My MOS has been declared politically incorrect

And the Obama administration continues it's war against the U.S. military and using the military for liberal social engineering.

I (*)(*)(*)(*) you not.

While shaking my head in a way I'm proud that my former Marine Corps MOS 0849 Shore Fire Control Party Man has been declared by the Obama administration to be politically incorrect.

Actually the description of the MOS has been declared politically incorrect.

But it gets even worse or more PC, coed Marine Corps boot camp !!!

The military brass are 100% correct, Obama is a national security risk.

 

But the Air Force still gets to keep calling an Airman an Airman, not an Air...person or whatever.

 

That's true. Since the Air Force now allows airmen to dress in drag, they were given some slack.

But there's still another 11 months to go and who knows what Valerie Jarrett and Obama have planned ?

 

There are four types of people in the world, men, women, xmen (transgender), and airmen (superhumans)

 

Typical Marine nonsense. Forward Observer. Solved. Does the Army have to teach you everything?

 

Actually calling in a naval gunfire mission is a completely different ball game.

The naval gunfire spotter has to know the ships gun target line (GTL) or you could end up with a whole lot of fratricide incidents.

Unlike ground artillery where you use an eight digit grid cordance naval gunfire uses a six digit grid cordance.

Ground artillery you put the round either right over the target if it's a air burst or right on the target if it's ground burst. With naval gunfire it all depends what the target is. For example if it's a soft target like troops in the open and depending on the ships GTL you might want the round to detonate just in front of the area target and just to the left or right of the area target. If the ships GTL is at your 12 o-clock you would spot the round just behind you target if it's danger close situation.

The fragmentation pattern of a naval round isn't anything like a howitzer or gun/howitzer round. -> http://www.maritime.org/doc/vtfuze/img/fig018.jpg / http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-30/f6300101.gif

 

I will concede that there are distinct differences in the job description. However, you still fall under the umbrella of being a forward observer. What's offensive about that?

 

It goes back to an incident during WW ll. Since that day on, artillery FO's aren't allowed to call in a NSFS missions.

And since you are dealing with the Navy, you use their lingo, if it's a direct fire mission there are gun spotters on the ship who spot the rounds and relay the adjustments to the gun plot room to get the rounds on target.

 

Then why not call them gun spotters, or something else that's not gender specific? Please explain how that will make them less effective fighters.

If it isn't necessary, why do you have to go out of your way to offend people? Do all conservatives just purposely cultivate bad manners for no reason or what?

 

If a person has been properly trained during basic training, he or she should have experienced every form of being offended that they can no longer be offended.

There's no room for political correctness in the military.

I was just looking at some of the politically incorrect MOS descriptions that the Obama administration has ordered Marine Corps to change in the name of liberal social engineering.

0321 Reconnaissance Man - MGySgt–Pvt
0323 Reconnaissance Man, Parachute Qualified[1] - MGySgt–Pvt
0324 Reconnaissance Man, Combatant Diver Qualified[1] - MGySgt–Pvt
0326 Reconnaissance Man, Parachute and Combatant Diver Qualified[1] - MGySgt–Pvt
0800 Basic Field Artillery Man - Sgt–Pvt

0844 Field Artillery Fire Control Man - Sgt–Pvt
0847 Field Artillery Sensor Support Man - Sgt–Pvt
0848 Field Artillery Operations Man - MGySgt–SSgt
0861 Fire Support Man - MGySgt–Pvt (Formerly 0849, Shore Fire Control Party Man)

 

Because they do not just spot for guns.

There is a reason they are placed into units known as ANGLICO. And that stands for Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Companies.

And to understand why many of us object to this, you have to look at the service that is being discussed, the Marine Corps.

More then any other branch other then the Navy, the Marine Corps thrives on tradition and history. Everything from the uniforms we wear and gargon we use, to our job titles and descriptions are part of a very old tradition. And that tradition is what sets the Marines apart from every other service, but the Navy. And this is not surprising, since the 2 branches are literally (and proudly) "joined at the hip".

The Corps does not change easily, nor for the whims of individuals who have never served. You would find resistance to any "outsiders" trying to force changes upon it. This however is not the same as saying it does not change. Integration, allowing females in, these are changes that the Corps accepted and adapted to. But even the "Defense Battalions" made up of "Montford Point Marines" during WWII were no different then other Defense Battalions in the Corps at the time. They landed on beaches like Iwo Jima, and did not have other identifiers (like "colored") attached to their unit names (unlike the US Army's "93rd Division (Colored)").

To a branch so deeply ingrained to traditions, expect fierce resistance to any changes forced upon it for what is seen as "silly reasons". Like forcing people to use the term "Letter Carrier" instead of "Postman" or "Mailman". I guess Kevin Costner is sexist for staring in a movie that is not called "The Mail Person".

