Forums

I began typing this in a reply to V's post on Belleau Wood but didn't want to take her great post taken down this rabbit hole.

Many people ask what the difference between the Marines and the army is. Aside from the obvious differences in mission statements, there are certain fundamental differences in the way Marines and soldiers think that set us (the Marines - I'm a Marine captain for those just joining us) apart. The importance of institutional history is one of those major differences.

As you know, I'm a history nut - especially when it comes to WWII. The Marine Corps, as an organization, is obsessed its history as well. This is an important thing that separates the Marine Corps from the other services - and makes us such an effective fighting force. Chapters of the recruit "knowledge" (the two books given to recruits at boot camp with everything they will need to know by graduation) are devoted to the Marine's history. Every Gyrene who enters the Corps at San Diego, Parris Island, or Quantico imbued with a deep respect for all of those who have come before and can rattle off the names of famous Marines in our history. Ask any Marine who the only two Marines to have been awarded two Medals of Honor and I would be surprised if you don't get an immediate, accurate response (Semedly Butler and Dan Daly.) The effect this has is a feeling of belonging to an organization and the desire (for most) to ensure that each individual's conduct honors those who have come before.

In my own biased opinion, I think it is in the best interest of the United States Army to embrace this devotion to past history. There is no other group such as the one currently reading this who knows better the great history of the US Army. Why is it that most soldiers don't know it? Admittedly this is an anecdotal incident, but this happened to me in Iraq. I met a soldier wearing the shoulder sleeve insignia (SSI) of the 90th infantry division in line for chow. Recognizing the patch from an article I had read about the 90th, I asked his unit. He said he was part of the 120th Engineers, a unit that shared our base. [i was told this was a reserve unit out of Oklahoma but I cannot currently find anything about a 120 CE unit that wears the 90th patch. There is a 120th CE that wears the SSI of the 45th ID which I believe we are all pretty familiar with. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, however that the patch he was wearing was this one:

The odd thing is that the 90th was deactivated in December of 1945.] I said, "'Tough Hombres,' huh?" And he had no idea what I was talking about. Thinking that this may have been a bit arcane a reference, I said, "your patch, 90th infantry right?" He told me, "oh no, I'm with the 120th Engineers." I proceeded to tell him a little bit of the history behind the patch he was wearing and he was clueless. I don't believe that all soldiers are this historically ignorant, but there is in no way the emphasis on history in the army as there is in the Marines. Most soldiers in combat arms units do have a sense of history but the emphasis is on the unit vice the army as a whole. You can see this when you pass through any large army town. In Fayetteville, home of Fort Bragg, you see bumpers plastered with 82nd Airborne stickers as far as the eye can see. I assume Fort Campbell would be the same but with Moose's 101st Airborne stickers vice the 82nd. You also get soldiers who cloister themselves not within a unit but within their branch (military occupation specialty [MOS] - infantry, MP, tanks, quartermaster, signals, etc.) In Fort Sill (Lawton, OK) you see car after car with Artillery bumper stickers. Fort Leonard Wood would have stickers for MP's, Chemical Warfare Defense, and some others. Perhaps the Corps does a better job of making ever Marine a basic Marine historical scholar due to its smaller size, but the difference is there. You can even see it in many of the commercials. One of my favorites was where the guy was climbing the cliff (no, not to fight the lava monster!) and he was helped up to the top by a near-ghostly image of a WWII leatherneck. Since I started paying attention to army commercials after the awful "Army of One" campaign, I think I have only seen one that appeals to prospective applicants on the level of the great history associated with the army. That was a great commercial, unfortunately, I saw only the one. The current "Army Strong" ads are not bad, but once again, they don't mention the army illustrious past. Making this change, I think, could imbue in the basic soldier a stronger connection not only with the army's past, but with other soldiers in general. Furthermore, it could foster a more martial spirit amongst the army troops that are not combat arms. We all saw the tragedy of the 507th Maintenance Company when it was ambushed in An Nasiriyah. I haven't spent a lot of time around these types of units but I am told that the attitude is (especially before Iraq) that they are rear echelon troops and simply not very proficient when it comes to fighting. Another thing all Marines are taught during bootcamp is that "every Marine is a basic rifleman" (although after 12 weeks of cleaning everything in sight for 16 hours a day people have often said a "basic janitor" is more appropriate!) After bootcamp, every Marine gets an additional 4 weeks of infantry training at Marine Combat Training. On the officer side, there is a 23 week program following commissioning (The Basic School – TBS) that teaches basic infantry platoon commander techniques. This school is for all officers to include lawyers and pilots. No matter the MOS, all Marines are made to have a martial spirit. Part of what makes this effective is the connection all Marines have with those who have come before.

