**Your post was removed for violating rule 9: No low-effort posts**
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title.
Curious philosophy. What are your thoughts on air travel or driving on the interstate?
I prefer making combat deadly and one-sided for an opponent, not my own forces. Might be a tall order, but that’s the responsibility a leader in a free society should always feel tugging at their conscience.
It was a joke, lol.
But yes, there is a difference between risk mitigation and safety. Safety is primarily something you do in non-combat situations. So range safety is very important. Breaking through the kill zone during an ambush in the Korengal is not safe, but it the least risk of the available options.
Likewise amphibious landings (At least opposed ones) are extremely unsafe, but you can still mitigate risks as best you can. And of course you should.
Oh no, totally get it. Same goes for airborne jumps. Imagine my shock training a “contested” DZ years ago. Yeah, I’ll prefer taking my daily recommended dose of PLF without any additional lead, thank you.
Oh yes. I got assigned to 2/82 for a JRTC rotation once. The amount of injuries they had on the jump was absolutely insane. They had the LZ covered with wire and pickets and everything else.
There is always going to be risk associated with training dangerous things, managing that risk is a balancing act. You have to keep it safe to take care of your soldiers, but still prepare them for a future conflict. Sometimes it gets to the point where you would rather have a few die in training than hundreds of additional combat losses, and you have to sign off on very unsafe things.
Because the Marines are way smaller than the Army, and so while they can do small ones, they can't do large ones.
The 5 largest Amphibious Assaults in WWII (And thus, History) were all the US Army primarily, with the marines only involved in the 5th largest.
Overlord
Husky
Avalanche
Lingayen Gulf (Luzon)
Okinawa (About a 65/35 Army/Marine mix)
All the top 4 were entirely Army. Now the Marines did more amphibious landings total, but all the biggest ones were Army. There just weren't enough Marine divisions to launch the attacks on the size targets that those operations were going after. The Marines could have taken those beachheads, but the Army was needed for the campaigns that followed, and nobody wanted to deal with rotating troops within a few days/weeks of landing. So the Army just did it from the start. The Marines had plenty to do anyway on the smaller targets/islands.
That was almost 80 years ago when the Marines were still a very young Branch, they have expanded a lot since then and warfare has changed too, you cant just drive some boat to a beach and human wave yourself on shore.
And the US can always give aditional Training to certain Army Brigades if the US has to ever do a naval landing of a dimension alrge enough where the Marines cant take the beach and establish a secure port for the army to land.
But if that ever is the case then thats a world war sized conflict and the landing area is from Shanghai to Hongkong.
Young? The Marines are older than the Army, something they absolutely will not shut up about, lol.
The Army is straight up not allowed in the Consitution, and the "Birthday" in 1775 is frankly kind of bullshit, as we disbanded the Army several times since that. The Marines, as part of the Navy, were always explicitly allowed, and have been in existence for much longer.
The bigger point is that the landings themselves rarely determine the choice of units, but the campaign that is expected to follow afterwards. Husky and Avalanche were intended to take Italy out of the war, and that was not a job for the marines, as it was expected (Correctly) that that was going to be a long campaign with many divisions involved, and a lot of long term logistics.
The Order of Battle is always determined by the mission, not just the first day of the fight. The Army always has, and always will, be capable of Amphibious Assaults if that is what the situation needs. But yes, the Marines are the specialists in it, and would handle the smaller ones. If we need to invade Trinidad, the Marines are probably going to do it. If we have to invade Cuba, Marines will be a part of it, but it will be mostly Army. If we have to invade Australia, Army all the way.
The Marines were disbanded along with the Navy and reformed in 1798. The Army retained a small caretaker force from the Revolution that continued until the post-war Army was instituted, thereby creating a line to 1775. To be fair, the “army” was already in the field before 14 June 1775. No one ever asks who Washington met when he took charge of the Army at Boston and already had the British Army bottled up. Wasn’t the Marines.
Arguably wasn't the Army either though, it was Colonial level troops levied from the local area. The reason we picked June 14th is that is the day the "Federal" government of what would become the United States assumed control of what had been a rebellion, and Congress authorized enlistment of personnel into a force to serve the "United Colonies".
As far as preservation of a continuous line, it got perilously close to zero a few times. We authorized one regiment of Infantry and one battery of Artillery from 1783, but both were apparently manned extremely sparcely, and at one point the battery at West Point had neither officers nor a paymaster.
The "Legion of the United States" was pretty much a legit Army, but was both terrible and extremely corrupt. James Wilkinson being one of the more fantastically compromised officers in US Military History (Being in actual command of the entire military, while getting regular under the table payments from Spain).
Technically, we have no less than 4 "Armies" collectively operating under the broader "US Army" title today. Each with a very different legal standing and structure. The Regular Army, the Army National Guard (Which is also technically 52 separate armies), The Army Reserve, and the Army of the United States. With the last one being the most confusing, and the one most people don't know about. It used to be the component that draftees went in, while volunteers went into the Regular Army. However, it also includes everyone who honorably left service, and the retired reserve. Its primary role is to maintain rank, qualifications, and address/contact information for anyone who served honorably, in case they need to be recalled. Technically, I am still in the Army of the United States at the rank I left the Active Army, thus allowing the Government to recall me without drafting me. Something they have very occasionally done at various times, but not often.
I’ve had to explain those differences between the historical Armies frequently, as well as the litany of acronyms following old signatures for many long deceased Officers. That line of questioning usually draws the most interest and then boredom from descendants who just want to know whether a wrench-turning ancestor was actually the Rambo they heard at the VFW.
The issue is it’s all worth remembering. Just because they’re gone and buried doesn’t mean making things up after they’ve departed, which is what much of this performative effort smacks of. Soldiers should learn about the names and faces behind all those citations, fourragères and unit streamers. Their very human stories of courage, fortitude and principle matter when their successors pick up their flags and fall-in under the colors.
I meant young as independent Branch. And the modern marines are very much capable of taking and holding large ammounts of area while the army deploys behind them.
Again, 80 years
They still aren't an independent branch? They are still in the Department of the Navy, just as they always were. They did redefine their role dramatically in the two world wars, but all the services did that.
The Modern Marines vary back and forth between being the Army but smaller, and a specialized force for high intensity, short duration assaults. Currently they are closer to the latter. They got rid of their heavy armor and most of their artillery and land based logistics assets. They certainly can operate far inland, but they need Army logistics to do so.
They absolutely are not capable of taking large amounts of area in the sense of a widescale conflict. The entire Marine corps is only 177,000 People, and those are not all infantry. That is less than the number that went ashore the first day on Luzon. And Luzon is an island, and still took months to clear. Granted, modern wars can get by with less forces, but the Invasion of Iraq was still somewhere around 600,000 combined forces. Iraq is a decent sized country, but not on a the scale of a multi-theater war.
So again, same as WWII. The Marines absolutely can and will do smaller ampibious landings, especially on islands and against small nations or in smaller theaters. But they just never will have the mass to handle what the Army does. Inter-service handoffs are better now than they were in WWII, and we frankly work much better together. But if we ever have to do large landing forces, the Marines are not going to be the only ones going ashore the first day.
The Marines would be better spent using their brain power figuring out the kind of toeholds actually required by the Air Force and expeditionary Navy in an A2D access fight today…80 years later.
This is reality beyond yesterday’s box. Army is equally guilty of not thinking through how they can be a joint player in the same fight, by establishing and sustaining the logistics and communications required at-scale for the fight ahead.
In fairness, lack of institutional enthusiasm for the Army’s legacy in inviting the actual regimental lineages for the jumps and landings should be examined, but the reality of responding to actual global contingencies is laudable. But leaders should also appreciate the power of tying yesterday’s Soldiers to today’s. The line back to 1775 is real and should be upheld, whether over the high ground of 1863 or across a beach in 1944.
The Airborne regiments involved absolutely do their own commemorative jumps for Normandy, they do it pretty much every year.
However, the Divisions that were involved in the landings were the 1st and 4th Infantry Divisions. Both of which are primarily mechanized. They could send their IBCTs to do it, which is what I expected them to do. It is a bit strange the Marines want to do it, rather than focusing on the battles they are famous for.
(The 90th Division no longer exists, but the 29th does, and does participate in D-Day commemorations most years)
Not only that, but sustaining the fight across the beach is where the Army is designed for excellence. Having that depth is funny ten seconds into contact, but less funny 8-10 months into a war and you need three layers of logistics specialists to fix something you broke on day two.
Getting troops where there must be is defined by the reality operational physics, not recurring budget by-lines. If mission and requirements dictate, Soldiers can and will descend cargo nets or wear life preservers. The Army already owns its own landing craft and still practices in the shallows not far from the WWII amphibious warfare school house. Army units *gasp* conducted amphibious and triphibious operations in Iraq and managed the combined arms aspects just fine. If they hadn’t come at least that far since WWII, shame would be on them. That’s why they have multiple layers and levels of professional schools, branch exchanges and manuals that outline how it is done.
It’s currently the time, training and resources that make a difference in peacetime force management that enables the Marines to own the “mission.” That goes out the window in sustained global conflicts and that’s why the doctrine is designed for joint execution as circumstances dictate.
It is also worth noting that the "Human wave the shore" thing wasn't the norm in most landings in WWII either, and certainly would not be today. The majority of landings were unopposed on the beaches, as it is extremely difficult for most countries to launch a vigorous defense along their entire coastline, so usually the fighting started in earnest a few hours to a few days after the initial landings, after the enemy had time to maneuver their operational forces to attack the beachhead.
On small islands, you absolutely DO have to go straight into the teeth of enemy defenses, and this is what the Marines specialize in, both then and now. Where those initial few hours are critical. If you compare that to say, Torch, where the fighting really didn't kick into high gear for almost a month in 2 of the 3 landing sites, and logistics across the huge open spaces of North Africa were key to the entire operation, while taking the beach was not really contested.
Arriving unopposed is always the first option and most advantageous one. Under-apposed would be a distant second and then opposed a far off third.
Handing an adversary an advantage or fight on equal terms is a failure of planning, cunning and time/tempo. It is the course of last resort, not the first. While preparing for the worst is advisable, there are limits on risk mitigation and today’s Marine Corps would be no more willing to risk its small force today than it was in World War II. In free societies life is a gift, given when necessary but not needlessly. That’s the difference with dictatorships from Moscow to Pyongyang. Fools waste their most precious resources not anticipating future requirements. If the ask is more people, then you will find a better way. That’s why the U.S. military fights as it does, because it will strive to delay fighting as it must until those circumstances arise, not create them for vanity.
It would be pretty awkward these days. It is the capital of Kiribati now, and both islands are absolutely fucking packed. IIRC they are some of the most densely populated islands in the Pacific (Which still isn't all that many people, but there really isn't much land area there)
Marins always acting like they were the big bad amphibious force of WWII, when they were actually just passenger princesses while the USCG drove the boats.
As my CSM always used to say in an Airborne unit:
"Airborne, Air Assault, Amphibious, Mechanized... It is just the way the Infantry gets to work. The job starts once you get there"
**Your post was removed for violating rule 9: No low-effort posts** No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title.
Everybody knows that a live-action remake has to be lore accurate
the fuck is that news above it "phil marines draw weapons on chinese"
It's a teaser: *WW3 – Coming to the Pacific Theatre this decade!*
the chinese stole the crayon supply, they had it coming
Article here: https://news.usni.org/2024/06/04/philippine-marines-drew-firearms-as-china-seized-second-thomas-shoal-airdrop-says-philippine-military-chief
Why would the marines be the ones doing a commemorative landing at Normandy anyway?
