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:Once again Let's get it straight - Shek   10/26/2005 12:29:27 AM
Marine Recon is to the Marines what the Rangers are to regualar army units... It has been 13yrs, but if the specific unit has a slot and the parent units wants to fork over the money/cost of training, most any branch can send its members to other schools(ranger/airborn). I had several buddies that went to airborne. I was in the final selection to go to ranger school in 92, but somalia got in the way. I cant say what it involves now as I am sure it has changed in 12-13 yrs, but Ranger school is hard. It is to teach leaders more effective infantry skills. It is a long school that focused(12-13 yrs ago) on training in different cliaments(sp)-cold weather, desert, swamp-type, jungle, etc.... I would stack marine recon or the marine sf(I am embarrassed, I cant remember their name) against the rangers, seal(recon only) and delta....... for whoever cares, while in the service, on numerous time(just my story in my neck of the woods)army delta and rangers tried numerous times to infiltrate bases guarded by marine security forces...they failed at almost every attempt...the only time I heard during my time in that they succeded.....they built a false bottom under a flatbed and stuck people in it and got in that way... As far as the pacific discussion: well, when you have 90-100+ div to 6, common sense would state they would be the majority. Read your history...generally when the army fought along the side of the marines, they did poorly...in one case, an army general was fired/relieve due to ineptness. They did most (if not all?) of the phillipean fighting as the marines were busy Island hopping and with Iwo and Ok. They have a much better record in the pacific, korea, vietnam than the army does.... today? well the airborne is good, but is to light, that is why the marines are better to depend on-if faced with an Iraqi T-72 bn or reg. attack, the ab would have been in a world of hurt and had to rely on other units to assist....the marines are self contained. even the army envys the marines for their CAS-I hope no one will argue against that...........many army leaders have wanted the a-10 for themselves so they could emulate the marines success...... SEMPER FI
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - Shek   10/26/2005 2:45:57 AM
"They have a much better record in the pacific, korea, vietnam than the army does...." Hey, hotshot. That's a total load of unmitigated sh!t!!! Better read your history and then start backing your crap up. We take our six best divisions from the Pacific in W.W.II and they stack up just fine against the Corp. Include Europe, and we wipe the Corps baby butt. As for Tinian, ol' Howlin' mad Smith had a hard-on for Gen. Ralph Smith of the Army with a fresh division of draftees, from the get-go, and that's a real sore subject in Army circles still. He was hung out to dry in a Navy A.O., and I doubt that the Army has placed a division under Marine/Navy command since. As for Korea, Chosun this-1st Cav Div. was equal or better than anything you had, including 1stMarDiv. As an Army guy, I've defended the Marines too many times, but you may have just lost me, and a hell of a lot of others. Bet you single-handedly won W.W.I as well, huh? Today. Marines are heavier than the Airborne. So? NO Marine division commander in his right mind would dare go against an Army heavy division. Our treadmarks would be on your backs as we ROLLED over your mangy a$$es. Ya wouldn't stand a fu@kin' chance. There it is. GarryOwen.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - Shek   10/26/2005 3:46:23 AM
"the marines were busy Island hopping and with Iwo and Ok" Oh yeah. We were hoppin' a bit as well, to include Okinawa AND Guam-or did you win those singlehandedly as well? Meanwhile, without virtue of your unique amphibious expertise, we hopped through New Guinea without your help. Hell, we hopped so much in W.W.II, we made more opposed landings than the Marines. FACT. Hey, your CAS is great, but the margin isn't much compared to the U.S.A.F. Moreover, I'm fine with A-10s. They know their targets. Anybody but Army. You do not, however, want to be British Army or American Marines when they're flying around. They do stick an odd Maverick or two in the wrong place now and again. Especially if you fail to mark your position. That's probably the Army's fault, too.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - Shek   10/26/2005 3:57:05 AM
"Marine Recon is to the Marines what the Rangers are to regualar army units..." Horsecrap. Their mission is totally different. Rangers are forced entry takedown specialists of the first order, configured to fight, foremost, as a company, or more usually, an entire battalion. Force Recon has a totally different mission and can't do what the Rangers do better than anybody else in the world-take airfields and special weapons sites-quickly and with exceptional violence. Glad you caught some operators trying to infiltrate your Special Weapons Storage sites, but when's the last time you had a Ranger bn. drop right on your A$$ at a site in an exercise? They'd clean the clock of a Marine Special Weapons security detachment in a heartbeat. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. Damn, I'm pissed at you, Bunkerbaby. Way, way below the fu@kin' belt, boy. But I'm done now. Fortunately, most Marine officers have a clearer understanding of where the truth lies on these issues. You certainly don't, though.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Was the USMC the appropriate force to send to Baghdad?   10/26/2005 8:16:11 AM
You are confusing terms. No argument on the capability, skills and desirability to have USMC do a forced entry. Theater opening, however, is an Army skill set. Theater opening involves once you have a foothold moving in the logistics infrastructure to run a a theater. The USMC can use the MPPS equipment to seize the port....the Army would then have to send in the theater support command to open the support and the rest. remember, the Army is responsible for providing theater CSS for everyone on land. And since the 3rd MAR DIV used 3 armor battalions in their very succesful drive I go back to my question of how many armor battaliosn are in the USMC? I think they used 3 of their 5. The 3rd ID had 4 organic battalions at LD and 5 battalions of M2A3s. I think we could agree the M2A3 is a better IFV than the Amtarck and LAVs the Marines had. Not to mention the corps artillery that came with the V Corps, corps attack helos as well as the the 101st ABN. Not knocking the Corps....they did a masterful job. But a Marine Division does not have the shock and firepower of an Army division...by design.
