Mad With te Military?

I just realized that so much of the military consists of jealous...
The Army and Navy had most of it covered, but then Marines wanted to be called a separate branch... So on so forth.
What do YOU think?

You do realize, my friend, that this thread is going to cause a branch war? Do you realize the impact of your words? If so, then let the branch war begin!

The Coast Guard bridges the gap between Police and Navy authority.
The Air Force handles air, space, and cyberspace threats.
The Marines are a flexible, versatile, and easily deployable force.
The Navy handles overseas naval combat and resupplying.
The Army is the backbone of the armed forces, and they have the tanks.

Their jobs, respectively, are to:

catch drug runners and save sailors
kill MIGs and the like
quickly deploy and take control
project the power of the US overseas
fight large-scale wars and occupy territory

This is all off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a better source, perhaps an official distinction between the branches. I assure you however, there are reasons for the way they are divided.

well that answers it all!

Well;
In World War two thee two major things were;
ARMY NAVY
Army had the Planes Navy and Infantry and if you were stationed on a ship and were landing you were a "Marine" (there were many different branches of the army but none were separate branches of the military)
Navy had ships, some general infantry and frogmen etc...

Now on the topic you will all hate me for; MARINES
Now in every war leading up to the past, let's say 20 years, marines just landed on a beach and secured X-amount of miles up into the land.
now whats changed?now there doing alot of the fighting in a land with no beach... HUMMMMM...
Marines are my big "upsetting factor". Im not saying I don't like our military, it just seems ridiculous to have a branch of the military almost completely change.
CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG

Omega Lambda wrote:

The Army is the backbone of the armed forces, and they have the tanks.

Actually in WWII Marines had tanks too, they were just fundamentally different. They are small and lightweight and were designed to fight on the japanese islands. They couldn't have stood up to a German tank but neither could a German tank have worked as effectively on those islands.

Creed769 wrote:

now whats changed?now there doing alot of the fighting in a land with no beach... HUMMMMM...
it just seems ridiculous to have a branch of the military almost completely change.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, you're somewhat right. Marines are an amphibious landing force meant to be the tip of the spear, so to speak. Marines are trained to be an offensive unit, not an occupation unit. They did exactly what they were supposed to do in 2001 and 2003. They moved into Afghanistan and Iraq, captured their objectives, and held those objectives until the Army arrived. However, instead of the Army taking all of the captured objectives, Marines were used as an occupation force, and were stationed at many of their captured objectives, most notably, Al Anbar Province in Iraq.

Creed769 wrote:

Now in every war leading up to the past, let's say 20 years, marines just landed on a beach and secured X-amount of miles up into the land.

Not true. Look at Vietnam, the best example being the Siege of Khe Sanh. Khe Sanh was an Arty and Air Base near the DMZ, not far from the Laotian Border. Marines were stationed there and in the surrounding hills. My point is, it was nowhere near the ocean, but Marines were still stationed there. Marines, though a offensive fighting force, are still used as an occupation force. It doesn't really make sense, but it happens.

The Navy didn't really have infantry during WWII, they still don't. Ground units of the Navy are more SpecWar and recon geared then actual assault troops.

Now as for the Marines yes in older times they almost exclusively served on ships only or landed on beaches, secured the area, and then left. You have to realize war has changed dramatically since WWII. Modern warfare has it's roots i'd say in the Korean war. For example helicopters started to make their appearance, not combat roles per say but airlifting wounded to field hospitals. The Marine Corps now had a combat landing or two but they also fought inland a lot, they even had a force almost reaching into China before being forced to turn around and fight their way back south.

Vietnam now is what i'd have to say is when modern warfare really came about. Ground fighting was no longer slow marching from one fight to the next but smaller more mobile style of combat. Helicopters had now come into use as a major force in troop deployment and air assault capable of delivering whole battalions rapidly onto a battlefield. Why have a Marine force land on an enemy held beach to take an inland objective when they could now be flown right to their objective more easily and more quickly?

So you see it's not that branches of the military have changed, it's because war has changed. Having a quick reaction force that can be deployed anywhere in the world very quickly is now a very important aspect of war. The Marines have just evolved from what they used to be to now fill this new modern combat role.

Plus the Marines are just BA...........that about sums up my opinion on the matter......

Well, the almost mythical aura surrounding the marines is just the product of propaganda. You can't say they're any better than another fighting force, because, they aren't. They simply perform a different role.

You all forgot the National Guard, Civil Air Patrol, and other branches of domestic defense forces...both civilian and military.

They're the true heros.

CAP SEMPER VIGILANS

But its the propaganda that the marine recruit and all the CIVIS hear that makes them dreaded all around the world regardless of their stats.

Honestly, Durkee, I have to diasagree. Marine units are trained slightly better than most Army units, mainly because Marines are a smaller force, so they take more time to train the recruits. I think MEU units are trained to a level just below that of Army Rangers. Don't quote me on that, though.

I like Delta the most, but Army and Marine GI's are not very differant.

all i can say is "ranger lead the way!"
now with that out of the way i believe they're all vital, like lamba said, they all have jobs, but me being me perfer Army due to family history, and the tanks, in about 7 years this will be my main ride around town http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/04-issue/abram19.jpg

I got two facts to end this cause my lunch table gets physical with this lol.

1 You can sleep in a bed because all these people exist.

2 they can't exist without the other and as the other advances they don't "one up" each other ones advances the other must follow yo keep balance.

