Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Was the USMC the appropriate force to send to Baghdad?
towgunner1960    10/3/2003 10:46:39 PM
I submit that it might have been more efficient to send British troops north to Baghdad instead of the Marine Corps, for the following reasons; U.S. Army and U.K. troops have trained together to fight the type of war that was fought for the last 50 odd years. (Mechanized warfare). The Marine Corps armor, excepting the M1 are totally unsuited for RAPID desert armored fighting, i.e. aav, lav and M198. U.K. and U.S. Army are equipped exactly the way you need to be to fight this type of war,(M1, M2-3, M109), (Challenger, Warrier, AS90). This gives them the ability to shoot and scoot, and to slug it out if needed. The Marine Corps has never trained with the Army to fight massive Soviet style forces the way U.K. and U.S. Army have. It might have been better for USMC to have taken over the British role, attacking southern Iraq, where they could have worked as a combined arms team with naval support, the way they have for over 200+ years. Long range desert armored warfare is not a Marine mission with the equipment and the training they have. If they want to equip themselves the way the Army does to fight this type of war, then they risk losing capability to fight the littorial type of war that they are so magnificant at. This is no way a slight against the Marines, who I have trained with and admire. But what nation can afford to have two armies? If they insist on trying to compete against the Army for that mission, (mech warfare), then what need is there for a Marine Corps? You might as well combine them with the Army.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT
bunkerdestroyer    RE:A little more pot stirring....BunkerDestroyer Reply   11/4/2005 12:34:25 AM
AR well, I my be ugly and I might dress funny, but mom did teach me how to tell time which I dont think you can claim your comment is several threads old....I never said they could command an army ranged from 6 div to up to 16 div depending on the nation fielding it.....and I acknowledged the army part of the mission....... but I have no doubt they could conduct multi corps activity...perhaps all 6 div in at the same time-say okinawa-reverse the senarior-6 mar div with 2 army div as res(vs4/2 and 1/1res)-I think that since they did conduct multi-divisional action with iwo being the last 3 div action, If the forces were ready(like Iwo over and divs. rehabilitated) then I have no doubt they could have had the 2 corp(3 div per) and then an overall ground commander.... Okinawa might have been the largest amphibious invasion in history, but I dont think they could have handeled an operation in the phillipeans like the army did due to the large size of the island and the use of 4+ div at leyte in oct44 and then 6 div luzon in jan45....-not including the actual problem of lack of numbers, but the complexity and geographical size. Okinawa was only something like 66x10-12 miles-about 740-780 sq or so...right up their ally ps...1st mar div was raised-I think, in feb of 41? (before that,I think it was just a reg level.) -about 65k in nov 41-of which-in the FMF-29k+ -a totalof 2 mar div and 2 air wings with emphasis just starting on FMF doctrine and also marine defense bn-i think 1 at wake, a couple in the phillipeans and 2 in hawaii-or so
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:A little more pot stirring....BunkerDestroyer    11/4/2005 11:52:59 AM
BD Ahhh, multi-corps operations are by definition army, as in field army, in 2 or more corps combined together. That's is what I meant. And my point about divisions and field armies was the US Army had been doing it, training it, teaching and developing the doctrine for army and theater level operations for at least 3 decades.
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:A little more pot stirring....BunkerDestroyer    11/4/2005 4:52:47 PM
AR and my point was that with only 6 div at its max, there never was an opportunity to conducted 'army' operations, but as the yrs progressed, they did conduct corp operations with iwo being the last 3 corp operation before Ok. and since they had successfully conducted several 2 div and a couple of 3 div. size attacks-which on paper could be considered a corps, there was no reason other than div. being tied up that the mc could not have handled ok itself...there were 6 md and 6 div used for the attack. if 2 army div were used as reserve, then that mirrored that actuality of okin(4army/2marine plus 1/1 res) there were mc general who could handle a corp attack, and I would presume that they could have handeld the 2 corp(not including the 3rd corp-tatical air support) that was at okinawa. I also said since okinawa was relatively small-780sq or so, it was well within the ability of the mc and its mission. the phillipeans were different-an entire nation-what 40000+sq miles requiring multi landings of 4-6 divs...That was to large for the mc.... but I would submit, that the initial attack was well within the capacity of the mc.....the mission-part of it, was to seize advance naval bases and to defend the territory till army reinforcements came. The mc could have easily landed 2 or 3 div in the phill. and then when the army came could have turned over control-say a week, or 2 weeks later-or however long it took to place a sizeable army force..... liberating the entire nation was not its mission....... so you see AR, mom might have dressed me funny, but the Marine Corps taught me oh so much more.............. Semper Fi
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:A little more pot stirring....BunkerDestroyer Reply    11/4/2005 9:20:13 PM
" with iwo being the last 3 corp operation before Ok." Uh, no. Iwo Jima was a three division, single amphibious corps operation. 3rd, 4th, and 5th Marine Divisions of V Ampibibious Corps conducted the attack with 147th Inf. Regt., U.S.A., garrisoning the island thereafter. I'm unaware of the U.S.M.C. conducting any multiple corps attack or defense during W.W.II. Here's a thread from the U.S.M.C. for your reading pleasure and continuing military edification.
