Troops rarely get a say in anything. As a lower-enlisted, your opinion is often discounted and, not to burst any bubbles, as you climb higher, you’ll likely find more of the same. One of the rare exceptions, however, is in determining the conditions of your reenlistment.
Nine times out of ten, a reenlisting troop will say, “screw it, just give me the paperwork” without testing the limits of exactly how far a commander is willing to go to keep them in. Commanders can shoot down the silly requests, sure, but on rare, beautiful occasions, a troop will get exactly what they want.
These are a few of those moments:
(Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Laurie Dexter)
While putting out a fire
It makes perfect sense if you’re a firefighter to have your reenlistment in the middle of a simulated fire. The key word here is ‘simulated.’ If it wasn’t, you probably should focus on, you know, the task at hand.
(Meme via Decelerate Your Life)
On an anchor
This one seems fitting as you’re tying your career down for a few more years.
(U.S. Navy photo by James Woods)
Why reenlist before your jump or after you land when you can save time and take the Oath right in the middle?
(Meme via USAWTFM)
At a Gamestop
Deep down, we all know that dude’s reenlistment bonus is going towards video games. Let’s just cut out the middleman and hand the check directly to the guy behind the counter.
(U.S. Army Photo)
At a football game
You and your buddies might as well get free tickets to a football game while you give Uncle Sam a few more years of your life.
(Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Caleb Barrieau)
In the gas chamber
This may seem like a terrible idea, but with all that CS gas, you can try and pull the “I didn’t make the oath. I was coughing too much!” line if you change your mind.
Protip: It won’t work.
At the South Pole
On the bright side, they got an Antarctica Service Medal in exchange for giving a few additional years to Uncle Sam.
(Photo by Bruce Howard)
By Jon motherf*cking Bon Jovi at the One World Trade Center
I’m not even mad. This is just impressive. She forever has a one-up on anyone trying to out do her reenlistment.
“You just want a reenlistment on the bow of the ship? Oh, that’s neat…”
The U.S. Army is considering having paratroopers in airborne units wear World War II-style brown jump boots with the new Army Greens instead of the black boots they currently wear.
“We have discussed that; we don’t have them done yet, of course,” said Sergeant Major of the Army Daniel Dailey. “We’ve got to make prototypes and show them to [Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Mark Milley] for a decision.”
Since the first airborne units were formed during World War II, Army paratroopers have bloused their spit-shined jump boot in the trousers of their Class-A and Class-B uniforms.
The tradition will likely continue with the new Army Greens, Dailey said.
“The intent is to still allow the airborne soldiers to wear jump boots [with the Army Greens] and … it’s not approved yet, but the intent would be to show the chief of staff of the Army brown prototypes.”
Dailey’s comments to reporters at the Pentagon on Nov. 19, 2018, came eight days after the service announced the adoption of the Army Greens — a new Class-A/Class-B uniform designed after the iconic pinks-and-greens uniform soldiers wore during World War II.
Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey stands with Soldier models wearing the proposed Pink Green daily service uniform at the Army-Navy game in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania December 9, 2017.
(US Army photo by Ron Lee)
The current blue Army Service Uniform will become the service’s optional dress uniform once the Army Greens becomes mandatory for wear in 2028.
The service plans to begin issuing the Army Greens to new soldiers in summer 2020. Soldiers will also have the option to begin buying the new uniform in summer 2020.
The new uniform will feature a green jacket, taupe-colored pants and brown leather shoes. It will be issued with a garrison cap, but soldiers are also authorized to wear the black beret, Army officials said.
There will also be an optional service cap with brown leather trim that soldiers can purchase, officials have said.
There are other optional items soldiers can purchase as well, Dailey said.
“There are a few different jackets that we are working on right now,” he said.
One of them, Dailey said, is the Eisenhower jacket or “Ike jacket,” a waist-length jacket that was popular in WWII.
“The second one is the tanker jacket, which would replace the [current] black windbreaker, and it is a greenish color,” he said. “And the last one is, which the soldiers love the most, is what we call the World War II bomber jacket, so it’s the leather jacket.
“Each one of those would be optional for wear, based upon the type of formation or the commander’s input. But if the soldier is traveling around in Class-Bs and wants to put on … a jacket to warm up, a soldier will have that option,” Dailey said.
Army officials did not say when the three optional jackets would be available for soldiers to buy.
This article originally appeared on Military.com. Follow @militarydotcom on Twitter.
When the Germans wanted to shell Paris during World War I, they knew exactly what they were doing. The only problem was the Germans just couldn’t quite break through to get Paris in their artillery crosshairs. So they did what any German might do: build a gun that could hit Paris from where they were – 75 miles away.
The Paris Gun, as it was named, had the longest range of any artillery weapon in history.
Here comes the boom.
Nobody really knows what the Paris Gun’s full capabilities were because all of them were destroyed by the retreating Germans. All that was ever captured were fixed-gun emplacements. And since all the men who might have fired one are dead, it’s just a design lost to history. What we do know is that the weapon was able to hurl 230-plus pounds of steel and explosives some 75 miles, over the World War I front lines and into the streets of Paris in just about three minutes. More interesting still is that the rounds flew 25 miles into the air, the highest point ever reached by a man-made object at that time.
The reason the gun wasn’t more popular among the Germans is that it did relatively little damage. It carried only 15 pounds of explosives, and only 20 rounds could be fired per day. Parisians didn’t even realize the shelling was coming from artillery at first – they thought they were being bombed by an ultra-high zeppelin. With some 360 rounds fired, the guns only killed 250 people, mostly civilians. It did not have the terrorizing effect the Germans hoped.
Though one round did collapse the roof of a church during services. Not great PR when you’re trying not to be evil.
To make matters worse, the rounds ate away at the barrel of the gun as they fired, so rounds had to be used in a strict numerical order with ever-changing sizes as the crew fired. Once all the rounds were fired, the barrel had to be removed and sent back to Germany to be re-bored.
Allied forces never captured one of these record-setting artillery pieces, as the Germans either destroyed them as the Entente troops advanced or sent them all back to Germany after the Armistice of 1918. They were supposed to provide France with one of the weapons, as set in the Treaty of Versailles, but never did. No schematics, parts, or barrels survive. Only the static emplacements captured by the Americans in 1918.
“The Great War” was named for its size, not the experience of fighting it. Troops lived and slept in the mud and rubble, they fought through heavy machine gun fire and poison gas to roll back Imperial Germany’s occupation of France. About 2.8 million American men and women would serve overseas before the war ended. Here’s a quick peek at what life was like for them:
Military vehicles in an underground facility at US Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway, September 9, 2015. US Defense Department/Glenn Fawcett
A major Marine Corps force redesign is bringing big changes that could soon filter down to a secretive cave complex in Norway that the Corps has used since the Cold War.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger said last year that the Corps needed to get rid of “big, heavy things” and build a more mobile force for naval expeditionary warfare in contested areas — namely the Asia-Pacific.
The Corps plans to cut its overall force 7% by 2030, shedding infantry battalions, eliminating helicopter squadrons, and getting rid of all of its tanks.
Marines in California have already said goodbye to their tanks, and more could leave soon, including those in a cave complex in Norway’s Trondheim region, where the Corps has stored weapons and other equipment for decades.
Entrances to the Bjugn Cave Facility in Norway with equipment outside to be taken to Estonia for a military exercise, June 30, 1997. US Defense Department
The Corps’ Force Design 2030 “is a worldwide program aimed to make our force posture around the globe even more strategic and effective. As such, it calls for a divestment of certain capabilities and increases in others,” Maj. Adrian Rankine-Galloway, a spokesman for Marine Corps forces in Europe and Africa, said in an email.
The Marine Corps Prepositioning Program in Norway “will continue to support US Marine Corps forces for bilateral and multi-lateral exercises” in European and Africa, Rankine-Galloway said.
“We expect that Marine Corps prepositioned equipment will be updated to meet our service’s needs, with excess equipment to be removed and newer equipment to be added to the prepositioned facilities,” Rankine-Galloway added.
Rankine-Galloway didn’t say what equipment that might be, but in the Force Design 2030, Berger said the Corps is “over-invested in” weapons like “heavily armored ground combat systems (tanks) [and] towed cannon artillery” and had “shortfalls” in rocket artillery, air-defense systems, and long-range unmanned aircraft.
Marine Corps leaders say savings from those cuts will pay for high-tech gear needed to counter China, Russia, and others.
M1A1 Abrams tanks and other equipment during a modernization of equipment at Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway, August 13, 2014. US Marine Corps/Master Sgt. Chad McMeen
A changing strategic game
The Marines’ underground storage in Norway’s Trondheim region dates to 1982, when the US and Norway agreed to preposition supplies and equipment in six climate-controlled caves there, allowing the Corps to store equipment closer than the US East Coast and “minimize the time necessary to form for combat.”
Much of the equipment there was withdrawn for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. A decade later, the Corps expanded its stocks, reportedly allowing tanks and other heavy vehicles to be stored there for the first time.
Changes to what the Marines store in Norway would come as the Corps alters its troop presence in the country.
US Marine Corps High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle stored at Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway, February 10, 2020. US Marine Corps/Cpl. Joseph Atiyeh
Hundreds of Marines have been stationed in Norway on six-month rotations since 2017, but Norway’s military said earlier this month that the US would reduce that force.
Rankine-Galloway told several outlets the Corps wasn’t drawing down but rather adopting shorter, “episodic” deployments aligned with exercises — sometimes bringing more troops to the country than are there now — that allow it to balance Arctic warfare training with larger-scale training “as a naval expeditionary force.”
“We expect US Marine Corps forces deployed to the Nordic region to train and be prepared to fight in accordance with the Commandant’s vision for the force and that this transformation will make both US Marine Corps, allied, and partner forces more lethal and capable together,” Rankine-Galloway told Insider.
The Marines’ year-round presence in Norway angered Russia, whose border with Norway is near sensitive sites on the Kola Peninsula belonging to the powerful Northern Fleet, which oversees Russia’s nuclear ballistic-missile subs.
Russian missiles have changed “the strategic game” in the region, according to Thomas Nilsen, editor of Norway-based news outlet The Barents Observer.
“Living on the Norwegian side of the border, we don’t see a scenario of a Russian military invasion trying to capture” northern Norway, Nilsen said at an Atlantic Council event in February.
Weapons like the Kinzhal hypersonic missile could be launched from Russian fighter jets and within minutes strike airbases in those Scandinavian countries, Nilsen said.
Aircraft at those bases, like Norway’s F-35s, are “what Russia is afraid of,” Nilsen added. “Those capabilities on the Scandinavian side that might … disturb their deploying of the ballistic-missile submarines.”
There are some planes that hang onto service even though time and technology have long passed them by. One of these planes, which first flew in 1947, is something that could’ve once been considered state-of-the-art… in 1918.
And yet, somehow, this plane is still in service with militaries today. The Antonov An-2 Colt is, arguably, an outdated junk-heap. Even the UH-60 Black Hawk is faster than this fixed-wing plane (the Black Hawk has a top speed of 183 mph, the Colt maxes out at a paltry 160). Additionally, the An-2 can haul a dozen passengers while the UH-60 can, in some cases, carry 22. Can you say “outclassed?”
Only in terms of maximum range does the An-2 take an edge over the ubiquitous Black Hawk (it’s got a range of 525 miles, which is longer than UH-60’s 363). So, how has this plane survived so long?
This recognition drawing shows just how state of the art the An-2 is… for 1918.
As history has proved, there’s strength in numbers. This plane was in production for over 50 years with the Soviet Union, Poland, and Communist China. A production run that long was responsible for the creation of at least 18,000 airframes. No matter what you use them for, that staggering number of planes won’t be simply disappearing any time soon.
As you might have guessed by now, the An-2 is also very popular because it’s extremely cheap, especially second-hand (some are for sale for as little as ,170).
The last thing you’d expect from a cheap, fragile aircraft is a combat role — but over its long career, it’s seen plenty of action. This plane was used primarily by communist forces in the Korean War and Vietnam War. It also played the part of a makeshift bomber in the 1991 Croatian War for Independence.
An-2s are getting upgrades – this An-2-100 has a turboprop engine.
Like the famous C-47 Skytrain, the An-2 has been continually upgraded throughout its storied career to keep it flying for decades to come. Modern Colts make use of turboprop engines and composite wings.
Learn more about this very common (and somewhat antiquated) biplane cargo hauler in the video below!
We need a batch of good news. A little hops in our step. Something to sip on that takes us to a different time. 1757 to be exact.
Budweiser has done it again. Making history. And this is just straight up awesome. Using the original recipe from George Washington’s handwritten notes found in a notebook from 1757 during the French and Indian War, Budweiser has crafted the next edition in their Reserve collection. Here is the page from the notebook:
So cool! And it just gets better.
This limited edition Freedom Reserve Red Lager is brewed exclusively by veteran brewers who brew for Budweiser.
“We are incredibly proud of our Freedom Reserve Red Lager because it was passionately brewed by our veteran brewers who have bravely served our country,” Budweiser Vice President Ricardo Marques
Proceeds from the beer go to support Folds of Honor, whose mission is to provide scholarships to spouses and children of fallen and disabled service members.
America, ladies and gentlemen.
The 5.4 ABV lager is described as “a rich caramel malt taste and a smooth finish with a hint of molasses.”
Ok, fine, you’ve convinced me. OMW to get some right now. Hopefully you live close enough to snag up some of this speciality brew, too. Enter your zip code here to find out where you can buy it.
This 2018 Memorial Day, toast to the men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice so that we can enjoy our lives safely in our back yards with the peace of mind to sit and have a beer this weekend.
This article originally appeared on Military Spouse. Follow @MilSpouseMag on Twitter.
Adapting a video game into a film or television series is always a difficult task. Even when you’re working with well-written source material that has a pre-established, dedicated fan base, converting a story from one medium to another comes with a huge number of challenges.
Some video-games-turned-movies have worked out well enough. The Tomb Raider movies (both from 2001, starring Angelina Jolie, and 2018, starring Alicia Vikander) gave fans a little more about Lara Croft without trampling over established motifs. The first Mortal Kombat film was fantastic because it gave fans of the series more of the over-the-top action they wanted. Even Warcraft was a hit because of the ravenous legions (sorry, we had to) of existing fans — but none of these films were released without meeting a bevy of criticism.
Other video game adaptations, however, like Bloodrayne (and basically anything else directed by Uwe Boll), dragged once-beloved characters through the mud, flopped hard, and left a permanent stain on the source material.
The recently announced Halo series that’s to air on Showtime has fans filled with a mixture of excitement and anxiety. Despite the overwhelming belief that it will never meet audiences’ expectations, we firmly believe it isn’t an impossible task to make this show great.
First and foremost, the biggest pitfall the creators of the show must avoid is going too deep into the psyche and history of series’ primary protagonist, Master Chief.
Master Chief, in the games, is an anomaly. We’ve followed him since 2001 and yet we know nothing about his past — or even what his face even looks like. That mystique will be thrown out the window if he’s the main character of upcoming series. If the show does feature him, he must be treated as if he’s the stand-in for the audience, just as he was in the short film Neil Blomkamp made a while back.
Instead, the series must be filled with countless other characters that the audience has never played. The Halo universe is rich with unique personalities, environments, political struggles, and futuristic weaponry. We’ve rarely been given a glimpse of what it’s like to not be the guy who’s single-handedly winning the war. We want to see the side stories of the other Spartans. We want to see battles from the perspective of the regular ODST guys.
It doesn’t need to be a flashback or so far removed from the plot of the original games — if the series takes us to a world built on lore and story lines we, as the audience, already know from fighting as Master Chief, things could get interesting.
Halo 3: ODST was beloved by fans because they took this approach — pitting the player in a secondary yet crucial battle. If that’s the basis of the show, we’re ready and waiting.
Research by scientists at King’s College London found that the role the gut plays in processing and distributing fat could pave the way for the development of personalized treatments for obesity and other chronic diseases within the next decade. The research is published in Nature Genetics.
In the largest study of its kind, scientists analyzed the faecal metabolome (the community of chemicals produced by gut microbes in the faeces) of 500 pairs of twins to build up a picture of how the gut governs these processes and distributes fat. The King’s team also assessed how much of that activity is genetic and how much is determined by environmental factors.
The analysis of stool samples identified biomarkers for the build-up of internal fat around the waist. It’s well known that this visceral fat is strongly associated with the development of conditions including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and obesity.
By understanding how microbial chemicals lead to the development of fat around the waist in some, but not all the twins, the King’s team hopes to also advance the understanding of the very similar mechanisms that drive the development of obesity.
An analysis of faecal metabolites (chemical molecules in stool produced by microbes) found that less than a fifth (17.9 per cent) of gut processes could be attributed to hereditary factors, but 67.7 per cent of gut activity was found to be influenced by environmental factors, mainly a person’s regular diet.
This means that important changes can be made to the way an individual’s gut processes and distributes fat by altering both their diet and microbial interactions in their gut.
On the back of the study researchers have built a gut metabolome bank that can help other scientists engineer bespoke and ideal gut environments that efficiently process and distribute fat. The study has also generated the first comprehensive database of which microbes are associated with which chemical metabolites in the gut. This can help other scientists to understand how bacteria in the gut affect human health.
Lead investigator Dr. Cristina Menni from King’s College London said: ‘This study has really accelerated our understanding of the interplay between what we eat, the way it is processed in the gut and the development of fat in the body, but also immunity and inflammation. By analysing the faecal metabolome, we have been able to get a snapshot of both the health of the body and the complex processes taking place in the gut.’
Head of the King’s College London’s Twin Research Group Professor Tim Spector said: ‘This exciting work in our twins shows the importance to our health and weight of the thousands of chemicals that gut microbes produce in response to food. Knowing that they are largely controlled by what we eat rather than our genes is great news, and opens up many ways to use food as medicine. In the future these chemicals could even be used in smart toilets or as smart toilet paper.’
Dr. Jonas Zierer, first author of the study added: ‘This new knowledge means we can alter the gut environment and confront the challenge of obesity from a new angle that is related to modifiable factors such as diet and the microbes in the gut. This is exciting, because unlike our genes and our innate risk to develop fat around the belly, the gut microbes can be modified with probiotics, with drugs or with high fibre diets.’
Sure, in theory it would be nice to tell loved ones the truth, but there are plenty of times when it’s probably a bad idea. Or maybe the truth doesn’t live up to loved ones’ expectations. Either way, here are 9 lies that usually do the trick:
1. “No, we never go outside the wire.” (or “We go on tons of missions.”)
Everyone knows the grunts go out constantly, but for support soldiers it’s a crapshoot. Some will go out constantly; some rarely. Oddly, both groups lie about it. Support soldiers who are with infantry their whole deployment will tell their parents they’re staying safely inside the wire. Guys who never leave the wire will tell outlandish stories about combat.
2. “It’s boring here.”
This is the combat arms soldier’s version of, “We never go outside the wire.” They can’t convince the family that they’re never going on mission, so instead they tell them that nothing is happening.
3. “They feed us pretty well.”
If the soldier is deployed to a large base like an airfield, this may be true. But if they are further away from large logistics hubs, the food choices become repetitive and aren’t always healthy. The worst is for the guys in the field or living in tiny outposts. They’ll get most of their calories from MREs and the occasional delivery of Girl Scout cookies and maybe fruit. Care packages are valuable on deployment, so send good stuff.
4. “I eat healthy snacks.”
Nope. The foods soldiers pick for themselves are worse than the ones in the MREs. Half the time, it’s just tobacco and caffeine. Again, send care packages. Maybe drop some vitamins next to the chips and dip they’re asking for.
5. “I’m learning a lot.”
Everyone has their plan for a deployment, especially cherries on their first trip. Some plan to practice guitar, learn another language, or work on a degree. For most soldiers though, those ideas go out the window when they realize they’ll be working 13 hours or more per day. Still, when they call home, they’ll bring a German phrasebook with them, just to keep up appearances.
6. “I couldn’t call because of all the work.”
Though there is a lot of work, it’s not really enough to make phone calls impossible. Sometimes, troops just don’t feel like walking all the way to the morale, welfare, and recreation tent. Other times it’s because the lines for the phones were long and, for once, the lines for video games were short. The phones could have been cut off because of bandwidth issues or a communications blackout. Don’t worry, they’ll hit you up on Facebook when they’re able.
7. “Our rooms aren’t too bad.”
Like the food, this depends on the base. Some people on big airfields have real rooms they share or a really nice tent. On forward operating bases, the tents get pretty crappy fast. Beyond the FOBs it’s even worse. Soldiers in the most forward positions dig holes in the sand and spread camouflage nets over them.
8. “That’s not machine-gun fire; it’s a jackhammer.”
There are variations of this. “That helicopter pilots are just doing some training,” or, “The engineers are just detonating some old munitions.” Anytime a compromising noise makes it through the phone, the soldier will try to explain it away. The soldier knows they aren’t in immediate danger, but they still don’t want their wife to know the base takes a rocket attack every 72 hours. So, they lie about what the noise was and get off the phone before any base alarms go off.
9. “I’m going to pay off my cards and put some money away for retirement.”
In their defense, most soldiers are lying to themselves here. They think they’re going to be responsible, but they come home with tens of thousands of dollars saved and realize they could buy a really nice car. The barracks parking lots fill with Challengers and BMWs in the months after a unit comes home.
U.S. Marines love to talk about their history — from battles won to the heritage of uniform items — but sometimes, the line between history and myths gets a little muddled.
There are some things in Marine lore that are passed on as tradition or legend that have no basis in fact. The truth hurts, Marines, but it’s more important to get our history right.
Here are the four biggest myths that Marines have kept alive over the years:
1. The “blood stripe” on the NCO and officer dress blue uniform pants commemorates the 1847 Battle of Chapultapec.
According to Marine legend, a large number of Marine officers and non-commissioned officers perished while assaulting the castle at Chapultapec, Mexico in 1847. To signify their bravery, the Corps later authorized a red “blood stripe” for NCOs and officers to remember and honor their sacrifice.
It sounds legit, but it’s yet another myth. Following an Army uniform practice about ten years before this battle, the Corps began putting stripes on its trousers. The color choice of the stripes changed over those years until solid red was adopted in 1849, according to the Marine Corps Museum. The Corps chose red at the time not to commemorate Chapultapec, but to match the red accents of the blues jacket.
“While a wonderful story, and one that is taught to incoming recruits, it is only a story,” Beth L. Crumley, of the Marine History Division, said in an e-mail.
The Marines first started wearing the scarlet stripe on blue pants in 1840, borrowing the tradition from the Army. Moreover, seven Marines were killed at Chapultepec out of a force of between 400 and 450 Marines.
2. Marines have never surrendered. Biggest myth ever.
U.S. Marines are (and should be) proud of their battlefield heroics, from battling Barbary pirates to fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But with that long battle history comes the claim that Marines have never surrendered. While this claim serves to motivate Marines to always fight just as hard as those who came before, it’s a total myth.
Just one day after the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Marines — under the command of Maj. James Devereux — were under siege on a tiny Pacific atoll called Wake Island. The Marines of the 1st Defense Battalion put up an incredible 15-day fight, sinking ships, damaging or destroying more than 70 aircraft, and holding off the Japanese despite overwhelming odds.
But the Marines were ultimately unable to hold off the enemy. Though their fight serves as an amazing tale of Marine bravery in the opening days of America’s involvement in World War II, they finally surrendered to the Japanese on Dec. 23, 1941.
About an hour after daylight (0630), Commander Keene picked up the telephone in the contractors’ headquarters and found Commander Cunningham and Major Devereux engaged in conversation on the line. The latter reported being hard-pressed at his command post. He did not believe, he said, that the battalion could hold out much longer. Cunningham told Devereux that if he did not feel he was able to continue fighting, he should surrender. A discussion between the two men then ensued. “You know, Wilkes has fallen,” Devereux stated. Cunningham answered that he did. Devereux then stated that he did not feel he should make the decision to surrender, that Cunningham, the commander of the island, should decide. Pausing for a moment, Cunningham then told Devereux that he authorized surrender, and to take the necessary steps to carry it out. Uncertain of his ability to contact the Japanese commander, Devereux asked Cunningham to attempt to make contact with the enemy, as well. Cunningham responded: “I’ll see what I can do.”
At 1015 Kliewer saw men carrying a white flag coming down the beach. Major Devereux was among them, with a group of what appeared to be Japanese officers. They stopped about 50 feet from Kliewer’s trench and ordered him to surrender. Kliewer’s men counseled against giving up: “Don’t surrender, lieutenant. The Marines never surrender. It’s a hoax.”
“It was a difficult thing to do,” Kliewer wrote later, “but we tore down our guns and turned ourselves over.”
Some will argue that technically, Marines did not surrender at Wake, because the Navy commander ordered it. A similar argument is made when referencing Guam or the Marine surrender (under the command of an Army general) in the Philippines. But that doesn’t explain away Marines attempting to surrender during the little-known Makin Island Raid, though they were unsuccessful after being unable to find any Japanese to surrender to.
Further, there are other occasions where Marines have surrendered throughout the service’s history in this book by historian Albert Nofi, including the 40 Marines of “Task Force Drysdale” who surrendered to the Chinese during the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir in Korea.
“We are not surrendering because you beat us,” Marine Maj. John McLaughlin told the Chinese, according to HistoryNet. “We are surrendering to get our wounded cared for. If we can’t get our wounded evacuated, we will fight on.”
3. The birthday of the modern U.S. Marine Corps is on Nov. 10, 1775.
On Nov. 10, 1775, the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Penn. authorized the raising of two battalions of Marines to serve “for and during the present war between Great Britain and the colonies.” Shortly after this resolution, Marines were recruited and served aboard ships, most notably as sharpshooters taking out enemy officers.
What many Marines don’t know, however, is that the Continental Marine Corps was disbanded after the Revolutionary War in 1783 and ceased to exist for the next 15 years. It wasn’t until July 11, 1798 that what we know as the modern U.S. Marine Corps was established through an act of Congress.
For the next 123 years, the Corps recognized July 11, 1798 as its official birthday, even though it was little more than a myth.
Until 1921 the birthday of the Corps had been celebrated on another date. An unidentified newspaper clipping from 1918 refers to the celebration of the 120th birthday of the Marine Corps on 11 July “as usual with no fuss.” It is doubtful that there was any real celebration at all. Further inspection of documents and publications prior to 1921 shows no evidence of ceremonies, pageants, or parties. The July date was commemorated between 1798 and 1921 as the birthday of the Corps. During the Revolution, Marines had fought on land and sea, but at the close of the Revolution the Marine Corps and the Navy were all but disbanded. On 11 July 1798, President John Adams approved a bill that recreated the Corps, thereby providing the rationale for this day being commemorated as the birthday of the U.S. Marine Corps.
It wasn’t until Nov. 1, 1921 with Gen. John A. Lejeune’s issued Marine Corps Order 47 that the birthday changed to the previous date for the Continental Marine Corps that modern Marines still celebrate today. Later this year on Nov. 10, 2015, the Marine Corps will celebrate 240 years of service, but we should really subtract 15 from that number. Ah well. Myths are sticky.
4. Germans dubbed the Marines “devil dogs” during The Battle of Belleau Wood in World War I.
German soldiers facing American Marines at Belleau Wood, France during World War I took notice of their ferocious fighting spirit in battle, and they referred to them as teufelhunden, or “devil dogs,” according to Marine Corps legend. The Marine nickname of “devil dog” later appeared on a recruiting poster shortly after the battle.
But this myth also falls apart under closer scrutiny. Jeff Schogol, again writing in Stars Stripes, spoke with a member of the Marine Corps History Division and a representative of the National Museum of the Marine Corps. Here’s what they said:
“The term very likely was first used by Marines themselves and appeared in print before the Battle for Belleau Wood,” Marine Corps History Divison’s Bob Aquilina said. “It gained notoriety in the decades following World War I and has since become a part of Marine Corps tradition.”
“We have no proof that it came from German troops though tradition says it came from German troops referring to Marines,” said museum rep Patrick Mooney. “There is no written document in German that says that the Marines are Devil Dogs or any correct spelling or language component of ‘Devil Dog’ in German.”
Further confusing the matter is the fact that a number of American newspapers ran stories in April 1918 claiming that Germans had nicknamed the Marines “devil dogs.” This was prior to the Battle of Belleau Wood, which began on June 1.
While not based in reality, it made for a compelling recruiting drive and the myth still endures. “The Germans, during the war, had no opprobrious nicknames for their foes … Teufelhunde (devil-dogs), for the American Marines, was invented by an American correspondent; the Germans never used it,” wrote famed American author H.L. Mencken in his book on linguistics, “The American Language.“
In America, when you go without wearing any underwear, we jokingly call it “going commando.” If you’ve ever deployed to a joint military base and you’ve worked alongside Royal Marines, then you understand the term better than most — you’ve probably received an uncalled-for eyeful when these troops wake up for the work day. That’s because they tend to sleep in just their birthday suits.
But it’s not for comfort’s sake — it’s hygienically sound.
It’s no secret that, when the mission calls for it, military personnel sometimes have to live in tight berthing areas. Because of this close-quarter living, illnesses and bacteria can quickly spread from person to person.
Most service members are taught to shower before they go to bed. After all, you want to remain as clean as possible throughout the night. But when we sleep, we naturally sweat from our pores. Meanwhile, our microscopic skin cells die and flake off. You might not know it, but you leave behind an imprint of skin and sweat wherever you lay — it’s actually pretty nasty.
Royal Marines tend to sleep naked so they don’t hold all the juices and skin flakes emitted from their bodies in the clothes they’ll later wear.
U.S. troops are taught to sleep in a t-shirt and undies or some type of pajamas. Sure, this might contribute to the ever-growing pile of dirty laundry, but at least it’s easier to go to the restroom at 0300 — which is located on the other side of the FOB.