E6Hotel

IceFire: You’re right about the E/W/O.  I’ll try to break down the relationship between USMC ranks for you (much of this should be applicable to all the services, but I’m not sure). In VERY general terms, here is the relationship between the ranks: Commissioned Officers receive a “commission†from the POTUS placing “special faith and confidence†in them, which is the source of an officer’s command authority.  There are several ways to obtain a commission: -- Naval Academy graduates can opt to become Navy Ensigns or Marine Second Lieutenants (both O1’s). -- College students or graduates can (if selected) attend OCS in Quantico, VA.  Officer Candidate’s School could be considered officer’s boot camp, with one big difference.  Enlisted boot camp is designed to get recruits into good physical condition and instill “instant and willing obedience†to orders.  In contrast, an officer candidate has to already be in good shape to make it to OCS.  This is because the focus in OCS is to train candidates how to lead, not follow.  Physical conditioning is more or less a given. -- Enlisted Marines have several programs designed to help them earn commissions.  Some are for Marines who already have their bachelor’s degrees, while others prepare Marines for college classes and actually send them to school while they’re on active duty.  Like the options above, Marines are commissioned only after completing OCS. (A helpful hint for you: If you ever see an officer wearing a Good Conduct Ribbon it means he’s a Mustang; only enlisted Marines receive that award.) After completing OCS, all newly appointed Second Lieutenants attend The Basic School (TBS), also in Quantico.  TBS lasts 6 months and is designed to teach EVERY Marine officer, regardless of MOS, how to lead an infantry unit.  After TBS, the officer attends an MOS school (possibly flight training), and eventually reports to his first unit. Enlisted Marines fall into 3 different categories. “Non-rates†are the Privates, Privates First Class (PFC’s), and Lance Corporals.  (Personally, I always hated the term “non-rate,†as it sounds derogatory to me.  I say “Lance Corporals and below.â€)  These guys are the worker bees, and make up the majority of the Corps. Corporals and Sergeants are Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO’s).  These ranks could be considered entry-level management.  Here, your responsibilities begin to shift from carrying out orders to ensuring that orders are carried out.  You’re also tasked with taking care of the junior Marines working for you.  This is not always an easy job, and there’s an old saying that summarizes what it’s like to work with the lower ranks:  “Put a PFC in a padded room with two steel ball bearings, and in 5 minutes he’ll lose one and break the other.† They’re not all like that, but many are basically kids, and they will keep you on your toes.  One other thing, completely unrelated -- Marine NCO’s and SNCO’s are the only enlisted members of the U.S. military who are still authorized to carry swords.  Staff Non-commissioned Officers (SNCO’s) are enlisted Marines in the paygrades E6 – E9.  Your responsibilities are similar to NCO’s, except you also need to ensure that the NCO’s are performing.  SNCO’s also work more closely with officers.  With senior officers you serve as an advisor, while with junior officers you are a mentor.  Let’s take an infantry platoon for example.  A brand new Second Lieutenant checks in and is assigned a rifle platoon.  Make no mistake; the Lt (pronounced “El-teeâ€) is in charge.  However, the Platoon Sgt’s job is to provide practical experience and guidance so that the Lt can learn the ropes.  A related joke: What are the most frightening words a platoon sergeant can hear?  A 2nd Lt beginning a sentence with “In my experience …†There are no “instant NCO†schools in the USMC.  The only ways to pick up enlisted rank is with time and experience, or by meritorious promotion for superior performance.  There ARE schools designed to provide Marines with the additional skills they need as they’re promoted: -- Corporal’s Course -- Sergeant’s Course -- Squad leader's course (for grunt NCO's) -- Career Course (for Staff Sergeants) -- Platoon sergeant's course (for grunt SNCO's) -- Advanced Course (for Gunnery Sergeants) The traditional difference between officers and enlisted was that officers had degrees and enlisted didn’t, but that is no longer true.  There are plenty of enlisted Marines with degrees (including me) who choose not to pursue a commission.  Warrant Officers receive “warrants†instead of commissions, and are the “middle ground†between enlisted and commissioned officers.  All WO’s are selected from the enlisted ranks based on their technical expertise, and must have a minimum of 8 years time in service to be eligible.  “Gunner†is the slang term for WO’s, but that is technically inaccurate -- a Gunner is actually an infantry WO who serves as a Battalion Commander’s weapons employment expert.  A 22-year old 2nd Lt outranks a Chief Warrant Officer (5) with 30 years of experience, but as you can imagine, the “advice†of a WO is usually followed.  Another joke: What are the most frightening words a Captain can hear?  One CWO telling another CWO to “Watch this sh!t.†At the risk of completely blowing your mind, some MOS’s have Limited Duty Officers (LDO’s).  These are especially qualified WO’s that receive commissions as Captains and can then progress up the commissioned officer ranks. Semper Fi

IceFire: The link in the last post gives a basic outline of the rank structure. Â You may have noticed a couple of strange things in the chart: Gunnery Sergeants (E7s) have to decide between 2 career paths. Â The first option is to continue in their MOS, in which case they would be promoted to Master Sergeant (E8) and ultimately Master Gunnery Sergeant (E9). Â The other option is to go into the Command-related billets, First Sergeant (E8) and Sergeant Major (E9). Â First Sergeants are the senior enlisted in a Company, and serve as the Company Commander's advisor. Â Sergeants Major serve a similar role at the Batallion and Division levels. Â Every four years, a hard-charging Sergeant Major is selected as the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, and serves as the Commandant's advisor on enlisted matters. Â (Both paths pay the same and rate the same benefits, but there is a small resentment factor, because there's no such thing as the Master Gunnery Sergeant of the Marine Corps. Â Heh.) Warrant Officers rank between enlisted and commissioned. Â In the Corps, Warrant Officers are the technical experts in their fields, and are appointed from the enlisted ranks. Â Candidates must have at least 8 years time in service to be eligible. Â The majority of Army WO's (correct me if I'm wrong, USSoldier11B) serve as helo pilots, but all USMC aviators are commissioned. Â There aren't many WO's, but when they're around they're pretty much running the show (unofficially, of course). Semper Fi

USSoldier11B: The Mk-19, especially when mounted on a humvee, is <<Mr. Burns voice>> "Exxxcellent!" Â "Doesn't it take a really long time to make rank in the Corps?" Depends on the Marine and the MOS. Â Generally, the more skill the MOS requires, the faster it promotes. Â In the lower ranks it's also possible to earn meritorious promotions. Â You could break down a Marine's career into three phases: Â -- Promotions to PFC and Lance Corporal are automatic, once you meet time-in-service requirements (barring any screw-ups). Â A typical Marine takes 2-4 years to make Corporal. Â It's also possible to be in a "frozen" MOS that's not promoting. Â I've seen Marines leave as terminal Lance Corporals because their MOS wasn't given a "cutting score." Â A few years back anti-armor was notorious for not promoting. -- Becoming an NCO (Corporal and Sergeant) requires meeting a "cutting score" composed of PFT, rifle score, proficiency/conduct marks, self-education, and other factors. Â Every MOS has a score (except the "frozen" ones); the intent is to promote the highest-scoring Marines in each MOS while keeping the rank structure proportional. Â Expect to wait about 8-10 years to make SSgt. Â -- Once you make Sergeant, you receive fitness reports ("fitreps") from your reviewing officer. Â The fitrep rates you in various categories such as technical proficiency, intellect, ability to work under pressure, etc. Â All Sergeants and SNCO's eligible for promotion are evaluated by selection boards in HQMC. Â Board members review fitreps and service records, then choose the best qualified. Â Like the Army, once you hit SNCO promotions can slow down. Â There are fewer openings, competition is fierce, and you need years of time-in-grade before you're eligible for pin on a new rocker. For what it's worth, I picked up Staff Sergeant in 7 years, and might pick up Gunny next year (was out of the promotion eligibility zone by 2 months this year) -- according to my co-workers, I'm being fast-tracked. Â It's typical for careerists to retire at 20 as E8's (First Sergeants or Master Sergeants). Â If I stay in and don't submit a WO package, I should pick up E9 (Sergeant Major or Master Gunnery Sergeant) in 20. Â I'd be going the Master Guns route. Â We shall see... Â Â Semper Fi

