There's the old slogan 'Marines aren't made at Quantico'. I'm not saying, since I don't rate for that, but passing it along.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_the_Navy

"The United States Department of the Navy was established by an Act of Congress on April 30, 1798, to provide administrative and technical support, and civilian leadership to the United States Navy."

Also

"The highest ranking military officers in the department are the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps"

They are peers. The Commandant DOES report to the Secretary of the Navy, but only because the Marine Corps is a Naval branch, not a Navy component.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy

"The War Department administered naval affairs from that year until Congress established the Department of the Navy on April 30, 1798. The Navy became part of the Department of Defense upon its establishment in 1947."

The Navy is now under the Department of Defense, but is also PART OF the Department of the Navy, demonstrated as such

"Military Departments
Department of the Army including the U.S. Army
Department of the Navy including the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps
Department of the Air Force including the U.S. Air Force"

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense

So things can be under the Navy, and technically but not literally under the Department of the Navy, or be under the department of the Navy and have little to do with the Navy. As well, something can be under the Department of Defense and have absolutely nothing to do with the Navy.

See what I mean?

Yeah, it bugged me having some Jarhead tell me that a vietnam era M-16 was an M-16A2 that is currently issued, even with a plaque right next to them stating otherwise.

Well, of course something can be under DoD and have nothing to do with the Navy. You lost me at "Something being under the Navy but not under the DoN" bit, wouldn't the DoN encompass anything touching the Navy? Anyway, I had always understood the Departments as branches, and below them are operation/uniformed services.

Delta is part of it's own branch.

Delta is Army, but they have a very special status that allows them to operate free of regular Army command.

They are under SOCOM.
They answer to the president.

SOCOM is the branch that Delta operates under, yes, but all SOCOM units (SEALs, Delta, etc...) can be tapped by their parent branch, likewise, many units in the conventional branches (especially Army Rangers) can be and are often tapped by SOCOM.

SOCOM is not a branch. SOCOMs are specific Speical Operations elements of the branches. USSOCOM or USSOC are the overseers of these various SOCOMs, and are the Joint Command if SOFs from different branches are used in the same operation.

For example, if Marine Detachment One needed support from a SEAL team, neither Navy nor Marine SOCOM would be used, but the USSOCOM would become the SOCOM.

It's kind of upside down.

I see. I always thought it was a little more established. I guess it having a fluid structure makes sense.

thats crazy a vietnam vet was saying that they used A2's...

My senior drill (a former marine) says he always catches people in lies about what there military career was since they all want to say they were the highspeed SF unit or whatever when they were no more then a communications specialist or something gay. Saying that they used anything but m16/m16a1 in vietnam is so ludicrous and just out right wrong. Anyways the Army now uses M4 Carbines and in basic training we used m16A4s. I have never seen or used an A2.

Huh, the Marines still use A2s in boot. I am out of the loop on Army stuff, I guess.

One of the guys who just got back said it was the scariest thing when he realized that he had to use his own rifle for range quals. He kept thinking about all the times is Drill Instructor threw his rifle down the squad bay. He was company high shooter though, so I guess it worked out.

Not quite. There is a difference between "breecher" and "first responder". Breechers are offensive and create openings for the main attack force. This is Marines, though sometimes they are the main attack force too. First responders are usually defensive and are meant to stall an enemy until reinforcements come. That is the main role of the 82nd Airborne, though they can act as breechers as well if they need to.

The Marines are usaully the first to respond in force because they have forces at sea, read to go all the time, and they have preposistioned supplies to further support those efforts. The Army take more time to perpare and mobilize it's forces. They'll then establish a beach head that the other forces will come in and use.

That is, after they clean up the mess that the Marines left.

Yeah, that's what I meant. That was a little out of order. Marines kick in the door, establish a forward area to use for landing supplies and other troops (from other branches), then the Army comes in and takes over majpr operations.

Err...I will say that Marines are usually the first in, but they handle smaller problems, being forward deployed and all.

It costs a lot of money and time to send out other units.

If the situation is really dire, they'll send 82nd, maybe even Rangers.

War time: the Marines hit the beaches, but when the Army arrives, that's when the rest of the work gets done.