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - Shek   10/26/2005 8:31:09 AM
The unit that peformed the best along the Yalu when the Chinese hordes crossed was a Marine (regiment, I believe) unit. Instead of losing their spine and trying to retreat via the roads, this unit kept its cool and fought their way out successfully. So, there are cases where the Marines performed better than the Army. However, you can also look at the stout defense put up by my old regiment, the 23rd Infantry, at Chip-Yongni, where they defeated 5-6 Chinese divisions and stopped the Chinese advance south and allowed Ridgeway to solidify the allied lines and began movement north again. As I said before, blanket statements are worthless pieces of blind pride. Look at units, leaders, and missions to make specific claims that can be verified.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Was the USMC the appropriate force to send to Baghdad?/Albany Rifles   10/26/2005 8:41:37 AM
"Today. Marines are heavier than the Airborne. So? NO Marine division commander in his right mind would dare go against an Army heavy division. Our treadmarks would be on your backs as we ROLLED over your mangy a$$es. Ya wouldn't stand a fu@kin' chance. There it is. GarryOwen. A reply of mine to bunkerdestroyer a couple of threads before you. Trust me, that I completely concur. No argument about theatre CSS either. Army responsibility right up to the division rear. No argument about Army Corp/army CS assets either, if required for augmentation. No argument about tanks, either, if it took every last tank that those miserable pukes have to swing up the east. Thus, we have no argument. It'll take me awhile yet to cool on Bunkerdestroyer. I'm pissed.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    To All Members of the Corps + the Army   10/26/2005 9:13:39 AM
We Army Guys (Shek, S2, Me) did NOT mean to usurp one of your threads. We have all the respect for what the Corps does today and all it has done since Tun Tavern. Let us all take a deep breath and rightfully acknowledge the contributions of each other's service since the forming of our republic. Yup, the Marines did great as part of the 2 ID in WW I and Lejeune did a super job as a division commander. And yup, Smith did relieve the commander of the new 27th ID on Saipan.....because he did not understand that what he asked the unit to do would violate its doctrine as well as its training. Bottomline is that while the USMC fought across the Central Pacific in WW II it did so as a partner with the US Army and US Navy (remember them?). And in the South West Pacific Ocean Areas (i.e., New Guinea, Philippines) it was an all Army show. And I don't recall too many Marines in the European theater conducting those amphibious operations. And while Inchon was a job well done, it came under the command of the X Corps under Ed Allmond (US Army) and consisted of the 1st MAR DIV and the 7th Infantry Division. So lets let the entire you suck, we're great talk die down. Before you denigrate the accomplishments of another service, make sure you understand and know their mission, doctrine and history. And as for the original question.....the 3rd ID left over half their equipment behind at FT Stewart and used prepositioned equipment. The Army ahd an entire mechnized division floating around trying to get into Turkey. The USMC mustered all of tis resources and put together a very effective MEF which handled their part of OIF superbly. All of that said, the big follow on forces were all Army.....becauser that is the Army's job....to fight and win campaigns and wars.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:To All Members of the Corps + the Army   10/26/2005 9:31:04 AM
Thanks for the moment of levity. I'm fine, but Bunkerdestroyer probably won't be when he reads my threads.
 
Quote    Reply

GOP    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - Bunker/S2   10/26/2005 2:19:07 PM
Now this is some good stuff, these posts definitely make SP worth reading :) I will say that individually (and on average), I think that Marine Recon 'operaters' (or whatever) are a little more advanced/specialized than the average individual Ranger. But I would certainly hate to be a Marine security detatchment/security force at a base that the Rangers wanted to take, the Rangers are awesome at what they do. As far as a Marine division taking on an Army division, it would be a slaughter in my opinion. The Army has WAY TOO MUCH firepower for the Marines to counter...but infantry to infantry may be a little different. It doesn't really matter though, they all work on the same team.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics