC makes those choices because they are all active and it speaks to talking points. Guard has its weaknesses. So does active. If you want a battalion where your company grades and junior sergeants have combat patches, you want a guard battalion now. And for actual CONPLANs the long pole in the tent is the TPFFD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 8:24:07 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the answer is we need more lasers? Eventually, but not today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 8:30:12 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
guard has to be annually certified for deployability for medical and dental. same requirement as the active duty. The mandatory training requirements in AR 350-1 are mostly the same for active and guard. As any guardsman will tell you the mobilization training is mostly bullshit and a waste of time. again, these are all choices the regular army makes in deploying the guard. they are not required. and, right now, there is more combat experience in the guard at the battalion level and below than in the active army. GCC makes those choices because they are all active and it speaks to talking points. Guard has its weaknesses. So does active. If you want a battalion where your company grades and junior sergeants have combat patches, you want a guard battalion now. And for actual CONPLANs the long pole in the tent is the TPFFD. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
RC cannot deploy as fast as AC because you are already starting behind when you have to give several days from notification to muster; than an ILOC period for up 4 months to both conduct medical/dental readiness and training to be able to deploy GCC makes those choices because RC forces are somewhat less capable based on less training time, leadership etc guard has to be annually certified for deployability for medical and dental. same requirement as the active duty. The mandatory training requirements in AR 350-1 are mostly the same for active and guard. As any guardsman will tell you the mobilization training is mostly bullshit and a waste of time. again, these are all choices the regular army makes in deploying the guard. they are not required. and, right now, there is more combat experience in the guard at the battalion level and below than in the active army. GCC makes those choices because they are all active and it speaks to talking points. Guard has its weaknesses. So does active. If you want a battalion where your company grades and junior sergeants have combat patches, you want a guard battalion now. And for actual CONPLANs the long pole in the tent is the TPFFD. RC has the same requirements as AC; what I have seen On numerous tours in support of RC is you can do as many counseling as you want but until you bring them on over 30 day orders the medical dental non-deployability problems will always exist The MOS proficiency even at the company level is only about 75-80 of the AC |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 8:50:14 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
RC has the same requirements as AC; what I have seen On numerous tours in support of RC is you can do as many counseling as you want but until you bring them on over 30 day orders the medical dental non-deployability problems will always exist The MOS proficiency even at the company level is only about 75-80 of the AC Oh, you will have the shitbags. Is the % that different between active and guard? I'll give you that on MOS proficiency in some MOSs. The question is, is it good enough for the actual mission? what is the critical MOS deficiency that isn't going to be fixed one week in country? There are paper quals and there is combat ability. I'll take a combat vet over a slick sleeve for most units except for regiment. And all of that for 20 cents on the dollar in manpower costs. At least the active duty used to be forward deployed. That had a real value. But making the tattoo parlors, car dealers and strip clubs rich in kaleen, el paso and fayetteville might not serve the same policy interests as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:05:33 AM EDT
[#12]
In contrast to the SS-N-22, here is a video from the recent SINKEX of the former USS Ogden. First missile to hit is a Harpoon fired from a SKor submarine followed by the NSM, fired from a Nowegian frigate. NSM is one of the missiles under consideration for fielding on LCS. Worth noting KE=1/2mv^2, so when you pump the V from 0.8 mach Harpoon) to 2.2 mach (Sunburn) missile KE goes up significantly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:24:07 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
GCC makes those choices because RC forces are somewhat less capable based on less training time, leadership etc Quote HistoryQuoted:
GCC makes those choices because RC forces are somewhat less capable based on less training time, leadership etc AC apparently less likely to mutiny too. On Feb. 5, 1991, something strange happened in central Texas. Louisiana’s 256th Infantry Brigade was at Fort Hood—training for an upcoming deployment in Saudi Arabia—when 67 guardsmen went AWOL.
