The Royal Marine Commandos and the United States Marine corps

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: The Royal Marine Commandos and the United States Marine corps
JTR~~ 3/15/2010 3:23:32 PM

two professional forces, im not going to start to make comparrisons, i would like to know what people think the Pros and cons are of each, i mean we all the the reputations of the RMC and USMC on the battlefield, so if you could back up your claims with facts, try to avoid bias points of view (make sure your posts are balanced please otherwise this is pointless) and do not slander good names of the units, they both deserve our respect, but i will say you can decide which one you think is greater, but again pack this with facts thanks :)

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Heorot 8/17/2010 7:02:16 PM

Try reading up the battle for Tarawa, where that pig headed idiot Puller refused to allow the Army to continue the assault even though the marines had suffered 50pc casualties. He threw his exhausted marines into another attack and lost even more casualties rather than let the army take over.

Quote Reply

JTR~~ wow you really are pathetic are'nt you 8/20/2010 9:36:42 AM

. Let see the facts for what they are: British military, unfortunately, are a second rate/third rate power as shown in its dismal performance in Iraq.

Some of you are naturally biased and therfore are not objective. The Royal Marines are good outfit. But you want to base your opinion on "whose better" on training and equipment. Fair enough. But, lets be real. The Royal Marine six-month training course does not impress me. I've seen it profiled on a British documentary. There was no real stress induced environment created by the instructors. No screaming at the recruits, hazing, or slight physical abuse. The recruits seemed coddled. They were given ample free time during their traing. Alright, there was some great physical components to the training, but the 30 mile timed march (which culminates at the end of training) is hard, but not impressive. The Marine recruits go through an initial 3 months of Boot Camp (which has a lot of physical and mental hardships). The Drill Instructor is Satan from Day 1 to the end. Your instructors couldn't scare 3 year old. After Bootcamp, Marines go for an additional 3 months of combat and Infantry school training. Okay, the Royal Marines are considered an elite force, but not special forces. The USMC is not considered special forces but an elite amphibious attack force, which as been used as such. Besides, the USMC has Recon and Force Recon which requires a whole new set of training (6 months-1 year).As far as equimpment, the Marines in general have the latest and greatest weapons.

The heart of whose better is really relative, but if its based ON OVERALL PERFOMANCE. The USMC WINS. USMC has existed without being disbanded (with the exception of the American Civil War) since 1776. The Royal Marines can't say that. The biggest point that makes the USMC overall better is its PERFORMANCE AND COMBAT EXPERIENCE: its never lost a battle and have PROVEN themselves on the battlefield. It was the Germans who gave the USMC the title "devil dogs" by the way they fought in WW I. AS far as combat experience, they Royal Marines don't have it. They haven't been in the kind of battles and wars as the Marines: American Revolution, War of 1812, Berbary Pirates, Mex-Am War, Span-Amer war, WW I & II, Korea, Vietnam, etc.. BY THE WAY, it was the USMC that made the name MARINE popular throughout the world. USMC is more recognizable the the Royal Marines. The USMC (including Force Recon-its called something different these days) have been some of the most brutal combats that the Royal Marines will never see. IT is the USMC sniper who have made headlines (especially in Vietnam and IRaq).

As far as calling the Royal Marines the spearhead attack force of British miliary. What has it spearheaded, nothing historically memorable (except for you guys). The USMC is known as America's 911. It has been used to spearhead many battles: Korea, Vietnam, etc... So come on. STOP with the INFERIORITY complex. BE honest. It was after all very embarrassing to see Royal Marines surrender to the Iranians and Argentinians. So this is where I (and i suspect many others)

"Let see the facts for what they are: British military, unfortunately, are a second rate/third rate power as shown in its dismal performance in Iraq."

you actually disgusts me with this comment, you are obviously very naive or just plain stupid, you clearly have no idea of the capabilities of the British armed forces, in fact i have recently made a post addressing this and how many people seem to disregard the British armed forces as one of the world?s deadliest and most effective fighting forces, and as for dismal performance in Iraq i will have you know that in fact Britain successfully concluded its part in the military operations (that being the actual war), i believe you are referring to the peace keeping operations after official fighting was concluded, well that cannot be at all blamed on the military forces, that is the fault of the hapless politicians, so learn the facts before you being to slander the good name of the UK armed forces, as you are just making yourself look very stupid.

Quote Reply

JTR~~ very sensible reply neutralizer 8/20/2010 9:40:53 AM

As I previously said, RM were originally raised as the Duke of Albany's Maritime Regiment of Foot, IIRC, well before 1755. Like all British regiments their name has changed over time, interestingly when the Army Act was introduced c. 1870 RM were and remained subject to this and not the Naval Discipline Act (until Armed Force Act 2006). Basically RM is a regiment (actually 'regiment or corps' in UK terminology, owned by the Navy instead of the army), USMC is an army, this is a big difference. Any competant infantry bde can do amphibious assaults with a bit of specialist training, 6/6/44 would seem to be an example. The British army did an army corps amphibious landing on exercise in 1912.

Heroic last stands have their place, neither FI or Gulf were one of these places. History is always the perspective and even at this short time anybody with half a brain can see that RM actions on both occasions were correct. Of course RM weren't the only troops on FI, there was also the locally recruited defence company, the impact of their loss on the local community, which is what it was all about, would have been serious. As for the gulf, IIRC correctly it was the second or third time that Iranians had grabbed UK troops on dodgy legal interpretation of geography, everybody forgets these (I think RM were involved in one of these as well), the men were returned after negotiation in a few days.

