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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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. ~:)

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 !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

But you do loose wars

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

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

Quote:

---

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

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.