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:A little more pot stirring....BunkerDestroyer Reply    11/4/2005 11:03:48 PM
I think you can figured out I ment 3 div from my previous threads...
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Was the USMC the appropriate force to send to Baghdad?   11/8/2005 10:26:09 PM
Read a lot of posts early on, but I'm too tired to read them all. So I may have missed someone else posting this sentiment, for that I apologize up front. The USMC is the most feared major military force in the world. Period. Introducing the Marines into GWII added a special fear factor on the part of the Iraqi forces. By sending them up the east side was in effect a flanking maneuver. Last thing you want is a bunch of bad @ss Marines with M1 tanks coming up your flank to envelop you. Remember in GWI, how many forces were used to block a potential amphibious landing by the USMC? The enemy was so obsessed by the potential of this they screwed the pooch in the rest of Iraq. (No offense to my Army friends)
Quote    Reply

TheGreyBeard    RE:Was the USMC the appropriate force to send to Baghdad?   11/18/2005 1:43:54 AM
I think this thread has gone way off I guess I will as well. First, I apoligize for BunkerBuster...he's probably never served a day of his life in combat. Otherwise he would appreciate the following: I don't care if you wear Eagle, Globes and Anchors or an American flag on your uniform. I don't care if you say Hoo-ah or Oo-rah. I don't care if you are firing M198s or M177s, or M109s. I don't care if you are flying an Apache or a Cobra...or for that matter A-10s or Harriers...Or if you are shooting M-16s or M-4s...or what your PFT or APFT score was, whether you went to Ranger school or SOI or whatever... IF I AM BEING SHOT AT AND YOU ARE SHELLING THE ENEMY THEN I APPRECIATE YOU!!! IF MY UNIT IS PINNED DOWN BY MORTAR FIRE AND I SEE AN ARMY HELO LIGHT UP THEIR F/O THEN I APPRECIATE YOU!!! IF WE ARE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH VBIEDS AND YOUR DRIVING AN M-1 I COULD CARE LESS IF IT IS ARMY OR USMC AS LONG AS IT IS SHOOTING AT THE VBIED!!! IN A FIREFIGHT IF YOU SHOW UP I'M NOT GOING TO SAY "HEY, I WISH THE MARINES WERE HERE INSTEAD" I'D SAY "F--- YA! GO ARMY!" OH WAIT, I DID. And my buddy in the NG, who is up for a Bronze Star (with Combat V) is a good reference, then he doesn't give a hoot either. We're both NCOs in the finest military on earth. The Hoo-ah, Oo-rah BS is for back in the rear. When the S--- hits the fan, every swingin' AMERICAN D--- is appreciated...well, except for this one Air Force LtCol... Whew, had to get that off my chest. Well, for the American POW who said "Thank You Marines!" I'd say "Naw, thank you, your buddies saved my ass more than once." SEMPER FI ARMY!
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:Was the USMC the appropriate force to send to Baghdad?   11/18/2005 4:20:47 PM
your entitled to your "opinion" weither its limited in nature or not. Any braindead stiff enjoys any support they can get in the field, especially underfire.... however, your service-if any-must be limmited. most army and marines enjoy josseling each other. Marines esp. like riding the navy....hence all the jokes. the main 3 like to ride the airfoce But that takes an expanded imagination instead of juvenile thinking......... Seeing a-10s flying overhead is a hella sight....and right afterwards, you can bed, the a-10 pilots will still get crap when on the groud from the same grunts they were providing support for....Its called affection so, take a drink, expand your mind and perhaps you need to get some real-life experiences.... Semper Fi
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Greybeard Reply   11/18/2005 4:30:13 PM
Don't take this wrong, as I'm not trying to recruit you to the "dark side". However, those comments were wonderful to hear, and much appreciated. Bunkerdestroyer, you're wrong. You've taken your stuff way out of bounds, and it was mean-spirited. Army grunts, by the way, are in AWE of A-10 pilots and absolutely worship their feet-all the time. I've never heard a bad word about an A-10 jock from an Army guy. Marines and Brits, yeah-with some reason. But not us.
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:Greybeard Reply   11/18/2005 11:24:02 PM
s-2 your probaby right about the a-10 comment...I was actually refering to marine grunts.... I've had more than a few share of army friends who have laid a few doozies on me in the past....all in fun the only one I can remember was from a navy squid who we used to hammer..... while we were guarding our 'special area' he would come out to do the meal service for us-good ol' charlie mike -the chow man..... well, one day after getting the buisness for being 'just a cook' and a 'squid' he asked us a question: 'what is a squid?' we thought he was serious and dumb-he'd been in for 15 yrs and did not know?. Not until he delievered the punch line a squid is a higher form of marine he took that title with pride. We all busted out laughing. he got us good. Humor means different things to different people. GB ruffled my feathers the wrong way and crossed the line in my he got a few 155s lobbed his way.... Semper Fi
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT