• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marine Corps. vs Army

Status
Not open for further replies.
:rofl

Like you'd know.

Sounds like you've lost a shirt or two to a soldier in your time ;)

Personal military experience is not required to say any of the things I've said on this thread, and you know that. Hit a nerve, I did.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you've lost a shirt or two to a soldier in your time ;)

The only soldiers I saw were the ones I replaced in Iraq. They were an undisciplined lot - barely left their outpost. But there was one platoon of Marines attached to that Army unit and those Marines patrolled at least two times a day into the hot zones, and they set ambushes every night.

The local insurgents knew the difference between the Army grunts and the Marine grunts right away. My unit didnt see a single KIA in the most heavily IED-infested area of the country. Can't say the same for those Army boys...
 
Personal military experience is not required to say any of the things I've said on this thread, and you know that. Hit a nerve, I did.

Oh, okay, then tell me how you know a Ranger could "beat" any Marine any day. I'd love to hear this one.
 
The only soldiers I saw were the ones I replaced in Iraq. They were an undisciplined lot - barely left their outpost. But there was one platoon of Marines attached to that Army unit and those Marines patrolled at least two times a day into the hot zones, and they set ambushes every night.

The local insurgents knew the difference between the Army grunts and the Marine grunts right away. My unit didnt see a single KIA in the most heavily IED-infested area of the country. Can't say the same for those Army boys...

Well silly head, there should be a big difference when you replace the common soldier with any special forces unit, be it Marines, Rangers, etc.

And I like how you left out what those soldier's MOSs were ;) That's ok, I understand, you didn't want to compare your unit to an equivalent unit of another branch. You ran right back to the basic Army grunt instead :2wave:

That's like the Army's Air-born comparing themselves to a Navy Nuke.
 
Last edited:
Well silly head, there should be a big difference when you replace the common soldier with any special forces unit, be it Marines, Rangers, etc.

And I like how you left out what those soldier's MOSs were ;) That's ok, I understand, you didn't want to compare your unit to an equivalent unit of another branch. You ran right back to the basic Army grunt instead :2wave:

Infantry Marines don't replace Army cooks, Jer. Thought that'd be obvious.

Oh, and it wasn't a platoon of Marines, it was actually a squad of Marines that was attatched to that Army INFANTRY unit I helped replace.
 
Well, now that's out of the way, can you please tell me how you know an Army Ranger would beat any Marine any day? Please, I'd love to know.
 
Infantry Marines don't replace Army cooks, Jer. Thought that'd be obvious.

Oh, and it wasn't a platoon of Marines, it was actually a squad of Marines that was attatched to that Army INFANTRY unit I helped replace.

Yeah now you sound like one of those kids on the play ground..."my dad makes $10K...oh yeah well mine makes $20K...I meant my dad actually makes $40K, not $10K..."

Keep moving those goal posts, Ethereal :2wave:
 
Yeah now you sound like one of those kids on the play ground..."my dad makes $10K...oh yeah well mine makes $20K...I meant my dad actually makes $40K, not $10K..."

Keep moving those goal posts, Ethereal :2wave:

Hey, Jer, how do you know an Army Ranger can beat any Marine any day? Simple question.
 
Ever hear the one about the Marine and the kid in the restroom?
 
Hey, Jer, how do you know an Army Ranger can beat any Marine any day? Simple question.

It's simple. The Ranger will throw sand against a brick wall and scream, "Hit the beach!".
 
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.

Well the biggest and strongest guy I ever saw in a military uniform was an Air Force guy. That doesn't mean I have to put the entire Air Force on a pedestal and say they are the equivalent or better of the Marines.
 
Well the biggest and strongest guy I ever saw in a military uniform was an Air Force guy. That doesn't mean I have to put the entire Air Force on a pedestal and say they are the equivalent or better of the Marines.

And when you see one Marine stay in study hall until he gets a 100% on every test, that doesn't mean you have to put the entire USMC on a pedestal :2wave:

See you don't like it when others do it ;)

I'm just giving you guys ****. I don't have a dog in this fight. While there's a lot of Army and Navy in my family, I owe my life to one Marine.
 
Last edited:
My father fought in the Korean War after being drafted into the Army. At one point, his platoon was surrounded for 17 days by the enemy before the treaty was signed that effectively ended that war.

Upon returning to the States, he was honorably discharged. The first thing he did was join the Marines. Since my dad was not the "military type" (the kind of man that spends his life making a living in the military) I asked him why he did such a thing.

With the most thoughtful look I have ever seen him posses, he answered me by saying, "son, women love a man in a Marine uniform".

Which is funny 'cause I expected him to say something about doing it for "God and country" or to "fight the evils of communism"--but that wasn't it!

Dad was in it for the chicks.

And on some level, that's a pretty cool answer.

Dad died in 2004.

My father-in-law was in the army for WWII and was one of the first to Omaha Beach at Normandy on D-Day. And while the man never took a drink in his life he used to tell me stories of running a still throughout Europe on the back of a Jeep just to have somehting to do.

