Basic training attrition rates.

[phroggunner]

So Vickers yells "Airman Schaffer, I want you to reach down into your drawers and tell me if you've got a pair!” So Schaffer follows the sergeant's order and replies, "Yes, Sir. Two big fat hairy ones, Sir". Vickers, the meanest of the mean, can't help himself. He laughs. He can't stop laughing. So much so that has to leave the room. A few minutes later Vickers returns, seriously pissed off that this little twit had caused him to break his military bearing...and yells "Schaffer, pack your sh__...you're outta here!" We never saw Schaffer again. I assume he was just recycled.

Once they found out he had a pair, they sent him to the Marines. Mystery solved

[tacticalcity]

I was Air Force, which you would think would have been easy, right? It wasn’t. 1/3 of my flight did not graduate with us. They were either kicked out or "recycled" (made to start over or at an earlier phase of training). They don't tell you what's going to happen to a guy when the remove him from your flight. They use it as a mind game…and it works. The last thing you want to have to go home and face you’re friends and family in disgrace. Can you imagine the comments? “You mean you couldn’t even hack the Air Force? How big of a wimp are you?”

One recruit was pulled from our flight simply for making the lead TI (Training Instructor) laugh.

Schaffer was a little guy. Must have gotten a height waiver just to get in. SSgt Vickers was like something right out of a cartoon about boot camp. Huge jaw, giant upper body, and tiny waist, and thick southern accent. About three weeks before graduation Vickers comes storming into our barracks and decides to have a spot inspection. We're all standing at at attention while he chews out one recruit after another. Then for the first time he finally sets in on Schaffer. He taps the brim of his "Smokey the Bear" hat into Schaffer’s forehead repeatedly while screaming at him at the top of lungs (pretty much the standard routine). Schaffer had not experienced it. I guess he was so little they left him alone. After all, it's not cool to picky on the littlest guy in the flight..not when there are so many other idiots you can torment. Schaffer leans back a little to avoid the tapping, VERY bad idea. Vickers just leans into him and keeps tapping away, yelling even louder. Schaffer leans back more. They cycle continues. Eventually Schaffer is leaning WAY back. It's like something out of cartoon, much like Vickers himself. So Vickers yells "Airman Schaffer, I want you to reach down into your drawers and tell me if you've got a pair!” So Schaffer follows the sergeant's order and replies, "Yes, Sir. Two big fat hairy ones, Sir". Vickers, the meanest of the mean, can't help himself. He laughs. He can't stop laughing. So much so that has to leave the room. A few minutes later Vickers returns, seriously pissed off that this little twit had caused him to break his military bearing...and yells "Schaffer, pack your sh__...you're outta here!" We never saw Schaffer again. I assume he was just recycled.

I've heard people say boot camp in the Air Force was a cake walk. That was NOT my experience. SSGT Vickers was convinced it should be as hard as the higher ups would let him make it. It was his Air Force, and if we wanted to be part of it we were gonna bust our rears to prove we deserved to be there.

Most of my "war stories" about the military happened in basic. SSGT Vickers is at the center of almost all them. He made the Drill Sergeant in Full Metal Jacket seem tame by comparison. His lines just as classic. I use them whenever possible.

When you consider some of the places I was deployed, and that I had a pretty unusual career for my short four years of active duty service, the fact that basic training still manages to out shadow the rest of it really says something.

Since somebody is bound to ask...I'll answer it here. The majority of people in the Air Force are Mechanics, Administration Staff, Medical Staff and never leave the base. I was part of a Mobile Aerial Port (actually it was a Aerial Mobility Port Flight but the term was short lived and nobody will recognize it). Our job was to setup and man temporary Air Bases for Special Operations (including our own but usually those from another service) whenever they were conducting missions in a theater were a base was needed but did not exist. As you can imagine, that's pretty much the norm these days. In such operations, the goal is to send as few people as possible, so we performed our own security (Air Base Ground Defense) and wore many, many hats. The roles that would normally be filled by Army Infantry in a full scale war, we performed ourselves. I'm not trying to say we were bad or anything...just that my experience differed from the typical Air Force career pretty drastically. My AFC (MOS) had very little to do with what I ended up doing all day long...and many people in the same AFC has much more boring careers. I spent a good part of my short career surround by special operations members of other services in the middle of nowhere. We bounced around the globe and never knew where would be from one week to the next. I loved it. I may not have been a bad mo fo, but I got to help the bad mo fos do their job...and I was proud of that. Then I was assigned to a desk job...which I hated. After being in a real world environment, a stateside assignment at a training base behind a desk just doesn't cut it. So instead of being a lifer, which i would have been if left me where I was...I decided to get out go to college instead. So there you go...my entire Air Force career in one paragraph.

Ok, back on topic...if you are joining the Air Force because you think Basic Training is going to be easy then you're not smart enough to pass the academic side of it, so try the Navy!

