Marine Corps: Get Some!

[mun13f]

Morning all.

I've been following the discussion for awhile, and now that things are a little less contentious, I'll weigh in.

The point you make about every Marine a rifleman is definitely more true in the USMC than in the Army. When I was in a USAR Apache squadron, we were told that in time of war, we would have most likely have detached MPs or infantry to provide perimeter security for the FARP(though we had to do it ourselves in training). That, and I would venture that in OIF thus far, there was more complaining in the Army than in the Marines about doing a job that one wasn't trained to do. But my old unit, an artillery battalion, did it just the same, just as many other Army units have done so since OIF began.

I can also tell you that our guys were very weak on infantry tactics and patrolling (though they shot the hell out of some artillery), and as officers, we could readily see that, as all Army officers have significantly more training in infantry tactics than a non-infantry soldier does.

In your original comments, GasMask, you said that the Army was for stabilization, while the Marines are for hunting down terrorists. Not surprisingly, a number of posters took exception to this gross generalization. However, there is a kernel of truth to it, which I don't think anyone here has mentioned so far. As I understand it, it is indeed the Army that has the organic assets (Civil Affairs units, etc.) that are intended, under U.S. doctrine, to serve as occupation/reconstruction forces, whereas Marines do not have these organic assets that are intended to provde long-term military government (e.g. as was done after WWII). Of course, applying this characterization to my old brigade combat team, with 2 armor battalions, an infantry battalion, and an artillery battalion, is silly, as this formation is quite clearly intended to close with and destroy the enemy. And, in OIF, there are no missions that the Marines are conducting that the Army isn't also conducting.

[mun13f]

Originally posted by GasMask:

My dad told me that the army just isn't like that. Like I said he was an Army tanker and for 24 years.

So true, especially in the Armor: "Death before dismount!" Of course, my brigade's tank battalion, 1-34 AR (LTC Nagl's unit), not only dismounted, but as a battalion had its own battlespace and own camp (Khaldiyah and Camp Habbaniyah). I always found it interesting that they were the ones sent off on their own, instead of our infantry battalion, most of which stayed at Camp Junction City.

[Fusilier9]

“He said when they sent him to Vietnam, they sent him as an infantrymen, and he was freaking out because he had no idea how to be an infantrymen, because all he knew was tanks.”

Gas Mask is right. The USMC emphasizes infantry training more than the Army does. However, that is changing given recent experiences like the 507 Maintenance Company. They were relatively untrained for that ambush even though several of them put up a hard fight.

I wanted to say something to place our debate and banter (good-natured or not) into context. I sincerely appreciate those of you (Gas Mask and others) who are defending our nation. I didn’t want our discussion to cloud this issue. Our military personnel are dedicated, professional, and they should be honored for the excellent job they are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the globe. Gas Mask’s comments about his lost comrades brought this issue back into perspective.

When I was a new 2nd Lieutenant many years ago during the 1980’s when President Reagan was facing down the Soviet Union, I was stunned by the rhetoric of many who obviously hated me and my uniform. They had no understanding of the military, its mission or the sacrifices that were being made to defend their freedom.

Those feelings exist these days and I’m still dismayed by those who claim to love their country and support the troops but refuse to acknowledge their difficult mission or give them appropriate credit. Now that my son is serving in Iraq on the Syrian border interdicting terrorists, my feelings about this are stronger than ever.

So, Gas Mask and those others out there who had the guts to serve our country, I pass along my thanks and appreciation for their service regardless of our earlier discussion.

[GasMask]

You speak very respectfully, and I apreciate that, thus you've earned my respect.

I will say that everything is changing. Believe it or not, my infantry unit in Iraq took a bunch of non infantry Marines and made a Civil Affairs group, and started building playgrounds and shook hands and played with kids. It's very strange to think that Marines are being given this mission and as I do think it is needed, I also don't feel that it's the Marines job. Marines arn't designed to be nice and gentle. Sure it's a different world, and a different war, but I wander if this will be hurtful or helpful to the Corps. Only time will tell.

[GasMask]

Fusilier9, thank you for the thanks, but I don't expect a thanks from a former military man. You've got my respect for serving, that's the bottom line. Wheather we disagree on something is besides the point. You're right about our military doing a great job. I mean, when you're in the military and in a war, if you don't do your best sometimes people die.

I'm sure your son is doing a great job, so send him my hello. All service members have my respect, and I'll get thier backs whenever needed. I guess as a vetern now, that's my duty, to support the ones still in. Feels strange, but I like it.

[Abbott]

Good call Nidan1.

[Nidan1]

Gas Mask, honestly and to your face...I don't think you are who you say you are, in fact I suspect that you and Fusilier9 may be the same person, and are having the rest of us on with your little mutual admiration society.

The only reason I take any interest in this thread is due to the fact that discussing the subject of the Marine Corps is near and dear to me, and I would hate to see some pretender making a mockery of the sacrifices made by our Soldiers and Marines, as well as the sacrfices made by our allies and friends who have also sent military units into the fray.

Please continue this discussion if you like, I think it has run its course.

[mun13f]

Originally posted by GasMask:

I will say that everything is changing. Believe it or not, my infantry unit in Iraq took a bunch of non infantry Marines and made a Civil Affairs group, and started building playgrounds and shook hands and played with kids. It's very strange to think that Marines are being given this mission and as I do think it is needed, I also don't feel that it's the Marines job. Marines arn't designed to be nice and gentle. Sure it's a different world, and a different war, but I wander if this will be hurtful or helpful to the Corps. Only time will tell. [/QB]

Creating a civil affairs unit sounds like a great idea. One of my continuing frustrations with my unit was its unwillingness to reorganize and cross-attach based on mission needs. The attitude was pretty much that every battery had to make due with what it had, regardless of the mission.

Also, you bring up an interesting point, about whether or not this experience will be hurtful or helpful to the Marine Corps. As long as this war doesn't go for too much longer, and the Marines and the Army don't continue to hemmorage talented, potential careerists, the experience gained will be useful. According to a military history professor I had, the military faced this same conundrum in Vietnam: the units that were most successful in a counter-insurgency fight became so at the expense of their conventional war-fighting capabilities. However, the units he had in mind when saying this were literally living in villages and thus controlling terrain, and my experience in counter-insurgency was nothing like this -- we maintained a very conventional war-fighting mentality, despite the schools we fixed and soccer balls we handed out.

One last point: it doesn't matter if Marines are supposed to be nice and gentle or not. The most important thing is that they do as they're told - if their superiors tell them that they need to be nice, then that's what they do. The ability to control violence in combat is crucial, and especially paramount in Iraq. Discipline is the primary thing that separates a military unit from a frenzied, armed mob. I am very proud of my soldiers for their amazing fire discipline -- never did we light up the whole neigborhood, or anything like that - as has no doubt has happened numerous times throughout OIF (and I've seen it). Even our most hard-charging, aggressive NCOs were absolutely disciplined in this regard.

I forgot -- one more point: it's the military's job to complete the mission that it is given irregardless of its organizational expertise (or proclivities): the military serves the mission, not the other way around.

[Fusilier9]

"Gas Mask, honestly and to your face...I don't think you are who you say you are, in fact I suspect that you and Fusilier9 may be the same person, and are having the rest of us on with your little mutual admiration society."

We are not the same person although I was issued a gas mask in the Army and by my law enforcement agency. You wouldn't think we had a mutual admiration society going between us if you scrutinized our earlier heated debate.

Mun13F brings up some excellent points (13F, forward observer?). I was an artillery officer and served as a Fire Support Officer to an infantry battalion). The Army is changing radically. The transition will make the Army more like the USMC in some ways and not in others. As part of the new joint forces concept, the Army is taking the lead in civil affairs among other things. The Army is also changing its force structure from division-sized units to brigade combat teams. As smaller more self-contained units, they will be deployed in an expeditionary role like the one the USMC has done for years.

The Army will also expand its infantry force and upgrade infantry-oriented training. Interestingly, the Army will have a mix of infantry units (airborne, air mobile, light, Stryker, and mechanized). Is the USMC infantry organized all the same? I see them as being somewhat medium in this array (larger, more weapons than the Army’s light units but less so than the Stryker or mechanized). However, the USMC does employ amtracks so maybe they are heavy on occasion. Amtracks aren’t organic to USMC infantry are they? Also, what about the LAV’s? Are they just recon or infantry carriers?

[GasMask]

Wow Nidan1, you must have been the kid in school who thought the teachers were all aliens, and probably now believe the government is trying to implant trackers in your body. You're favorite movie must be Soylent Green...

Anyways, I have no idea who Fusilier9 is. I have given you my units, my city of residence, my 1st borns date of birth, and I've discussed my actions in Iraq. If you still can't believe I'm just another Marine, then I'm sorry, but it's true. Fine. Do you want a picture of me in the Corps? Would that make you believe I am being truthful? This is one I sent to my WIFE from Iraq, so don't get all crazy on me.

[mun13f]

Originally posted by Fusilier9:

Mun13F brings up some excellent points (13F, forward observer?). I was an artillery officer and served as a Fire Support Officer to an infantry battalion).

Actually, 13A -- I was an FA officer, too. I was only an FSO for about five months, and unfortunately didn't get the chance to train with my company much, aside from giving them some CFF classes (though I trained with their BN staff a few times).

[GasMask]

"However, the USMC does employ amtracks so maybe they are heavy on occasion. Amtracks aren’t organic to USMC infantry are they? Also, what about the LAV’s? Are they just recon or infantry carriers? "

Well, the Doctrine of the Marine Corps has always been amphibious assault. All our tracked vehicles other then tanks are amphibious. Our AAVs, and LAVs can hit a beach hard and drop Marines out the back. We also utilize LCAC vehicles (SP) which are huge hover craft and are really loud, but they can drive on up on the land as far as you want.

We are designed really for coming off the water, thus "marine." In the old days were were just made to protect naval ships by shooting rifles at other ships crews, but that's all changed.

[mun13f]

GasMask --

Is that a picture of you in your company's arms room?

[GasMask]

Well, since my job delt with all aspects of combat gear, I got to know the armory guys quiet well and visited quite often. That was taken in a run down chicken factory in Iraq, and that room is a make shift armory.

[civdiv]

The Army will also expand its infantry force and upgrade infantry-oriented training. Interestingly, the Army will have a mix of infantry units (airborne, air mobile, light, Stryker, and mechanized). Is the USMC infantry organized all the same?

The USMC, for the most part, is all organized the same. However due to the expeditionary nature of the USMC, we are very much task-organized. Be it a MEU, which is basically an infantry battalion with a platoon of AMTRAKS, Tanks, LAR (LAVs), and arty battery, an air element including cargo and attack helos, and usually Harriers, a tactical and operational level recon element, etc. But this is the traditional, forward deployed peacetime force. In terms of Iraq, it's very much task organized. In Afghanistan, it is almost exclusively, infantry battalions with no other USMC attachments.

I see them as being somewhat medium in this array (larger, more weapons than the Army’s light units but less so than the Stryker or mechanized).

If you compare infantry battalion to infantry battalion, the USMC comes out just a little heavier, mostly due to their organic Counter-Mechanized platoons (Vehicle mounted TOWs, M-2s, and Mk-19s. If you compare them to Stryker or Mech Battalions, then the USMC battalion is much lighter. Basically a Marine infantry battalion is roughtly equivelent to an Army light infantry battalion.