It bugs me when I hear Marines say first to fight. If it's a big deal leading to a war, and Marines are going in, chances are someone else was there long before. Say...SEALs, or SF.

Gunfire is gunfire. That is such a generalization of campaigns though, all campaigns are different. Marines have done operations with only the support of the Navy to get them there and the Army to fly them around.



Uh, what? You make it seem like the Rangers are the end all unit. They aren't, they are good at what they do. Units are sent to do what they do.



Do you watch the news? That isn't how it works in Iraq.



SEALS and SF don't fight wars. SEALS and SF prevent wars and prepare for them. Marines are the first to fight in invasions and major offensives. Marine Detachment One IS an SF unit, and does some SEAL work, though they aren't as skilled or specialized in those missions.

Ever read about Iwo Jima? Guadalcanal? Grenada?

I don't see why it should 'bug' you though.

The SEALs we inserted and extracted all the time in Iraq seemed to be fighting the war.
Same thing for the SF guys that my company pulled security for on the last deployment.

Marines are used in low-intensity, quick tempo ops. In and out. Or they are used as a force multiplier. The Corps can win battles. The Army wins wars. That was from a Marine Corps Commandant.





No, they are not an end all unit. But they are really good at what they do. They can also be anywhere in the world within 18 hours. Including landlocked countries that your beloved Corps couldn't get to for quite some time.





Yeah, the Rangers, SF, SEALs, AF CCs and PRs are all doing things we don't hear about. 60% of all manpower in Iraq is Army Reserve or NG. The other largest group is Active Army. I don't know where you are going with this.





Umm...your landings wouldn't go so hot unless you had SEALs. That was their original mission, you know, to make sure you guys could get on a beach in one piece. SF doesn't fight wars? Special Forces was by far the largest and main ground component of Enduring Freedom, pre-victory. After that, Army light infantry has been policing the area. Very few Marines got to do anything in Afghanistan. SEALs have also been more than pulling their weight in both areas. Marine Det One? You mean all 80-90 of them right now?





Iwo Jima? Yeah, the Army was fighting the larger, harder, and more important war in Europe at that time, against a world class opponent with technologically superior equipment, and in most areas, better trained troops.

Guadalcanal? You mean the island the Army eventually took after the Marines were sick and starving?

Grenada I can somewhat give to you, since the Air Force royally screwed the Army. Even then, the Rangers were sent in to take key government facilities AND the local military elites.


I just think you guys don't realize that you don't walk on water, and that you guys are not the reason we win our wars. It's a team effort, but a lot of Marines I know will tell you otherwise.

I doubt you'd find Marines deep inland. That's not what they do. That's what the Airborne is for.

That's my point.

In what case are they first to fight there?

Do you not call what happened in Afghanistan a war?

THe SF in Afanghanistan were working with and training local forces, There were regular units there as well.

Not many. Those that were were still Army light infantry units. Namely units from the 10th Mtn and 82nd Airborne.

To say all the SF did was work with locals is insane. Some of the stuff we won't hear about for quite some time.

I can't find the story on the net, but an 8 man group, 7 SF and one AF CC, brought down hell on 800+ Taliban, through small arms fire and ARCLIGHTs.

http://www.specialoperations.com/Army/Special_Forces/Unit_Profile.htm

Note in Capabilities, the last statement. SF are more than capable in infantry combat. Infiltration, seek and destroy, etc. They didn't get their good rep for any other reason.

While they do a lot of work with indigenous personnel (wait, maybe these big words will confuse jarheads), they are known to be able to accomplish combat missions that are high risk, low footprint required.

Of cousre. That's their job. I'm not arguing that.

So, then you're arguing that spec ops didn't do a bulk of the fighting in Afghanistan then?

I'm sure they were involved in a lot of it, but they aren't big enough units to do major fighting, unless they are embedding with local forces. That's what the 10th Mountain and the Rangers were there for.

Well, multiple A-Teams were cave hunting and calling in air strikes. True, while Rangers and 10th did this, SF did so much stuff over there. Parts of 3 SF Groups were there until the Northern Alliance took control.

edited for stat correction