Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • This is fairly correct, but the Marines are currently giving up their main battle tanks. So they'd be less of a combined-arms army in themselves in the [near] future. I've read that their airforce is also being reduced, but I don't know by how much. Commented Apr 10, 2023 at 11:08
  • @Fizz They are giving up main battle tanks, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have any kind of armored vehicles. Just not 75 ton behemoths (something that the Army has reduced the number of even though it hasn't eliminated completely). The concept of a vehicle with armor and a major weapon being supported by dismounted infantry which can better respond to some threats (the classic "combined arms" tactic) remains alive and well even in the Marines.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Apr 10, 2023 at 18:02
  • 1
    It makes a bit of sense that the US Army took the lead on D-Day. The whole point was to get the Army established securely on the European mainland, which it would have been tough to do without, you know, the Army. I believe they would have had the lead on the invasion of the main Japanese islands as well, had it come to that.
    – T.E.D.
    Commented Apr 11, 2023 at 15:01