Talk:Marines/Archive 1

Archive 1

Innacurate description of modern Marine role

The article says of the primary Marine role: "Operating from ships, they are trained to land on and capture a section of coast-line."

The marines are the front line and they will have to do the quest or commands that are asked to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.195.15 (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not true. Marines are an expeditionary force and although they are generally the tip of the spear in any invasion, coastline invasions have rarely occured in recent wars. Marines are primarily transported to the battlefield by ship however.

For example: Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan were not primarily involved in coastal invasions-- although they played, and still play, a key role in both the invasion and occupation of both countries.

Sean7phil (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The description uses the term "50 miles". How about using the metric equivalent and expressing this in units that are better understood internationally? Imperial measurements are only still officially used in Liberia, Burma and United States (see Metric). Andmark (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for citation

From the article: "the majority of the world's "Marine" troops are American."

I'm not disputing this; it sounds very plausible, given the current strength of the US Marine Corps. However, a claim this remarkable - that the US Marine Corps is larger than the marine corps of every other nation in the world put together - could probably use some sort of citation to back it up. Could someone add one? -- Haeleth 14:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I edited it instead. Didn't seem relevant? Hakluyt bean 20:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah well :) Someone disagreed and reversed the edit. I had a think and it still doesn't strike me as encyclopedic and probably not the kind of assertion that will have a citation (?). It also on reflection begins to seem a doubtful claim, thinking of the various militaries around the world, China, Russia, etc. etc. and the different ways marine contingents are identified as corps or subsidiary to the Navy or Army would make it very difficult to verify. So anyway I've gone back to my edit (hopefully better worded than I managed the first time). Maybe if firm figures could be given for marine units listed in wikipedia that would at least produce a stat, but I've a feeling that would be quite a bit of work. Maybe someone's up for it, but not me :) -- Hakluyt bean 01:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it will be difficult to produce "no shit" facts and figures to back this up but I will almost guarantee that it is true. Most nations do not have any kind of force projection and that is what a Marine Corps is. Only Russia, China, England and a few others have decent Navies and their Marine units are not that big. This is what I can find on Wikipedia and a few websites about 7 large Marine forces in the world. The other biggies I missed are the Netherlands and Thailand but they are no more than 10,000 each. No matter where you look the numbers are not that great. So I think it is not that far off to say that the USMC is larger than all of the other Marine units put together.

• Royal Marines - 8,000
• Republic of Korea Marine Corps - 25,000
• Russian Marines - 12,000
• Chinese Marines - 12,000 [1]
• Philippine Marine Corps - 10,000
• Taiwan - 30,000
• Brazil - 14, 600

France

Marine armors (Chars de marine) in French marines are not considered as a separate entity they still are infantry although they are equipped with light tanks (AMX 10 RC). As far as I know there are only two regiments of (Chars de marine): RICM (Regiment d'Infanterie Chars de Marine, which is the new name of Regiment d'Infanterie Colonial du Maroc, they just kept the acronym) and 1er RIMA (1st regiment of marine infantry).

Troupes de Marine

Why do some contributors insist, in saying that Troupes de Marine are loose translation, when they fulfil the exact same function of amphibious warfare and when the very English word marine was most likely borrowed from French? Troupes de Marine are part of the Army since they are not seamen but infantry, nevertheless they operate from ships belonging to the Navy such as The Mistral type ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blastwizard (talk • contribs) 08:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

generic name for marine units... ("Marines" not "Marine Corps")

-Is "marine corps" really the generic name for marine units? Hakluyt bean 19:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

-NO it is not, this is why this entire article needs to be REMOVED from Wikipedia aside from that, the quality is horrible

-I don't think it should be removed. It needs a lot of fixing & it needs to be moved the the title "Marines" or "Amphibious Forces." MCG 25 Aug 2006

I have moved it to "Marines (military)" since "marine corps" is purely US. However, "Marines" in the plural, as suggested above, might be a better title. Comments? Mesoso 12:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Marines NOT the most elite of the Armed Forces.

For the individual who has continued to re-edit the above statement into the "article" page (concerning Marines):

Marines are NOT the most elite in the Armed Forces! I am a former Marine Infantryman and I can tell you that there are, most definitely, more elite units than the Marines, and we're talking about the standards here for the basic Marine which is the rifleman. I'm sure Navy Seals would harshly argue that the average Marine doesn't compare in the slightest to them, as would Army Rangers and other Special Operations Groups within the Armed Forces.

However, as far as our military's basic standard for "gun-fighters", than YES, Marines are the most elite (only in that aspect). After all, the only other branch that we could compare ourselves to would be the Army's "soldier", as the Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard do not have a standard grunt-type occupation.

Please, feel free to argue here. I consider myself to be a proud Marine, but more importantly, a realistic one.

Each type has its own essential roles - a military that was entirely SAS, etc, would not function successfully. Towards the end of WWI the Germans invested too much in "elite" units, while neglecting that of their "ordinary" troops - because of earlier successes. British/Australian/Canadian/New Zealand (and French?) invested more in upgrading general training - the results towards the end of the war on the Western front speak for themselves.

Marines are quiet elite the Army really don't have special Operation's or the Navy the Marine's do have a close relationship with the Navy and I respect that but the Marine's are quite a strong military branch especially during WW II (both Navy and Marine's) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.213.54 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What in the wide, wide, world of sports are you trying to say son? "... the Army don't have special Operation's or the Navy..." Huh? Can we just delete the autosigned non-comment above (as well as this one of mine here) since the above adds absolutely nothing to the conversation. CobraDragoon (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Now to the point, here we ago again, comparing "apples" and "oranges" and of course the old nut of defining terms. Specifically, that most overused and practically worthless military adjective "elite". Elite by what standard of measurement? Smallest size and most diverse mission statement (USCG), most expensive weapons systems and multi-dimensional battle space (USN), most destructive power and total number of aircraft (USAF), most special operations troops and number of combat vehicles (USA), most physically difficult initial entry training and greatest infantry-centric ethos and esprit de corps (USMC).

Define your terms, set a basis for comparison, and determine parameters, then you can play your little "my daddy can beat up your daddy" games. And, by the way, if you want to compare any special operations unit or individual troop against any generic member of either branch, your premise is flawed from the outset. Who is more elite, a Navy SEAL fire team or an USAF ICBM launch crew? Yeah, the four sailors can HALO into the middle of the ocean, swim to a submerged submarine, later exit that submarine, swim to a beach and crawl up out of the water and then kill you a dozen different ways with their bare hands before you even know that you're dead, and do it all at night. However, the two air force officers can take a break from studying for their next master's degree, take a nap, use the can, have a sandwich and a cup of java, flip some switches, push some buttons, and turn a key and launch a flight of ten ICBMs equipped with MIRV warheads unleashing hell on earth.

Even if you want to try and compare special operations units one must consider mission, purpose, and environment. Want to sent in some super troopers into an arctic / mountain environment with the intent to recruit, train, and organize some indigenous people group into an effective infantry battalion and then lead them in conducting guerilla / counter-guerilla operations? Better send in a twelve-man US Army Special Forces (aka Green Berets) Operational Detachment Alpha, because the SEALS are most likely not going to possess the language, technical, nor training skills, and the organizational abilities to complete the mission. Want to take down an airfield, better send the Army Rangers; need to organize some foreign internal defense force or conduct some deep special reconnaissance, perhaps Marine Raiders are the best choice. How about when you need to have a unit that can perform tactical weather observation and forecasting, direct air strikes and fire support, and rescue downed aircrewmen, while defending themselves and fighting their way in and out, if need be? Looks like you need a USAF Special Tactics unit.

Oh, and let's not forget about "Delta Force" and "DEVGRU", but hey, it's late and I'm tired. That's enough for now. Thus endeth the lesson, lads and lassies. CobraDragoon (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Im a Marine

Not related to improvement of the article (see WP:NOTFORUM)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I just want to say I am a Marine, in the armed forces marines are the craziest and would go any lenghts just to get some action, as history follows all of our enemy forces would much rather go against anyone else than the Marines themselves. Its all in the pages, your a marine and a proud one too, you should know how our enemy would back off of us more than any other branch in WW1 and 2 and currently. Like you said a realistic one, all marines think they're the best and we are. Even the General of other branches agree just look it up, it could be famous usmc quotes or anything else. We're marines and proud to be, we're very patriotic and devilsh too. thats how we got the nickname, from our enemy they would call us Devil Dogs, Why?, because they feared us more than anyone else. We made the biggest difference at Iwo Jima and we can do it again. What im saying is that we are elites thats what marines are naturaly, but we're not the only heroes. "The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." -General Perishing, U.S. Army "I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!" General Douglas Macarthur, U.S. Army I think if the article is regarding the standard unit in the average armed force and their respective qualities than Marines would be superior due to their training, ethos etc. but if we are talking unit by unit then definetly there are more highly skilled/trained units out there, the article seems ambiguous as to which it is referring: Marines as a branch or Marines as a smaller unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost175 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Too Bad I would love to argue with you, but I do not know how to contact you. The US Marine Corps is by far the most elite of the "ARMED FORCES". Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc. are Special Operations Forces. I do appreciate your realism, but you stated it yourself, "Special Operations Groups within the Armed Forces". As far as your basis for argument. The US Marine Corps is not just a basis for infantrymen. We continue to out perform with limited and/or outdated assets. To be a Marine, you must recongnize the "Make it Happen" and that is what we do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpinson (talk • contribs) 22:44 UTC, May 17, 2006 I hope you're talking about 'the most elite' in the US armed forces, as the SAS is the world's most elite fighting force beyond doubt. 81.154.7.230 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC) SAS?? Ha. The Brit's? The only way they get commercialism is from Modern Warfare 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine56 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Independant status of the USMC

"However in some countries Marines are no longer part of the navy (notably the United States Marine Corps which has become an independent armed force)."

This statement is not really true.

The US Navy and US Marine Corps have separate but equal military commanders (the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, respectively), who are both members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both are subject to the supreme military commander - the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - who could be a general or admiral of the Army, Air Force, Navy, or Marines.

However, the US Marine Corps is still part of the branch of government known as the Department of the Navy. Therefore, both the US Navy and the US Marine Corps are subject to the civilian administration of the Secretary of the Navy, and have been so since they were created.

On the other hand, the US Air Force originated with the US Army Air Corps. Until 1947, the US Army (with its Air Corps) were under the administration of the Secretary of War (meaning ground war). In 1947, the armed forces were reorganized. The Department of War was broken up into the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force (formerly the Army Air Corps), and these were joined with the Department of the Navy as sub-departments under the administration of the Department of Defense, which did not exist until this time. Since the Marine Corps did not wish to be joined with the Army, they remained a separate military organization within the Department of the Navy.

Well, thank you for all that, I guess, whoever you are and whenever you posted it (no signing/date statement). However, if by "independent armed force" the writer meant that the USMC, along with the USN, USA, USAF, and USCG are separate branches of the U.S. military, then he or she was absolutely correct. So, just what was your point, anyway? CobraDragoon (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It is amazing what you learn in Wikipedia

According to this article Argentina's Marine Corps was founded in 1537. That is quite impressive given that the nation of Argentina did not exist until 300 years later. Previously added by Greenshed at 20:00, on 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish Marine Corps (Infanteria de Marina) were the ones that were created in 1537 at that time they were called tercios (an infantery military corp) de galeras (a type of ship). 80.26.10.217 (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, ain't it??

Yet they still trace their lineage to that of the Spanish Marines. Ain't that something? Check out their website.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The USMC traces its history to 1775 when there was not a USA, so what's your point?--71.242.127.31 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Uh, yeah, but they don't trace their lineage to the Royal Marines. There's a bit of a difference here. - BillCJ (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • But they do trace their lineage to the Continental Marines, which was disbanded previously and predated the USA and the Confederation.--209.213.220.227 (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Continental Marines were established in 1775. Same point. - BilCat (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Argentine Marines in the Falklands War

Also, the 5th bn suffered 16 dead, that´s not significant casualties in a 1000 man batallion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.238.136 (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Casualties are also wounded personnel, but never mind. You wrote that "the 5th Battalion of the Infanteria de Marina fought against two Army and Royal Marines Brigades in the Falklands War/Malvinas War". Considering that the Task Force only had two brigades (3 Commando Brigade & 5 Infantry Brigade) to fight all the Argentine ground forces, something is wrong!

The 5th Battalion of the Infanteria de Marina were guarding Mount Tumbledown, Mount William & Sapper Hill outside Stanley. 2nd Battalion, Scots Guards attacked Mount Tumbledown, 1st Battalion of Gurkhas took control of Mount William which had been abandoned while the remnants of 1st Battalion, Welsh Guards beefed up with A & C Companies of 40 Commando, Royal Marines reached the unguarded Sapper Hill. On the bottom line, only three British battalions were involved with BIM 5 (+ RI 6), not two whole brigades. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

India (MARCOS)

MARCOS are a special operations unit that are really small in number and don't perform that same tasks that most marines of the world do. They shouldn't be on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.76.114 (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling (case)

I propose we use the lower case for all mentions of marine in general, and start it with an upper case M only where that use is standard, such as for example in United States Marine Corps and the Marines that compose the force (at least their site uses caps). Namely, if it's the type of armed forces officer or member and not a specific title, it's not capitalized, otherwise it is, if applicable. Who is like God? (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Norway (Kystjegerkommandoen)

The Norwegian unit KJK are not really marines, they are specialists like navy seals or Indias MARCOS unit listed above in this talk page. They should not be listed as a marine force IMO Wims (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Red stripe

The article claims that the red stripe worn on the trousers of the USMC has its origin in the Spanish Marines, and that it is also worn by most Marine corps in the world. Aside from the fact that many marine corps do not use a red stripe, or any stripe, for that matter, the USMC museum mentions a more prosaic origin of the USMC's "blood stripe". Indeed, since stripes were not being worn on trousers on any military uniform until about that same time, it may just as well be that the Spanish adopted it for the same reasons. A better source is needed here. Constantine ✍ 20:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish Marine Infantry wears the red stripes because they are a Royal Household corp, the only one together with the Royal Guard, which also wears them. The Royal Guard was de facto a Royal Household, of course, but the Marines earnt the stripes in the siege of the Castillo del Morro (Morro Castle, in Cuba) defended against the British in 1763, so they predate the US Marines by almost fifteen years. I haven't found an English source for this.

That may well be true, but it doesn't mean that the USMC (or anyone else) adopted it from the Spanish. Coincidental similarity is far more likely IMO. Anyway, unless a proper, reliable source (even in Spanish) is provided, this info will be removed as WP:OR. Regards, Constantine ✍ 01:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair's fair. Here's an official source in Spanish, from the official Ministry of Defense webpage http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/armadaEspannola/conocenos_organizacion/03_Fuerza--03_Fuerza_infanteria_Marina--02_historia_FIM_es

The defense of Havana is mentioned, together with the fact that the Marines are a Royal Household Corp.

I see. This source is perfectly fine for the "Royal Household" title, as well as for the use of the colours red and blue, but as far as I can see it mentions nothing about the stripe or foreign marine corps. Constantine ✍ 16:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Baldermo/ US Marines

There is terrific photo of US marine Baldermo in action at Inchon, Korean war. I have replaced his name with "a US marine" not because I'm anti-hispanic (¿yo?) but that this article is about marines - not individuals; or are we going to start naming everyone pictured here? Hasta entonces.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Marines. We have solid consensus for a move and this option had by far the most support. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Marine (military) → Marine corps – In April 2007 this page was moved from Marine Corps to Marine (military) [2] to avoid being US-centric; see the statement above that "marine corps is purely US". However, Category:Marines shows that various other countries use the term "Marine Corps" as part of the unit's title, and even the article on the Royal Marines states in line 1 that it is a marine corps. Alternatively, Marines would also be a suitable page name as it is clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the plural, even though the singular has various meanings. Note that the categories for Marines and Marine corps were merged to Category:Marines in October 2007. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support move, it will be commonly understood what a "Marine corps" refers to. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 23:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • By the way, in addition, I would Support a move to Marines as a first preference over Marine Corps, but would prefer either of these over the current title. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 03:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Very cautious support as per WP:DIFFCAPS. Not sure what Marine Corps should be but this move SHOULD be safe. Red Slash 23:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose not all countries have their marines organized as a corps (a specific size of military formation), is the description you find in other articles using "corps" as a specific unit level, or as a generic description of a body of men? Since these are military articles, we should not use "corps" because it has a specific meaning in military, as well as a generic meaning. Perhaps Marines (plural) should be used as the title of the article. -- 70.24.244.51 (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Corps not only means a specific size of military formation, it also means an administrative grouping of a particular type. In the US alone, examples would include the Air Corps and the Corps of Engineers. Looking at earlier comments, I'm not sure there's a consensus to be had. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! "In America" does not mean universally. Secondarywaltz (talk)

• Oppose Marine corps, Support Marines - not all these groups are marine corps as such, as some are just small naval infatry units. While plural titles are not recommended, there are exceptions, and Marines is probably the most common unambiguous title in English. Naval infantry is a broader term, but less common in English than marines. - BilCat (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. That is a term used in the USA.
• Comment - would it be better to consider moving this page to "Naval Infantry" since properly speaking that what marines are? This solution bypasses the corp issue, although I'll concede that under COMMONNAME this wouldn't be the first place people would be given to look for an article on marines. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Marines. While I agree that corps can refer to various organizations other than the formation intermediate between division & army, and that the small “c“ is an improvement, I think the category decision was sound. The plural title can be justified as being the neatest method of disambiguation.—Odysseus1479 09:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to Marines. The current title isn't bad, but this is probably better (although not much). Marine corps has the problem that it does sound a bit American. Yes, other marine units are called marine corps (the Royal Marines are officially the Corps of HM Royal Marines, for instance, although the full name is rarely used), but when we hear "the Marine Corps" we tend to think of the USMC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Marine corps, Support Marines - agree the title could be better but Marine corps sounds like it is about the American USMC and "Marines" is a clearly understood term in English for this subject. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Marine corps, Support Marines - not every naval infantry unit in the world is modelled on the USMC. In the UK, the use of the term "corps" was more prevalent during the Napoleonic Wars, when it comprised 4 Divisions of approximately 8,000 men apiece. The word "Marines" in modern parlance in English has a strong association with seaborne soldiers, whereas "marine" singular is another byword for "nautical". Naval infantry is a correct term, but once which is infrequently used. From the 20th Century onwards, the term "corps" is a specific collective noun in the English language, to describe a large body of men, usually of several divisions. Keith H99 (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Marine corps, Support Marines per everything said above. Or else leave it as it is. This is not really breaking the rule on plural titles as the article is about the body of soldiers rather than the individual soldiers. The opening sentence of the lede should also be modified to reflect this. SpinningSpark 09:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

History

IIRC the Romans developed specialized Marine troups during the early Punic Wars in reaction to Carthage's naval supremacy in the first Punic war]]. They stormed aboard using planks/beams with sharp points at the ends. 88.159.78.61 (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring / Capitalisation

I have reverted changes made by User:IAmACelt. The edit summary suggested that the word 'marine' is a proper noun, and therefore should be capitalised. If you believe that the word should be capitalised, please provide sources that indicate it. nav1 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Historical information in the By country section

In the section 4 By country, there is information that is historical and therefore, out of place. It would be better moved to section 5 Historical marine forces, as well as to the relevant articles.

Specifically, the part about Australia, which mentions volunteer naval infantry and naval militia brigades in the Colonial navies of Australia. In addition to that, there is also the part about Iran, which mentions three battalions of marines in what used to be the Imperial Iranian Navy until 1979. Both sections of text could be moved. --Dreddmoto (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

US Marines Naval installation defense - no citation

Why is it stated that they defend naval installations, when they do not? There is no citation to back that up at all. Also they preform an air warfare mission as well. 2600:1007:B01A:BC34:7140:14DB:2D03:3709 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked the main article, USMC, and it states there multiple times that they do in fact provide defence for naval installations. Instead of removing the comment, how about we add a "citation needed " tag and give the community a chance to provide the citation you're looking for? - ^theWOLFchild 19:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually only see it in their USC description. what other sources say then currently provide security?Also, he is the info on Master-at-arms. Navy Master-at-Arms are the ones providing naval security on ships, bases, and nuclear weapons. https://www.navycs.com/navy-jobs/master-at-arms.html 2600:1007:B01A:BC34:7140:14DB:2D03:3709 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I took a look at the USMC page, and it looks like both of you are right to a degree. The USMC does indeed provide security to naval institutions through its FAST units, but it looks like thats only as a reaction force. The Navy provides almost all security, and marines haven't done the Maritime security mission since the 90s. I would argue that while the occasionally do it, its more as a reaction force and less as a primary mission. 24.192.250.124 (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't say that the Marines are the "only" ones that provide installation defence, just that it's one of their roles... which it is, even if it is limited. They are obviously trained and equipped to do so, have done so in the past and could very likely do so again. The point is, we can't have two articles about the Corps conflict one another. - ^theWOLFchild 20:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

1) There is a difference between "security" and "defense."

2) Per the website referenced above, "The Master at Arms' rating is the Navy's military police force."

3) The description for NOS B640 says nothing about "base defense."

4) Navy MAs are not trained, organized, nor equipped as infantry and their units are not large enough to effectively provide "base defense" against attack by enemy ground combat forces.

4) Even in the Army, the Military Police (which ARE trained, organized, and equipped very similarly to infantry, and have units, e.g., companies, battalions, and brigades, large enough to effectively serve as provisional infantry), are not generally charged with "base defense."

5) The USAF has Security Force squadrons and groups that DO have a base defense mission and are generally considered as "Air Force Infantry", although they do not possess the same capabilities as Army or USMC infantry units.

6) In the Army and USMC, the primary "base defense" units are infantry units, supplemented by other non-infantry units (such as the aforementioned Military Police and other units such as Field Artillery and Air Defense batteries/battalions) organized as provisional infantry.

7) Several U.S. Navy bases in CONUS and overseas have USMC Security Force Regiment (essentially a specialized Marine infantry regiment) battalions or companies assigned.

8) 10 U.S. Code § 5063 (a) specifically charges the USMC with "... defense of advanced [i.e., forward or non-CONUS) naval bases...." To that end, in addition to USMC security and FAST companies already forward deployed to Guantanamo Bay, Rota, Manama, and Yokosuka, if any U.S. Navy base or activity, anywhere in the world, were under threat of attack, a MEU or air-landed elements of a MEB / MEF Forward would be immediately deployed to effect "advanced base defense." CobraDragoon (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Special Boat Service

I removed the reference to the Special Boat Service from the part about the Royal Marines because the SBS is not part of the RM. Jtrrs0 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204050952/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2011/December/19/111219-HW-Major-Exercise to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2011/December/19/111219-HW-Major-Exercise
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150429074856/http://www.marinir.mil.id:80/ to http://www.marinir.mil.id

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marinir.mil.id/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060718161447/http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=11 to http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606020319/http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/English/GroundForce1.asp to http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/English/GroundForce1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161128050147/http://www.navy.lk/eventnews/2016/11/24/201611241610 to http://www.navy.lk/eventnews/2016/11/24/201611241610/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203113245/http://www.royalmarines.mod.uk/server/show/nav.6878 to http://www.royalmarines.mod.uk/server/show/nav.6878
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007153955/http://www.royalmarines.mod.uk/server/show/nav.6886 to http://www.royalmarines.mod.uk/server/show/nav.6886
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113075518/http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCDP%203%20Expeditionary%20Operations.pdf to http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCDP%203%20Expeditionary%20Operations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Merchant Marines

In Germany in 1945 the Merchant Marines were included with the other Marines. Before Adolph Hitler and Eva Braun passed away Adolph named a successor who was head of the Marines. This man held power for around 18 days. 71.17.12.30 (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Source? Merchant Marine is not Marines like this article is about Garuda28 (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Suqur al-Sahara in Bashura 1.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Duplication with "List of marines and naval infantry forces"

The long "By country" section effectively duplicates List of marines and naval infantry forces. I suggest simply removing it, and leave a link to the main article. The "Historical marine forces" section is relevant, and should stay. (Hohum ^@) 16:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd oppose removing the section here. The primary difference is that this article is primarily prose, while that one is a straight list. That said, much of the prose here is unsourced, and that does need to be rectified. - BilCat (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

But what does it add to this article? This shouldn't be a list of all the worlds marine forces, prose or otherwise, it's a description of what marines are, and some historical context. The individual national marine forces have their own articles and a list article already. (Hohum ^@) 01:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)