Marines vs Soldiers

maybe so, but ours is to destroy and kill  :wink:

I thought it was:

“To defend the Constitution of the United States through the control and exploitation of air and space.”

Or something similar.  I seem to remember one of their phrases including the “control and exploitation of air and space” but it might be a vision statement instead of a mission statement.

I don’t hate marines.  Just trying to put some perspective on things.

And, AFAIK, Spartan warriors > US Marines > US Army > US Navy > Every other army in the world > US Coast Guard > USAF > Civilians.  But I just have no respect for the Air Force when they complained to command that the coffee was too stale before it got to Iraq.

@ncscswitch:

You ARE aware of the fact that is was run-of-the-mill USAF MECHANICS that threw back the Tet Offensive, aren;t you?

They tried to overrun the airfields, and it was mechanics with M16s (and a few with old M1’s) that broke the assault on the airfields…

Yes, dear.  However, when the airmen in Iraq started to complain about the coffee going stale on the trip over from the United States, even that pales in comparison to the weaniness, I sure hope you agree.  That’s about the most unsoldierly, unmilitary complaint I have ever heard.  It makes the entire branch look like a bunch of spoiled children, at least to me.

The marines I knew were perfect gentlemen…well, as perfect as you can get when your idea of coffee is chewing on freeze dried beans because “water’s for girls.”

@Pervavita:

not exactly, Marines are sea born, or come from the sea. in modern war fair the Army has taken that job also but only in WWII and then because there wern’t enough Marines to fight the Japs and Krouts.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think the Marines engaged the Germans…or much at all.

@M36:

When you mention the Spartans Jen you are obviously talking about the 300. No disrespect towards the Spartans, but 300 U.S. Marines would not only have held the pass, but gone on the offensive and wiped out the Persian Army.

Dude, if I had what Marines use I could have destroyed the Persian Army.

But the Spartans had 2000 other warriors with them that are rarely mentioned…

Actually, no.  I refer to the Spartans as a whole.

As for the pass, 300 marines would have held against the Persians because those 300 Marines have machine guns, armor, artillery, air support and an entire army of US Soldiers behind them.

The 300 Spartans had swords, spears and shields.  Maybe breastplates, no one is exactly sure on that.

The Persians had woven armor, swords and mass numbers.

:P

And I don’t like plumbers.  No offense, but when you dig into someone’s wall to repair a pipe, it is your DUTY to clean the workspace AND at least put the drywall you cut back in place and put the first coat of joint compound on it.

I’ve yet to meet a plumber who has done that.  :(

@Jermofoot:

@Pervavita:

not exactly, Marines are sea born, or come from the sea. in modern war fair the Army has taken that job also but only in WWII and then because there wern’t enough Marines to fight the Japs and Krouts.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think the Marines engaged the Germans…or much at all.

that was my point, the Army had to out of nessessity make the landings in Europe as there wern’t enough Marines to fight the Germans & Japs. So army took the Germans and Marines took Japs.
there were army with the Marines, but they were enganiers for setting up air fields on the islands.

@Pervavita:

@Jermofoot:

@Pervavita:

not exactly, Marines are sea born, or come from the sea. in modern war fair the Army has taken that job also but only in WWII and then because there wern’t enough Marines to fight the Japs and Krouts.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think the Marines engaged the Germans…or much at all.

that was my point, the Army had to out of nessessity make the landings in Europe as there wern’t enough Marines to fight the Germans & Japs. So army took the Germans and Marines took Japs.
there were army with the Marines, but they were enganiers for setting up air fields on the islands.

Well, I think it had more to do with geographic circumstances of the theaters (continental warfare vs. island hopping), but I would take a guess that some military leaders would prefer the Marines to other units.

I think it was a scope and control issue.

Easier for the marines to coordinate on one theater and leave the other to the army then to try and coordinate landings with one hand and holdings with the other around an entire globe.

I don’t think islands or continents had much to play with the decision (except to determine who got what after the decision was made.)

@Jermofoot:

@Pervavita:

@Jermofoot:

@Pervavita:

not exactly, Marines are sea born, or come from the sea. in modern war fair the Army has taken that job also but only in WWII and then because there wern’t enough Marines to fight the Japs and Krouts.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think the Marines engaged the Germans…or much at all.

that was my point, the Army had to out of nessessity make the landings in Europe as there wern’t enough Marines to fight the Germans & Japs. So army took the Germans and Marines took Japs.
there were army with the Marines, but they were enganiers for setting up air fields on the islands.

Well, I think it had more to do with geographic circumstances of the theaters (continental warfare vs. island hopping), but I would take a guess that some military leaders would prefer the Marines to other units.

the standard would have been (had it been Europe only) is the Marines land and take the beach head well the army lands once safe and then moves inland. that is how it was suppost to work when you have the two branches working properlly together. i agree that it had a lot to do with theater of opperation, it would make little sence to have Marines who are trained for landings doing the war in Europe well you have the Army who is not trained in landings doing the island hoping. it would be like expecting the navy to protect our skies and the air farce to protect our waters.

I believe the Marines land on the beach, secure the sand, and protect the navy who are off loading Army equipment.  From then on, the army takes the cities, hills, countryside, capitols and enemies and the Marines go back to protecting the boats.

This changed in World War II when the Marines shifted from being a light infantry force to a second US Army with swimming classes in basic, IMHO.  Though, they do have higher PFT standards then the Army and are smaller in number.

I split this out of the Professions thread, it didn’t split perfect, but it’s beter than it was.

Roger dodger, drop your pants and hollar…sorry, don’t do that!

marines of the present.

then of the past,

then of the future

wait wait wait.

AJ’s old avatar is the marine of the future.

The US ARMY did have combat units in the PTO in WWII. There simply were not enough Marines to get the job done. However to keep recruitment numbers up it was decided that the Marines would get the press from the PTO and the Army from the ETO. If I recall correctly there were something like 36 Marines that did actually serve in the ETO mostly in advisorial roles for amphibious landings.

Sounds logical.  MacArthur was Army wasn’t he?  And in the Pacific.  So we know for sure there was at least ONE Army officer there.

And Army men don’t normally train for amphibious landings.  It’s not in our job description.  Air Assault yes.  Tunnel Rat, yes.  Fire Control, yes.  Swimming, no. :P

But they did do them back then. The Marines did not land in North Africa. The Marines did not land in Italy. And lastly the Marines did not land at Normandy. Now before our Marines on site get all stirred up I just want to say I am pointing out what used to be known as a historical fact. Plain and simple it took everybody we could muster to get the job done.

Interesting page with some pertinent data. http://www.historyshots.com/usarmy/backstory.cfm