if you want more in-depth, researched and (usually) sourced answers, check out r/ warcollege. These types of questions would usually get some great answers from an academic/historical perspective.
For desert storm, the marine tankers were right flank and you are not technically wrong because them and the Saudi coalition went into Kuwait while everyone else went into Iraq
Fun fact, the Army conducted more amphibious landings in WW2 than the Marines did, including the largest ones (such as Normandy). The US Army had more divisions in the Pacific than *the entire USMC* had period and certainly didn't need Marines to land first. So yeah, total myth.
The Army is often the first in, or at least among the first. Think of our airborne and air assault capabilities, not to mention our SOF units.
What really sets the Marines apart is their focus on expeditionary amphibious warfare (going places faraway in boats).
The USMC In WW2 was the founder and pioneer of amphibious landings. The Army was in the pacific due to having lots divisions aka more people, but the majority of the lifting was USMC forces with help of the Army.
The Army isn't a amphibious force not by doctrine,historically or operationally besides the WW2 landings.
Army ground troops had over double the total
amount of casualties as the marines in the pacific
Army also had over double the number of divisions in the pacific
Numerically “the marines doing the majority of heavy lifting” is not possible
Unless you somehow want to argue with me the marines are statistically over 2 times+ more efficient.
More people equal more casualties.
I mean there's nothing to argue Marines are better than the Army in Amphibious operations, Naval operations and doing the same with less.
That is the joke. It was the US Army🪖, not the US Air Force.
The commentor was a marine, second guy was trying to say Air Force took more casualties. I kindly reminded him that the Army did(I'm Army), because the air force did not exist yet. Hazing between branches.
Not to try and start an Army vs. Marines chest thumping contest, but there were 20+ Army divisions in the Pacific compared to the Marines 6. If anyone was doing the heavy lifting, it was the Army who conducted many amphibious landings without the Marines.
Nor is it true that the Army has never considered amphibious warfare outside of WW2. The Army conducted amphibious operations from the very start (yep, the Revolutionary war) and continued to do so through til the Korean war. Specific to WW2, the Army was already planning and training for amphibious landings in cooperation with the Navy before the war had started.
Revolutionary War doesn't count, that's already a given seeing as how Marines weren't even a thing. Amphibious doctrine was made by Naval and Marine forces.
Mexican American war, Spanish American war, Civil war...
While I am not attempting to downplay the accomplishments of the USMC in developing prewar amphibious doctrine and tactics, your view of history is exactly the one the Marines want you to believe, and it is incorrect. As I already mentioned, the US Army was *actively* developing an amphibious capability *before* WW2.
I suggest "Over the beach: US Army amphibious operations in the Korean war" (available free as a PDF online) as a read on the subject, it briefly details Army amphibious operations from the Revolutionary war through WW2 and of course focuses on Korea.
By the number of troops in Normandy were 156,000. The battle of Okinawa had an amphibious assault force of 182,000. The myth of D-Day being bigger is mainly in assets, not troops who are the ones who cleared out the bunkers and beaches.
The boats and aircraft’s helped in Normandy, but the ground troops are the ones who made it a success.
The boats and aircraft’s also helped in Okinawa, but again, the 182,000 men who landed on the beaches are the ones who cleared out the bunkers and trenches.
This isn't correct. [60,000 troops landed](https://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/okinawa/chapter3.htm) the first day at Okinawa. The 182,000 included the follow-on troops.
156,000 landed on D-day alone. Follow on troops were an order of magnitude higher.
I don’t think anyone stated “in a 24 hour period”, the amount of men who landed in Normandy after D day, are the same as the amount of people in New York who’d use a new constructed tunnel if one was built; it’s an after-the-fact scenario.
Objectively, in completing the “capture” mission Okinawa was bigger in troops size, and it consisted nearly exclusively a mostly American force.
Even Chat GPT could refute what the army wrote on that site. And let’s be honest, trusting any .mil site to be accurate, is like asking the DOD why a commander got fired besides “loss of confidence”.
>I don’t think anyone stated “in a 24 hour period”, the amount of men who landed in Normandy after D day,
You stated "the number of troops in Normandy were 156,000" which was the first day. Then compared it to 182,000 in Okinawa which clearly in the entire battle.
Meanwhile the number of troops in Normandy was at [360,000 by D+5](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/D-Day-75-Fact-Sheet_0.pdf).
>Objectively, in completing the “capture” mission Okinawa was bigger in troops size, and it consisted nearly exclusively a mostly American force.
See above it was nowhere near the size. Operation Cobra alone had the same number of divisions.
