Do Marines put the pride/image of the Marine Corps before the individual Marine?

[Birdman221]

This question stems from a conversation I had with an officer in the army. (I know that she is biased and most likely doesn't know as much about the Corps).
Well I will be graduating next year and have Marine OCS at the top of my list.
After stating my reasons for choosing the Marines, she told me that the Marines are very proud infantrymen to the point that they put Semper Fi (always faithful) TO the Marine Corps first, and the individual Marine second. She kind of put the priorities like this:

1) Image
2) Mission
3) Individual Troop

The officer then explained that in the Army, the faith and mission is geared completely towards the soldier/mission, not the essence of the Army. There is pride for the Army, but pride and allegiance to the individual soldier is the most important thing.

I know this is a subtle difference, (shouldn't the Marine Corps and the individual Marine be looked at as one in the same)
but it got me thinking more about my decision for OCS.

In the end, my faith and pride goes toward supporting and caring for the enlisted infantry/mission, everything else is second, and I believe that's how it should be.
I could really care less about which branch should garner the most respect and who has the most hard-core image because I respect each of them equally.
Anyway, some further insight into the culture between the two (Marine Corps and Army) on this matter would be much appreciated.

Thank you!

[Marine84]

You won't get anybody's opinion on nothing if you don't fill out that profile.

[MyCorps]

Oh Boy!!! Here we go....
Profile up, hotshot.

[Birdman221]

profile done.

[TRN]

You should have pride in both the Corps and yourself.

One represents the other.

[Echo_Four_Bravo]

Mission accomplishment is priority number one. If you cannot get the job done there is no reason to exist. Thus, the greater good always comes before the needs or desires of any individual Marine. Troop welfare is important, but never as important as the mission.

An individual Marine can accomplish nothing. The Army can talk about their Army of One all they want- no solider can do anything alone either. It takes a large coordinated effort to accomplish the mission. Every member of a fire team must work together. The fire teams must work together within the squad, the squads must work together within the platoon, etc. Further, you need supply and logistics to get the equipment to you, you need cooks to feed you, you need admin to pay you, you need the wing to give you rides and provide CAS. Putting pride in an individual is ridiculous because an individual can accomplish nothing. However, an individual can cost everyone the mission.

[Brewer0311]

If you take pride in the Marine Corps then they will have pride towards the individual Marine.

It's part of the leadership traits and troop leading steps. You can't really have one without the other.

[Birdman221]

I appreciate everyone's insights. I am about to make a very important decision in my life and I want to know that I'm choosing the best fit for me, and vice versa the US Military.
One last thought on Pride and the US Marines...here is an experience I was given by an Army Platoon Leader:

"""""Can not speak for all Marines or Marine units obviously..... I can only speak with reference to my experiences.

Let me give you one REAL example (not the only one I have)
Cu Chi Vietnam.... some Marines got into a fire fight in our AO ( 25 th Inf Div)...... Charlie was giving them heavy casualties..... we offered assistance.... artillary?? ......helicopters ??..... anything

The captain on the radio said simply, " Thanks but we will handle things"

I was an Army platoon leader..... when my troops are being slaughtered..... I will accept help from the "girl scouts" if it will save the lives of my troops and accomplish the mission.....

The Marine Corps methods tend toward the casualty intensive light infantry style....

They have consistently fought adding heavy capabilities to their mix -- like the M60 in the 70s and the M1 in the 80s/90s...
The vehicles they do accept, like the LAV, are under-armored and under-armed, resulting in more casualties than necessary

I think it is a mistake to put PRIDE before mission and the troops."""""


Don't get me wrong, I have extreme pride for the US and all service men and women...especially the Marines. But pride regarding the mission and troops is something about the Corps culture I'd like to understand a little better.

[Brewer0311]

I appreciate everyone's insights. I am about to make a very important decision in my life and I want to know that I'm choosing the best fit for me, and vice versa the US Military.
One last thought on Pride and the US Marines...here is an experience I was given by an Army Platoon Leader:

"""""Can not speak for all Marines or Marine units obviously..... I can only speak with reference to my experiences.

Let me give you one REAL example (not the only one I have)
Cu Chi Vietnam.... some Marines got into a fire fight in our AO ( 25 th Inf Div)...... Charlie was giving them heavy casualties..... we offered assistance.... artillary?? ......helicopters ??..... anything

The captain on the radio said simply, " Thanks but we will handle things"

I was an Army platoon leader..... when my troops are being slaughtered..... I will accept help from the "girl scouts" if it will save the lives of my troops and accomplish the mission.....

