Navy being pulled for training in the Army..?

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
maybe it's for Navy people based on ground?

Navy people on the ground?
😕

I spent the majority of my 4 years in the Navy on the beach. It is not all that uncommon, when I was in they tried to rotate duty stations between shore duty and sea duty.

but you were not in armed military roles supporting army troops were you?

all sailors are in a sea duty/shore duty rotation..

shore duty means you are in the rear with no chance to go to combat.. its downtime from deployments and other war duties.. it has nothing to do with what is being said here.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
I wouldn't be too concerned. It's internal restructuring without making the large, sweeping changes that will probably eventually come, anyway.

It just means that a traditional navy is less relevant in the current war and current world.

lol you sir are totally clueless....

you do realize over half the ordiance dropped the first 2 days of the war came from Navy aircraft from 3 carriers...
and over 3/4 of the munitions used in Desert Storm were Navy Aircraft..

the navy was there LONG before any ground troops or AF jerks ever entered the theater..

were were making patrols in the Persian Gulf years before desert storm even happened..

we are ALWAYS the first units to arrive to any crisis...

Navy is in no danger of being retructured to anything..

Yep, they sure bombed Iraq into submission. That's why they're the most relevant and the whole of the military is back in the US drinking beers...

what are you just an ignorant redneck bush hater? or just ignorant.. you choose...

we kicked the crap outa the military in a few weeks... what we are fighting now is insurgents from all over the muslim world not just iraqis...
your such an ignorant tool have you ever served your country? I dont think you have.. you come off as a pacifist arm chair politician who knows absolute didly about the real world..

What fraction of the Navy was needed for that initial fight and for how long?

Now, what fraction of the military's land forces have been used taking on the insurgency and for how long?

Based on that, which portion could use some more help?

As for me, nope...never served my country once...Not even for a minute...I'm especially not doing it right now...

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
I wouldn't be too concerned. It's internal restructuring without making the large, sweeping changes that will probably eventually come, anyway.

It just means that a traditional navy is less relevant in the current war and current world.

lol you sir are totally clueless....

you do realize over half the ordiance dropped the first 2 days of the war came from Navy aircraft from 3 carriers...
and over 3/4 of the munitions used in Desert Storm were Navy Aircraft..

the navy was there LONG before any ground troops or AF jerks ever entered the theater..

were were making patrols in the Persian Gulf years before desert storm even happened..

we are ALWAYS the first units to arrive to any crisis...

Navy is in no danger of being retructured to anything..

Yep, they sure bombed Iraq into submission. That's why they're the most relevant and the whole of the military is back in the US drinking beers...

what are you just an ignorant redneck bush hater? or just ignorant.. you choose...

we kicked the crap outa the military in a few weeks... what we are fighting now is insurgents from all over the muslim world not just iraqis...
your such an ignorant tool have you ever served your country? I dont think you have.. you come off as a pacifist arm chair politician who knows absolute didly about the real world..

What fraction of the Navy was needed for that initial fight and for how long?

Now, what fraction of the military's land forces have been used taking on the insurgency and for how long?

Based on that, which portion could use some more help?

As for me, nope...never served my country once...Not even for a minute...I'm especially not doing it right now...

Um do you not realize there are 3 entire carrier battle groups deployed to the Persian gulf area at all times these last 3 years...

thats alot of Navy personell on station at all times...
and when we are not there we are on turnaround getting ready to go back...

it takes 9+ months of working up a carrier and her airwing to go back on cruise..

thats constant training and work there is no time to play around...

Carrier battle groups include MANY ships and support units we are talking about alot of people and assests...
just casue you dont see us on the news doesnt mean the Navy isnt there and helping..

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
maybe it's for Navy people based on ground?

Navy people on the ground?
😕

I spent the majority of my 4 years in the Navy on the beach. It is not all that uncommon, when I was in they tried to rotate duty stations between shore duty and sea duty.

but you were not in armed military roles supporting army troops were you?

all sailors are in a sea duty/shore duty rotation..

shore duty means you are in the rear with no chance to go to combat.. its downtime from deployments and other war duties.. it has nothing to do with what is being said here.

