What is the greatest military orginiztion of the 20th century?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I would have to say hands down The United States Marine Corps. No other service has such a magnificent battle record in the history of the world . We dont loose battles its plain and simple.

[yesdachi]

All of America’s military is pretty great (Even the American Coast Guard could send some countries into the stone age) but the forces are small and already stretched thin. The forces are powerful and surgical in precision but lack the numbers to make the “requested changes” of any offensive stick, as we are seeing Iraq today. That’s why we are training the Iraq military to take care of themselves because we simply cant do it.

In MTW terms a provinces loyalty determines rebellion and is controlled by the number of troops present not the quality of them. Even thought the marines are the “greatest” there are only a few thousand of them (or less) and the number is not likely to change much as the American people hate to see their little boy “over there” at Christmas or for birthdays, Easter, thanksgiving, Columbus day, Sunday, etc.

Greatest? Marines, sure, they do have a great record of winning but maybe an even more specialized force like the deltas or another special forces unit that “we” are not suppose to know about are the greatest attackers but for taking over or occupation I don’t know, America has never “conquered” anything I can think of, WWI & II, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, etc. maybe the last time America conquered something was America and I think we are on the verge of rebellion right now! The Native Americans have been saving all the casino money for a huge offensive against the white man!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Im talking of winning major battles here. Again no service in modern times compares to the United States Marines record in this matter. Not even our own army navy and airforce.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I would have to say the US military as a whole, but more specifically the USAF or USN. Yes the USMC is the greatest infantry force in the world, but they would be high and dry without the USAF and USN transporting them and destroying pockets of significant resistance. No force in the world approaches the destructive potential of either the USN or the USAF.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'd beg to differ Gawain. The USMC might have the best people, and the hardiest reputation. But they aren't necesarrily the "greatest" as in the most powerful.

Thats not what I stated. Im speaking of their battle record. The Navy army and air force dont come even close.


Yes the USMC is the greatest infantry force in the world, but they would be high and dry without the USAF and USN transporting them and destroying pockets of significant resistance.

Wrong they have their own airforce. Again tough Im talking about their battle record .

[Don Corleone]

Hmmm, I don't know. The Afrikiakorps, when it was being properly supplied was a pretty damned impressive fighting force. In the end though, yeah, I gotta go with the USMC. Give them enough lead & oil to keep pushing ahead and no beach in the world is safe.

[yesdachi]

Seriously, Marines freak me out.
I watched a marine and a navy seal argue in a bar about a similar topic, that freaked me out ~:)

[PanzerJaeger]

What do you mean by "organization" Gawain? Army, corps, military forces, branch, division?

The marines are awesome, but Id put the Großdeutschland division against any marine division, and there are many other German commands that I would say performed better than the marines, against tougher odds. Some of the things SS Wiking did were simply amazing, and of course the tiny afrika korps kicked around the 8th army for a good while.

Its really hard to compare though, because the supply and reinforcement situation was so different, not to mention the difference in technology.

I will say though that the Germans were the first to master close air support and other tactics that the marines use these days, that says a lot.

[Kagemusha]

What do you mean about military organization Gawain?In 1900`s not even a single Finnish battalion has surrendered.Finnish army while we have been independat have never lost a singe campaign by surrendering.Also our army is the only army that have won or ever will win Soviet Union in war,because Soviet Union is old news. :bow:

[Kraxis]

I would say the Polish victory over the SU in 1920 (right year?) counts as a victory.

[Kagemusha]

I would say the Polish victory over the SU in 1920 (right year?) counts as a victory.

Or the Finnish victory in 1918.With all respect Kraxis Russia was still at civil war in 1920. :bow:

[Kraxis]

Also our army is the only army that have won or ever will win Soviet Union in war,because Soviet Union is old news. :bow:
I stress the point that you said only. I pointed to the fact that Poland won a war as well.

Btw, while coming Soviet Union (it wasn't formed as such until 1922) was deep in the Civil War in 1918 it had all but been won in 1920 and the Red forces could concentrate on Poland. So your argument has sort of backfired.

[Kagemusha]

About the victory.I dont mean the 1918 conflict,but winter war in 1939.Finland was then the only country in war against Soviet Union.That wasnt a war of independancy.You know what i mean. :bow:

[Kraxis]

Ohh... but in that case it was a loss.
Sure it was glorious defeat, with bravery and superb tactics employed by a smaller and badly equipped army against a juggernaut. But the war ended in a finnish defeat. What else do you call the result of the breakthrough at the Karelian Peninsula, where that and most of Karelia was lost and Hangö was to be rented out for, was it 30 years?

[eadeater]

Or the Finnish victory in 1918.With all respect Kraxis Russia was still at civil war in 1920. :bow:


Actually, neither of those technicaly count as victories over the Soviet Union because it didn't exist until 1923. After the October Revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks called their newly formed state RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic), and only in 1923 was this effectively renamed to the USSR, once the civil war was truly over, the NEP instituted and a number of areas belonging to the Russian Empire reclaimed.
As for the Finnish victory you're talking about kagemusha, I presume the liberation of most of Karelia by Finnish armies in 1941 in the Continuation War, which was, literally, a continuation of the Winter War of 1939 in which these lands were lost by Finland. Granted, the Finns did indeed beat back the Russians into Leningrad but their attack coincided with Operation Barbarossa, and after the German retreat, the Finns too, were driven back, and most of Karelia even now belongs to Russia, so the extent of this victory you speak of is doubtfull.
Now, for the original question about the most formidable fighting force of the 20th century. I would put forward the Red Army of the 60s and 70s. Their planes, tanks, submarines and so on were more than a match for their American counterparts, as was the size of the military as a whole. What's more, due to compulsory military service for all males, the Soviet Union could call upon millions of already trained and able men. Also, we seem to forget that the most influencial weapons of the 20th century are nuclear weapons, and during the aforementioned years the Soviet Union presided over the largest nuclear arsenal. The missiles which would deliver these deadly payloads were also better than their American counterparts; even now Russia has the world's fastest nuclear missile type - one which cannot be shot down by conventional methods.

[Kagemusha]

How can you call that a defeat?Finland lost under 100 km of land and Soviets lost over million soldiers.And it happened again 1945 biggest battle in Nordic history.Tali- Ihantala.In Winter war Soviets took only one major city from Finland.Finland didnt surrender.Soviets didnt even get to the inner Finland.Odds were 1:10.Do you understand the facts.Finland also drew away the German forces from Northern Finland after peace with Soviets 1944.The same amount of troops that conquered Norway in few months.We were the only little country in the war that wasnt occupied.No other country could stop Soviet Major Attack.If that isnt victrory,i dont know what is?
About Hanko Finnish took it back in summer 1941.And it was never leased after that.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but Id put the Großdeutschland division against any marine division, and there are many other German commands that I would say performed better than the marines, against tougher odds. Some of the things SS Wiking did were simply amazing, and of course the tiny afrika korps kicked around the 8th army for a good while.

Again were talking battle history here. How about you let me pick the Marine division to go against them. Also they lost did they not ? There gone just like almost every other orgainzation that was mentioned here. Can any of you even name a major battle the Marines lost? How about a small one? ~D Your going to have to drop down pretty low on the order of battle to find Marine losses.

[Azi Tohak]

The IDF and IAF. No one has ever done more with less than those groups. They've never lost, because they can't afford to. The West is afraid to help too much because of oil... but it doesn't matter. Israel has done just fine.

(I know Lebanon was a screw-up, but the military did not blow that one.)

Azi

[Proletariat]

Thats not what I stated. Im speaking of their battle record. The Navy army and air force dont come even close.


Does the Mossad or Delta Force count according to your criteria?

[Kagemusha]

Again were talking battle history here. How about you let me pick the Marine division to go against them. Also they lost did they not ? There gone just like almost every other orgainzation that was mentioned here. Can any of you even name a major battle the Marines lost? How about a small one? ~D Your going to have to drop down pretty low on the order of battle to find Marine losses.

I agree that US Marines are the elite.But you have never been the underdogs since the Wars of independancy.Im sure you know what would happen to the marines in amphibious assault without the support of Airforce and Navy. :bow:

[eadeater]

How can you call that a defeat?Finland lost under 100 km of land and Soviets lost over million soldiers.And it happened again 1945 biggest battle in Nordic history.Tali- Ihantala.In Winter war Soviets took only one major city from Finland.Finland didnt surrender.Soviets didnt even get to the inner Finland.Odds were 1:10.Do you understand the facts.Finland also drew away the German forces from Northern Finland after peace with Soviets 1944.The same amount of troops that conquered Norway in few months.We were the only little country in the war that wasnt occupied.No other country could stop Soviet Major Attack.If that isnt victrory,i dont know what is?
About Hanko Finnish took it back in summer 1941.And it was never leased after that.

