First to fight!

@sgtwiltan:

We were tasked with attacking the the Iraqis head on to fix their units in Kuwait during the 1990 gulf war. We attacked exactly where they were expecting us to attack so the rest of the coalition could take them from behind.

And if I’m not mistaken (I’m quoting from a documentary whose accuracy I can’t verify), the Marine head-on advance into Kuwait progressed faster than had been planned for in the timetable for the overall ground war – so much so, in fact, that senior commanders started to worry that the Iraqi forces in Kuwait City might bolt north for the border before the enveloping Coalition forces could complete their right hook and bag the whole lot.  The Marines also helped the operation in the weeks prior to its start by conducting amphibious landing exercises which were meant to give the Iraqis the impression that the USMC was going to storm shore in the Kuwait City region; this helped draw Iraqi defending forces in that direction, and thus away from the actual locations chosen for the real attacks.

As a footnote, I still remember a TV story in which CBS News anchorman Dan Rather – garbed in a flak jacket, and giving the impression that he’d personally led the Marines into Kuwait City to liberate it – walking around inside an Iraqi coastal bunker with his cameraman.  He picked up a shell from a box of ammunition (it looked about 40mm in size), inspected it, commented “They were really loaded for bear here” and tossed the shell back into the box.  I thought I was going to see him blow himself up on live television, but such was not the case.

@sgtwiltan:

@Redleg13A:

@CWO:

@Redleg13A:

I have a lot of devil dog buddies and whenever they start talking “hoorah” and patting each other on the back with how great they are I like to point out that the Marine Corps may win battles…but the Army wins wars!

Here’s an anecdote along the same lines that I mentioned in an earlier discussion:

Back during the First Gulf War, I saw a news item on television in which a reporter spoke (on separate occasions) to a guy from the US Marines and a guy from the US Army.  When he asked the leatherneck why he was in the USMC rather than the Army, the guy answered (as I recall) “Well, I think the Army is kind of ordinary, and I think of myself as somebody who’s more than just ordinary.”  When he later asked the GI why he was in the Army rather than the Marines, the soldier answered, “I know some guys who are in the Marines and they’re all crazy.”

LOL, and that’s basically the crux of it. Marines revolve their lives around their Marine identities it seems. For instance, you’ll see MANY more Marines/former Marines wearing their respective Marine shirts, hats, jackets, license plates, etc than you will for soldiers. I think it is great that devil dogs are proud of their service and want everyone to know it. At the same time, I believe soldiers are just as proud, they just don’t feel the compulsion to let everyone around them know how proud they are. I think soldiers simply prefer the quiet professionals approach.

When I got out of the Marines my office was in an old WW2 barracks. The building across the street was being demolished so was used by Force recon for a live fire urban assault excercise.
We are rah rah about being Marines because we have the scraps of the navy budget and at the time of my exit, deployable Marines were expected to deploy 7 months out of each year and that was a peacetime commitment. We’re good cause we have to be to crack the defenses. There are not many of us so once we’ve made the hole, the army with more and heavier equipment takes over for the long haul. Combined with the Navy’s air assets and our rides, our mission is offensive power projection. We were tasked with attacking the the Iraqis head on to fix their units in Kuwait during the 1990 gulf war. We attacked exactly where they were expecting us to attack so the rest of the coalition could take them from behind. Out of ~500k US troops in theatre, there were 80k of us. That head on attack was however helped by the Army’s Tiger brigade since our armour assets were not enough and the original British armored division allocated to us were reassigned for the encirclement. Hell even our armored battalions had to borrow Abrams from Army units since we took M60A3 tanks with us to war. ( Not to mention the vehicles we unofficially borrowed from the army)

I’m proud of what we did since we did it with with what we had. That was just an example of why we are so proud. We do a lot with less. Pride is the only that drives us since we get the scraps of the military budget. If you want to mention Peleliu then let me bring your attention to Kasserine. By the way the officers and Staff NCOs from my unit went to war with .45s since we hadn’t been issued the Berrettas yet.

Also on topic, There were Marine contingents in Normandy in the Battlewagons. The were scraped together as a secondary assault force for the point du Hoc attack since the rangers were getting splattered. However the assault succeeded so the Marines were never used in Normandie and why we don’t have that Battle honor.

If you want to know if I am talking out of my ass or from experience, check out my thread here and make your own opinions.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28013.0
page 3

Semper Fi and Hoorah

The point about Pelelieu was that outside of military historians, few know about it. Kasserine Pass is well documented and everyone seems to know about it. The Brits even coined the Americans as their “Italians” because of the cluster f*ck of that battle. It was also the US Army’s first major battle against the Germans. The 1st MAR Div had already experienced Guadalcanal and Gloucester by the time they hit Pelelieu. I’m not taking anything away from the valor of the Marines that participated in that battle, what I am pointing out is that the Army was there too and in many cases had to take over where the Marines simply could not overcome the Japanese forces.

I think there is a modern perception that the Navy and Marine Corps won the war in the Pacific largely on their own…This is simply not the case.

@Redleg13A:

@sgtwiltan:

@Redleg13A:

@CWO:

@Redleg13A:

I think there is a modern perception that the Navy and Marine Corps won the war in the Pacific largely on their own…This is simply not the case.

US Army had 22 divisions in the Pacific compared to 6 Marine divisions.

You’re absolutely right. Marines were and are used to establish the beachheads so that the superior numbers and equipment the Army could bring to bear wore down the Japanese.
We are the Marine Corps, by definition 2 or more Divisions. I agree that Marines have been made into some Super Human war machines in the popular imagination. Being one, I know the reality. It’s not easy becoming one but popular perception is above and beyond reality. Just look at the games and TV representations. Our promotion dept does a good job promoting our worth because many times in our history, we have come under the gun for disbandment and it was popular support that kept us in existence. Our rep is part real and part self promotion but all necessary for self preservation. My grandfather fought as part of the US Army when the Phillipines were a US territory in WW2. It was the Army that bore the brunt of the Japanese invasion forces. The rivalry between the Marines and Army are simply because of all the services, we are most alike. Friendly but a rivalry none the less.

Semper Fi

@sgtwiltan:

You’re absolutely right. Marines were and are used to establish the beachheads so that the superior numbers and equipment the Army could bring to bear wore down the Japanese.
We are the Marine Corps, by definition 2 or more Divisions. I agree that Marines have been made into some Super Human war machines in the popular imagination. Being one, I know the reality. It’s not easy becoming one but popular perception is above and beyond reality. Just look at the games and TV representations. Our promotion dept does a good job promoting our worth because many times in our history, we have come under the gun for disbandment and it was popular support that kept us in existence. Our rep is part real and part self promotion but all necessary for self preservation. My grandfather fought as part of the US Army when the Phillipines were a US territory in WW2. It was the Army that bore the brunt of the Japanese invasion forces. The rivalry between the Marines and Army are simply because of all the services, we are most alike. Friendly but a rivalry none the less.

Semper Fi

No worries devil dog. This dog face has nothing but respect for the Corps. Even if I do like to give them sh!t every now and again. I proudly wear a 1st Marine Division combat patch that was awarded to soldiers like myself that were assigned directly to Marine task forces fighting side by side in Fallujah and in Ramadi. We sweated and bled over the same ground. We covered each other and came to each others aid when necessary. I love working with you guys because I know I’m dealing with professionals, even if you guys are self propelled sand bags lol. Semper Fi

PS… it doesn’t matter what we say, the finest human beings out of all us grunts are the medics and corpsman!

@sgtwiltan:

The rivalry between the Marines and Army are simply because of all the services, we are most alike. Friendly but a rivalry none the less.

Ultimately, the proof that an interservice rivalry is friendly and constructive can be seen when, in combat, the two rival services both shoot at the same enemy rather than each other.  (At least as far as the real bullets are concerned.  Non-lethal taunts are exempted from this principle.)  A cornerstone principle of free-market economics is that competition between businesses is good for the consumer, so by analogy a bit of healthy interservice rivalry is probably beneficial in a similar way to the nation that these services defend.

It’s also my understanding that the US Army and the USMC have abilities that complement each other, with an overlap zone of common territory: the USMC is better suited to roles in which a small-to-medium sized rapid-reaction force is needed at short notice in odd corners of the world, while the US Army (which has more stuff but is slower to deploy) is on the whole better suited to conducting sustained-duration and/or large-scale operations.  At least that’s the impression I have, from my limited perspective as a civilian.

I would say you’re absolutely right CWO. We do complement each other. I see it more as a brotherly relationship…we can beat the hell out of each other all we want, but if anyone else tries to, we’ll go to hell and back to make sure they regret that decision.

@Redleg13A:

I would say you’re absolutely right CWO. We do complement each other. I see it more as a brotherly relationship…we can beat the hell out of each other all we want, but if anyone else tries to, we’ll go to hell and back to make sure they regret that decision.

One could even say (upcoming pun alert) that these two services often complement each other but rarely compliment each other.

@CWO:

@Redleg13A:

I would say you’re absolutely right CWO. We do complement each other. I see it more as a brotherly relationship…we can beat the hell out of each other all we want, but if anyone else tries to, we’ll go to hell and back to make sure they regret that decision.

One could even say (upcoming pun alert) that these two services often complement each other but rarely compliment each other.

:-D Now that’s a pun I can get behind! Just for the ben-e-fit of my Devil Dog breth-r-en, I try to break down the words with more than two syl-lab-les! Otherwise you might invoke a MARINE SMASH!

@Redleg13A:

Otherwise you might invoke a MARINE SMASH!

I’ve never come across that term, which sounds intriguing – could you define it?

At any rate, the topic of inter-service ribbing reminds me of the old joke about a couple who goes to see a marriage counselor.  The counselor asks, “What seems to be the problem?”  The wife answers, “My husband and I can never agree on anything.” The husband retorts, “That’s not true.”