Marine Corps. vs Army

Catz Part Deux said:

I admit to being partial to the Navy, and particularly their dark blue dress officer's uniform...hawt.

Click to expand...

If I had it to do all over again I would either join the Navy, or the Coast Gaurd.

GySgt said:

Not alot. Less and less. But some Marines attend speciality schools about their MOSs at Army schools. For my MOS, I was chosen to attend a Joint Communications Course at Fort Gordon. My MOS remained the same. I just received training for joint efforts (and some of it smoke checked me). The Army does have great specialty schools.

Click to expand...

Alot of the support MOS's are trained at Army schools: small arms repair, tank turrent repair, artillery repair, most wheel and track mechanics go to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for their AIT's.

apdst said:

Alot of the support MOS's are trained at Army schools: small arms repair, tank turrent repair, artillery repair, most wheel and track mechanics go to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for their AIT's.

Click to expand...

It makes sense. It would be a huge waste of money to form multiple schools amongst the branches to train the same thing. Like jump school.

GySgt said:

Which is why the overwhelming complainers about "refusinig to wear UN blue berets" in Somalia..."refusinig to wear NATO blue berets" in Bosnia..."I refuse to deploy"......."Obama is not my Commander-In-Chief"......etc. come out of the Army.

The organization itself motivates this. "An Army of One" or the rediculous amount of unit patches that seperate soldiers apart from each other help the individual feel as if his individualism is more important than the branch mission.

In the Marine Corps, there are no unit patches to seperate one Marine from another. In 1991, we even fought against the move to place name tapes on our cammies because it was a patch and it may produce individuality above the Eagle Globe and Anchor on our covers. You see brother hood from one uniform to the next in the Marine Corps. Opinions are encouraged through the chain of command and ideas are taken from all levels in rank to make mission accomplishment more efficient. But dissention is never tolerated and going outside your chain to seek media attention in order to get out of what you signed up for is viewed as traitorous to Marines.

Plenty in the Army believe this as well. And they will argue and deny that there is a mood difference between the branches in regards to this based on a personal sentiment. But why do we continue to always see the vast majority of dissentors, from one war to the next, in an Army uniform if there isn't something to it?

Click to expand...

Unit insignia is an extension of the tradition of flying unit colors on the battlefield to distinguish one unit from another on the line of battle.

But why do we continue to always see the vast majority of dissentors, from one war to the next, in an Army uniform if there isn't something to it?

Click to expand...

Slowdown, cowboy the Corps has had it's share of **** ups. Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald ring a bell?

GySgt said:

It makes sense. It would be a huge waste of money to form multiple schools amongst the branches to train the same thing. Like jump school.

Click to expand...

I agree. Surprised the hell out of me when I saw Marines attending the same school as me, though. Never knew that happened, before I joined.

apdst said:

Slowdown, cowboy the Corps has had it's share of **** ups. Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald ring a bell?

Click to expand...

What's wrong with them? They did their duty and got out........and simply continued to do what they were trained to do.

The topic wasn't about "**** ups." It was about individualism and why it exists so heavily in the Army. Remeber the protestors surrounding Bosnia? Something about having to wear NATO blue even though the real reason was that they were comfortable in their lazy reserve status and didn't want to deploy? The same occurred with Somalia. Iraq. Army dissenters always find a news camera or something to gripe about to get away from conducting their duties thereby casting shadows on their fellow soldiers. It is few and far between that the "soldier" will be a Marine.

Now to me, this just jumps out. But why does it happen this way if there isn't something to the individualism in the Army where these people are comfortable enough to speak against their duties?

apdst said:

I agree. Surprised the hell out of me when I saw Marines attending the same school as me, though. Never knew that happened, before I joined.

Click to expand...

I just graduated from an Advanced leadership course in the Marines (for Gunnys) at Camp Pendleton. We had an Air Force 1stSgt attending with my class.

GySgt said:

I just graduated from an Advanced leadership course in the Marines (for Gunnys) at Camp Pendleton. We had an Air Force 1stSgt attending with my class.

Click to expand...

Who trains Naval officers?

GySgt said:

What's wrong with them? They did their duty and got out........and simply continued to do what they were trained to do.

