LOL! So true. My younger brother went to the academy — USAFA, then later he flew the F-16. There were many times when I was in the desert wiping sand out of my teeth at 118°F. We were shooting artillery with the air wing, and I’m watching fighter planes scream over our heads and thinking that when they land they’re probably enjoying an ice cold beer in an A/C’d building while I’m rolling around in the hot sand.
My younger brother, he’s easily the smarter one.
Here’s what a marine vet co-worker told me:
–Marines’ primary mission, at one point, was to establish beachheads.
–The Marines serve st the president’s pleasure directly, and can be deployed without permission from congress, unlike other branches.
–The Marines largely sat out the Civil War. Their mission then was to guard ships that were in port.
I know the sword is ceremonial. I was making fun of their idiotic television recruiting ad to which I linked. I don’t watch broadcast tv, so I don’t know what they are up to now, but time was that USMC recruiting spots looked like ads for fantasy movies and were some of the stupidest shit on tv.
The Marines have no different legal status in terms of war powers than any other service. Nor does the President enjoy any special powers over the Marines. Your friend is completely and utterly wrong on this point.
It strikes me as the same sort of military urban legend that the Geneva Conventions prohibit .50 caliber machine guns from being used against people, but if you fire at the equipment on a person (weapon, radio, belt, etc) then it is permissible. It should go without saying that all of that is total nonsense.
Huh, I thought that tank crewmen were assigned a tank as their primary weapon.
And for what it’s worth, the Marines still use fantasy knight imagery in their ads.
That’s impressive, albeit rather useless, IMHO. The vast majority of infantry combat takes place within 100 meters; training for over 250 m with iron sights is a waste of time.
YMMV, of course.
The majority of the rifle qualification course takes place at the 200 and 300 yard lines. I’m sure it’s changed since 1999 and I’ll admit the details are hazy, but only about 1/5 of the rounds fired are at the 500.
Statistics about the distance of engagements aside, IMO a shooter who has learned to employ their weapon from 500 yards will be a more effective rifleman at 200.
Yes but that has always been a Marine thing, being more proficient on direct aimed fire. Heritage from the days of firing from the rigging, I suppose.
If I understand right, in the current rifle quals for the Army more than half the targets are under 150m and you can qualify hitting only 200m-and-under targets.
The Air Force has around 12,000 pilots. The Army has 14,000 pilots.
I had an EX-GF I kept on touch with who went to Army OCS. When she described the rifle qual, I asked for clarification several times to make sure I understood what she was describing.
That’s not a qualification course ; it’s a training day.
Makes sense. It’s hard to focus on the latter half of “fire and maneuver” when you’re stuck on a ship.
The training in the AF was not to protect state-side bases, but to contribute to base defense when deployed to an actual war zone. Unless a person was Security Forces, of course.
Also, the unit and AFSC an AF member is in also determines what qualifications are required. For most of my career, I was in non-deployable units, and as a comm guy, I was only required to qualify every 3 years. But two assignments were in deployable units, and we had to qualify annually.
And yes, we had one day qualifying at the range during AF Basic Training (1991).
This is so wrong on so many levels…
Rank and Branch of Service play little in someone’s career prospects. All other things being equal, (intelligence, experience, interview presentation, etc.,) an Army (or Navy, or Marine, or Coast Guard) E-4 Aviation Tech has the same civilian job prospects as the Air Force Aviation Tech.
Air Force pilots don’t have a job-lock on civilian pilot gigs, either; Naval and Marine aviators are equally competitive. Army and Marines may have an edge on civilian helicopter gigs, but I wouldn’t put betting money on that.
As far as non-aviation careers go, Infantry and Armor (and other branches, too) officers do quite well in civilian life as well, having received a college degree of one kind or another before becoming an officer. Again, all other things being equal, an Army officer with a degree in Business Admin. has the same employment prospects as an Air Force officer with a degree in Business Admin.
When it comes to Leadership/management, nothing makes the Air Force inherently superior. When it comes to the numbers of technical jobs, the Air Force may have more (again, I wouldn’t bet the farm on it), and they may be more aviation-tech heavy, but they aren’t inherently qualitatively superior to any of the other branches.
A lot of truth in here. I retired from the military as a humble CPO (E-7). My job descriptions after the military included Facilities Manager, Construction Director for a public housing entity, Quality Control Manager for a $20M project, and Chief Operating Officer for a company. My highest salary during my post-military career was about $155K/yr, so I think I parlayed my leadership/management skills into a decent career that allowed me to retire early.
Most Air Force personnel are people who work with planes in some capacity (flying them, repairing them, maintaining them, etc.). Working with planes in any capacity is a marketable job skill. Some Army personnel learn comparably-marketable job skills, or even the same ones, but most Army personnel do not.
Yes. This is all I’m trying to say. I misspoke in using the phrase “all things being equal.” All things are not equal; the Air Force has a higher proportion of its manpower trained in aviation-related tasks.
These are jobs that tend to be competitive in the civilian market based on their title alone. They are marketable without having to do the dance of “you see, if you really think about it, a branch manager of a rental car service is very much like an Infantry platoon sergeant.”
Which rolls up to the main point that the Air Force needs to offer more to recruit and retain those people from the civilian sector, hence they tend to avoid the the worst of the privation that the Army or Marines face.
Although, given that there are pilots and aircraft mechanics and so on in the Army, and given that those specific personnel would be just as tempted to go work for civilian airlines, how does the Army treat them? Are they given air-conditioned quarters and so on, too, like their Air Force brethren? Or are they sleeping in the same barracks as the grunt infantrymen? And if the latter, how does the Army solve the retention program?
I am not going to speak too far out of my lane here except to note what I have observed/read:
[ol]
[li] Yes, the Army has more pilots than the Air Force. The Army also has more ships than the Navy. The Army is big. But, most Army pilots are rotary-wing (helicopter).[/li][li]Rotary-wing aviation units in the Army tend to be closely colocated with maneuver units due to shorter range for the units they support. So they tend to share the same accommodations as maneuver units. In forward areas it isn’t cost-effective to build a special air-conditioned building for pilots when there are enormous numbers of non-aviator troops to be housed.[/li][li]Rotary-wing employment opportunities in the civilian sector are plentiful, but top out at significantly lower salaries. (Although this is changing; airlines are increasingly willing to retrain helicopter pilots due to a pilot shortage).[/li][/ol]
My first civilian job was flying the Air Force satellites for the USAFSCN, their Satellite Control Network. In the ‘Blue Cube’ of Sunnyvale CA that was demolished in 2014 (images, including demolition — Blue Cube Sunnyvale - Google Search). Many in the USAF fly satellites.