Seriously, Basic Training is going to be hard no matter what service you join. That is the entire point. It is supposed to be challenging. You have to prove you can cut it. You have to prove you won't panic under stress. You might get lucky and draw a kind hearted Instructor Staff, but it's highly unlikely. More often than not you will get instructors who will push your limits any way they can and play head games with you from the moment you show up until the moment you leave the base. That is their job.

All this talk about how much tougher one is over the other is mostly people's egos. Inter-service rivalry trumps reality every time. There are differences. Marines place a higher emphasis on physical fitness; they pride themselves on it, though all will challenge you physically just not to that degree. Academically, they say the Air Force is the hardest, though I found it fairly easy. Never scored below a B on test, and that was because I was so sleep deprived I could barely keep my eyes open. Two scores below 75% and you get a ticket home and the questions are worded oddly enough to confuse just about anyone. When it comes to head games...all are going to be the biggest challenge of your life. I'm told the Army instruction manuals all have cartoon pictures to help recruits understand the concepts? Is that true? I doubt it. Probably just that old inter-service rivalry again. Though ASVAB scores do have to be a little higher to get into the Air Force, so you hear a lot of jokes about how dumb the Army is...totally untrue...but we say it anyways. You will be sleep deprived, you will be hungry (the first few weeks you get only a few bites of food per meal before you are rushed out the door, you will be stressed out, you will be facing challenges you can’t possibly imagine, you will have people in your face like you've never experienced before all day long and for no good reason, and you’re going to have to keep it together. When you’re done, you will have earned the right to wear the uniform.

Is it worth it? You bet your a__!

[dwa]

from my understanding in he beginning the navy had some sailor companies but then gave way to the marines. the army and navy had to learn to conduct the land operation and bombardments like the army. but the army learned everything about the whole operation from the Corps. than they adjusted it to use their tactics. while the marines kept theirs. ill be honest i hate most ww2 stuff because its mainly about the army. its like we seem to forget we forgot about the japanese except for pearl harbor. but even when it is discussed your right the army is hardly discussed. kinda like korea. but then korea is the forgotten war. i like the movie the thin red line. thats about the army in the pacific.

well if its in Europe the army was the main force there and the pacific hardly mentions the army yet they were highly involved.

i think that Europe is discussed so much more because fdr was itching to get at the nazis before the war began and made it the priority over the pacific. to the credit of the marines navy and army they won a theater of war while being on the back burner so to speak.

the Japanese army while having some interesting organizations (they had their own carriers) was essentially a ww 1 army lacking modern weapons or doctrine. a good example of that is when the roosikies rolled up the much hyped kwantung army.

[steelrain82]

from my understanding in he beginning the navy had some sailor companies but then gave way to the marines. the army and navy had to learn to conduct the land operation and bombardments like the army. but the army learned everything about the whole operation from the Corps. than they adjusted it to use their tactics. while the marines kept theirs. ill be honest i hate most ww2 stuff because its mainly about the army. its like we seem to forget we forgot about the japanese except for pearl harbor. but even when it is discussed your right the army is hardly discussed. kinda like korea. but then korea is the forgotten war. i like the movie the thin red line. thats about the army in the pacific.

[dwa]

i think with the politics involved both army and marines will get smaller again once the war is over. that just seems to be the cycle. but i think whether or not its built the marine corps will continue to function with what it has or find a cheaper more effective solution. hopefully the govt will finally realize we need a bigger army not a smaller one. and the Corps prides itself on being a small unit. if you look up fleet landing exercises, it shows that the marines and navy were conducting these and coming up with the manual. it wasnt till the end of the 30's when the first army unit trained with the marines to learn the doctrine which helped them during d-day and other landings.

were the seamen brigades involved? as i recall i believe the army was responsible for their training. without further researching i would have to say that the marines introduced what they had at the time to the army who evolved the doctrine to fit ther particular requirements as anyone would. if your looking for a read check out the alamo scouts and 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), the army in the pacific during ww2 doesn't really get talked about, not to take away from the marine and navy accomplishments.

[steelrain82]

i think with the politics involved both army and marines will get smaller again once the war is over. that just seems to be the cycle. but i think whether or not its built the marine corps will continue to function with what it has or find a cheaper more effective solution. hopefully the govt will finally realize we need a bigger army not a smaller one. and the Corps prides itself on being a small unit. if you look up fleet landing exercises, it shows that the marines and navy were conducting these and coming up with the manual. it wasnt till the end of the 30's when the first army unit trained with the marines to learn the doctrine which helped them during d-day and other landings.

[dwa]

ill get those citations for you in a bit. and as far as hating on each other. im just trying to keep the rivalry going. the army has done more landings than the marines though. ill give them that. but after ww2 they abandoned the amphibious operations. the army has always felt what was the point of the corps. they should just be absorbed into the army. the army is trying to become more of an expeditionary army. the army didnt want the marines in europe or africa though. i dont remember he exact reason why but ill try to find that out as well

that is true the brigade combat team is a move toward that, i dont know of them being modeled after any marine formations but they are similar is structure.

i do have a question for you, if the efv doesn't get built do you think the corps with become much smaller? no efv mean no 40nm standoff to launch operation meaning no need for marine corps of current size.