The topic wasn't about "**** ups." It was about individualism and why it exists so heavily in the Army. Remeber the protestors surrounding Bosnia? Something about having to wear NATO blue even though the real reason was that they were comfortable in their lazy reserve status and didn't want to deploy? The same occurred with Somalia. Iraq. Army dissenters always find a news camera or something to gripe about to get away from conducting their duties thereby casting shadows on their fellow soldiers. It is few and far between that the "soldier" will be a Marine.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with them except that Whitman did 30 days in the brig and Oswald was dishonorably discharged, then one killed 14 wounded 32 people from a clock tower in Austin and another killed the president.

Now to me, this just jumps out. But why does it happen this way if there isn't something to the individualism in the Army where these people are comfortable enough to speak against their duties?

Click to expand...

I really hope you're not trying to claim that no Marines refused to deploy to Iraq, or Afgahnistan.

WI Crippler said:

Who trains Naval officers?

Click to expand...

The Cub Scouts.

apdst said:

I really hope you're not trying to claim that no Marines refused to deploy to Iraq, or Afgahnistan.

Click to expand...

Of course not. But I am claiming that it is the Army that always becomes the focus point of dissenting "soldiers." There's never a team of Generals from the Marine Corps blasting the political system (which by the way leads to their men doing the same). Never a group of Marines refusing to serve in UN and NATO missions and claiming that it is because of a light or dark blue beret. The few Marines that have spoken out are either ostricized by their peers or punished for it by their chain of command.....or they were out and didn't matter anymore anyway.

apdst said:

The Cub Scouts.

Click to expand...

Oh....good one. I don't know if that was a dig at the Marines or the Navy. A twofer always gets an applause.

GySgt said:

Oh....good one. I don't know if that was a dig at the Marines or the Navy. A twofer always gets an applause.

Click to expand...

Marines ain't nothin' but glorified sailors, anyway.:rofl

Oozlefinch said:

The Marine boot camp is about twice as long as that of the Army.

Army boot camp is 6 weeks long, about a month and a half. The Marines on the other hand train for just over 3 months. And from everything I have both experienced and been told, it is much more intense as well.

I heard of "Weekend Passes" and "On Base Liberties" for Army recruits, but I can tell you that as a Marine, there was no such thing. Our only "Liberty" during our entire training was for 4 hours, the Sunday before graduation.

And it shows. If you march a platoon of Marines in civies and a platoon of Soldiers in civies, anybody can spot the difference. The bearing and carriage is that distinct.

2 years ago, I went through the Army "Warrior Transition Course", where they train prior service and soldiers out of the service for more then 5 years how to be "New Soldiers". And the first day, the Drill Sergeant watched me and said "I can tell, you used to be a Marine." The way we carry ourselves is that distinct.

But as for why the 2 services are different, it has to do with a lot of things. The mission is a big part of it, and in addition the size of each.

Over my 10 years as a Marine, I would run into others I served with fairly often. I may run into a guy I served with in California in the exchange in Okinawa. Or the guy I knew in boot camp will be in another platoon in North Carolina. But in the Army, you will rarely meet other people again that are outside of your Branch.

Click to expand...

Damn right it shows. I used to instruct Marines in A school. They we're totally squared away. I had one kid who refused to leave VES (Voluntary Extra Study) on a Saturday night, no less, until he got 100% on all his pre-tests. Military creases. Spit-shine. The works. The Marines are da shiznet.

The Marines are very good at quick deployment for small scale, short term high intensity missions. However the Marines do not win wars. Nor does the Air Force or the Navy. That is the job of the Army. To take and hold large areas of land.

Yes the Army is slow to deploy, but that is because of the nature of their mission. You cannot realistically maintain a large fighting force ready for rapid deployment over long periods of time. The Rangers, SF units, and some airborne units can deploy very quickly. However to criticize the Army as being slow because it takes weeks to move entire armored and infantry divisions and all their support elements is disingenuous and ignorant.

This inter service rivalry is ridiculous, traditional, but ridiculous. I don't care what anybody says, there is no evidence that Marines are better warfighters than soldiers. Oh you can all tell yourselves whatever you want to make you feel good about your branch of service, and make all kinds of claims regarding your uniforms and hair cuts and how long your basic training is, but the bottom line is a U.S. infantry soldier is every bit as combat capable as a Marine and vice versa.

We have the best combat troops in the world in my opinion, branch of service is irrelevant.

apdst said:

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with them except that Whitman did 30 days in the brig and Oswald was dishonorably discharged, then one killed 14 wounded 32 people from a clock tower in Austin and another killed the president.

