Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 4:20:33 AM

patrickl

Posts: 1530
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline

Hi, I am curious why a large proportion of marine commanders have high aggressive ratings compared to army ones. I am tempted to put HM Smith and Rupertus in charge of army divisions but refrained from doing so.
Thanks!

Post #: 1

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 4:25:26 AM

rogueusmc

Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline

cuz theys jarheads son...OOOHRAAAH GIMME ONE OOOHRAAAH!!

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 2

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 6:45:05 AM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I am tempted to put HM Smith and Rupertus in charge of army divisions

As I recall, HM Smith wandered over to Makin one day, to see why the Army was doing not much of anything while the Marines were taking Tarawa, took charge of the Army units, and sort of forced the issue.

So a) Yes, USMC generals sometimes do take command of US Army units and b) Yes, USMC generals are more aggressive.

As I understand the big picture, the USMC generals are acutely aware of the loss of life and loss of bottoms going on out on the sea while the Army is proceeding casutiously. Their philosphy is to get the battle over with rather than draw it out a few more weeks losing all those DDs, CLs and AKs and the people on them.

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to rogueusmc)

Post #: 3

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 9:57:29 AM

patrickl

Posts: 1530
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline

Thanks guys, It is good to know about such things.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 4

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 2:06:23 PM

Lord_Calidor

Posts: 402
Joined: 3/25/2005
From: Rijeka, CRO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: patrickl

Thanks guys, It is good to know about such things.

Of course, you could've just watched Full Metal Jacket.

_____________________________

But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage.

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 5

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 4:16:14 PM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

Back in the 80s two of my buddies joined the military, one went to the army, the other to the marines, both as officer candidates.

Army comes back and says they taught him to recon, prep-fire (bombard) and flank attack.

Marines comes back and says they taught him to recon, prep-fire and frontal assualt.

That says it all.

During WWII there was fierce debate about the slower, lower daily casualty advance of the Army and the faster higher daily casualty advance of the Marines. The Marines argued that they too fewer casualties over all because the battle ended quicker, the Army argued that this was not true and thier way cost less blood. I have never seen anyone try to figure out which of these is true, but that was the debate.

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 6

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 4:17:23 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

Hope I don't start any wars here with my Army buddies,but this is my personal observation.
1.I was (always will be),an Army Ranger..That said,bear with me:
2.The American Army and the USMC had different philosophies from day one.The Army kills it's opponent by slow movement and attrition through maintaining contact with the enemy in a forceful manner..
3.The USMC kills it's opponent by being the finest assault troops the world has ever seen.It maintains this by honestly not placing as much concern with it's own losses,as much as it's accomplishment of the goal.
I had Gyrenes in my AIT unit,and most of the "soldiers" in that AIT thought the Gyrenes were NUTS!.
While I was the only Ranger in that particular AIT,(and therfore could see both sides,the "soldiers" were amazed that in the AIT judo-pits,the Gyrenes went out of their way to "hurt each other",apparently by creed,whereas the soldiers "went thru the motions",which was all that was expected by the judo instructors.
While the Army trains it's people well,it still leaves a lot for the individual troop to learn "on the battlefield",whereas the Gyrene expects to have his roughest time in his boot camp,so any foreign enemy cannot possibly be as bad as wheere he has already been!.This ideology has been verbally confirmed for me by the Gyrenes I have met(and fought with) in my youth.
BTW,the battle cheer "UUURRAHHH" was a "Ranger-thing" waaaay before the Gyrenes started using it..

_____________________________

(in reply to Lord_Calidor)

Post #: 7

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 6:46:17 PM

usersatch

Posts: 400
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline

I was a Ranger fellow as well (A Co 3/75 Rgr Rgt back in the 90's). We did some training with the Marines. I will refrain from my personal observations here because I am new to the board, but yes, they are the best at frontal assault and the best at taking casualties.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 8

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 6:51:47 PM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

debate about the slower, lower daily casualty advance of the Army and the faster higher daily casualty advance of the Marines

Remember you also have to count in the casualty rate the cost of maintaining ships off an unfriendly island while the battle is ongoing.

Does anyone know for Guadalcanal and for Okinawa what the land casualties and the "sailor" (at sea) killed and wounded casualties were? Are they approximately equal or was one much larger?

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to usersatch)

Post #: 9

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 6:56:58 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

Does anyone know for Guadalcanal and for Okinawa what the land casualties and the "sailor" (at sea) killed and wounded casualties were? Are they approximately equal or was one much larger?

Not sure if this is what you mean, but the USN battle casualties at Guadalcanal (men killed, wounded, MIA,) in ships was far higher than the soldiers/marines (iirc, by about a factor of 2 to 1). If you count disease, i think the guys on shore had far higher losses.

