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 - BD   10/27/2005 12:05:11 AM
easy AR, I already had s-2 lobbin' 155s at me earlier.... I do understand the history(esp ww2)-but one deal you left out(and I am sure you did not over look as if you had mentioned it, it would have clearly shown the mc being superior :)-why was the army the first in? there was no rush and that is the way rummy and the JCOS wanted it. simple..and prior, there was not prepositioned items for the army-DG was for the mc and after the 1st GW the army brass finally realized it and then in the late 90s if I am not mistaken, started to do the same..... To concede a point-the army did drop a birgade(517th???) in norther Iraq. The mc could not have done that. It had the helos, but not the ability to deliever the heavy..... I could aggitate you more, but that is enough for now, and I am sure the opp. will arise on another topic ps...I am not old....35yrs..just feel old(esp with current job of sheriff's deputy/jailer...{we had the BTK..whooweee, what a feather in our cap}-with mc life), about 60 some days
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - BD/S-2 Warning Order   10/27/2005 12:11:36 AM
"I do understand the history(esp ww2)" No you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't have slammed the 28th I.D. at the Bulge. 65% strength, only after two months of fighting at Aachen and the Hurtgen Forest-heard of those places? Nor would you be yappin' about Okinawa without such a half-witted remark about the U.S. Army helping the U.S.M.C. there if you knew your stuff. Fact is, you don't. Garbage. You just can't help stepping all over your crank.
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - BD/S-2 Warning Order   10/27/2005 12:49:28 AM
s-2, well, I guess your gonna let loose again, so I guess I'll have some fun now... I think your just sore from all the mass-surrenders the army practiced in the war. The marines has wake-a gallant fight and some small units were in the phillipeans...I think a marine reg got it hard and the colors fell in vietnam, but thousands did not surrender like the phillipeans...thousands did not surrender like at the bulge.....If a mar div was worn down in numbers, it was due to fighting, not surrendering..... I guess that is why you had 100+ div in ww2-to cover the mass-surrendering. I guess I am gonna have to brush up on my Okinawa history as that keeps comming up.... Semper Fi
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - BD/S-2 Warning Order   10/27/2005 1:06:47 AM
"s-2, well, I guess your gonna let loose again, so I guess I'll have some fun now..." Hey bunker baby, your latest nonsensical drool isn't worth the ammo. There isn't any point. You're not real smart, and this has ceased to be fun. Fu@k you. Out. GarryOwen.
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - BD/S-2 Warning Order   10/27/2005 1:11:03 AM
"thousands did not surrender like the phillipeans" Like I said, stupid. 4th Marine Regt. captured at corregidor. Guess they were part of those "thousands". Idiot.
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - BD/S-2 Warning Order   10/27/2005 11:20:22 AM
nasty temper s-2 since you mentioned corregidor....and 4th marine regiment.... the 4th mar. had 1500 men at the most-after reinforcments plus attached army.(about the number I alluded to earlier) the army had 31032 in the phillipeans. The marines surrendered when given the order by Gen Wainwright..(army) However, If I want to spare with you(and your temper making it so easy) I wont use corregidor.....A army friend of mine(phillipean in the usarmy) was there and survived the Bat. death march(he is retired and became a successful doctor)-he has some amazing and sad stories...I wont dishonor his memories and his fallen friends/comrads. AND Gen W. was a good man who did a good job with the little resources he had so far from home(plus he was left out to dry). He went through a hell you and I cant fathom(physical and mental, esp. burden of command). note: If not for the army, I think we would probably still have a king and queen...ala rev. war.... so while I may toot the marine horn, the army was getting it done before the marines were even around......:) SEMPER FI ps-watch the curses please.....