The proceeding is my opinion, based on observation and conversation, although it is shared by many people I know. I have spent a great deal of time with the army (for a Marine); 13 weeks on Fort McClelland for an all Marine Chemical Warfare Defense school, 20 Weeks at Fort Sill for Field Artillery Officer Basic Course (13 Marines out of a class of 150), and 7 months in Iraq with multiple army units. The army does great things, but it could stand to be much better. The Marine Corps has the reputation it does because it has to. America does not need a Marine Corps, they want a Marine Corps. Many times the Corps has been nearly fazed out of existence; the closest call was after WWII, perhaps our point of highest achievement. Because of this, the Marine Corps has to do more with less and to do it well in order to keep in our countrymen's good graces. The army, I believe, is used to being its ponderous self and is slow to change, especially to ideas whose genesis was from within the Marine Corps. There are few physical differences between those going into the army and the Marine Corps. The difference is in training. It would be beneficial to the army to incorporate that which works. It is interesting to note that of the 135+/- soldiers in my artillery class, the 7 that served in the Marine platoon (probably to their great initial distress) were the most squared away (in appearance, bearing, etc.) of the lot by the end of the course.

Well CaptO, The last seven lines of your article kinda, in my view puts the Army

down a little. You say training is the thing. I say, In combat, there is no

difference between a grunt and a dogface. Whatever training you have had,(basic

training), is forgotten because---THE GOD GIVEN INSTINCT OF SURVIVAL TAKES

OVER, in any situation ,bad or badder, your reactions are automatic, you don't

stop and say "Now what did I learn in basic to deal with this situation?"

"Cap-m" My time was a little different then now. Less then 13 weeks of basic

training and off we went. I respect your ideas and way of thinking and most of

all your grade, Captain Todd. But it is nice to exchange ideas, so go easy on

the Army. Hey JOE, Sgtleo, if you read this----JUMP IN---!!!!! Roque,(rocky)

Well CaptO, The last seven lines of your article kinda, in my view puts the Army

down a little.

Somehow I knew I would raise the hackles of people with this one! My intention is not to denigrate the army (past or present.) Indeed my interest in WWII is focused more on the European theater (where you could count the Marines on both hands and have fingers left over) than the Pacific. I bring that up because I have always been in awe of what the US did (which pretty much means the US Army) in that theater and of what my grandfather was a part. I obviously can't speak firsthand of what the army was at that time and don't think comparisons to today's army would be valid anyway. The way the army of 1942-45 was formed is completely different to what I have seen (in training and operationally) in that last 13+ years. I also will not say that my "experience" in combat has any influence on what I am talking about. My exposure to danger consisted of a few IED's that went off 20-30 yards away, some mortar impact about 75M away at the closest, and getting in a 45 minute shootout with some insurgents that were too far away to hit anything with AK-47's. That's hardly months of slogging it out with Fallschirmjager at Casino or Whermacht at Anzio.

With all that being said, what I wrote comes from my own observations of the US Army since 1995. There is a difference in bearing and demeanor with most army troops and Marines. As I pointed out, the soldiers in combat arms units are squared away; out of pride and necessity. Discipline and esprit saves lives. But that is the point I'm trying to make about the Marine Corps. We realize the benefits of those attributes and attempt to instill it in all Marines. One way we do that is to link the present generation with Jarhead knuckle-draggers that go back to the Revolution. I don't believe the army does this judging by the soldiers with whom I have come into contact. I don't understand this because the army has a great history. My final point is that if they were to stress their own history, I think the results would be evident to all.

I'm sorry for any slight readers here may have felt. Once again that is not my intention. I'm working a 0000-1200 shift all week for a communications exercise and I don't have a lot going on at about 0300. So I got on the computer, and began to write down some thoughts and you see how it ended up. Hopefully, I have been posting enough here that people know the great respect I have for not only you members of the Great Crusade, but also the United States Army in general.

I understand the concept and your feelings about building a strong appreciation of the history of the marines, the army, etc. I too think it can't be emphasized enough! One thing it does is to install a strong sense of pride, and that can never be underestimated.

I recently spoke to a young man who was in the Navy. Mind you the NAVY wasn't at the Battle of the Bulge , but I was kind of shocked when this young man (about 25), wasn't even aware of BOB! He's "been in" for five years, and I really thought military history should play a much larger role.

I gave him some background, and he then admitted it sounded "familiar". Told him some good movies to watch, and since he likes history, I encouraged him to go on from there.

I didn't take your opinion as a slam against the army, but an honest assessment of how different the branches are from a teaching aspect. From my understanding, it is true that the Marines DO instill a very strong sense of pride, and that pride stems from a firm grasp of the WHOLE picture passed down from continuous generations. Of course that doesn't mean the army or other branches do not take pride in themselves, or do a good job of training leaders, etc., but I think it simply means that the Marines try even harder to do so.

As you stated, this is more or less your modern assessment of the post WWII military, and I thank you for sharing your always insightful posts.

Rocky: Right in the 10 ring. Seems like people forget who took the real brunt of the wars, the Army Infantry. More combat time, more casualties per division, longer bad living conditions and damn little

recognition. Far as training, one thing we learned was to forget half of what we were taught, listen to those who knew from combat experience, and go on newly found instinct from actually being in combat.

Training only takes one so far in learning the facts of life and death. Granted, the Marines did help a little

in WW 2. Capt O. You sure picked a sore spot with this Infantry PFC.