_____________________________

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 10

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 6:59:04 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

I'm certain that sailor losses in the months of battle for Guadalcanal greatly outnumbered the troop losses. But, there were a lot of traditional naval battles in that time. Guadalcanal and Okinawa are two different situations.

I also heard that we had more sailor losses than troop losses taking Okinawa. Mostly because of the Kamikaze's. But, I don't know for sure that we had more sailor losses. I'm guessing that the troops were having as hard a time as the sailors.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 11

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 7:01:25 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

The marines were formed based on the concept of naval landings against prepared defenses. The core concept is pretty much fight for the right to be there right off the boat. As the type of attack is a rather brutal one, the expected loss rates are high. The aggressive nature is obviously required for that type of mission as the goal is pretty much win or die. One does not retreat from a failed landing so success is the only option.

It's like the para's ... you can't exactly change your mind once you leave the plane.

_____________________________

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 12

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 7:19:55 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

It's like the para's ... you can't exactly change your mind once you leave the plane.

I like the line from Band of Brothers:
Soldier sez "We are surrounded"(at Bastogne).
Maj Winters:"Paratroopers are supposed to be surrounded!".

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 13

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 8:37:51 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Warning: significant generalizations approaching.

The relative agressiveness of marine commanders vs. army commanders is based, as mentioned above, on how they were generally going to be deployed (island assault vs. continental sized operations) which in turn influenced the to&e of their commands. In a kind of circular logic the to&e of a division reinforced the aggressiveness or lack of aggressiveness of its commander.

Marine divisions were expected to be assault type units with short deployment cycles, never having a frontage of more that 3-5 miles (generally much lower than that). Normally they did not have to worry about flanks and, in turn, they could not outflank their opponents at least on a company or higher level. The marines would rely on other services or units to provide whatever logistic, anti-air, artillery and rear-echelon security. Marine IDs had no or relatively little of these elements organic to its structure compared to an army ID. Due to these factors and others (i think marine rifle companies were larger than army rifle companies 220-240 vs. 140-160) marine IDs had greater number of riflemen in total and percentage in their oobs. Their deployment demanded and their to&e allowed for their commanders to be aggressive in terms of tactics and absorbing casualties.

Army IDs were organized to fight continental sized operations with much longer deployment cycles. The divisions would be expected to hold a frontage anywhere from 10-30 miles. A significant portion its total strength was employed in organic units doing those tasks listed above. Artillery, anti-tank and anti-air was needed for the lengthened frontage. An army ID may also be deployed anywhere from 20-150 miles from its depot so it had a large organic transportation element to supply it. It was also expected to be mobile, further adding to the amount of potential combat strenght diverted to transportation, loc troops, supply, etc. With these organic elements requiring more manpower army IDs had a smaller total and percentage of riflemen in their oob compared to marines. Because casualties in island combat were very high for a short period Army IDs tended to be somewhat brittle due to their smaller number of riflemen. I believe that their commanders took this into account in their tactics.

Differing deployment cylces also affected the commanders. Marine IDs (with exceptions such as Guadacanal, Iwo Jima and Okinawa) generally had very short combat operations followed by extensive rest and refit. Although I've never seen a reason for the larger rifle companies stated, I've always thought that this allowed the marines to, in effect, carry their own replacments with them for a landing. Casualities would be replaced after the operation was over. Army IDs were generally in the front lines longer and, although the combat would be at a generally lower pace, required a pipeline of replacement troops. This pipeline of replacements was not readily reproducible in island campaigns.

Sorry, that was a little longer than i thought.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 14

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 10:05:33 PM

rogueusmc

Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline

Y'all are all saying the same thing I did...just that I said it simpler...

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 15

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 10:21:12 PM

Grunt

Posts: 111
Joined: 5/17/2004
From: Idaho, USA
Status: offline

Former Marine here. We summarized our tactics as "Hey diddle, diddle, straight up the middle!"

(in reply to rogueusmc)

Post #: 16

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 10:31:04 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Y'all are all saying the same thing I did...just that I said it simpler...

Both of us being from texas we should have the same relative amount of brain damage caused by the sun. Hmmm. . . .

(in reply to rogueusmc)

Post #: 17

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 10:41:41 PM

Graycompany

Posts: 511
Joined: 8/19/2004
Status: offline

Well i have to say im a bit biased in this, but the best way I can describe the differences between the other services and the marines, is by a story.

I was at a defence conference one time, and there was a high ranking representitive from each of the services, including the coast guard.