IceFire: No problem. Â As far as your age goes, keep in mind that you need to be less than 30 when you're commissioned. Â Shouldn't be a problem for you. Â I've got to stress that you need to research your options -- check out www.usmc.mil. Â Reserves: Â The training is the same, but you may be limited in the MOS's you can choose, depending on what kind of units you live near. USSoldier11B: I noticed your comments about Gunny Hathcock in the "war heroes" thread; needless to say, he is revered in the Corps. Â FYI, just wanted to say that all "Ma Deuces" (M2s) can be set for single-shot. Â And the VC kid running guns? Â The first shot hit the bicycle. Â The second didn't. Â 2,500 yard confirmed kill. Keep forgetting MOS's! 0302 -- Infantry officer 0306 -- Marine "Gunner" (Permanent appointment to CWO2; Batallion CO's weapons guru) 0369 -- Platoon sergeant (All grunt sergeants become 0369's when they reach Staff Sergeant / E6) Semper Fi

Oh yeah... 8541 -- USMC Scout/Sniper This is a secondary MOS. For example, a machine gunner serving as a scout/sniper would be an 0331 in an 8541 billet MOS. Semper Fi

IceFire: Thanks for the promotion, but it’s E6Hotel for now.  Heh. Here’s a short breakdown of grunt training.  In boot camp all recruits receive two weeks of instruction with the M16A2, along with a VERY brief intro to crew-served weapons and basic infantry skills.  After boot camp, all 03XX’s (infantry) attend SOI (the School of Infantry) in Camp Pendleton, CA (West Coast) or Camp Lejeune, NC (east coast).  Here, you’ll receive your primary MOS: 0311 – Rifleman 0313 – LAR (light armored reconnaissance) crewman 0321 – Recon (see below) 0331 – Machine gunner 0341 – Mortarman 0351 – Anti-armor / Javelin 0352 – Anti-armor / TOW Obviously, your MOS determines what weapons you train with.  Every 03XX is familiar with MGs, but mortars and tank-busting are usually left to the specialists.  The anti-armor guys also receive additional training in demolitions.  All grunts are extensively trained in land navigation, commo, patrolling, ambushes, assaults, etc.  There will also be a few “humps†with full gear, ranging from 10-26 miles.  SOI lasts about 2 Ë months; afterwards, you’ll report to your grunt unit and begin working up for deployments.  Training never, ever stops.        If you go in under contract as Marine Corps Security Forces, you go to the MCSF school in Chesapeake, VA after SOI.  You train with the M9 Beretta, the service shotgun, and anti-terrorism tactics.  Security Forces provide security for Naval “special weapons†in CONUS, and the two MCSF FAST (Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team) Companies are deployed when threat conditions are elevated (e.g. the African embassy bombings and the Cole).  I did two years with FAST back when there was only one Company and it’s an interesting gig.  LOTS of shooting, PT, and advanced anti-/counterterrorism tactics.  You might want to check it out. About Recon:  You can enlist as an 0321, but all that does is provide you the opportunity to take the indoc at SOI.  Marines can also attempt the indoc later on.  The indoc is conducted in one day, and usually consists of the following events: -- A PFT, with a minimum 285/300 score (that’s 20 dead-hang pull-ups, 100 crunches in 2 minutes, and a 3-mile run in 20:30 or less) -- 1st class swim qualification (after running a few more miles to the pool, of course, along with “water aerobics†between qualification stages); then a run back to your starting point, and finally, -- A time-limited, 5-mile “ruck run,†carrying a 50-lb sandbag in your pack.  Not sure about the time, but I think it's around 45 minutes - 1 hour. You also need to meet GT (intelligence score) requirements, and an interview/evaluation.  And that just gets you in the door.  The actual training is much more difficult. Scout/snipers: The technical requirements to attend the school don’t sound all that impressive -- adequate vision, minimum PFT score, expert rifleman.  Keep in mind, though, that shooting is the EASY part of the school.  Land navigation and fieldcraft (stalking) are the hard parts.  To be a scout/sniper you’re going to have to prove yourself to be a mature, reliable, squared-away Marine that can operate independently.  Great rifle shots are a dime a dozen in the Corps, but the scout/snipers are a rare breed. Officers:  If you’re interested, don’t wait until you’ve graduated college.  During your freshman or sophomore year, find your closest OSO (Officer Selection Office) and pay them a visit.  OCS (Officer Candidate’s School) is mentally and physically tougher than boot camp, and much more selective.  If you’re an enlisted Marine, there are several programs that could enable you to receive a commission, and the Corps actually takes pride in having the highest percentage of “Mustangs†(prior enlisted officers) of any of the services.    Sorry, but I don’t have any info on washouts.  I did know one guy at FAST that made it through the 2nd Force Recon indoc, reported to the combat diver school, and turned out to be color-blind.  The poor guy had to be dropped, and finished up his hitch as a game warden.  He had spent almost a year training for Force, too. About airborne / scuba (technically it’s combat diver) schools: Like USSoldier11B said, most 03XX’s don’t go to these schools.  They’re expensive, they pull Marines out of other training, and we only have so many allocations.  If we sent regular grunts, we might not be able to get a school seat for a Recon Marine that NEEDS the school.  Occasionally, airborne school seats are given for winning a board, or as a re-enlistment incentive. One thing I would seriously suggest is that you should think about why you want to be a Marine.  Don’t join for school money or to learn a technical skill.  Now don’t misunderstand me -- we get the G.I. Bill and we have technical MOS’s.  It’s just that you can get that stuff in the other services, usually with less sacrifice.  It might sound strange, but the only reason to enlist in the Marine Corps is to be a Marine.  If you ever wear the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor you’ll understand. Semper Fi

