RE: 1st MarDiv to Korea by back channel

[unclgene <unclgene@pacbell.net>]

No question that the "Garratroupers" from Japan occupation duty were not
trained for combat. MacArthur bad-mouthed their state of training, but since
he was their commander, he was ultimately to blame. My 2nd Infantry Division
was lucky to have been in training at Fort Lewis, because we were one of the
few. Even at that, with about half our ranks filled at the last minute with
people raked up from wherever, and with 20% of our vehicles being
inoperative, but still towed to the ship and taken aboard, we were lucky. We
also had cold weather sleeping bags, while lots of troops had to make out
with those worthless blanket bags.
No response on "Operation Fishnet" or the differing attitudes of FMF, Mud
Marines and the "Hollywood Marines" toward each other?
Also, remember being told that if someone was killed, we were to straighten
out his body so it would fit into a boy bag.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu
[mailto:owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu]On Behalf Of unclgene
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:23 AM
To: KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu
Subject: RE: 1st MarDiv to Korea by back channel


Any one out there remember operation fishnet? A marine friend of mine, now
dead, served on submarines to wreck North Korean fish nets to starve them
out.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu
[mailto:owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu]On Behalf Of Joe Brennan
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 7:38 AM
To: KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu
Subject: Re: 1st MarDiv to Korea by back channel


Little off topic but for historical perspective fy2002 authorized active
strengths of Army and Corps were 480k and 173k respectively so active USMC
36% size of the active Army but including reserve components 1035k v. 213k
only 21%.

Underlines another difference in mission emphasis which probably partly
relates back to the 1950 experience. I'm not trying to wade into a general
Army-Marine debate across history but most outside observers seem to agree
the Marine units sent to Korea in 1950 were combat ready, while the Army
divisions sent from Japan were distinctly less so and it cost the US (not
least the men in those units) dearly before that was ironed out. Even if the
difference in combat effectiveness in those early months was played up by
excellent USMC public communications ("propaganda better than Joe Stalin's"
to paraphrase Truman) 1950 seems a significant factor in decisions about the
Corps since them.

That is USMC is viewed as emphasizing an immediate deployment mission, not
to the exclusion of the Army but not limited to amphibious ops either, in
other words again like what they did in 1950. And post Cold War, it's back
to a "rapid deployment" world for ground forces generally. Although, another
reason Army (and AF) have larger reserve components is state level lobbying
on behalf of the National Guard, which the N and MC don't face.

Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc James Small" <msmall@infi.net>
To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: 1st MarDiv to Korea by back channel


At 11:13 PM 10/31/02 EST, SDonell73@aol.com wrote:


In the end, the current Marine Corps is approximately half the size of the
Army, and I don't expect this to change in my lifetime.

Marc

msmall@infi.net  FAX:  +276/343-7315
Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!