However i am very navy biased i mean the earth is 75% water. And i know a guy who was in SEAL team six as a sniper and he did 70's work that "never happened." And his comfirmed kills are still classified.

its actually 71% water for your information, jk lol, but yeah, armed forces rule and we all know it, i just don't get all the hype over the marines these days? they aren't the only ones out there.

Nah, I hear ya, guys. If you have served your country, that is the most honorable thing you can do, and I'd love to shake your hand and thank you personally for your service. I think the whole "My Branch is Better" thing is really just a way for people to mess around. Sort of like if you insult your friends, but are just messing around.

exactly, thats why i love my lunch table, 2 navy lovers, one marine, one russian, and like 4 army, nah 3, one just calls the marine kid a greasy fat*** but hes just like tht.

The Marines really are trained better than the army is, but that doesn't matter because they are trained for a job, and if you place them in a different job than the one they were trained to do they won't be as effective.

My dad has a book about a situation where they send Navy seals to secure a beach front and it was a disaster because the Navy seals are not trained to do that, even though they are trained harder than Marines (I do not know if they book was based on actual events or was speculation).

The Marines also use their own air-force, where the army does not but It is unfair to compare the branches, because yeah, if the army and Marines were both trying to take the japanese islands again, the Marines would win, but if they were fighting in major cities like in WWII, the army would do better. It's just a matter of job.

But I am Marine biased because a lot of people in my family are Marines. Now to answer Jarhead's statement, the Marines get the publicity because they have proven themselves to be the finest fighting force in the world.

Did you know audie murphy tried to become a marine and they refused him because he was too small (Audie murphy is the most decorated soldier in American history).

@JARHEAD
Back a couple weeks ago, my MCJROTC platoon was working security at the Albuquerque Cross Country Meet, and a bunch of National Guard guys kept messing with us. It was pretty funny, actually, haha

@AFU
My grandad was a member of UDT #9 during WWII, and when people would ask him what service he was in, he would tell them he was a Marine.

well welcome to "delta" they don't exist

AFU wrote:

The Marines really are trained better than the army is, but that doesn't matter because they are trained for a job, and if you place them in a different job than the one they were trained to do they won't be as effective.

My dad has a book about a situation where they send Navy seals to secure a beach front and it was a disaster because the Navy seals are not trained to do that, even though they are trained harder than Marines (I do not know if they book was based on actual events or was speculation).

^ZOMG someone gets it!!!!!!! Yes USMC basic may be longer and "tougher", however Army AIT is where they pull the slack. IMO the army has a better training program, why pay money so a cook knows how to shoot for 2 more weeks? Just send them to AIT so they can learn their real job!

AFU wrote:

The Marines also use their own air-force, where the army does not but It is unfair to compare the branches, because yeah, if the army and Marines were both trying to take the japanese islands again, the Marines would win, but if they were fighting in major cities like in WWII, the army would do better. It's just a matter of job.

Ugh they don't really have their own "airforce". More of an Air corps, which mind you, so does the Army.... Apache, 160th SOAR, Blackhawk ring a bell? Yes these are almost all rotary wing aircraft, I don't believe the Army has any fighter wings left, the USMC does. That may be where the confusion started...

Also, the Army played a huge part in the pacific campaign. They're just a little less publicized in the pacific.

sticks

sticks.13 wrote:

why pay money so a cook knows how to shoot for 2 more weeks?

The following story is true!

In 1917, the 5th Marine Regiment was part of the initial component of the American Expeditionary Force sent to France during the First World War. When the Marines began to prepare for combat under the tutelage of French veterans, the American commander was astonished to find no time on the training syllabus for rifle marksmanship. He was smugly told that there was no place for the individual rifleman in modern warfare because machine guns and massed artillery firing from deep trench lines were the arms of decision on the western Front. The stubborn Marines, however, rejected this tenet and quickly added rifle marksmanship to the training schedule even though the French officers shook their heads in disbelief as such a waste of time. Not long thereafter, the Allies defense lines were shattered by a surprise German offensive. Soon, the French army was in full retreat and a German juggernaut was headed straight for Paris with its way unblocked by the trench lines, machine-gun pits, or artillery batteries. Into this breach marched the 5th Marines. When a distraught French major ordered the 51st Company to fall back, marine captain Lloyd Williams replied, "Retreat, "Watch your language"! We just got here."

The next day the lead units of the Kaiser's army approached Belleau Wood located less than forty miles from the suburbs of Paris, so close that the German artillery spotters could pick out the Eiffel Tower and the spires of Notre Dame cathedral with their binoculars. German scouts were suddenly taken under fire and more than a few fell to the ground, victims of astoundingly accurate rifle fire, as they neared Les Mares Farm. The German commander then did what had worked so well for the last few weeks; he ordered a frontal assault, expecting the inexperienced and out-gunned Americans to turn tail and run. Wave after wave of feld Grau-clas preussian Guards were cut down as they advanced through the wheat by well-placed shots from American M1903 Springfield rifles. Les Mares farm turned out to be the closest the Germans got to Paris during the First World War. The Tide of the war had been turned with the help of Don't use the Lord's name in vain. and a few Marines-men who knew how to make every shot count.

~Taken Directly from John J. Culbertson's book, 13 Cent Killers which is the tale on the 5th Marine snipers in Vietnam.

Theres a huge difference between a cook, and a 0311.

sticks

Every Marine is first and foremost a rifleman.