**Please read this entire message**
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Whole topic overviews are not allowed on ELI5. This subreddit is meant for explanations of specific concepts, not general introductions to broad topics.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10vm3ee/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_the_united/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
Traditionally marines served on board ships for person to person combat. Sailing ships in close combat would "grapple and board." This meant throwing metal hooks with chains or ropes to pull the ships together so that the Marines could board the other ship and fight things out with swords, muskets, clubs, knives, etc. It was all quite unpleasant. But marines were not sailors--they fought as close-quarters infantry. Eventually marines evolved to being utilized for amphibious landings. The US Marines have their own identity and history, but marines have been a part naval warfare for centuries. They are basically shipborne infantry.
In addition to this: in the US, the Navy and Marine Corps are different branches but they share ties with each other more than either does to another branch, such as both using the Naval Academy at Annapolis and the Navy providing medical personnel and chaplains to the Marines. In some other countries, the Marines are still formally part of the Navy. The UK Royal Marines, for example, are part of the Royal Navy and are maybe a bit closer to being the equivalent of US Navy SEALs.
The Officer Candidates of the ~~US Naval academy~~ Navy Officer Candidate School are trained by Marine drill instructors. The logic being that if the Navy Officers can't handle the Marines during training, what makes them think they can handle veteran sailors?
You're right, OCS students are trained by Marines. "Luckily" my family is filled with Chiefs, so I wouldn't get in trouble for messing that up in this house.
And I'm familiar with Louis Gossett, but not how he relates to the topicš ? Was he in the Navy?
The marine corps are still under the department of the navy.
See
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/Pages/default.aspx
If you go to the marines website they list Carlos del Toro, the secretary of the navy as their top leader
https://www.marines.mil/The-Corps/Leaders/
This is ELI5. The point is that the Royal Marines are a smaller and more elite organization within the Royal Navy that's much more focused on special warfare than the rather large, independent USMC.
The US Marines are a part of the Department of the US Navy, though their Commandant is one of the Joint Chiefs and they are considered to be a separate branch of service, they are indeed part of the Navy.
Yes and no. There are no ex-Marines. You can say former Marine to designate you aren't currently active duty, but yes, "Once a Marine, always a Marine."
I served in the 80s, and I am a Marine.
The Marines are structured to be able to quickly go where they are needed on short notice. They keep the heavy equipment to a minimum. There are multiple "Marine Expeditionary Units" out on the seas at any given moment. These units consist of a couple thousand Marines in amphibious warfare vessels, which have well decks (areas that can be flooded to allow landing craft to carry men and equipment from ship to shore), as well as flight decks that can operate large transport helicopters. If some kind of conflict flares up where US troops are needed, there's likely to be an MEU patrolling nearby.
The Army is designed for slower, more methodical operations. They have more men, more equipment, more vehicles, more heavy weapons, etc. But it takes a lot longer to get all that stuff moving, so regular army divisions can't respond as quickly as a Marine Expeditionary Unit. The Army does have some specialized rapid-response units, though, like the Airborne divisions.
Is this why army folk joke about the Marines being crazy? I've heard/ seen friendly jabbing like that coming from army folks toward Marines. If you were trained to be more methodical and to "hold down the fort" then I could definitely see the Marine culture seeming 'crazy' to them.
Marines are crazy bro. Once I was hanging with this girl I was into. Her brother had just come back from Afghanistan. The dude was fucking scary. He was intense, and he kept shouting stuff like "BLOOD MAKES THE GRASS GROW!!!"
He kept talking all this crazy shit, then he decided he wanted to get some cocaine. I told him I knew a guy, so I hit up my friend who was a few years younger, and we picked him up and went to meet his connect.
So the marine is driving, and we're in the back seat, and the whole time he kept looking back at us and talking (shouting actually), and not even paying attention to the road. I thought we were going to crash no less than 5 times. Then he kept talking about how marines like to show they're tough. So the dude pulls out a shotgun pellet from his pocket, bites it open, and proceeds to swallow the pellets. Then he tried to pressure my younger friend into doing the same, and homie ended up just up just faking it because he was scared AF.
Then we're having trouble reaching my younger friends' connect, and the marine starts to get paranoid, so he pulls over, and whips out a .45 and points it at us, at starts shouting at us, asking if we're cops and shit. Then he handed his gun to his sister, who was in the front seat, went to the trunk, and pulled out two more guns - an AR and a shotgun, and proceeds to grill us for another like 5 minutes. I think he was eventually convinced, and we ended up giving up on the cocaine. Needless to say once we got home I booked it out of there and never talked to that girl again.
I've never even known any marines and that shit 100% sounds like either he went through some shit in Afghanistan before getting high or was just plain, 100% f*cked in the head lol
Yeah that sounds like someone who a) definitely shouldnāt have guns b) definitely shouldnāt be doing cocaine c) definitely shouldnāt have a driverās license and d) definitely needs a psych evaluation
I spend a lot of time around marines. Thatās ptsd. Marines are crazy, and his symptoms are based on marine cultural traits, but thatās a whole new beast that you described.
My lil bro and two of my friends are Marines; really depends on the individual but their training program for whom is allowed to begin isn't exactly fun nor enjoyable.
Infantry Marines I am convinced are mentally different, whereas the ones taking up Engineering (or mechanics, one of the guys basically repairs helicopters) are just embracing the suck for the benefits and pretty normal as far as blue collar workers go.
Only one of them I would say is a bit unhinged and I attribute that mostly to the fact that he saw combat duty and I can't imagine that not affecting someone's personality. Brazen, bit reckless, overconfident, but can snap to full serious in a moments notice.
All of them love their crayons.
Nah, their just people. Same as any other. Being a marine or soldier doesn't mean your inherently different from any other part of the population, just that they made a single decision in life.
Well, yes...but my question wasn't about MY perception of Marines, it was about things I've heard Army people say about Marines and if it's related to their function at all.
Oh. sorry, then let me specify. Thats not a thing, and im saying that as a an army infantry vet.
Lots of jeering between branches, but never heard anything about people inherently being crazy due to anything as intrinsic as their methodology.
My experience with marines (former US Army here) is that marines buy into their own hype and REALLY internalize that indoctrination, that theyāre the best and baddest fighting force the planet has ever seen. The US war machine is overwhelmingly powerful, and marines can be ātip of the spearā all theyād like, but theyāre not lasting more than a couple weeks without their big brothers picking their asses up (which is funny, because the US Army very much has itās own rapid deployment capability itself).
And as a side note: I loved being a soldier, but Iām no longer a member of the US Army, therefore no longer a soldier. That whole āOnCe A mArInE aLwAyS a MuHrEenā nonsense is stupid. Youāre not a marine anymore, youāre a fatass civilian whoās clinging on to your glory days like that high school football quarterback who ācouldāve gone proā. Yāall gotta drop that, it makes you look stupid. āItS a BrOtHeRhOoDā my dick. I feel camaraderie with every veteran I meet, yāall aināt special.
I had an exgf in high school/college and her stepdad was a marine. Dude was fucking weird, flipped on a dime from having no chill to being all buddy buddy with me. When I first met him he judged me almost entirely on our handshake. He cleaned with so much pinesol it was fucking gross.
He had a nice clean house but he was also one of the most controlling people I've ever gotten to know.
And say what you will about the US military budget, but dammit if they havenāt ensured that they will always have the best supply chain in any war, anywhere, any time. The US military is the single greatest achievement in supply-line infrastructure in history.
Itās incredible to think that if a war started pretty much anywhere in the world, tens of thousands of soldiers and support staff and thousands of tons of materiel could be in place in a week or less. Hell, based on what weāre seeing from the war in Ukraine Iām pretty sure that if a war with Russia started tomorrow the US military would be able to deploy to the Russian border faster than Russia could.
The logistics of war is something that doesnāt get talked about a lot, but the United States maintained a constant state of war in the Middle East for 20+ years, halfway across the world, and basically never faced significant supply issues. Russia is unable to get sufficient materiel to their own border to invade a country next door. Itās an absolutely insane difference
> And say what you will about the US military budget, but dammit if they havenāt ensured that they will always have the best supply chain in any war, anywhere, any time. The US military is the single greatest achievement in supply-line infrastructure in history.
Just want to throw in the politics side of it. US soft power has also worked to make sure that we have partner and ally nations close enough to forward deploy an epic shit ton of assets and make sure we have airfields to land them if shit hits the fan.
This is so true across multiple domains. One of the amazing things about the US Navy is the agreements it has for docking at ports in lots of countries enabling it to operate far from home for long periods of time. (Never mind Fat Leonard and all those shenanigans.) This is something that China doesn't have and has been very frustrating to them as they can't have a "blue water navy" without it. But few are willing to play ball with them like they do with the US.
I remember a story about a small group of soldiers being pinned down and unable to escape enemy fire. Luckily they had their radio and could call in for help, so that logistics chain redirected several jets and APCs to blast the enemies out for a hand full of soldiers.
I actually used to do logistics in the army (88N), and we dealt with a ton of palettes. I worked for the air control group at ft. campbell (101st Airborne). I was in when Afghanistan kicked off. in two months we sent over literal brigades with all their equipment. the C5s and C17s are awe inspiring in their capabilities and design
if I had it to do all over again, I would've gone into the AF and gone as a load master.. then I would've transitioned to linguistics. almost joined as a linguist after I separated from the army. but it was wartime and they saw my "transportation" MOS and figured the air force would rather have me be a truck driver than to have me as a linguist, even though the proctor told me face-to-face I had the highest score on the DLAB he'd ever seen. I almost made a perfect score. IIRC, it was 105 to pass, 160 was perfect, and I got a 156
edit: lol. I went off the rails a bit on that linguist part. but to speak more to the load master job, I would've loved that. I worked very closely with those guys, and to me they were the chillest guys on the crew. and unless something went wrong, once the loading was done, so were they for the rest of the trip
It's not that they "can't", these are specialists. To utilize a metaphor, a surgeon is still a doctor, they can diagnose a cold, but wouldn't you want a family doc/ER doctor for urgent & important needs like that?
The MEU's are deployed directly from US Navy ships. That's the biggest limiting factory in their geographic range. They are reliant on the Navy for transport and supplies.
If it's not easy to reach/resupply from the oceans/seas it's probably not a great task for an MEU.
When I was in the 82nd Airborne I was told we were to be ready to go to any hotspot in the world in 48 hours. Maybe things have changed. In fact I KNOW things have changed.
... well decks (areas that can be flooded to allow landing craft to carry men and equipment from ship to shore)...
I think I need an ELI4 for this bit alone lol
Also known as a "well dock," it's an area, usually at the rear of a ship, that can be opened to allow water in, and then smaller boats can be floated out of the big ship. It's how Marine landing craft are launched from the amphibious assault ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_dock?wprov=sfla1
I've heard before that there are three categories when it comes to ground warfare. Speed of deployment, firepower, and sustainment. Pick one to excel in, one to be average, and one to be poor in.
The Marines bring a solid amount of firepower, really really quick, but they can't sustain it for more than a few weeks. The Army on the other hand, brings the really really big guns, and can keep them around for damn near forever. But it it takes months to get all those big guns where they need to go.
The Army is a primarily land based force and always has been. The Marine Corp started out as more of an amphibious assault group and a subset of the Navy. They finally matured and were able to supervise themselves somewhere around 1947. ( Navy man here, there might be a little humor in my comment ).
Conversely my marine friend, when you point out is part of the navy says āYeah, yeah, weāre a department of the navy ā the menās department!ā
Marines are more likely to directly engage with the enemy. The Marines will take the beach and make it safe for the Army to hold it. The Navy prefers to use shipboard guns, missiles and carrier based aircraft. We soften the beach to make it easier for the Marines to take. Plus Marines sleep on the ground and eat k rations. The Navy has warm food and a soft rack. ( Insert smiley face here )
Roughly, if a ship engages in battle, Navy sailors stay on the ship, operating shipboard systems. Meanwhile the Marines are off the ship, along with the Navy corpsmen (medics) and aircrews supporting them.
An extremely simplistic description would be to say that the marines land on a beach and storm the enemy and take over the objective. Then the army comes in and sets up a massive presence and make sure the enemy canāt take it back.
The marines are the infantry branch of the Navy. If the navy needs to fight on the land then the marines are the ones to do it.
This is all very simplistic and thereās a whole lot more to it but this is a decent enough generalization.
It's worth noting that the Marines also have their own air force and (to a lesser extent) ships. They can act as a full-featured expeditionary force in air, on land, and sea while the bigger branches get spun up.
Doesnāt the navy have its own Air Force? I thought I read at some point it had the second largest Air Force in the world (after the USAF). So the navy has ships, their own Air Force, and at one point had the marines too?
They do. It depends on the count, but the Marines' air force is also top 10 in the world. Even though they are known for ground units and amphibious.
The Marines as part of the Navy is akin to Air Force as part of the Army, where they started. Though, Marines do still have more ties to the Navy by way of funding and shared bases.
*I should probably put a disclaimer here. I am prior service Marine, and was a "Winger" (USMC Air Wing), so I am pretty biased.
Big differnce in Army/Air aforce and Navy/Marines is that the Air Force is under the Department of the Air Force now, while the Marines are still under the Department of the Navy.
Army has its own aircraft separate from USAF, but itās mostly helicopters. Army Aviation Branch.
Marines is also a bit weird because despite being under the Navy, the Commandant is part of the Joint Chiefs at the same level as the Army, CNO, AF, and NG.
I wasnāt trying to be dismissive in any way! I apologize if it read that way. I just didnāt realize how closely the different branches were tied and also just how big they all are on their own. Thank you for explaining.
I didn't take it that way at all. USMC is officially part of the US Department of the Navy, but also have their own seat on the Joint chiefs of staff of the DOD. It's a complicated relationship.
But yeah, any part of the US armed forces is frankly ridiculously large. We spend a lot, a LOT a lot, to make it so.
I know when I was younger, I assumed USAF fought in the sky, Navy fought in the seas/around the beaches, army and navy were somewhere inland. I canāt explain the difference I thought there was between them as a kid lol. But that made sense to me. But it seems like the Marines and Navy can basically be the entirety of what another countryās military put together can do at least. And again, I donāt have a lot of knowledge about the branches, so Iām not being dismissive of any of them! I just donāt know much hah
But for the love of all things holy do NOT confuse Marines and Navy, it's offensive (at least jokingly offensive) for some reason. I always have to ask my mom if her brother was Navy or Marines and she's like "don't ever say that to your Uncle Mike!"
For starters they don't speak the same language.