The battle of 1945 you speak about, Tali-Ihantala, actually took place in 1944 and Finland and the USSR were at peace by September 4 1944. Also, this battle was certainly not the biggest battle in Nordic history as Finnish losses totalled 8,561 men and Soviets about 18,000; these were largely to artillery fire. True, Finland didn't surrender, but only because the only terms the Russians would accept was unconditional surrender - Finland sued for peace on June 21st. As for you claiming it was a victory - I still beg to differ. Finland lost Vyborg. True, the Soviets didn't get to inner Finland, so it wasn't a total defeat, but they still had their borders pushed back and lost a major city which they never reclaimed - they were beaten.
As for the Winter War, again, a Soviet victory. Huge costs but a victory nonetheless. Finland lost 10% of its land and 20% of its industrial capability, as well as some 440,000 citizens. Granted, the Soviets suffered horrendous losses considering they outnumbered the Finns 3:1 (not 10:1), and were better equiped. However, all that the Finns received for their losses was international sympathy.

[Kagemusha]

The battle of 1945 you speak about, Tali-Ihantala, actually took place in 1944 and Finland and the USSR were at peace by September 4 1944. Also, this battle was certainly not the biggest battle in Nordic history as Finnish losses totalled 8,561 men and Soviets about 18,000; these were largely to artillery fire. True, Finland didn't surrender, but only because the only terms the Russians would accept was unconditional surrender - Finland sued for peace on June 21st. As for you claiming it was a victory - I still beg to differ. Finland lost Vyborg. True, the Soviets didn't get to inner Finland, so it wasn't a total defeat, but they still had their borders pushed back and lost a major city which they never reclaimed - they were beaten.
As for the Winter War, again, a Soviet victory. Huge costs but a victory nonetheless. Finland lost 10% of its land and 20% of its industrial capability, as well as some 440,000 citizens. Granted, the Soviets suffered horrendous losses considering they outnumbered the Finns 3:1 (not 10:1), and were better equiped. However, all that the Finns received for their losses was international sympathy.

Im sorry about the confusion in 1944 and 1945.But i still dont believe you the ratio 3:1 is in Winter Warabout infantry.if you count armed forces,airforces and artillery.We are at 10:1.Soviet goal in Winter war was to take whole of the country in 5 weeks.They failed miserably.Soviet Union concentrated one fourth of their military against Finns in winter war and couldnt take their goals.For a defender that has nothing to gain in that kind of war.I call that victory.About Tali-Ihantala its not about the casulties,but troops involved.If you can tell a bigger battle than Tali-Ihantala being a biggest single battle in Nordic history,please share with us.And you should maybe also count armor losses 400-600 hundred soviets,also aeroplanes 120-280.If you take your figures out of the wikipedia and start a conversation with someone who is a native and has read about this war for over a decade.You will get this kind of reaction. Its not my idea.But some very respectable Historians.And the terms of peace in 1944 Finland had stopped all Soviet attacks on the fronts before peace.Tali-Ihantala and Ilomantsi :bow: PS. On personal note My grandfather lost two brothers in that war.

[PanzerJaeger]

Again were talking battle history here. How about you let me pick the Marine division to go against them. Also they lost did they not ? There gone just like almost every other orgainzation that was mentioned here. Can any of you even name a major battle the Marines lost? How about a small one? Your going to have to drop down pretty low on the order of battle to find Marine losses.

And the Germans won much greater battles than the Marines... and fought much tougher enemies with much less supplies and reinforcements, thats my opinion at least.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Im sure you know what would happen to the marines in amphibious assault without the support of Airforce and Navy.

Again they have their own air force and naval gunfire was proved not be as effective in softing up islands. Besides which we no longer have naval gunfire.


And the Germans won much greater battles than the Marines.

What Germans are you speaking about? Now you want the Marines to take on the whole Wermact? They also lost many great battles, This canr be said if the Marines. We kicked their ass at Belleau Woods and never looked back.


and fought much tougher enemies

I doubt you will find a tougher or more tenacious soldier than the Japanese ones on Iwo Jima. No other fighting force I know of takes the sort of casulties and presses on to victory like the Marines since the Black Watch and Napleons Imperial Guard.

[Kagemusha]

I think the marines are the spearhead of US armed forces.And i didnt think of Naval Gunfire i thought about cruisemissiles.Of course you have the greatest Armed forces in the world.You spend it the same amount as the rest of the world together.But if Marines were against modern Israelis without your Airforce bombarding them back to the Stone age.I dont think your invidual marine is superior.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

A little appreciated fact about the Pacific Campaign is that the vast, vast majority of the troops were, in fact, Army.

But the vast majority of major assualts were done by the Marines who either left the mopping up or garrisoning of the island to the army.

The best part of the Marine hym is the final lines in the third and last verse.

Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve
In many a strife we've fought for life
And never lost our nerve;
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes;
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines.


OOOoooo Raaaaaahhh

[eadeater]

Firstly - I do not mean to offend or insult you or your country, I'm simply debating the extent to which it was victorious. As for where I get my facts from - I get my numerical facts from any reliable source - if they are wrong, do correct me. Unfortunately I don't personally know statistics so must draw them from somewhere. If you consider Wikipedia to be unreliable, then I have found an alternate source of statistics - winterwar.com - should be fairly credible, no? It confirms Wikipedia's stats in some respects. The total number of Finnish defenders at the beginning of the war was 337 000. The numbers of Soviet invaders seems to be very difficult to estimate as figures range wildly. However, it seems that the initial invasion force was in the order of 1 million - ie. 1:3 However, the total invasion force is placed at about 1.5 million as reserves and reinforcements were poured in to replace casualties. This change in balance is offset by the fact that 111,300 replacements were provided for the Finnish army. Therefore my estimate of a ratio of 3:1 remains fairly accurate.
Nevertheless, the issue remains unresolved, simply because there is more than one way to define a victory in this case. True, the Soviets failed in their objective to capture all of Finland with 5 weeks, so you could say, since they failed in their ultimate objective, they lost. However, following a similar argument, the objective of the Finns must've surely been not to allow a single Russian to set foot upon their land; this was also not achieved. So, neither side achieved their ultimate aim, but at the end of the whole affair, it was the Finns who had to concede land for peace. Whether this was worth nearly half a million killed or wounded is a different matter all together. Likewise, the fact that the odds were stacked unfairly against Finland doesn't feature either. If a big kid attacks a little kid, and the little kid does really well and really hurts the big bully, but still has to give up some of his sweets to the bully at the end of it, the bully still won.

[AggonyDuck]

Well basically in Finland we have this term called "Torjuntavoitto", which basically means a "Repelling Victory". Both the Winter War and the Continuation War were Russian victories, but were also "repelling" victories for the Finns. Also it should be noted that we did succeed in our primary goal in both of the wars, which was to keep Finland independent.
Thus I think it's entirely natural for Finns to refer to these wars as a sort of victories, because they are victories for the Finnish people.

[eadeater]

True - I agree with that. That's what I'm saying - these events were victories for the Finns and Russians. For the Finns, as you say, a Repelling Victory. The Red Army was not actually beaten by the Finns, simply stopped, repelled. Well summarised 1pain1duck.

[PanzerJaeger]

What Germans are you speaking about? Now you want the Marines to take on the whole Wermact? They also lost many great battles, This canr be said if the Marines. We kicked their ass at Belleau Woods and never looked back.

You still havent said what you mean by organization. I guess the SS could be compared to the marines - in a way. It was separate infantry force from the regular army. I would put any of the SS divisions that fought in Russia up against the marines and expect a victory. The marines were still bombing themselves in an effort to figure out close air support 5 years after the Stuka was developed for that very purpose. ~;)


I doubt you will find a tougher or more tenacious soldier than the Japanese ones on Iwo Jima. No other fighting force I know of takes the sort of casulties and presses on to victory like the Marines since the Black Watch and Napleons Imperial Guard.

The Japanese might have been tenacious, but they were not good by any account. Id like to see how the Marines would do against a soviet army circa 1944.

[eadeater]

As for the greatness of the marines - I remember a little anekdote, not 100% sure if it's true or not, about the marines fighting the Japanese in WW2. A certain number of them, about 100,000 or so, stormed an island and captured it for the US, suffering only about 100 or so casualties. However, the casulties would've been much higher if there had been any Japanese on the island at all.

[Kagemusha]

Firstly - I do not mean to offend or insult you or your country, I'm simply debating the extent to which it was victorious. As for where I get my facts from - I get my numerical facts from any reliable source - if they are wrong, do correct me. Unfortunately I don't personally know statistics so must draw them from somewhere. If you consider Wikipedia to be unreliable, then I have found an alternate source of statistics - winterwar.com - should be fairly credible, no? It confirms Wikipedia's stats in some respects. The total number of Finnish defenders at the beginning of the war was 337 000. The numbers of Soviet invaders seems to be very difficult to estimate as figures range wildly. However, it seems that the initial invasion force was in the order of 1 million - ie. 1:3 However, the total invasion force is placed at about 1.5 million as reserves and reinforcements were poured in to replace casualties. This change in balance is offset by the fact that 111,300 replacements were provided for the Finnish army. Therefore my estimate of a ratio of 3:1 remains fairly accurate.
Nevertheless, the issue remains unresolved, simply because there is more than one way to define a victory in this case. True, the Soviets failed in their objective to capture all of Finland with 5 weeks, so you could say, since they failed in their ultimate objective, they lost. However, following a similar argument, the objective of the Finns must've surely been not to allow a single Russian to set foot upon their land; this was also not achieved. So, neither side achieved their ultimate aim, but at the end of the whole affair, it was the Finns who had to concede land for peace. Whether this was worth nearly half a million killed or wounded is a different matter all together. Likewise, the fact that the odds were stacked unfairly against Finland doesn't feature either. If a big kid attacks a little kid, and the little kid does really well and really hurts the big bully, but still has to give up some of his sweets to the bully at the end of it, the bully still won.


