"The Reasons Soldiers Hate on the Marines Will Shock You" Topic
24 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe first militia for the AK47 "opposing army."
Featured Workbench ArticleAdam8472 takes inspiration from Doctor Who.
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
The Membership System will be closing for maintenance in 12 minutes. Please finish anything that will involve the membership system, including membership changes or posting of messages.
Tango01 | 27 Nov 2020 10:03 p.m. PST |
"All of the United States Armed Forces are there to protect and serve the country. Through battles and wars, these individuals who are enlisted in the United States Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard are brave enough to fight and defend their freedom as a citizen of America. They risk their lives in battle in order for our country to conquer a battle. And as for us, citizens of America, we respect and appreciate what these brave individuals do for our country, given how much risk and courage it takes for them to go out there and defend our country. And while the Armed Forces are basically a team, the US Army hates the Marine Corps, believe it or not. You would have never thought that any of the Armed Forces despised the other, because they're all basically a team. They all go out there and fight in battle against opposing countries. But it's true, there are reasons why the Army hates the Marine Corps. If you're wondering what and why, these are the reasons soldiers hate on the Marines. Be aware, many of these reasons are pretty shocking…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
Tgerritsen | 27 Nov 2020 10:28 p.m. PST |
Some pretty whiney reasons. I'm Ex-Navy and I respect all other the other branches, but the Marines are bad a** and deserve the praise they get. |
Skarper | 27 Nov 2020 11:04 p.m. PST |
I skimmed thru the article – I thought it was meant as humour – or humor since it was American. My impression of this rivalry is that the Marines take it more seriously than the Army. The Marines care a lot about their 'superiority' and the Army are kind of 'meh'. I'm guessing the tail of the Army has a lot of people who are not really suitable for front line combat, but can contribute to the war winning logistics aspect. The Marines don't have so many support troops, and have the 'every marine is a rifleman' concept. I'm guessing they have higher physical entry standards than the Army – but not higher than for special forces, Airborne, etc. So, while the 'typical' Marine may be tougher and more combat ready than the 'typical' soldier it's not really a fair comparison. That's my impression. Curious what others with direct experience think. |
Thresher01 | 28 Nov 2020 3:41 a.m. PST |
How is actually being tougher and more combat ready "not fair"? |
David O Brien | 28 Nov 2020 5:30 a.m. PST |
I would have thought this happened in every army? |
Basha Felika | 28 Nov 2020 6:40 a.m. PST |
And whatever the rivalries between the Marines and the Army, at least they can all agree that the Air Force are &$!*@s (insert insult of choice) |
brass1 | 28 Nov 2020 9:58 a.m. PST |
Having lost a friend KIA, 4 WIA, and a lot of blood and a big chunk of my intestines in a minefield the Marines at Phuoc Binh walked off and left with no charts or markers I occasionally have bad thoughts about the Jarheads. LT |
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 28 Nov 2020 10:30 a.m. PST |
I would have thought this happened in every army? Hence Israel's decision to create a unitary Defense Force. |
Irish Marine | 28 Nov 2020 11:03 a.m. PST |
I stopped reading when I got to funding. The Army has so much money it's not funny, and I'm not even talking Special Forces. |
Legion 4 | 28 Nov 2020 11:27 a.m. PST |
I have worked with the USMC a number of times while I was on active duty in the US ARMY. I never saw anything even close to hatred … Now the USMC is not always in first. And the US ARMY mops up. Has anybody read about WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War history ? The US ARMY being much bigger than the USMC, made more Amphib landing than the USMC. E.g. US ARMY in ETO – about 68 Divs vs. USMC 0 Divs but a few smaller units. US ARMY in PTO – about 24 Divs vs USMC about 6 Divs … In many operations US ARMY Airborne units go in first. I.e. Vertical Envelopment. After WWII/Korea both became able to use helicopters as well … The Marines don't have so many support troops, and have the 'every marine is a rifleman' concept. I'm guessing they have higher physical entry standards than the Army – but not higher than for special forces, Airborne, etc. I don't believe much of what was posted here is true. In WWII [Korea IIRC] and Vietnam, the USMC took draftees as well. They all had to, they needed all the bodies they could get. Lots of them. I'm guessing the tail of the Army has a lot of people who are not really suitable for front line combat, but can contribute to the war winning logistics aspect. No … everyone goes thru basic training before they go onto special training for their basic military occupation. E.g. Supply Clerk, Admin Clerk, truck driver, cook, Medic, Chemical Corps, etc., and now even Cyberwarfare. Everybody knows how to use his/her basic weapon, basic soldier fieldcraft, e.g. camo, cover and concealment, noise and light discipline, etc., etc. Generally in an all volunteer military like the US has had since after Vietnam, about '72-'73. I believe the physical entry standards are the same as well as all must pass the basic military aptitude test. Whether you are going to be in any of the services. Parachute training in the US Military is at Ft. Benning, GA. When I Attended decades ago, there were mostly US ARMY, but also USMC, USAF and even Navy SEALs. Some also go to US ARMY RANGER School that starts at Ft. Benning, GA. That is one of the finest training for dismounted Infantry ops and leadership in the World. And yes there again mostly US ARMY, but USMC, USN SEAL, and USAF. As well as some foreign nations send some of their best. You always send your best to another branches and/or foreign training. For obvious reasons. US ARMY Special Forces training along with Delta Force is some of the toughest training on the planet. You have to go to a brutal 3 week "interview" just to make it to the actual training to become a "Green Beret". And then some may choose to go to Delta Force. That process is not known that well to me how that works The same goes for RANGER School, you go thru a 2 week(?) or so RANGER Indoctrination Program before you can start to go to the actual course. Wash out rate in both these ARMY course is[or was] about 60% on average. So, while the 'typical' Marine may be tougher and more combat ready than the 'typical' soldier it's not really a fair comparison. Not really … the USMC still has supply clerks, truck drivers, etc. I'd say the average US ARMY Infantryman is equal to a USMC Infantrymen. Again I cross-trained and operated with the USMC. But I'm sure there will be some that doubt that. I don't … Interestingly AFAIK only brass 1 making comments here has served. And IIRC brass 1 was an Infantryman and of course a Vietnam Vet. So he and I have at least one thing in common, we were both ARMY "Grunts" … but he is a Combat Vet … Now as in any group of "Apex Predators/Alpha Males" you will have some competition, etc., … it is literally the nature of the "beast". E.g. When my Mech Inf Co was sent to the US ARMY RANGER Camp in the swamps of Elgin USAF Base, FL. To train with ARMY SF and El Salvadorian troops. It was not too long, we were on the ground that one of my NCOs. Got into a little "pissing contest" with some RANGER NCO. Again it is the nature of the beast. Then I was called to RANGER Cdr's Office to discuss the situation. I remember saying a lot of "Yes Sirs!". And made sure this would not happen again. It didn't … Again Alpha males in action … Again I have never seen any real hatred between the USMC and the ARMY. That is my experience in my 10+ years on active duty. |
Legion 4 | 28 Nov 2020 11:49 a.m. PST |
I stopped reading when I got to funding. The Army has so much money it's not funny, and I'm not even talking Special Forces. Oh yes Irish Marine is a Vet too. However, that funding thing in my experience is not always true. The shortage of equipment in both my Rifle Plt, and later my Mech Co. was a long list. And we were using some older equipment and vehicles. The Infantry in any case always is the last to get stuff. Now fancy high tech expensive ships & planes. That is where the funding goes first. But I would like to call-in CAS and gunfire support if available … |
Skarper | 28 Nov 2020 12:55 p.m. PST |
Since the USMC is part of the Navy, it surely uses the Navy supply chain for a lot of its logistics support and therefore a smaller proportion of Marines are support troops compared to the Army. I don't have the numbers, but it stands to reason. Despite everyone going thru basic training, not that many soldiers are trained for front line combat. Not that many are ideally suited either. If thrust into the front line they would do much better than if they'd never done basic training – of course. But there is a huge gap between combat troops and support troops. I thought that was an accepted reality. Anyway – I suspect the rivalry is mostly just good-natured 'joshing' and not 'hatred'. All armed forces have legends they tell themselves to bolster unit pride and this is often very far from the historical record. The British Army is particularly fond of this and while it can get ridiculous, I can see it serves a purpose. It's part of the arcane system that forges cohesion and willingness to risk death or injury in order to fulfill the mission. |