Click to expand...

Actually, LHO had an "General Under Other Then Honorable Conditions" discharge.

His acxtual Discharge was a hardship discharge (Family Support), and because he had been Court Martialed, he was ineligable for an Honorable Discharge. And for many years after he got out he was in corespondance with John Connally, then Secretary of the Navy to have his discharge upgraded.

Personally, I believe that Gov. Connally was his actual target, not the President. Oswald held a huge grudge against the former Secretary of the Navy, and thought he was snubbed. Plus there are claims that a Dallas lawyer named Carroll Jarnagin overheard a conversation between Oswald and Jack Ruby to assasinate the Governor.

I am not sure if I believe the "hired hit" plot, but I do believe that Oswald wanted to assasinate the Governor because he felt he was being ignored. Oswald had a huge temper, and while he did not seem to bear the President any personal animosity, he did have some for Governer Connally, as well as retired Army Major General Edwin Walker.

Oozlefinch said:

The Marine boot camp is about twice as long as that of the Army.

Army boot camp is 6 weeks long, about a month and a half. The Marines on the other hand train for just over 3 months. And from everything I have both experienced and been told, it is much more intense as well.

Click to expand...

Army is 10 weeks, not 6 :2wave:

And sure, Army BCT is less intense than USMC because not every soldier is infantry, where as every Marine is infantry. Is it less intense because the Army is lazy? No. It's less intense because there's no need to prepare more technically inclined recruits for a job they will likely never have.

In order to compare the entire Army to the USMC, you have to compare the entire Army to the USMC and the Navy combined.

Anything less is just friendly competition to motivate, not to be taken seriously.

Lerxst said:

I don't care what anybody says, there is no evidence that Marines are better warfighters than soldiers. Oh you can all tell yourselves whatever you want to make you feel good about your branch of service, and make all kinds of claims regarding your uniforms and hair cuts and how long your basic training is, but the bottom line is a U.S. infantry soldier is every bit as combat capable as a Marine and vice versa.

Click to expand...

I would have agreed with you before I replaced an Army unit in Iraq.

When I went to my MOS school, I was in a class with sailors. I happened across something that said the Navy's "birthday" was the next day. When the Petty Officer instructor showed up, and we took our seats I wished the sailors a Happy Birthday, and received dumbfounded looks from every sailor. The Petty Officer was visibly pissed that none of the sailors even knew what I was talking about.

You will never, ever find a Marine that couldn't tell you the date of the Marine Corps birthday. There is simply an esprit de corps shared amongst Marines, across our entire branch that is not shared across the other branches. Yes there are elements of other branches that have a similar bond(when you get into special forces), but it is not shared service wide. The Air Force enlisted rank structure doesn't seem to be anything more than a patch telling people how much money you make. Every base I went to, we'd do a little airfield indoc, and E-3s are calling E-8s by their first name. Seriously, it would go like this....

"I'm Airmen First Class Johnson and that is Senior Master Sergeant Smith. We'll be doing your airfield indoc".

To the SMS: "Bill, do you know where we put that projector?"

WI Crippler said:

You will never, ever find a Marine that couldn't tell you the date of the Marine Corps birthday.

Click to expand...

Now, Crip, you remember the ol' saying...

...there's always one. And he's in every unit.

Ethereal said:

Now, Crip, you remember the ol' saying...

...there's always one. And he's in every unit.

Click to expand...

No, they all work in admin and **** up your pay/leave. :2razz:

Lerxst said:

The Marines are very good at quick deployment for small scale, short term high intensity missions. However the Marines do not win wars. Nor does the Air Force or the Navy. That is the job of the Army. To take and hold large areas of land.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that people don't know how to describe what the branches do anymore because they rely upon outdated ancient prescriptions of mission that have never really been true. If the Army "wins wars," then how do you explain Iraq? It was the Marines that won that war and the Marines that were called back in the fall of 2003 to assist the Army with their job. Somehow, "taking and holding large areas of land" didn't factor in at all. Too late of a scenario to prove anything? Let's go back some. What about the war in the Pacific? That was basically all Marine with Navy support and a couple nukes to cap it off in the end.

Lerxst said:

This inter service rivalry is ridiculous, traditional, but ridiculous. I don't care what anybody says, there is no evidence that Marines are better warfighters than soldiers. Oh you can all tell yourselves whatever you want to make you feel good about your branch of service, and make all kinds of claims regarding your uniforms and hair cuts and how long your basic training is, but the bottom line is a U.S. infantry soldier is every bit as combat capable as a Marine and vice versa.

