• 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.
Redfour5 said:
Yes, and everything LERXST said it true. Different missions. Marines are quick and nimble because they aren't tied to a massive logistical train designed to support a long drawn out conflict with staying power like that originally envisioned for Europe (see Red Storm Rising if you want to get a feel for what might have been). But, Marines after about 90 days without being relieved would likely collapse. Marines, Rangers, Airborne are the "sharp end" but it takes the blade to kill. And that is the army's role.
Click to expand...

Both yes, and no.

You have to remember that the logistics for both are very different. The Marines are designed in a very different way.

Mostly, it is for short but intense offensive actions (assaulting a beach), and then a holding action for as long as needed. Remember, their traditional role was to defend Navy bases, and this is where the doctrine of "defense against all" comes into play. If you are defending a beach, there is really no place for you to retreat to. So once they dig in, you have to destroy them to get them out of there.

This was seen at Khe Sanh for example, where they held off the NVA for over 5 months. This was well beyond "90 days", and they did not collapse.

Where the two forces really differ logistically is that the Marines are all "Light Foot Infantry". Unless they get a ride from somebody else, they have to go there on foot, which makes for a slow way to go from one place to another.

Mostly they were not used in Europe simply because of the size, and they already had a mission.

During WWII, the Army was over 11 million strong. That was also when the Marines had it's highest numbers ever, 660,000. The Army had over 85 Divisions, the Marines only had 6.

The Marines would have literally been a "drop in the bucket" in Europe. This is why they were used in the Pacific, where most of the battles were short but intense. The Army in that theatre was only really used in the few battles where numbers made a major difference because of the size of the islands being attacked (Guadalcanal, Philippines, Okinawa).

Redfour5 said:
So, in a sense any comparison is apples and oranges but your role also affects your point of view. The Chosin Reservoir is a very good example of the different perspectives. Marines and Army in essentially identical positions on different sides of a reservoir with a high command thinking they are still on the offensive. Read the history of how the different commands of the respective units first anticipated and second responded. The Marines knew they didn't have a chance in hell and prepared for the worst listening to their intel and actually ignoring their high command recognizing a dynamically changing situation and never even subconsciously thinking could depend upon anything except themselves.
Click to expand...

One thing about the Marines is that they only trust themselves, and the Navy. They always try to operate as a self-contained force when possible, and it showed in Korea.

But in actual doctrine and tactics, the Marines more closely resemble Army Rangers then Army Infantry. Fast assaults, small units moving swiftly from one location to another, then with almost fanatical defenses. This is even seen in how they operate. For the Army, your operations are generally conducted at Brigade and Division scale. Send the 1st Division here, send the 101st Division there. Very large massive movements designed to overwhelm the opponent. The Marines operate on a much smaller scale, generally at the Battalion level, sometimes as a Regiment.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Both yes, and no.

You have to remember that the logistics for both are very different. The Marines are designed in a very different way.

Mostly, it is for short but intense offensive actions (assaulting a beach), and then a holding action for as long as needed. Remember, their traditional role was to defend Navy bases, and this is where the doctrine of "defense against all" comes into play. If you are defending a beach, there is really no place for you to retreat to. So once they dig in, you have to destroy them to get them out of there.

This was seen at Khe Sanh for example, where they held off the NVA for over 5 months. This was well beyond "90 days", and they did not collapse.

Where the two forces really differ logistically is that the Marines are all "Light Foot Infantry". Unless they get a ride from somebody else, they have to go there on foot, which makes for a slow way to go from one place to another.

Mostly they were not used in Europe simply because of the size, and they already had a mission.

During WWII, the Army was over 11 million strong. That was also when the Marines had it's highest numbers ever, 660,000. The Army had over 85 Divisions, the Marines only had 6.

The Marines would have literally been a "drop in the bucket" in Europe. This is why they were used in the Pacific, where most of the battles were short but intense. The Army in that theatre was only really used in the few battles where numbers made a major difference because of the size of the islands being attacked (Guadalcanal, Philippines, Okinawa).



One thing about the Marines is that they only trust themselves, and the Navy. They always try to operate as a self-contained force when possible, and it showed in Korea.

But in actual doctrine and tactics, the Marines more closely resemble Army Rangers then Army Infantry. Fast assaults, small units moving swiftly from one location to another, then with almost fanatical defenses. This is even seen in how they operate. For the Army, your operations are generally conducted at Brigade and Division scale. Send the 1st Division here, send the 101st Division there. Very large massive movements designed to overwhelm the opponent. The Marines operate on a much smaller scale, generally at the Battalion level, sometimes as a Regiment.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely in a historical context however for the last ten years and two wars the way the mission and the way they operate has been for both pretty close to identical outside of small units SOPs. It will be interesting to see if the Marines go back to their roots with the wars drawing to a close. It is the same for Ranger BN. Where as in the past they prided themselves as being the world's most elite light infantry since 911 they have for the most part morphed into a DA raid force. Much closer to a mix of Delta and SEALs ( without the water aspect ) than normal infantry. Without the intense demand for that type of work brought on by the wars we will see if they stay that way or go back to being the standard for all light infantry
 
Good thread... marines should alway be careful to not be sucked too far into an Iraq like war. They should function as the tip of the spear and use the conflict to sharpen them as a blade not dull them as a force. As you note the distinctions between branches can blur. The fewer Abrams and what they represent in tying Marines down and MUST have to keep them going the better off is the USMC. true Marines should view big hunks of impressive steel like them like disposable tools. Great hammers to use to effect but if they can't float/drive back to a ship with Marines on board, then leave em after using em or give em back to the army. You can always "borrow" one if you need it... Marines are good at borrowing things and very sorry when they give them back less for wear and tear...
 
400px-Necro2_zps63cb63c0.jpg
 
Holy nuclear necrobumply necrobumps.

Shout out to my brother, navy nukes are the best 8)

It IS rocket science :D
 
I thought this thread needed a bump here six years later. Back in March 2015, I wrote, " Good thread... marines should alway be careful to not be sucked too far into an Iraq like war. They should function as the tip of the spear and use the conflict to sharpen them as a blade not dull them as a force. As you note the distinctions between branches can blur. The fewer Abrams and what they represent in tying Marines down and MUST have to keep them going the better off is the USMC. true Marines should view big hunks of impressive steel like them like disposable tools. Great hammers to use to effect but if they can't float/drive back to a ship with Marines on board, then leave em after using em or give em back to the army. You can always "borrow" one if you need it... Marines are good at borrowing things and very sorry when they give them back less for wear and tear..."

The Marines have gotten rid of their tanks. They have stated specifically that they got sucked too far into the late wars and needed to get back to their original purpose of being the tip of the spear in "wet" settings. They are moving away from large sitting duck "LPH's" and moving to a smaller faster form of transportation. The navy itself is recognizing that large "sitting duck" aircraft carriers are very vulnerable to hypersonic missiles and are looking at dispersing their air resources.

It appears that I was in the ball park back then on things to be careful of if the response is any indication. And everyone commenting here were accurately commenting upon the state of affairs in 2015. The world has moved on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom