Firstly, I am British, so I have 0 clue on how the US armed forces work.
My limited knowledge of the system tells me that marines and the army perform the same task, which is the primary land based attack force.
So what exactly is the difference between the 2 and how does the US decide which force to mobilise and when?
In: Other
The majority of the differences are organizational – the Marines and the Army have their own hierarchy, they’re structured, organized, and outfitted differently, get their own budgets, etc.
But at a simple level of “what do these groups do in a conflict,” it’s the same as it’s historically been. The point of having a Navy (which Marines are technically structured under) is to control oceans and transport routes, and to quickly respond to threats. Marines are the units of the Navy that are meant to mobilize and respond quickly. So if you have an urgent crisis or need defense at some specific point, the Marines are the organization to use – they’re specialized in working in smaller units and quickly getting to a specific point and defending it.
An army, on the other hand, is a huge, slow-moving beast. The point of an army is to control a territory completely. So while it can’t mobilize as quickly as the Marines, it’s a larger operation that can provide more long-term support – heavy artillery, entrenched bases, and maintaining a presence for years.
The general idea is that if some spot is in trouble, you send Marines in first, because they’re built to take small groups, get to a place quickly and capture or hold it effectively. Then send the Army in to defend it – they’re more specialized in that way and they’re built to maintain that position or advance it for months or years, while the Marines are redeployed to the next mission. Obviously there’s an enormous amount of overlap between the organizations of the armed forces today, but that’s sort of the key strength of each organization.
Latest Answers