Click to expand...

It is rediculous because people can't recognize the difference between inter service rivalry and accurate truth. If the U.S. Infantry soldier is as combat capable as any Marine then how do you explain away this.....

“I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!” - Army General Douglas MacArthur

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

"The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of Marines. Lord, how they could fight!" - Army MGen. Frank E. Lowe, Korea, 26 January 1952
"Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can. They are the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines?" - Army Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, 12 February 1918

"We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of this island, and three Army regiments pinned down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on?" - Army Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., Chairman of the the Joint Chiefs of Staff
during the assault on Grenada, 1983

"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." - Army Gen. John "Black Jack" Pershing, Commander of American Forces in World War I

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

These quotes were over the span of the last century. I guess these Army Generals were placing the Marine Corps on a higher ledge and were just "bashing" their own branch for the hell of it? Was there no reason at all for General Schwarzkopf's and General Powell's decision to park the Marine Corps for an amphibious landing as a feint in the Gulf War? Didn't the mass movement of Iraqi troops (Republican Guard) towards the supposed Marine assault give pepole a clue as to the very real danger Marines pose as opposed to the U.S Army and the rest of the West's militaries that were coming in from the South?

What completely torques me is that people are so intent with "giving everybody a trophy" that they completely miss the truth of things. Instead of recognizing the problems within the military, they insist that everybody is as good as everybody else and therefore those that are in desperate need of an overhaul don't receive it. It only ensures that soldiers will continue to be placed in harms way without the training they need and deserve.

GySgt said:

The problem here is that people don't know how to describe what the branches do anymore because they rely upon outdated ancient prescriptions of mission that have never really been true. If the Army "wins wars," then how do you explain Iraq? It was the Marines that won that war and the Marines that were called back in the fall of 2003 to assist the Army with their job. Somehow, "taking and holding large areas of land" didn't factor in at all. Too late of a scenario to prove anything? Let's go back some. What about the war in the Pacific? That was basically all Marine with Navy support and a couple nukes to cap it off in the end.




It is rediculous because people can't recognize the difference between inter service rivalry and accurate truth. If the U.S. Infantry soldier is as combat capable as any Marine then how do you explain away this.....



These quotes were over the span of the last century. I guess these Army Generals were placing the Marine Corps on a higher ledge and were just "bashing" their own branch for the hell of it? Was there no reason at all for General Schwarzkopf's and General Powell's decision to park the Marine Corps for an amphibious landing as a feint in the Gulf War? Didn't the mass movement of Iraqi troops (Republican Guard) towards the supposed Marine assault give pepole a clue as to the very real danger Marines pose as opposed to the U.S Army and the rest of the West's militaries that were coming in from the South?

What completely torques me is that people are so intent with "giving everybody a trophy" that they completely miss the truth of things. Instead of recognizing the problems within the military, they insist that everybody is as good as everybody else and therefore those that are in desperate need of an overhaul don't receive it. It only ensures that soldiers will continue to be placed in harms way without the training they need and deserve.

Click to expand...

Would you suggest that the Army train all soldiers as riflemen first and foremost? And should the US Army increase its period of training? I read somewhere that the British Army have the same length of training as the Marines....

Secondly are there units within the US Army the more accurately replicate the spirit, and ingenuity of the Marine Corp? And if there are, should the Army to try to replicate such a spirit within its general infantry units?

Interested to hear your thoughts GySgt and what the US Army should be doing. :twocents:

In my short time on this earth I've worked with a few guys who've won trophies off of Marines because they beat the Marine in some contest; usually something like pull-ups or rifle qualification.

Granted these soldiers were special forces, but that's efectivly what the Marines are: the Navy's special forces. Compairing the USMC to the Army is like comparing Rangers to the rest of the Army: and a Ranger could beat any Marine any day.

Jerry said:

In my short time on this earth I've worked with a few guys who've won trophies off of Marines because they beat the Marine in some contest; usually something like pull-ups or rifle qualification.

Granted these soldiers were special forces, but that's efectivly what the Marines are: the Navy's special forces. Compairing the USMC to the Army is like comparing Rangers to the rest of the Army: and a Ranger could beat any Marine any day.

Click to expand...

:rofl

Like you'd know.