[steelrain82]

so you cant say that you are good without putting others down,

when i was a pfc i was sweeping brass at the shoot house at schofield barracks Hawaii. we were sharing the sight with the marines, my buddy and i were talking about how it was funny that the army and marines talk **** about each other yet theres a marine in the next room over sweeping up brass, a marine e-5 overheard and came by to say he appreciated that.... thought that would have something to do with this conversation.

ill get those citations for you in a bit. and as far as hating on each other. im just trying to keep the rivalry going. the army has done more landings than the marines though. ill give them that. but after ww2 they abandoned the amphibious operations. the army has always felt what was the point of the corps. they should just be absorbed into the army. the army is trying to become more of an expeditionary army. the army didnt want the marines in europe or africa though. i dont remember he exact reason why but ill try to find that out as well

[dwa]

I believe you are maybe referring to a particular time in history... the army has performed more amphibious operations in the last century. In the entire history of the United States, I think it is a different story.

And again, the army having more ships than the navy is a misleading statistic. The army had more ships in WWII, but the vast majority were supply ships. The navy, although fewer in sheer numbers, still had more warships than the army.

i meant specifically ww2 but i didn't clarify. i did however say had more
ships, i meant it as another lil bit of history that would seem not to make sense.

[M47_Dragon]

it really has, and im not trying to say i have a bigger ****. in addition to operations in Europe, the army was very active in the pacific and has more amphibious operations by nature of being much larger and involved everywhere. like how the navy has the most aircraft and the army had the most ships.

I believe you are maybe referring to a particular time in history... the army has performed more amphibious operations in the last century. In the entire history of the United States, I think it is a different story.

And again, the army having more ships than the navy is a misleading statistic. The army had more ships in WWII, but the vast majority were supply ships. The navy, although fewer in sheer numbers, still had more warships than the army.

[dwa]

i forgot you have better commercials too. i dont think the army doesn't know who it is, it just doesn't do as good of PR, and nobody cares about buzzwords in the army. the marines provide a valuable service and both branches complement each other, the army also has a rapid deployment force as you stated and the marines have an expeditionary force, im sure if responsibilities where shifted either branch is more than capable than doing the others job as they have in the past.

[dwa]

Say what now?

it really has, and im not trying to say i have a bigger ****. in addition to operations in Europe, the army was very active in the pacific and has more amphibious operations by nature of being much larger and involved everywhere. like how the navy has the most aircraft and the army had the most ships.

[dwa]

as far as the amphibious aspect. the army learned and had to be trained by the marines how to do it. citation needed

the same thing with close air support. and if the marines weren't so bad a@@ why would the army constantly try to get the marine corps disbanded.
When? the army's too busy trying to reinvent the Internet to disband something it has nothing to do with? however it will be hard to justify a large presence if the efv is not built after the current conflict (read a white paper on it

the marines are shock troops we are meant to come in beat the crap out of shore defenses, secure a beach head and than let the army take over.

yep and the army has done the same thing, you can be proud of your branch without over inflating what you do you mission is whatever your assign to do remember, you guys are flexible

the army is meant for the extended fight and occupation. that's why they are an army not a corps. both groups have their jobs but the marines have adapted to help doing the armies role as well as maintaining their expeditionary role. like how the army adapted to work with the marines in the pacific while maintain the ability to fight large battles in Europe?

every country/enemy that we have fought has always feared the Marine Corps and given them the utmost respect.

as they have most American units in general

the jihadists all want to kill Americans and go get their virgins, but they are held in even greater esteem if they kill marines. citation needed

so you cant say that you are good without putting others down,

when i was a pfc i was sweeping brass at the shoot house at schofield barracks Hawaii. we were sharing the sight with the marines, my buddy and i were talking about how it was funny that the army and marines talk **** about each other yet theres a marine in the next room over sweeping up brass, a marine e-5 overheard and came by to say he appreciated that.... thought that would have something to do with this conversation.

[M47_Dragon]

ready your history the army has done more amphibious operations than the Marine Corp[/B]

Say what now?

[steelrain82]

as far as the amphibious aspect. the army learned and had to be trained by the marines how to do it. the same thing with close air support. and if the marines werent so bad a@@ why would the army constantly try to get the marine corps disbanded. the marines are shock troops we are meant to come in beat the crap out of shore defenses, secure a beach head and than let the army take over. the army is meant for the extended fight and occupation. thats why they are an army not a corps. both groups have their jobs but the marines have adapted to help doing the armies role as well as maintaining their expiditionary role. every country/enemy that we have fought has always feared the Marine Corps and given them the utmost respect. the jihadists all want to kill americans and go get their virgins, but they are held in even greater esteem if they kill marines.