English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

accomplish many missions, do you think a marine corps is nescessary? army done amphibious landings before even the largest one in history, normanday with no Marines there. i think it would save the govt billions of dollars

2007-03-27 02:32:59 · 10 answers · asked by Beaujock 1 in Politics & Government Military

10 answers

The Marine Corps adds a good balance to our military. Yes, they are needed. If you have to ask why then you don't need to know. Sorry, not trying to be rude but not everyone needs to know military tactics.

And to the woman who has a husband in the Army: Please tell him to stop smoking whatever it is he is smoking. Look, I am biased to the Army as well since I have dedicated my life to it. But I also know and respect the Marines and they don't start something and not finish it. And they sure as heck wouldn't back down and let the Army finish it. They have WAY too much pride for that. Every last Marine would die before they decided to leave it for the Army to finish.

2007-03-27 02:45:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6 1

First, look a little closer at your history books, there were marines involved in the Normandy landings during WW-II.

Second, the Marines and the Army each have specific areas of operation and missions that cannot not be reliably carried on by the other force. If there has been any overlap of mission I think it would be the Marines starting to perform more missions that traditionally belonged to the Army ever since the Korean war.

What does need to be done away with are the duplicates in support services. In my mind a truck driver is a truck driver, so why do we need a Marine truck driver, an Army truck driver, a Navy truck driver, and an Airforce truck driver?

I also think that your question displays a marked ignorance in military issues and military history.

2007-03-27 10:01:12 · answer #2 · answered by permh20 3 · 1 0

The US Army is highly equipped this is correct. They usually have newer gear for the individual. The Marines usually end up getting the gear that the Army has but they have to wait a little longer due to budgetary reasons.

The Marines may have once had the role of just conducting amphibious operations but this has changed due to the nature of the Marines. They may have once only had the role of amphibious assault force, but I would say that now they are used in the role of "shock troops." The term "shock troops" is a term used by the Germans in WW1 to describe the highest order of infantry units, typically these units were well trained, fanatically loyal, almost totally fearless in the face of the enemy, and were more interested in killing the enemy than saving their own life. They were also capable of quickly responding to the enemy at a moments notice. They were usually used to spearhead an assault.

I would have to say that the USMC almost fits that bill to a T.

Over time, and throughout US history they have proven that they are capable of taking targets that are extremely difficult. They have also shown that they can deal with battlefield situations that would seem hopeless.

Maybe they were created to just be amphibious assault troops I dont know. But today they are used in the "shock troop" role. Our military would become extremely dimenished without the current Marine Corps.

2007-03-27 10:50:25 · answer #3 · answered by h h 5 · 2 0

The Marine Corps will live on for another thousand years.

Seems like your Army Husband is maybe hiding his own fears
Here are some qoutes from ARMY People.

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.
Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of Marines. Lord, how they could fight!
MGen. Frank E. Lowe, USA; Korea, 26 January 1952

Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can. They are the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines.
Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, USA; 12 February 1918

I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!
General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur; Korea, 21 September 1950

We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of this island, and three Army regiments pinned down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on?
Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., USA, Chairman of the the Joint Chiefs of Staff
during the assault on Grenada, 1983

The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!
Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, 1945

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.
Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

Lying offshore, ready to act, the presence of ships and Marines sometimes means much more than just having air power or ship's fire, when it comes to deterring a crisis. And the ships and Marines may not have to do anything but lie offshore. It is hard to lie offshore with a C-141 or C-130 full of airborne troops.
Gen. Colin Powell, U. S. Army
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
During Operation Desert Storm

I can't say enough about the two Marine divisions. If I use words like 'brilliant,' it would really be an under description of the absolutely superb job that they did in breaching the so-called 'impenetrable barrier.' It was a classic- absolutely classic- military breaching of a very very tough minefield, barbed wire, fire trenches-type barrier.
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, U. S. Army

The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle.
Gen. John "Black Jack" Pershing, U.S. Army
Commander of American Forces in World War I

The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle.
Gen. John "Black Jack" Pershing, U.S. Army
Commander of American Forces in World War I
If I had one more division like this First Marine Division I could win this war.

General of the Armies Douglas McArthur in Korea,
overheard and reported by Marine Staff Sergeant Bill Houghton, Weapons/2/5

2007-03-27 09:54:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

For every Army soldier in a combat position, one soldier is behind the lines in such supporting roles as administration and supply; for Marines the ratio is two combatants to one administrator or supplier, as a result the Marines deliver more fire power in the quickest time when responding to a crisis. The greatest advantage for the Marines is the speed and muscle with which it can respond. Some Marine responces may be relatively small-scale ops like the DEC 1998 invasion of Panama;some may be larger like Iraq. The Marine corps is designed for deterring, responding quickly. Unlike other services, the Marines are already organized and equipped to protect American power into practically any kind of conflict. Also, Marines can act without having to create whole new doctrines, specialized forces or equipment depots over seas. So yes we need them.

2007-03-27 09:57:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Marines did not land on Normandy because they were too busy kicking *** in the Pacific.

Yea I highly doubt your husband knows what the hell he's talking about. I never saw any backing down from the Marines. You think there gonna let some second rate military finish a mans job?

2007-03-27 09:42:31 · answer #6 · answered by DewBerry 3 · 4 1

I guess the 110,000 Marines that were sent to Iwo Jima in WWII were totally unneccessary to winning the battle as well?

Your question--even though you titled it to only Army personnel (hey, I guess I qualify because my dad was a Colonel in the Army and I grew up an Army brat) is totally ridiculous and also disrespectful of all the United States Marines that have laid down their lives to serve our country.

I can totally answer your question with just one word: YES!!!

2007-03-27 09:47:23 · answer #7 · answered by MarineMom 6 · 5 1

Each branch of service is necessary in its own way. There is no need to tear any of them down. Interservice competition is healthy. Interservice rivalry is foolishness.

2007-03-27 09:45:59 · answer #8 · answered by Tom Jr 4 · 3 0

Oh great more ******** Americans in the middle east why don't you go back home and stop stealing lives and rich is(Oil) from middle east!

2007-03-27 09:57:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 6

why have a marine corp,my husband said they would start a fight in iraq and back down and the army would have to finish it.the marines are just a bunch of cowards so i dont think they are needed

2007-03-27 09:42:25 · answer #10 · answered by marines_sweetie 5 · 0 11

fedest.com, questions and answers