My point is, it destroys the myth of the US Marine Corps being awesome, innovative, and "America's Fire Brigade".
Historically, USMC apologists have pointed to the Marine Corps long tradition from 1900-1939 of "filibustering" in various Caribbean and Central American countries, as proof that they have the institutional knowledge and doctrine to execute the role of America's Fire Brigade, etc.
Sadly, that doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny; as shown above by the article; e.g. that in 136 separate instances, the US Navy landed groups of it's sailors ashore as literal naval infantry in actions ranging up to brigade level against major enemy forces. And this was done all without the special training that the US Marine Corps prides itself on.
They literally just picked landing parties from ships' contigents and formed them into the required units of action and sent them ashore, using US Army training manuals and doctrine, which kind of destroys the Marine claim of superior training and doctrine, when a bunch of SAILORS can do just as good.
Historically, USMC apologists have pointed to the Marine Corps long tradition from 1900-1939 of "filibustering" in various Caribbean and Central American countries, as proof that they have the institutional knowledge and doctrine to execute the role of America's Fire Brigade, etc.
Sadly, that doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny; as shown above by the article; e.g. that in 136 separate instances, the US Navy landed groups of it's sailors ashore as literal naval infantry in actions ranging up to brigade level against major enemy forces. And this was done all without the special training that the US Marine Corps prides itself on.
They literally just picked landing parties from ships' contigents and formed them into the required units of action and sent them ashore, using US Army training manuals and doctrine, which kind of destroys the Marine claim of superior training and doctrine, when a bunch of SAILORS can do just as good.
Get rid of the Jarheads!
Comment