They were on leave, visiting their families in Louisiana. They did not return to service when their leave ended. In other words?—?mutiny. And it wasn’t the last time Link |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:31:44 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
GCC makes those choices because RC forces are somewhat less capable based on less training time, leadership etc AC apparently less likely to mutiny too. On Feb. 5, 1991, something strange happened in central Texas. Louisiana’s 256th Infantry Brigade was at Fort Hood—training for an upcoming deployment in Saudi Arabia—when 67 guardsmen went AWOL.
They were on leave, visiting their families in Louisiana. They did not return to service when their leave ended. In other words?—?mutiny. And it wasn’t the last time Link So much for the professionalism of the so-called citizen soldier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:37:47 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
GCC makes those choices because RC forces are somewhat less capable based on less training time, leadership etc AC apparently less likely to mutiny too. On Feb. 5, 1991, something strange happened in central Texas. Louisiana’s 256th Infantry Brigade was at Fort Hood—training for an upcoming deployment in Saudi Arabia—when 67 guardsmen went AWOL.
They were on leave, visiting their families in Louisiana. They did not return to service when their leave ended. In other words?—?mutiny. And it wasn’t the last time Link To be fair; the RC of today is different RC of 1991 and 2004 RC are probably much better at some missions in the ROMO (advising being one of them) than AC but require time to brought up to speed on some core missions and METS |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:48:58 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
GCC makes those choices because RC forces are somewhat less capable based on less training time, leadership etc AC apparently less likely to mutiny too. On Feb. 5, 1991, something strange happened in central Texas. Louisiana’s 256th Infantry Brigade was at Fort Hood—training for an upcoming deployment in Saudi Arabia—when 67 guardsmen went AWOL.
They were on leave, visiting their families in Louisiana. They did not return to service when their leave ended. In other words?—?mutiny. And it wasn’t the last time Link they should have gotten pregnant. then they would have been heroes. shit. AF doesn't fly that many missions a month for various reasons. Is that dereliction of duty? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:55:37 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So much for the professionalism of the so-called citizen soldier. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
GCC makes those choices because RC forces are somewhat less capable based on less training time, leadership etc AC apparently less likely to mutiny too. On Feb. 5, 1991, something strange happened in central Texas. Louisiana’s 256th Infantry Brigade was at Fort Hood—training for an upcoming deployment in Saudi Arabia—when 67 guardsmen went AWOL.
They were on leave, visiting their families in Louisiana. They did not return to service when their leave ended. In other words?—?mutiny. And it wasn’t the last time Link So much for the professionalism of the so-called citizen soldier. Would you suggest that no RC Soldier is competent based on these two events? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:16:31 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would you suggest that no RC Soldier is competent based on these two events? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
GCC makes those choices because RC forces are somewhat less capable based on less training time, leadership etc AC apparently less likely to mutiny too. On Feb. 5, 1991, something strange happened in central Texas. Louisiana’s 256th Infantry Brigade was at Fort Hood—training for an upcoming deployment in Saudi Arabia—when 67 guardsmen went AWOL.
They were on leave, visiting their families in Louisiana. They did not return to service when their leave ended. In other words?—?mutiny. And it wasn’t the last time Link So much for the professionalism of the so-called citizen soldier. Would you suggest that no RC Soldier is competent based on these two events? It not real a matter competency; it more of availability and levels of proficiency The large part of the calculus is that with the casualty adverse military; based on the risk do we send forces that are acknowledged to need addition time to build proficiency and take the risk or given then time to train and or task them with less risky missions |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:21:59 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In contrast to the SS-N-22, here is a video from the recent SINKEX of the former USS Ogden. First missile to hit is a Harpoon fired from a SKor submarine followed by the NSM, fired from a Nowegian frigate. NSM is one of the missiles under consideration for fielding on LCS. Worth noting KE=1/2mv^2, so when you pump the V from 0.8 mach Harpoon) to 2.2 mach (Sunburn) missile KE goes up significantly.  http://youtu.be/AaSPvWiqgeM
Seriously though, thanks for getting the thread back on track of CM shots on ships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:22:15 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would you suggest that no RC Soldier is competent based on these two events? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
GCC makes those choices because RC forces are somewhat less capable based on less training time, leadership etc AC apparently less likely to mutiny too. On Feb. 5, 1991, something strange happened in central Texas. Louisiana’s 256th Infantry Brigade was at Fort Hood—training for an upcoming deployment in Saudi Arabia—when 67 guardsmen went AWOL.