As you go up the chain in the organization, the USMC gets increasingly heavier. We still don't have the Mech assets the Army has at Bde level, but we do have a large complement of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, all inherent in the USMC units. But again, these tend to be tasked organized units. Technically tanks, LAVs, AMTRAKS, and Recon are all Division assets. And fixed and rotary wing units are MEF (Roughly Army Corps) assets.

However, the USMC does employ amtracks so maybe they are heavy on occasion. Amtracks aren’t organic to USMC infantry are they?

No, they are a division asset, but they are usually task organized to be attached to infantry battalions.

Also, what about the LAV’s? Are they just recon or infantry carriers?

They are also Division assets, though usually attached at a lower level. They are light armored recon, and they do have a VERY small infantry footprint. They are roughtly equivelent to the Army M-3 Bradley units, who also carry a very small infantry footprint.

[civdiv]

Well, the Doctrine of the Marine Corps has always been amphibious assault. All our tracked vehicles other then tanks are amphibious. Our AAVs, and LAVs can hit a beach hard and drop Marines out the back. We also utilize LCAC vehicles (SP) which are huge hover craft and are really loud, but they can drive on up on the land as far as you want.

We are designed really for coming off the water, thus "marine." In the old days were were just made to protect naval ships by shooting rifles at other ships crews, but that's all changed.

Well, sort of, but the days of the D-Day or Tarawa style amphibious assault or gone. Technically it's an accurate descriptive phrase, but it tends to be mis-understood. The current byword is 'forced entry'. Yes, we assault, and we do it from the sea, but we no longer have the capability due to the advances in the destructiveness of weaponry, to 'storm' ashore in the face of a dug-in defender. I mean, give the defenders at Omaha Beach a dozen SAGGERS each with a couple of reloads, and the French are growing Gewurztraminer to this day.

The USMC doctrine is to avoid the beach defenses and seize terrain inland via Ospreys and CH-53s, usually from over-the-horizon. We can then use things like AMTRAKs to put the defenders in a vice, by directly coming ashore against light to medium defenses. But LAVs, while amphibious, don't swim ashore. Their amphibious capability is to cross streams and small rivers. And as fast and effective as LCACs are (hovercraft), they are extraordinarily vulnerable to even rifle fire. They are designed to assault UNDEFENDED coastal areas from over the horizon.

[GasMask]

As long as there are beaches, it will be possible to have to land on them. Don't be so quick to say it's over, they said that about dog fighting with jets.

One of these days, we may have to hit a beach again, such as the Korean pininsula... again... or hell, even Kuwait one day, or any number of places.

We might even find our selves invading France, can't wait for that. lol jk of course... maybe not... no no, just kidding...

yeah right... what?

[RogerMcMahon]

Why is it that Marines are so touchy? I have found that to be true on many occasions.

We had a guy in the mines a few years back who was an ex-Marine..he always had a chip on his shoulder until one time we had some roof let go in a section where he was working. He became a team player from that day on when one of the other guys pulled him to safety.

I think all of our military branches have their own special reasons to be proud.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by civdiv:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well, the Doctrine of the Marine Corps has always been amphibious assault. All our tracked vehicles other then tanks are amphibious. Our AAVs, and LAVs can hit a beach hard and drop Marines out the back. We also utilize LCAC vehicles (SP) which are huge hover craft and are really loud, but they can drive on up on the land as far as you want.

We are designed really for coming off the water, thus "marine." In the old days were were just made to protect naval ships by shooting rifles at other ships crews, but that's all changed.

Well, sort of, but the days of the D-Day or Tarawa style amphibious assault or gone. Technically it's an accurate descriptive phrase, but it tends to be mis-understood. The current byword is 'forced entry'. Yes, we assault, and we do it from the sea, but we no longer have the capability due to the advances in the destructiveness of weaponry, to 'storm' ashore in the face of a dug-in defender. I mean, give the defenders at Omaha Beach a dozen SAGGERS each with a couple of reloads, and the French are growing Gewurztraminer to this day.