He died last Sunday. He was 90 years old.

God Bless our men and women in uniform...regardless of the uniform.
 
And when you see one Marine stay in study hall until he gets a 100% on every test, that doesn't mean you have to put the entire USMC on a pedestal :2wave:

The Marines are put on a pedestal because we've earned it through hundreds of years of exceptionalism in battle, which continues to this day. We ARE different, it's not some myth we've conjured up in order to make ourselves feel better. It's about the training we receive and the values that are instilled into us. Gunny made an excellent point that it shouldn't be about everyone having their own little military trophy, it should be about doing what is best for everyone.

The Army unit I replaced in Iraq was attacked every single day. They had several KIA's and WIA's by the time they left. My unit? The enemy engaged us directly the first week we were there...they never engaged us directly again after that. My unit had no KIA's and a few WIA's. By the time my unit left we were handing control over to the Iraqis. What was one of the nastiest pieces of land in all of Iraq was turned around and handed over in seven months by ONE company of Marines.

If those Army boys had been properly trained they'd probably be alive today. That's the point people keep missing because they're so intent on handing out "Everybody's a Winner" trophies.
 
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:

The Marine Corps gets a basic training on how to be a Marine in Boot Camp. There is some training on field and combat, but this is a basic introduction. The Marine receives greater combat training afterwards at a different echelon of his initial training. It's at MCT that he learns about obstacles, convoys, patrols, assault formations, retrograde procedures, medevacs, weapons training and employment, movements, mapping, communications, call for support, Combined Arms, etc. And if he is an 0300 (Grunt) he goes right to his primary infantry school. If he is not an 0300, he goes onto his MOS school. From here he receives annual training for the rest of his/her career on combat. All leadership courses center around combat through the ranks (along with customs and courtesies, of course.) All missions and field work revolve around combat. In the field, the supply clerk and the Motor T mech goes on patrols to keep these basic skills current and fresh. But even the Marine Corps is not satisfied with our system, which is why we continually approach it as if it is broke. The Marine Corps has no problem at all with looking at things and finding ways to either improve or to declare broken. This is how we get better and better every decade. And though the Marines of old may grumble over this......today's Marines are smarter and quicker - toughness is about the same. Whether that is because of the technological age or not, this is the truth and it is so because we constantly look to improve and evolve. A history of being dropped in the fire...Barbary Pirates War, Belleau Wood, Island hopping campains of WWII, Frozen Chosen in Korea, a humanitarian mission in Somalia, restoring governance in Haiti, to urban warfare and terrorist hunting in Iraq....tends to create a culture of learning quickly and on the fly. Marines have continuously been dropped into situations they were ill trained for but expected to come out victorious.

The Army does a fine job dedicating combat training upon its infantry, but neglects the overwhelming majority in uniform because they are a part of the "other" units. This worked just fine in the past just as long as there was a "front" in war such as WWI or WWII or Korea or Vietnam, especially when the Marine Corps was actively present in the area. But today, we exist in a world where there are no fronts. Soldiers and Marines of all walks of life are on convoys througout what used to be able to be labeled as a "front." It is very common to see non-Grunt Marines on the patrols. In 2004, the Marine Corps took a beating in numbers and the combat replacements were still forthcoming (thank the Bush/Kerry campaigns for that). In the mean time, Marines were taken from the airwing and support units to actively patrol with the Grunts. Obviously, they weren't duty experts, but the basic and annual training they received make them comfortable and reliable.

The Army has a habit of reaching to the past to define its future. In the 90s, while the Marine Corps was building combat towns after experienceing the future that Somalia represented, the Army was focusing on big box wars insisting that our future conflicts were going to be just like they were in the Gulf War. It's this dangerous inability to accept that all things change that ensures that soldiers are ill prepared for what lies ahead.

As far as the attitude, I really don't know what makes a Marine charge beach after beach after beach as if he is superhuman. It may be that obedience to orders in Boot Camp that makes Marines question "how high?" and not "why?" It may be that our history is so glorified that the individual wants to do his part to continue it. There's also a sense of adventure that Marines are looking for. Marines tend to run towards the sound of gunfire. This is something we constantly have to control. The attitude is also infectious. The two soldiers (PsyOps) that traveled with us on the way to Baghdad were constantly asking us to go on patrols with us or to help clear buildings. Eventually we let them, but we had to teach them how and what to do. The drive is there. But because they are a part of one of those "other" units in the Army, they never received training for this. But here they were dropped in a war towards the front (the only time there was a "front") with infantry Marines. On a closer note, one of the problems the Navy Corpsmen have is not knowing when to run out into the open to do his job. Marines constantly have to yank them down, because they will run directly into enemy fire. For some reason they turn into machines, while at the same time looking to pick up a gun and throw led. It's infectious.

I detest that people will take this as a sort of "bashing" because it tends to make me want to shut up. Unfortunately, the entire system is afraid to criticize the imperfections and such criticism is simply dismissed. But the entire military system ignores these truths and this is why we continue to see soldiers ambushed and taken prisoner. Another thing I have noticed from Somalia to Bosnia to Iraq is that while the Army has an outstanding script written for the conduct of warfare, they tend to go numb when that script doesn't provide for the one contingency they encounter. For example: When the Marines and the soldiers outran their supply routes in the push to Baghdad (thanks to the technology of the SMART-T), even though the Army convoys were outside the battle areas on the West, it was them that petitioned General Frank for a "21 day" time out even as Marine convoys protected themselves (again the difference in training). But in the mean time, Marines were ordered to stand still and dig in (March 28 - April 1) for a few days until the General finally declared that "there are no time outs in war." But in the mean time Marines were hand-to-hand in Nazariya and 7th Marine Regiment was not allowed to maneuver into a flanking position to relieve and destroy the enemy's path to them because of the order to cease all advancements and aggressions.

There are many fundamental issues within the Army that is never addressed despite their own Generals pointing fingers. Of course, the Marine attitude to "circle the wagons" whenever the Army comes around doesn't help either. But as Army Lt.Col. Ralph Peters has stated....."The Army will dismiss the Marine's way of thinking and planning until it proves to work. Then they will take it as their own."
 
Last edited:
By the way Marines have a 3 mile run and pull ups as part of the physical fitness test but the Army doesn't run as far in the PFT and there is no pull up requirement.
 
The Marines are put on a pedestal because we've earned it through hundreds of years of exceptionalism in battle, which continues to this day. We ARE different, it's not some myth we've conjured up in order to make ourselves feel better. It's about the training we receive and the values that are instilled into us.

That's what I keep saying, that you don't seem to get. Marines are different. They are on the level of Army spec-ops. I wonder how you can claim to be in the Marines and not yet get this simple concept.

Of course the average Marine is better than the average Soldier, the Marine has had more and better training. That's why when a soldier beats a Marine in a personal contest, the soldier walks away with a Marine token, but when the Marine wins, the Marine doesn't want an Army token. This is why there's an 'honorary Marine', but not an 'honorary Soldier' (unless it's something given to, say, a Boy Scout for PR purposes).

Comparing the average Marine to the average Soldier is comparing apples and oranges. If you're a Marine and you realy think you can bring it, compare yourself to an Army spec-ops.

When a Marine compares himself to the average soldier, it only shows a lack of confidence in the Marine, for why else would he start with easy contests but to build up to a real challenge.

Gunny made an excellent point that it shouldn't be about everyone having their own little military trophy, it should be about doing what is best for everyone.

When Marines compare themselves to the Army, the entire premise of that comparison is that the Marine and Army should be on the same level, and that the Army is lacking in some way.

Yes, the Marines do not have people who only do administration, because the Marines have the luxury of the Navy. The Army stands alone, and that level of independence and self sufficiency means that not every Solder will be a rifleman first.

The Army unit I replaced in Iraq was attacked every single day. They had several KIA's and WIA's by the time they left. My unit? The enemy engaged us directly the first week we were there...they never engaged us directly again after that. My unit had no KIA's and a few WIA's. By the time my unit left we were handing control over to the Iraqis. What was one of the nastiest pieces of land in all of Iraq was turned around and handed over in seven months by ONE company of Marines.

What you describe is the standard, nothing special at all when you're talking about Marines. You have had more and better training, so when you moved in, being better than an Army cook was expected.

If those Army boys had been properly trained they'd probably be alive today. That's the point people keep missing because they're so intent on handing out "Everybody's a Winner" trophies.

I have no idea what "trophies" you're talking about here. Feel free to school me.

The Army is increasing it's numbers and reorganizing to become faster. Have you fought with any Soldiers who went through the new Army boot? Sure, all you hear is how they toned down the yelling, but did you know they now have a 20something day desert FTX; with much more training on countering ambushes and IEDs. Another change: whereas in the early '90s Soldiers were issued their M16 around the 3rd-4th week of BCT, they are now issued it right away, begin marksmanship earlier, and for a longer amount of time.

Granted, these and similar changes still do not rise to the level of Marine BCT, but I wonder if your experience reflect those changes.
 
By the way Marines have a 3 mile run and pull ups as part of the physical fitness test but the Army doesn't run as far in the PFT and there is no pull up requirement.

Marines women do not have a pull-up test, they have a flexed arm hang test. Marine women also do not have a crunch test whereas Army women do, and Marines do not have a push-up test at all.
 
Last edited:
Marines women do not have a pull-up test, they have a flexed arm hang test. Marine women also do not have a crunch test whereas Army women do, and Marines do not have a push-up test at all.

I'm speaking from personal experience as of 1981. It may have changed. Please cite your source(s).
 

Your source is on males, not females(re; flex arm hang), and does show that there is no push-up test. Crunches, pull-ups, and a 3 mile, but not push-ups.

Here you see that for women, the pull-up test is replaced with the flexed arm hang:
Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test Chart - Female

I would still like to see the Army standards increase, however.

Why do the Marines test pull-ups and not push-ups? How does that test better show upper body strength than a push-up test?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom