Marines vs Rest of the US armed forces vs Eurowimps

[a completely inoffensive name]

This thread shall serve to promote discussion about the advantages or disadvantages between the US Marines and all the other slops out there that don't even have proper bayonet training.

[ Please fill me with relevant information about Marines, US armed forces and Eurowimps and come to some conclusion based upon these sources - T ]

Please have all your arguments based on homo erotic fantasies facts.

[Centurion1]

first of all i dislike this sort of thing as very few of us were in the military and really have no right to proclaim any one services supremacy over the other since as fighting men they are all superior to us.

second of all homo erotic fantasies they are not for many people but are a stark reality of their futures, presents, or pasts.

[tibilicus]

From my personal exposure to military personnel and military culture it seems this sort of argument is rife and, at the end of the day, nonsensical. Speaking from a British perspective the Royal Marines and the paras tend to hold the kind of dubious superiority complex US Marines seem to have. I know a couple of people who have gone for the Para program P-Coy training (with mixed results) and their ego becomes inflated even before they attempt it. Paras and Royal Marines also have a habit of referring to them and "the rest". Sure, I'll respect you for wearing the maroon beret and having the commando daggers but at the end of the day whilst you're physically superior referring to yourself as better than other soldiers is dumb. Sure the signals don't have the same type of job but I'd like to see such "elite" units try and do their job without various types of signals support or the Royal Artillery to get them where they want/ blow everything to bits.

The worst for me has to be the whole regular/ territorial rubbish. territorial units are constantly berated for being "part-timers" or "soft soldiers". Despite the fact if I want to be in any TA unit one has to meet the requirements of any regular soldier. I despair every time I bring up the TA and a wannabe regular comes out with some unfounded statement. Iv'e seen a Lance Corporal from the RAF Regiment give lip back to a major purely because he identified him as being from a TA regiment, that sort of thing's not right. When deployed the TA does the same thing as the regulars, they just have a second life on top of that.

In short I can't talk in certainties about the US military but if it's anything like the British structure then I imagine it has both an interesting and bizarre micro culture. Also for anyone who has served or has knowledge of the US military do the US Marines have to reach a higher standard of fitness than military personnel say Rangers or US paras?

[Centurion1]

From my personal exposure to military personnel and military culture it seems this sort of argument is rife and, at the end of the day, nonsensical. Speaking from a British perspective the Royal Marines and the paras tend to hold the kind of dubious superiority complex US Marines seem to have. I know a couple of people who have gone for the Para program P-Coy training (with mixed results) and their ego becomes inflated even before they attempt it. Paras and Royal Marines also have a habit of referring to them and "the rest". Sure, I'll respect you for wearing the maroon beret and having the commando daggers but at the end of the day whilst you're physically superior referring to yourself as better than other soldiers is dumb. Sure the signals don't have the same type of job but I'd like to see such "elite" units try and do their job without various types of signals support or the Royal Artillery to get them where they want/ blow everything to bits.

The worst for me has to be the whole regular/ territorial rubbish. territorial units are constantly berated for being "part-timers" or "soft soldiers". Despite the fact if I want to be in any TA unit one has to meet the requirements of any regular soldier. I despair every time I bring up the TA and a wannabe regular comes out with some unfounded statement. Iv'e seen a Lance Corporal from the RAF Regiment give lip back to a major purely because he identified him as being from a TA regiment, that sort of thing's not right. When deployed the TA does the same thing as the regulars, they just have a second life on top of that.

In short I can't talk in certainties about the US military but if it's anything like the British structure then I imagine it has both an interesting and bizarre micro culture. Also for anyone who has served or has knowledge of the US military do the US Marines have to reach a higher standard of fitness than military personnel say Rangers or US paras?

Alot of what you just described is common. Here in ROTC (officer training program at university) there is most certainly a attitude of go combat arms or die. It is reinforced by other military men I know including my father who flew jets. Then yes there is superiority complexes between units.

US Marines should not be compared to Rangers and to draw comparisons is an insult. US Army Paratroopers like the 82nd and 101st are theoretically a special unit but really just have that Para training which is actually very very common throughout the Army. (For example I will likely go to either Airborne or Air Assault school this summer). There are actually quite a few jokes dropped about the 101st at least. But to compare the Marines and Rangers is an insult.

