It seems that the U.S. Marine Corps has a higher rate of deaths and purple hearts than the U.S. Army in Iraq and Afganistan. Where can I find the actual percentages and why this is so, IF IN FACT, it is true?
2007-04-09 16:41:13 · 13 answers · asked by Victor T 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The US Marines has more casualties because they are the first to land during battles. Nevertheless, it has more prestige than the US Army.
2007-04-09 16:44:34 · answer #1 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
This all depends on your interests. When it came my time to enlist I had always been leaning Army, but I consider the Marines. The main reasons I chose Army were A) I don't like the water. I like the beach, but the idea of even the possibility of being out on some ship for 6 months made me want to puke and B) There is a much better chance of getting into airborne school in the Army. That was a priority for me, may not be for you. The water thing was what did it for me though. I know guys who were Marines and never set foot on a ship. And I know guys who spent a year of their 4 on one. So you never know. The possibility of it was a deal breaker for me. Being "shy" or "quiet" is irrelevant as to which branch to choose. Both branches have their share of all personality types. And after a few months in basic most of that will be out of your system...... It better be if you ever want to be a drill sergeant/instructor.
2016-05-21 04:10:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have less Marines on the ground. When a Marine become a casualty, the percentage is greater than that of the Army. Also, the Marine Corps actually take the fight to the opposition forces and the Army doesn't; they run.
(Just numbers; doesn't mean anything)
Ex: Marine Corps at 40,000 with 3% casualty rate = 1200
Army at 80,000 with 2.5% casualty rate = 2000
You have to look beyond the math as to which branch really get schwaked the most.
2007-04-09 17:26:04 · answer #3 · answered by BadKarma 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
As far as percentages, it is the Marines and you must keep in mind that most of the casualties from the Army, were National Guard. The Marines go unprepared and then they get their *** whacked, just read about Fallujah and who came to bail them out. At the same time, the Army had to wait for the Marines to catch up when en route to Baghdad, once again, the Marines were losing marines left and right. As a matter of fact, the brigade commander for that unit was relieved because he could not keep up with the Army. If you remember, the Army basically just drove into Baghdad and drove around until the Marines were ready to take care of their piece of the pie.
2007-04-10 12:35:52 · answer #4 · answered by R C 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Below are two links that may help you out. I don't know of any 'official' breakout for what your asking. By doing some quick math and using some educated assumptions I would have to say the percentages of casualties for both the army and Marines are about the same considering the size of the forces in theater.
2007-04-09 17:23:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're wrong buddy..it's actually the opposite. More soldiers have died in this war than Marines. And that can be because the Army is bigger.
Marines are a smaller force and deploy faster. Their deployments are only 7 months, where as the Army is one full year..even more than that, and that increases the possibility of dying.
There is your answer
2007-04-09 16:57:53 · answer #6 · answered by huerito323 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it may seem like more because the Marine Corps is much smaller if the there are 2 marines and 10 army soldiers and 1 Marine dies then 50% of the men have died if 1 soldier dies then 10% have died. Maybe thats why it seems like more Marines die.
2007-04-09 16:52:25 · answer #7 · answered by Patches 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think this is interesting because if you think about it the marine corps is really small and being an army guy there is alot of us so since there is such a selct few serving in afganastan that are killed just because they have a smaller number of personal then your percentage will be alot high and this often times distracts the media saying "well how are our marines percentages of death alot higher than the army, it must be there training" but it's not it's just because they have fewer numbers but thats it.
2007-04-09 16:46:36 · answer #8 · answered by skater_boy935 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The army is more of a long term force. the marines are an invading force. the marines do not have all the good equipment the army has. they aren't expected to live as long because of the high death toll in an invasion. you want to live, go army. if you want to die becuase of poor equipment, young leaders, and a unwillingness to change tactics, go marines.
2007-04-09 17:55:16 · answer #9 · answered by sirus3810 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
As of March 24,2007, here are the stats:
Army-2216
Marines-909
Navy-71
Air Force-31
Coast Gaurd-1
Total-3,228
If you check out the below website, it has MANY MANY MANY stats on anything imaginable that has happened in Iraq from Service deaths, to how many by carbomb, mortar, rpg, how many reporters have been killed and how, and so on and so forth. I was amazed at all the stats this report has. you should def check it out. Hope it helps!! Have a good one.
2007-04-09 23:02:46 · answer #10 · answered by Erin R 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lcpl_Underground:
Dude, the Army doesn't run. We close with and destroy. 90% of combat operations in Iraq are carried out by the Army. The USMC shat the bed in Falluja until the 1st Cav (1st BDE) came and bailed them out in 2005. USMC has very little AOR in Baghdad and mostly patrols the rural areas where the population is small. I know you were probably just throwing a friendly jab, but like most Marines, you bring a knife to a gun fight.
2007-04-09 17:33:22 · answer #11 · answered by Kilroy 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