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

**Papewaio** · 08-10-2005, 23:45

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

**Kraxis** · 08-11-2005, 03:06

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

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** · 08-11-2005, 09:30

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.

**English assassin** · 08-11-2005, 10:26

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** · 08-11-2005, 14:35

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.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 08-11-2005, 16:39

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** · 08-11-2005, 19:27

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.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 08-11-2005, 22:27

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.