The difference I care about can be seen in the difference in what happened in Fallujah and what happened in the Holy Cities in the South. The Army succeeded and the Marines did not.
The Mariens have a better song to.
That is why the Marines took over for the Army... Differant approach with differant breed of fighting men.
The Army, through the 82nd, 3ID and 1st Cav "controlled" Fallujah from April 2003 to March 20, 2004. The cities of the Shi'ite South ... Nasariyah, Kut, Najaf, Samanwah, Karbala and Basra ... were pacified by the Marines and Royal Marines.
Other than that, you're really accurate.
As a former Army combat infantry man (164th CAG Can Tho, RVN) I object to any catch all comparison between the Army and Marines. The Marines are elite troops, but they are the Shock Troop element of the Navy. The Army has equally elite Shock Troop elements. Comparing the Marines to the entire Army is a fair as comparing them to the entire Navy.
You're right. The valiant 82nd Airborne operated around for Fallujah for months and suffered only three KIA.
Of course, they RARELY ever went into the city and mostly sat on their ass, but they were very successful in avoiding casualties. That is very important indeed.
"The Army succeeded and the Marines did not."
BS, friend. My cousin was badly wounded in the
second battle of Fallujah, and my son was in
Ramadi at the time of the first election.
They told me the difference between Marine
and Army doctrine is this: the Marines engage
immediately. The Army is trained to withdraw
and wait for support. My son was called on to
rescue the Army units a lot. AND, the Army
couldn't even get the Marine's meals to them
because the Army thought the area was too hot.
Don't be telling OUR family about the effectiveness
of the Army.
(I have not served. My tagline honors my son and my cousin.)