Rangers are elite infantry pure and simple. You have to compare a regular US Army soldier and a US Marine. Then you have to clarify and compare an infantryman in the US Army to an infantryman in the Marine Corp (or a tankman to a tankman, airman to airman, etc.)

No I don't think this ridiculous mythos of Marine corp superiority in the realm of physical fitness is legitimate if you compare infantry in the army to infantry in the marine corp. In ROTC at least the kids who tend to go combat arms are physical studs. I'm nothing special and I get around 80 some pushups 90 situps and a 13:00 min 2 mile with relative ease. I also weigh 195 pounds am 6' and lift alot of weights. I allude to this because it means since I lift so many weights I have alot of short fiber muscle (I'm obsessed with basketball and if I couldn't dunk I would die a little). That sort of muscle doesn't lend itself any favors in the APFT (test) yet I still "max" out the test. I consider myself a superior athlete than most of my friends in ROTC and even in the military as a whole but im nothing special fitness wise. I've taken the Marine Corp PT test as well and tbh its not too hard. I easily max out the situps and pull ups (i mean you can do chin ups for goodness sakes) though it isnt easy to get the 18:00 3 mile to max. It should also be noted I am a horrendous runner, absolutely terrible and its something I do every single day sometimes twice a day because im so naturally bad at distance running.

tl;dr So no i dont think the marine corp is anything special fitness wise.

[CountArach]

second of all homo erotic fantasies they are not for many people but are a stark reality of their futures, presents, or pasts.

Are you saying that homo erotic archetype of the soldier are real or am I just mis-reading your statement?

[Sigurd]

Eurowimp here...
From my experience the US navy is a bunch of wannabe best in the world with the mouth to fit, but when it comes to the doing, they have been found wanting.
Of course I realize that I haven't met every one of the mighty US Navy, but those that have found our waters were all steam and no material.
I wonder if they have had naval training at all?

Examples you say? We have had u-boats resting directly under an American vessel without being detected. And it was a training exercise where they were looking for it.
The Americans have no discipline to keep a low energy signature on their ships when entering enemy waters. They light up as a Christmas tree easily spotted by gun-forts and other smaller stealthier crafts. Its like bringing a marching band to a hide and seek game.

Many times I and collegues have been


You could claim a ruse... let them think we are ignorant. Since the Russians are watching let's just play drunk..

[Fragony]

Isn't the Norwegian army specialised in coastal defence with all the fjords, good thing they come training with you guys no.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eurowimp here...
From my experience the US navy is a bunch of wannabe best in the world with the mouth to fit, but when it comes to the doing, they have been found wanting.
Of course I realize that I haven't met every one of the mighty US Navy, but those that have found our waters were all steam and no material.
I wonder if they have had naval training at all?

Examples you say? We have had u-boats resting directly under an American vessel without being detected. And it was a training exercise where they were looking for it.
The Americans have no discipline to keep a low energy signature on their ships when entering enemy waters. They light up as a Christmas tree easily spotted by gun-forts and other smaller stealthier crafts. Its like bringing a marching band to a hide and seek game.

Many times I and collegues have been


You could claim a ruse... let them think we are ignorant. Since the Russians are watching let's just play drunk..

You are Vikings though, genetically bred for skulking around and killing people from boats, the fact that your boats are under the water now really does make it unfair. These "Americans" are mostly just Anglo-Saxons, they don't stand a chance.

Seriously though, "diciplined" is never a word used to describe the US military.

As regards her Britanic Majesty's Forces however, it's all about "THEM".

Though I have to say, I was most scared by the Commando Signalman I met a few years ago, that guy was crazy.

[tibilicus]

Wasn't actually aware the Rangers were spec ops. I was just throwing names of forces I knew out there, guess you learn something new everyday.

[Fragony]

Shameless plug as it's cool footage, looks like an FPS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ2Do64NTso

No idea if Dutch marines are any good it just reminds me of COD, but aren't all SAS-type special forces good,or at least better than regulars, Iranian European USA or whatever, wouldn't they all butcher ordinary troops mano a mano

[Kagemusha]

I served at mechanized Jaeger Brigade during my service and i am currently staff sergeant in reserve of the said branch. So i was trained for combat duty. I will already apologize my language beforehand, but as our trainers told:

"It is the supporting branches that do the killing. We just go in and "sexually harass" the carrion´s left behind."

