Basic training attrition rates.

[Desert_Rat]

Maybe things were different in 2008 than in 1989, but I can say that in 2008 all the above was not necessarily the case as zukieast stated.
Also, the Army has a tendency to get their deployments extended, almost all the time from what I hear. Marine units don't have that happen (unless I don't know about it).

In 94 we fired infantry weaps.(firearms)m-16,m-60,m-249,m9,.45,m203,threw grenades(1)

then on to MCT,I was a motor-t pog.we had to break ALL weaps down for time,then we fired them day and night.again m16,m9,m60,m249,.45,at-4,m2,mk19,m203

then on to the fleet,I was lucky enough to be in a 1st mardiv unit,all of the above at least monthly + drill on getting the guns up and running in the turrets,HMMWV,5 ton and LVS.the engage targets from turrets.
The m240g came along after I had been in the FMF for a few years.

[zukieast]

[steelrain82]

as far as the amphibious aspect. the army learned and had to be trained by the marines how to do it. the same thing with close air support. and if the marines werent so bad a@@ why would the army constantly try to get the marine corps disbanded. the marines are shock troops we are meant to come in beat the crap out of shore defenses, secure a beach head and than let the army take over. the army is meant for the extended fight and occupation. thats why they are an army not a corps. both groups have their jobs but the marines have adapted to help doing the armies role as well as maintaining their expiditionary role. every country/enemy that we have fought has always feared the Marine Corps and given them the utmost respect. the jihadists all want to kill americans and go get their virgins, but they are held in even greater esteem if they kill marines.

[M47_Dragon]

ready your history the army has done more amphibious operations than the Marine Corp[/B]

Say what now?

[dwa]

as far as the amphibious aspect. the army learned and had to be trained by the marines how to do it. citation needed

the same thing with close air support. and if the marines weren't so bad a@@ why would the army constantly try to get the marine corps disbanded.
When? the army's too busy trying to reinvent the Internet to disband something it has nothing to do with? however it will be hard to justify a large presence if the efv is not built after the current conflict (read a white paper on it

the marines are shock troops we are meant to come in beat the crap out of shore defenses, secure a beach head and than let the army take over.

yep and the army has done the same thing, you can be proud of your branch without over inflating what you do you mission is whatever your assign to do remember, you guys are flexible

the army is meant for the extended fight and occupation. that's why they are an army not a corps. both groups have their jobs but the marines have adapted to help doing the armies role as well as maintaining their expeditionary role. like how the army adapted to work with the marines in the pacific while maintain the ability to fight large battles in Europe?

every country/enemy that we have fought has always feared the Marine Corps and given them the utmost respect.

as they have most American units in general

the jihadists all want to kill Americans and go get their virgins, but they are held in even greater esteem if they kill marines. citation needed

so you cant say that you are good without putting others down,

when i was a pfc i was sweeping brass at the shoot house at schofield barracks Hawaii. we were sharing the sight with the marines, my buddy and i were talking about how it was funny that the army and marines talk **** about each other yet theres a marine in the next room over sweeping up brass, a marine e-5 overheard and came by to say he appreciated that.... thought that would have something to do with this conversation.

[dwa]

Say what now?

it really has, and im not trying to say i have a bigger ****. in addition to operations in Europe, the army was very active in the pacific and has more amphibious operations by nature of being much larger and involved everywhere. like how the navy has the most aircraft and the army had the most ships.

[dwa]

i forgot you have better commercials too. i dont think the army doesn't know who it is, it just doesn't do as good of PR, and nobody cares about buzzwords in the army. the marines provide a valuable service and both branches complement each other, the army also has a rapid deployment force as you stated and the marines have an expeditionary force, im sure if responsibilities where shifted either branch is more than capable than doing the others job as they have in the past.

[M47_Dragon]

it really has, and im not trying to say i have a bigger ****. in addition to operations in Europe, the army was very active in the pacific and has more amphibious operations by nature of being much larger and involved everywhere. like how the navy has the most aircraft and the army had the most ships.

I believe you are maybe referring to a particular time in history... the army has performed more amphibious operations in the last century. In the entire history of the United States, I think it is a different story.

And again, the army having more ships than the navy is a misleading statistic. The army had more ships in WWII, but the vast majority were supply ships. The navy, although fewer in sheer numbers, still had more warships than the army.

[dwa]

I believe you are maybe referring to a particular time in history... the army has performed more amphibious operations in the last century. In the entire history of the United States, I think it is a different story.