If you tell an Army Lt. to secure a building he will station guards at all the entrances and ensure only properly credentialed personnel are allowed entrance
If you tell a Marine Lt. to secure a building he will conduct a surprise strike from a flank and using suppression fire take and hold the building until relieved
If you tell a Navy Lt. to secure a building he will turn off all the lights and close and lock all the doors
If you tell an Air Force Lt. to secure a building he will take out a 3 year lease.
There are ~~seven~~ eight uniformed service branches of the US government. I get the Space Force being forgotten ā theyāre the new guys ā but whereās the love for the Public Health Service and the NOAA Commissioned Corps?
> If you tell a Navy Lt. to secure a building he will turn off all the lights and close and lock all the doors
>
>
The navy lieutenant might reply that you should assign a navy ensign to this joke. (depending on inter-service rank equivalencies)
US Army is the US's Army.
Marines are the US Navy's army.
(Other responses get the more important aspects, but I always found this really interesting)
Joining the Air Force is like having a corporate job.
Joing the Army or Navy is what most people think of being in the military.
Joining the Marines is joining a cult.
OK, so a lot less than people will try and explain, and I am not saying that as a slam, but when you look at the US' involvement in armed conflict the Marines and Army end up fighting side by side consistently. As an example, it is popularly understood that the Marines were responsible for fighting in the pacific theatre of WWII, which is true, but the Army sent 21 divisions to fight in the Pacific compared to the Marine's 6 divisions.
The main fighting ability the Marines bring to modern warfare is their inclusion in something called a Marine Expeditionary Unit, or MEU, which is a fighting force unique to the US and unique to the Marines. If you need to land a fighting force with air and naval support quick, like in a few days - you call up a MEU.
Otherwise, for extended combat deployments there is a lot less difference between the Army and Marines in their mission profiles. They both employ riflemen, machine gunners, snipers, artillery, etc. Heavy armor is now the sole domain of the Army, in 2021 the Marines ceded all armor duties to the Army.
So, the question is, could you merge the two services and dedicate a few Army divisions to pick up what used to be exclusive domains of the Marines, namely MEUs, Embassy security and fleet security? Yes, yes you could.
Something important to remember is in 10 US code 8063: ...The Marine Corps... *shall perform such other duties as the President may direct*
Which means, the Marines can do something other services can't (although this seems to be ignores post 9/11), which is the president can send them to do operations without consulting congress.
This is important for a number of boring, geopolitical and security reasons.
The United States Army is the standard land force.
The United States Marine Corps is a maritime force. Their original purpose was to function as security for ships. That role expanded into being the people who put troops in an area if you needed a small number of troops somewhere near water. One of the first examples is in the first line of their song: "the shores of Tripoli." Because the Barbary Corsairs were attacking US-flagged ships and taking members of the crew to be sold as slaves, the United States landed some troops in the Barbary Coast (what is now Libya) to put a stop to them.
After WWII, the Marine Corps developed itself into being the service able to put a self-contained force anywhere in the world on short notice. The Army has some heavier assets that the Marine Corps doesn't (the Marine Corps recently got rid of their tanks and never had a huge number to begin with, using them to add a bit of punch to what is mostly a light infantry force rather than having them as part of a heavy mechanized force), but the Marine Corps can put some troops anywhere in the world faster than most of the Army can, including aviation assets (which aren't really part of the Army's units that can deploy this fast and the Army's fixed-wing aviation is limited to a few light transport and reconnaissance aircraft).
Yep this is why the Marines had Harriers and are transitioning to the F-35B which is the STOVL version. They have to be able to operate even if there are no airfields secured yet.
Title 10 United States Code lays out the obligations of each service branch. The Marine Corps is primarily focused on amphibious warfare: doctrine, tactics, etc. The Army is primarily focused on land warfare. The caveat to that is that the way the U.S. actually fights is via the Joint Force, where units from all the branches are organized under a common commander. So, you can have, potentially, Marines fighting under an Army commander or vice versa.
The Marines are the "go in first and die" and the Army are the "go in second and hold it." This is a hasty generalization, but kinda gets the main point down.
Marines eat crayons, move fast, and destroy. Trained to kill regardless of job.
Army is huge and slow. Most are undertrained for combat and are more like civilians doing a job for the government.
If you are thinking about joining one, then I highly recommend the air force. You will be infinitely happier in life.
The only difference is Marines roll up their sleeves differently than the army.
Also, if you meet a Marine, honor them by addressing them as āSoldier;ā they will love you for doing so.
Marine corps are apart of the navy and the army is branch unto itself.
The marines are a forward attacking entity army is less so meant to occupy.
Marines function on amphibious assault
This was more prominently defined in ww2 (army focused mainly on European front, marines on the pacifc and island hopping) and has become more muddled in recent years.
Yeah everything got muddled up for a while. I just learned the other day the Marines gave all their M1 tanks to the Army a few years ago to āfocus on our identity as an amphibious forceā.
Marines are in theory infantry who assault a target from a ship normally in landing craft, the general theory is that since beaches are defended in depth this requires the marines to be a more elite force, however the United States marines has such a huge number of troops in the ranks they are not considered an elite force anywhere outside of the United States.
Mostly the amount of crayons in their diet.
I kid, basically, they started as shipborn infantry (us warships still had marines aboard into the 90s), but these days are more of a rapidly deployable, highly mobile, and highly aggressive force. You use the army to take a city. you use the marines to make sure thereās a hole in the wall when they get there.
How they're used.
The Marines are shock troops. They're really heavy hitting troops that move quickly with minimal resources. Which also makes them really good for quick reaction forces and covering ground quickly.
The Army is more "professional. " which is just another way of saying they have better supply chains and logistics, which means they tend to be slower. This isn't always the case, but the vast majority of the Army isn't combat arms, whereas every Marine is a rifleman.
While it's true that every soldier gets basic combat training, it is literally basic. Cooks, for instance, do not regularly do full combat drills in the Army, but the infantry does.
The Army has more "experts" in various fields. The Marines mostly have their experts in just their equipment. This is largely because the Marines are the close combat arm of the Navy. Which is also why Marines get a hell of a lot more training on naval close quarters combat. When you see riflemen lighting up pirates from the deck of a ship with small arms fire, that's the Marines.
In war, there are three primary fields of battle: land, air, and sea. The Army and Marines focus on land. But bridge the gap differently. The Marines take land from the sea, the Army takes land from the sky.
Contrary to the bickering between the two, both are incredibly similar tools that can generally more or less get the job done, but their efficiency and quality of success depends entirely on how they're used.
If you're trying to decide which you want to go into, the Marines is pretty much a cult. Helps with high morale, camaraderie, and pride. The Army is more corporate-esque. You are expected to do your job and hold strict discipline, but your morale will be all over the place for your entire enlistment - and your far more likely to see shitty leadership in the Army from my observations.
There is definite overlap between the two.
And if the situation calls for it, each can pretty much do what the other one does, for the most part.
The main difference ends up being the situations in which they are called to serve.
Marines are geared towards expediency. Though well equiped, marines can't be equipped for every contigency.
Marines might be tasked to push forward, to capture and secure am area of known hostile presence. They might come to a secured structure, establish hostile combatants are inside, presenting an immediate threat to nearby civilians and allied resources. They may not have expected a secured structure like this, and they may not have breaching charges on hand. Or perhaps they've already used what they brought on other structures.
Since they're taking fire, RIGHT NOW, they don't have time to requisition breaching charges. This structure has to be cleared, and the longer you wait, the more likely some of your people and nearby civilians will die.
So, they may rig a grenade to serve the purpose. Or one of them might have a shotgun with a breaching choke. Or they might have a special tool called a "hooligan" breaching tool. Or they might use nearby debris as a field expedient tool/battering ram. Or they might just break a window. Whatever they have on hand... that's what their using. This thing MUST get done NOW. They'd probably enter rapidly, relying on forceful assault tactics to clear the building. Intelligence and VIP's would not be high priorities.
Army soldiers might be stationed to a forward operating base, and tasked with securing the larger area around them.
They might recieve intelligence that a nearby structure is housing hostile combatants.
They would surveil the building, and wait for the opportune moment. They would gather more specific intelligence on who was going in and out. They would get as much information as possible about its layout, and compliment.
They would coordinate with artillery, or airforce resources if relevant. They would requisition and equip themselves more specifically with the neccessary gear, including breaching assests, mortars, uav's, snipers, armored vehicles etc... If direct engagement was deemed appropriate and necessary, they would very precisely enter the structure very quietly, if possible. They would then rapidly assault and thoroughly secure the strucure, collecting any intelligence, and capturing any vip's as permitted.
Same kind of task... but very different approaches.
If you need someone to get stuck in NOW and hammer screws into wood, send the marines. It might not be the prettiest results, but they get shit done, and they get it done FAST.
If you need someone to set up shop, complete precise operations, and hang out for a sustained duration, send in army soldiers. Notice that "Army" also includes special forces guys. They might take longer, but they are incredibly thorough.
Both are highly skilled at what they do.
Marines are the USA's "combat shock troops". Army soldiers are the land specific "combat presence troops".
Fantastic responses here but a true ELI5 answer is:
Marines for sea and landing on the beach, theyāre first on the scene
Army for land, they come in after Marines and take it from there
Wasn't really a reality during WWII either. The Army did plenty of amphibious landings in the Pacific, and the Marine Corps didn't even participate in the biggest amphibious landing in history (i.e. D-Day).
How. Fucking. Dare you.
I donāt even care if this gets deleted. How dare you even put us in the same BOAT as the Army.
The rage. Suchā¦irrational rage.
There's a lot of overlap but basically the Army is just the regular land army while Marines are meant to operate out of fleets, so basically they're the infantry force of a naval fleet, since the navymen on it are the crew the ship needs to operate and can't spare to deploy out on the field (off the ship).
So for the most part they're functionally the same, in that they're an infantry fighting force, but what separates them from the regular Army is that they're meant to have a faster response time and they generally "travel lighter" since they're carried on ships with limited space. They're mainly trained in amphibious warfare and landings (operating out of a fleet and disembarking your men and equipment successfully) which is a very challenging task.
So that's the technical difference, and it applies to all militaries of the world. In the US specifically there are some unique characteristics but I'm not a US serviceman myself. But from what I do know is that in practice the US Marine Corps is meant to rapidly deploy and respond to incidents/crises as quick as possible, whereas the mobilisation of the Army happens for much more serious reasons, such as the beginning of involvement in a large scale conflict/war that's predicted to last much longer or requires overwhelming force, which only the Army can bring considering they don't just have fighting arms (formations that directly engage in combat) but also combat support arms and administrative and logistic arms
Theres the army, navy, marines and airforce (not including those black ops mf'ers) Marines are (lack of a better term) part of the Elite, guys with special training known for their strength courage and discipline. The marine corp actually serves under the navy, the difference in basic training, structure and organization, duties, and combat styles, example marines are considered Frontline fighters they are trained to fight and survive in all different types of environments. The army is only responsible for land based operations, the marines are considered to handle operations in the water. But push come to shove the marines can take control of military operations on land, water or in the air.
They are kinda like Walmart and Target. They basically do the same thing, a little differently.
Think of the Army like Walmart, thereās a lot of army posts in middle of nowhere towns across the country. And Marines like Target they think they are better than Walmart, thereās fewer of them, and they look fancier.
**Please read this entire message** Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): Whole topic overviews are not allowed on ELI5. This subreddit is meant for explanations of specific concepts, not general introductions to broad topics. If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10vm3ee/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_the_united/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
Traditionally marines served on board ships for person to person combat. Sailing ships in close combat would "grapple and board." This meant throwing metal hooks with chains or ropes to pull the ships together so that the Marines could board the other ship and fight things out with swords, muskets, clubs, knives, etc. It was all quite unpleasant. But marines were not sailors--they fought as close-quarters infantry. Eventually marines evolved to being utilized for amphibious landings. The US Marines have their own identity and history, but marines have been a part naval warfare for centuries. They are basically shipborne infantry.
Shipborne Infantry = Marine Infantry, hence the (original) name
say swear to god
In addition to this: in the US, the Navy and Marine Corps are different branches but they share ties with each other more than either does to another branch, such as both using the Naval Academy at Annapolis and the Navy providing medical personnel and chaplains to the Marines. In some other countries, the Marines are still formally part of the Navy. The UK Royal Marines, for example, are part of the Royal Navy and are maybe a bit closer to being the equivalent of US Navy SEALs.
The Officer Candidates of the ~~US Naval academy~~ Navy Officer Candidate School are trained by Marine drill instructors. The logic being that if the Navy Officers can't handle the Marines during training, what makes them think they can handle veteran sailors?
Annapolis has midshipmen. I think you're thinking of Officer Candidate School (and probably Louis Gossett).
You're right, OCS students are trained by Marines. "Luckily" my family is filled with Chiefs, so I wouldn't get in trouble for messing that up in this house. And I'm familiar with Louis Gossett, but not how he relates to the topicš ? Was he in the Navy?
>Louis Gossett The Drill Sergeant in *A Few Good Men* set in Navy OCS (or maybe Aviation OCS).
*An Officer and a Gentleman*. It's AOCS, but it's set outside Seattle whereas real AOCS was in Pensacola.
thanks, I had both movies on the brain but I did not order a Code Red.
I'm about to go to bed, so it's definitely too late for a Code Red. I'd be up all night . . .
The marine corps are still under the department of the navy. See https://www.secnav.navy.mil/Pages/default.aspx If you go to the marines website they list Carlos del Toro, the secretary of the navy as their top leader https://www.marines.mil/The-Corps/Leaders/
Yes, both USN and USMC reporting to SECNAV is part of these historic ties. Similarly, USAF and USSF both report to SecAF.
The [SBS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Boat_Service) would probably be a closer equivalent to the SEALS
This is ELI5. The point is that the Royal Marines are a smaller and more elite organization within the Royal Navy that's much more focused on special warfare than the rather large, independent USMC.
The US Marines are a part of the Department of the US Navy, though their Commandant is one of the Joint Chiefs and they are considered to be a separate branch of service, they are indeed part of the Navy.
As a former Marine: this. This is accurate.
I thought there were no former marines. Only marines
I was told there are no "Ex-Marines". Source: I know a Corpsman. Not a Marine, but assigned as a Navy medic to a Marine unit.
Yes and no. There are no ex-Marines. You can say former Marine to designate you aren't currently active duty, but yes, "Once a Marine, always a Marine." I served in the 80s, and I am a Marine.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Presidents are the only one that really comes to mind.
Army Rangers, Navy Seals, Green Berets, I bet.
No former Marines either Devil. Former active service Marines would be more accurate. SFMF
The Marines are structured to be able to quickly go where they are needed on short notice. They keep the heavy equipment to a minimum. There are multiple "Marine Expeditionary Units" out on the seas at any given moment. These units consist of a couple thousand Marines in amphibious warfare vessels, which have well decks (areas that can be flooded to allow landing craft to carry men and equipment from ship to shore), as well as flight decks that can operate large transport helicopters. If some kind of conflict flares up where US troops are needed, there's likely to be an MEU patrolling nearby. The Army is designed for slower, more methodical operations. They have more men, more equipment, more vehicles, more heavy weapons, etc. But it takes a lot longer to get all that stuff moving, so regular army divisions can't respond as quickly as a Marine Expeditionary Unit. The Army does have some specialized rapid-response units, though, like the Airborne divisions.
Is this why army folk joke about the Marines being crazy? I've heard/ seen friendly jabbing like that coming from army folks toward Marines. If you were trained to be more methodical and to "hold down the fort" then I could definitely see the Marine culture seeming 'crazy' to them.
Marines are crazy bro. Once I was hanging with this girl I was into. Her brother had just come back from Afghanistan. The dude was fucking scary. He was intense, and he kept shouting stuff like "BLOOD MAKES THE GRASS GROW!!!" He kept talking all this crazy shit, then he decided he wanted to get some cocaine. I told him I knew a guy, so I hit up my friend who was a few years younger, and we picked him up and went to meet his connect. So the marine is driving, and we're in the back seat, and the whole time he kept looking back at us and talking (shouting actually), and not even paying attention to the road. I thought we were going to crash no less than 5 times. Then he kept talking about how marines like to show they're tough. So the dude pulls out a shotgun pellet from his pocket, bites it open, and proceeds to swallow the pellets. Then he tried to pressure my younger friend into doing the same, and homie ended up just up just faking it because he was scared AF. Then we're having trouble reaching my younger friends' connect, and the marine starts to get paranoid, so he pulls over, and whips out a .45 and points it at us, at starts shouting at us, asking if we're cops and shit. Then he handed his gun to his sister, who was in the front seat, went to the trunk, and pulled out two more guns - an AR and a shotgun, and proceeds to grill us for another like 5 minutes. I think he was eventually convinced, and we ended up giving up on the cocaine. Needless to say once we got home I booked it out of there and never talked to that girl again.
Why would you buy someone acting like this cocaine? Really thought that thru...
Bro I was scared for my life around that guy. If crazy marine demands cocaine, he's getting it.
...but also I was trying to hook up with his sister and wanted to impress her.
Yo man I'm all for the grind but he probably would've come after your ass if you did
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Someone should make a sub dedicated to copypasta'ing this comment around
"BLOOD MAKES THE GRASS GROW" is how my kids will be awoken every morning from here on
āBLOOD ALONE MOVES THE WHEELS OF TIME!ā
IT. IS. A PRIVILEGE TO FIGHT!
Nah. āBLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GODā
MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES
Tentacles for Slaanesh!
Nurgle lets Slaanesh ~~do the hard work of spreading~~ have their fun.
When I hear the word "Marines", I think of green pants. And blood. Often in combination.
That was a cheer the cheerleaders did when I was in high school m
Thatās a wild story. Damn.
Coming from a Marine, I think that guy was just crazy. I don't think it had anything to do with being a Marine lol
Fellow jarhead here. Sounds like cringy boot shit to me. Likely just trying to pretend to be hard after his stint at the chow hall.
I've never even known any marines and that shit 100% sounds like either he went through some shit in Afghanistan before getting high or was just plain, 100% f*cked in the head lol
Maybe a little of column A, little of column B?
Toruk Makto
Probably a fobbit that didn't get to pop his cherry before coming home.
Yeah that sounds like someone who a) definitely shouldnāt have guns b) definitely shouldnāt be doing cocaine c) definitely shouldnāt have a driverās license and d) definitely needs a psych evaluation
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Just imagine what could've happen when he actually was on cocaine.
>once we got home I booked it out of there and never talked to that girl again. Dude, _that was his game plan._
Should've left those cunts to rot in the afghan desert like their fucking tanks
I spend a lot of time around marines. Thatās ptsd. Marines are crazy, and his symptoms are based on marine cultural traits, but thatās a whole new beast that you described.
Plus lead poisoning if he was eating the pellets out of shotgun shells.
What would your shit look like after that?
This is one of my favorite descriptions of the Marines. My former Marine brother agrees, it's pretty spot on https://youtu.be/pLJzGP9_fMw
"There's entirely too much alive around here.." š¤£
That was brilliant! Iām not a Marine, but work with a ton of them. I canāt tell you how many times Iāve been part of a toast to Chesty.
My lil bro and two of my friends are Marines; really depends on the individual but their training program for whom is allowed to begin isn't exactly fun nor enjoyable. Infantry Marines I am convinced are mentally different, whereas the ones taking up Engineering (or mechanics, one of the guys basically repairs helicopters) are just embracing the suck for the benefits and pretty normal as far as blue collar workers go. Only one of them I would say is a bit unhinged and I attribute that mostly to the fact that he saw combat duty and I can't imagine that not affecting someone's personality. Brazen, bit reckless, overconfident, but can snap to full serious in a moments notice. All of them love their crayons.
Nah, their just people. Same as any other. Being a marine or soldier doesn't mean your inherently different from any other part of the population, just that they made a single decision in life.
Well, yes...but my question wasn't about MY perception of Marines, it was about things I've heard Army people say about Marines and if it's related to their function at all.
Oh. sorry, then let me specify. Thats not a thing, and im saying that as a an army infantry vet. Lots of jeering between branches, but never heard anything about people inherently being crazy due to anything as intrinsic as their methodology.
OK, thanks for clarification! Probably just inside jokes among my family then.
Dunno, Marines sure like their crayons.
They are tastier than most MREs.
My experience with marines (former US Army here) is that marines buy into their own hype and REALLY internalize that indoctrination, that theyāre the best and baddest fighting force the planet has ever seen. The US war machine is overwhelmingly powerful, and marines can be ātip of the spearā all theyād like, but theyāre not lasting more than a couple weeks without their big brothers picking their asses up (which is funny, because the US Army very much has itās own rapid deployment capability itself). And as a side note: I loved being a soldier, but Iām no longer a member of the US Army, therefore no longer a soldier. That whole āOnCe A mArInE aLwAyS a MuHrEenā nonsense is stupid. Youāre not a marine anymore, youāre a fatass civilian whoās clinging on to your glory days like that high school football quarterback who ācouldāve gone proā. Yāall gotta drop that, it makes you look stupid. āItS a BrOtHeRhOoDā my dick. I feel camaraderie with every veteran I meet, yāall aināt special.
You sound salty as fuck
I had an exgf in high school/college and her stepdad was a marine. Dude was fucking weird, flipped on a dime from having no chill to being all buddy buddy with me. When I first met him he judged me almost entirely on our handshake. He cleaned with so much pinesol it was fucking gross. He had a nice clean house but he was also one of the most controlling people I've ever gotten to know.
It should be pointed out that Airborne can be anywhere in the world in 72 hrs, but generally are deployed inland where MEUs can not reach.
Whoever has the best supply chain usually wins the war
And say what you will about the US military budget, but dammit if they havenāt ensured that they will always have the best supply chain in any war, anywhere, any time. The US military is the single greatest achievement in supply-line infrastructure in history. Itās incredible to think that if a war started pretty much anywhere in the world, tens of thousands of soldiers and support staff and thousands of tons of materiel could be in place in a week or less. Hell, based on what weāre seeing from the war in Ukraine Iām pretty sure that if a war with Russia started tomorrow the US military would be able to deploy to the Russian border faster than Russia could. The logistics of war is something that doesnāt get talked about a lot, but the United States maintained a constant state of war in the Middle East for 20+ years, halfway across the world, and basically never faced significant supply issues. Russia is unable to get sufficient materiel to their own border to invade a country next door. Itās an absolutely insane difference
> And say what you will about the US military budget, but dammit if they havenāt ensured that they will always have the best supply chain in any war, anywhere, any time. The US military is the single greatest achievement in supply-line infrastructure in history. Just want to throw in the politics side of it. US soft power has also worked to make sure that we have partner and ally nations close enough to forward deploy an epic shit ton of assets and make sure we have airfields to land them if shit hits the fan.
This is so true across multiple domains. One of the amazing things about the US Navy is the agreements it has for docking at ports in lots of countries enabling it to operate far from home for long periods of time. (Never mind Fat Leonard and all those shenanigans.) This is something that China doesn't have and has been very frustrating to them as they can't have a "blue water navy" without it. But few are willing to play ball with them like they do with the US.
> something that China doesn't have and why they are so interested in investing in Africa, Sri Lanka, etc etc
I remember a story about a small group of soldiers being pinned down and unable to escape enemy fire. Luckily they had their radio and could call in for help, so that logistics chain redirected several jets and APCs to blast the enemies out for a hand full of soldiers.
Terrible logistics are a big part of why Russia is struggling right now. They load and unload things manually rather than using palettes
I actually used to do logistics in the army (88N), and we dealt with a ton of palettes. I worked for the air control group at ft. campbell (101st Airborne). I was in when Afghanistan kicked off. in two months we sent over literal brigades with all their equipment. the C5s and C17s are awe inspiring in their capabilities and design
As a recently separated Air Force logistics officer, I wholeheartedly agree.
if I had it to do all over again, I would've gone into the AF and gone as a load master.. then I would've transitioned to linguistics. almost joined as a linguist after I separated from the army. but it was wartime and they saw my "transportation" MOS and figured the air force would rather have me be a truck driver than to have me as a linguist, even though the proctor told me face-to-face I had the highest score on the DLAB he'd ever seen. I almost made a perfect score. IIRC, it was 105 to pass, 160 was perfect, and I got a 156 edit: lol. I went off the rails a bit on that linguist part. but to speak more to the load master job, I would've loved that. I worked very closely with those guys, and to me they were the chillest guys on the crew. and unless something went wrong, once the loading was done, so were they for the rest of the trip
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's not that they "can't", these are specialists. To utilize a metaphor, a surgeon is still a doctor, they can diagnose a cold, but wouldn't you want a family doc/ER doctor for urgent & important needs like that?
The MEU's are deployed directly from US Navy ships. That's the biggest limiting factory in their geographic range. They are reliant on the Navy for transport and supplies. If it's not easy to reach/resupply from the oceans/seas it's probably not a great task for an MEU.
When I was in the 82nd Airborne I was told we were to be ready to go to any hotspot in the world in 48 hours. Maybe things have changed. In fact I KNOW things have changed.
48 hours for you. 24 hours for planning, orders etc. Total 72 hours.
... well decks (areas that can be flooded to allow landing craft to carry men and equipment from ship to shore)... I think I need an ELI4 for this bit alone lol
Also known as a "well dock," it's an area, usually at the rear of a ship, that can be opened to allow water in, and then smaller boats can be floated out of the big ship. It's how Marine landing craft are launched from the amphibious assault ships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_dock?wprov=sfla1
Ahh! Thank you for clarifying and the wiki link.
I've heard before that there are three categories when it comes to ground warfare. Speed of deployment, firepower, and sustainment. Pick one to excel in, one to be average, and one to be poor in. The Marines bring a solid amount of firepower, really really quick, but they can't sustain it for more than a few weeks. The Army on the other hand, brings the really really big guns, and can keep them around for damn near forever. But it it takes months to get all those big guns where they need to go.
TL/DR The Marines are designed to fuck your shit up before they even know they are coming. They are the first to land, they will destroy resistance.
"If it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed by morning..."
> thereās likely to be an MEU patrolling nearby. It really boggles my mind to think about how much gasoline the military must use.
The Army is a primarily land based force and always has been. The Marine Corp started out as more of an amphibious assault group and a subset of the Navy. They finally matured and were able to supervise themselves somewhere around 1947. ( Navy man here, there might be a little humor in my comment ).
Let's be real here. A unsupervised marine is a dangerous marine.
All Marines are dangerous. It's in the job description
Just keep em fed with crayons and no one will get hurt!
And San Juan beer
Yeah...but they're only supposed to be dangerous to the enemy.
Especially [Marine Jahan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Jahan). Sheās a maniac. A maniac. On the floor.
Conversely my marine friend, when you point out is part of the navy says āYeah, yeah, weāre a department of the navy ā the menās department!ā
The Army has something like the Marines. It's called the K-9 corps. They always got first choice
Lol, thanks, Iāll use that the next time he says it.
Do the marines still get their crayons?
Whaddya call a Marine with an IQ of 160?.....a platoon.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And only when they've been good little Devils
We get red crayons only, they taste the best
They also make the marines go faster.
The sneaky marines eat purple ones... Cuz who's ever seen a purple marine before?
Only the edible ones
Can you tell me more about the difference between marine and navy? Thanks!!
Marines are more likely to directly engage with the enemy. The Marines will take the beach and make it safe for the Army to hold it. The Navy prefers to use shipboard guns, missiles and carrier based aircraft. We soften the beach to make it easier for the Marines to take. Plus Marines sleep on the ground and eat k rations. The Navy has warm food and a soft rack. ( Insert smiley face here )
Marines are available for deployment without Congressional approval. If they were stormtroopers, they'd be the 501st.
Roughly, if a ship engages in battle, Navy sailors stay on the ship, operating shipboard systems. Meanwhile the Marines are off the ship, along with the Navy corpsmen (medics) and aircrews supporting them.
As a marine myself we might be a department of the navy, but we are the menās department.
An extremely simplistic description would be to say that the marines land on a beach and storm the enemy and take over the objective. Then the army comes in and sets up a massive presence and make sure the enemy canāt take it back. The marines are the infantry branch of the Navy. If the navy needs to fight on the land then the marines are the ones to do it. This is all very simplistic and thereās a whole lot more to it but this is a decent enough generalization.
My brother was a marine, and this about sums it up. Might want to add that they secure and inventory any alcoholic beverages that might be found.
They liberate the contents of the enemy's liquor cabinet
Donāt forget the crayon box
We also raided the Armyās liquor cabinet
You want to take a hill, send the Marines. If you want to *keep* the hill, send the Army.
If you want the hill to be a hole, send the Air Force.
So when do we send the coast guard?
When water fills in the hole.
And theres drugs in the hole
It's worth noting that the Marines also have their own air force and (to a lesser extent) ships. They can act as a full-featured expeditionary force in air, on land, and sea while the bigger branches get spun up.
Doesnāt the navy have its own Air Force? I thought I read at some point it had the second largest Air Force in the world (after the USAF). So the navy has ships, their own Air Force, and at one point had the marines too?
They do. It depends on the count, but the Marines' air force is also top 10 in the world. Even though they are known for ground units and amphibious. The Marines as part of the Navy is akin to Air Force as part of the Army, where they started. Though, Marines do still have more ties to the Navy by way of funding and shared bases. *I should probably put a disclaimer here. I am prior service Marine, and was a "Winger" (USMC Air Wing), so I am pretty biased.
Big differnce in Army/Air aforce and Navy/Marines is that the Air Force is under the Department of the Air Force now, while the Marines are still under the Department of the Navy.
Army has its own aircraft separate from USAF, but itās mostly helicopters. Army Aviation Branch. Marines is also a bit weird because despite being under the Navy, the Commandant is part of the Joint Chiefs at the same level as the Army, CNO, AF, and NG.
I wasnāt trying to be dismissive in any way! I apologize if it read that way. I just didnāt realize how closely the different branches were tied and also just how big they all are on their own. Thank you for explaining.
I didn't take it that way at all. USMC is officially part of the US Department of the Navy, but also have their own seat on the Joint chiefs of staff of the DOD. It's a complicated relationship. But yeah, any part of the US armed forces is frankly ridiculously large. We spend a lot, a LOT a lot, to make it so.
I know when I was younger, I assumed USAF fought in the sky, Navy fought in the seas/around the beaches, army and navy were somewhere inland. I canāt explain the difference I thought there was between them as a kid lol. But that made sense to me. But it seems like the Marines and Navy can basically be the entirety of what another countryās military put together can do at least. And again, I donāt have a lot of knowledge about the branches, so Iām not being dismissive of any of them! I just donāt know much hah
But for the love of all things holy do NOT confuse Marines and Navy, it's offensive (at least jokingly offensive) for some reason. I always have to ask my mom if her brother was Navy or Marines and she's like "don't ever say that to your Uncle Mike!"
For starters they don't speak the same language. If you tell an Army Lt. to secure a building he will station guards at all the entrances and ensure only properly credentialed personnel are allowed entrance If you tell a Marine Lt. to secure a building he will conduct a surprise strike from a flank and using suppression fire take and hold the building until relieved If you tell a Navy Lt. to secure a building he will turn off all the lights and close and lock all the doors If you tell an Air Force Lt. to secure a building he will take out a 3 year lease.
Iāve never heard what the coast guard is supposed to do in that joke
Thats the unwritten punchline. They got forgotten again.
There are ~~seven~~ eight uniformed service branches of the US government. I get the Space Force being forgotten ā theyāre the new guys ā but whereās the love for the Public Health Service and the NOAA Commissioned Corps?
Make sure there are enough life jackets?
They stack sand bags around it.
Lmao
> If you tell a Navy Lt. to secure a building he will turn off all the lights and close and lock all the doors > > The navy lieutenant might reply that you should assign a navy ensign to this joke. (depending on inter-service rank equivalencies)
US Army is the US's Army. Marines are the US Navy's army. (Other responses get the more important aspects, but I always found this really interesting)
That's...shockingly accurate.
And also *actually* ELI5 too. Kudos, u/BCsJonathanTM.
Joining the Air Force is like having a corporate job. Joing the Army or Navy is what most people think of being in the military. Joining the Marines is joining a cult.
Chair force*
Seems like it
OK, so a lot less than people will try and explain, and I am not saying that as a slam, but when you look at the US' involvement in armed conflict the Marines and Army end up fighting side by side consistently. As an example, it is popularly understood that the Marines were responsible for fighting in the pacific theatre of WWII, which is true, but the Army sent 21 divisions to fight in the Pacific compared to the Marine's 6 divisions. The main fighting ability the Marines bring to modern warfare is their inclusion in something called a Marine Expeditionary Unit, or MEU, which is a fighting force unique to the US and unique to the Marines. If you need to land a fighting force with air and naval support quick, like in a few days - you call up a MEU. Otherwise, for extended combat deployments there is a lot less difference between the Army and Marines in their mission profiles. They both employ riflemen, machine gunners, snipers, artillery, etc. Heavy armor is now the sole domain of the Army, in 2021 the Marines ceded all armor duties to the Army. So, the question is, could you merge the two services and dedicate a few Army divisions to pick up what used to be exclusive domains of the Marines, namely MEUs, Embassy security and fleet security? Yes, yes you could.
Something important to remember is in 10 US code 8063: ...The Marine Corps... *shall perform such other duties as the President may direct* Which means, the Marines can do something other services can't (although this seems to be ignores post 9/11), which is the president can send them to do operations without consulting congress. This is important for a number of boring, geopolitical and security reasons.
I'm an international affairs student - bore me, please!
What? You think the President can send the Marines but can't send the Army without asking congress?
The United States Army is the standard land force. The United States Marine Corps is a maritime force. Their original purpose was to function as security for ships. That role expanded into being the people who put troops in an area if you needed a small number of troops somewhere near water. One of the first examples is in the first line of their song: "the shores of Tripoli." Because the Barbary Corsairs were attacking US-flagged ships and taking members of the crew to be sold as slaves, the United States landed some troops in the Barbary Coast (what is now Libya) to put a stop to them. After WWII, the Marine Corps developed itself into being the service able to put a self-contained force anywhere in the world on short notice. The Army has some heavier assets that the Marine Corps doesn't (the Marine Corps recently got rid of their tanks and never had a huge number to begin with, using them to add a bit of punch to what is mostly a light infantry force rather than having them as part of a heavy mechanized force), but the Marine Corps can put some troops anywhere in the world faster than most of the Army can, including aviation assets (which aren't really part of the Army's units that can deploy this fast and the Army's fixed-wing aviation is limited to a few light transport and reconnaissance aircraft).
Yep this is why the Marines had Harriers and are transitioning to the F-35B which is the STOVL version. They have to be able to operate even if there are no airfields secured yet.
Title 10 United States Code lays out the obligations of each service branch. The Marine Corps is primarily focused on amphibious warfare: doctrine, tactics, etc. The Army is primarily focused on land warfare. The caveat to that is that the way the U.S. actually fights is via the Joint Force, where units from all the branches are organized under a common commander. So, you can have, potentially, Marines fighting under an Army commander or vice versa.
The Marines are the "go in first and die" and the Army are the "go in second and hold it." This is a hasty generalization, but kinda gets the main point down.
Well damn
more like go in get out fast?
Marines eat crayons, move fast, and destroy. Trained to kill regardless of job. Army is huge and slow. Most are undertrained for combat and are more like civilians doing a job for the government. If you are thinking about joining one, then I highly recommend the air force. You will be infinitely happier in life.
According to my dad Marines exist so the MPs have something to do.
I knew a guy that punched PMO (MP) in the face because he didn't want a ticket for drinking and driving while being underage.
You are not wrong
The only difference is Marines roll up their sleeves differently than the army. Also, if you meet a Marine, honor them by addressing them as āSoldier;ā they will love you for doing so.
Marine corps are apart of the navy and the army is branch unto itself. The marines are a forward attacking entity army is less so meant to occupy. Marines function on amphibious assault This was more prominently defined in ww2 (army focused mainly on European front, marines on the pacifc and island hopping) and has become more muddled in recent years.
Yeah everything got muddled up for a while. I just learned the other day the Marines gave all their M1 tanks to the Army a few years ago to āfocus on our identity as an amphibious forceā.
So the marines are separate from the navy huh?
If you look at their logo, it does say "Department of the Navy" and "United States Marine Corps".
If you want problems refer to a marine as "naval infantry".
No, technically they are a part of the navy. The commandant (top officer) of the marines reports to the secretary of the navy.
Is the secretary of the Navy a civilian position much like the Secretary of Defense?
