2007-03-21 18:52:42 · 11 answers · asked by cruz 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There are more Army personnel than Marines. It could be because the Army is more mobile and gets nailed with IED's than the Marines do. It's not a matter of training and expertise if that's what you're getting at.
I'll be the first one to call the Army girl scouts, but anyone that's there has my respect.
2007-03-21 19:00:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because the Army is more out there patrolling the streets and driving the convoys. While the Marines to my understanding are more used for missions and that kind of stuff. So pretty much the Army is more of a easier target then the Marines.
2007-03-22 02:09:18 · answer #2 · answered by thurtlebee 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
*Woah* Ok, it's not that the Marines do not patrol as much. The graphical breakdown is that there have been 2,113 Army killed with 879 Marines killed, and 15,129 Army wouded with 7,502 Marines wounded. In the past year the number of Marines being killed has gone up. If you look at the casuality list a lot of the people that are losing their lives are infantry, both in Army and Marines. The Marines have been sent in a whole lot more in the past year to "clean up the mess"(i.e. the takedown of Fallujah, setteling of Anabar Provience, regaining control of Baghdad) and thus have begun to sustain more casualities, but in speeking of percentage, there is more personel in the Army then the Marines, so the Marines have sustained the greater percentage of loss.
2007-03-22 09:10:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have to disagree with you a_wood80 according to the website below ,under source, Army Casualties are including National Gaurd, regular and reserves, 2,206 while Marines altogether equals only 907, so the army is doing its share of fighting and dieing
2007-03-22 02:20:25 · answer #4 · answered by pdale33 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It is simply because there are more people in the army than there are in the Marines. You should check into percentages of who is dieing and compare it to how many from the actual branch are in Iraq. That would be a more accurate account.
2007-03-22 03:25:32 · answer #5 · answered by Britknee 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called statistics. Statistically there are more Army Soldiers there than Marines. So, hence the more of one than the other and the overall numbers rise. When you look at percentages.... you find that the percentage higher for the Corps.
Both are constantly in the "mix".... and do a very fine job.
2007-03-22 07:57:34 · answer #6 · answered by tcatmech2 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There haven't been. The Marine Corps, although the smallest fighting force, has sustained the highest number of casualties in this conflict.
2007-03-22 02:01:32 · answer #7 · answered by DOOM 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The question has already been well answered by other posters but my question for you is what's your point? Are you asking out of concern? Or Marnine bravado? Or neither?
The fact is all our troops are well trained and have specialized duties, each branch has a specific mission to perform.
2007-03-22 11:00:27 · answer #8 · answered by ArmyWifey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think because there are allot more army people that are there and for the people that said that there are more Marines killed then Army do your research
http://icasualties.org/oif/Service.aspx
2007-03-22 03:31:51 · answer #9 · answered by cuddydman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is your source for this? I'd like to see it.
2007-03-22 02:21:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