No when I was in it was a totally different Navy than it is today but the times and needs were different as well. All I see here is an efficient use of military resources, after all the purpose of all branches of the military is to defend and protect the US. From what I read in that one article they are volunteers for the duty and no one is complaining so I really don't quite understand why you think it is so shocking. No where did it imply that this was some type of emergency stop gap measure due to the Armys lack of capability.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
maybe it's for Navy people based on ground?

Navy people on the ground?
😕

I spent the majority of my 4 years in the Navy on the beach. It is not all that uncommon, when I was in they tried to rotate duty stations between shore duty and sea duty.

but you were not in armed military roles supporting army troops were you?

all sailors are in a sea duty/shore duty rotation..

shore duty means you are in the rear with no chance to go to combat.. its downtime from deployments and other war duties.. it has nothing to do with what is being said here.

No when I was in it was a totally different Navy than it is today but the times and needs were different as well. All I see here is an efficient use of military resources, after all the purpose of all branches of the military is to defend and protect the US. From what I read in that one article they are volunteers for the duty and no one is complaining so I really don't quite understand why you think it is so shocking. No where did it imply that this was some type of emergency stop gap measure due to the Armys lack of capability.

Thats exactly what was implied... and the news here spun it that way...
they said entire batches of new recruiting classes were being sent to combat training to augement the army in Iraq..

and said that up to 10-20k navy squids would be sent in as soldiers to provide this role.. that is shocking...

My whole family is a Navy family as far back as before WW2..my great grand father, my grand father my uncles my father etc.. all have served... and nothing like this has ever been done before...

thats why this is shocking... of course most of the media isnt going to tell you our troop reserves are low and we are really beginning to show how thin we are.. but ask the troops... ask those 5 generals that just stood up and asked for rumsfelds head on a platter..

the writing is on the wall man..

 

[b0mbrman]

It depends how you define "helping"

On the ground, I've only seen one Navy sailor and he was a cameraman (don't get me wrong, he's a real nice guy). Meanwhile, our combat soldiers spend four days at a time out and about hunting bad guys on the streets of Iraq.

Now, knowing that all those ships are out there is certainly a good confidence booster...but having someone (anyone!) take up some of the less-intense duties (guard towers, ID checker at the gates, detainee guards, VIP escort, etc.) to free up more combat soldiers to turn those four-day rotations into two or three-day rotations would also be nice.

 

[ValkyrieofHouston]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
maybe it's for Navy people based on ground?

Navy people on the ground?
😕

I spent the majority of my 4 years in the Navy on the beach. It is not all that uncommon, when I was in they tried to rotate duty stations between shore duty and sea duty.

but you were not in armed military roles supporting army troops were you?

all sailors are in a sea duty/shore duty rotation..

shore duty means you are in the rear with no chance to go to combat.. its downtime from deployments and other war duties.. it has nothing to do with what is being said here.

No when I was in it was a totally different Navy than it is today but the times and needs were different as well. All I see here is an efficient use of military resources, after all the purpose of all branches of the military is to defend and protect the US. From what I read in that one article they are volunteers for the duty and no one is complaining so I really don't quite understand why you think it is so shocking. No where did it imply that this was some type of emergency stop gap measure due to the Armys lack of capability.

Thats exactly what was implied... and the news here spun it that way...
they said entire batches of new recruiting classes were being sent to combat training to augement the army in Iraq..

and said that up to 10-20k navy squids would be sent in as soldiers to provide this role.. that is shocking...

My whole family is a Navy family as far back as before WW2..my great grand father, my grand father my uncles my father etc.. all have served... and nothing like this has ever been done before...

thats why this is shocking... of course most of the media isnt going to tell you our troop reserves are low and we are really beginning to show how thin we are.. but ask the troops... ask those 5 generals that just stood up and asked for rumsfelds head on a platter..

the writing is on the wall man..

