Re: Difference in Army Ranger and US Marine
This discussion has taken me to the task to study a little. It appears that the likenesses outweight the differnces in comparing the Marines to the Rangers.
1. Both seem to have spirit de corp.
2. Both seem to very aggressive in their work.
3. Both place PT very high.
4. Both seem to see action before other units.
5. Both are first in combat.
6. Both seem to value their fellow members.
7. Both seem to deploy very fast when called upon.
1. Marines are placed in Divisions where as Rangers are in battalions.
2. Marines are consider conventional forces versus spec ops for the Rangers.
3. Marines don't receive the better equipment like the Rangers do UNLESS they are member of a Raiders and or Recon element.
4. Marines don't do Airborne and Rangers don't do Amp. landings.
5. Marines seem to place more emphasis on marksmanship where as Rangers places it on stealth.
This leads to a more in depth discussion
1. Rangers get their heritage from Point de Hoc in France, Merrill Maurders in Burma, and the LRRPS in Vietnam.....seems that the Rangers are more a recon and special mission version of a soldier.
2. Marines get their heritage in fighting very aggressively in the likes of terrorism dating back to the Briabry Pirates in the late 1700's.
3. Once you study the Marines and Rangers they are entirely different.
4. Marines and Rangers are often thrown together due to the fact of their training. Marines don't have Special Ops in their ranks so to speak, they do currently have Raiders and Special Recon elements, maybe then you can link the two together by comparing those units with each other.
For some reason Special Ops is confused with the Marines, what this leads to ask is this.
1. Why do Marines conventional forces get the dirty jobs?
It appears on the outside , that the Army does not have any aggressive units like the Marines.
If you currently look at the modern conflicts...Vietnam and up....Marines are almost always given such assignments as street fighting, house to house, and search and destroy....this is wanted to be done as soon as possible. Conventional Army units don't appear....in modern warfare...to have aggressive units for this....they tend to fight more deliberately and slower....such things as surrounding a city or town for a time period and slowly but surely squeeze the town into submission....two different tactics. I maybe off in this assessment of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It appears that conventional infantry forces in the Army fight this way. It appears that Marines versus 1st Calvary, 1st Infantry, 3rd Infantry, 4th Infantry or 25th Infantry would be better comparison.
Even light infantry units cant be really compared to Marines. 10th mountain, 101 Airborne, 82 Airborne, don't use tanks or mechanized infantry...so you cant compare there.
SO.....with all this being said......I stand more confused than I was before... LOL
THANKS to all who served in the Army or Marines....I have great respect for the both of you!
Just for the record, I was turned down by the Marines twice as a candidate for OCS. One at age 24 and another at age 38. I was turned down by the Army for OCS at age 38 as well. However, the Navy was very receptive to me at 38, but Im not a ship liking person....so I stayed a civilian.
Please correct me here where Im wrong as well
67 chevelle malibu / SS/ custom
Currently undergoing a metal work to remove all rust, if I ever get there.
Cant decide on prostreet or cruiser with a 4 speed.