The Marine Corps methods tend toward the casualty intensive light infantry style....

They have consistently fought adding heavy capabilities to their mix -- like the M60 in the 70s and the M1 in the 80s/90s...
The vehicles they do accept, like the LAV, are under-armored and under-armed, resulting in more casualties than necessary

I think it is a mistake to put PRIDE before mission and the troops."""""


Don't get me wrong, I have extreme pride for the US and all service men and women...especially the Marines. But pride regarding the mission and troops is something about the Corps culture I'd like to understand a little better.


Yeah, and you can tell that old solider that he contacted them through radio. That means he didn't see what was going on at the time. Helos, arty, and mortars were more than likely not viable.

Danger close missions are an easy way for someone to get an award. It was probably more likely to kill more Marines with air support or arty than to let the men on the ground sort it out.

Let me give you a REAL story of the Army in OIF.

An Army convoy comes up to the gate of the base. I'm loading my weapon as they pull up to clear theirs out.

A female solider is in the turret behind a 50 cal with her Ipod headphones in. We all look in shock.

She takes out the headphones and attempts to clear the weapon. With a giggle she says, "I don't even know how to shoot it how should I know how to unload it??"

Holy ****ing ****balls. Yes, that story is true.

Another story.

Army convoy always stops about 1500m outside the gate at a gas station. No clue why, but they do it every day. Their Lt allowed it so whatever.

Then one day they stop... And BOOM! Yep, IED. Two casualties. Thankfully no one died. At least to my knowledge they didn't.

So, you can take your pick on which branch you want to join.

Even if you were a Marine Lt. and pulled some stupid **** like that. You'd have an enlistedman tactfully and strongly recommending it changes.

[thewookie]

I appreciate everyone's insights. I am about to make a very important decision in my life and I want to know that I'm choosing the best fit for me, and vice versa the US Military.
One last thought on Pride and the US Marines...here is an experience I was given by an Army Platoon Leader:

"""""Can not speak for all Marines or Marine units obviously..... I can only speak with reference to my experiences.

Let me give you one REAL example (not the only one I have)
Cu Chi Vietnam.... some Marines got into a fire fight in our AO ( 25 th Inf Div)...... Charlie was giving them heavy casualties..... we offered assistance.... artillary?? ......helicopters ??..... anything

The captain on the radio said simply, " Thanks but we will handle things"

I was an Army platoon leader..... when my troops are being slaughtered Marines don't think like this so we won't talk like this..... I will accept help from the "girl scouts" if it will save the lives of my troops and accomplish the mission..... the first rule is to accomplish the mission

The Marine Corps methods tend toward the casualty intensive light infantry style....

They have consistently fought adding heavy capabilities to their mix -- like the M60 in the 70s and the M1 in the 80s/90s...
The vehicles they do accept, like the LAV, are under-armored and under-armed, resulting in more casualties than necessary this is funny..

I think it is a mistake to put PRIDE before mission and the troops. this is another funny one, only a clown would say that


Don't get me wrong, I have extreme pride for the US and all service men and women...especially the Marines. But pride regarding the mission and troops is something about the Corps culture I'd like to understand a little better. get off the sidelines and get in the game, that's truly the ONLY way you can find out

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, Birdman. I think your Army "source" is sour because he's "leading" soldiers instead of Marines. But that's just my opinion.

Our culture is simple, get the job done. America has the Army to worry about troop welfare; they have Marines to get the job done.

I think you should join the Army, Birdman, be Army strong.... who ah

[mrbsox]

The captain on the radio said simply, " Thanks but we will handle things"



Can't speak from direct COMBAT experience, but some potential insight....

To say MARINES TACTICS ARE CASUALTY INTENSIVE (ad.lib) can sound one sided. A better thought line may be that MARINE TACTICS ARE TIME INTENSIVE.

In an ambush, we are taught to 'assault thru' the line. 1 of 2 things will happen;
A) Since you are in the kill box, you WILL get killed
B) Assault OUT OF THE BOX and thru the enemy line. You MIGHT get killed.

Given the 2 choices, I'd choose 'B'.

Now, for the time intensive part.
If the assault thru phase was in progress, then to stop it to wait for arty to spot in, adjust, and then FFE, would be CASUALTY INTENSIVE to a unit that was in the process of getting it's own azz out of a jam.

That is only ONE TAKE on a given situation, I'm sure there are others.
(I won't open the 'can of worms' that happens when non-Marine units TRY TO HELP)

As for the PRIDE or the CORPS question....
COMPLETE THE MISSION. period, end of conversation.
A mission CANNOT be completed without motivated troops, ready for action.
Be the specific mission to take a beach, defend a hill, or even put up a flag pole....... it WILL BE DONE in Marine Corps fashion.:thumbup:

That usually means with less. But it ALWAYS means with pride and distinction. And when Marines complete a mission, then THEIR care and well being is in hand, because THEY have just written another chapter in the Marine Corps History. :flag:

MrB.

[davblay]

MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT IS PRIORITY ONE! You can lick your wounds later!

Dave

[Birdman221]

I again appreciate everyone's answers and opinions. Here is the mental stereotype being formed now for me:

Disciplined Marines vs Softer Army Soldiers

Marines:
Pros:
Highly motivated, disciplined and physically fit to take on any problem thrown at them. They are NOT soldiers, they are Marines, first and foremost infantrymen. Trust them to get the job done and know that they are true leaders, the few and the proud.

Cons:
Since they specialize in high casualty (time-intensive), light infantry tactics to get the mission done, their heavy artillery such as the LAV and transport Humvees are under-armored meaning they have more causalities than necessary. The Marines put PRIDE before the mission and individual troop meaning they’d rather have more Marine casualties to get the job done themselves than rely on Army support if needed…even if Army support would help them get the mission completed with less casualties.

Army:
Pros:
They support the mission and their soldiers first. While there is pride and camaraderie amongst soldiers in the US Army, the first priority is getting the mission done while taking care of the soldier by fully supporting them (even if it meant getting help from the girl scouts as long as it meant getting the mission done with less casualties). Their equipment is superior, compared to the Marines. They are an Army of One.

Cons:
Compared to the Marines, they are not as disciplined, motivated or physically fit to accomplish the mission at hand. Compared to the Marines, Army soldiers are not as trained for the mission at hand. Compared to the Marines, soldiers are almost seen as slackers who are more likely to get themselves killed in combat. If you were an officer in Iraq, you would want Marines backing you in combat, not Army soldiers.

So here’s what I’m looking at. And to tell you the truth, I’d much rather be highly trained to handle unpredictable situations thrown at me than not, which is one of the reasons Marine OCS was at the top of my list. However, I want to know that getting the mission done equals having as little casualties as possible with as much support as possible.

[MyCorps]

ok, since you are in Austin you have a large MEPS station to go to.
Try this...
Go to the MEPS station. Plan to stay all day just to observe. Look at the Army recruits compared to the Marine recruits. Watch how the NCOs interact with each group. Watch closely. Then go talk to an Army OSO. Ask lots of questions. Finally, go to a Marine OSO. After doing that, come back here and honestly tell me which branch you want to join.

Obviously everyone here has a strong opinion towards the Marine Corps. Hell yes, I would love for you to go to OCS, TBS and on. Try the above. Let me know.

[Scooby028]

Seems we are forgetting the main reason our vehicles are lighter then the Armies. MARINES must travel into areas that no one else must go but are needed for the main battle. Unlike the Army that is a huge blob we can not afford to be bulked down we are the world's 911 force. As time has proven from the early Spartans to Ghangas Khan quick strikes usually help win wars. Its not the equipment but the warrior that succeds in battle. "THE MOST DANGEROUS WEAPON IN THE WORLD IS A MARINE AND HIS RIFLE!!!"

[Dave Coup]

Just a comment on equipment.. The Marine Corps has historically been left sucking hind tit equipment wise. We were eating WWII C rats in Nam when the Army had easier to carry better tasting LRPS. CH 34 Helicopters when the Army already had CH 46's. I don't believe that The Marine Corps has under armored or underarmed equipment in Iraq by choice. Just my 2 cents.

[YutYut]

Something implied, but didn't see stated outright...the Marine Corps mission is wildly different from the Army mission. Marines have to move fast and TAKE areas. The Army has to get their and HOLD it. I like the Capt's idea.

[BR34]

This entire thread is based on the opinion of one soldier. I don't even think that warrants this discussion.