I also apologize if i have also offended you.I just have to admit that i will never admit Winter War or Continution war as a defeat.And majority of us Finns couldnt do that also because of our pride.How we see that if defeat would have happened we would have been annihilated.Thats why Finland send tens of thusands children to Sweden for adoption.So some of us would have remained.And we are we will always remember that Neutral Sweden accepted them. :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The Japanese might have been tenacious, but they were not good by any account. Id like to see how the Marines would do against a soviet army circa 1944.

The Marines were a light infantry force not like the SS. Again Im speaking of their battle record. The SS lost the Marines didnt and havent. They have kept this up for over 100 years. The SS cannot claim anything like this. Ill give you the SS was one set of tough SOBs and probably are the closet thing to the Marines in their esprit de Corps though theres was a bit perverted by Nazism. Give the Maines the same weapons and then see who wins. Now that would be one hell of a battle.

[Kagemusha]

The Marines were a light infantry force not like the SS. Again Im speaking of their battle record. The SS lost the Marines didnt and havent. They have kept this up for over 100 years. The SS cannot claim anything like this. Ill give you the SS was one set of tough SOBs and probably are the closet thing to the Marines in their esprit de Corps though theres was a bit perverted by Nazism. Give the Maines the same weapons and then see who wins. Now that would be one hell of a battle.

How you see that?I could say also Soviet Guards Divisions never saw defeat against Germans.Only one Guards division was annihilated.Quess by whom? If you are over powering your enemy,that will not give you a claim being a superior soldier.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How you see that?Iicould say also Soviet Guards Divisions never saw defeat against Germans.

Again they did this in only one war not over more than a hundred years. No matter when where or what the situation the Marines come out winners. How about the Chosen Resevior where the Marines were far outnumbered and surronded yet still kicked the ass of the Chinese.

[Kagemusha]

Again they did this in only one war not over more than a hundred years. No matter when where or what the situation the Marines come out winners. How about the Chosen Resevior where the Marines were far outnumbered and surronded yet still kicked the ass of the Chinese.

back in the Korean War when Chinese backed North Koreans pushed UN troops down to the South wasnt there any Marine core units deployed?

[Husar]

Again were talking battle history here. How about you let me pick the Marine division to go against them. Also they lost did they not ? There gone just like almost every other orgainzation that was mentioned here. Can any of you even name a major battle the Marines lost? How about a small one? ~D Your going to have to drop down pretty low on the order of battle to find Marine losses.

Vietnam? The Marines didn´t seem to be able to stop the US from retreating with all their glorious victories. ~;) Of course I have no idea how exactly they performed in all those jungle fights.

The comparison with the Afrika Corps is bad, Germany sent most of it´s support to the eastern front later on(yes, I don´t know about the timeframes in detail) while the Marines usually have a lot of support from the US and it´s strong motherland and other forces.

And the IDF are not bad either, they stormed the Golan-heights, won a whole war in 6 days and successfully defended Israel against all it´s neighbors at the same time, conquering some territory by the way.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Vietnam? The Marines didn´t seem to be able to stop the US from retreating with all their glorious victories. Of course I have no idea how exactly they performed in all those jungle fights.

They performed very well thank you. Again not only the Marines but the Army even never suffered a major defeat in Nam.


And the IDF are not bad either, they stormed the Golan-heights, won a whole war in 6 days and successfully defended Israel against all it´s neighbors at the same time, conquering some territory by the way.

The IDF indeed are as succesful as the Marines but then again look who they are fighting. ~D

[PanzerJaeger]

Vietnam? The Marines didn´t seem to be able to stop the US from retreating with all their glorious victories. Of course I have no idea how exactly they performed in all those jungle fights.

Thats completely ridiculous on several levels.

[Azi Tohak]

The IDF indeed are as succesful as the Marines but then again look who they are fighting. ~D

Geesh... I was waiting for you to comment on the IDF. I know quite well who they are fighting, but my point is look at the numerical disadvantage (I don't know if the Marines ever faced something THAT bad) and the equipment the IDF gets. Yes, the Merkava is great, but the IDF has never had the amazing equipment the marines get.

And about who they are fighting... you think the Arabs are somehow inferior to Japanese or Vietnamese? Bad Gawain! Bad! ~D

Personally, I think the IDF is the finest military of the 20th century, with the Wehrmacht (Army anyway), and then the US.

(Humph... I just realized it might a be a little odd putting the IDF and Wehrmacht so close... ah well, I'll leave it.)

Azi

[Kraxis]

Heh... This has (d)evolved into two discussions, Finnish victories against the SU and SS vs Marines. Interesting.

I'll keep to the Finnish topic.
I come from a small country myself. And it is a strange thing that the two most celebrated battles in our history are both glorious defeats of our outnumbered and outclassed forces fighting bitter and ultimately costly fights. One of them has even been viewed as a victory by some (and still is a sort of psychological victory), eventhough it is certainly not true. We are often not able to view our own conflicts with the needed coolheadness, for the simple reasons we have personal stakes in them. They are simply that much more important to us.

Granted, neither were potentially as destructive as the Finnish wars with the SU. But you can't deny that land that your enemy takes from you in war is in fact LOST. And in this case for good. Lost equates to the armed forces weren't able to protect it. How that came to be, be it swarming of the enemy or outmaneuvers (which both happened in the Winter War at the final breakthrough) is besides the point. It was a defeat. Compounded by the fact thatthe political leadership sued fro peace. That is the same as in ancient Greece the loser would request to bury his dead, they also sent emmisaries.
That the country managed to stay alive through the actions of its military makes the defeat that much less hard to bear, and can be viewed with a certain amount of relief.
At best that can be taken as a stalled victory, meaning that the enemy was stalled in the middle of his victory.

Undoubtedly, the Red Army could have taken the rest of Finland, but it didn't. It would be too expensive in manpower and equipment, but after the breakthrough the war became much more fluid in the south, something that was very much against the Finnish defenders.

I do not try to belittle anything, or insult anybody here, especially not those who actually defended their homes. I have always looked at the Winter War in particular as sort of how dedication and knowledge of terrain can produce the most impressive results. When I think of glorious defenders that war pops up.

[Incongruous]

Gurkhas.

[Papewaio]

SBS and SAS British.

====

ANZACs did pretty well in WWI and II. Not saying they were number one. Just a pretty damn good normal Army non-special forces.

WWI:

The role of the Australian Corps in 1918 was indeed a remarkable one. Comprising only 9.5% of the BEF, it captured 18.5% of the German prisoners, 21.5% of the territory and 14% of the guns captured. This represented an effectiveness 1.95, 2.23 and 1.47 times that of the British Army average. These victories came at a cost, but this was still considerably less than that of the Somme fighting of 1916, or the Passchendaele fighting of 1917 or even the fighting at Bullecourt and Messines in mid 1917, and the results were immensely greater. The casualties were more or less matched by the 25,000 German prisoners taken; that many more Germans were killed or wounded is certain but their numbers are not known. Some 623 square kilometres of France was recaptured from the enemy

[eadeater]

They performed very well thank you. Again not only the Marines but the Army even never suffered a major defeat in Nam.



Perhaps not in individual battles, but they still lost the whole war. Now, before you barrage me with "they were withdrawn for political reasons etc." I know, but if they unleashed as much whoopass as they were expected to, rather than getting bogged down and taking huge casualties, then there would've been no reasons to withdraw them. If they had scored an outright victory, or a victory at all for that matter, then the war would've been popular rather than massively unpopular.

[King Henry V]

The SS was the best trained, most disciplined body of troops of the 20th century. They were fanatically, blindly loyal to their comrades and their country, in a way the Marines could never be. They lost simply because they were too out-numbered and under supplied.
But in my opinion, the SAS comes a close second.
If your talking about armies which have never lost a battle, then no one can beat the Swiss! ~;)

[Templar Knight]

Special Air Service (SAS), Special Boat Service (SBS), Special Reconnaissance Service (SRS) and the Paras.

[King Henry V]

They performed very well thank you. Again not only the Marines but the Army even never suffered a major defeat in Nam.

Except for the war itself that is......

[RabidGibbon]

Originally posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Can any of you even name a major battle the Marines lost? How about a small one?

Not to take anything away from a rightly renowned fighting machine but wasn't the garrison of Corrigedor in the phillipines to some extent composed of Marines? Also IIRC the garrisons of Guam and Wake islands were composed of Marines.

[Kraxis]

Indeed Guam and Wake were Marine 'outposts'. I don't know about Corregidor, but in any case plenty of Army men joined them out there in time.

Now before more people mention the SS, know this. There were many lousy SS divisions, especially those composed of east Europeans and Russians. There was even a Cossack division, not really a superb one.
The SS got all the dregs of the occupied countries as well as all the motivated Nazis.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I know, but if they unleashed as much whoopass as they were expected to, rather than getting bogged down and taking huge casualties, then there would've been no reasons to withdraw them.

Man your really starting to piss me off. Why the hell do you think most vets think that war was Bull? Because they wouldnt lets use all our power. We were fighting with one hand tied behind our backs and still kicked their asses. The American people lost that war not te military. We kicked ass and took names just like we always do.


Also IIRC the garrisons of Guam and Wake islands were composed of Marines.

Yes they were. It was one of the Marines finest hours.


Wake Island, December 8 - 23, 1941


Wake Island has the distinction of being the only time defenders were able to prevent a landing during World War II. The marines and naval personnel on Wake, a refueling station for the Pan American Clipper, would become heroes to the American public starved for good news as the Japanese advanced across the Pacific.

Wake Island was 2000 miles west of Hawaii, across the International Date Line. Some 1600 civilian construction workers and servicemen were on the island, and they were attacked within minutes of the Pearl Harbor attack by Kwajalein-based bombers. On December 11, the defenders used their World War I issue 5-inch guns to repel a landing force and damage three cruisers and a destroyer.

By December 23, the island had been bombed and shelled for 12 days. Some 120 Americans and 880 Japanese died during the invasion. Public sentiment for the Wake Island garrison was heightened by the first American war movie, Wake Island, which was rushed into theatres within months.

The garrison was broken up. Most were shipped to China, while 98 men were left on Wake to construct defenses for the Japanese. The POWs sent to China were shocked by five random beheadings during the voyage. On October 7, 1943, Rear Admiral Shigematsu Sakaibara announced that he had executed the 98 men for radio contact with Hawaii.

The American command left Sakaibara and his 4400 men to wither on the vine, bypassing Wake. Wake was bombed and shelled repeatedly. American replacements used Wake as a training ground. Only 1200 men were let alive when the garrison surrendered on September 4, 1945. Sakaibara was arrested and tried for war crimes. He was executed in 1947.

[Redleg]

Sorry Giawan its not the Marines that are the greatest Military Organization of the 20th Century.

Several others units have that honor.

The United States Ranger Regiment.

The Special Boat Service and Special Air Service of the British Armed Forces.

The old Soviet Union Special Operations Group.

There are several other elite units within both the United States Military and other Nations militaries.

And your history of the Corps is slightly disorted and baised - the United States Army landed and fought on several Islands without the aid of the Marines. And the Marines were pushed back along with the Army in Korea by the Chinese. Remember the Frozen Chosen - a fine hour for the Marine Corps - but they still had to retreat along with the rest of 8th Army out of North Korea back to the 38th - ie the DMZ.

There were several major Island campaigns that were done primarily by the Army.

The Aleutians
The Phillipine Campaign
The Gilbert Islands
New Guinea

And there are several lesser know battles fought by the Army in the Pacific.

[yesdachi]

Vietnam? The Marines didn´t seem to be able to stop the US from retreating with all their glorious victories. ~;)
Vietnam is a real weird situation because it was not army against army it was communism against democracy. And the stakes were so high that both sides feared that if they were to unleash their forces and let war breakout than it would escalate to a nuclear war. That’s why the Americans weren’t able to go past certain areas even though the enemy would have been an easy target, and vice versa. What Vietnam was, was probably the most significant strategic withdraw in modern history. If it had continued there would have been open war between Russia/China and America and allies. Not good!

America definitely had better trained soldiers and equipment but the “red” side had many more soldiers and a near limitless supply of weapons and equipment. (I remember seeing a program that showed a bunch of confiscated Russian supplies from a VC tunnel complex, Russian writing on crates, etc. but they were not involved, ha) while the Americans had budget cuts and the American people protesting over every penny spent on the war (actually, I don’t think it was at the time classified as a war but a “conflict”).

Army vs. army battles, I think the Marines win hands down but when you throw politics into it, who knows.

Vietnam wasn’t an American lose; it was an American PR nightmare. The fat, lazy, and privileged American people have a hard time realizing that freedom is expensive.

[Duke Malcolm]

No other fighting force I know of takes the sort of casulties and presses on to victory like the Marines since the Black Watch and Napleons Imperial Guard.

The Black Watch is still around, my dear Gawain, and is the best.


Special Air Service (SAS), Special Boat Service (SBS), Special Reconnaissance Service (SRS) and the Paras.

I would say those, plus the 42nd Regiment of Foot, The Black Watch, (Royal Highland Regiment), and HM Royal Marines.

[LeftEyeNine]

I would have to say hands down The United States Marine Corps. No other service has such a magnificent battle record in the history of the world . We dont loose battles its plain and simple.

I am sick of this never-ending US propaganda..

The biggest is US Marines.. So be it.. I have the most sarcastic smile ever on my face right now..

THis is not a way of opening a discussion.. It is a wise way to camouflage your [TosaInu]..

[LeftEyeNine]

Hey, uh, if you ever met a Marine I assure you you'd think differently. I'm not a big propaganda nut, but it doesn't take a flag-waving bush-lover to see that the Marines are just.. scary.

Hey, uh, if you ever met a Mehmetcik (we call our marines that way) I assure you'd think differently..

(Copy & paste with a few edits..)

..Ok ok so be it, God bless US and his invulnerable troops.. They are maginificent, oh my god, I want a US pass, oh my, Marines are incredible Mech-like-war-machines.. God bless our offical gendarmes of the world..

[PanzerJaeger]

THis is not a way of opening a discussion.. It is a wise way to camouflage your [TosaInu]..

Actually it is a very good way of opening a discussion.

You ask a question and then give your opinion and leave it open for discussion?

Did you expect him to post his question and then not give his opinion?

You just dont like hearing good things about America - tough. If you think your marines are better, post that and give support to that claim.

How many battles have the Mehmetcik won?

[LeftEyeNine]

No not that way. Infact, I'd be happy to see USA someday, so called the land of liberty. I'm not an anti nor a US-silly. I'm just bored of the ongoing propaganda about US here lately..

After the Turkish Independence War, we were not actually involved in much battles..

However South Koreans still remember the heroic help of Mehmetcik.. They are always grateful with Turkey..

In Cyprus, Mehmetcik prevented Northern Cypriot Turks from being genocided..

As long as they took part in a battle, they never failed.

But do not forget that it counts for the period after the foundation of Turkey in 1923.

Anyway, I am not keen on "Hey, What is the greatest military organization ever? I think we rule.. We are awesome ! We are so incredible ! We own all ! We rule! We patrol the whole world ! We blah-blah!!" subject..

Actually I'd like to be informed about Vietnam Syndrome and the outcome of Iraq occupation..

[Marquis of Roland]

My old roomate was Marine Recon, and he said that after meeting people from the SAS/SBS and the French Foreign Legion on some training mission, those guys are "the craziest guys I've ever met".

This is coming from a guy who told me he only used a red marker (as a knife) in US wargames in the California desert.

How about the Airborne and the Rangers?

[dgfred]

Ah, yeah, the French Foreign Legion. Big contenders for best military organization.

I agree! It is tough to come against guys with nothing to loose. ~:cool:

[Kraxis]

Foreign Legion Paras. They are the elite of the FF, so I guess they are pretty tough.

[Papewaio]

Hey, uh, if you ever met a Marine I assure you you'd think differently. I'm not a big propaganda nut, but it doesn't take a flag-waving bush-lover to see that the Marines are just.. scary.

I used to see a lot of marines on the streets in Perth on R&R, they are not exceptionally tall, but like the SAS guys I went to uni with they are all stocky guys. If anything the Marines calm confidence was far more reassuring then some of the try hards I meet at parties trying to show how manly they were by starting fights.

My first cousin has played rugby union against the SAS rugby team in Perth... he says they play very hard but very fair... just not many teams play unsportsmanlike with them either ~D

[Kraxis]

I used to see a lot of marines on the streets in Perth on R&R, they are not exceptionally tall, but like the SAS guys I went to uni with they are all stocky guys. If anything the Marines calm confidence was far more reassuring then some of the try hards I meet at parties trying to show how manly they were by starting fights.

My first cousin has played rugby union against the SAS rugby team in Perth... he says they play very hard but very fair... just not many teams play unsportsmanlike with them either ~D
Heh... I have a similar experience with the Danish special forces Frømandskorpset (essentially The Frogman Corps). They are all nice and friendly, but it is like everything seems to bore them. Not obviously, but if you look into their eyes they are dead, you know like a man who have had a few beers.

It took me some time before I understood. But now it is so obvious to me.
They can't allow themselves to get excited, that would be very dangerous when traveling far underwater. Scary prospect. But I never want to get tangled with them. They are alays very quiet at bars, but there are always some ass who wants to show in front of them... Well the results are obvious.

[Marquis of Roland]

I used to see a lot of marines on the streets in Perth on R&R, they are not exceptionally tall, but like the SAS guys I went to uni with they are all stocky guys. If anything the Marines calm confidence was far more reassuring then some of the try hards I meet at parties trying to show how manly they were by starting fights.


Being short or having a small head is definitely an asset in modern warfare. ~:)

[English assassin]

Two more suggestions:

The first is a bit time limited, but the title of the thread doesn't necessarily imply the organisation has to have been around throughout C20. RAF Fighter Command 1940. The first modern integrated air defence network, with really efficient and effective use of radar and ground based fighter controllers. We all know what happened when the previously invincible Luftwaffe took that one on. What isn't so widely known is that it wasn't even close and none of it was down to luck.

The second certainly has been around for a while: The Royal Navy. (BTW I might be wrong but isn't the Royal Navy the oldest continually exisiting military organisation in the world?) I think its fair to say no other military organisation has had such wide ranging genuinely global commitments in C20, and it managed them superbly against the most difficult background of declining resources and new powers coming into the ascendancy. Its easy to be top dog when you ARE top dog, but meeting your commitments when budgets are being cut and Britain is sinking down to a second rate power, that's a real test of character.

And character counts for a lot. As Admiral Cunningham famously said during the Battle of Crete (where the navy was taking heavy losses from air attack by operating without air cover to evacuate the army) "It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" That's the spirit !

[yesdachi]

The second certainly has been around for a while: The Royal Navy. (BTW I might be wrong but isn't the Royal Navy the oldest continually exisiting military organisation in the world?) I think its fair to say no other military organisation has had such wide ranging genuinely global commitments in C20, and it managed them superbly against the most difficult background of declining resources and new powers coming into the ascendancy. Its easy to be top dog when you ARE top dog, but meeting your commitments when budgets are being cut and Britain is sinking down to a second rate power, that's a real test of character.
The Royal Navy is pretty great and do have a long tradition of excellence. But they also have some faults that take them out of the running for me.
1. The Press Gang: totally not cool to force others into service.
2. The choice to be fast and maneuverable against the powerful but slow Germans –(Bismarck sp? style ships)

Both issues have been taken care of and now they seem to have a powerful navy (I really like the small aircraft carriers) but the fact that they took so many losses to the Germans because of their ship design takes them out of contention in my book.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

My old roomate was Marine Recon, and he said that after meeting people from the SAS/SBS and the French Foreign Legion on some training mission, those guys are "the craziest guys I've ever met".

I have to agree. I had great respect also for all the Royal Marines I ever met. We were like brithers. Yes the SA and such are trained to higher standards than the US Marines but the are insifgificant in numbers and accomplisments in comparison. Hell even the Navy seals are a more elite unit here in the states. Im talking about a major organiiation that can field divisions not some unit like Redlegs Rangers. You want to compare them to force recon . In that case the Marines will kick their asses. Of all standard troops in the world the Marines are the best.

[Redleg]

I have to agree. I had great respect also for all the Royal Marines I ever met. We were like brithers. Yes the SA and such are trained to higher standards than the US Marines but the are insifgificant in numbers and accomplisments in comparison. Hell even the Navy seals are a more elite unit here in the states. Im talking about a major organiiation that can field divisions not some unit like Redlegs Rangers. You want to compare them to force recon . In that case the Marines will kick their asses. Of all standard troops in the world the Marines are the best.

Given the criteria you just stated in this little quote - the the obvious winner is the United States Air Force. Which can be so far up that the Marine Corps Anti-Air can not touch. Which has the fighters necessary to keep the Marine Corps Air on the ground or destroyed. And the Firepower the effectively destory a Marine Division on the ground.

However you did state organization - not divisional organization. The United States Army Rangers have a brilliant record of battle also. Doing more dangerous missions then even your Corps.

Just like the SAS and SBS also have a brillant battle record.

The French Foreign Legion are a good, the problem is that the French have always used them for the dirty jobs that get units destoried. So comparing the Marine Corps to the French Foreign Legion based upon battle records is not such an honest approach to their performance. I personally think the Legion is slightly over-rated by many, but they had a brillant battle history in Korea and Indochina. During this time period the Legion was filled with lots of combat vets from many countries that were trying to disappear.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

However you did state organization - not divisional organization. The United States Army Rangers have a brilliant record of battle also. Doing more dangerous missions then even your Corps.

Baloney. They do have a brilliant record but not as good as the Marines nor are they anywhere near as powerful. The USMC all by itself could in conventional warfare beat almost any other nations armed forces all by itself. The Rangers can make no such claim. Again you would have to compare them to force recon not everyday marines. The rangers are an elite branch of the army. The marines are just the Marines.


Just like the SAS and SBS also have a brillant battle record.

Yuo they sure are and their better trained than the Marines also. But they are insignificant in comparison. Whats the last major pitched battle any of these units have done? These again are elite specialy trained units . They dont represent the entire army where as the marines represent all Marines in fact they are the bottom of the barrel as far as Marines go where as the units your speaking of are the top of the amrmies units. As a whole theres no comparison.

As for tougher battles you have to be kidding even D Day doesnt hold a candle to Marine landings in the Pacific. Iwo Jima alone shows how tough you average Marine was


The tiny island had taken America over one month to take. The Marines lost 6,891 men killed and 18,070 wounded. Out of the 22,000 Japanese soldiers on the island, only 212 were taken prisoners.

This was out of 70000 that landed . Thats greater than 33% casualties and a 10% death rate.

[Redleg]

Baloney. They do have a brilliant record but not as good as the Marines nor are they anywhere near as powerful. The USMC all by itself could in conventional warfare beat almost any other nations armed forces all by itself. The Rangers can make no such claim. Again you would have to compare them to force recon not everyday marines. The rangers are an elite branch of the army. The marines are just the Marines.

However they are a military organization are they not? And your selling the Marine Corps why to high.

For instance I doubt very seriousily that the Marine Corps will hold its own against 10,000,000 Chinese soldiers, especially since the Marines last time I check only had 3 Divisions. Then I seriousily doubt that the Marines can take on the combined forces of the British Army and defeat them all by themselves. Against little country with 4 or less divisions - yes the Marines will defeat all other countries. But so will the United States Army - and it will defeat an even larger force then the Marines can. Apples and oranges my friend - and changing the defination of your orginial question to boot.




Yuo they sure are and their better trained than the Marines also. But they are insignificant in comparison. Whats the last major pitched battle any of these units have done? These again are elite specialy trained units . They dont represent the entire army where as the marines represent all Marines in fact they are the bottom of the barrel as far as Marines go where as the units your speaking of are the top of the amrmies units. As a whole theres no comparison.

You stated organization. These units are organizations within their country's military structure. Having trained with and worked with not only Rangers, French, British, Canadian, and yes even the Marines - the Marines while a great branch of service - are not the best military organization in the world. They are good, they perform their mission well - but again that was not your orginial question nor was it the intent of the other discussions. When faced with conflicting opinions about the best military organization - you change the defination of what constitutes the type of organization you are considering.

The Rangers have preformed more missions in the last 20 years then the Marines - and many of those missions are unkown by the general public because of the nature of the Ranger Regiment. They have performed all this missions in a successful manner. I even watched the Ranger Regiment in action against same size unit of Marines in a training mission. Guess who won the battle in the woods - it was not the Marines.

Then in your over defense of the Corps - you are discounting such divisional units as the 82nd Airborne and 101st Air Assualt. Two units that once again have deployed more often then the Marine Corps in the last 20 years.

Yes the Corps is good - and is one of the premier military organizations in the United States Military - but they are not the greatest in the American Armed Forces - nor are they the greatest in the World. The Corps is possiblity the best Corps level organization in the World. Since that is in essense exactly how they are organized with 3 Divisions. But there are better military organizations out there just in smaller sizes.

The Para-Rescue guys of the AirForce I think are a great military organization. Watched them in a training mission once also. Very Professional - very good at what they do.

[Proletariat]

Again you would have to compare them to force recon not everyday marines. The rangers are an elite branch of the army. The marines are just the Marines.


They're an elite branch of the Navy, not just Marines.

Delta Force owns Force Recon anyway (which is an honest analogy, unlike your Ranger vs Recon herring), so it's a stupid analogy.

(Sure, I'm a reservist these days but I still have some hua in me.)

[Redleg]

As for tougher battles you have to be kidding even D Day doesnt hold a candle to Marine landings in the Pacific. Iwo Jima alone shows how tough you average Marine was



This was out of 70000 that landed . Thats greater than 33% casualties and a 10% death rate.

Counter is Battle of the Bulge - where a division was completely surrounded by the Germany Army that vastly outnumberd them by 5 to 1, and the American Commander's comment of "Nuts"

Or General Patton's Army switching from an attack to the south, moving many miles, and then attacking to relieve the Division that was surrounded.

