Marines vs. Army

[USMC-Ryan]

Which is more effective, the marines or the army. I personally say that the marines are more effective because of there rough and rowdy training that has been the same since 1775. The Army however, at least in the media, is glorified as the saviors and victors of any war. Can you remeber watching a movie at the age of ten and remember the marines, no you probaly heard of the army winning WWII, or the army fightng in desert. But now being older and reading many more books on both military branches i submit that the marines are more effective than the army.

[Der-Lowe]

This thread is quite similar to that one.

[USMC-Ryan]

o well cant know what everyone wrote

[troubles1]

The marines, I love being a JAR-HEAD HURAH.

[MightierThanThou]

The Marines and the Army have different purposes so you can't pretend one is better than the other.

They have two entirely different ways of fighting. There are things that the Marines can do that the Army cannot, and that the Army can do that the Marines cannot.

[42Phoenix42]

Navy!!!!

[ripoffhitman]

The militarty is a choice in life your requires a large amount of thinking, knowing that you can face death, pain, and even the captive of war, so i will surely help you with your problem. Every step you take in the military can cause you to make choices that can scare your life, even the moment you sign the papers to get in the army, any type of disobediance twords your captain, if they still call them that, will make you do duty you have never imagined, thing that make that dirty jobs show look like acounting. Or if you act stupid get sent to jail, but your choice. I myself, have looked at videos, and seen people torn by war, so i would recommend if you don't want to regret your life, choose a job that acts defensive instead of blowing little kids heads off. But this choice of yours can be chosen, so i would make sure if you don't want to kill anyone, the choice is army, because there are many tec, and helping jobs there, from being a missle defender, helping save our country from deadly missles, to a job as a cheif for people in iraq, it is your choice, and your opinion, I hope this helps.

[Eoewe]

The Marines are better because they are better basically trained.

[DarthChimp]

At 3/28/07 05:04 AM, Eoewe wrote: The Marines are better because they are better basically trained.

I second that, coming from another Marine.

[MightierThanThou]

At 3/28/07 05:42 AM, DarthChimp wrote:

At 3/28/07 05:04 AM, Eoewe wrote: The Marines are better because they are better basically trained.

I second that, coming from another Marine.

Ok... but that's not entirely true.

Marines have more intensive infantry training, but it seems you are unaware of the fact that Combat Arms, let alone Infantry only make up a small portion of each branch.

The Marines are both too small and not well equipped enough to do some of the things the Army can do which is just obliterate an a high tech opposing ground force on a gigantic scale.

The Army is to large and cumbersome to conduct a very agile, nitty-gritty, low to medium scale conflict such as an Amphibious assault, or urban warfare.

The Marines are not better than the Army, they are only more effective in their certain niche. The Marines are designed to be more agile and versatile and utilize air, ground, and sea on a small scale, and use relatively primitive ground tactics to do things that the Army can't do by simply blowing everything to shit.

The Army is no better than the Marines, but the Army is alot more advanced and more powerful on the ground than the Marines are in a large scale conventional war against a highly advanced opposing force.

[DarthChimp]

At 3/28/07 06:01 AM, MightierThanThou wrote:

Ok... but that's not entirely true.

Marines have more intensive infantry training, but it seems you are unaware of the fact that Combat Arms, let alone Infantry only make up a small portion of each branch.

The Marines are both too small and not well equipped enough to do some of the things the Army can do which is just obliterate an a high tech opposing ground force on a gigantic scale.

Even if the army has the high tech crap, they are still not as trained as Marines. Heres a story: I deployed to Iraq about 2 years ago. I'm an Aviation Electricain that was put out a a F.A.R.P. site that consisted of 1 other avi ele, 2 mechs, 2 airframes techs, 2 ordance tecs, and a couple army guys helping with transport and fuel. These guys had a couple of Hummers, Along side our single hummer. Both branches use the same hummers. Now one of the Amy hummers was having some problems. One of them pulled out this fancy gadget, plugged it in, and the thing was supposed to tell them what was wrong. (don't ask me, I have no idea how it works) After a couple hours, the idiots sill had no clue what was wrong. Now me and my other avi ele, trained in knowing how to troubleshoot shit (not to include the mechs, airframers, and ordy guys) just watched in awe as these guys ran them selves around not even trying to figrue it out, but instead kept plugging that thing back in to see if it would change. Long story short, one of my mechs looked at it and not even 30 mins later it was fixed. Goes to show you how much high tech stuff gets you when you are a complete moron.