I watched as each one got up and gave a talk about what their service's did and how they each needed the other services. It was all so politically correct, the Navy admiral was very very good at talking and praised each of the other services. Finnally the Marine General got up, Was Gen Gray( later went on to be the commadant). He said "one day there were this army guy, a navy guy, and airforce guy who all had been killed one way or the other. They were in a elevator going to heaven, and got to talking , when the airforce guy says. Hey there isnt a marine in here? and the navy guy and army guy start laughing. they say no way, marines arent allowed in heaven. The airforce guy dosent think this sounds right, but dosent say anything. They get up to saint peter, and he checks their service records, and passes each of the 3 guys, army, navy airforce. The airforce guy cant let it go, and asks St.. Peter, hey, is it true their are no marines in heaven? St. peter laughs, and says, yes thats true, their are no marines here. the 3 walk down the corrider, and at the end they see this guy in marine dress blues, sword and all marching up and down the passage way. they are shocked, they run back to st peter and say, quick look down there, thats a marine. St peter pops his head around the corner, looks back a the 3 an busts out laughing again. Gentelmen, he says, that isnt a marine, thats just GOD, he just thinks he is a marine." well the whole place erupts in laughter, except the other brass on the podium with Gen Gray. (except im sure I saw the Admiral put his head down smiling). Gen gray goes on to tell everyone there that we dont need the other services at all, the marines can do it all. Was at that moment that I thought, Im going to be a marine.

_____________________________

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...

(in reply to rogueusmc)

Post #: 18

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 10:46:27 PM

rogueusmc

Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline

A.M.Gray was a nut anyway...great combat leader but a nut nevertheless...

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

(in reply to Graycompany)

Post #: 19

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/2/2005 11:13:36 PM

AmiralLaurent

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

During WWII there was fierce debate about the slower, lower daily casualty advance of the Army and the faster higher daily casualty advance of the Marines. The Marines argued that they too fewer casualties over all because the battle ended quicker, the Army argued that this was not true and thier way cost less blood. I have never seen anyone try to figure out which of these is true, but that was the debate.

Interesting. At the end of WWII there was a meeting between Soviet and US (or British) generals/marshals. DOn't remember the name, but one of the Western said that the Soviet assaults were really too bloody and that any Western general with such a casualty rate will be sacked. The reply was that Soviet liked better to lose 10 000 men one day and achieve a breaktrough straight away rather to lose 1 000 men each day to see the Germans retire in order after a week "like US did".

In that case, numbers are wrong. The Red Army lost 12 000 - 14 000 dead an average day.... so casualties on first day of offensives should be even more. While the average war day costed the US a little more than 300 dead. In 1944-1945, the rate should be between 500 and 1000 a day as this was the period where the bigger number of US troops were engaged.

In WITP, I think a majority of players use 'shock assault' more often than 'deliberate attack'

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 20

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/3/2005 2:11:04 AM

rogueusmc

Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline

A Navy Admiral, an Army General, an Air Force General and a Marine Sgt Major were sitting in a bar drinking one day and, as you may well imagine, the discussion was lively. Soon the discussion turned to whose troops had the biggest balls.

After arguing over this subject for a time, the Army General said, "y'all come over to my base and I'll show you troops with balls."
They all went to the Army base and they went to see a Ranger platoon.
The General walked up to a Ranger and said, �soldier, I want you to go up in that helicopter there and jump out of it.�
The Ranger said, �YES SIR!!� He goes up in the helicopter and jumps out. He hits the ground with a sickening thud. Deader than ****.
The General turns to the others and said, �now that�s balls.�

The Navy Admiral said, �that ain�t ****. Ya�ll come over to MY base and I�ll show you troops with balls.�
They all went to the Navy base and boarded one of the big carriers.
The Admiral found a sailor and asks, �sailor, can you swim?�
The sailor said, �no sir.� The Admiral proceeded to tell him to jump off the side of the flight deck.
The sailor said, �AYE AYE SIR!� The sailor jumped off the deck and fell all the way to the water where, after splashing in, he commences to flailing at the water. He goes under a couple of times and comes back up. Then he went down and wasn�t seen again.
The Admiral turns to the others and said, �now THAT�S balls!�

The Air Force General said, �THAT ain�t ****. Come on over to MY base.�
They go to the Air Force base and approached the flight line.
The General told one of his fighter jocks to take his Falcon up to it�s ceiling and then dive it into the dirt.
The jet jock said, �YES SIR!� He takes off and does as he was instructed and drove his plane into the ground. The heat from the fireball can be felt back near the group of men.
The General said, �MY troops have the biggest balls!�

The whole time the Marine Sgt Major has just been drinking his rum and grenadine not saying a thing. He finally spoke up and said, �Y�all don�t know what real balls are! Y�all follow me.�
They group followed the Sgt Major to Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California. They approached one of the recruits at the repelling tower. The Sgt Major turns to the others and told them to keep in mind that these are just recruits�they aren�t even Marines yet.
The Sgt Major told one of the recruits to climb to the top of the repelling tower and jump off.
The recruit said, �@#$% YOU!�
The Sgt Major turns to the others and said, �now THAT�S BALLS!!�

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 21

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/3/2005 3:29:29 AM

scout1

Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

USNA ('83) so I'm biased a bit.........
I've dealt with marines and army personnel. And I have the utmost respect for my army friends (tanker4145, when are you going to send out your flattops ?), my experience is the jarheads are no group to argue with. bless all of them ..... the Marines are a group that ALWAYS fulfill their goal (for the most part). Never, ever, argue with a Marine......