Then their is the Nickname for the Rangers that came from the Germans because of the successful operations carried out by the Rangers against the Germans each and every time.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

However they are a military organization are they not? And your selling the Marine Corps why to high.

Yes they aree. I guess I should have made it MAJOR military organization.


For instance I doubt very seriousily that the Marine Corps will hold its own against 10,000,000 Chinese soldiers, especially since the Marines last time I check only had 3 Divisions. Then I seriousily doubt that the Marines can take on the combined forces of the British Army and defeat them all by themselves. Against little country with 4 or less divisions - yes the Marines will defeat all other countries. But so will the United States Army - and it will defeat an even larger force then the Marines can. Apples and oranges my friend - and changing the defination of your orginial question to boot.

So in the whole world yove managed to find two countries that could beat the Marines using their entire aremd forces. I think that alone speaks volumes.


You stated organization. These units are organizations within their country's military structure. Having trained with and worked with not only Rangers, French, British, Canadian, and yes even the Marines - the Marines while a great branch of service - are not the best military organization in the world.

Again I should have stated Major. Theres little doubt that the Navy Seals are far tougher and better trained than you average Marine. There is however no organiztion this large with so great a record. I hate to tell you but in Nam we had outright contempt for many army units.

As to the rest of your post I hope ive made myself clear that Im not talking about elite specially trained units.

[yesdachi]

The USMC all by itself could in conventional warfare beat almost any other nations armed forces all by itself. The Rangers can make no such claim. Again you would have to compare them to force recon not everyday marines. The rangers are an elite branch of the army. The marines are just the Marines.
The Marines do have all bases covered militarily (land, air and sea) and are not a branch of anything else (besides the American military), they are just the Marines. That fact and their history of success make them an easy #1. Perhaps the question should have been “What is the 2nd greatest military organization of the 20th century after the Marines?” ~D

If that were the question, my vote would definitely go to the SAS. They are similar to the marines but smaller and more elite.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The Marines do have all bases covered militarily (land, air and sea) and are not a branch of anything else (besides the American military), they are just the Marines.

Much as I love your post your wrong about this part. The Marines are part of the Navy. Their our chaffuers. ~;) Of course we do our best to seperate ourselves from these lowley squid. ~;) However there is no one US Marines respect more than Navy corpsmen.

[Redleg]

Yes they aree. I guess I should have made it MAJOR military organization.

Yes you should of - if your intent is to prove that the Marine Corps is the best and greatest Military Organization of its size




So in the whole world yove managed to find two countries that could beat the Marines using their entire aremd forces. I think that alone speaks volumes.

Didn't even try - just the first two I thought of. Want some more - I can manage a few more if that is what is needed. France, Germany, Japan, South and North Korea, and many other nations have the number of units and manpower that is necessary to overwhelm the Marine Corps in Combat if the United States was ever stupid enough to just send the Marine Corps into combat on its own.

The Marines in its history has rarely functioned by itself without support from at least the Navy. There are a few instances - but not enough to warrant the title as the greatest military organization in history.



Again I should have stated Major. Theres little doubt that the Navy Seals are far tougher and better trained than you average Marine. There is however no organiztion this large with so great a record. I hate to tell you but in Nam we had outright contempt for many army units.

And I had outright contempt for many army units and some marine units myself. That does not prove your point at all.



As to the rest of your post I hope ive made myself clear that Im not talking about elite specially trained units.

However as pointed out - your initial post was what is the greatest military organization - you changed the defination and the requirments because others were mentioning other units. Not very intellectually honest nor an accurate debate - in fact very disengous (SP). When by default you are discounting other organizations without establishing the initial ground rules.

By the by the United States Army can division against division hold its own against a Marine Corps division. I have seen Army Brigades beat Marine Brigades at the NTC.

[Divinus Arma]

Being an active duty Marine, I think I can throw my two cents in here.


The greatest military organization...

Yep, hands down the Marines.

Here is why:

Unprecedented statistics of success in modern warfare based entirely on the concepts of manuever warfare and combined arms. No other force has mastered these two basic concepts so effectivelly as the USMC.

Certainly, many different military organizations have their respective strengths, but none is so diverse and tactically proficient as the Marines.

Consider the navy seals, as an example. First of all, this is a tiny and very mission specific organization. They are a covert small strike force specializing in underwater demolitions. The Marine Corps counterpart, Force Recon, can do eery thing that navy seals can do with two notable differences: (1) a lower proficiency in underwater demo, and (2) a broadened spectrum of force application from as small as 2 man sniper teams to as large as a battalion sized covert operation. That variety makes Force Recon are much more useful and deadly elite force than seal teams, who operate on fire team to squad size only.

The Army counterpart, the rangers, are only a more disciplined unit within the army. In fact, rangers are substandard to a Marine infantry unit. The reason for this is the different ratios of officers to enlisted between the two services. The MArine Corps has the greatest amount of decentralized authority passed to non commissioned officers when compared with any other branch. As an example of just how much authority there is, Corporals and Sergeant do the job that lieutants and captains would do in the russian army.

Here is the real bottom line for this discussion:

There is no known documented retreat in Marine Corps history.

The only argument for a retreat is the heroic fighting withdrawal at the frozen chosin in Korea, 1950. There, a little less than 8,000 Marines were surrounded by a force of 120,000 chinese. They fought themselves out of the encirclement and brought out all wounded and most of the dead with them.

I heard an old Marine korea POW tel me about the war. He said that soldiers just died for no reason. The Marines called it "giveupitis". He said no Marines ever died this way, just the army.

Semper Fi

[Proletariat]

The Army counterpart, the rangers, are only a more disciplined unit within the army. In fact, rangers are substandard to a Marine infantry unit. The reason for this is the different ratios of officers to enlisted between the two services. The MArine Corps has the greatest amount of decentralized authority passed to non commissioned officers when compared with any other branch. As an example of just how much authority there is, Corporals and Sergeant do the job that lieutants and captains would do in the russian army.


Why did you choose Rangers and not Delta or SF to compare?

[Redleg]

Being an active duty Marine, I think I can throw my two cents in here.


The greatest military organization...

Yep, hands down the Marines.

Here is why:

Unprecedented statistics of success in modern warfare based entirely on the concepts of manuever warfare and combined arms. No other force has mastered these two basic concepts so effectivelly as the USMC.

Certainly, many different military organizations have their respective strengths, but none is so diverse and tactically proficient as the Marines.


Would you care to place a bet on that. The Special Forces along with Delta are much more diverse then the Marines. Plus the Rangers are far better then your trying to make out.



Consider the navy seals, as an example. First of all, this is a tiny and very mission specific organization. They are a covert small strike force specializing in underwater demolitions. The Marine Corps counterpart, Force Recon, can do eery thing that navy seals can do with two notable differences: (1) a lower proficiency in underwater demo, and (2) a broadened spectrum of force application from as small as 2 man sniper teams to as large as a battalion sized covert operation. That variety makes Force Recon are much more useful and deadly elite force than seal teams, who operate on fire team to squad size only.

Your falling into the same trap as Gaiwan with this arguement



The Army counterpart, the rangers, are only a more disciplined unit within the army. In fact, rangers are substandard to a Marine infantry unit. The reason for this is the different ratios of officers to enlisted between the two services. The MArine Corps has the greatest amount of decentralized authority passed to non commissioned officers when compared with any other branch. As an example of just how much authority there is, Corporals and Sergeant do the job that lieutants and captains would do in the russian army.

LOL - you should of been in the Unit I was in - 180 men only two officers - plus one warrant officer. My non-commissioned officers did more work and leadership then even the average Marine Corps NCO. And I notice that you attempted to compare the ratio with the Russian Army verus the United States Army. For instance in a Line Infantry Unit in the Army you have a Commander, A XO, and a Plt leader for each Platoon. Which last time I checked is the same type of organizational leadership as the Marines.



Here is the real bottom line for this discussion:

There is no known documented retreat in Marine Corps history.


No documented retreat does not equat to the greatest military organization in the 20th Century. That just shows something else.



The only argument for a retreat is the heroic fighting withdrawal at the frozen chosin in Korea, 1950. There, a little less than 8,000 Marines were surrounded by a force of 120,000 chinese. They fought themselves out of the encirclement and brought out all wounded and most of the dead with them.

Did you notice your contradiction within these two sentences. A fighting withdraw is a retreat. Just an organized one.



I heard an old Marine korea POW tel me about the war. He said that soldiers just died for no reason. The Marines called it "giveupitis". He said no Marines ever died this way, just the army.

Semper Fi

Oh no - not that story again.

Care to explain why the "Go for Broke" Regiment remains one of the highest decorated combat unit in American History.

http://www.k12.hi.us/~gt/cyberfair2/442nd/442.htm

Using both yours and Gaiwans criteria - this is the greatest military organization in the History of the United States Armed Forces


The troops of the 442nd Regiment fought in eight major campaigns in Italy, France and Germany, including the battles at Belmont, Bruyeres and Biffontaine. At Biffontaine, the unit fought perhaps its most famous battle, the "Rescue of the Lost Battalion". In this bloody confrontation, the 442nd unit lost more than 800 troops to rescue 211 members of the Texan 1st Battalion of the 141st Regiment. There were also numerous accounts of individuals who displayed incredible valor while attempting to advance their positions and rescue wounded comrades.