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - BD/   10/27/2005 12:26:10 PM
I missed the comments on the Bulge......careful there...28th ID did not surrender, it stood and held for 72 hours against 2 panzer korps which bought the time for other forces to get to Bastogne. The 106 ID, a brand new division which was understrength, had 2 regiments cut off on the Schnee Eifel by the 6th SS Panzer Army. Did not surrender en masse....broke up and tried to infiltrate out. Most got captured that way (see Slaughterhouse 5 on that one!) or read A Time For Trumpets. FYI, there were 59 infantry and 12 Armor Divisions in the US Army in WW II, not the 100 plus you mention. And while the Marines fought across the Central Pacific in one or two division battles (often supported by Army campaigns) the Army had army groups fighting in Europe and in the Southwest pacific. While the Marines were on Tarawa the Army was going onto Makin, same at Kwajalein and Eniwetok Saipan, Guam and Tinian and on across. The Central Pacific. As for Okinawa, the reason why an Army general commanded was because it was a multicorps attack, i.e., a field army, which is an Army not Marine Corps formation.
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - BD/S-2 Warning Order   10/27/2005 1:21:49 PM
Bunkerdestroyer, I'll watch the swearing just as soon as you watch the casual dismissal of those fine men, to include the 4th Marines, at the Philippines and elsewhere. Albany Rifles is exactly correct about both the 28th and 106th I.D.s. Neither lost their colors, and both stayed very much in the fight. For further fine reading pleasure, I'd suggest Trevor Depuy's excellent HITLER'S LAST GAMBLE-THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE. Your flippant remarks about great men in tough days renders as great a disservice to you as swearing does to me. Given that in 1941 the marines only had six regiments, as I recall, plus some defense battalions, the surrender of marine forces at Wake and Corregidor constituted a far greater pct. of your total force. Moreover, a great percentage of those who surrendered were magnificantly brave filipino brothers who stood with us right to the end, when they easily could have melted away, and the Japanese would have been none the wiser. Really, while your knowledge of this history would appear limited, you've shown no hesitation in disparaging fine Americans and allies at tough times in spite of the truth. All to make some point that can't stand in the face of the facts. Good men, many long since dead, can no longer defend their honor. You can make certain that I will, now, and in the future. And the U.S.M.C., for what it's worth, today stands less tall in my eyes for your slander. While all of us speculate at times, be prepared to admit when you're wrong-quickly and graciously, if possible. Or it becomes real personal, real fast. That's not good for anybody.
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:S-2   10/27/2005 3:26:18 PM
"It might be worth your time to look at the China/Burma theatre. Lots of G.Is there. Jungles to rival any in this world, and very, very hard and largely unrecognized combat. Clearly, we shared the AO with the Brits and the Kuomintang Army. Still, we had a lot of troops." I can't let you get away with that remark. As far as I know the only US formation was Detachment 101, later Merrills Marauders. As Detachment 101 theere was a core of US advisers but most were locally recruited Anglo-Burmese. When it was reformed as Merrills Marauders, there were 2,900 US troops involved, and they never operated as normal frontline infantry; they were more akin to the Chindits but supporting the Chinese army rather than the Anglo-Indian army. I hardly think that 2,900 (including 400 that were based back in India) counts as "lots" when compared to the Anglo-Indian army that did all the real fighting in the Burma theatre. Tell me, who were the rest of the "lots"?
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:S-2/Heorot Reply   10/27/2005 4:44:14 PM
Not sure that I concede. Why do you count Indian forces under British command without allowing for Chinese/Burmese forces commanded by Americans? Commonwealth affiliation? Perhaps. Still, I would expect that G. Britain had large numbers deployed there. Meanwhile, from my "discussions" with bunkerdestroyer, there were no marine forces that I'm aware of in that theatre. Moreover, those were Army Airforce crews supporting and flying both transport (the Hump) and combat missions in southern China and Burma, and U.S. Army combat engineers that built the Ledo Road, or do those matter? British Commonwealth forces were certainly the larger, by far. Should they not have been? Good question about total Americans in zone, because I don't know. The command structure was so convoluted and fluid, that I've had a hard time pinning numbers down. But they were neither negligible nor unimportant to the final victory. One hell of a lot more than U.S. Marines, though. Of that I'm certain.
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT