CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
the marines are always in the frontlines of every battle. and when they finish the army just decides ok we will take it from here, 1 to 2 weeks later. they lose the city. and the marines have to go and take it back again. that was greatly displayed in somolia. the marines are feared the army is hated. by the enemies of course.
The Marines have way better training than the Army by a mile. Alomost every Army soldier ever been in Marine boot camp says its really hard or they gave up. And every Marine ever been in army boot camp has said Army so easy a caveman can do it.
Army training is not really easier, it's just shorter and geared differently. Also, the Marines have a much more specialized scope than the army. Traditionally the Marines are trained to invade an area, and the Army holds and defends it. But now days the Army also has specialized divisions like the Green Berets and Rangers which are arguably harder to get through than the Marine Corps.
On occasion, the Green Berets do teach civilians, but so do the Marines. That is not the primary role for either of them though. They are both extremely combat intensive, as is the Ranger division. Education is provided more commonly by the occupying force in the area (which is usually the army).
the marines were just lucky to get that amtrack if the army had decided to keep it the marines would have had a much harder time in ww2 but like always they would still win.
Fact: Marines do get hand-me-downs, and at times given nothing while still functioning at their best, and required to even do more. I believe that this creates a very resourceful and critical thinker on the battlefield, as it is in life.
Source: Former Marine who trained extensively with other branches/countries of services.
marines, hands down. I have a cousin who was in the marines for 6 years and said training was hard but it was well worth it to be able to serve his country.
Hoorah. The marine Corps was started as a special ops team. The army is so well known in comparison. Every Marine I have meet is playful where the Army men I have meat arnt. Although I have alot of cool Army friends to. HOORAH
The Army has the widest variety of MOS because they have the widest variety of training programs. While the training of a Marine tends to be longer and more combat intensive, it is much more limited in it's scope. Furthermore, an Army soldier has the opportunity to pursue advanced MOS and combat training after basic if they so choose.
The Armed forces as well as Marine require excess training. But, the Army is exclusively important since a lot of countries work entirely on Ground Military.
Here we go. First and foremost let me state that the Army outclasses the marines in every kind of warfare EXCLUDING a beach landing/beach assault. Marines are designed to be thrown against the hardest target, take a crazy amount of casualties and that's it. Look at the pacific, look at their branch, look at their training. This isn't because they're more fit, smarter, better shots, better trained, or anything. It's because the US ARMY infantry is designed for full man units. If you have a brigade, or hell even two battalions under strength due to unnecessary losses then it throws of the design. The army has a carefully thought out system that intermeshes infantry, armor, arty, and air support designed to dominate any sustained engagement. That's why we're better equipped, supported, and bigger. We train just as hard, for just as long as they do, just in different areas. Look at the 101st or the 82nd for example there are no airborne units in the marines at all, and the 101 is the only air assault unit in the world...the only thing they know better is water borne operations because that's what they exist for. I mean seriously they're part of the navy..think about that. They're not their own branch they're a SUB branch of the USNAVY. In Afghan, 90% of the time, if you call for a MEDEVAC your getting an army pilot. Yes, the at has its own Close air support; A10s, apaches, kiowas, black hawks, etc. if your looking for badassness look at it like this. Most military jobs are really similar to civilian jobs except infantry (me). That BS of "every marines a rifleman" is recruiting rhetoric used to sucker in wanna-be goner pile mother fuckers. I'll end this argument by simply staying that the army has: ranger tab, ranger batt, sf, and delta force. The marines can only join the NAVY's SEAL program, and even though they're badasses, delta could still kick their ass. That being said, we're all brothers-in-arms, and I thank the marines for their part in any conflict they're involved in. 16Romeo out.
EVERY Marine is trained Infantry. Marines came up with close air ground support. . We get longer training on the rifle range. Every Marine runs at least 3 miles, not just our special forces. Our Boot Camp is 13 weeks plus infantry school, and then your MOS school.
We are a department of the Navy, the Mens Department. We have Force Recon who can put any, i mean any, other special force team to shame.
Maybe this will help too.
"First training wise, the Corps makes you go through a 13 week bootcamp. After which they go to ITB (Infantry Training Battalion) which is another 9 week long school. After which they go to their respective units (unless recon but they are not considered typical infantry). From there its training day in and day out and playing all of absurd "games" (not the fun kind). The training is extremely difficult and is non-stop as they are always out in the field or going on hikes with all their equipment and weapons (If your a saw gunner you have to carry your saw).
Ok now with the rangers
The easiest comparison would be to USMC recon because they are not considered SF (that would be the Green Berets). The rangers are usually the cream of the crop of the army (and many Green Berets are the best of the best in Ranger Battalions, usually) They go through army basic which I believe is 9 weeks long but it is much easier than USMC bootcamp. From there the go to AIT but I'm not 100% positive on that and after that if they have signed a ranger contract prior to shipping to basic (basically if they were physically fit with a 1st class pft and not a mental case) they go to ranger school which would be equivalent to USMC ITB but is slightly more in depth and emphasizes alot of team building and small team leadership (which is a main stay in the USMC as a whole). Also if you flunk out of ranger school you get recycled into regular army infantry. If you flunk out of ITB you get sent to some other MOS not infantry related (comm, cook, etc.).
Now if you were asking who was better trained I would say a Ranger is about equal to USMC Infantry. Its harder to compare the two because they are trained for two very different missions but either one would be a very formidable opponent when someone in the army completes basic training with a ranger contract they then go to airborne school and after that are brought to RASP, not ranger school. ranger school is to earn a ranger tab, which someone from any unit (or branch) can try to achieve. RASP is to get selected into the 75th Ranger Regiment. which is a special operations group of the U.S. Army. while i will agree that marine boot camp is probably harder then army basic training, it is just that, basic training. the army itself is too large to train everyone to an elite standard, therefore theres groups like SF and rangers to draw out the toughest in mind and body from the regular ranks. unlike basic training and boot camp, RASP can be quit at anytime for any reason, and people are dropped frequently for lacking the substance to be a ranger. anyone can complete training that they are not allowed to quit, but doing something that just downright sucks and sucking up your pain and mental abuse, lack of sleep, blood soaked feet, and still performing to the standards even tho 80% of the class quits in the first few weeks, that takes strength. "
Well, of course I'm going to pick the Army. The Army is the backbone of US military forces. Although the marines are much more combat focused than is the army, I don't think that necessarily makes them better.
I mean the real instance that ended in quite a struggle for the persians.
The 'real' instances is not called 300, nor does the real instance bear much resemblance to the real conflict. The Battle of Thermopylae involved 6,000 to 7,000 and Greeks not 300 as claimed by the movie, and they faced a force of some 100,000 Persians (not 1 million). The Greeks (majority of which were Spartans) had superior armor, the advantage of the surrounding terrain, and a powerful offshore Navy, and despite all of this they still lost to a much larger force.
In battle you want the more capable soldier, which in this debate is absolutly the Marines.
No you don't understand. A marine isn't a soldier by definition. A soldier is someone who belongs to an Army. A marine is a marine.
That would be an induction, not a deduction. No reason to remind us of your inferior intellect.
And they still had only 7000.And only during the whole battle
What is this even supposed to mean? Any number of soldiers before or after the battle would be completely irrelevant. Furthermore, you do realize when you use the term 'Only' and 'Whole' in the same sentence this is a contradiction of terms, right?
And the marines have superior field technology.
Based on?
When faced with a force over 1000% larger then yours a field advantage can only go so far.
And it did only go so far, which is why they lost. I fail to see how an example of a smaller force losing to a larger force, is supposed to support your argument that the size of a military element is not important to it's capacity to conduct war. Clearly it is.
"No reason to remind us of your inferior intellect."
Wow, quick to insult, i was only being sarcastic.
"What is this even supposed to mean? Any number of soldiers before or after the battle would be completely irrelevant. Furthermore, you do realize when you use the term 'Only' and 'Whole' in the same sentence this is a contradiction of terms, right?"
Yes I made a mistake, I meant that it was 7000 over the course of the battle, not all at once.
"Based on?"
? If your asking the connection, the spartans had superior armor just as the marines have the best field weapons out there.
"And it did only go so far, which is why they lost. I fail to see how an example of a smaller force losing to a larger force, is supposed to support your argument that the size of a military element is not important to it's capacity to conduct war. Clearly it is."
My point was that a larger force doesn't mean a more talented force. If your tactic is to swarm like ants, then of course it would end with victory, however considering the cost of your lives in porportion the to amount you killed will horrify most.
Yes I made a mistake, I meant that it was 7000 over the course of the battle, not all at once.
It's a helluva a lot more than 300.
If your asking the connection, the spartans had superior armor just as the marines have the best field weapons out there.
Well, most army MOS' are not combat related, so it would not make sense to give them the best weapons and armor. Each soldier or Marine has the equipment that is relevant to their skills. Of course a Mechanic, Truck driver, Engineer, UAV operator, or Cannon Crewman is not going to have the weapons and armor that a marine rifleman has. I fail to see how that makes the marines more important. If we are talking about the Green Berets, or the Army Rangers, then yes they are going to have the best combat equipment available for their particular job.
My point was that a larger force doesn't mean a more talented force.
I never said it did. What I said was that a larger force has a greater capacity to conduct war, which is true.
It may not be as epic as they make it sound but it was still a force 1000% times larger.
"Each soldier or Marine has the equipment that is relevant to their skills."
Marines are privy to the latest of field technology our nation has. A marine with the same or similiar position as somone in the army will have either newer or superior equipment.
"I fail to see how that makes the marines more important."
I am not saying that they are more important, I value all who fight for our nation. I am on the position that the marines are more capable in combat.
"I never said it did. What I said was that a larger force has a greater capacity to conduct war, which is true."
In a complete and utter war maybe but it's branches like the marines that eliminate the need for huge masses of troops.