Legion 4 | 28 Nov 2020 4:19 p.m. PST |
Since the USMC is part of the Navy, it surely uses the Navy supply chain for a lot of its logistics support and therefore a smaller proportion of Marines are support troops compared to the Army. Yes the USMC is part of the USN and some support like Medics/called Corpsmen are Sailors. The Army being as big as it is compared to the USMC will have more support assets. As the Army has more tanks[especially now], AFVs of all types along with FA, helicopters, rolling stock, etc., etc. E.g.The USMC had 200 M1 MBTs before they sent them to depot. 1 of the 2 US Army Tank Divs has about 300. And that does not count other AFVs in the Div. IIRC right now the Army has about 10 Divs with a few separate Bdes and Rgts vs the USMC which has 2 Divs and a few smaller combat units. Despite everyone going thru basic training, not that many soldiers are trained for front line combat. Not that many are ideally suited either. Not exactly … all the support troops in an Infantry or Tank Bn are trained soldiers. And if need be they could fight. We trained that way. Now they are no where as skilled as an Infantryman or Tanker but if need be they are expected to fight. Every support troop carries an M16 and knows how to use it. But there is a huge gap between combat troops and support troops. I thought that was an accepted reality. Again I think you underestimate our support troops. They can't run a patrol or attack an enemy position like Infantrymen. But again they are expected to fight if need be. And we even ran some exercises with that scenario. E.g. I, at one point, gathered up support troops, e.g. mechanics, supply and admin clerks, truck drivers, etc,. in the Field Trains. To set up AT ambushes with LAWs for the enemy AFVs that had penetrated the front lines. Another time I lead a night patrol sent out from the Field Trains with some of those same support troops, e.g. my APL was an MI female 1LT. To again set up an ambush to intercept an enemy raid patrol(s). So no I don't accept that "reality" because based on my experience it is basically wrong. Now will these support troops be able to do difficult missions like Leg or Mech Infantry, Airborne, RANGERS or SF, etc., … No of course not … I suspect the rivalry is mostly just good-natured 'joshing' and not 'hatred'. That is very much more the reality … not hatred but rivalry, etc., like sports teams to a point. I have some good friends that were USMC. We were all Grunts only in different services. All armed forces have legends they tell themselves to bolster unit pride and this is often very far from the historical record. Again … not always … that has been my experience. I've met a few of those "Legends" … |
Skarper | 28 Nov 2020 5:34 p.m. PST |
@Legion, it seems like we basically agree and are to an extent arguing at cross purposes. I don't mean to impugn the capabilities of support troops to do combat tasks. I just mean to assert that, in general, they are not going to perform as highly as specialist combat troops. There will be exceptions among both types of course. It is subjective how big of a gap there is. I claim it's a huge gap. Maybe it's only significant or small. Hard to measure this objectively. Something I think often leads us into conflict is that I want to focus on what actually happens which is often quite different to what military training and culture tries to make happen. In this case, the US Army wants its support troops to remember they are soldiers and can fight if called upon to do so. So they naturally try to raise their morale and confidence. This makes perfect sense. They are not going to meet the standards expected of front line, assault troops, but they can certainly hold their own if need be. There has been, in the past, a tendency for 'grunts' to hold 'REMFs' in disdain or even contempt. This was, I gather from reading autobiographies and novels, etc, common during the war in Vietnam. I think there was an element of the same in WW2. It's not healthy and I'm sure effort has been made to curb the tendency post 1975. Minor clarification – I meant legend in the sense of semi-mythical story and not hero. There is a natural tendency to memorialise courageous and effective individuals [often posthumously] and turn them into 'legends' or heroes. This is good for morale too. Sometimes it's exaggerated but that's understandable. Armed forces are in the business of training and motivating people to act against their natural instincts for the good of the group and mission. |
Legion 4 | 29 Nov 2020 9:42 a.m. PST |
Generally I agree with much of what you said. But again my experience and perception is much different than yours and many others here. Something I think often leads us into conflict is that I want to focus on what actually happens which is often quite different to what military training and culture tries to make happen. Not always true … again, my experience and POV being in the US ARMY, being there vs. just reading about it. Being in 4 Infantry Bns, a Combat Support Bn and Mech Bde HQ should gives my comments at least some veracity, I'd think … They are not going to meet the standards expected of front line, assault troops, but they can certainly hold their own if need be. Generally yes, and note many Infantrymen can't qualify to be in RANGER or SF units. The standards are very high as we know. There has been, in the past, a tendency for 'grunts' to hold 'REMFs' in disdain or even contempt. This was, I gather from reading autobiographies and novels, etc, common during the war in Vietnam. I think there was an element of the same in WW2. It's not healthy and I'm sure effort has been made to curb the tendency post 1975. Yes generally true … but I saw very little if any of that when I was on active duty or the Res. We all know today logistics in a modern high tech force is extremely important. E.g. No one really complains about cooks. We all like a warm meals not in a foil pouch even if only now and then. There is a natural tendency to memorialise courageous and effective individuals [often posthumously] and turn them into 'legends' or heroes. We'd have posters on the inside walls on some of our barracks, etc. Pictures of soldiers, sometimes nameless, saying something motivational from things that occurred in the past, etc. As I have said before you want soldiers that are hunters not the hunted. You want the enemy to be afraid of you when night falls. That is some of the things I was trained and in turn trained my soldiers. And something many have to remember after Vietnam. The US Army had to rebuild itself, pull itself up by the "Boot Straps". To turn the hollowed out shell it became after Vietnam and without a draft. And as we see, IMO the Draft did some damage to get those numbers to the level to fight a war in Vietnam. And prepare for wars in Western Europe as well as South Korea, etc. Again many, many drafted did their job effectively and honorably. With many being awarded metals, etc. But as time went on units with mostly if not all draftees was not always a good turn of events. I was in during part of that rebuilding. With Many Vietnam Vets in our ranks as senior NCOs and Officers. They saw the elephant, that made them soldiers we should learn from and listen to. And did … For the next time … as with history as our guide … there will always be a next time … |
Skarper | 29 Nov 2020 3:23 p.m. PST |
It does seem we agree on the main points. You have your slant, and I have mine of course. We both seem to agree that troops with other specialties are not going to be as good in combat roles as those who specialise as infantry etc. We only seem to disagree about how wide the gap would be. I think it's got to be quite large on average. It's impossible to measure without a large scale war to provide enough data. I'm not saying the non-combat troops are badly trained or would be ineffective in combat. I'm just saying the specialists would be a lot better. That's kind of the point of having specialties, rather than making everyone the same. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 29 Nov 2020 4:03 p.m. PST |
The Marines' recruiting slogan ("The Few, the Proud, the Marines"), elitism and small size relative to the bloated Army (of which the vast majority are REMF's) require a certain conceit in their members' attitudes. After all, as the saying goes "if you don't have what it takes to be a marine, go join the army." A bit snobbish? Of course. |
arealdeadone | 29 Nov 2020 4:27 p.m. PST |
There has been, in the past, a tendency for 'grunts' to hold 'REMFs' in disdain or even contempt. This was, I gather from reading autobiographies and novels, etc, common during the war in Vietnam. I think there was an element of the same in WW2. It's not healthy and I'm sure effort has been made to curb the tendency post 1975. In several books I have read about troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, REMFs are still held in contempt both in British and US militaries. Army (of which the vast majority are REMF's) The vast majority of Marines would also be REMFs. REMFs are up to 70%-75% of any modern military force. You don't maintain a modern expeditionary military without a massive logistics and support tail. A modern Marine expeditionary force includes a full logistics regiment (Logistics combat element), 2 aviation support support squadrons and numerous support units encompassing the full spectrum of support services – communications, medical, law enforcement, intelligence etc.