I think in any army there is rivalry between different branches, but any soldier in any combat unit should know that the support units are your best friends and without them you could not do anything. No matter, was it artillery, aviation, signals, engineers, logistics or what ever.wihout them the combat arms would be nothing.

[Kagemusha]

Well of course, its' all friendly ribbing. Even when I talk about Marines.

And since you mentioned it, I suppose it is worth mentioning that many, many people serve in an Infantryman capacity in Iraq who never thought they would have to do so. For Tankers and Cav Scouts, we kind of expected it--we knew it was coming. For Artillerymen, Supply Specialists, Cooks, or any number of other strange non-grunty people it was a very big shock to have to come to Iraq and then go on a patrol. Because our Tankfantry (tm) platoon had only 16 people, we had all kinds of wierdos go on missions with us. We even had a cook get a Combat Action Badge before anyone else in my platoon did. Crazy bastard always wanted to be on the Machine Gun, so we called him the Combat Cook.

I guess there were not many complaints about food in your unit.

[Kagemusha]

Alas, 'tis not so. The Cooks got mad because we kept stealing their manpower to go on missions, and they lacked the manpower to prepare good meals back at the outpost. In fact, our entire company was sick for a week in late '08 because they put out moldy bread.

On the flip side, Bagdhad is full of stuff to eat. There's a lot of chicken stands on the road, and convenience stores are everywhere. Not to mention the falafel shops. By the end of the deployment, our itty bitty little outpost had both a falafel shop and a convenience store, run by very brave and profiteering Iraqis who didn't mind being associated with us. Also, middle-eastern people give the best haircuts. Best haircut I ever got was in Kuwait, second best was in Bagdhad. Regular military barbers should be ashamed.

Also, Boom Booms. Best drink I ever had. I don't know who makes them, or where they are bottled, but it is an AWESOME little blue-raspberry energy drink that you can buy anywhere in Bagdhad.

Well you guys took care of your selves. I can imagine already you driving around with Humwee´s, taking bites of shis kebab along the way. By the way. Can i ask what kind of stuff is US Army serving in their field canteen´s?

[Centurion1]

Wasn't actually aware the Rangers were spec ops. I was just throwing names of forces I knew out there, guess you learn something new everyday.

they aren't. I should have made a more clear distinction between elite infantry and special forces. they also really aren't comparable.

[Vuk]

And I share their distaste for the Navy.

I think everyone does. Actually, my grandfather, great grandfather, etc, etc, right up until the time my family first came to the US were Navymen. My dad broke the mold by joining the Marines (and only then because it was still part of the Navy). There he learned an intense dislike for the Navy-proper. :P
I gotta say objectively though, I have not heard good things about the Navy (discipline-wise, etc).

*Gah, I might as well says something constructive, too. The Marines are good conventional infantrymen. They have longer basic training, harsher marskmen ship requirements, and generally more difficult physical standards. On the flip side, they are slow to adopt new tactics--it took them forever to adopt the M4 for combat missions in Baghad, even though the average engagement distance there is something like 30-75 meters or something. Certainly not 500 meters, like they train for.

Unfortunately though, the M855, while fragmenting fairly reliably within 200 yards when fired from M16s and M249s with 20" barrels, but from what I have read, rounds fired from the M4 stop fragmenting reliably past 50M or less because of the lost velocity due to the shorter barrel.

Here is an interesting article on the problem created by the M4's shorter barrel.
The truth is GC, the M855 already had issues with its fragmentation reliability (esp when thick clothing was concerned), but the M4 only makes that much worse.
I am personally with the Marines here; I would much rather have the M16, because you have a much better chance of actually killing your opponent with it. My friend told me (and I am not sure if it is true) that the Marines want to get their M4 barrels replaced with 16.5 inch ones.
When the Military decides to replace an obsolete assault rifle, why on God's green earth would they pick another DI *#&@box with an even shorter barrel!