Go for Broke poster
In less than two years of combat, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team earned more than 18,000 individual decorations including one Medal of Honor, 53 Distinguished Service Crosses, 588 Silver Stars, 5,200 Bronze Star Medals, 9,486 Purple Hearts, and eight Presidential Unit Citations (the nation's top award for combat units). In June 2000, President Clinton awarded an additional 20 Medals of Honor to members of the 100th Battalion and 442nd Regimental Combat Team. This was the result of a re-examination of the files of dozens of Japanese-American soldiers to see if any of them might have been denied awards because of possible prejudice. One of these recipients was Hawaii's U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, whose right arm was shattered by a grenade while successfully destroying three German machine gun nests.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

LOL - you should of been in the Unit I was in - 180 men only two officers - plus one warrant officer. My non-commissioned officers did more work and leadership then even the average Marine Corps NCO. And I notice that you attempted to compare the ratio with the Russian Army verus the United States Army. For instance in a Line Infantry Unit in the Army you have a Commander, A XO, and a Plt leader for each Platoon. Which last time I checked is the same type of organizational leadership as the Marines.

Well I was in charge of 180 Marines and I was only a corporal. The senior one to be sure but we were fresh out of sargents. Anyway a Marine corporal is the same rank as an army sargent but indeed has a lot more power. This has always been the big difference between these two services. The army and aairforce have 10 mos's to do the same job as 1 marine. In fact to do my job the airforce had 28 seperate MOS's


Would you care to place a bet on that. The Special Forces along with Delta are much more diverse then the Marines. Plus the Rangers are far better then your trying to make out.

They are not capable of performing the missions the Marines do therefore their not more diverse especially when you add in force recon. I remember in Nam we thought the green berets were a joke. There was a hill and for three days they tried to take it and couldnt. They sent in some regular marines and they took it in a few hours. They then handed it over to the army who lost it two days later. IM sure the army nowdays being all volunterr are heads and shoulders over those who served in Nam though. Most Marines were vounteers back then. We didnt start drafting Marines until 68.

[Gemenii XIII]

I would have to say hands down The United States Marine Corps. No other service has such a magnificent battle record in the history of the world . We dont loose battles its plain and simple.

But you do loose wars

[Kraxis]

Gawain, you setthe rules in the first post and had plenty of time to correct the mistake of not putting 'major org.' in it. Yet you didn't. Suddenly when people start making quite good arguments for other organizations you backpedal and make certain that none but the Marines can be selected.

If you are going to say Corps size then sure the Marines are by far the best (and that was established long ago here), why? Because they are the only non-full Army out there of that size. Meaning the only contestants are others nations' armies. Also about 90% of all nations are out of the contest being that their armies are too small. That is very much a weighted discussion in my mind.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If you are going to say Corps size then sure the Marines are by far the best (and that was established long ago here), why? Because they are the only non-full Army out there of that size. Meaning the only contestants are others nations' armies. Also about 90% of all nations are out of the contest being that their armies are too small. That is very much a weighted discussion in my mind.

Wrong . They are better than any organization thats bigger than them either. Its not because they are the only unit of that size but that they are the best trained and most motivated unit of that size or larger.


Gawain, you setthe rules in the first post and had plenty of time to correct the mistake of not putting 'major org.' in it. Yet you didn't. Suddenly when people start making quite good arguments for other organizations you backpedal and make certain that none but the Marines can be selected.
I admitted quite early on that I wasnt talking about special units. Of course their better than the Marines. We have had threads on those and I think the SAS comes in first there. Im talking about being able to fight major battles with records in war of having done so.I also gave a time thread and over the last 100 years no ones battle history even comes close .

[Duke Malcolm]

Major organizations? The British Army is a major Organization and I would say that it is better than the U.S. Marine Corps.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Major organizations? The British Army is a major Organization and I would say that it is better than the U.S. Marine Corps.

It has so many losses its not funny. Nothing like the Corps. Heck it couldnt even beat a bunch of armed farmers over here nevermind the Marines ~D . How big is the British army by the way?

[Duke Malcolm]

I believe that it is 200000 men strong, the best-trained regular soldiers in the world, excellent equipment, and if the U.S. Marines had been around for as many battles as the British Army, you could bet that it would have lost a fair sight more than the Black Watch.

[Meneldil]

I always read the SS were in fact quite a sucky and uneffective military organisation, whose main aim was to kill thousands of innocent civils.

The SS who invaded France are especially recorded as being really loosy compared to the common german soldier.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I believe that it is 200000 men strong, the best-trained regular soldiers in the world,

So its basicly the same size as the Marines. We will kick your butts ~D You have no aircraft. ~D

PS you actually have lile 113000 in the army vs 178000 Marines. Your hoplessly out numbered and outclassed.

[Duke Malcolm]

outclassed? I think not. We have the Army Air Corps, which has a good many airborne regiments with apaches, and transport helicopters like chinooks. We may be outnumbered, but we could still beat the U.S. Marines

[Templar Knight]

and the Brit Army have me so.....careful Gawain ~:)

[PanzerJaeger]

I always read the SS were in fact quite a sucky and uneffective military organisation, whose main aim was to kill thousands of innocent civils.

The SS who invaded France are especially recorded as being really loosy compared to the common german soldier.

Where did you read that? ~:confused:

It really depends on what part of the SS and what part of the war you're talking about.

During the Polish and French campaign, they were a new organization and didnt perform any better than the wehrmacht.

During the russian campaign, they came into their own. Hitler threw them at the strongest Russian offensives and they performed excellently. Ive got a couple of books that outline simply amazing military feats against overwhelming odds.

During normandy, the original SS units had been somewhat drained on the eastern front, so they rebuilt them using green recruits lead by combat hardened vets. These units actually fought very well against the allies.

All through the war there were other SS divisions made besides the originals. These were made up of occupied peoples who often times didnt volunteer. Also towards the end there was a HJ SS division. These didnt perform well at all.


As I said before, the SS circa 1943 was the best military organization in the 20th century.

[Kraxis]

The original HJ SS division did very well, if being a bit fanatical and rather selfdestructive. The Canadians will tell you that much.

Anyway, how do you guys feel about the Gurkhas? I'm pretty certain that they are about the hardest non-Specials I can think of.
Damn I heard a chilling story from some older soldiers (I was in the Navy) that during an exercise where the knives were supposed to be red markers, they infiltraded a camp and went to every tent silently 'slitting' each man's throat ever so slightly that they all woke up in hte morning only their outmost layer of skin cut... No blood. But scary to say the least. And mind you these were Danish soldiers telling the story and being the victims, so it can't have been bias, as the Gurkhas in fact behaved very irresponsible (what if one of the soldiers had woken up and cut himself with the jolt?).

[Kagemusha]

I think there was some talk about Gurkhas in Nations of warriors thread.I agree Kraxis.Gurkhas are deadly. :bow:

[Kraxis]

Btw, this discussion has to be able to go down to Regiment size. Remember that it was only by WWII that the Marines were finally given division(s), before that it had been a few regiments and even before that they had been a single regiment.

So Rangers do count, as do the Gurkhas for instance.
Or else we can only consider the Marines from WWII. Not bad of course but it does diminish their impressiveness a bit.

So bring on your arguments. And remember I'm not here in favour of any particular org, but as a true infoseeker.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

nd the Brit Army have me so.....careful Gawain

Ill put Div up against you anyday mate. No offense.


outclassed? I think not. We have the Army Air Corps, which has a good many airborne regiments with apaches, and transport helicopters like chinooks

And hwere did you get these choppers from? You do realize the Marines have more of these than you do and all marines are well trained in these operations. Besides Im talking aircraft here. F-18s, Harriers and the new joint strike fighter. You have nothing to combat that plus we have our own air transport fleet. Once more the Marines are pretty much a combined arms force all on their own. Thats what makes them truly special. They can do it all.

THe Marine Airwings are a force in themselves and there are three of them.

[Duke Malcolm]

So the thing that makes the USMC the best is not actual soldier skill, but high numbers, and decent equipment.

[Templar Knight]

We should really get a better rifle such as the M16

[Duke Malcolm]

Is the M16 better that the SA80? I thought that the bull-pup design meant for better accuracy and maneuverability?

[Templar Knight]

I would prefer to fire a longer rifle, also reliability of the SA80 isn't that great such as sand, water and cold conditions etc..

[eadeater]

The M16 isn't much more reliable than the SA80 in water, sand etc. Only the AK exceeds all other rifles in terms of reliability.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So the thing that makes the USMC the best is not actual soldier skill, but high numbers, and decent equipment.

Nope. Much Marine equipment is surplus from other branchs.I remember Navy pilots couldnt believe our guys flew in the birds we had. Its the training , the esprit de corps and the fact that the Marines have again a combined weapons system that is self contained that makes them the best or shall we say most succseful large military organization of the 20th century.

