Joe, I agree with what you say. The reason I think that the Marines have a better system of attack is because they truly use the Manuever warfare doctrine. Their main goal is to try to outmanuever you, thus gaining better ground, bypassing your strengths, etc. This gives them a huge combat modifier, and helps them act like a force much larger than they are. The US Army is more methodolical, they will simply over power you with extremely heavy firepower, like heavy artillery, great tanks, apaches, and mass amounts of troops (of course, with Rumsfeld in charge, they are changing to the Manuever side of things). Albany, I love and respect the Army, but I would much rather be a Marine. Please, don't take my post wrong (I know it might sound bad), I have nothing against the US Army at all, they are a great service. Thanks for your service

GOP - Think you need to do some more looking at the Army. The Army has been all about maneuver warfare for well over half a century. SEE WARSAW PACT VS NATO. See just about every operation the Army has run in the the last 50 years. I just think you are operating under some serious misconceptions. The Marines, are relatively new to in depth maneuver warfare. I believe OIF represents one of their longer, if not longest marches in from the sea. As a side note.. Why do you think speed and mobility is major part of the 70 ton Abrams if the army is so fixed on a slow steamroller?

If anything the Army is "faster" than the Marines by virtue of having much more armor. Marines get by with AAVs and battalions of LAVs and tanks, while the Army has divisions of tanks and Bradleys plus SP artillery. The MArines are more of shock troops that occasionly are called on to fight in long ground advances.

As I understand it, the number of amphibious groups (ESG's) in the US Navy is being reduced from a notional 12 to 8, which can only lift 2 marine expeditionary brigades. Presumably this means that in reality the roles that the US Marines are likely to take on in the future will be similar to the Army's anyway, due to lack of sealift.

Joe, I am probably operating under misconceptions, but I have read several books (Generation Kill, for example) were the author says that the Marines are more manueverable than the US Army. I definitely could be -and probably am- wrong, though. There is no way I am would join the Army over the USMC. I have nothing against the Army, but I want to be a Marine. The 70 ton Abrams is the best tank on the battlefield. Tanks must be mobile, or they end up slowing things down and becoming a easy target (I believe that either the Soviets or Nazi's had a 120 ton tank in WW2, and it only ran like 10 MPH)

"but I want to be a Marine" Well, I think that's the attitude they are looking for :-) I have nothing against the Marines, I just think it's important to make informed decisions when joining the military (regardless of branch). The Marines do have the coolest recruitment commercials! (I thought the chess set one was brilliant). Which reminds me, the Army needs to loose those damned berets... Well, I have'nt read the book so I can't really comment. However, what he might have been refferring to is the fact that Marines have relatively large units afloat and can rapidly be just about anywhere (near water) in a short time with all their equipment (including armor, aircraft, etc). Where as the Army doesn't own any ships and has to wait for the Airforce and Navy to move it's heavy formations. While is the 82nd, thats probably the most rapidly deployable large unit in the US military, they are essentially light infantry and don't come with all the support and hardware that say an MEU has. As a side note.. Well, the point I was trying to make with Abrams is that the US Army since WWII has prepared to fight and has fought while outnumbered by enemy men and equipment (often by a considerable margin). Being able to maneuver is a key part in the ability to defeat a numericly superior foe.

I answered the original question......and I certainly did not mean to denigrate the USMC...soryy if others took it that way. Any long timers know I respect the Corps. But the mobility/maneuver point..... USMC MEUs and MABs are based on an infantry battalion or regiment.....which they can lift 2/3s of the infantry assigned at one time using LAVs and AAVs. That have some armor but it is limited On the other hand an Army mechnized infantry brigade will have one or two infantry battalions and a tank battalion....and everyone is mounted under better armor than in the LAVs and AAVs with more firepower. A lAV is faster than a Bradley but a Bradley is faster than a AAV. US Army mechnized divisions are designed around mobility and maneuver. That is the reason why in the Gulf War, the III MEF had the mission into Kuwait while 3 US Army did th ebig move in the western desert. The US light units (82, 10 MD, 25 ID) have to have aviation or truck units assigned to give them any kind of mobility....but the Army has these organizations at corps and theater level....because they are supposed to. Sam, I've always thought well of Walt Krulak....now I have more reason to feel that way! Ambush....as for coed training. We have learned that lesson and are fixing it. However, you may be intrerested to know that when those Marines go to Army Schools (i.e., food service, fuel handling, rigger, jump school, etc.) the classes are integrated. But that is how they will train and organize once they get to the force so that makes sense.

Also one reason the Marines drew the eastern side of the OIF deployment was the abundance of water around the Tigris and Euphates also the Marines 13 man squads make them a little more robust in urban fights than 9 man Army squads.

Co-ed bootcamp is one thing co-ed MOS traing is another matter. Even Marine Corps MOS schools are co-ed. BUt the defingn experience in what makes them Marines is not. Army Drill Sergeants cannot be effectiveDrill Sergeants if the have to live under rules to prevent the appearance of impropriety. The hands on supervision suffers. A male Drill Sergenat cannot through a trash can into a shwoer of female recruits to move them along faster. The simple act of walikng through the Squad Bay after lights out is a complex SOP nightmare for a Drill Sergeant of a different gender. In my humble opinion, The Army in the 90s through Shinseki went through a series of poor topside leaders that contributed to many of its problems. The Corps went through this same thing in the late 70s and early 80s with its Commandants: Genreal Wilson, although a MOH holder was more or less ROAD in my opinion while PX Kelly and Barrows where more politicians than Commandants. I think General Gray is what saved the Corps from becoming a small version of the Army. The Corps has been lucky to have the Commandants who follwed him also to be of high caliber. General Schoomaker appears to be of a straon caliber. He could pull off the needed reforms but he has a bigger bueaucracy to deal with

That is what the Army is doing...going back to signle sex basic....good move in my mind.