An idea for a great game for kids this season is called Angry Birds-Knock on Wood. A freedom to explore ideas is really a type of nurturing for them to reach their full potential. Christmas season is fast approaching.
Marines vs Soldiers
-
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. :(
-
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. -
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.)
-
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
-
i didn’t say the army wasn’t in the Pacific. i know they were, but they wern’t the major assault force there. they were mainly support (although then support didn’t mean sit back and wait for it to be safe before moving in), My grandfather was in the Army Air Corp in WWII and served in the Pacific. his job was to build/repair air strips on the islands. as an enganier though he also was making the landings right with the Marines on the islands. we (as in all the US and Allies) couldn’t afford to have our enganiers and other support men stay back for it to be safe. we needed them all on the ground giving and taking rounds.
but as a standard the Army was in Europe and the Marines were in the Pacific. Navy and Air Force(Army then) were in both.
as for McAurther leading, it seams to be the standard to put the Army in charge all the time, even when the Marines are the bulk of the force in some place. i think in this case though it made scence for a few resons.
before WWII the Marines were a vary small force, no where near enough to sustain a long drawn out war like this. i can’t say for sure numbers but the Marines were no where near enough to make it through the war and resupply there numbers. this means that the Marines didn’t have full blown generals. the Marine Corps first full blown general (4 star) was Holcomb who was the Commadant durring WWII, but was awarded the rank after he retired. this means that it was better to place a 4 star general in charge of the opperation, so it fell to an Army General. the choice was an easy one as McAurther already had experiance in the Pacific with his standing in the Phillapeans. he did make the most sence for a commander in that theater of opperation. -
a44:
Correct, the Army DID do them. However, that was more a necessity then a job description is what I am saying. Sure, with seemingly unlimited resources and no regard for loss of equipment or life, you can eventually over whelm any defender. But the Marines do this (as well as pirate tactics) as a matter of day to day life. That’s what makes them good at it.
BTW, pirate tactics is not meant as a derogatory comment. Back in the day it was the Marines that went ship to ship / hand to hand fighting. That’s what I meant by it.
If I need a beach taken, I’ll gladly call the US Marines. If I need a hill taken or to rapidly deploy a battalion of troops in an inner city, I’ll call the US Army.
If I need a country leveled, I’ll call the US Navy to start the fight and the US Air Force to finish it.
If I need policemen to help idiots with their yachts, I’ll call the US Coast Guard. :P
-
Just to clarify for Pervavita Gen MacAuthur was not in overall command in the PTO he was in charge of the Southwest Pacific Area. Admiral Nimitz was in charge of the rest of the Pacific. Both reported to the Joint Chiefs. And also for what it is worth there were amphibious operations carried out in the PTO that were all US Army.
I get your point Jen but that unfortunately is trying to take todays perspective back to 1940 whatever. Private Joe Shmoe fresh from some Kansas farm is not coming off an assault craft any better strictly because he is wearing the spiffy USMC cammies. Keep in mind that the USMC was very small at the start of the war and like the Army units had to be trained in amphibious operations at best some of their units did have seasoned cadre but many were formed from scratch in the states.
-
Actually, Joe Schmoe who went through Marine Basic Training and graduated is more likely to know how to survive and win an Amphibious Assault then Janet Schmoe who went through Army Basic Training.
Marines have a longer basic because they also train, or so I am told, in amphibious and marine environments. Though, to be honest, I never donned the USMC uniforms. No offense, but I do not like them. Just my opinion though. (That and I didn’t relish the thought of living in California!)
-
Again I was referencing the Marines of the 2nd World War which were the only US forces to wear camouflage (HBT reversible) which the current USMC uniforms harken back to somewhat. They are much better looking than the new Army digital barf. I also really have to give a thumbs up to the Corps on the way they went about designing the new uniforms by letting the troops comment and suggest changes. As far as dress uniforms that is a no-contest with Army Dress Blues being a close second but those are optional for special occasions anyway.
I would also suspect Marine boot is longer than Army basic due to the fact that every Marine is first a rifleman which would put it more in line with Infantry school than straight basic anyway, but one of the Marines here would have to comment on that aspect.
-
Yea, uh, bud. The USMC was wearing digitals a good year or two before the Army was forced into them.
I miss BDUs. But allegedly digitals are better at camouflaging you, and if you are harder to see, then you live longer. I can handle ACUs if it means I live longer, even if they don’t match my camesol and pumps!
Suggested Topics