You know honestly, this does wave red flags to me.... all these generals retiring out of frustration...then voicing their frustration to the public which is almost never ever done, and asking for Rumsfeld to step down.. all the shuffling of military and people in power, like playing a darn chess game. It is disconcerting.

Then watching the news last night and hearing about this... it does lead one to wonder what the heck is going on. But as I asked in my earlier post.... when should we start getting really concerned, and start demanding explanations of our leaders?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
I wouldn't be too concerned. It's internal restructuring without making the large, sweeping changes that will probably eventually come, anyway.

It just means that a traditional navy is less relevant in the current war and current world.

Huh? I thought the Navy was the major driving force behind most of the recent wars we fought...?

How are they traditional and less relevant..? Explain?

Boats don't work in the desert.

 

[ValkyrieofHouston]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
I wouldn't be too concerned. It's internal restructuring without making the large, sweeping changes that will probably eventually come, anyway.

It just means that a traditional navy is less relevant in the current war and current world.

Huh? I thought the Navy was the major driving force behind most of the recent wars we fought...?

How are they traditional and less relevant..? Explain?

Boats don't work in the desert.

Your sooo funny... I guess they would call that sand swimming? 😉

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: MisterJackson
The Marine Corps are the only branch who've consistantly hit their quotas lately. The other branches could learn from them and their tactics. they're aggresive, but they work and in the end they weed out the weak.

huh.

don't know where you got that information, but you are most certainly incorrect.

Text

I went through the recruiting process last year... coast guard was the most exclusive... seconded by the usaf.(as far as waivers ect.)

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
maybe it's for Navy people based on ground?

Navy people on the ground?
😕

Reading the article will tell you that these people are mostly officers and desk jockeys that are going to be stationed on land. It says most of them are 30 or 40 somethings, not new recruits or anything.

They aren't training them for combat, they are training them to BE PREPARED.

 

[CVSiN]

Navy Personnel
Active Duty: 355,373

Officers: 52,000

Enlisted: 299,046

Midshipmen: 4,327
Ready Reserve: 134,411 [As of 31 Mar.]

Selected Reserves: 71,491

Individual Ready Reserve: 62,920
Reserves currently mobilized: 5,495 [As of 19 Apr.]
Personnel on deployment: 35,934
Navy Department Civilian Employees: 175,288

Ships and Submarines
Deployable Battle Force Ships: 281

Ships Underway (away from homeport): 132 (47% of total)

On deployment: 91 ships (32% of total)

Attack submarines underway
(away from homeport): 19 submarines (35%)

On deployment: 16 submarines (29%)
Ships Underway

Carriers:
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - port visit, Sattahip, Thailand
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Caribbean Sea
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - port visit, San Diego, Calif.
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) - Persian Gulf

Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG)
[22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) (SOC)]
USS Nassau (LHA 4) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Austin (LPD 4) - Mediterranean Sea
USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) - Mediterranean Sea

Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG)
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - Persian Gulf
USS Ogden (LPD 5) - Persian Gulf
USS Germantown (LSD 42) - Persian Gulf

Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Wasp (LHD 1) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dubuque (LPD 8) - Pacific Ocean
USS Denver (LPD 9) - Pacific Ocean
USS Nashville (LPD 13) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Trenton (LPD 14) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) - Pacific Ocean
USS Tortuga (LSD 46) - Pacific Ocean
USS Oak Hill (LSD 51) - Indian Ocean

Aircraft (operational): 4000+



yah we really sitting around doing nothing...
tell that to the 35k deployed sailors...

 

[Savij]

Yay! Lots of people spinning the 1/3 of the total story they heard to fit whatever agenda they want while totally ignoring everything that doesn't agree with them.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: CVSiN
Thats exactly what was implied... and the news here spun it that way...
they said entire batches of new recruiting classes were being sent to combat training to augement the army in Iraq..

and said that up to 10-20k navy squids would be sent in as soldiers to provide this role.. that is shocking...