They were on leave, visiting their families in Louisiana. They did not return to service when their leave ended. In other words?—?mutiny. And it wasn’t the last time Link So much for the professionalism of the so-called citizen soldier. Would you suggest that no RC Soldier is competent based on these two events? Competent is only a part of professionalism. Another part of being a professional is living up to your commitments and being where you should when you should. Sixty-seven people going absent without leave at the same time is suggestive of a force that lacks such professionalism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:59:57 AM EDT
[#21]
So they were court martialed two days later.
The MFIC for the hootenany did over 10 years in leavenworth. I think thats longer than anyone involved in the Kitty Hawk riots. The roundout brigade concept failed. Its one of the debates going on now with tiered readiness. that brigade had 113s and m60s. So before they could deploy they needed NET on bradleys and M1s and then role into an NTC rotation. And the leadership was being fuck sticks regardless 48 hours later, out of a brigade of a few thousand, the 50 dudes came back and took their punishment. Which was bad paper discharge. I am sure had they not been discharged, someone would complain about that. It was an embarrasment to the guard and started a lot of changes on a number of levels. But how many active duty guys ditch before their deployment? You always lose a few. Refusing to do a mission because its too dangerous? Oh yeah, thats new. At least to ground units. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 11:11:23 AM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 11:19:47 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This thread is about ASCM and ASCM defense. Here is a thread for Sylvan and R0N to debate AC vs RC. I thought it was about desertion 24 years ago. I mean, you were the one who brought it up. But, as this is a naval thread, can we talk about naval officers being relieved in the past 2 years? I mean, the numbers are higher and its much more recent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 11:20:49 AM EDT
[#24]
I would rather talk about LtCmd Destiny Savage
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 11:22:02 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought it was about desertion 24 years ago. I mean, you were the one who brought it up. But, as this is a naval thread, can we talk about naval officers being relieved in the past 2 years? I mean, the numbers are higher and its much more recent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This thread is about ASCM and ASCM defense. Here is a thread for Sylvan and R0N to debate AC vs RC. I thought it was about desertion 24 years ago. I mean, you were the one who brought it up. But, as this is a naval thread, can we talk about naval officers being relieved in the past 2 years? I mean, the numbers are higher and its much more recent. Thank you for demonstrating the incompetence of the U.S. Navy I spoke of earlier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 11:28:09 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would rather talk about LtCmd Destiny Savage THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT PICS! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 11:29:24 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But, as this is a naval thread, can we talk about naval officers being relieved in the past 2 years? I mean, the numbers are higher and its much more recent. Absolutely the numbers are higher. I'm all for firing folks who shouldn't hold those positions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 11:37:15 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Absolutely the numbers are higher. I'm all for firing folks who shouldn't hold those positions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But, as this is a naval thread, can we talk about naval officers being relieved in the past 2 years? I mean, the numbers are higher and its much more recent. Absolutely the numbers are higher. I'm all for firing folks who shouldn't hold those positions. How do they get there? (I know the Navy's leadership is asking the same question and putting money to researching the problem) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 11:52:55 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do they get there? (I know the Navy's leadership is asking the same question and putting money to researching the problem) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But, as this is a naval thread, can we talk about naval officers being relieved in the past 2 years? I mean, the numbers are higher and its much more recent. Absolutely the numbers are higher. I'm all for firing folks who shouldn't hold those positions. How do they get there? (I know the Navy's leadership is asking the same question and putting money to researching the problem) This hypothesis presupposes the other branches have better screening processes. I am not convinced one branch is significantly more incompetent than the other three. I think it is more likely the U.S. Navy does not do as good of a job hiding its leadership failures as the other branches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 1:22:44 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Although, I doubt you have actually read what you claim, I will address your question. Snip... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So my iphone correction aside. And I do enjoy your tactic of deflection. How about you discuss the two gentlemen. There differences in strategy and their importance to this thread. Let me guess. You won't. Why. Because what you can learn on Wikipedia won't suffice. Every world leading power thinks strategically. Only the US gets screwed with for doing it. I love these threads. Ead. Cheers. Although, I doubt you have actually read what you claim, I will address your question. Snip... Ha. In more than one way I think you missed the boat. Pun intended. Ead. Cheers |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 6:50:26 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ha. In more than one way I think you missed the boat. Pun intended. Ead. Cheers No response. No informed discussion. No critique. That is typical of what I have come to expect from this forum. Those with tanks in their avatars are considered subject matter experts and do not have to prove anything. In reality, they are only slightly better informed than anyone else and when challenged fall back on their tank as an intellectual crutch. This makes me sad. I should have expected it. The military breeds automatons. The exceptions are rare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 8:29:55 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do they get there? (I know the Navy's leadership is asking the same question and putting money to researching the problem) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But, as this is a naval thread, can we talk about naval officers being relieved in the past 2 years? I mean, the numbers are higher and its much more recent. Absolutely the numbers are higher. I'm all for firing folks who shouldn't hold those positions. How do they get there? (I know the Navy's leadership is asking the same question and putting money to researching the problem) How did Casey and Sanchez get there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 8:37:51 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No response. No informed discussion. No critique. That is typical of what I have come to expect from this forum. Those with tanks in their avatars are considered subject matter experts and do not have to prove anything. In reality, they are only slightly better informed than anyone else and when challenged fall back on their tank as an intellectual crutch. This makes me sad. I should have expected it. The military breeds automatons. The exceptions are rare. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ha. In more than one way I think you missed the boat. Pun intended. Ead. Cheers No response. No informed discussion. No critique. That is typical of what I have come to expect from this forum. Those with tanks in their avatars are considered subject matter experts and do not have to prove anything. In reality, they are only slightly better informed than anyone else and when challenged fall back on their tank as an intellectual crutch. This makes me sad. I should have expected it. The military breeds automatons. The exceptions are rare. The problem is you have shown such fallacious reason, poor and or lack of critical thinking, inconstancies and inability to just accept when you are wrong that it is not really worth anyone's' time to continue to point out your errors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 8:49:38 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How did Casey and Sanchez get there? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But, as this is a naval thread, can we talk about naval officers being relieved in the past 2 years? I mean, the numbers are higher and its much more recent. Absolutely the numbers are higher. I'm all for firing folks who shouldn't hold those positions. How do they get there? (I know the Navy's leadership is asking the same question and putting money to researching the problem) How did Casey and Sanchez get there? Different failures. Ward is a better question, but even there it wasn't chronic asshole ism or infidenlty that did them in. and the army isn't asking those questions. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 8:55:41 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it ok to just litter a lake or ocean like that? It doesn't bother me it happened just wondered if they plan on a clean up after the mess. I guess like cigarettes litter is still ok in Russia. Click
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 9:16:23 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No response. No informed discussion. No critique. That is typical of what I have come to expect from this forum. Those with tanks in their avatars are considered subject matter experts and do not have to prove anything. In reality, they are only slightly better informed than anyone else and when challenged fall back on their tank as an intellectual crutch. This makes me sad. I should have expected it. The military breeds automatons. The exceptions are rare. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ha. In more than one way I think you missed the boat. Pun intended. Ead. Cheers No response. No informed discussion. No critique. That is typical of what I have come to expect from this forum. Those with tanks in their avatars are considered subject matter experts and do not have to prove anything. In reality, they are only slightly better informed than anyone else and when challenged fall back on their tank as an intellectual crutch. This makes me sad. I should have expected it. The military breeds automatons. The exceptions are rare. You get no response from me because your talk of coaling stations (although to a degree operationally and tactically correct for the time period written) misses the mark on one of the naval grand strategists mentioned. Your fundamental lack of understanding of national security strategy and congressional programs is also telling. It is neither my job or desire to educate you. So throw your stones, you still are missing the mark. Cheers |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 9:17:09 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is you have shown such fallacious reason, poor and or lack of critical thinking, inconstancies and inability to just accept when you are wrong that it is not really worth anyone's' time to continue to point out your errors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ha. In more than one way I think you missed the boat. Pun intended. Ead. Cheers No response. No informed discussion. No critique. That is typical of what I have come to expect from this forum. Those with tanks in their avatars are considered subject matter experts and do not have to prove anything. In reality, they are only slightly better informed than anyone else and when challenged fall back on their tank as an intellectual crutch. This makes me sad. I should have expected it. The military breeds automatons. The exceptions are rare. The problem is you have shown such fallacious reason, poor and or lack of critical thinking, inconstancies and inability to just accept when you are wrong that it is not really worth anyone's' time to continue to point out your errors. Again I should have kept reading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 9:49:08 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is you have shown such fallacious reason, poor and or lack of critical thinking, inconstancies and inability to just accept when you are wrong that it is not really worth anyone's' time to continue to point out your errors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ha. In more than one way I think you missed the boat. Pun intended. Ead. Cheers No response. No informed discussion. No critique. That is typical of what I have come to expect from this forum. Those with tanks in their avatars are considered subject matter experts and do not have to prove anything. In reality, they are only slightly better informed than anyone else and when challenged fall back on their tank as an intellectual crutch. This makes me sad. I should have expected it. The military breeds automatons. The exceptions are rare. The problem is you have shown such fallacious reason, poor and or lack of critical thinking, inconstancies and inability to just accept when you are wrong that it is not really worth anyone's' time to continue to point out your errors. That is incorrect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 9:50:54 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You get no response from me because your talk of coaling stations (although to a degree operationally and tactically correct for the time period written) misses the mark on one of the naval grand strategists mentioned. Your fundamental lack of understanding of national security strategy and congressional programs is also telling. It is neither my job or desire to educate you. So throw your stones, you still are missing the mark. Cheers You say it misses the mark, yet you offer no rebuttal. You wanted to discuss Mahan. I discussed Mahan. You went silent. I also indirectly discussed Mahan, while discussing Corbett. I can correctly spell "Mahan." You remain silent. In other words, you are out of your depth and you do not wish to expose your ignorance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 10:06:40 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So much for the professionalism of the so-called citizen soldier. So that explains why at the height of Iraq, USN IAs ashore were about 80% of the total force? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 10:08:12 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Absolutely the numbers are higher. I'm all for firing folks who shouldn't hold those positions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But, as this is a naval thread, can we talk about naval officers being relieved in the past 2 years? I mean, the numbers are higher and its much more recent. Absolutely the numbers are higher. I'm all for firing folks who shouldn't hold those positions. Does that extend to GS civilians? Because it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 10:13:03 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is incorrect. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ha. In more than one way I think you missed the boat. Pun intended. Ead. Cheers No response. No informed discussion. No critique. That is typical of what I have come to expect from this forum. Those with tanks in their avatars are considered subject matter experts and do not have to prove anything. In reality, they are only slightly better informed than anyone else and when challenged fall back on their tank as an intellectual crutch. This makes me sad. I should have expected it. The military breeds automatons. The exceptions are rare. The problem is you have shown such fallacious reason, poor and or lack of critical thinking, inconstancies and inability to just accept when you are wrong that it is not really worth anyone's' time to continue to point out your errors. That is incorrect. See what I said about inability to accept when you are just wrong |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 10:13:55 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does that extend to GS civilians? Because it doesn't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But, as this is a naval thread, can we talk about naval officers being relieved in the past 2 years? I mean, the numbers are higher and its much more recent. Absolutely the numbers are higher. I'm all for firing folks who shouldn't hold those positions. Does that extend to GS civilians? Because it doesn't. Only thing harder to get rid of then redundant reservists is a GS, especially a GS from a protected class. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 10:38:49 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only thing harder to get rid of then redundant reservists is a GS, especially a GS from a protected class. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But, as this is a naval thread, can we talk about naval officers being relieved in the past 2 years? I mean, the numbers are higher and its much more recent. Absolutely the numbers are higher. I'm all for firing folks who shouldn't hold those positions. Does that extend to GS civilians? Because it doesn't. Only thing harder to get rid of then redundant reservists is a GS, especially a GS from a protected class. When I got to HQMC and got my class on being an evaluator for GS employees; the first thing I was told was if you want to get rid of someone start the package now for your replacement in three years to execute |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 10:44:54 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I got to HQMC and got my class on being an evaluator for GS employees; the first thing I was told was if you want to get rid of someone start the package now for your replacement in three years to execute Then again, the terminal O4/O5 isn't easy to can either. At least the terminal O4 disappears at 20 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 10:47:44 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only thing harder to get rid of then redundant reservists is a GS, especially a GS from a protected class. If by "harder" you mean, "next to impossible" I'd agree. Of course, the comparative power of a GS vs. a Reservist is another matter. Redundant reservists? Look at Reserve selection rates outside of URL (interesting in itself, considering we're steadily becoming a reserve with no operational units.) Gotta pay for those F-35s! We've decom'd half of the Reserve 'Bee units. One of the most heavily tasked Reserve communities. Thanks, Regular Navy! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 10:48:19 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then again, the terminal O4/O5 isn't easy to can either. At least the terminal O4 disappears at 20 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When I got to HQMC and got my class on being an evaluator for GS employees; the first thing I was told was if you want to get rid of someone start the package now for your replacement in three years to execute Then again, the terminal O4/O5 isn't easy to can either. At least the terminal O4 disappears at 20 We have been SERBing out our O5s at a pretty good rate, O6s not so much Too bad most of those SERBd were arty officers; it is a dieing field in the Marines |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 10:49:04 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then again, the terminal O4/O5 isn't easy to can either. At least the terminal O4 disappears at 20 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When I got to HQMC and got my class on being an evaluator for GS employees; the first thing I was told was if you want to get rid of someone start the package now for your replacement in three years to execute Then again, the terminal O4/O5 isn't easy to can either. At least the terminal O4 disappears at 20 Currently O5s are getting reviewed for continuation every two years. So one bad OER and NLT than 2 years he should be walking. O4s are getting the book at 16 years in the Army. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 10:49:25 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have been SERBing out our O5s at a pretty good rate, O6s not so much Too bad most of those SERBd were arty officers; it is a dieing field in the Marines Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When I got to HQMC and got my class on being an evaluator for GS employees; the first thing I was told was if you want to get rid of someone start the package now for your replacement in three years to execute Then again, the terminal O4/O5 isn't easy to can either. At least the terminal O4 disappears at 20 We have been SERBing out our O5s at a pretty good rate, O6s not so much Too bad most of those SERBd were arty officers; it is a dieing field in the Marines Who needs arty? You have F35s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 1:29:34 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is incorrect. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ha. In more than one way I think you missed the boat. Pun intended. Ead. Cheers No response. No informed discussion. No critique. That is typical of what I have come to expect from this forum. Those with tanks in their avatars are considered subject matter experts and do not have to prove anything. In reality, they are only slightly better informed than anyone else and when challenged fall back on their tank as an intellectual crutch. This makes me sad. I should have expected it. The military breeds automatons. The exceptions are rare. The problem is you have shown such fallacious reason, poor and or lack of critical thinking, inconstancies and inability to just accept when you are wrong that it is not really worth anyone's' time to continue to point out your errors. That is incorrect. Please be of posting pictures of hot Russian women. KTNXBAI |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
