Most needed in US NAVY

**TopHatter** · 06 Nov 05,, 23:41

Very interesting read Giggs, where'd you find that?

**~~giggs88~~** · 07 Nov 05,, 00:03

Well, there was this "controversy" a while ago whether USMC Force Recon should join SOCOM or not. I wanted to know what Force Recon did that SEALs didn't do, because bringing in another unit that did the same thing would be completely pointless.

So, I searched on google: "What is the difference between Force Recon and SEALs?"

And found this:
http://www.specialoperations.com/Foc...ences/Navy.htm

**TopHatter** · 07 Nov 05,, 00:57

Originally Posted by giggs88

So, I searched on google: "What is the difference between Force Recon and SEALs?"

It cracks me up that at least once a week when I have "Why...." or "What...." questions and it doesn't instantly occur to me simply Google the question.
Most of the time though Googling is the very first thing I think of....
It's still annoying on those rare occasions.

I do still want to know why a real military man (as opposed to us civvies) would choose FR over SEALs though.

**~~giggs88~~** · 07 Nov 05,, 01:26

Originally Posted by TopHatter

It cracks me up that at least once a week when I have "Why...." or "What...." questions and it doesn't instantly occur to me simply Google the question.
Most of the time though Googling is the very first thing I think of....
It's still annoying on those rare occasions.

It's alright, I do it too.

I do still want to know why a real military man (as opposed to us civvies) would choose FR over SEALs though.

I know nothing more than what I read, hear, or watch on tv. I might pick Force Recon because they are Marines who have a lot of combat training and were in the Marine Corps infantry before switching over to Recon. From what I have read, you need atleast 3-4 years of experience in the Corps and a top-notch record with great PFT scores to be even considered for the Recon indoctrination program.

SEALs on the other hand are Sailors who probably didn't see a lot of combat because they were on ships and were doing different jobs before they applied for BUDs.

That might be one reason why I'd pick Force Recon platoon over a SEAL platoon.

I'm still curious to know why OoE would pick FR over SEALs.

**Officer of Engineers** · 07 Nov 05,, 02:00

Originally Posted by giggs88

I'm still curious to know why OoE would pick FR over SEALs.

If need be, I can hand the main force battle management over to the FR cmdr. The SEAL cmdr might be able to do it but it's not part of his normal MO.

**TopHatter** · 07 Nov 05,, 02:03

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

If need be, I can hand the main force battle management over to the FR cmdr. The SEAL cmdr might be able to do it but it's not part of his normal MO.

Ahhhhh.....I had a feeling that it was something to do with the Marines' basic infantry background, whereas SEALs are commandos through and through, and wouldnt have as solid a grounding in a conventional battle situation.

**Dreadnought** · 11 Nov 05,, 21:27

Originally Posted by rickusn

LOL Will you BB reactivation proponents ever give it up. LOL

Uh yeah...Dread, tell me you're kidding about that sub-hunting remark...please?

An Iowa class hunting subs? LMAO Yes thought you may catch that one...lol
Rest asure never would i waste such an awesome suface combatant on something so elusive as sub chasing just tweakin the tail

Besides can you imagine something the Iowa's size chasing a sub

Like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. And a sitting duck to a torp strike as well.

But I certainly will not give up the battleships either

What can I say its in the blood

**TopHatter** · 11 Nov 05,, 23:05

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

An Iowa class hunting subs? LMAO Yes thought you may catch that one...lol

Thou shalt use Smiley Winks

when tweaking tails.

**Dreadnought** · 12 Nov 05,, 18:22

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Thou shalt use Smiley Winks

when tweaking tails.

Gottcha

**TopHatter** · 12 Nov 05,, 19:40

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Gottcha

Actually, I was just embarressed at taking the bait....

**Dreadnought** · 14 Nov 05,, 01:57

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Actually, I was just embarressed at taking the bait....

Dont be it was just me : ) Heard a really funny story of it at Warships board from somebody who had claimed to sail on one of the Iowas among other truelly unbelievable bullchit stories from the same person. LOL we would have torn him to shreads : )~

Quote:Thou shalt use Smiley Winks when tweaking tails.

Aye : )

**TopHatter** · 14 Nov 05,, 01:59

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Thou shalt use Smiley Winks when tweaking tails.

Aye sir : )

Belay my last...steady as she tweaks

**Dreadnought** · 14 Nov 05,, 02:13

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Belay my last...steady as she tweaks

TH if you heard this persons stories you would think the trolls here are more then torelable. : )

Hows about a sub hunting Iowa..lol that this person claimed to be on.

Or an Iowa that would split into three watertight sections if hit.

It was imusing to read the first time. Angering to continue to hear how much this person thought he knew about them. I have the tech blueprints on the class (behind glass ofcoarse as well as the Pennsylvania class)
and I had to ask at what frame (section) these watertight comparments split at to form these three compartments. When he answered I laughed he obviously bull chitted a few but anybody that knows the animal knows the truth. Warships became an advertisement board compared to what it used to be : (

**brandon_tortle** · 14 Nov 05,, 14:55

what the us navy needs is the ddx class battleship with a power plant strong enough to power several rail gun turrents would greatly reduce the need for aircraft carriers. someone mentioned that the iowa class battle ships have only fixed guns and no aircraft. that is untrue the iowa class lost its broadside turrets for tomahawk missle turrets the iowa class battleship also lost its manned prop plane they used to cat apult from the rear main turret . the mannned plane was replaced with a smaller remote controlled plane. both of these planes served the same pupose on the battleship target aquistion and veryify that target was destroyed.the ddx will use sattelites for targetting

**brandon_tortle** · 14 Nov 05,, 15:05

Originally Posted by Blademaster

The problem with the IOWA class battleships is not the guns, it is the support system structure that is required to maintain the ships. As often so quoted, "Amateurs think tactics, Professionals think logistics"

It would be more cost effective and better performance if they just buy merchant ships and take the 16 inch guns off the battleship and place on the ships and rig the ships to take the vibration and shock of those guns firing.

As Bismarck showed, there are other ways of disabling battleships. The mighty ship was severly disabled by having its rudder damaged.

The IOWA ships cannot defend adequately against air launched torpedoes in today's modern naval warfare.

Actuallly the iowa class has phalnex anti air guns and crusie missles in addition to the main turrets the battleship is far cheaper to operate and sends a more powerfull message and response but like i said eailer the navy is looking @ replacing the last 2 Iowa class battleships and the aircraft carrriers with the new ddx class battleship