Re: 1st MarDiv to Korea by back channel

["Les Hanson" <hanson@totalnetnh.net>]

Operation "Fishnet"

16 September 1952

http://histort.navy.mil/photos/events/kowar/un-rok/rok-civ.htm

Last photo

Les

----- Original Message -----
From: "unclgene" <unclgene@pacbell.net>
To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 7:22 PM
Subject: RE: 1st MarDiv to Korea by back channel


> 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!
>
>
>
>
>
>