And then there's the support troops in the combat elements (which for an artillery or armoured or aviation unit are similar to the army or any other formations). Tooth to tail ratios for modern forces:
A word of warning – NATO forces might appear to have a larger combat element but it should be noted that often their forces are lacking in support such as strategic or even tactical transport, logistics, intelligence gathering, electronic warfare, sustained artillery support and cannot operate independently. |
Legion 4 | 29 Nov 2020 9:05 p.m. PST |
It does seem we agree on the main points. You have your slant, and I have mine of course. OK I'll give you that … We just come from different experiences … The Marines' recruiting slogan ("The Few, the Proud, the Marines"), elitism and small size relative to the bloated Army (of which the vast majority are REMF's) require a certain conceit in their members' attitudes. After all, as the saying goes "if you don't have what it takes to be a marine, go join the army." As I said the US ARMY has a lot more equipment in more Divs than the USMC … E.g. the the ARMY has 2 Tanks Divs and numerous Tank Bns in other units. The USMC when it had tanks, up until recently, was 200 total. The ARMY has more than that in one Tank Div. You need a lot of REMFs to manage to keep those iron monsters Fully Mission Capable. Plus all the REMFs to supply the combat units with all they need to do their jobs. E.g. ammo, fuel, food, etc., etc. And it'll be hard to convince me and many others that the ARMY Airborne, RANGERs, and SF are not elite units that equal and/or surpass the USMC. Slogans are great … but it is more than that. "if you don't have what it takes to be a marine, go join the army." I'd think Airborne, RANGERs and SF would tell you the opposite. No … I know they would … In several books I have read about troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, REMFs are still held in contempt both in British and US militaries. I have not heard that. As most troops know that they have to have good logistics to do their job. The vast majority of Marines would also be REMFs. REMFs are up to 70%-75% of any modern military force.You don't maintain a modern expeditionary military without a massive logistics and support tail. Yes that is very true and I agree totally. Based in my experiences as a Grunt and running Logistic ops as well. So in short the USMC has almost as many REMFs as the ARMY, percentagewise. NATO forces might appear to have a larger combat element but it should be noted that often their forces are lacking in support such as strategic or even tactical transport, logistics, intelligence gathering, electronic warfare, sustained artillery support and cannot operate independently. Again spot on … In many cases they have to rely on the USA to provide those lacking elements at times. |
Striker | 30 Nov 2020 12:31 a.m. PST |
I'm not sure where the author of the article even got the idea to write it. Haircuts are a cause of service hate? The Corps doesn't change its dress uniform as much? The whole thing read like some high school kid's report. Since the USMC is part of the Navy, it surely uses the Navy supply chain for a lot of its logistics support and therefore a smaller proportion of Marines are support troops compared to the Army. I don't have the numbers, but it stands to reason. When I was a supply guy the Marines run their own supply, at least at the lower end (depot level may be different). We go to the same school and use the same out dated equipment, maybe that's changed now. |
Legion 4 | 30 Nov 2020 8:49 a.m. PST |
The whole thing read like some high school kid's report. Agree … too bad some will actually believe all of his … |
Marulaz1 | 30 Nov 2020 11:51 a.m. PST |
Striker & Legion 4. +1 To my mind the guy just doesn't seem to understand "espirit d's corps". John |
Murvihill | 30 Nov 2020 7:13 p.m. PST |
Someone was desperate for content and turned a good-natured rivalry into hatred. |
Legion 4 | 01 Dec 2020 9:37 a.m. PST |
Marulaz1 & Murhill +1 As I said I've never run across it when on active duty from '79-'90. Went to BAT at Norfolk, with the 101. The USMC had some troops at our Army courses as well, e.g. Airborne, Inf Ofc Adv Course, etc. And in the on fields ops a number of times. Never have seen any friction at all. At least that I, or anyone else observed. We all acted like professionals[we were all Grunts] and all had jobs to do. The ARMY and USMC worked together frequently, back then, and now as well, AFAIK. |
|