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
S-2    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - BD/S-2 Reply   10/27/2005 7:28:33 PM
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/okinawa/ Good source of a hellacious fight.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    BD What you may not be aware of...   10/28/2005 10:47:29 AM
If you have seen the rather violent behavior on my part and S2s part, understand this is in reaction to some things said on this board about 12 - 18 months ago about OIF and the 3rd ID v 1 MAR DIV. Some folks who were not there claimed that the Marines had performed much better than 3 ID....that the Army needed to learn to fight like the USMC since the Army infantry "wouldn't even get out of their Bradleys." That is a flat out lie and insults a lot of friends of mine (I can name you 12 different friends who were in the 3 ID to include 1 brigade and 2 battalion commanders) and the US Army. The Army fought extremely well in OIF...as did the Marines. It also sparked a similar discussion on the 507 MT CO....a failure of leadership a lot of us had problems with....which the Army is fixing (I work on FT Lee and we hear weapons firing all of the time now). I used the historical context of WW 2 then as now to explain about the size and mission fo the US Army. And while the USMC developed the doctrine used by the US in WW II, the US Army conducted many more amphibious landings during the war when the USMC was nowhere around.....because it was not big enough. But that is by design. So going back to the original topic....no, the USMC was NOT the appropriate force to send to Baghdad. Because of its training and equipment it could not lead the main attack. It conduct a critical supporting attack extremely well. But there is not enough armored combat power in the entire USMC to have done that mission.....and that is because it is the Army's job to conduct that kind of fight. And it has always been that way through our history.....and we have done a pretty good job of it. If you want to continue to discuss Okinawa, other Pacific campaigns or the ETO, lets take it "outside" to the Military History thread (little link at the top of the page). I will be glad to correct you misconceptions on those subjects.
 
Quote    Reply

Liver    RE:BD What you may not be aware of...   10/28/2005 3:58:08 PM
So does that mean that the British Army would have been the appropriate force by default???? where the two are concerned which would have been/was the better choice???
 
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:BD What you may not be aware of...   10/28/2005 5:35:07 PM
comming in late and your usually not aware of past threads/topics so you/I/other might step on their crank in dredging up memories...If that is the case, I apoligize. In other aspects, I am sensitive to others/perspectives, but I also am sometimes direct. I strongly believe in tact, while on the other hand, if it has to be said, do it with manners...however, some people might misread an intent. I/others cant help that. With the exception of sparing indirectly with S-2, I dont make it personal..and if someone takes it that way, well sometimes, sorry, and others, oh well(I think you can get the meaning) As far as the other 2 topics go....I agree with the Baghdad senerio...The marines are not the force to take a large city-a small one-perhaps up to 1/2million, but other that that, no, unless you have 3-4 mar div in the field. Now about the second part about 'misconceptions' about okinawa....(i'm chuckling/not offended)-your defense of the army is like mine of the corps-complete and absolute...As you said, I wont go into details-that is for anothe r site, and I need to brush up....But my belief is the army 'assisted' the marine mission, even if they had several army divisions to do so....and even if an army commander was assigned(though that in itself makes it an army mission, I feel that was more a political decision than a tatical or stragetic one) SEMPER FI
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:BD What you may not be aware of.../More BD Nonsense   10/28/2005 10:19:56 PM
"and even if an army commander was assigned(though that in itself makes it an army mission, I feel that was more a political decision than a tatical or stragetic one)" BD, it just doesn't stop with you. Clearly, you didn't look at the site that I gave you as an introduction to Okinawa. Had you done so, the truth of the campaign would be obvious, even to you. Perhaps you can't cut and paste? Ask for help. Moreover, the condescending tone of your last quote says it all. I don't care about your "feelings" compared to the FACTS of Okinawa. Army battle casualties were nearly 60% of the total on the ground. There's a great statistical summary of battle/non-battle casualties for the Army, Marines, and Navy in an extensive appendix. Don't let the numbers overwhelm you, though. If necessary, ask a child for help. The U.S. Army carried that fight. I'm beginning to wonder if you've even heard of the Shuri Line. I rather doubt it. Your congenital inability to face the facts of that battle stand in the way of any credibility to any comment you might make. Until you do your research, it's pointless to continue. Given your repeated ridiculous assertions going back to the Philippines comments, I'd gather that you've much reading to do. Garryowen.
 
