Drakken wrote:Of course, I am not speaking about bringing Normandy or Iwo Jima. And in 19th century, Marines were used mostly as fighting men when boarding enemy vessels, not as debarkment forces.
Actually both. You see, the point about having marines is that historically the army/navy cooperation was in most cases abysmal. With marines, the fleet had units that were trained as infantry, but were used to being aboard ships, even living there for months on end, and over which it had full control. In other words, having marines made smaller landing operations a single-service rather than a joint service operation, which was a huge benefit. The normal duty for marines in the age of sail was infantry combat aboard ships during battle (i.e. boarding, repelling boarding attempts, musket fire from mast tops and such), but they were routinely also used for smaller amphibious operations (the marine detachments from several ships combined for that).
So yes, marines facilitating land operations far inland are a bit of a stretch of the historical imagination ...

[color="Gray"]"These Savages may indeed be a formidable Enemy to your raw American Militia, but, upon the King's regular & disciplined Troops, Sir, it is impossible they should make any Impression." -- General Edward Braddock[/color]
Colonial Campaigns Club (supports BoA and WiA)
[color="Gray"]"... and keep moving on." -- General U.S. Grant[/color]
American Civil War Game Club (supports AACW)