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 22

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/3/2005 4:56:47 AM

Cutman

Posts: 71
Joined: 10/26/2002
From: Florida
Status: offline

There was a huge difference during WWII and I do agree with most that has been said. After H. Smith relived that Army General there was a diificult relationship between the two services. If I remember right they replaced the ARMY Gen in charge of OKINAWA after Buckner got killed by artillery very quickly because the second in command was a Marine. He was only in charge for 2-3 days and they flew in other Army Gen.

ROGUE OARAH!

Cutman
USMC

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 23

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/3/2005 5:43:21 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, It appears that there are a lot of Marines playing WITP
USMC 73-77

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Cutman)

Post #: 24

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/3/2005 5:53:39 AM

Zorfwaddle

Posts: 263
Joined: 3/16/2001
From: Pensacola, FL
Status: offline

Im in the USN (CTIC(SG)). The last class here at DLI I taught had 4 Marines. All 4 were talented, respectful, and had their own personalities. Most people think that Marines have one mind (Kill, Kill, Kill), but these guys had character.

George

_____________________________

"AK-47. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every m****rf****r in the room. Accept no substitutes." Ordell Robbie - "Jackie Brown"

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 25

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/3/2005 6:13:10 AM

rogueusmc

Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorfwaddle

...had 4 Marines...these guys had character.

George

That a nice way to describe us...thank you!!!

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

(in reply to Zorfwaddle)

Post #: 26

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/3/2005 8:28:32 AM

Posts: 35
Joined: 8/14/2004
Status: offline

Semper Fi, Boyz, Semper Fi. Al Gray commisioned me ('89), and he ain't nuts. Devil Dogs are trained from day 1 to be infantrymen, no matter their MOS. Pilots, mechanics, lawyers, cooks, artillerymen, etc all know how to shoot a rifle (accurately!) and conduct platoon level tactics.
Look at Jessica Lynch's unit: A. They got lost, and B. They couldn't fight. She got a Bronze Star and a Leno appearance (or Letterman?) for surrendering. Not a knock on the Army by any means, but merely fact. I respect most Army combat arms units, but esprit de corps and infantry tactics are constantly maintained in all USMC grapes, whether they are supply guys or radarmen or grunts. Of course, the grunts do it best.
The fighting spirit is forged in boot camp and constantly tested. So maybe we ARE nuts, but only when the balloon goes up. SEALs, on the other hand are always nuts! Those boys know how to train.

_____________________________

"They were all enemy. They were all to be destroyed."
-W. Calley

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 27

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/3/2005 11:10:06 AM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

Although this book is beletristic, i enjoyed in Battle Cry (Leon Uris) very much. Did you guys read this book?

_____________________________

(in reply to V2)

Post #: 28

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/3/2005 5:07:15 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

During WWII there was fierce debate about the slower, lower daily casualty advance of the Army and the faster higher daily casualty advance of the Marines. The Marines argued that they too fewer casualties over all because the battle ended quicker, the Army argued that this was not true and thier way cost less blood. I have never seen anyone try to figure out which of these is true, but that was the debate.

Interesting. At the end of WWII there was a meeting between Soviet and US (or British) generals/marshals. DOn't remember the name, but one of the Western said that the Soviet assaults were really too bloody and that any Western general with such a casualty rate will be sacked. The reply was that Soviet liked better to lose 10 000 men one day and achieve a breaktrough straight away rather to lose 1 000 men each day to see the Germans retire in order after a week "like US did".

In that case, numbers are wrong. The Red Army lost 12 000 - 14 000 dead an average day.... so casualties on first day of offensives should be even more. While the average war day costed the US a little more than 300 dead. In 1944-1945, the rate should be between 500 and 1000 a day as this was the period where the bigger number of US troops were engaged.

In WITP, I think a majority of players use 'shock assault' more often than 'deliberate attack'

Irrelevant..Try to figure it by combat front "square footage"..

_____________________________

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 29

RE: Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones - 6/3/2005 5:41:31 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

Irrelevant..Try to figure it by combat front "square footage"..

No way, man, DIY, you're on your own here

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones

Page: [1] 2 next > >>