Talk:United States Marine Corps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article United States Marine Corps is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2007.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of History.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Depressed Marines[edit]

After the war, the Marine Corps fell into a depression that ended with the appointment of Archibald Henderson as its fifth Commandant in 1820. I'm sure the source meant something else, but this style problem speaks for itself. Maybe some Prozac would have helped.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

How about malaise? Now, pass that bottle of port before I get depressed.CobraDragoon (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Marines are a seond army ?[edit]

Good point here..the us marines are supposed to be amphibious..So why were they in the desert fighting no where near water? I know that desert training also serves very well in any venue where retreat is out of the question but the us army has that job..inland is army..shore is marine corps..Also the seals have robbed the job of us marines..the marines should be the seals.and the green berets or rangers should have captured bin ladennot seals..Why is the navy forming seal teams for fighting on beaches? thats the marines job. and then seals are doing stuff that is army job..Seems navy is the biggest robber of all..they comepte with the marines with seal teams. they ompete with the army with seals again..they even have an air force...seems weird that americas team of capturing terrorists comes from the navy..And then there the united states air force..pj cct..the AF wanted a piece of the tough guy land action so they formed cct..their own commandos who go in on land to destroy enemy airports crafts and anti airplane groupn weapons..thatsthe armys job!!! now an american boy who wants to join the toughest has to choose..seals green berets pj-cct or marine rangers..all trained together ....we are one confusing country.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the USMC is not a "second army."

1) The Marine Corps is amphibious, but more importantly, it is expeditionary. That means that the operating forces of the Marine Corps are "go anywhere, anytime, to do anything" capable. The US Army has some expeditionary capable units but generally that is not the Army's mandate.

2) Marines fight wherever they are ordered to do so because of 1) above and the Marine Corps mission to perform "Such other duties as the President may direct." (See "Al Anbar occupation" above).

3) Marines have been fighting "inland" since the Revolution; they served with Gen. Washington's army in several battles, participated in the unsuccessful defense of Washington, D.C. in the War of 1812, fought the Seminoles in Florida, served in the invasion of Mexico, were instrumental in the storming and capture of the fortress at Chalpultepec, and raised the US flag over the national palace in Mexico City during the Mexican War, formed a battalion that fought at the battle of First Bull Run/First Manassas during the Civil War, served with the American Expeditionary Force on the Western Front in WWI, and served in Russia in 1919 during the Bolshevik Revolution... (I could go on, but you get the picture.) Also, do you realize that the Army has performed more amphibious operations than the Marine Corps and that the largest amphib op in history (Normandy, June 6, 1944) did not involve any US Marines in the landing forces (there were Marines aboard several US Navy warships as Marine detachments, including some gun crews, and as staff officers and observers).

4) No, the SEALs have not "robbed" the Marines of their job - the SEALs do not, cannot perform forcible entry operations against fortified and determined defenders, nor execute deliberate defenses against superior numbers of reinforced, aggressive attackers. The SEALs are fantastic at what they do, which is special operations, but they are not large enough, nor properly equipped, supported, or supplied to perform large-scale conventional operations over extended periods of time.

5) It is arguable whether the Army's Delta Force (vice Special Forces or Rangers) or the Navy's DEVGRU (aka SEAL Team 6) should have been the "take down" force against bin Laden. They are equivalent Tier 1 units under US Special Operations Command and my understanding from reading unclassified sources is that it was essentially "luck of the draw" as to which unit received the call - Delta was already tasked for some other classified operation and DEVGRU was available, simple as that.

6) Of course the Navy has its own specops and aviation capability; do you expect a Navy Expeditionary Strike Group to have to call on the Army if it needs a beach survey prior to landing a Marine Expeditionary Unit or for the USAF to man carrier-based aircraft to prosecute a naval campaign hundreds of miles, if not a thousand miles, from the nearest land-based air field? Yes, Army Special Forces A and B teams could be assigned to ESGs and Air Force pilots could be trained to fly naval aircraft off of and (here's the rub) back onto aircraft carriers, but why? (In fact, it is the USMC that puts all of these capabilities together into neat little packages called MAGTFs that makes it unique among the world's military organizations. Again, not a second army.) Yes, I know that the Canadians have, or had, a "unified military" but it's not quite what it seems at first glance. They still "specialize" to a large degree between land, sea, and air components and besides they are several orders of magnitude smaller than the US Armred Forces, no where as capable or diverse, and don't have our same traditions and military culture, etc. If you research it you will see that it's another of those "apples and oranges" comparisons that would not be practicable for the US, and frankly does not appear to have worked out that great for them either.

7) USAF special operations are highly specialized and do not, on their own, "destroy enemy airports..." etc. They provide several key competencies viz., pararescue, combat controlers, and combat weather operators and are usually integrated into, or work closely with, US Army special ops or other allied personnel.

8) Yes, we're Americans - we have choices and several options. Do your research and then choose whichever one best fits you, and then go for it. Each branch is unique to some degree and each branch has one or more "elite" components. We have them all because it works and even though there is some overlap in missions and capabilities, in general each one fills a special niche in the overall strategy.CobraDragoon (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit needed[edit]

If anybody is feeling ambitious, the section on the Civil War (Interim...) is in need of an edit. The PREVIOUS section's last paragraph includes the ONLY mention of the Marines during the Civil War and should be moved down into and integrated with the Civil War to WWI section. I'd also remove the word "vast" as it seems hyperbole without some facts to back it up. (Number of men, number of military engagements, etc.) (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United States Marine Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Teufel Hünden[edit]

What is the origin of the almost-but-not-really-German nickname "Teufel Hünden" listed in the sidebar? -- (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Most people would just Google it, but I'll save you the trouble; have a look at Devil Dog. Cheers - theWOLFchild 08:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep. The IP user could have just searched the Marine Corps wiki article for Teufel Hunden and found a couple sentences and the Devil Dog link if the user had tried. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to be subtle. (for a change) - theWOLFchild 09:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Right, and I was be extra subtle and not replying, originally. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
lolz - theWOLFchild 03:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox - navy dept[edit]

An editor would like to add to the infobox a line indicating that the Corps is also part of the Navy dept. This is already prominently noted in the article lead. If we do this, it opens the door to changes to other infoboxes. I'm not sure it's necessary, but thought others should weigh in with their thoughts on this, and see if there is a consensus to make this change, and address the potential impact on any other articles. - theWOLFchild 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Added note: it's similarly noted on the US Army page, with the year (also don't think that's necessary), and the on the USN page (without the year), but not on the USAF page. The USCG page is entirely different, listing all depts and years. There are certainly inconsistencies here, perhaps this should be brought to MILHIST? As long as there is a consensus and some consistency, I'm fine either way. - theWOLFchild 16:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I believe that since the four DoD branches of the U.S. military all fall under one of the three service branches that their parent branch should be listed. The Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force do not report directly to the Department of Defense but rather to a service secretary. Each service department contains one or more (i.e., Navy Department) military services as well as other offices, agencies, and organizations that support the military service(s) within that department. The U.S. Army, for example, is headed by a general as its chief of staff, this officer in turn reports to the Secretary of the Army, who then reports to the Secretary of Defense. In the same manner, the Air Force is headed by the a general as chief of staff who reports to the Secretary of the Air Force. The Department of the Navy is a dual-service department and can become tri-service (should the Coast Guard be transferred from Homeland Security) upon presidential order. The Chief of Naval Operations heads the Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps heads the Marine Corps, both officers are direct reports of the Secretary of the Navy. It is an important legal point, albeit technical, and perhaps unique to the United States (I don't know about other nations but this discussion concerns the U.S. armed forces only) that each of the military service branches are subordinate to a civilian political appointee who then directly reports to the Secretary of Defense (a presidential cabinet official). Now, before someone goes "Joint Chiefs of Staff" and/or "National Command Authority" here, one must understand that the U.S. military has a dual chain of command, both of which terminate at the president as commander-in-chief. The joint chiefs serve as an advisory panel on military matters but they do not command the military services. The operational chain of command flows from the president, through the secretary of defense, directly to the commanders of the several unified commands. The generals and admirals commanding these organizations are responsible for geographic or functional areas that encompass members and units of all branches of the U.S. military, but again do not command an entire specific branch of service. In summary, I posit that the Army should be listed as subordinate to the Department of the Army (Department of War from 1789 — 1947), the Marine Corps and Navy subordinate to the Department of the Navy, (Navy 1794 — present; Marine Corps 1834 — present). Prior to 1834, the U.S. Marine Corps legally reported directly to the president as the Congress had apparently failed to ever specify whether it was subordinate to either the Department of War or the Department of the Navy, operationally its units reported to either the senior Army or Navy officer present, primarily based upon whether a particular unit was serving aboard ship or on a naval installation, or ashore with army units as they did as part of Cadwaladar's Brigade of Washington's Division during the Trenton-Princeton Campaign or with Jackson's Division at New Orleans. The Air Force, Department of the Air Force (1947 — present) as prior to 1947, there was no separate U.S. Air Force, it was the U.S. Army Air Forces. The U.S. Coast Guard is a unique case and its organizational history is already listed in its info box. CobraDragoon (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I admittedly only skimmed over your post as it's rather lengthy, but as far as the sub-dept's go, (army/navy/af) they are administrative, responsible only for equipping, training, etc. The operational chain of command flows thru potus to secef to the ucc commanders. (I know you know this). A couple things we need to address are a) uniformity, we want the same layout and info for all the us armed forces infoboxes, (right?) and b) what info do we need in the infobox vs. what is better suited to the article body? I see the point of your edit, but this article, and the others have gone a long time without it. That's a lot of implied consensus. I think we should give it a few days, allow others to participate in this discussion, and see if we can come to a decision as a community on how to address all of this. Cheers - theWOLFchild 19:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)