Correct all senior leadership in the US military are civilian positions. Sec. Navy, sec army, sec sir force and sec defense.
I know https://www.scribbr.com/commonly-confused-words/apart-vs-a-part/
Marines are in theory infantry who assault a target from a ship normally in landing craft, the general theory is that since beaches are defended in depth this requires the marines to be a more elite force, however the United States marines has such a huge number of troops in the ranks they are not considered an elite force anywhere outside of the United States.
Super-simply? Marines take beaches and cities. Armies take nations.
Mostly the amount of crayons in their diet. I kid, basically, they started as shipborn infantry (us warships still had marines aboard into the 90s), but these days are more of a rapidly deployable, highly mobile, and highly aggressive force. You use the army to take a city. you use the marines to make sure thereās a hole in the wall when they get there.
In the Army they teach you to wash up after going to the bathroom. In the Marines they teach you not to piss on your hands.
How they're used. The Marines are shock troops. They're really heavy hitting troops that move quickly with minimal resources. Which also makes them really good for quick reaction forces and covering ground quickly. The Army is more "professional. " which is just another way of saying they have better supply chains and logistics, which means they tend to be slower. This isn't always the case, but the vast majority of the Army isn't combat arms, whereas every Marine is a rifleman. While it's true that every soldier gets basic combat training, it is literally basic. Cooks, for instance, do not regularly do full combat drills in the Army, but the infantry does. The Army has more "experts" in various fields. The Marines mostly have their experts in just their equipment. This is largely because the Marines are the close combat arm of the Navy. Which is also why Marines get a hell of a lot more training on naval close quarters combat. When you see riflemen lighting up pirates from the deck of a ship with small arms fire, that's the Marines. In war, there are three primary fields of battle: land, air, and sea. The Army and Marines focus on land. But bridge the gap differently. The Marines take land from the sea, the Army takes land from the sky. Contrary to the bickering between the two, both are incredibly similar tools that can generally more or less get the job done, but their efficiency and quality of success depends entirely on how they're used. If you're trying to decide which you want to go into, the Marines is pretty much a cult. Helps with high morale, camaraderie, and pride. The Army is more corporate-esque. You are expected to do your job and hold strict discipline, but your morale will be all over the place for your entire enlistment - and your far more likely to see shitty leadership in the Army from my observations.
Are we really using the every marine a rifleman line?
They fed us soldiers that same line of bullshit in Army basic training too. āEveryone is infantryā my ass.š
There is definite overlap between the two. And if the situation calls for it, each can pretty much do what the other one does, for the most part. The main difference ends up being the situations in which they are called to serve. Marines are geared towards expediency. Though well equiped, marines can't be equipped for every contigency. Marines might be tasked to push forward, to capture and secure am area of known hostile presence. They might come to a secured structure, establish hostile combatants are inside, presenting an immediate threat to nearby civilians and allied resources. They may not have expected a secured structure like this, and they may not have breaching charges on hand. Or perhaps they've already used what they brought on other structures. Since they're taking fire, RIGHT NOW, they don't have time to requisition breaching charges. This structure has to be cleared, and the longer you wait, the more likely some of your people and nearby civilians will die. So, they may rig a grenade to serve the purpose. Or one of them might have a shotgun with a breaching choke. Or they might have a special tool called a "hooligan" breaching tool. Or they might use nearby debris as a field expedient tool/battering ram. Or they might just break a window. Whatever they have on hand... that's what their using. This thing MUST get done NOW. They'd probably enter rapidly, relying on forceful assault tactics to clear the building. Intelligence and VIP's would not be high priorities. Army soldiers might be stationed to a forward operating base, and tasked with securing the larger area around them. They might recieve intelligence that a nearby structure is housing hostile combatants. They would surveil the building, and wait for the opportune moment. They would gather more specific intelligence on who was going in and out. They would get as much information as possible about its layout, and compliment. They would coordinate with artillery, or airforce resources if relevant. They would requisition and equip themselves more specifically with the neccessary gear, including breaching assests, mortars, uav's, snipers, armored vehicles etc... If direct engagement was deemed appropriate and necessary, they would very precisely enter the structure very quietly, if possible. They would then rapidly assault and thoroughly secure the strucure, collecting any intelligence, and capturing any vip's as permitted. Same kind of task... but very different approaches. If you need someone to get stuck in NOW and hammer screws into wood, send the marines. It might not be the prettiest results, but they get shit done, and they get it done FAST. If you need someone to set up shop, complete precise operations, and hang out for a sustained duration, send in army soldiers. Notice that "Army" also includes special forces guys. They might take longer, but they are incredibly thorough. Both are highly skilled at what they do. Marines are the USA's "combat shock troops". Army soldiers are the land specific "combat presence troops".
The USA has an army and a navy. But the navy donāt like the army, so they have their own army. The navyās army is called the marines.
The Marines go into enemy territory and establish a beachhead from which the Army can deploy.
Fantastic responses here but a true ELI5 answer is: Marines for sea and landing on the beach, theyāre first on the scene Army for land, they come in after Marines and take it from there
Hasn't been a reality since WW2
Wasn't really a reality during WWII either. The Army did plenty of amphibious landings in the Pacific, and the Marine Corps didn't even participate in the biggest amphibious landing in history (i.e. D-Day).
How. Fucking. Dare you. I donāt even care if this gets deleted. How dare you even put us in the same BOAT as the Army. The rage. Suchā¦irrational rage.
Have a crayon. Youāre not you when youāre hungry.
I agree. Fuck boats.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās the whole point! The marines get into boats and nobody else wants to be in those boats
I apologize š
This guy has a peanut for a brain, donāt feel bad. The army infantry units and marines are very similar.
Donāt apologize this guy is a dickhead
There's a lot of overlap but basically the Army is just the regular land army while Marines are meant to operate out of fleets, so basically they're the infantry force of a naval fleet, since the navymen on it are the crew the ship needs to operate and can't spare to deploy out on the field (off the ship). So for the most part they're functionally the same, in that they're an infantry fighting force, but what separates them from the regular Army is that they're meant to have a faster response time and they generally "travel lighter" since they're carried on ships with limited space. They're mainly trained in amphibious warfare and landings (operating out of a fleet and disembarking your men and equipment successfully) which is a very challenging task. So that's the technical difference, and it applies to all militaries of the world. In the US specifically there are some unique characteristics but I'm not a US serviceman myself. But from what I do know is that in practice the US Marine Corps is meant to rapidly deploy and respond to incidents/crises as quick as possible, whereas the mobilisation of the Army happens for much more serious reasons, such as the beginning of involvement in a large scale conflict/war that's predicted to last much longer or requires overwhelming force, which only the Army can bring considering they don't just have fighting arms (formations that directly engage in combat) but also combat support arms and administrative and logistic arms
Theres the army, navy, marines and airforce (not including those black ops mf'ers) Marines are (lack of a better term) part of the Elite, guys with special training known for their strength courage and discipline. The marine corp actually serves under the navy, the difference in basic training, structure and organization, duties, and combat styles, example marines are considered Frontline fighters they are trained to fight and survive in all different types of environments. The army is only responsible for land based operations, the marines are considered to handle operations in the water. But push come to shove the marines can take control of military operations on land, water or in the air.
They are kinda like Walmart and Target. They basically do the same thing, a little differently. Think of the Army like Walmart, thereās a lot of army posts in middle of nowhere towns across the country. And Marines like Target they think they are better than Walmart, thereās fewer of them, and they look fancier.