</font>

[civdiv]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well, the Doctrine of the Marine Corps has always been amphibious assault. All our tracked vehicles other then tanks are amphibious. Our AAVs, and LAVs can hit a beach hard and drop Marines out the back. We also utilize LCAC vehicles (SP) which are huge hover craft and are really loud, but they can drive on up on the land as far as you want.

We are designed really for coming off the water, thus "marine." In the old days were were just made to protect naval ships by shooting rifles at other ships crews, but that's all changed.

Well, sort of, but the days of the D-Day or Tarawa style amphibious assault or gone. Technically it's an accurate descriptive phrase, but it tends to be mis-understood. The current byword is 'forced entry'. Yes, we assault, and we do it from the sea, but we no longer have the capability due to the advances in the destructiveness of weaponry, to 'storm' ashore in the face of a dug-in defender. I mean, give the defenders at Omaha Beach a dozen SAGGERS each with a couple of reloads, and the French are growing Gewurztraminer to this day.

</font>

[flamingknives]

Given that Saggers, IIRC, are Manual Command-to-Line-Of-Sight, you'd be better off engaging landing craft with 75mm guns, which were present on the day.

[civdiv]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Given that Saggers, IIRC, are Manual Command-to-Line-Of-Sight, you'd be better off engaging landing craft with 75mm guns, which were present on the day.

You are splitting hairs here. Today, if you encounter a SAGGER, overwhelming chances are that has an upgraded guidance module so it is SACLOS. But the point is that the range and lethality of modern weapons has increased to the point that direct assualts on well defended beaches are no longer feasible. And I made my analogy because Omaha was a very close thing, and the US Command considered cancelling follow-on waves and sending them to Utah. Based on my example, I think it is very valid, that if you add just a few, modern second line weapons to the defenses, Omaha doesn't succeed.

With the SAGGER, or any other ATGM, infantry now possess a man-portable weapon with very high first round hit chances, and virtually 100% kill chances against anything taking part in an amphibious assault from ranges out to around 2000 meters. I used the SAGGER in my example as it is the oldest ATGM still commonly being used.

[flamingknives]

Oh, I probably am splitting hairs. My alter-ego, Mr. flamingpicky, surfacing no doubt. However, if we're sending them back in time to 1944, I see no reason to assume that they are the latest model. I guessed that you picked the SAGGER for the reasons that you've given, and assumed that you meant the original MCLOS version, as otherwise you might have picked first gen. TOW, Milan 1 or whatever.

However, these things do not operate in a vacuum and if the defenders have greatly increased firepower, then so do the attackers. Plus suppressive fire is supposedly disproportionately effective against even SACLOS.

Perhaps I'm being picky again, but your example favours the defenders in the best possible basis - long lines of sight, lack of overwhelming support fire for the attackers etc. Assault landings could still be concievably made against defended positions, provided they made use of weather, obscurants and supporting fire.

Going somewhere else, on the other hand, is infinately preferable than charging headlong at an ambush, but sometimes you're not going to have that option. Sea-going amphibs seem to have little point if they are only used for unopposed landings - too many comprimises in their construction are required to attain it, IMHO.

[akd]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by juan_gigante:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GasMask:

"This is very sad for (presumably) adults. Have a picture!"

What do you mean by that?

Adults wouldn't be having a silly and pointless argument like this. And akd's our guy with the Iraq pictures. </font>

[civdiv]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Oh, I probably am splitting hairs. My alter-ego, Mr. flamingpicky, surfacing no doubt. However, if we're sending them back in time to 1944, I see no reason to assume that they are the latest model. I guessed that you picked the SAGGER for the reasons that you've given, and assumed that you meant the original MCLOS version, as otherwise you might have picked first gen. TOW, Milan 1 or whatever.

