I'm not complaining or even whining about it, I simply don't know the answer...

how come Navy and Marine deployments are generally 6-7 months and Army is 12 months (well, apparently 15 months now!)?

I guess they are just more undermanned:shrug

Yes, the Navy and Marines are manned whereas the Army is undermanned. I mean the Army recruiters and the Army overall are offering sign on bonuses, lowering standards and etc just to get people to join and still people are not, well a lot of them are not because they know they will eventually end up over in Iraq.

Yes, the Navy and Marines are manned whereas the Army is undermanned. I mean the Army recruiters and the Army overall are offering sign on bonuses, lowering standards and etc just to get people to join and still people are not, well a lot of them are not because they know they will eventually end up over in Iraq.

:yes

Yes, the Navy and Marines are manned whereas the Army is undermanned. I mean the Army recruiters and the Army overall are offering sign on bonuses, lowering standards and etc just to get people to join and still people are not, well a lot of them are not because they know they will eventually end up over in Iraq.

:yes

I would think it also, at least for Navy, the fact they are deployed on ships and not land. Being cooped up on a ship for 6-7 months can't be fun. DH did a 10 month deployment a few years ago on an oiler. I couldn't imagine being on a ship that long, even with going into port for breaks. This particular deployment, the captain allowed very limited time in port though, which made is harder. It was tough.

Yes, the Navy and Marines are manned whereas the Army is undermanned. I mean the Army recruiters and the Army overall are offering sign on bonuses, lowering standards and etc just to get people to join and still people are not, well a lot of them are not because they know they will eventually end up over in Iraq.

what is 'manned' and 'undermanned'?

Under staffed basically.

But i don't necessarily agree with this.

For one- WHENEVER it's war time- the army is always deployed alot longer. The navy deploys shorter periods of time, and sometimes more frequently then some army units but it's always the same- army goes in, for the longest.

Only reason the army is under staffed is because the soldiers are treated like fuckin pawns. Not human beings, with real lives, with real bodies & real family.

I agree that the Army HAS lowered it's standards- but what else is it supposed to do?! The army has the highest troop count in Iraq, so troops are either getting killed- or sick of being treated like shit. So ofcourse they let anyone in with a bonus. To fight the presidents war- you need troops.

what is 'manned' and 'undermanned'?

I think they meant that the Army recruiters have been having a difficult time making yearly quotas.. people are ending their contracts but not enough people are joining to replace them

ALSO, the Army is an occupying force whereas the Marines are meant to be a quick reaction force (get in, secure the area & hand it over to the Army to occupy)

I found this on Yahoo & I found it a fairly knowledgable explaination...
The Marines main purpose is to be a quick reaction force anywhere in the world. They accomplish this because we have Marines stationed on ships and in bases all over the globe. The Marines pick the fight, the Army wins it.

They do not "spearhead" every battle as some have said. The Army has fought and won more battles than the marines have been in. But because we have marines at sea, and the Army tends to be on bases, Marines can deploy very quickly.

The Marines specialize in amphibious warfare whereas the Army specializes in ground combat. The Marines have a battlefield sustainability that is much shorter than the Army. This is the nature of quick response forces because they don't bring the amount of support personnel with them that the Army does.

The Army has more advanced and devastating equipment. Their job is to win the fight, whereas the Marines job is to start it. The Marines show up with mostly light infantry forces and some tanks and artillery. When the Army shows up its with thousands of tanks, light infantry, and thousands of artillery.

Both branches are equally tough, combat effective and depend heavily on each other to win on the battlefield.

also, the missions are different for each branch. so combine that with manning issues and there you have it.

We lived on a MCB in Hawaii (husband is Navy but worked for MAL which is a Marine command), and all of our friends who were marines deployed for 12 months or longer.

Also, I think that ships are limited on the amount of time that they can be over there without changing out, due to repairs and things that have to take place in the home port. I would assume that is the reason for shorter deployments than the Army. Who knows though?! :shrug

I think it all depends on what they do. All branches have different pourpose. There are sailors who have been deployed for way longer than a regular 6 months deployment. They all have different pourpose and they will deploy according to what they do.

Yeah what the Admiral from the air wing of the Stennis said they can pretty much be out there indefinately if needed. I know they will not be out there indefinately because there would be a lot of pissed off people but I think he was refering to it being a nuclear powered carrier vs conventional, thats how I took it. I know from experience that a deployment on a ship is not fun and even less fun on an FFG because of the size of the ship, to be honest, it sucked to go on deployment onboard an FFG.

Those who don't know, an FFG, fully manned is maybe at the most 220 sailors including all officers.

I too think it has a lot to do with the mission. DB was going to be on a 14 month deployment this time, but they switched it on him last minute and now he is back on a 7 month deployment. I also agree with the quick reaction force, that is how DB has explained it to me too.