My whole family is a Navy family as far back as before WW2..my great grand father, my grand father my uncles my father etc.. all have served... and nothing like this has ever been done before...

thats why this is shocking... of course most of the media isnt going to tell you our troop reserves are low and we are really beginning to show how thin we are.. but ask the troops... ask those 5 generals that just stood up and asked for rumsfelds head on a platter..

the writing is on the wall man..

You know honestly, this does wave red flags to me.... all these generals retiring out of frustration...then voicing their frustration to the public which is almost never ever done, and asking for Rumsfeld to step down.. all the shuffling of military and people in power, like playing a darn chess game. It is disconcerting.

Then watching the news last night and hearing about this... it does lead one to wonder what the heck is going on. But as I asked in my earlier post.... when should we start getting really concerned, and start demanding explanations of our leaders?

All? Zinni never worked for Rumsfeld. He was in charge of CentCom under Clinton and then retired. I believe there was one other general in the group that never worked under Rumsfeld either.

Wesley Clark doesn't count since he is now a political figure not to mention he never worked for Rumsfeld either.

One of the other generals was in charge of training Iraqi troops and was reassigned after the training turned into a dismal failure and Iraqi troops were fleeing the battlefield against insurgents. Think he might have an axe to grind?

These generals combined account for like one-tenth of 1% of all active and retired living generals in the US Military. What about the generals that came out in support of Rumsfeld? Do their opinions not matter?

I'm not saying that their criticisms may or may not have any validity in them but let's understand where they are coming from and get our facts straight before we start saying stuff raises red flags.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: CVSiN


My whole family is a Navy family as far back as before WW2..my great grand father, my grand father my uncles my father etc.. all have served... and nothing like this has ever been done before...

thats why this is shocking... of course most of the media isnt going to tell you our troop reserves are low and we are really beginning to show how thin we are.. but ask the troops... ask those 5 generals that just stood up and asked for rumsfelds head on a platter..

the writing is on the wall man..

but it has been done before. Most IA assignments were filled by Seabees and Seals but not all. There are plenty of squids on the ground in combat zones doing the same thing these guys will be doing but now there is training to prepare them. I see no problem with using the Navy to support the Army........................

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston
Is cross training in the military normal? Or is this a sign that our troops are strained?

the latter.

MisterJackson, you're aware that they've recently lowered enlistment requirements, right? Also, IDK about consistently hitting their marks -- I remember something about a couple months where enlistment was down overall. This year, yeah they've been up in recruiting but last year, i think as a whole the millitary was down some double digit percentage points.

No. The Army has hit its recruiting marks consistently over the last few months after a period where they were missing their mark. I don't recall the other services ever being short on recruiting. Retention recruiting has exceeded goals since the fighting began in Afghanistan.

Also, the number of troops in Iraq is slowly decreasing. A group out of Ft. Stewart in Georgia just came home the other day. Nobody was rotating into Iraq to replace them.

Yeah, I'm aware that the Army is hiting its numbers but I was merely pointing it out that the only reason why their hitting those arbitrary numbers is because they were decreased rather recently so that to the media and the American public, theyw ouldn't have to hear about ANOTHER quarter where enlistment has fallen off.

Also, I'm aware that retention is up 30% or something but that's neither here nor there. Incumbancy begets incumbancy. Naturally, most of those that voluntarily signed up will stay.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston
Is cross training in the military normal? Or is this a sign that our troops are strained?

the latter.

MisterJackson, you're aware that they've recently lowered enlistment requirements, right? Also, IDK about consistently hitting their marks -- I remember something about a couple months where enlistment was down overall. This year, yeah they've been up in recruiting but last year, i think as a whole the millitary was down some double digit percentage points.

No. The Army has hit its recruiting marks consistently over the last few months after a period where they were missing their mark. I don't recall the other services ever being short on recruiting. Retention recruiting has exceeded goals since the fighting began in Afghanistan.

Also, the number of troops in Iraq is slowly decreasing. A group out of Ft. Stewart in Georgia just came home the other day. Nobody was rotating into Iraq to replace them.

