do US Marines still have the task, as from their beginning, to take over other ships at sea?
607442
I served in the Marine Corps during Desert Storm and we did train for all possible scenarios on land and sea.  We trained for Oil Platform and ship takedowns.  It only takes a platoon of about 25 Marines to assault a cargo sized ship and stop it dead in the water.  \nThe helicopters used to pick us up off a Navy ship and then we would fast rope down to the oil platform or ship and then blitz the crew.\nDuring the revolutionary war... Marines crossed over to British ships to kill everybody in sight.  Sailors were used to sail the ships and shoot the cannons.  Marines were used to kill the enemy with sharpshooting skills or hand to hand combat.
369059
Matter a fact I am pretty sure the U.S.Navy has an installation there anyway. Mass could fight back! There are several submarines at port there.
541236
Yes, I read about it.\n\nHere's the Navy's official version:\nhttp://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq21-1.htm
666416
No. Marines are very prestigious, plus I have a brother that joined pretty much to do the same thing. Not to suck up to you or anything, but that method of thinking protects our country.
1044632
Are you asking if that's really what they call themselves?  If so yea, marines are jarheads, navy is squids, and I honestly don't know the other.
1032133
Cited from the source below:\n\nAmerican merchant fleet started to sail in the Mediterranean beginning 1773. Back then the whole Mediterranean was under the control of the Ottoman navy.\n\nOttomans ruled the waves through a fleet operating out of Algeria. The Americans had no alternative but to cut a deal with the Ottoman force in Algeria in order to be able to continue trading in Mediterranean. The American naval fleet, whatever of it existed, was nowhere enough to protect the American merchant fleet in the Mediterranean.\n\nSuch a treaty between the Ottoman Empire (represented by the Bey of Algeria) and the United States of America was signed on September 5, 1775.\n\nAccording to this treaty written in Ottoman Turkish, The United States accepted to pay 642,000 gold dollars and 12,000 Ottoman dollars annually to the Bey of Algeria.\n\nAllegedly this treaty is the only one the United States has signed which was written in a language other than English.\n\nIt also happens to be the only US treaty by which America accepted to pay taxes to a foreign power.\n\nThe treaty, signed by George Washington for the United States and Algeria Beylerbey (Governor) Hasan Pasha for the Ottoman Empire, was declared null and void in 1810.\n\nA copy of the treaty is still kept at Naval Museum in Istanbul and National Archives in Washington D.C.
685419
Simply put, the Marines are part of the navy. They are under control/direction of the Dept. of the Navy.  Providing security for the ships themselves as well as the brig (jail on ships), is one of their primary functions.  Marines always have and always will go to sea! Semper Fi
542840
Historically, Marines were part of the Navy (The Navy was first; the Marines are an "arm" or a department of the Navy), and served onboard warships. They assisted the crew in battles, boarded enemy ships, conducted small coastal raids, and protected the officers from mutiny by the crew. Eventually they have become the primary landing force. The word "Marine" is Navy in German.\n\nThe Marines' paychecks still are drawn on Department of the Navy checks.
884341
Seems like you have gotten a correct answer in here.\n\nThe branches of the military are:\n\nThe Army, Navy and Air Force.  Anything else, as in the Army National Guard (falls under the Army), the Marine Corps (falls under the Navy) and Coast Guard (falls under Homeland Security) aren't actual branches.\n\nThe one thing that does sadden me about nearly ever response here is that most people seem to think the Navy only does things on the water.  That's just plain not true.  Yes, the Navy has a ton of destroyers, submarines, aircraft carriers, etc... but take a look at things, the US Navy has more aircraft than the Air Force does.\n\nYou can't say that the Navy's job is just to move the Marines from place to place and fight battles on the sea.  That's not what we do.  In fact, the Marines now have their own ships and move themselves around.\n\nThe US Navy, the main portion, is divided up into Battle Groups.  These Battle Groups consist of an aircraft carrier, several destroyers/frigates, a sub and other support ships.  These battle groups can go anywhere in the world on a moments notice.  Within a day or so, we can have a massive supply of US military force anywhere we need it.  It would take the Army and Air Force weeks to do what we do.
1048857
It would depend upon the group. It would need to have marine elecrical systems on it.
55216
Not in my lifetime.  As long as the USN controls the seas, it won't happen.  Remember, the German army couldn't even get across the English Channel in WWII, and the Chinese Army certainly isn't going to cross the Pacific anytime soon.  Heck, their navy currently isn't capable of extended blue-water operations, much less supporting an amphibious assault all the way across the Pacific.
1144686
depends what you want to do.  the marines are the toughest guys in the military.  they are killing machines.  they are trained for combat and they aren't given as much equipment.\n\nthe navy is a more technical endeavor.  you will be trained in electronics maybe, or working decks or some such, depending on your post.  but the training and the job won't be as physically demanding.
418992
The United States Marine Corps, since its inception, was targetted on many occasions by politicians to be rid of. However, the Corps has proven itself a highly professional and highly proficient warfighting organization all throughout history, and still works hard to maintain its reputation today. On top of that, it is the taxpayer's best friend, giving us way more bang for the buck.\n\nThe Marine Corps has been in the forefront on military innovation. During the Banana Wars in the early 1900s, it developed an effective counter-insurgency manual that could and should have been used in Vietnam. During WWII, the Marine Corps perfected amphibious landings. During Korea, the Marine Corps utilized the potential that the helicopter brought. During the 1980s, the Marine Corps turned to a new doctrine of warfighting (efficient and perfect for its size, yet while increasing combat efficiency), called maneuver warfare. It also developed and perfected the expeditionary nature of the Corps.\n\nCurrently, the Marine Corps has one of the lowest budgets in the US military. This means that they have to be lean mean fighting machines, and the American people expect no less. Look at history, and you can already tell about the exploits of the Corps despite its size. Thus, the Marine Corps is a military organization that is of great worth to the United States of America and needs to be retained. Semper Fidelis!
1001741
the reasons are partly historical and partly practial. in short each is responable for the area of its own expertise. the army fights on land and the navy on the water. the airforce became a branch when it was decided that it needed to be a seperate force in oeder to fufil its missions. the marines are really a part of the navy. years ao tey had the mission of defending navy bases and capturing new ones as well as acting as shipboard infantry. the coast guard also becomes part of the navy in times of war but also handles lifesaving, safety, and maritime security. there is overlap since all branches need certain things such as aircraft. where it makes sense to have assets under the control of any branch they are given them. the navy needs aircraft to fufill its mission so it has carriers. the army might need boats for supply soit has them. the marines have become our kick in the door landing force and since they do it better than anyone else they are given watever they need. today all fight as a team under the command of the officer in charge of a region. an army general might command both navy ships and airforce planes in order to complete the mission. its not simple but it works and there is very little waste in the system. every asset and mission is carefully thought out and justified.
834825
Carrier Strike Group\nIn the CNO Guidance for 2003 Admiral Vernon Clark stipulated that the terms "Carrier Battle Groups" and "Amphibious Readiness Groups" would no longer be the standards terms and that they would be replaced by Carrier Strike Groups and Expeditionary Strike Groups, respectively, by March 2003. The goal being to find ways to effectively produce naval capability in a more efficient manner. \n\nUnder this initiative, Cruiser-Destroyer and Carrier Groups are designated as Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and aligned directly under the numbered fleet commanders. This realignment gives key operational leaders authority and direct access to the people needed to more effectively accomplish the Navy’s mission. Formerly, Carrier Group (CARGRU) and Cruiser-Destroyer Group (CRUDESGRU) staffs were under the administrative authority of the air and surface type commanders (TYCOM). With this new initiative, authority and control will come from the numbered fleet commanders who are responsible for the training and certification of the entire Strike Group. The organizational structure to support the Carrier Strike Groups focuses more on placing Strike Group commanders under the authority of the certifying officer, or the numbered fleet commander. \n\nFor more details see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/csg-intro.htm
362135
traditionaly, the Marines, are the land fighting unit of the Navy.  Thus in most American wars, the battle ships were the first to arrive and the marines made the landings to secure the beach heads, then the transport ships would unload the army.  Today I would say that the Marines and Army tend to arrive more or less togeather via air transport, though the Marines are still part of the Naval Command.
494975
Marines are seaborne troops who uses Navy vessels to enter hostile lands, Army afterwards take the charge, however role of Marines differ from country to country, like US Marines are used as offensive force, Russian Marines or Naval Light Infantry has limited role and assist Army or make short raids, India has very small number of Marines only in thousands also called MARCOS they are used for covert ops, \n\nanother plus point about Marines is there ability to be deployed quickly, it makes lot of sense for US to maintain MC since it doesn't have any problem in its neighbourhood