And again, the army having more ships than the navy is a misleading statistic. The army had more ships in WWII, but the vast majority were supply ships. The navy, although fewer in sheer numbers, still had more warships than the army.

i meant specifically ww2 but i didn't clarify. i did however say had more
ships, i meant it as another lil bit of history that would seem not to make sense.

[steelrain82]

so you cant say that you are good without putting others down,

when i was a pfc i was sweeping brass at the shoot house at schofield barracks Hawaii. we were sharing the sight with the marines, my buddy and i were talking about how it was funny that the army and marines talk **** about each other yet theres a marine in the next room over sweeping up brass, a marine e-5 overheard and came by to say he appreciated that.... thought that would have something to do with this conversation.

ill get those citations for you in a bit. and as far as hating on each other. im just trying to keep the rivalry going. the army has done more landings than the marines though. ill give them that. but after ww2 they abandoned the amphibious operations. the army has always felt what was the point of the corps. they should just be absorbed into the army. the army is trying to become more of an expeditionary army. the army didnt want the marines in europe or africa though. i dont remember he exact reason why but ill try to find that out as well

[dwa]

ill get those citations for you in a bit. and as far as hating on each other. im just trying to keep the rivalry going. the army has done more landings than the marines though. ill give them that. but after ww2 they abandoned the amphibious operations. the army has always felt what was the point of the corps. they should just be absorbed into the army. the army is trying to become more of an expeditionary army. the army didnt want the marines in europe or africa though. i dont remember he exact reason why but ill try to find that out as well

that is true the brigade combat team is a move toward that, i dont know of them being modeled after any marine formations but they are similar is structure.

i do have a question for you, if the efv doesn't get built do you think the corps with become much smaller? no efv mean no 40nm standoff to launch operation meaning no need for marine corps of current size.

[steelrain82]

i think with the politics involved both army and marines will get smaller again once the war is over. that just seems to be the cycle. but i think whether or not its built the marine corps will continue to function with what it has or find a cheaper more effective solution. hopefully the govt will finally realize we need a bigger army not a smaller one. and the Corps prides itself on being a small unit. if you look up fleet landing exercises, it shows that the marines and navy were conducting these and coming up with the manual. it wasnt till the end of the 30's when the first army unit trained with the marines to learn the doctrine which helped them during d-day and other landings.

[dwa]

i think with the politics involved both army and marines will get smaller again once the war is over. that just seems to be the cycle. but i think whether or not its built the marine corps will continue to function with what it has or find a cheaper more effective solution. hopefully the govt will finally realize we need a bigger army not a smaller one. and the Corps prides itself on being a small unit. if you look up fleet landing exercises, it shows that the marines and navy were conducting these and coming up with the manual. it wasnt till the end of the 30's when the first army unit trained with the marines to learn the doctrine which helped them during d-day and other landings.

were the seamen brigades involved? as i recall i believe the army was responsible for their training. without further researching i would have to say that the marines introduced what they had at the time to the army who evolved the doctrine to fit ther particular requirements as anyone would. if your looking for a read check out the alamo scouts and 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), the army in the pacific during ww2 doesn't really get talked about, not to take away from the marine and navy accomplishments.

[steelrain82]

from my understanding in he beginning the navy had some sailor companies but then gave way to the marines. the army and navy had to learn to conduct the land operation and bombardments like the army. but the army learned everything about the whole operation from the Corps. than they adjusted it to use their tactics. while the marines kept theirs. ill be honest i hate most ww2 stuff because its mainly about the army. its like we seem to forget we forgot about the japanese except for pearl harbor. but even when it is discussed your right the army is hardly discussed. kinda like korea. but then korea is the forgotten war. i like the movie the thin red line. thats about the army in the pacific.

[dwa]

from my understanding in he beginning the navy had some sailor companies but then gave way to the marines. the army and navy had to learn to conduct the land operation and bombardments like the army. but the army learned everything about the whole operation from the Corps. than they adjusted it to use their tactics. while the marines kept theirs. ill be honest i hate most ww2 stuff because its mainly about the army. its like we seem to forget we forgot about the japanese except for pearl harbor. but even when it is discussed your right the army is hardly discussed. kinda like korea. but then korea is the forgotten war. i like the movie the thin red line. thats about the army in the pacific.

well if its in Europe the army was the main force there and the pacific hardly mentions the army yet they were highly involved.

i think that Europe is discussed so much more because fdr was itching to get at the nazis before the war began and made it the priority over the pacific. to the credit of the marines navy and army they won a theater of war while being on the back burner so to speak.

the Japanese army while having some interesting organizations (they had their own carriers) was essentially a ww 1 army lacking modern weapons or doctrine. a good example of that is when the roosikies rolled up the much hyped kwantung army.