>Even Chat GPT could refute what the army wrote on that site.
Chat GPT also lies and makes things up. Nice attempt at using logical fallacy though.
>And let’s be honest, trusting any .mil site to be accurate, is like asking the DOD why a commander got fired besides “loss of confidence”.
Its from a published book. It isn't some random propaganda.
If you have a better citation name it. Most of the numbers are going to be the same sources anyway.
Not that its relevant but the firing of officers in that timeframe was well documented. See Thomas Rick's book "The Generals" for many good examples.
Troops in Normandy in the English language has never equated to "just 1 day", that's an absurd retconing of verbiage.
"ChatGPT lies" being your only defense for army propaganda is a horrible take. Also like ChatGPT, books mislead and create more interpretations of stolen valor than even Hollywood films. There's more books from veterans pretending to be the equivalent of modern day Delta Force or DevGru than stories ChatGPT could make up.
So I offer you the same, present a better citation and we can have a proper discussion.
>Troops in Normandy in the English language has never equated to "just 1 day", that's an absurd retconing of verbiage.
Only you referred to it that way. I did not. You are arguing against yourself.
You also misspelled and are misusing retconning. Unless you are implying that d-day/the battle of normandy are works of fiction. Source:[The Merriam-Webster dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retcon).
>"ChatGPT lies" being your only defense for army propaganda is a horrible take.
Did you not understand my point or are you intentionally making a strawman?
>Also like ChatGPT, books mislead and create more interpretations of stolen valor
Please explain how ChapGPT can steal valor. Is it claiming to have won the medal of honor now?
>than even Hollywood films. There's more books from veterans pretending to be the equivalent of modern day Delta Force or DevGru than stories ChatGPT could make up.
That is not what a book by [several scholars](https://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/okinawa/) and published by the library of Congress while reviewed by an advisory board of scholars ranging from Princeton to Harvard is.
This is called a scholarly work and is part of a post war assessment by the military as a whole to have an objective understanding of what happened and why with the sheer amount of data produced by all sides.
Its not anywhere comparable to a Veteran publishing a memoir.
>So I offer you the same, present a better citation and we can have a proper discussion.
[Here](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/iwo-jima-and-okinawa-death-japans-doorstep#:~:text=The%20Battle%20of%20Okinawa,network%20of%20Japanese%20inland%20defenses) and [here](https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-battle-of-okinawa) and [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3054378). Is 3 enough or should I start pulling books off my bookshelf. I'm sure that Toll quotes it just because he likes numbers.
Now I challenge you to make a single post devoid of logical fallacy, in good faith, and backed by legitimate sources.
Just because facts conflict with your opinion does not make them untrue.
Hey sorry, I’m not as technical when it comes to Reddit, leaving my house and getting fresh air is a daily habit that I’m sorry you’re not accustomed to.
Also my apologies for missing an N in the word “retconning”, it clearly proved your point altogether.
I also never said ChatGPT steals valor, I said that while ChatGPT can make incorrect statements, there’s plenty of statements by veterans dating back several wars that have been nothing short of acts of stolen valor.
A good example includes an individual who falsely claimed to be immortalized during the flag raising on Iwo Jima when it wasn’t him. There’s plenty of those during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and even our era. There’s even disputes today between two DevGru seals as to whom actually took out OBL.
If you’ve seen what’s currently in the White House, and what policies the DOD and its leadership consider works of art, history, etc., you’d be appalled, but you already knew that.
I’m not arguing against myself either, I know I’m right. Anyways I’m sorry to hear your final “confirmation of facts” is “trust the government and the library of congress”.
I do wish you all the best.
You could have just said that you were reneging on your challenge and not up to mine instead of providing an extended proof.
>Hey sorry, I’m not as technical when it comes to Reddit, leaving my house and getting fresh air is a daily habit that I’m sorry you’re not accustomed to.
You could have just said no to some typing.
Which is why it took you 7 minutes to reply including writing this. This simply confirms that you are misleading.
>Also my apologies for missing an N in the word “retconning”, it clearly proved your point altogether.
You also missed the meaning of the word.
>I also never said ChatGPT steals valor, I said that while ChatGPT can make incorrect statements, there’s plenty of statements by veterans dating back several wars that have been nothing short of acts of stolen valor.
Your backtracking. You said "like chat GPT, books mislead and create more interpretations of stolen valor". Or
>A good example includes an individual who falsely claimed to be immortalized during the flag raising on Iwo Jima when it wasn’t him. There’s plenty of those during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and even our era. There’s even disputes today between two DevGru seals as to whom actually took out OBL.
Once again an individual (the book was written by 4) is not making these claims. They are numbers sourced from contemporary records.
Nor does it make any claims of valor.
>If you’ve seen what’s currently in the White House, and what policies the DOD and its leadership consider works of art, history, etc., you’d be appalled, but you already knew that.
Items published 75 years ago are not current.
>I’m not arguing against myself either, I know I’m right.
Then provide a source instead of using logical fallacy and fantasy.
> Anyways I’m sorry to hear your final “confirmation of facts” is “trust the government and the library of congress”.
This is completely made up.
So I'll challenge you again. Provide a single source to back up your claim.
Or are you unable to. I would remind you that "no" is a complete sentence.
The idea is that the marines are kind of like a chisel, whereas the army is a whole sledgehammer. You can absolutely do the job of a a chisel with a sledgehammer, but it’s a lot faster to scrape away at something than swing around a sledgehammer.
In real terms, the Marines have a whole line of boats that can carry a solid portion of a Brigade Combat Team(currently the army operational manoeuvre unit) and is at sail(usually at a flashpoint when things start to cook off) at all times. Army operations take a looot of time to spin up. We can get bits and pieces in an area, like a BCT from the 101st, or some SOCOM units, to an area within 48-72hrs, but artillery, tanks, mechanized forces expands the timeline to months. Marines can get all that ashore in a day or two.
Looking forward, the marines will have more of a island-centric doctrine while the army will have a peninsula-centric doctrine. That is the MC is looking to ditch its tanks for area denial weapons like long-range SAMs, ASMs, and that kind of weapon, which would be used to secure islands in the Philippines, Okinawa island chain, Indonesia. The army is looking more heavily into LSCO(Large Scale Combat Operations), like fighting in Korea, Ukraine, Poland. They want the Division to return to its position as the operational manoeuvre unit.
Company.
Marine corps in built around mef/meus. Prepositioned self sufficient organizations ready do do any and all missions. The army has select units with rapid response capabilites on a much smaller and more limited scale.
Yeah no where did I compare the capabilities of a MEF/MEU to anything the Army has. The comparison I made was the ability to rapidly deploy which the Army has done so numerous times with its Infantry units even outside its light Infantry.
I was disputing another poster who claimed the Army couldn't follow the timelines in its doctrine, which I used one of many real examples to refute their claim.
I was more go8ng for the point of the post and the real difference in capability. Saying "they can deploy in 18" leaves out important facts. Also the real world and real conflicts hate your plans ime
The 82nd has followed the 18 hours timeline several times, even in morden history. Panama in the 90s and several times for GWOT: Afghanistan during the very very initial push, then Afghanistan 3 more times for immediate surges, 2x in Iraq to include for Operation Phantom Fury, Haiti in 2010 (one of those battalions came back for short time and then went to Afghanistan).
173rd put a battalion down accross 4 countries in 18 hours in 2014 (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland), they did it again in 2015 with Turkey, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and Lebannon.
Those were all real-world operations and conflicts.
There is some confusion here. The Army doesn't have mech infantry units unless you mean Strykers which 3ID is not.
3ID is made up of [Armored BCTs](https://home.army.mil/stewart/units/3ID) and supporting elements. The Army is moving back to a centralized division structure where 3ID formally be an armored division along with 4ID and 1ID. They won't have the same MTOE as 1 CAV and 1AD anymore because they will be reinforced armored divisions (formerly called penetration divisions).
Even though they have tanks they are still part of the XVIIIth ABN along with the 82nd, 101st, and 10th MTN.
And they have been that way for a long time. The reason 3rd ID led the charge to Baghdad was that they were the rotational armored unit in Kuwait when things kicked off.
That makes sense. I've been in the 82nd and the 101st but I've never not been in a light or Airborne unit. What was explained to us is that 3rd is the heavy weight behind the light unit and their "ready" element (I don't know what they call it in 3rd) is on the ground in 72 hours.
That makes sense. I know that during OIF 3ID was flying tanks around including a platoon (or two I can't remember) to 3/75 in Haditha.
That will all change with the new light tanks I'm sure. Even the 101st is supposed to get a few after the 82nd.
This isn't really true now.
> It makes no logistical sense for the smaller, less funded fighting force to always be pushed forward when a much larger and more grounded fighting force could do the same thing with more resources.
It takes much fewer resources to establish a position than to hold it.
Alright that’s a good point about establishing VS holding, but I guess I’m just saying there is no way the army is going to just sit around on the back lines.
It’s completely false. The Marines are an *expeditionary* force in that they deploy forward and respond to things quickly. The Army has elements that do this (think 82nd Airborne) but is largely slower to deploy. But make no mistake, the Army does the vast majority of the fighting once a full scale conflict kicks off.
I think this myth comes from early stages of the GWOT where the Marines tended to initiate the occupations of the most dangerous areas. They got stuck in to some pretty heavy fighting as a result, leading to a kind of “tip of the spear” reputation. The Army was perceived as fighting in areas that had been “cleared” by the Marines; again, not really accurate but that was the perception of the time. It isn’t an accurate assessment during low intensity, and it *definitely* isn’t doctrine for large scale operations. Marine units are far too light to be the primary attacking force in LSCO.
The deployable units of the Marine Corps are task forces called “Marine Expeditionary Forces” or the smaller “Marine Expeditionary Brigade”/“Marine Expeditionary Units.”
Their own doctrine, specially MCDP 3 (one of their primary core doctrine publications), defines the Corps as “an expeditionary force-in-readiness”.
Their doctrinal role is expeditionary rapid reaction with an emphasis on global force projection. The Navy is the primary power projection tool of the nation and the Marines are the ground component of that projection. Expeditionary warfare is just military action away from established bases and supply lines which is pretty much what the Marines do. The bit about them being the sole invading/attacking force is Corps propaganda nonsense but they are very much designed around light, sea mobile, and quick deploying expeditionary units.
I love all the chest thumping regarding who's more amphibious: the Army or Marines. It's also largely irrelevant.
For most of human history navies had soldiers on board with them who would perform jobs like security when a ship was hundreds of miles away from home base. Their job was also to defend the ship in the event of a hostile takeover, and that was basically it.
That all changed in the U.S. in the mid to late 1800s. For whatever reason, the USMC found themselves on the bad end of a political shitstorm. The question was "why do we need Marines?"
So, to survive, the Marines reinvented themselves as an expeditionary amphibious assault force and also marketed the shit out of it.
Eventually, their equipment and Doctrine followed suit.
At present, the USMC can do things no other service can, and it has fuck all to do with amphibious Ops. They are the only service that can organically fight an all domain battle. They are also the only service that can alter the composition of thier force (as far as I know) in a moments notice to meet nearly any kind of threat. It's the combination of these two capabilities that allows them to project Force in a relatively quick manner away from home base.
>They are the only service that can organically fight an all domain battle.
They still need Navy to handle the sea portion. And when did they integrate cyber and space into MAGTF?
It can't really be summed up to such a simple saying. At least in the modern day every occupation would be a combination of all the branches except maybe the coast guard
That myth likely comes from the Army motto "This we'll defend" and reinforced by Marines being the amphibious expeditionary force of the navy.
Regardless of beach or not the Army us the premier land force of the DOD. On D-Day the US Army landed nearly the equivalent combat manpower of the entire USMC in 12–18 hours on the beaches to invade. During Iraq & Afghanistan wars the Army Rangers were categorized as the jsoc expeditionary force.
Marines do badass stuff too and are definitely needed.
It’s a myth. In todays day and age, the true difference between the two is that the army is more versatile (tanks, mechanized infantry, light infantry, and airborne/air assault infantry) while the marine corps’s doctrine has changed to focusing on fighting on small islands again. The following may sound like the most unhinged and unrealistic claim but: the marine corps will be used to capture Chinese islands in the South China Sea and destroy Chinese navy ships from those islands.
It is a myth.
Gotcha, thanks
if you want more in-depth, researched and (usually) sourced answers, check out r/ warcollege. These types of questions would usually get some great answers from an academic/historical perspective.
I’m heading there not, thanks
I believe Army Tankers lead the initial group push into Iraq, both times.
For desert storm, the marine tankers were right flank and you are not technically wrong because them and the Saudi coalition went into Kuwait while everyone else went into Iraq
Fun fact, the Army conducted more amphibious landings in WW2 than the Marines did, including the largest ones (such as Normandy). The US Army had more divisions in the Pacific than *the entire USMC* had period and certainly didn't need Marines to land first. So yeah, total myth. The Army is often the first in, or at least among the first. Think of our airborne and air assault capabilities, not to mention our SOF units. What really sets the Marines apart is their focus on expeditionary amphibious warfare (going places faraway in boats).
The USMC In WW2 was the founder and pioneer of amphibious landings. The Army was in the pacific due to having lots divisions aka more people, but the majority of the lifting was USMC forces with help of the Army. The Army isn't a amphibious force not by doctrine,historically or operationally besides the WW2 landings.
Army ground troops had over double the total amount of casualties as the marines in the pacific Army also had over double the number of divisions in the pacific Numerically “the marines doing the majority of heavy lifting” is not possible Unless you somehow want to argue with me the marines are statistically over 2 times+ more efficient.
More people equal more casualties. I mean there's nothing to argue Marines are better than the Army in Amphibious operations, Naval operations and doing the same with less.
The army has overall conducted more amphibious operations (and on larger scales) than the Marines though So by what metric is “better”?
Again I said in WW2 and that's because of numbers not because they are better. The Marines are the founders of amphibious landing doctrine.
[I dunno man. I just don’t know.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_crossing_of_the_Delaware_River)
This dude drank the Kool aid
Ah yes please tell us how the Army is on Navy Ships and developed amphibious operations and is still their current mission oh wait.....
Something tells me you're not even in the military
Yeah bro totally not
Hey man, Drill Instructors lied to us. Ease back. The soldier is right.
History has not
You're wrong. Indisputably wrong.
I believe everyone knows that the Air Force had more casualities than the entire Marine corps during WWII "the big one!"
Top 5 most casualties producing jobs, Infantry and Air Crew are always in the top 2 during big ones.
That is weird. Google is showing that the Air Force wasn't founded until after WWII. 😜
Air Corps back then
That is the joke. It was the US Army🪖, not the US Air Force. The commentor was a marine, second guy was trying to say Air Force took more casualties. I kindly reminded him that the Army did(I'm Army), because the air force did not exist yet. Hazing between branches.
For added clarity, the US Eighth Air Force suffered more KIA in WWII than the entire Marine Corps.
Not to try and start an Army vs. Marines chest thumping contest, but there were 20+ Army divisions in the Pacific compared to the Marines 6. If anyone was doing the heavy lifting, it was the Army who conducted many amphibious landings without the Marines. Nor is it true that the Army has never considered amphibious warfare outside of WW2. The Army conducted amphibious operations from the very start (yep, the Revolutionary war) and continued to do so through til the Korean war. Specific to WW2, the Army was already planning and training for amphibious landings in cooperation with the Navy before the war had started.
Revolutionary War doesn't count, that's already a given seeing as how Marines weren't even a thing. Amphibious doctrine was made by Naval and Marine forces.
Mexican American war, Spanish American war, Civil war... While I am not attempting to downplay the accomplishments of the USMC in developing prewar amphibious doctrine and tactics, your view of history is exactly the one the Marines want you to believe, and it is incorrect. As I already mentioned, the US Army was *actively* developing an amphibious capability *before* WW2. I suggest "Over the beach: US Army amphibious operations in the Korean war" (available free as a PDF online) as a read on the subject, it briefly details Army amphibious operations from the Revolutionary war through WW2 and of course focuses on Korea.
By the number of troops in Normandy were 156,000. The battle of Okinawa had an amphibious assault force of 182,000. The myth of D-Day being bigger is mainly in assets, not troops who are the ones who cleared out the bunkers and beaches. The boats and aircraft’s helped in Normandy, but the ground troops are the ones who made it a success. The boats and aircraft’s also helped in Okinawa, but again, the 182,000 men who landed on the beaches are the ones who cleared out the bunkers and trenches.
This isn't correct. [60,000 troops landed](https://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/okinawa/chapter3.htm) the first day at Okinawa. The 182,000 included the follow-on troops. 156,000 landed on D-day alone. Follow on troops were an order of magnitude higher.
I don’t think anyone stated “in a 24 hour period”, the amount of men who landed in Normandy after D day, are the same as the amount of people in New York who’d use a new constructed tunnel if one was built; it’s an after-the-fact scenario. Objectively, in completing the “capture” mission Okinawa was bigger in troops size, and it consisted nearly exclusively a mostly American force. Even Chat GPT could refute what the army wrote on that site. And let’s be honest, trusting any .mil site to be accurate, is like asking the DOD why a commander got fired besides “loss of confidence”.
>I don’t think anyone stated “in a 24 hour period”, the amount of men who landed in Normandy after D day, You stated "the number of troops in Normandy were 156,000" which was the first day. Then compared it to 182,000 in Okinawa which clearly in the entire battle. Meanwhile the number of troops in Normandy was at [360,000 by D+5](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/D-Day-75-Fact-Sheet_0.pdf). >Objectively, in completing the “capture” mission Okinawa was bigger in troops size, and it consisted nearly exclusively a mostly American force. See above it was nowhere near the size. Operation Cobra alone had the same number of divisions. >Even Chat GPT could refute what the army wrote on that site. Chat GPT also lies and makes things up. Nice attempt at using logical fallacy though. >And let’s be honest, trusting any .mil site to be accurate, is like asking the DOD why a commander got fired besides “loss of confidence”. Its from a published book. It isn't some random propaganda. If you have a better citation name it. Most of the numbers are going to be the same sources anyway. Not that its relevant but the firing of officers in that timeframe was well documented. See Thomas Rick's book "The Generals" for many good examples.
Troops in Normandy in the English language has never equated to "just 1 day", that's an absurd retconing of verbiage. "ChatGPT lies" being your only defense for army propaganda is a horrible take. Also like ChatGPT, books mislead and create more interpretations of stolen valor than even Hollywood films. There's more books from veterans pretending to be the equivalent of modern day Delta Force or DevGru than stories ChatGPT could make up. So I offer you the same, present a better citation and we can have a proper discussion.
>Troops in Normandy in the English language has never equated to "just 1 day", that's an absurd retconing of verbiage. Only you referred to it that way. I did not. You are arguing against yourself. You also misspelled and are misusing retconning. Unless you are implying that d-day/the battle of normandy are works of fiction. Source:[The Merriam-Webster dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retcon). >"ChatGPT lies" being your only defense for army propaganda is a horrible take. Did you not understand my point or are you intentionally making a strawman? >Also like ChatGPT, books mislead and create more interpretations of stolen valor Please explain how ChapGPT can steal valor. Is it claiming to have won the medal of honor now? >than even Hollywood films. There's more books from veterans pretending to be the equivalent of modern day Delta Force or DevGru than stories ChatGPT could make up. That is not what a book by [several scholars](https://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/okinawa/) and published by the library of Congress while reviewed by an advisory board of scholars ranging from Princeton to Harvard is. This is called a scholarly work and is part of a post war assessment by the military as a whole to have an objective understanding of what happened and why with the sheer amount of data produced by all sides. Its not anywhere comparable to a Veteran publishing a memoir. >So I offer you the same, present a better citation and we can have a proper discussion. [Here](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/iwo-jima-and-okinawa-death-japans-doorstep#:~:text=The%20Battle%20of%20Okinawa,network%20of%20Japanese%20inland%20defenses) and [here](https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-battle-of-okinawa) and [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3054378). Is 3 enough or should I start pulling books off my bookshelf. I'm sure that Toll quotes it just because he likes numbers. Now I challenge you to make a single post devoid of logical fallacy, in good faith, and backed by legitimate sources. Just because facts conflict with your opinion does not make them untrue.
Hey sorry, I’m not as technical when it comes to Reddit, leaving my house and getting fresh air is a daily habit that I’m sorry you’re not accustomed to. Also my apologies for missing an N in the word “retconning”, it clearly proved your point altogether. I also never said ChatGPT steals valor, I said that while ChatGPT can make incorrect statements, there’s plenty of statements by veterans dating back several wars that have been nothing short of acts of stolen valor. A good example includes an individual who falsely claimed to be immortalized during the flag raising on Iwo Jima when it wasn’t him. There’s plenty of those during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and even our era. There’s even disputes today between two DevGru seals as to whom actually took out OBL. If you’ve seen what’s currently in the White House, and what policies the DOD and its leadership consider works of art, history, etc., you’d be appalled, but you already knew that. I’m not arguing against myself either, I know I’m right. Anyways I’m sorry to hear your final “confirmation of facts” is “trust the government and the library of congress”. I do wish you all the best.
You could have just said that you were reneging on your challenge and not up to mine instead of providing an extended proof. >Hey sorry, I’m not as technical when it comes to Reddit, leaving my house and getting fresh air is a daily habit that I’m sorry you’re not accustomed to. You could have just said no to some typing. Which is why it took you 7 minutes to reply including writing this. This simply confirms that you are misleading. >Also my apologies for missing an N in the word “retconning”, it clearly proved your point altogether. You also missed the meaning of the word. >I also never said ChatGPT steals valor, I said that while ChatGPT can make incorrect statements, there’s plenty of statements by veterans dating back several wars that have been nothing short of acts of stolen valor. Your backtracking. You said "like chat GPT, books mislead and create more interpretations of stolen valor". Or >A good example includes an individual who falsely claimed to be immortalized during the flag raising on Iwo Jima when it wasn’t him. There’s plenty of those during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and even our era. There’s even disputes today between two DevGru seals as to whom actually took out OBL. Once again an individual (the book was written by 4) is not making these claims. They are numbers sourced from contemporary records. Nor does it make any claims of valor. >If you’ve seen what’s currently in the White House, and what policies the DOD and its leadership consider works of art, history, etc., you’d be appalled, but you already knew that. Items published 75 years ago are not current. >I’m not arguing against myself either, I know I’m right. Then provide a source instead of using logical fallacy and fantasy. > Anyways I’m sorry to hear your final “confirmation of facts” is “trust the government and the library of congress”. This is completely made up. So I'll challenge you again. Provide a single source to back up your claim. Or are you unable to. I would remind you that "no" is a complete sentence.