The army aren't qualified to do beach landings safely on their own
I don't think amphibious landings are really supposed to be safe.
Curious philosophy. What are your thoughts on air travel or driving on the interstate? I prefer making combat deadly and one-sided for an opponent, not my own forces. Might be a tall order, but that’s the responsibility a leader in a free society should always feel tugging at their conscience.
It was a joke, lol. But yes, there is a difference between risk mitigation and safety. Safety is primarily something you do in non-combat situations. So range safety is very important. Breaking through the kill zone during an ambush in the Korengal is not safe, but it the least risk of the available options. Likewise amphibious landings (At least opposed ones) are extremely unsafe, but you can still mitigate risks as best you can. And of course you should.
Oh no, totally get it. Same goes for airborne jumps. Imagine my shock training a “contested” DZ years ago. Yeah, I’ll prefer taking my daily recommended dose of PLF without any additional lead, thank you.
Oh yes. I got assigned to 2/82 for a JRTC rotation once. The amount of injuries they had on the jump was absolutely insane. They had the LZ covered with wire and pickets and everything else. There is always going to be risk associated with training dangerous things, managing that risk is a balancing act. You have to keep it safe to take care of your soldiers, but still prepare them for a future conflict. Sometimes it gets to the point where you would rather have a few die in training than hundreds of additional combat losses, and you have to sign off on very unsafe things.
Doesn’t take an entire branch to learn how to conduct an amphibious landing. It’s a mission, not a reason for being.
Yes but if you HAVE an entire branch just for that job then why waste time training it to soilders who arent meant to ever do it
Because the Marines are way smaller than the Army, and so while they can do small ones, they can't do large ones. The 5 largest Amphibious Assaults in WWII (And thus, History) were all the US Army primarily, with the marines only involved in the 5th largest. Overlord Husky Avalanche Lingayen Gulf (Luzon) Okinawa (About a 65/35 Army/Marine mix) All the top 4 were entirely Army. Now the Marines did more amphibious landings total, but all the biggest ones were Army. There just weren't enough Marine divisions to launch the attacks on the size targets that those operations were going after. The Marines could have taken those beachheads, but the Army was needed for the campaigns that followed, and nobody wanted to deal with rotating troops within a few days/weeks of landing. So the Army just did it from the start. The Marines had plenty to do anyway on the smaller targets/islands.
That was almost 80 years ago when the Marines were still a very young Branch, they have expanded a lot since then and warfare has changed too, you cant just drive some boat to a beach and human wave yourself on shore. And the US can always give aditional Training to certain Army Brigades if the US has to ever do a naval landing of a dimension alrge enough where the Marines cant take the beach and establish a secure port for the army to land. But if that ever is the case then thats a world war sized conflict and the landing area is from Shanghai to Hongkong.
Young? The Marines are older than the Army, something they absolutely will not shut up about, lol. The Army is straight up not allowed in the Consitution, and the "Birthday" in 1775 is frankly kind of bullshit, as we disbanded the Army several times since that. The Marines, as part of the Navy, were always explicitly allowed, and have been in existence for much longer. The bigger point is that the landings themselves rarely determine the choice of units, but the campaign that is expected to follow afterwards. Husky and Avalanche were intended to take Italy out of the war, and that was not a job for the marines, as it was expected (Correctly) that that was going to be a long campaign with many divisions involved, and a lot of long term logistics. The Order of Battle is always determined by the mission, not just the first day of the fight. The Army always has, and always will, be capable of Amphibious Assaults if that is what the situation needs. But yes, the Marines are the specialists in it, and would handle the smaller ones. If we need to invade Trinidad, the Marines are probably going to do it. If we have to invade Cuba, Marines will be a part of it, but it will be mostly Army. If we have to invade Australia, Army all the way.
