Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: oyvinw@ifi.uio.no (yvin Wormn{s) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: draft Message-ID: <1990Nov30.022155.8832@cbnews.att.com> Date: 30 Nov 90 02:21:55 GMT References: <1990Nov21.221810.20549@cbnews.att.com>,<1990Nov29.003444.20034@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University in Oslo, Norway Lines: 86 Approved: military@att.att.com From: \yvin Wormn{s > > > From: Allan Bourdius > >From P.V. Kauffold: > > >are a bunch of Marines dug in in the sand - not really their mission > >specialty. > > Absolutely incorrect!!! Marine units are trained to fight in whatever > climate a crisis occurs in. > For example, I have a friend who's MEU (Battalion Landing Team, > Composite Aircraft Squadron, and Support Group) left Moorehead City, NC > and went to Panama for four weeks of jungle training. After that, they > went to Norway for six weeks above the Artic Circle and after that they > went to Egypt for Bright Star '88 (I think). In one 5 1/2 month > deployment, this Marine Expeditionary Unit trained in jungle, artic, and > desert environments. How many Army units do that? > > BTW, his MEU "won" all the excercises they participated in. Sounds > pretty good to me considering that the Norwegians are dedicated > cold-weather forces and the Egyptians are dedicated desert fighters. > > Allan > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OK, I have to reply to this. While the marines may be the best *all-climate* units, they don't beat dedicated units of a comparable technological level. At least before glasnost, there were a few exercises a year in Norway with participation from several NATO countries (GB, Canada and the USA comes to mind). What happened? The Norwegians turned out to be the best, in Norwegian territory, over and over again. Why? I believe for several reasons: ***They know the climate. There is a lot of things about cold weather you can't learn in just a few months or weeks. Also, the equipment is chosen with cold weather in mind. ***They have the quality. Partly because the Norwegian military is based on national service, the manpower is of the highest quality. Especially the non-commissioned officers have more initiative than usual elsewhere. ***Last, but not least, the foreigners seem to try the Central Europe tactics, or strategy. In Norway, you can't do that. No tanks, no roads, lots of mountain and other fancy stuff. The Norwegian semi-guerilla-approach seems to work better. If the Marines won in Norway, they were probably on the Norwegian side. They didn't have to be, but probably. Now, it is common knowledge that who wins exercises is usually decided beforehand. The stories in sci.military about how difficult it is to sink a supercarrier during exercises comes to mind, as do similar stories from this country. The test of battle is the only way to say for sure. But, to sum up: Don't underestimate the weather. The Marines won't take the desert temperatures better than the natives, no matter how much training they have. You can't train a lifetime. Your superiority is based on the same as the Israeli superiority, but probably not to the same degree. (Israel is another country wich shows the benefit of national service as opposed to a professional army when it comes to the quality of the men, I think). Organization, education and better technology. The crews of whatever is likely to be able to read instructions, and in case something unexpected happens, figure out what to do. The other side will usually have the advantages of experience with the climate and the territory. And, don't forget the will to fight. That is often the most important factor, as Vietnam and Afghanistan so clearly showed. \yvin oyvinw@ifi.uio.no