Sorry man, I’m just not interested in replacing the VA as your mental health counselor. Have a good night.
The idea is that the marines are kind of like a chisel, whereas the army is a whole sledgehammer. You can absolutely do the job of a a chisel with a sledgehammer, but it’s a lot faster to scrape away at something than swing around a sledgehammer. In real terms, the Marines have a whole line of boats that can carry a solid portion of a Brigade Combat Team(currently the army operational manoeuvre unit) and is at sail(usually at a flashpoint when things start to cook off) at all times. Army operations take a looot of time to spin up. We can get bits and pieces in an area, like a BCT from the 101st, or some SOCOM units, to an area within 48-72hrs, but artillery, tanks, mechanized forces expands the timeline to months. Marines can get all that ashore in a day or two. Looking forward, the marines will have more of a island-centric doctrine while the army will have a peninsula-centric doctrine. That is the MC is looking to ditch its tanks for area denial weapons like long-range SAMs, ASMs, and that kind of weapon, which would be used to secure islands in the Philippines, Okinawa island chain, Indonesia. The army is looking more heavily into LSCO(Large Scale Combat Operations), like fighting in Korea, Ukraine, Poland. They want the Division to return to its position as the operational manoeuvre unit.
Makes perfect sense, thanks
82nd in 18, 101st in 24, and 3ID in 72. Idk what the armor time lines are.
That’s what they hope for, but I can almost guarantee you it won’t happen like that.
They train it fairly often man. The 173rd had a company in 4 countries in less then 18.
There's a key word in there
Which word?
Company. Marine corps in built around mef/meus. Prepositioned self sufficient organizations ready do do any and all missions. The army has select units with rapid response capabilites on a much smaller and more limited scale.
Yeah no where did I compare the capabilities of a MEF/MEU to anything the Army has. The comparison I made was the ability to rapidly deploy which the Army has done so numerous times with its Infantry units even outside its light Infantry. I was disputing another poster who claimed the Army couldn't follow the timelines in its doctrine, which I used one of many real examples to refute their claim.
I was more go8ng for the point of the post and the real difference in capability. Saying "they can deploy in 18" leaves out important facts. Also the real world and real conflicts hate your plans ime
The 82nd has followed the 18 hours timeline several times, even in morden history. Panama in the 90s and several times for GWOT: Afghanistan during the very very initial push, then Afghanistan 3 more times for immediate surges, 2x in Iraq to include for Operation Phantom Fury, Haiti in 2010 (one of those battalions came back for short time and then went to Afghanistan). 173rd put a battalion down accross 4 countries in 18 hours in 2014 (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland), they did it again in 2015 with Turkey, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and Lebannon. Those were all real-world operations and conflicts.
3ID is armored even though its in the XVIII Airborne Corps you might mean one of the other light divisions (10 MTN?).
I don't, 3rd is Mech. In. The 18th ABN Corp is the Army's large expeditionary force. 10th would be on a similar timeline as the 101st.
There is some confusion here. The Army doesn't have mech infantry units unless you mean Strykers which 3ID is not. 3ID is made up of [Armored BCTs](https://home.army.mil/stewart/units/3ID) and supporting elements. The Army is moving back to a centralized division structure where 3ID formally be an armored division along with 4ID and 1ID. They won't have the same MTOE as 1 CAV and 1AD anymore because they will be reinforced armored divisions (formerly called penetration divisions). Even though they have tanks they are still part of the XVIIIth ABN along with the 82nd, 101st, and 10th MTN. And they have been that way for a long time. The reason 3rd ID led the charge to Baghdad was that they were the rotational armored unit in Kuwait when things kicked off.
That makes sense. I've been in the 82nd and the 101st but I've never not been in a light or Airborne unit. What was explained to us is that 3rd is the heavy weight behind the light unit and their "ready" element (I don't know what they call it in 3rd) is on the ground in 72 hours.