Obviously in WW1 RM on the W Front, Gallipoli, Balkans, Antwerp, etc (look for Royal Marine Light Infantry (1855-1923)) had far more sustained combat time than USMC (and suffered heavily at Helles and ANZAC Cove). In WW2 the RM infantry role was limited and not above battalion level, however, 3 Cdo Bde, (2 army, 2 RM cdos, although it was an army cdo that held Hill 170) served in Burma, the other three cdo bdes (all mixed army/RM) in western theatres.

The only time that shouting is needed on recruit training is when the instructor needs to be heard outside an enclosed space. Swearing at recruits is a sign of failure by the individual doing it, don't try a dress it up as anything else. Of course the feeble excuses sometimes supported by dodgy so-called expert advice keep flowing, some organisations may be incapable of change, this, of course is a leadership failure - starting at the top and working down the foodchain. Military discipline and development is about mutual respect, earning it and keeping it. If you have to rely on shouting to make the training tough and challenging then your training is a joke, I suggest getting competant NCOs to do the work and sack the dross you're using. If a recruit can't absorb the training, then they have to go.

with i might add, correct facts, what a history the RMC has eh?

Quote Reply

JTR~~ excuses @devildawg 8/20/2010 9:55:20 AM

Pearl Harbour didn't turn out too peachy either

Ya, are you serious. This was a sneak attack on US Naval forces, no real time to react...or do you think you would have fought them off. Look into WW II history. You see, it was the USMC that drove back the Japanese. We actually defeated them in several battles. Real battles, not the little Argentinean skirmishes that you may be used too.

so you will say that it was not Americas fault for losing the battle of Pearl harbour because they had no time to attack, but yet you insist that the Royal marines on the Falkland?s islands should have used psychic abilities to predict that the Argentinean forces were going to invade at that exact moment, you sir are truly pathetic, and i will have you know that the albeit limited response mounted by American forces at pearl harbour was frankly pathetic, and it pales into comparison when put up against the defence mounted by the RMC on the Falklands island, whom despite very little or no prior warning conducted a solid defence of their situation even though they realised it was pointless, while fighting against a full sized invasion force with less than 200 men, a defence which i will remind you cost the Argentines a very heavy price for their gains

the RMC garrison only eventually laid down its arms after being ordered to by the regional governor of the islands, and you think pearl harbour was just bad luck, sigh, four Japanese carriers decimated the entire US pacific fleet, the so called premier superpower in the world, embarrassed by an enemy that they genuinely believed to be inferior

as for little skirmishes as you call it, look at the shocking campaign carried out in Somalia by the USMC, because that turned out well didn?t it?, Mogadishu is just such a nice place to visit nowadays, in fact Somalia is the safest happiest place on the planet.

Quote Reply

JTR~~ wow im actually cringing at this one 8/20/2010 9:56:52 AM

I wanted to apolgoize for anyone who thinks i have disparaged another military service. This was not my intention. I have a high regard for UK military, and it is a great fighting force with a very strong military tradition.

how the tables have turned

Quote Reply

USN-MID 8/20/2010 8:51:11 PM

Actually, very few Argentines were KIA/WIA as a result of combat action. Furthermore, the stupidity of your "Pearl Harbor comparison" is the fact that you assume the USMC was somehow responsible for repelling a naval assault. The fault there lies with the Navy, Pearl Harbor was the responsibility of the USN and Army Air Force.

But since you bring it up, Wake Island is an excellent example of the USMC making the Japanese pay bitterly in their amphibious assault.

Shit happens. Including the British Army along with the French getting defeated by the Germans. And the Royal Navy, and British Army garrisons got their asses handed to them by the Japanese as well. And at the time the US was not yet a world superpower.

You could say the same about former British colonies in Africa. Somalia is ####ed up. Expecting military intervention alone to fix that place up is idiotic.

You started a thread asking for comparisons (a full out "VS thread" on SP no less), and now you're crying that some didn't argue the way you wanted?

Quote Reply

devildawg Once again 8/20/2010 9:29:18 PM

. Let see the facts for what they are: British military, unfortunately, are a second rate/third rate power as shown in its dismal performance in Iraq.

"Let see the facts for what they are: British military, unfortunately, are a second rate/third rate power as shown in its dismal performance in Iraq."

Quote Reply

devildawg Once again 8/20/2010 9:33:28 PM

Still acting ignorant. The fact was that the USMC kicked but when we were in Somalia. Go due some actual dilegent research. It was only when Clinton ordered the Marines out of Somalia that it returned to the original chaos. Even then, the operation that the film black hawk down was about showed that Americans don't surrneder at least easily. they fought valiantly.

Quote Reply

Panther 8/20/2010 10:33:21 PM

Ah... well this explains JTR's other thread. JTR - Why in the world are so worried about some people having a different opinion about the British military?

Quote Reply

JTR~~ not at all panther not at all 8/22/2010 7:14:01 AM

Ah... well this explains JTR's other thread. JTR - Why in the world are so worried about some people having a different opinion about the British military?

as i mentioned when i started the post, I specifically asked for a modicum of respect to be used when referring to the two units, I think its god that people have their own opinions about the British armed forces, hence the original post, i merely asked for a comparison not a post dedicated to blowing the USMCs trumpet and seemingly trampling over the Royal marines

as some may have seen before my respect for both fighting units is great, but like i have said before i would expect people to show the same form of thinking when addressing either of these units, do you not think they deserve that?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT