Talk:United States Marine Corps
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Marine Corps 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.|
|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:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on November 10, 2009, November 10, 2010, and November 10, 2012.|
|Threads older than 6 months may be archived by.|
Al Anbar occupation
It would be good if the article could explain more how a branch of service whose purported mission is to project expeditionary power from water ended up serving as an occupation army in the middle of the desert.Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- That mission changed with the deployment of the 5th Marine Brigade, which formed half of the US Army's 2nd Division in France during WWI. Moskin's History of the United States Marine Corps, Krulak's First to Fight and many others chronicle this in detail. Marines served in the post-war occupation of Germany (WWI) and Japan (WWII). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It was actually the 4th Marine Brigade, consisting of the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments and the 6th Machine Gun Battalion, but more to the point, you are correct that Marines have long been used in non-naval campaigns and occupation duty. In fact, the Marines performed non-naval duty in the Revolution, Barbary War, War of 1812, both Seminole Wars, Mexican War (including occupation duty in Mexico and California), Civil War, Philippine Insurection, Boxer Rebellion, and the Banana Wars. Lastly, I would remind Sylvain1872 of the USMC Congressionally mandated mission to perform "Such other duties as the President may direct," the only Branch of Service so tasked by US Code.CobraDragoon (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
No, that is covered under Infantry Weapons Officer in the Billet Description and Core Competencies section. Also, the battalion infantry weapons officer is a billet, not a rank.CobraDragoon (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
add the USMC's Order of Battle?
It would be helpful to add the USMC's Order of Battle. How the USMC organizes it's fire teams, squads, platoons, companies, battalions, regiments, divisions, etc...
I came to the wiki page to find out more about the USMC's unique structure in that regard, specifically how the battalions and regiments are numbered within their divisions, but that information wasn't present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Personnel needs to be updated
Saergeant Major Ronald L. Green is the current incumbent of the position of Seargant Major of the Marine Corps. The picture and text needs to be updated. Evan Simoneaux (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
Marines are a seond army ?
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!!!..so 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 220.127.116.11 (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)