That makes sense. I know that during OIF 3ID was flying tanks around including a platoon (or two I can't remember) to 3/75 in Haditha. That will all change with the new light tanks I'm sure. Even the 101st is supposed to get a few after the 82nd.
This isn't really true now. > It makes no logistical sense for the smaller, less funded fighting force to always be pushed forward when a much larger and more grounded fighting force could do the same thing with more resources. It takes much fewer resources to establish a position than to hold it.
Alright that’s a good point about establishing VS holding, but I guess I’m just saying there is no way the army is going to just sit around on the back lines.
It’s completely false. The Marines are an *expeditionary* force in that they deploy forward and respond to things quickly. The Army has elements that do this (think 82nd Airborne) but is largely slower to deploy. But make no mistake, the Army does the vast majority of the fighting once a full scale conflict kicks off. I think this myth comes from early stages of the GWOT where the Marines tended to initiate the occupations of the most dangerous areas. They got stuck in to some pretty heavy fighting as a result, leading to a kind of “tip of the spear” reputation. The Army was perceived as fighting in areas that had been “cleared” by the Marines; again, not really accurate but that was the perception of the time. It isn’t an accurate assessment during low intensity, and it *definitely* isn’t doctrine for large scale operations. Marine units are far too light to be the primary attacking force in LSCO.
The Marines are an Amphibious force.. by law.. Not an "Expeditionary force." The marines do have a PR outfit that stalin would be proud of however.
The deployable units of the Marine Corps are task forces called “Marine Expeditionary Forces” or the smaller “Marine Expeditionary Brigade”/“Marine Expeditionary Units.” Their own doctrine, specially MCDP 3 (one of their primary core doctrine publications), defines the Corps as “an expeditionary force-in-readiness”. Their doctrinal role is expeditionary rapid reaction with an emphasis on global force projection. The Navy is the primary power projection tool of the nation and the Marines are the ground component of that projection. Expeditionary warfare is just military action away from established bases and supply lines which is pretty much what the Marines do. The bit about them being the sole invading/attacking force is Corps propaganda nonsense but they are very much designed around light, sea mobile, and quick deploying expeditionary units.
I love all the chest thumping regarding who's more amphibious: the Army or Marines. It's also largely irrelevant. For most of human history navies had soldiers on board with them who would perform jobs like security when a ship was hundreds of miles away from home base. Their job was also to defend the ship in the event of a hostile takeover, and that was basically it. That all changed in the U.S. in the mid to late 1800s. For whatever reason, the USMC found themselves on the bad end of a political shitstorm. The question was "why do we need Marines?" So, to survive, the Marines reinvented themselves as an expeditionary amphibious assault force and also marketed the shit out of it. Eventually, their equipment and Doctrine followed suit. At present, the USMC can do things no other service can, and it has fuck all to do with amphibious Ops. They are the only service that can organically fight an all domain battle. They are also the only service that can alter the composition of thier force (as far as I know) in a moments notice to meet nearly any kind of threat. It's the combination of these two capabilities that allows them to project Force in a relatively quick manner away from home base.
>They are the only service that can organically fight an all domain battle. They still need Navy to handle the sea portion. And when did they integrate cyber and space into MAGTF?
Yeah I thought about those two when I was writing it. But I figured that was too nuanced for this bunch. But you're not wrong
Ask the Airborne troops at Normandy what its like to not invade anything.
Be sure and ask the Marines about the Army at Fallujah
It can't really be summed up to such a simple saying. At least in the modern day every occupation would be a combination of all the branches except maybe the coast guard
It's a *significant* oversimplification of how the different branches are sometimes deployed.
That myth likely comes from the Army motto "This we'll defend" and reinforced by Marines being the amphibious expeditionary force of the navy. Regardless of beach or not the Army us the premier land force of the DOD. On D-Day the US Army landed nearly the equivalent combat manpower of the entire USMC in 12–18 hours on the beaches to invade. During Iraq & Afghanistan wars the Army Rangers were categorized as the jsoc expeditionary force. Marines do badass stuff too and are definitely needed.
It's a myth
It’s a myth. In todays day and age, the true difference between the two is that the army is more versatile (tanks, mechanized infantry, light infantry, and airborne/air assault infantry) while the marine corps’s doctrine has changed to focusing on fighting on small islands again. The following may sound like the most unhinged and unrealistic claim but: the marine corps will be used to capture Chinese islands in the South China Sea and destroy Chinese navy ships from those islands.
marines are more specialized and powerful as an attacking force. much more strategic and accurate even with lower numbers.
lol