USSoldier11B: Same idea. SPIE = Special Patrol Insertion and Extraction. It's when a stick of guys hook up in pairs to a rope dangling below a helo and get dropped off or picked up. Semper Fi

IceFire: What would you like to know about life as a grunt in my beloved Corps?  (I should warn you that I can’t make any comparisons to life as a “leg,†as I’ve never been in the Army.)  Just a little background: I’m active duty and went over eight years in February.  Spent my first hitch as an 0311 (Rifleman), and had two other secondary (“B-billetâ€) MOS’s, 8152 (Security Forces) and 8154 (CQB team member). Force Recon is very similar to the SEALs in training and capabilities.  Candidates must pass an initial screening (very difficult) before entering the training pipeline.  Typical schools include, but are not limited to: -- Basic Reconnaissance Course -- necessary for 0321 Reconnaissance Man MOS -- Basic Airborne (HAHO and HALO added later) -- Combat Diver -- SERE (Survival, Escape, Resistance, and Evasion) -- Ranger school (Unlike soldiers, we don’t wear unit patches or tabs on our cammies.  However, Marines who finish Ranger school usually sew their tabs under their breast pocket flaps.) -- USMC scout/sniper school -- HRST (Helicopter Rope Suspension Training) – rappelling, fastroping, SPIE -- In addition, there are specialized courses taught in-house by the SOTG (Special Operations Training Group) such as CQB, Breaching, and Urban Countersniping.  You won’t see any Marines in BUD/S (unless they’re transferring into the Navy); that’s specifically for the SEALs. All the services cross-train; we’re not unique in that respect.  What IS strange is that the Corps offers some of these schools (Airborne, SERE, and Mountain Warfare) as re-enlistment incentives.  Airborne I could understand – at least you earn silver wings.  But SERE?  Imagine:  “Okay, I’ll sign up for four more years, but ONLY if you send me out in the woods for a few weeks so that I can learn to survive by eating worms and bugs.† Thanks, but no thanks! If you've got any other questions, let me know. Semper Fi