However, these things do not operate in a vacuum and if the defenders have greatly increased firepower, then so do the attackers. Plus suppressive fire is supposedly disproportionately effective against even SACLOS.

While the attackers do indeed have more effective weapons, during an amphibious assault they are not in a position to use them. Battleships are gone as they are entirely one-dimensional, so fire support is limited to a few billion dollar Aegis class CGs, or Arleigh Burke DDGs. And Naval Gunfire Support is already like the 87th priority for the Navy as it is. Say you have a well camauflaged timber bunker like the Japanese had at Tarawa. It cannot be spotted from the air (or by satellite) as it has almost no thermal signature. What are you going to use against it? 5" guns, using basically the same tactics and techniques used during WWII. But now you have a vastly less-lethal round (As opposed to 14" or 16"). ICM has no effect on a bunker, due to the overhead cover. You can't ask the Germans for the blueprints because it was built in the field by a rifle squad.

The mines laid at the water's edge are just as effective as their WWII counterparts, but they are probably Italian mines with plastic casings so they are virtually undetectable, even if a guy with a metal detector is willing to brave MG (And SAGGER) fire. You can't use stuff like MICLIC until you are actually ashore, you that's a non-player. You could try FAE bombs, but you are basically replicating the massed shipborne firepower that was already in existance in 1943.

Your mode of transport is basically the same that you had in 1943; slow moving and vulnerable AMTRACS and LCUs. Yes, you have incredibly effective M1A1 tanks, LAVs, TOWs, Hellfire missiles, Predator, the SMAW, etc. But none of them are a player until AFTER you are ashore. So though both sides have vastly increased firepower, lethality, range and accuracy, for the most part it is only the defender that can deploy it.

Modern combat is based on maneuver, not on head-to-head confrontations. Yes, the US Military, and the USMC in particular, is very effective fighting man-on-man, but in an amphibious assault, it is not man-on-man, it is SAGGER, MILAN, KORNET, 30mm Chain Gun, Howitzer, Mortar, AG-17, etc, versus basically WWII AMTRACs and LCUs. Plus, with current and near-future capabilities such as Osprey and AAAV, we don't need to do the direct assault, we go around the enemy. Seize an expeditionary airfield, air-deploy follow-on infantry forces, helo assets, and light armor, and the vaunted beach defenses have now become a self-sustaining POW camp. In WWII we didn't have the option of air assault, now we do. So we don't hit the enemy where it is the most prepared, and we are the most vulnerable.

Perhaps I'm being picky again, but your example favours the defenders in the best possible basis - long lines of sight, lack of overwhelming support fire for the attackers etc. Assault landings could still be concievably made against defended positions, provided they made use of weather, obscurants and supporting fire.

Beaches that are feasibly assaultable are required to have slight grades and easy access to the enterior. Conversely, they have good lines of sight for the defender. And by the very nature of an amphibious landing, the terrain is very flat, almost uniformely at sea-level, because it is the sea! Bad weather that affects the visibility of the defender will 99% of the time more seriously hinder the attacker. And in terms of obscurants, simple smoke doesn't block thermal sights.

Going somewhere else, on the other hand, is infinately preferable than charging headlong at an ambush, but sometimes you're not going to have that option. Sea-going amphibs seem to have little point if they are only used for unopposed landings - too many comprimises in their construction are required to attain it, IMHO.

Exactly, use your mobility to go inland. We wouldn't invade Tarawa in modern combat, because we don't need it. Either the land area is big enough that we can go inland and avoid the defenses, or small enough so we can isolate it and starve it out.

Amphibious shipping is there to forward deploy the Marines. The USMC/USN team can seize an airfield or a port in virtually any part of the world. I mean, look at Afghanistan. The USMC deployed from hundreds of miles away and took Camp Rhino near Kandahar, hundreds of miles from the ocean. Or we can deploy ashore right into a US Embassy compound without ever touching the ground outside the walls. That's maneuver warfare. And that's the USMC.