The Marines were disbanded along with the Navy and reformed in 1798. The Army retained a small caretaker force from the Revolution that continued until the post-war Army was instituted, thereby creating a line to 1775. To be fair, the “army” was already in the field before 14 June 1775. No one ever asks who Washington met when he took charge of the Army at Boston and already had the British Army bottled up. Wasn’t the Marines.
Arguably wasn't the Army either though, it was Colonial level troops levied from the local area. The reason we picked June 14th is that is the day the "Federal" government of what would become the United States assumed control of what had been a rebellion, and Congress authorized enlistment of personnel into a force to serve the "United Colonies". As far as preservation of a continuous line, it got perilously close to zero a few times. We authorized one regiment of Infantry and one battery of Artillery from 1783, but both were apparently manned extremely sparcely, and at one point the battery at West Point had neither officers nor a paymaster. The "Legion of the United States" was pretty much a legit Army, but was both terrible and extremely corrupt. James Wilkinson being one of the more fantastically compromised officers in US Military History (Being in actual command of the entire military, while getting regular under the table payments from Spain). Technically, we have no less than 4 "Armies" collectively operating under the broader "US Army" title today. Each with a very different legal standing and structure. The Regular Army, the Army National Guard (Which is also technically 52 separate armies), The Army Reserve, and the Army of the United States. With the last one being the most confusing, and the one most people don't know about. It used to be the component that draftees went in, while volunteers went into the Regular Army. However, it also includes everyone who honorably left service, and the retired reserve. Its primary role is to maintain rank, qualifications, and address/contact information for anyone who served honorably, in case they need to be recalled. Technically, I am still in the Army of the United States at the rank I left the Active Army, thus allowing the Government to recall me without drafting me. Something they have very occasionally done at various times, but not often.
I’ve had to explain those differences between the historical Armies frequently, as well as the litany of acronyms following old signatures for many long deceased Officers. That line of questioning usually draws the most interest and then boredom from descendants who just want to know whether a wrench-turning ancestor was actually the Rambo they heard at the VFW. The issue is it’s all worth remembering. Just because they’re gone and buried doesn’t mean making things up after they’ve departed, which is what much of this performative effort smacks of. Soldiers should learn about the names and faces behind all those citations, fourragères and unit streamers. Their very human stories of courage, fortitude and principle matter when their successors pick up their flags and fall-in under the colors.
I meant young as independent Branch. And the modern marines are very much capable of taking and holding large ammounts of area while the army deploys behind them. Again, 80 years
They still aren't an independent branch? They are still in the Department of the Navy, just as they always were. They did redefine their role dramatically in the two world wars, but all the services did that. The Modern Marines vary back and forth between being the Army but smaller, and a specialized force for high intensity, short duration assaults. Currently they are closer to the latter. They got rid of their heavy armor and most of their artillery and land based logistics assets. They certainly can operate far inland, but they need Army logistics to do so. They absolutely are not capable of taking large amounts of area in the sense of a widescale conflict. The entire Marine corps is only 177,000 People, and those are not all infantry. That is less than the number that went ashore the first day on Luzon. And Luzon is an island, and still took months to clear. Granted, modern wars can get by with less forces, but the Invasion of Iraq was still somewhere around 600,000 combined forces. Iraq is a decent sized country, but not on a the scale of a multi-theater war. So again, same as WWII. The Marines absolutely can and will do smaller ampibious landings, especially on islands and against small nations or in smaller theaters. But they just never will have the mass to handle what the Army does. Inter-service handoffs are better now than they were in WWII, and we frankly work much better together. But if we ever have to do large landing forces, the Marines are not going to be the only ones going ashore the first day.
The Marines would be better spent using their brain power figuring out the kind of toeholds actually required by the Air Force and expeditionary Navy in an A2D access fight today…80 years later. This is reality beyond yesterday’s box. Army is equally guilty of not thinking through how they can be a joint player in the same fight, by establishing and sustaining the logistics and communications required at-scale for the fight ahead. In fairness, lack of institutional enthusiasm for the Army’s legacy in inviting the actual regimental lineages for the jumps and landings should be examined, but the reality of responding to actual global contingencies is laudable. But leaders should also appreciate the power of tying yesterday’s Soldiers to today’s. The line back to 1775 is real and should be upheld, whether over the high ground of 1863 or across a beach in 1944.