USSoldier11B: “...I'm not bragging that the army is better....†Glad we agree that having pride in your service doesn’t translate into trying to badmouth the others.  After all, “Marines win battles, but soldiers win the war.† “Nope, I'm talking about field gear as well…Face it, the Corps is underfunded. I think it is unfortunate that our "first to go" has old, unservicable gear.†Buddy, you’re preaching to the choir with that one.  Our trash is barely adequate, and there’s a reason we stress “Improvise, adapt, and overcome.†“Don't believe me? Let's compare my gear to yours. Granted I am in a Spec Ops unit and we get priority funding. Still, we are a National Guard unit, and have better gear than active Marines.†I believe you 100%.  Little story: A few years ago I was with a Marine unit called FAST Company (for any Brits out there, FAST is roughly equivalent to the Royal Marines’ Commachio Group).  We were considered a fairly high-speed, low-drag outfit, and got to play with a lot of toys the typical grunts never get to see (MP5Ns, Mossbergs, DM rifles, etc.).  Anyway, I got orders to attend the Close Quarters Battle school, and went to our company supply to draw the standard CQB load-out (flight suits, body armor, etc.).  You would not believe the condition this stuff was in.  The tactical vest was modular, with snaps and velcro so that you could change how your pouches were laid out – the only problem was that all the snaps were either bent or missing, and the velcro was so old it wouldn’t stick.  I ended up using zip-ties to attach my subgun mag pouches.  Same story with the body armor – the velcro wouldn’t hold.  Oh well, there’s nothing a little rigger’s tape won’t fix.  Fortunately, the instructors hooked us up with thigh pouches for the mags.  They didn’t like the looks of the body armor a bit, and also swapped those out.  This was particularly nice, as we got to use 3-lb Point Blanks instead of our 20-lb (with 2 ceramic shock plates) issue vests.  Just remember that despite all the garbage we get stuck with, any tangos that want to try their luck in a straight-up fight are going to get body-bagged.  End of story.      LordZach and Denoir: The truly sad thing is that politicians sometime give us missions and then cut our legs out from under us by imposing idiotic ROE’s (Vietnam) or denying us the use of needed assets (Somalia). madmike: “I take it that you must be jelous that the US troops are incapable of doing their job  I dont want to start a flame war (Well that’s obvious. – E6) but it's true, their making the area safe so that the US troops can go in an kill the injured and whats left then say "look at us and our war on terrorism". Did your parents have any children that lived?  Just kidding; I know you can’t help it.

Oligo: "Are these the same japanese that the russians rolled over in the end of WWII?" Perhaps the competent ones had already been roasted in their Pacific island pillboxes.  Toward the end of the war, Japanese manpower was so depleted that "Georges" were used as manned missiles.  It seems a shame to waste such a good plane because you've expended all your capable pilots. "The question remains: Could the marines have rolled over us?" Pardon me sir, but you seem to have dropped your flame bait.  Heh. Denoir: WWII is not convincing, but you will make judgements based on NATO exercises? <<Dr. Evil voice on>>  Riiggghhht.  <<Dr. Evil voice off>> As for Vietnam (God, this is a tired argument):  Political loss?  Yes.  Military loss?  No. ".. that 5% is generally larger then the entire GNP of the countries that US goes to war with" In case you missed it, I made a similar statement in my last post.  Once again, my point is that you will have a hard time finding another organization that can provide the same capabilities we have, for less money.  Just a reminder -- that organization would need: -- Approximately 35,000 combat arms troops (infantry, armor, and artillery), -- Approximately 138,000 support troops (that gives us a 1 in 5 "tooth to tail" ratio), -- Organic armor (heavy and light), artillery, and aviation (carrier fixed, STOVL fixed, and rotary wing), -- Special operations capability, and   -- A minimum of 2 continuously deployed expeditionary units, each capable of responding with 2,200 troops and conducting self-sustained combat for 30 days. BTW:  In case you still don't "get it," my original post was in response to a comment from an American soldier who said that Marines complain about a lack of funding.  As I admitted, he has a point, and I think it's jealousy on the part of some Marines because of our different spending priorities.  In the American military, the current catch phrase is "quality of life" -- some of the services interpret this as improved housing, nicer chow halls, and other creature comforts.  In the Corps, "quality of life" means HAVING a life when and if you are faced with combat.  Our money is more likely to go to a new weapon system, or an improved combat boot.  As a result, we often envy the conditions the "other guys" live in.  But we are also trained very well, and adequately equipped for our missions.    Of course, it takes more than money to create an elite fighting force.  It also takes Esprit de Corps, which comes from an appreciation of your heritage and the willingness to uphold it.  I would be interested in any example you can provide where we've failed to "keep our honor clean" in combat. Semper Fi

Oligo: Regarding the “weakening†of society, most Western societies could say the same.  However, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing, as long as there are people willing to sacrifice to provide that blanket of security.  That is the warrior’s mission – to protect civilians by keeping barbarians away from the gate.  To quote an old USMC recruiting tagline, “No one likes to fight, but someone has to know how.† Comparing the Winter War and the Pacific Theater: Obviously, I’ll never change your mind and you won’t change mine.  I will, however, present the facts that I believe support my opinion. -- With the exception of Wake Island and the defense of Guadalcanal, Marines spent 3 Ë years conducting amphibious assaults.  No statistics (sorry), but I feel comfortable in saying these are traditionally the most difficult types of attacks and result in the highest casualty rates. -- The Japanese army and navy spent years preparing defenses on these islands. -- The Japanese were prepared to fanatically fight to the death for their warrior code, their Emperor, and their homeland. The incredible determination of Japanese soldiers can be seen in the sample of KIA rates below. These are the numbers of Japanese soldiers KILLED, either by Marines or suicide (per Bushido).  These are not “mere†casualties.  (I found these figures after poking around on the ‘net for a few minutes.  If you find conflicting data, hey, I’m not surprised.) Iwo Jima: 1,083 POWs and 20,000 estimated killed -- 94.86% fought to the death. Tarawa: Less than 150 POWs*, 4,700 estimated killed -- 96.30% fought to the death. Peleliu: 300 POWs*, 12,700 estimated killed -- 97.69% fought to the death. * The POW figures for Tarawa and Peleliu included Koreans used as slave labor by the Japanese. When comparing these campaigns, I submit there’s much more to consider than body counts.  Amazingly enough, that leads me to my next topic, snipers. I know it’s repetitive, but enemy skill and the sniper’s environment are huge variables that make it impossible to draw any meaningful comparisons.  For example: -- The two Finnish snipers (apparently my keyboard doesn’t support Finnish characters) had very impressive kill totals.  But as we’ve already discussed, the Finns were operating in a familiar environment against (usually) mediocre troops.  -- In contrast, USMC scout/snipers in Vietnam operated in two-man teams for days at a time, hunting an enemy renowned for their fieldcraft and cunning -- in the enemy’s own territory.     Gunny Hathcock’s 93 confirmed are EVERY BIT as impressive as the Finns’ kills, if you take the time to learn about sniper warfare in Vietnam.  I won’t presume to know what you do or don’t know about the subject, but two books I’d recommend are Marine Sniper (Gunny Hathcock’s biography) and Dear Mom: A Sniper’s Vietnam (Sergeant Chuck Mawhinney’s biography).  Although Gunny Hathcock is better known, Sergeant Mawhinney actually had the most confirmed kills of any USMC scout/sniper (103). Your earlier sniper statistics link had some basic data about Gunny Hathcock, but it was just the tip of the iceberg.  Did you know that the .50 caliber shot mentioned in your link was made from over 2,500 yards?  Remember the scenes in “Sniper†and “Saving Private Ryan†where one sniper shoots the other through his telescopic sight?  Those scenes were based on an actual encounter between Gunny Hathcock and a NVA sniper sent specifically to kill him.  Let me just say that Gunny Hathcock may not have had the highest body count, but he was as good at his job as anyone.  Rest in peace, Long Tra’ng. Semper Fi

Scout – Considering the size of the Corps, the flexibility and firepower we provide, and the number and frequency of “jobs†we’re assigned, our budget is PROPORTIONALLY small – in the neighborhood of 5% of the total U.S. defense budget.  Obviously, the total funding we receive is going to be higher than some other organizations, but you and Oligo seem to be focusing on the “with less,†and ignoring the “does more.†About the recovered gear – what are my undisciplined nasties forgetting?  Canteens?  Machine guns?  Amtracs?  I’m surprised that we’re leaving stuff behind, as we have to pay for lost gear out of our own pockets.  Then again, I know Marines that used to go out and scour the DevGroup’s training areas in Dam Neck for dropped magazines, maglites, etc.  Sounds almost like “trickle-down†economics.  Oligo – Let me start by paraphrasing what I said in my first post: It is not my intention to insult other services of my country or any other.  (Well, not seriously insult, anyway.)  The “My SF can beat up your SF†arguments on this board usually border on the retarded.  Now that that’s out of the way:   I don’t think stating battle results or what our previous enemies have said or done constitutes "boasting."  If I wanted to brag, I’d post what we say about ourselves.  (Heh.) You seem to have taken two separate points (the USMC's historical performance and the "nobody does more with less" statement), combined them, and interpreted them as "nobody has EVER done more with less."  That's not what I was saying, but being somewhat pigheaded by nature (occupational hazard), let's see where we can go with this... Regarding the Winter War:  As an American and God help me, a Marine, I obviously believe we single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union in World War One and that “U-571†was an accurate movie.  Furthermore, I only have partial higher brain function.  << SARCASM MODE OFF >>  However, I am reasonably familiar with the Winter War, as some of us Jarheads take the “professional warriors study military history so as not to repeat mistakes, etc. etc. stuff†seriously.  Finland’s use of geography and small-unit tactics to break up and then destroy a large part of the invading Soviet force was a brilliant example of unconventional warfare.  If I’m not mistaken, some historians think that Finland’s resistance actually convinced Hitler that Germany could successfully invade Russia.  But you also need to consider the caliber of the enemy: In ‘39-’40 the Soviet army consisted of conscripted farmboys untrained in Arctic warfare.  These soldiers were “led†by an officer corps that had been gutted of creativity and initiative during Stalin’s purges of the 30’s.  Pit these troops against the unorthodox tactics and high morale of the Finnish, who were fighting for their national survival.  Throw in one of the coldest winters of the century.  The end result: A meat grinder, or a target-rich environment, depending on your perspective.  Again, this is not an attempt to slight the Finnish soldiers.  Putting up a good fight against 50-to-1 odds is incredible, but strategically speaking, I have a problem accepting a loss as an achievement, especially if you’re attempting to compare it to the USMC’s performance in WWII.  << ZIPS FLAME SUIT>> Regarding snipers:  I’m also curious about your criteria for judging the two Finns as the best snipers in history.  It's only my opinion, but I don't think it's realistic to specify anyone as "the best," because environments, enemy skill, equipment, training, and other factors will always make it "apples to oranges." Semper Fi

Sorry for the length of this post, but as an active duty Marine, I’d like to rebut a few statements before they're accepted as fact: “Although many Marines claim that the entire Corps is a spec ops unit. The USMC is under the Dept. of the Navy not SOCOM. MArine Force Recon is howerer (sic), a SOCOM unit.†Wrong.  Neither Force Recon nor any other Marine unit is under SOCOM. The Corps is the only service which has refused to join the command at an organizational level.  “It goes against the reason the Marine Corps was developed,†says a Marine officer who is a special operations specialist. “It would have forced the Corps to focus on one mission, when the nation needed an amphibious force for forcible entry, with much broader capabilities.† (However, there has been scuttlebutt recently that we might be added to SOCOM in the future – who knows?) “I think that you should keep in mind that the Marines are regular soldiers and not some special ops unit.†Wrong.  In addition to “tip of the spear†operations such as assaulting beachheads, a Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) must be trained in over two dozen “special†missions ranging from direct action raids to in-extremis hostage rescue.  An example would be the 1995 Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel mission to rescue USAF Captain Scott O’Grady in Bosnia.  That TRAP was planned from start to finish in 6 hours and executed by an 81mm mortar platoon.  “This broad focus in training and qualifications makes the Marine unit more versatile than any other service’s special operations forces.†(BTW:  We’re called Marines, not soldiers.  We’ve earned that right.  Thanks.) “They are just as good as any other NATO amphibious unit.† Wrong.  But don’t take my word for it. Ask the Germans, who named us “Teufelhunden†(“Devil Dogsâ€) and rated us as “Shock Troops†at Belleau Wood. Ask Japanese Rear Admiral Keiji Shibasaki, who boasted "a million men cannot take Tarawa in 100 years." It took us 76 hours. Ask the Chinese at the Chosin Reservoir, where the 1st Marine Division fought its way through 10 ChiComm divisions.  These 10 divisions were routed and never saw action again in the Korean War. Ask the VietCong, whose fear of USMC scout/sniper Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock led them to offer a $30,000 bounty on his head. Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Bouganville, Lewis “Chesty†Puller, “Manila John†Basilone, Greg “Pappy†Boyington – read about these battles and Marines and then tell me we’re just another NATO unit. “Every Marine I know whines about how thier (sic) gear sucks and how underfunded they are.†Okay, this one’s probably true – but NOBODY does more with less than we do.  And as any grunt NCO can tell you, “a bitching Marine is a happy Marine.† The point of Benze's original post is simple:  Of the 5 major tactical innovations in 20th century warfare, the USMC was responsible for 3 of them (amphibious assault, close air support, and heliborne assault).  I’m not trying to knock any other service, because every Marine knows that Rangers, SEALs, and PJs are just Marines that accidentally went into the wrong recruiting office.  Semper Fi