Of course it’s a true comparison, NG. In fact, it’s a comment on the very things you point out. Those differences are the reason for the stated preferences, IMO.
Now if you want to say it’s not a fair comparison…
Back in the day, most navies had a auxiliary force of “soldiers”. Their function was to fight as (or against) boarding parties in ship-to-ship combat which used to be a major part of naval warfare. They also served to quell mutinies among the sailors if necessary.
As time went by, naval battles stopped being decided by boarding parties and sailors got better working conditions so the traditional needs for marines was lessened. In most countries, the numbers of marines was reduced. But in the United States, the Marine Corps looked for a new mission to perform that other services were doing in order to maintain the need for their service.
The mission they decided on was contested amphibious assaults. Historically, most forces invading by sea tried to land in an area that was unoccupied by the enemy because an army was very disorganized during its landing and an enemy force could easily destroy it if they were able to attack them before they got organized.
The USMC decided it would be the first military force to figure out how to land troops directly in the face of enemy held territory. During the 1920’s and 1930’s they worked on this, made plans, practiced drills, built equipment, etc.
Then Pearl Harbor was bombed and the United States and Japan were at war. The Japanese occupied a number of Pacific islands and fortified them. So the United States needed a force that could attack enemy occupied islands. The marines had prepared themselves for exactly the type of combat that was now a major factor in a war. If the United States had gone to war with Germany or Russia in 1941, the marines probably would have been considered a secondary service in post-war history. But the marines were in the right place at the right time.
“other services were doing” should have been “other services weren’t doing”.
The old joke is that a standard US Army rifle squad consists of ten soldiers – a squad leader, two rifle team leaders, and a heavy and a light rifle team of four and three soldiers. On the other hand, a Marine rifle squad has eleven members – the same as the army, except the eleventh guy is a press agent.
There was a real danger in the post WWII years that Congress would disappear the USMC. In order to preserve them selves the Marines went on a real publicity binge to present them selves as an elite corps. It worked but it involved a lot of self deception along the way such that most Marines really think themselves members of an elite force.
Public relations aside the Army and the Marines have done most of their important and bloody work with conscripted forces. In 1944 whether you became a Marine or a dogface was largely a matter of which force need bodies the day you reported to the induction station.
No doubt, the brainwashing works for both the Marine and the general public, as well as the enemy forces. I would rather have 20 guys who really thought they were the best, instead of twenty guys of equal ability who had self-doubts. The psychological part of being a Marine is definitely a large part of what sets them (us) apart in many minds.
Another indisputable difference between the USA and the USMC is that there are a lot more soldiers than marines. The Army has 480,000 active members; the Marine Corps has 170,000 active members.
I knew about the USMC being “Marine Infantry”. I understand that they get their officers from Annapolis, same as the Navy.
-
If you went to Annapolis, at what point would you choose whether to be “Marine” or “Navy”? It’s the army and all that, but I imagine you can at least indicate preference.
-
In movies and books I see references to something called a “field commision” (which sounds like it’s a kind of “emergency promotion, to be confirmed or not later”) and something called “mustangs” (officers who have not gone to officer’s school, if I understand correctly). Are these still on? Is any of this something that used to happen way back when messages had to be carried by hand but has disappeared now?
Thanks 
There’s a danger in that, though - you don’t want warriors thinking they’re invincible. It’s not just a matter of underestimating the enemy. If troops are brought up to think that enemies will fold up and run at their approach, and instead encounter people willing and capable of fighting, the results on morale can be devestating.
Nava - IIRC, a “mustang” is an officer who started out as a private soldier and then later went though officer training - rather than one who started his military career as a cadet.
There are many sources for a Marine Officer, and the USNA is one (a small one). The sources include Navy ROTC (Marine Option), Officers Candidate Course (college grads “off the street”), Platoon Leaders Course (a course with college kids, but not ROTC style), and the Enlisted Commissioning Program, where active duty Enlisted Marines get college tuition and go through a similar course to NROTC. There may also be other sources.
Alessan, you are very right that believing you are “invincible” could be disasterous, as could be underestimating the enemy, which is why I did not say that, and it is not the case. Thinking and being told you are the United States’ elite fighting force, while at the same time being very well trained and disciplined does NOT lead to feelings of invincibility. Nearly everyone facing combat is very much aware of their own mortality.
<ahem>…Marines an all volunteer force…</ahem>
Old joke about the division of services,
Navy- Bombards the beach.
Marines- Takes the beach.
Army- Cleans up the beach and builds barracks.
Air Force- Lives in the barracks.
Mr. Goob, ex-navy.
I know Mr Kobayashi has already provided one link but here’s another giving a short historyof the Royal Marines
<ahem> …USMC used draftees in WWII and Vietnam…</ahem>
Thanks for the responses, all those options for “how to become an officer in the US Armed Forces” always leave me a bit crosseyed.
In Spain there used to be something similar to ROTC when there was compulsory service, but now officers are all career and all academy (noncoms get extra “points” for getting into the academies, but if they want to be an officer they have to go to the academy).
Cite? :dubious:
Here is a cite from Vietnam. Look at the seventh name, Mark James O’Brien.
I remember reading somewhere that they didn’t draft Marines until later in the war, but it did happen.
Okay. And thank you, Airman.
What about WW2?
Anybody want to get into a horribly detailed discussion of littoral warfare?
It’ll clear up a lot of questions concerning the difference between the Army and Marine Corps, but it will also bore the pants off of a lot of people.
Doesn’t get much more definitive than a USMC draftee Medal of Honor Winner in 1945… from a USMC website:
http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Historical/Whos_Who/Caddy_WR.htm
(see first sentence of third paragraph)