The Army is to large and cumbersome to conduct a very agile, nitty-gritty, low to medium scale conflict such as an Amphibious assault, or urban warfare.

The Army is designed to overcome an enemy by numbers. And because of this, the Army only trains their men half as well as the Marines do. They are good in numbers, but single them out, and they are finished.

The Marines are not better than the Army, they are only more effective in their certain niche. The Marines are designed to be more agile and versatile and utilize air, ground, and sea on a small scale, and use relatively primitive ground tactics to do things that the Army can't do by simply blowing everything to shit.

Air, ground and sea on a small scale? One of our motos is "in the air on land and sea" We are more versitle in any and all of those feilds compared to the army.

The Army is no better than the Marines, but the Army is alot more advanced and more powerful on the ground than the Marines are in a large scale conventional war against a highly advanced opposing force.

They may be more advanced, but they get hardly and good training to utalize it. More powerful on the ground? Do you know how it works in Iraq? Ok well here is a list of events. Marines come in, secure the area, and then hand it over to the Army. Examples: Bagdahd, Fulluja, Al Taqaudaum, Kuwait City.

We are only called the Presidents own force for a reason. That reason is we are more effective, much more reliable, and do not requre congress to mobalize.

[troubles1]

At 3/28/07 06:49 AM, DarthChimp wrote:

At 3/28/07 06:01 AM, MightierThanThou wrote:

Ok... but that's not entirely true.

We are only called the Presidents own force for a reason. That reason is we are more effective, much more reliable, and do not requre congress to mobalize.

Could not agree more, The training we go through makes you fell like you can handle anything, and more times than not we do.

[Eoewe]

The Marines also do more with less.

[LardLord]

The army is the one that wins the war, simply by virtue of being greater in numbers.

Thus, the military depends more heavily on the greater net power of the Army as opposed to the Marines.

[TigerDemon]

Ok listen up jarheads. Your fucking good and every one knows it. Your basic is the hardest outta any branch and people know it. The fact is that you NEED the army. You dont have the numbers to run large scale ground war or to hold places for extended periods of time. You may be the the spear head but with out the body behind it its just a hunk of metal that cant travel. I mean with out the Navy you guys would get no were, with out the Airforce good luck with the long range bombings. All of the armed forces have thier use. Get over it.
STG3, USN

[Brick-top]

Which army?

I think the commandoes or the SAS in smaller numbers could take on you're marines hands down.

[TigerDemon]

At 3/28/07 08:18 PM, Brick-top wrote: Which army?

I think the commandoes or the SAS in smaller numbers could take on you're marines hands down.

Yea but those are spec war units. Try sending the SAS aginst our Delta Force or Navy SEALS and we will see who walks away.

[Gunter45]

The Marines are the spearhead. They're very effective at taking territory and clearing areas, but they're not really suited for holding territory. They're better trained and more effective than the Army, but you can't say that they're any more necessary. The Army and Marines both have their roles to fill.

[JoS]

At 3/28/07 09:27 PM, TigerDemon wrote:

At 3/28/07 08:18 PM, Brick-top wrote: Which army?

I think the commandoes or the SAS in smaller numbers could take on you're marines hands down.

Yea but those are spec war units. Try sending the SAS aginst our Delta Force or Navy SEALS and we will see who walks away.

SEALs suck balls when it comes to long-term comitments. SEALs are decent for single missions, but are not a truely forward deployable unit. SAS and Dealt have two very different styles, but I would put the SAS ahead of DF, but this is by no means auhtoritiative. These guys are tried and true.

The ultimate fighting unit though is the Russian Spetsnaz. Now that is hardcore. Any unit that can make the hostage takers surrender by scaring the living shit out of them gets my respect.

[cellardoor6]

At 3/28/07 06:49 AM, DarthChimp wrote: The Army is designed to overcome an enemy by numbers.

No it's not. And actually the Army is reducing it's size and using new equipment as "force multipliers" to make the size of a force in numbers irrelevant. The Army is much more high-tech than the Marine Corps, it has a much more advanced communications system, and has more tanks, more aircraft (Apaches especially which the Marines lack) that are more advanced.

The Army is designed to obliterate an an enemy's advanced ground force in a huge scale. The Marines can't do that, they aren't even designed to do that.

And because of this, the Army only trains their men half as well as the Marines do.

The Marines have a more infantry-oriented training, but that doesn't mean that the Army doesn't train to do what they are MEANT to do very well.

They are good in numbers, but single them out, and they are finished.

Dumbest thing I have ever heard.

It doesn't work that way. In a modern conventional war, no opposing force would really get close enough to Army infantry to 'single them out'. The Army utilizes much more firepower dispersed over a wider area, no opposing force would really be able to get into the inner ring of this kill zone in order to 'single out' Army soldiers.

Iraq is different though, because the Army can't really use its full strength without reducing the cities they operate in to rubble and this would be unacceptable.

Air, ground and sea on a small scale? One of our motos is "in the air on land and sea" We are more versitle in any and all of those feilds compared to the army.

Versatile maybe, but the Marines cannot conduct a large scale ground war by themselves. The Marines don't have the numbers or the technology to do that, they aren't designed to do that.

The Marines have a certain niche to fill, which is Expeditionary warfare. They are a lighter force meant to be agile and more adaptive. But the Army is meant to create death and destruction on a massive scale. The Army is a superior ground force, the Marines are a superior light combat force.

If you have a large city to clear and root out insurgents from, or a beach head to take etc.. you send the Marines.

If you have a country whose entire ground forces you need to obliterate into nothingness, you use the Army.

They may be more advanced, but they get hardly and good training to utalize it.

The Army only gets less training because they have more specialized MOS's. They are larger, so they don't need to devote as much training per person as they do in the Marines.

More powerful on the ground? Do you know how it works in Iraq?
Ok well here is a list of events. Marines come in, secure the area, and then hand it over to the Army. Examples: Bagdahd, Fulluja, Al Taqaudaum, Kuwait City.

We are only called the Presidents own force for a reason. That reason is we are more effective, much more reliable, and do not requre congress to mobalize.

Ok yeah well you're right about that.

But Iraq isn't a conventional war, it's a counter insurgency. The Army can't really use its full force in Iraq because there would be way more civilian casualties than would be acceptable.

The Marines are trained better in infantry and urban warfare, so yeah they are probably more effective in the relative terms in Iraq per unit.

But pretend that tomorrow (now this is very hypothetical) Russia invades Western Europe and no nukes are used at all.

The US Army would be the most important branch to fend that off because they would need to destroy the hundreds of thousands of vehicles and pieces of equipment the Russians have, over a very large area. The Army would have to take, clear, and hold land while using it's technology to outsmart and out maneuver the Russians.

The Marines couldn't do this, the Marines would perform poorly in such a large scale war because they are both too small, and too nearsighted in their tactics and capability to be able to oversee and conduct such a large operation. The Marines have very narrow objectives in their missions. Yes they are trained very well to do what they do. But the Marines don't have the ability to coordinate such a large scale war that the Army can. They don't have situational awareness, intelligence, logistics, size, technology, or training to do it.

[cellardoor6]

At 3/29/07 12:04 AM, JoS wrote:

At 3/28/07 09:27 PM, TigerDemon wrote:

At 3/28/07 08:18 PM, Brick-top wrote: Which army?

I think the commandoes or the SAS in smaller numbers could take on you're marines hands down.

Yea but those are spec war units. Try sending the SAS aginst our Delta Force or Navy SEALS and we will see who walks away.

SEALs suck balls when it comes to long-term comitments.\

What the hell are you talking about? I love it how everyone who says crap like that has absolutely nothing to base it on, it just amounts to really "I saw a documentary on the SAS and they look cooler, their uniforms are dope"

SEALs are decent for single missions, but are not a truely forward deployable unit.

That's because they are special forces not an entire branch of a military.

SAS and Dealt have two very different styles

No they don't, they are both Special Forces units, they aren't "forward deployable units" they aren't meant to fight on the front lines, thats not what they do at all.

Delta Force and the SAS are very similar.

The Navy Seals, Marine Force Recon, SAS, Spetsnaz, Delta Force etc... all of these units aren't forward deployed, they aren't war fighters, they are designed to conduct special high value missions, not conduct actual combat of a war.

but I would put the SAS ahead of DF, but this is by no means auhtoritiative. These guys are tried and true.

Please tell me why exactly you put "SAS ahead of DF"... what in the world would give you the idea that SAS is better? Seeing as how I've learned that the SAS has been being trained by US special forces since the beginning of the Cold War and are modeled after them.

The ultimate fighting unit though is the Russian Spetsnaz. Now that is hardcore. Any unit that can make the hostage takers surrender by scaring the living shit out of them gets my respect.

I'd like to know what you're basing all of this on, because I've studied Military Science for two years and the Russian Spetsnaz is considered to be inferior to the special forces of NATO countries.

And regardless, the Spetsnaz isn't a "fighting unit" it is a special forces unit, they aren't designed to fight a conventional war, just to conduct very small scale high risk missions. They are more like SWAT than they are like military units.

No special forces - not least of which the SAS which is tiny - could fight a war and defeat an opposing conventional force.

[JoS]

At 3/29/07 04:32 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

SEALs suck balls when it comes to long-term comitments.\

What the hell are you talking about? I love it how everyone who says crap like that has absolutely nothing to base it on, it just amounts to really "I saw a documentary on the SAS and they look cooler, their uniforms are dope"

I am basing this on my research on Priate military contractors. Other SF units dont like working with SEALs because they are pretty boys. They are not use to long term deployments. They typically according to my research go in for a short term thing (a single mission) and then leave and wait for a new mission. Dealtas and other SF untis get deployed into theater and left there for extended periods of time, just like other units. Take for example Afghanistan, SF units are doing extended deployments in the rural areas of the coutnry, going out for weeks or months. they deploy similar to a conventional unit in terms of tour of duty. SEALs are only deployed for a short period of time and do not have long term deployments or commitments.

SEALs are decent for single missions, but are not a truely forward deployable unit.

That's because they are special forces not an entire branch of a military.

Green Berrets, Delta, SAS, JTF 2 and other SF untis are sometimes, and often deployed for extended periods of time, SEALs are not, they respond essentially to a crisis or a specific task then go back to home base.

SAS and Dealt have two very different styles

No they don't, they are both Special Forces units, they aren't "forward deployable units" they aren't meant to fight on the front lines, thats not what they do at all.

The SAS are based upon the idea of minimal force. For example HART which is owned and run by ex-SAS approaches secuirty in Iraq very differently than American companies (run by Dealta and SEALs). Americans use big ass APCs and SUVs and use force or threat of force to protect their clients. HART uses shitty cars that resemble the average car in Iraq and hide their weapons while driving, not pointing them at people and firing warning shots.

Delta Force and the SAS are very similar.

The Navy Seals, Marine Force Recon, SAS, Spetsnaz, Delta Force etc... all of these units aren't forward deployed, they aren't war fighters, they are designed to conduct special high value missions, not conduct actual combat of a war.

No, I would say you are wrong. They are not designed to fight convential war, where two massive militaries meet up. They are designed for special missions as you said, but they are also used in unconvential warfare. Take for example the use of Green Barrets in Latin America, especially Nicaruaga, or the use of Delta and Rangers in Somalia and Afghanistan.

but I would put the SAS ahead of DF, but this is by no means auhtoritiative. These guys are tried and true.

Please tell me why exactly you put "SAS ahead of DF"... what in the world would give you the idea that SAS is better? Seeing as how I've learned that the SAS has been being trained by US special forces since the beginning of the Cold War and are modeled after them.

SAS was founded in 1941, Delta in 1978, Green Berets in 1952, Rangers in 1942, SEALs in 1962. Delta and many other SF units in the world are moulded around the SAS. And even America's first SF unit I would argue is not even really a SF unit. When Canadian infantry goes through Ranger training they are put back into light infantry. The DND considers Ranger training to only be advanced infantry skills, but not elite skills.

The ultimate fighting unit though is the Russian Spetsnaz. Now that is hardcore. Any unit that can make the hostage takers surrender by scaring the living shit out of them gets my respect.

I'd like to know what you're basing all of this on, because I've studied Military Science for two years and the Russian Spetsnaz is considered to be inferior to the special forces of NATO countries.