My first MOS when it was given to me was "Infantryman". And I find it rather silly to see this changed to "Infantry Person". I think we have many more important things to worry about then something this silly.



It was not all that long ago that this change made it's way through the system. I remember when I first saw one, our Battalion Commander literally looked at it ang let out a spew of profanity at the stupidity that made somebody think that was a good idea. And she was a female. It became a joke in my Battery, calling out for a working party "Give me 3 mixed genders" instead of just saying "Give me 3 people" or "Give me 3 men". And I can't think of a single female I ever served with that thought the wording change from "6 man lift" was an intelligent decision.

 

“The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle" Gen. Pershing, U.S. Army

Marine Rifleman - Don't call 911, call 0311

Marine sniper, One shot - one kill.

Marine naval gunfire spotter, One Shot - Twelve kills.

 

And I mean look at all the times in the last 20 years where naval gunfire has been critical to our military's success...

- - - Updated - - -

As we all know, naval artillery is completely unchanged from WW2, so folding NSFS into FO is impossible.

 

Well you are wrong, NGF and NGFS has been used in the past twenty years, mostly against Al Qaeda mostly in the Horn of Africa and it was critical and used by Navy SEAL's during the rescue of Jessica Buchanan and Poul Hagen in Somalia on January 25, 2012. The SEAL's called for naval gunfire support and the Navy responded with their 5"/54 pop gun.

If the United States were to be fighting a real military not an armed mob and that enemy were to be in a liatrols, we wouldn't have enough naval guns required to provide NSFS that would be critical to have.

Kina don't understand what you're saying. >" folding NSFS into FO is impossible "<

What ever.

In the 1980's laser guided 16" projectiles have been developed for the Iowa class BB's 16" guns. Rocket assisted projectiles had been developed giving the Iowa's 16" guns a 100 mile range. When the Iowa's were deactivated in the 1990s the 16" 1,900 lb projectiles were in the testing phase to be used in ASW. Picture that, a nine round pattern of ASW one ton depth charges with a range of 24 miles.

 

Then we should build a far cheaper unarmored ship designed just for fire support mounting one or two of those guns. We don't need a 9 gun battleship with modern technology. Especially given that it's only mission would be fire support with those guns.

Better to put them on an Arsenal ship, that is even if they were necessary, which they aren't.

 

Has to be an armored ship. War ships are suppose to take hits and keep on fighting.

Like Mushroom has recommended a battle cruiser based upon the Alaska class battle cruiser with a six 12" main gun battery a second gun battery of eight to twelve 5"/54 guns, maybe a MLRS battery for counter artillery fire and some cruise missiles.

 

On a full modern battlefield, a single hit at the very least results in mission kill when you are talking about a 2,000 armor piercing cruise missile hitting the ship.

 

The most feared Russian warship is the Slava class cruiser and it only carries 16 X SS-N-12 anti-ship supersonic semi-armor piercing cruise missiles.

The Slava class cruiser was designed for one mission, to sink American super carriers and their escorts.

 

"Only" 16 cruise missiles...let's ignore that those missiles can be carried by naval bombers too.

 

Not me, I'm not going to ignore those Ruskie Bear bombers.

 

You shouldn't ignore the Chinese Badger copies either. They can carry cruise missile just as effectively.

 

Uhhh, excuse me... "armor piercing cruise missile"?

Can you please give us an example of what exactly that is?

Ahhh, he is thinking of the Sandbox class missile (P-500). These were always intended to be used in swarms against carrier groups, typically in salvos of 8-12. And it was always assumed that the biggest threat was that 1-2 of these would be nuclear tipped. So you see, it really does not matter worth a damn if it is even "semi-armor piercing" when some of them are expected to be 350kt thermonuclear warheads.

Like the Bear F you mean? The ones that are unable to carry cruise missiles because of the START I and other arms reduction treaties?

The Naval versions are Bear bombers, yes. But they have been modified so they are unable to carry the cruise missiles of their land attack cousins. They are now recon and ASW aircraft.

 

"Unable to carry"

That's what a couple hundred hours of work to restore that capability?

 

Yea, and that would only violate several arms reduction treaties.

And doing so would only return 15 aircraft. Really, that is it. There are only 15 TU-142 (Bear F) "naval bombers". And I think that if there was a future conflict, those would be much more important in their primary ASW role then they would be as any kind of bomber.

But hey, why not go really silly here.

As far as I am aware, we have no limitations on how many C-5 cargo aircraft we can build. We already have 131 of them. Just increase that by a factor of 10, then we can tell the Russians and everybody else to go pound sand.

Because reviving the ALBM program is about as likely and realistic as most other things you have been mentioning.

 

And what about Russia's Backfires and Blackjacks? Can they not carry cruise missiles or be modified to do so? How about Su-24's or 32's?