Question for military buffs
 

I was debating with someone the other day......who do you all think has done the most for this country, the Marine Corp or the U.S. Army?

I'm partial to say the U.S. Army has but for some reason I think the Marine Corp has. Take into consideration that the continental army was not the U.S. army and neither was the army of the confederate states during the civil war.

The Coast Guard

They're too busy stealing yay-yo from the Columbians and keeping Cubans from coming ashore.


Seriously, they're some of the laziest service people out there. You realize they're only getting about 15% of all the drugs that come in the county. Thats just a piss poor effort. And with the addition of the department of homeland security......they oughtta be able to concentrate more on stopping the drug runners down here. Instead, they're busy working on their tans. :rolleyes:

Re: Question for military buffs
 

Thats a tough one... War of 1812 was the Army; Barbary Pirates was the Marines; Peking was the Marines; Spanish-Ameican War mostly Marines; Mexican-Ameican War mostly Army; WW1 was the Army; WW2: Marines-Pacific, Army-Europe; Korea was both; Veitnam was both; Iraq 1 would be a weighted to Army; Afghanistan both (but mostly Army now); Iraq 2 would be again weighted more to the Army... but if you include the Union Army well then...

In the end I'd have to say the US Army, because while the Marines may have garnered some great victories it's the Army that has in reality put the boots on the ground and handled the long-drawn out slugging matches as well as the aftermath of the Marine's victories.

Re: Re: Question for military buffs
 

I'd love to see you say that to a Marine's face. :)

Re: Re: Re: Question for military buffs
 

Oh I have... along with some other choice comments - but then usually we're drunk by then and it devolves into inter-army trash talk ;)

Re: Re: Question for military buffs
 

Name some long drawn out slugging matches that the army has handled that the marines were not either the 1st to fight or apart of.

Besides, you're not even American. http://greatmanjohn.com/forums/style...efault/852.gif

Re: Re: Question for military buffs
 

Overall, I'd have to agree, but that's not to take anything away from the Marines.

Here's my logic.

The Army not only has won it's share of battles, but has also been the garrison force put in place for the long haul after the battles are won.

Marines are more often light assault forces, trained in a particularly tough battle problem, but don't have the size to be the occupying force.

They also have better public relations. And the women love the Dress Blues.

Bottom line...I'm pretty damned glad we have both.

ETA: The following posted while I was writing the above.

Name some long drawn out slugging matches that the army has handled that the marines were not either the 1st to fight or apart of.

Besides, you're not even American.

The answer, as Rob pointed out above is almost any campaign in the European or desert campaigns in World War II.

And I am an American, but you don't have to be one to study history.

Re: Re: Re: Question for military buffs
 

Being the 1st to fight isn't always the hard part...

War of 1812 - they handled it; just not all that well (oops, guess well have to paint over the burn marks)
Civil War - if it's considered who do you think the Union Army was?
World War One - by it's nature a slugging-match (though it was nice of them to show up eventually)
World War Two - the North African, Itallian, and Northern Europe campagins
Iraq 2 - well they're there now, and it looks like it's going to be a long haul

Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for military buffs
 

On the other hand, we wouldn't have had to bother at all if you Commonweath guys could have handled the situation...

(One cheap shot deserves another)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for military buffs
 

I think it was being handled - but the US entry in into the war was like sending in a fresh fighter to replace an exhausted one: France (they where pretty much done after Vedrun and all the holding actions - 1.4 million dead troops will do that). In the end I think that the allies would have won, but not for another 3 years if the US hadn't gotten involved...

Well, basically besides the War ? With Canada, WWII was Army in the European Theater towards Germany, and The Marines and Navy Were in the Pacific on the way to Japan.

WWI was Army.

Koerean Police Action was Army and a combo of the reast.

Viet Nam, Army, Marine infiltration and Air Force Bombing.

So just who in the hell cares when People are being Killed?

Oh Smart Ass, The Invasion of Europe. Argone Forest, Battle Of Flanders Field.

Before YOU shoot of your Mouth, get your shit together!

Oh, For cashoutmoney who hasnt done shit in his life but bitch and be a true fuc*!

Re: Re: Question for military buffs
 

I have to disagree with your statements. Marines has important factors on the victory, thus the "Hall of Montezuma" on the USMC Hymn is refering to.

Marines conquer enemy, Army occupy land. This says everything.

Semper Fi.

Re: Re: Re: Question for military buffs
 

Yes the Marines have the "Halls of Montezuma" to remind them of the action in that conflict - but again when you look at the whole of the campaign, and you look at the number of engagements fought by Marines and fought by the Army - including the number of troops committed to action in those engagements you'll find it weighted more towards an Army affair than a Marine affair - engagements, troops, victories and such.

Re: Re: Re: Question for military buffs
 

Let's be honest. The Army has done its fair share of conquering as well.

The question here isn't who is bigger and tougher, but rather over the course of history who has been "more important."

I am a great admirer of both, but due to physical size and mission, the Army has played a bigger part in my estimation.