I do not know about todays Spetsnaz, butduring the Cold War they were trained much mroe hardcore than anything the US could put out. They actually practiced wha they did, like learning hand to hand combat by actuallying fighting and beating up Gulag prisoners. They would have to choose between being cut or having their arm being broken in training. They could go to extremes for training that the US or other NATO countries could never allow. When they had to deal with a hostage situation in their embassy they faired much better than the Delta's did.

And regardless, the Spetsnaz isn't a "fighting unit" it is a special forces unit, they aren't designed to fight a conventional war, just to conduct very small scale high risk missions. They are more like SWAT than they are like military units.

When I meant fighting until I meant SF unit. I did not mean to imply they could fight an entire war on their own. I do not know why you would say they are like a SWAT team, they are recruited through the military and heavily trained.

No special forces - not least of which the SAS which is tiny - could fight a war and defeat an opposing conventional force.

If you have not noticed there has not been a lot of convential warfare recently. NATO forces have been built up to defeat the Russian bear, fight against advanced militaries, and it has now come to bite them in the ass. The nature of warfare has drastically changed. SF units are becoming increasingly more valuable, and neccisary.

[zzzzd]

At 3/29/07 04:32 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Please tell me why exactly you put "SAS ahead of DF"... what in the world would give you the idea that SAS is better? Seeing as how I've learned that the SAS has been being trained by US special forces since the beginning of the Cold War and are modeled after them.

SAS and Delta force train together, they don't train each other, I wouldn't say either were better than the other, they are both the elite of the world. Britain and the US have both equally developed Special forces since the Second world war.

And in actuall fact Delta force were modeled after the SAS some time after WW2

[Brick-top]

At 3/29/07 03:41 PM, zzzzd wrote:

At 3/29/07 04:32 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Please tell me why exactly you put "SAS ahead of DF"... what in the world would give you the idea that SAS is better? Seeing as how I've learned that the SAS has been being trained by US special forces since the beginning of the Cold War and are modeled after them.

SAS and Delta force train together, they don't train each other, I wouldn't say either were better than the other, they are both the elite of the world. Britain and the US have both equally developed Special forces since the Second world war.

And in actuall fact Delta force were modeled after the SAS some time after WW2

Heres something on the SAS

I know Wikipedia is not a reliable source but I cannot be bother to google them for the correct information because I'm too drunk and you have no idea how hard it is too type.

And British Commandos look cool

[SolInvictus]

all right, the endless myriad of military branch/whos got a bigger dick threads are getting ridiculous.

[Brick-top]

At 3/29/07 09:21 PM, SolInvictus wrote: all right, the endless myriad of military branch/whos got a bigger dick threads are getting ridiculous.

Yes but it's fun.

[DarthChimp]

At 3/29/07 04:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 3/28/07 06:49 AM, DarthChimp wrote: The Army is designed to overcome an enemy by numbers.

No it's not. And actually the Army is reducing it's size and using new equipment as "force multipliers" to make the size of a force in numbers irrelevant. The Army is much more high-tech than the Marine Corps, it has a much more advanced communications system, and has more tanks, more aircraft (Apaches especially which the Marines lack) that are more advanced.

You must be retarded. The president just set the Marine Corps and the Army to increase in Numbers. You must be an idiot to the news. Aircraft wise, the Maine Corps is updating. The UH-1N is being replaced by a much faster, and stronger UN-1W and the AH-1Y is being replaced by the new AH-1Z, both much more advanced than anything seen. CH-46 will be replaced by the new OSPREY, and the F-18 will be replaced by the new STVL. All to start within the next couple of years.

Knowing you are not in the miiliatry, I figured you wouldn't know. You do learn somthing new everyday though!

[cellardoor6]

At 3/30/07 11:04 PM, DarthChimp wrote:

At 3/29/07 04:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 3/28/07 06:49 AM, DarthChimp wrote: The Army is designed to overcome an enemy by numbers.

No it's not. And actually the Army is reducing it's size and using new equipment as "force multipliers" to make the size of a force in numbers irrelevant. The Army is much more high-tech than the Marine Corps, it has a much more advanced communications system, and has more tanks, more aircraft (Apaches especially which the Marines lack) that are more advanced.

The president just set the Marine Corps and the Army to increase in Numbers.

That is only just recently for the War on Terror. The Future Combat program in the Army was based on creating smaller, lighter units utilizing breakthrough technology to make a smaller, yet more powerful Army.

You must be an idiot to the news.

No you're just an idiot, period. Just like how in a thread in the General Forum you didn't even know anything about bullets. You thought that what was OBVIOUSLY a 7.62x51mm Nato round was a 5.56x45. Then when Mightierthanyou or showed you sources that proved you wrong, you ran away from the thread.

You're just lucky I was banned during that time because I actually have the bullets that were in question in my possession and I could have taken pictures of them to disprove what you said.

Aircraft wise, the Maine Corps is updating. The UH-1N is being replaced by a much faster, and stronger UN-1W

Thats still just aircraft, and those are just transport/light combat helicopters.

and the AH-1Y is being replaced by the new AH-1Z

Yeah but Cobras are inferior compared to the Apache, and even then the Marines only have a few hundred Cobras. The Army has, I think over 1500 Apaches.

both much more advanced than anything seen.

Um... other than the Apache, and the Eurocopter.

CH-46 will be replaced by the new OSPREY

Transport aircraft... And the Osprey is a trainwreck anyway, test flights have killed like 100 people, and the Osprey has a weak offensive/defensive capability.

and the F-18 will be replaced by the new STVL.

You mean STOVL?

You're talking about the F-35 JSF that isn't even operational yet, or are you talking about the Harrier that has been around for much longer but is being phased out?

I'm aware Marines are getting their version of the F-35, but budget restrictions will limit it to a pretty small number compared to what the Army gets.

Even then, I'm not really saying the Marine Corps isn't advanced, it is, especially compared to other conventional armies of the world.

But it doesn't have nearly the amount of high-level technology and systems that the Army has, it's not just about aircraft and vehicles, it's also about GPS systems, communications systems, and so forth, in addition to superior aircraft and vehicles.

You should read up about the Future Combat Systems program the Army is developing. An entire integrated battle network that is already being fielded to a small degree, basically it makes the entire way a war is conducted go much more smooth and faster. Every soldier and basically every artillery piece, vehicle, aircraft, command center and even every soldier.. are all intertwined into an integrated communications system.

An example is when an Army unit takes mortar fire, instantly an aircraft with airborne radar (or a ground based radar) pinpoints where the mortar fire came from. Information is directly sent to a receiver at an Army artillery installation (or Mortar team depending on the situation). They receive the GPS coordinates from where the mortars were launched, and they have information already in the battle network that no friendlies are in that direct target area. Then they fire for suppression immediately without needing all this information to go up and then back down the ranks to do so.

The Marines wouldn't be able to do this as quickly because their communications systems aren't as advanced as the Army's. With the Marines it would take probably 15 minutes from the time they received the mortar fire to the time the first artillery shell landed at the point of origin. This is because the distress call from the Marines would take a long time to be processed, then conveyed up the chain of command, given to an artillery battalion or platoon commander, then have coordinates and orders communicated down the chain of command, dialed into the mortars or artillery guns then have the guns fire.

With the Army it would take a 2-5 minutes depending on the distance. Thats just one single example of how the Army is being revolutionized, but the Marines aren't really given the same priority for funding and allocation of new technology because their purpose doesn't really require that kind of technology.

Knowing you are not in the miiliatry, I figured you wouldn't know. You do learn somthing new everyday though!

I study Military Science... and will be getting a degree in it within the next 2 years.

[panzerman88]

To all on this thread; "One team, one fight." All branches bring a unique weapon to the fight. I love Marines (I am one and have been for 20 years now) but appreciate all the Army, Navy and AF do. Instead of bitching about who is better lets just work together to destroy the fucking enemy at home and abroad. Let whomever is better suited for the fight take the fight and support them wholeheartedly to ensure a victory. Right now we have soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen fighting and dying overseas I would think there is alot more we can do than argue about who is better, don't ya think? Have a great saturday and enjoy a cold beer for the boys "in the fight"

[TheGimped]

Why does it matter? They're both on the same side, and they both need the other to function.

The army has the vast numbers that will allow them to do large scale obliteration of the opposing force, but they don't have the training that is given to the marines, meaning that they must function in large numbers, preventing smaller scale missions from being done, which will be their downfall.

The marines have incredible training, but small numbers. That means they do the small scale missions which the army can't, due to training and size. But if the army wasn't there, the marines would be obliterated by sheer number.