It can be summed up in two words

Gung Ho

[Divinus Arma]

I would put it another way than Gung Ho, although the concepts are the same.

U.S. Marines share an amazing experience and mentality that evades other branches:


I'll tell you a little inside secret about the Marine Corps that I don't care gets out. Once you are a part of this culture, you find something you will never find anywhere else. There are two parts to the Corps: the organization and the intangible.

The organization is the uniforms, the equipment, the rank, the training, the tactics, etc. These are always changing and will continue to change.

The intangible is the aspect of the Corps that you cannot touch, see, taste, or feel. It is that character and quality unique to Marines that each of us share with exuberant enthusiasm. It is this concept: The standards of excellence demand the pursuit of perfection. In everything that we do, the pursuit of perfection is always present. Perfection can never be attained, but we relentlessly pursue it with absolutely ruthless ferocity. And through this pursuit, each individual empowers his brother, inspiring and enabling each to achieve more and become more than ever could have been done alone. So as a group, we achieve the unattainable. We move ever closer to perfection. And each of us feels this within us. And sees it in our comrades. I know I can count on my Marines. They'll not flee before the enemy. If need be, they will die for me, and I for them, each of us. And as we stand before the fires of death, facing down the inevitable torturous pain with our personal stinking, dripping, burning heat of fear... we will press forward. Into that heat. Into the inevitable. Into the fire together. The world turns, your ears pierce with the noise of a thousand rifles, and the rush, the swelling moment of helpless confusion. Press forward. The deep bass booms in the distance. Closer. Together. Sweat soaks your dripping dragging clothes but you feel light and heavy all at once. The heat of the fear. Press forward.

Until the moment has gone. And the last crackle of small arms fire fades into the silence, when the sharp crisp reality eases back into your mind... you'll be incredibley alone. Until you feel your brothers with you. And then your heart will surge, your eyes will blur with tears, and joy and pride will overhwlem you.


So you want to join the Corps? Always remember that the more we sweat in peace, the less we will bleed in war. Marines endure like no other. The intangible of the corps is what drives Marines. It is what enabled John Basilone to stand up in the field of fire, and scream to his men "Come on you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever?!" Inspiring them to charge into the woods against a heavily fortified enemy position. It is why, as the army retreats, one young Officer said "Retreat Hell. We just got here". Tarawa. The frozen chosin. Iwo Jima. Belleau wood.


The intangible inspires the organization. Our tactics change, as does our equipment, and relative strength. But it is this enduring fire in the heart of Marines that sets us apart.

Edit: And you'll be damned to convince us otherwise. We are a self-contained powerhouse of ability and might. We never lose and we meet the Mission to ungodly standards. We succeed and laugh where others falter.

Just a quick note: A Fellow Marine who I work with just got back from Iraq. The region is essentially divided into areas of control with the Marines given a specific area of control and the army given threst. He said is was amazing when you drove outside of Marine controlled areas. The security drops instantly and you can just feel the increase in danger due to controlling party weakness. He said the "pucker factor" instantly jumps when you hit Army AoCs. I can relate. It was similar in the 'Stan.

[Papewaio]

Maori Battalion (http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Maor.html)


The Arawa Company left at 7 p.m. and was unmolested until close to 23 Battalion area, when 10 Platoon (Lieutenant Vercoe) encountered a few paratroops who were cleaned up without much trouble. Very soon afterwards a larger body was met and the platoon was held up until 11 Platoon (Lieutenant Pene) reinforced it. The Germans, who had concentrated around a

– 94 –

tree, shouted ‘We surrender’ and at the same time a grenade was thrown which wounded two Maoris. That grenade was the signal for, as far as is known, the first use of the bayonet by New Zealand troops in the war, for with a yell of ‘Surrender be —’ the Maoris charged and killed twenty-four Germans. Those not actually engaged assisted with hakas.

Haka is a war dance... those not actively fighting in hand to hand were supporting their fellows by doing a war dance.


– 97 –

They were not allowed to joint forces, for the Maoris hunted them, not without loss but with considerable success. Corporal Kopu23 put his Red Cross brassard in his pocket, teamed up with one of the company cooks, Private Curran,24 and the pair went off together; Private George McDonald,25 a signaller who also had no right to be away from the telephone, returned with a grin on his face and his shirt covered in blood. ‘They got me Sir but I can still mind the telephone’, he told Major Dyer. He lay down beside the phone and kept in touch with Battalion Headquarters until he fainted from loss of blood.

I think you will find that the Maori Battalion has a very good example of mateship and taking the battle to the enemy.

[Marquis of Roland]

During the russian campaign, they came into their own. Hitler threw them at the strongest Russian offensives and they performed excellently. Ive got a couple of books that outline simply amazing military feats against overwhelming odds.



I'm interested. Can you give me the book info?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

We never lose and we meet the Mission to ungodly standards. We succeed and laugh where others falter.

This is Gung Ho, can do, just point us towards the sound of the guns.


He said is was amazing when you drove outside of Marine controlled areas. The security drops instantly and you can just feel the increase in danger due to controlling party weakness. He said the "pucker factor" instantly jumps when you hit Army AoCs. I can relate. It was similar in the 'Stan.

Was the same in Nam. In fact you can see it just by visiting an Army "Fort" or a Marine Base . The difference hangs in the air. WE call it slack ~;)

[dgfred]

I think there was some talk about Gurkhas in Nations of warriors thread.I agree Kraxis.Gurkhas are deadly. :bow:

I used to have a set of Gurkhas plastic soldiers wielding their awesome knives. ~:cool:

[Kagemusha]

I used to have a set of Gurkhas plastic soldiers wielding their awesome knives. ~:cool:

Yes the kukri a nice slicer isnt it? Heres a link (http://www.himalayan-imports.com/gurkha.html) about the British armys head hunters. :bow:

[dgfred]

Reported before that the Gurkhas were the only troops the enemy was really
afraid of in WWII. ~:eek:

[Kagemusha]

Imagine that! ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm interested. Can you give me the book info?


Tim Ripley is my favorite SS author. Hes very thorough. His work can be found on Amazon or pretty much any other dealer. Ive got a lot of German military books, but I like his the best.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/076030937X.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpghttp://images.amazon.com/images/P/0760320683.01-A2R2RITDJNW1Q6._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpghttp://images.amazon.com/images/P/0760311684.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg



If you're interested in elite German units, id also recommend his book on the Grossdeutschland.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0711028540.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[Zizka]

Gawain of Orkeny - you are a hypocrite. You stated earlier that the Marine Corps is the best all round major independent armed force and yet you then dislude the Waffen SS because they used armour. You should state what you want to argue, that the USMC is the best all round light infantry amphibious assult force.

You also say that the USMC uses second hand equipment after bragging about how they field air and artillary support that other countries do not even have.

If you want to talk about accomplishments the 3rd US Army in the second world war took more prisoners, captured more land and destroyed more enemy equipment than the USMC have managed in their entire history.

As to the best MAJOR military organization of the 20th Century, basing this on having never been deafeated (the USMC has), never reatreating and few losses I would have to say the Vaticans Swiss Guards (and that is a Major organisation judging from ratio to population).

Bah, good grief mate, the USMC is only great in the eyes of its members. It has far yet to go in order to reach the fame of the Waffen Schutzstaffel or the Legion Estrange.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain of Orkeny - you are a hypocrite. You stated earlier that the Marine Corps is the best all round major independent armed force and yet you then dislude the Waffen SS because they used armour. You should state what you want to argue, that the USMC is the best all round light infantry amphibious assult force.

I didnt dislude the Waffen SS because they used armour but because they lost. The Maines dont lose.


You also say that the USMC uses second hand equipment after bragging about how they field air and artillary support that other countries do not even have.

Again you should learn to read. I never stated that. I said we are the only organization that has its own airwing. I never even mentioned artillery.


If you want to talk about accomplishments the 3rd US Army in the second world war took more prisoners, captured more land and destroyed more enemy equipment than the USMC have managed in their entire history.

Its far larger , lost many more men and had many more defeats. Its record of success pales compared to the Marines.


As to the best MAJOR military organization of the 20th Century, basing this on having never been deafeated (the USMC has), never reatreating and few losses I would have to say the Vaticans Swiss Guards (and that is a Major organisation judging from ratio to population).

Theve never had to fight.



Bah, good grief mate, the USMC is only great in the eyes of its members. It has far yet to go in order to reach the fame of the Waffen Schutzstaffel or the Legion Estrange.

You obviosly dont know what your speaking of.


As to great German orgainzations. They loost and are gone while the USMC continues its traditions of excellene on the battlefield as we speak.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Der Wehrmacht is always a good force, as is the USMC.Tie between the two.

I know what the worst one is...

THE ITALIAN ARMY! VIVA ITALIA!

[Gregoshi]

This has degenerated into a thread rules/infractions debate. Therefore I'm going to close it. If anyone feels that there more nits to pick on this topic, PM me to state your case and I'll at least reconsider the decision.