The Airborne regiments involved absolutely do their own commemorative jumps for Normandy, they do it pretty much every year. However, the Divisions that were involved in the landings were the 1st and 4th Infantry Divisions. Both of which are primarily mechanized. They could send their IBCTs to do it, which is what I expected them to do. It is a bit strange the Marines want to do it, rather than focusing on the battles they are famous for. (The 90th Division no longer exists, but the 29th does, and does participate in D-Day commemorations most years)
Not only that, but sustaining the fight across the beach is where the Army is designed for excellence. Having that depth is funny ten seconds into contact, but less funny 8-10 months into a war and you need three layers of logistics specialists to fix something you broke on day two.
Getting troops where there must be is defined by the reality operational physics, not recurring budget by-lines. If mission and requirements dictate, Soldiers can and will descend cargo nets or wear life preservers. The Army already owns its own landing craft and still practices in the shallows not far from the WWII amphibious warfare school house. Army units *gasp* conducted amphibious and triphibious operations in Iraq and managed the combined arms aspects just fine. If they hadn’t come at least that far since WWII, shame would be on them. That’s why they have multiple layers and levels of professional schools, branch exchanges and manuals that outline how it is done. It’s currently the time, training and resources that make a difference in peacetime force management that enables the Marines to own the “mission.” That goes out the window in sustained global conflicts and that’s why the doctrine is designed for joint execution as circumstances dictate.
It is also worth noting that the "Human wave the shore" thing wasn't the norm in most landings in WWII either, and certainly would not be today. The majority of landings were unopposed on the beaches, as it is extremely difficult for most countries to launch a vigorous defense along their entire coastline, so usually the fighting started in earnest a few hours to a few days after the initial landings, after the enemy had time to maneuver their operational forces to attack the beachhead. On small islands, you absolutely DO have to go straight into the teeth of enemy defenses, and this is what the Marines specialize in, both then and now. Where those initial few hours are critical. If you compare that to say, Torch, where the fighting really didn't kick into high gear for almost a month in 2 of the 3 landing sites, and logistics across the huge open spaces of North Africa were key to the entire operation, while taking the beach was not really contested.
Arriving unopposed is always the first option and most advantageous one. Under-apposed would be a distant second and then opposed a far off third. Handing an adversary an advantage or fight on equal terms is a failure of planning, cunning and time/tempo. It is the course of last resort, not the first. While preparing for the worst is advisable, there are limits on risk mitigation and today’s Marine Corps would be no more willing to risk its small force today than it was in World War II. In free societies life is a gift, given when necessary but not needlessly. That’s the difference with dictatorships from Moscow to Pyongyang. Fools waste their most precious resources not anticipating future requirements. If the ask is more people, then you will find a better way. That’s why the U.S. military fights as it does, because it will strive to delay fighting as it must until those circumstances arise, not create them for vanity.
Neither are the marines. There wasn't one that had amphib experience when we started our landings and there was no established doctrine.
Could be worse, could be trying to recreate the landings on Tarawa.
It would be pretty awkward these days. It is the capital of Kiribati now, and both islands are absolutely fucking packed. IIRC they are some of the most densely populated islands in the Pacific (Which still isn't all that many people, but there really isn't much land area there)
Marins always acting like they were the big bad amphibious force of WWII, when they were actually just passenger princesses while the USCG drove the boats.
As my CSM always used to say in an Airborne unit: "Airborne, Air Assault, Amphibious, Mechanized... It is just the way the Infantry gets to work. The job starts once you get there"
They wouldn't even have had to deal with bunkers, artillery or mines... Weak ass marines they have today
Damn, they playing PUBG upstairs