Quote    Reply

towgunner1960    RE: Gentlemen   10/28/2005 11:56:11 PM
My orginal intent of starting this thread was not to have a army/marines war, or of saying the marines weren't good enough to go to baghdad. I was merely pointing out that the u.s. army had practiced extensively with the british and other nato armies to fight large MECHANIZED wars against the warsaw pact. This is something that we have never done with the marines. We have trained and fought with the marines on several other types of warfare. I was in the 7th inf division and my unit went to coronado to be trained by the marines on amphibious raiding. Right now our marines are the best in the world in all matters of warfare from the sea. The british and u.s. army are argueably 1 or 2 in the world for fighting mechanized war. The opening phase of gw2 was a conventional war against an organized (somewhat) mechanized force. I just think during this phase it would have been best to have the brits on our flank, while the marines did their amphib thing, within range of their naval gunfire support close to the coast, as that is their whole reason for being. Otherwise they are a limited imitation of a mech u.s. or british unit with not nearly the firepower or sustainability that either has. Remember the marines have never fought a long range mechanized desert battle while the brits and u.s. army has done it several times in the last century, together. I stand by my original statement, we can't afford two seperate mechanized services. If the marines want to be a mechanized force then they should be absorbed into the army, as they lose their reason for being. Two or three army units could be trained to totally focus on warfare from the sea and you would have one land force instead of an army and a seperate marine corps doing basically the same thing....
 
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:BD What you may not be aware of.../More BD Nonsense   10/28/2005 11:57:03 PM
A) no, actually, I cant cut and paste...(no kidding) B) I have already said I need to brush up about okinawa...I knew the topic yrs ago, esp while I was in the corps, but 13 yrs later, I have forgotten...I had done 2 tours on okinawa..so actually, I have(had) a little more insight than the average person(I had talked to some of the civilian survivors)....I had a chance to go to Shuri castle a couple of times, but I was on duty....From what my friends tell me, it was awesome-it was a guided/semi unguided tour.... c)the only things I said about the phillipeans-90% was about how it was an entire army battle(I think)-they did good, my friend...and more importantly, I dont know much about it....the only other refrence was-I think-after you made the marine comment-I then pointed out there were only 1500 marines in the reg. and there were-what, 21000 army troops? Dont think I said they were cowards or wuss' just the mear fact of the surrender(though a little sarcastic). So, once again, I dont know much about the phill. so I wont comment much more than a few statistical facts.... d)sir, about my feelings....I wasnt getting mushy...just stating a few things so some loose cannons dont take things the wrong way and get to worked up. so, as far as your concerned, okinawa is off limits until I read more about it(and I dont trust computer sites that much as I have found many to be inaccurate and biased. In addition, alot of the sites are taken from books which alot are biased....so my research is done at a book store and with several books before I formulate/reaffirm an opinion, or statement... any other topic...shoot away until then SEMPER FI
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:BD What you may not be aware of.../More BD Nonsense   10/29/2005 1:57:20 AM
BunkerDestroyer, go to the thread then, write down the html address, and type it into the address bar. Don't go to a bookstore. There's no need. This is a website you can trust, if you think you can trust reading the U.S. Army Historical Section Official History of the Battle of Okinawa. That's the site. It isn't some obscure rantings from some guy locked in a basement. 100+ pages (can't remember, maybe more) of thoroughly interesting reading, and free. Researched most carefully. Perhaps the U.S.M.C. or U.S. Navy have something like this as well. I would suspect so. Then, if you still feel the same, as AR suggested, start a thread on the Central Pacific W.W.II board, and tell me why without slamming my doggies. Whatever else you do, don't slam my doggies for no good reason, or make off the cuff remarks designed to get mine, or any other G.I.s goat. You will, and nobody profits from it. GarryOwen. (;-)
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Bunkerdestroyer/S-2 Reply   10/29/2005 2:57:14 AM
Um, there might be a bit more than 100 pages, try 472 pages of well-written history of the battle. Can't imagine a more authoritative source.
 
Quote    Reply

Dominicus    RE:BD What you may not be aware of...   10/30/2005 3:32:39 AM
In my book I think the marines were a good force to use since they were the only ones that could be rapidly deployed quickly enough to use as a second *army*. I mean that's the real strength the marines have over the army, is that they are much more mobile and are quicker to be deployed. I don't think for one second they could have taken baghdad by themselves(and likely the 3rd ID couldn't have either without marine help), but the fact of the matter is that all things considered the marines were bad ass in showing off their flexibility as a force in Iraq. Not only were they great in the traditional marine fast deployement, they were excellent at taking and holding ground, and basically functioning as another division of the US army. That flexibility is why the marines will always exist.
 
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