During the test, the SCAR suffered 226 stoppages. Since a percentage of each weapons' stoppages were caused by magazine failures, the FN SCAR, XM8 and HK 416 performed statistically similarly.[15] The FN SCAR ranked second to the XM8 with 127 stoppages, but with fewer stoppages compared to the M4 with 882 stoppages and the HK 416 with 233

I just ripped this off wiki. Look at how bad the reliability of that weapon is compared to the competition. Can you really blame the Marines for being reluctant to switch to it?

The Marines have stated over and over that they do not want to be a police force. Neither does the Army, but the Army has tried very hard to adapt and overcome during this long and strange war--the Marines, on the other hand, prefer to just blow everything up. Neanderthals.

Bottom line, however, is that Marines make awful Tankers. You must be disciplined, reasonable, and utterly willing to depend on your Machine to be a tanker. In the Army, in a good unit, you will spend hours most days just checking every little bolt and fastener on the Tank. Marines don't tend to do this--they tend to run them into the ground, and then let someone else deal with it. If you try that in the Army, your mechanics are going to make sure you have a hydraulic leak to deal with the next day.

The Marines may not be good tankers or good policemen, but they are good Riflemen, and that is the core of the Corps.

[Vuk]

I won't argue with any of that, actually. The M4 has many, many problems. Most of those problems it shares with the M16--Lots of stoppages, very dependant on the user having a thorough knowledge of his SPECIFIC weapon and its defects.

The Marine are the best shooters in the world, outside of SOCOM. You won't find me arguing with that at all--hell, the snipers they produce are out of this world. Army's got good snipers, but the Marines make GREAT Snipers. My problems with them stem from the mindset that they use. They are totally different from the Army in terms of discipline, promotions, initiative, and even basic infantry TTPs. The Army is built around flexibility--we practically re-wrote 7-8 (the Infantry handbook) in the last ten years, and all for the better. Live-fire shoothouse training is commonplace in the Army, and every combat arms soldier could be clearing houses with the SWAT team--we are that good when it comes to watching where you fire, and a willingness to restrict collateral damage.

That's not something the Marines like, at all. When I was in Iraq, it was still common for Marines to clear houses with grenades. I respect that they are killers to the core and don't want to soften up for anything. That's great. Someone at the top should be making sure that they are not being used in delicate operations, then.

I will agree that Marines really should strengthen their weaknesses, such as room-clearing. It is very important to modern combat, and they should be the best at infantry combat. They definitely are not perfect (I mean come on, have you seen their evening dress uniforms? Those things are awful!) and could definitely improve, but they are still probably them best regular infantry we have. (even if their tankers are no good :P)

[drone]

Examples you say? We have had u-boats resting directly under an American vessel without being detected. And it was a training exercise where they were looking for it.

You guys use diesels though, that's, like, cheating or something. None of our real enemies would use diesels!

[Vuk]

Well that depends on what you are using them FOR. Unless I'm mistaken, most Marine units are busy clearing caves in eastern afghanistan--something you can definitely do with a grenade. That seems like a good place for them.

lol, good point, but you can not always guarantee the situation you are put in.

[tibilicus]

If you don't mind answering Gelatinous Cube, did you serve regular or territorial (reserve)? What's the culture like in terms of that US military wise?

[drone]

Why would a Diesel be quieter? I must confess a complete ignorance of Naval warfare.

Sorry, the official term is "diesel-electric". Battery powered underwater, with diesel engines to power/recharge when surfaced or snorkeling. When running on battery power, they are much quieter than SSNs, which run relatively noisy pumps to maintain the reactor. Diesel-electrics are slower, and not really made for ocean going ops, but for coastal defense they are deadly. The US Navy has a disdain for diesels, their last non-nuclear sub was the Blueback (launched in 1959), but diesels routinely kick their tails in exercises. You would think they would be better at it since NK/China/Iran use them, but apparently the US Navy is still fighting the Sovs in the North Atlantic.

[lars573]

Ahh, thanks drone. That does sound like the Navy.

To be fair Navies in the Anglo-sphere tend to be hard-headed dogmatic tradition loving organizations. Who generally have to be lashed by HUGE failures, or politicos tightening the purse into change and innovation.

You are Vikings though, genetically bred for skulking around and killing people from boats, the fact that your boats are under the water now really does make it unfair. These "Americans" are mostly just Anglo-Saxons, they don't stand a chance.

And the yet diesel electric Canadian (As Anglo-Saxon any Yank) Submarine corp did even better in a war game. Managing to sink the carrier after penetrating the ASW net. When it comes to Anti submarine warfare, diesel-electric might as well be cloaking device to the US Navy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They do work under SOCOM, but unlike most SOCOM forces they are far more strongly rooted in Army behaviour than SOCOM behaviour. As a result, they are usually used as Shock Troops and not as irregulars, and I'm sure that's the intention as well.

*I like this thread, lol. Its making me nostalgiac.

GC, you may be interested to know that modern American "Rangers" are the only survivors of the WWII "Army Commandos" that the Allies used during the war, and that after the war most Allied "Army Commandos" were folded into other regiments, and that's also where we get the modern "Marine Commandos" from.

I think everyone does. Actually, my grandfather, great grandfather, etc, etc, right up until the time my family first came to the US were Navymen. My dad broke the mold by joining the Marines (and only then because it was still part of the Navy). There he learned an intense dislike for the Navy-proper. :P
I gotta say objectively though, I have not heard good things about the Navy (discipline-wise, etc).




Unfortunately though, the M855, while fragmenting fairly reliably within 200 yards when fired from M16s and M249s with 20" barrels, but from what I have read, rounds fired from the M4 stop fragmenting reliably past 50M or less because of the lost velocity due to the shorter barrel.

Here is an interesting article on the problem created by the M4's shorter barrel.
The truth is GC, the M855 already had issues with its fragmentation reliability (esp when thick clothing was concerned), but the M4 only makes that much worse.
I am personally with the Marines here; I would much rather have the M16, because you have a much better chance of actually killing your opponent with it. My friend told me (and I am not sure if it is true) that the Marines want to get their M4 barrels replaced with 16.5 inch ones.
When the Military decides to replace an obsolete assault rifle, why on God's green earth would they pick another DI *#&@box with an even shorter barrel!

I just ripped this off wiki. Look at how bad the reliability of that weapon is compared to the competition. Can you really blame the Marines for being reluctant to switch to it?




The Marines may not be good tankers or good policemen, but they are good Riflemen, and that is the core of the Corps.

I have two words for you. Double Tapp, and not the Gurkha kind.

[drone]

With the advancement in battery tech over the last decade, we should be seeing a huge performance improvement of diesel-electrics in the coming years. I'm sure the admirals in the Pentagon are preparing for this, as the US Navy would never be caught unawares.



I am anxiously waiting for DevDave's post about the superiority of the Air Force.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Was that whole "Scaling the cliffs at Normandy" thing their first big break, or were there other famous operations before? As a Tanker, I'm pretty ignorant of Ranger lore.

That was 5th Battalion, 1st and 3rd Battalion were already all either heroically dead or captured by that point.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Rangers

Interestingly, the Rangers were in-activated after WWII along with the other army "commando" units but the modern Rangers and descended formally descended from the 1st-6th Ranger Battalions of WWII fame. It's worthy noting that, actually, a lot of the elite WWII formations, including SAS, were dispanded or in-activated after the War, and only later re-activated.

[tibilicus]

Ahh, thanks drone. That does sound like the Navy.



I was in the Regular Army, and served in the 1st Armored Division in Kansas and El Paso, and the 1st Infantry Division in Kansas, San Antonio, and Iraq. So I really couldn't speak for the 'culture' of the greater army. Not even really sure what you mean by that. If you mean attitude/outlook it is very much a work hard/party hard thing. Military posts are surrounded by Strip Clubs, Bars, Clubs, and whatnot for a reason. On the other hand, that too varies from place to place. Its' a big country, and you see parts of all of it during military service. Racially, the Regular Army is pretty evenly split. Maybe a few more white people, but compared to the regular mix of america things are much more even.

Sorry, I completely butchered my original sentence. It was meant to read what is the culture like in terms of regular versus territorial mind sets, It's been a short but mentally tiring day..
By this I mean are the territorial units looked down/ shown with a slight sense of disregard? I ask this because this is pretty rife in the British Military. I've seen Sergeant Majors openly tell OCdts they will salute TA officers but will at the end of the day have no respect for them. The term "weekend warrior" seems to come up a lot.

[rajpoot]

This is probably one of the best Backroom threads ever, in my opinion. Before today I did not know that Marine Core was a distinct entity and not just a part of the US Army.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry, I completely butchered my original sentence. It was meant to read what is the culture like in terms of regular versus territorial mind sets, It's been a short but mentally tiring day..
By this I mean are the territorial units looked down/ shown with a slight sense of disregard? I ask this because this is pretty rife in the British Military. I've seen Sergeant Majors openly tell OCdts they will salute TA officers but will at the end of the day have no respect for them. The term "weekend warrior" seems to come up a lot.

WO's don't respect any Commissioned Officers though - they have 51-20 years experience and yet they take orders from people with one tenth of that.

There's a running joke that the worst thing an officer can do is try to run his Command, and not let his WO and NCO's do it.

Of course, NCO's have their own version of this, namely, "don't call me sir, I work for a living!".

On the other hand, a significant percentage of TA officers are martinets, or bigger wallies than I am, and that takes some real doing - I have a head start.

[tibilicus]

WO's don't respect any Commissioned Officers though - they have 51-20 years experience and yet they take orders from people with one tenth of that.

There's a running joke that the worst thing an officer can do is try to run his Command, and not let his WO and NCO's do it.

Of course, NCO's have their own version of this, namely, "don't call me sir, I work for a living!".

On the other hand, a significant percentage of TA officers are martinets, or bigger wallies than I am, and that takes some real doing - I have a head start.

This is of course true. I guess there's still a reason why everyone hates the RSM though.. Being in the forces for 20 years+ tends to lead to a depressing personality, the worst is the quarter master working in the storeroom in a desperate attempt to avoid "civvy street". I guess there's a certain admiration in going to the higher ranks but at the point I'm handing out kit to servicemen I'd probably call it quits. I am of course biased, I've only really been exposed to officers with big egos. Most Second lieutenants aren't much past the age of 21 but I guess that's the way it works. Junior officers tend not do to much anyway. One Major made a point of telling us its the Lance Corporals which win battles.

On the other hand, a significant percentage of TA officers are martinets, or bigger wallies than I am, and that takes some real doing - I have a head start.

It is a little bit frightening that all it takes is a 3 week commissioning course to be granted a commission. Speaking for the TA of course, does make me chuckle that regulars have to go through 44 weeks to come out with the same rank.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is a little bit frightening that all it takes is a 3 week commissioning course to be granted a commission. Speaking for the TA of course, does make me chuckle that regulars have to go through 44 weeks to come out with the same rank.

Well, he has to do basic as well. I forget, but it's a bit more than three weeks. Don't forget that a lot of that 44 week course is either training or mental torture designed to make you quit - the training you do evenings and as a TA soldier you're more likely to quit anyway.

Even so, TA officers have to pass the same Commissioning Board as regular soldiers, even if they are only going for a Class B (stay home) commission.

As to the RSM, well everyone hates him because he's God, and he's the only non-Com to wear a cloth cap badge.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

RSM = Regimental Sergeant Major?

yup, God, Badge (because of the cloth cap badge), etc., etc. The rank is Warrent Officer Class 1, that's E-7 to you, highest non-Commissioned rank in the British Army. HOWEVER, while all RSM's are WO1, not all WO1's are RSM's because "Regimental Sergant Major" is an "appointment", not a rank, for historcal reasons. Just to further confuse you, we distuingish between NCO's and Warrent Officers because the latter are issued Royal "Warrents" conferring their ranks, while the former are just enlisted. Warrents are not to be confused with Royal Commissions, which is how you get your first pair of stars, one per shoulder, as a 2nd Lieutenant.

Finally, when addressing a WO of either grade one comes to attention and addresses them as "sir", but does not salute. If memory serves, saluting a non-Commissioned Officer gets you up on a minor charge, just as failing to salute a Commissioned Officer does because all Commissioned Officers are royal proxies, so it's like failing to salute the queen.

Although, we stopped execution by firing squad in 1993 so the worst you'd get is a horsewhipping.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...k-soldier.html