Yeah, I'm aware that the Army is hiting its numbers but I was merely pointing it out that the only reason why their hitting those arbitrary numbers is because they were decreased rather recently so that to the media and the American public, theyw ouldn't have to hear about ANOTHER quarter where enlistment has fallen off.

Also, I'm aware that retention is up 30% or something but that's neither here nor there. Incumbancy begets incumbancy. Naturally, most of those that voluntarily signed up will stay.

Yes the numbers for the goals was decreased. But nobody bothered to mention that the recruiting goal numbers had been increased for the last couple of years when the media was breathlessly reporting that recruiting goals were missed.

They are still a far cry off from your claim that "as a whole the millitary was down some double digit percentage points". That is completely off the mark.

For a war that is supposedly going bad with troops that have bad morale and not enough equipment or armor protection, the retention numbers are much better than they were during peacetime.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: DeadByDawn
Not normal and not a good sign. Not time to panic yet though.

Um, ok, so when is it the time to start panicking... and wouldn't it be better to be proactive and not let it get to that point??

That's what they're doing now.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
I wouldn't be too concerned. It's internal restructuring without making the large, sweeping changes that will probably eventually come, anyway.

It just means that a traditional navy is less relevant in the current war and current world.

lol you sir are totally clueless....

you do realize over half the ordiance dropped the first 2 days of the war came from Navy aircraft from 3 carriers...
and over 3/4 of the munitions used in Desert Storm were Navy Aircraft..

the navy was there LONG before any ground troops or AF jerks ever entered the theater..

were were making patrols in the Persian Gulf years before desert storm even happened..

we are ALWAYS the first units to arrive to any crisis...

Navy is in no danger of being retructured to anything..

Yep, they sure bombed Iraq into submission. That's why they're the most relevant and the whole of the military is back in the US drinking beers...

what are you just an ignorant redneck bush hater? or just ignorant.. you choose...

we kicked the crap outa the military in a few weeks... what we are fighting now is insurgents from all over the muslim world not just iraqis...
your such an ignorant tool have you ever served your country? I dont think you have.. you come off as a pacifist arm chair politician who knows absolute didly about the real world..

See the thing about Ad Hominem attacks is: they are a non-argument and actually weaken any legitimate argument that you may have put forth. Here for example.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: CVSiN
[Big List]

yah we really sitting around doing nothing...
tell that to the 35k deployed sailors...

We're clearly in separate arguments. I never disagreed with you when you said that sailors are currently occupied in doing something.

Just like I agree that Oregon gas station attendants are doing something...

 

[daveymark]

Text

 

[totalcommand]

anybody who even hints at reinstituting the draft will get the sh!t kicked out of them. i think we're safe in that regard. (unless GWB decides to invade Iran)

 

[Babbles]

Man, th article is nothing at all like what so many of you imply it is about. The Navy is sending in current servicemen and women - not enlistees - to get some advanced battlefield training in case they are deployed to Iraq - or elsewhere. You know this is a good thing, so they can do crazy stuff like. . . survive.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

what are you just an ignorant redneck bush hater? or just ignorant.. you choose...

we kicked the crap outa the military in a few weeks... what we are fighting now is insurgents from all over the muslim world not just iraqis...
your such an ignorant tool have you ever served your country? I dont think you have.. you come off as a pacifist arm chair politician who knows absolute didly about the real world..

Ah, I just randomly came across this thread searching for something else...Good times 🙂

Anyhow, if your definition of "serv[ing] my country" is hanging out on a boat, nope, I never have 🙁

All I ever do is chase down snipers and roadside bombers, and otherwise mingle w/the Iraqi populace.

I'm such a damn, dirty hippy 😛

 

[zanieladie]

Originally posted by: Babbles
Man, th article is nothing at all like what so many of you imply it is about. The Navy is sending in current servicemen and women - not enlistees - to get some advanced battlefield training in case they are deployed to Iraq - or elsewhere. You know this is a good thing, so they can do crazy stuff like. . . survive.

Sounds positive to me. 🙂