Jump to content

US Marines in Contrast w/ US Army


Calvin

Recommended Posts

I don't want to set off any inter-service food fights here but...

Other than the basics, what differences between Marine Corp tactical doctrine and that of the US Army can be drawn?

I am aware that US Marine's are set up to be more expeditionary and independent, have larger squads w/ generally greater, firepower, etc.

What else? Both official and unofficial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One big thing to remember about Marines is their use of support fire and infantry as the primary assault arms. The AAV packs a lot of firepower with a M2 and MK19 in the turret but it is not an assault type vehicle like the Bradley, especially the ERA Brads. The AAV armor is much lighter and the MK19 will usually fair pretty poorly against BMPs unless you get the drop on them.

You will also have less tank support (this is according to the MEU TO&E, obviously designers can throw in as many tanks as they want) than a comparable sized Army unit. The MEU, for example, has a platoon of M1 FEP's while an Army combined arms Task Force is likely to contain a company of M1s. This means greater reliance on support fires both from arty and mortars, and fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft.

The result is that Armor takes a much more support role, with tanks being concentrated on enemy hardpoints or to blunt serious armor threats. The assault role falls to the infantry. Fortunately the large size of the Marine squads and their massive firepower makes them ideal for this, almost as if they were designed that way.:D Marine squads will eat regular Syrian squads in MOUT and need only minimal support to brush aside better formations. There is very little a Marine platoon can't handle if they have all their assets in place. They are quite capable in close in fights against armor as they have a ton of AT4/LAW/SMAWs at their disposal, especially if they can reload from an AAV or truck. Plus, since the Javelin is a crew served weapon you don't have to choose between making a squad an AT asset or an assault asset, all you Marine squads are assault assets. The only disadvantage a Marine platoon has is with long range anti-armor but that is why they have such close cooperation with support assets. This needs to be realized by scenario designers to present a realistic picture of Marine capabilities and fighting style.

(I have to thank Imperial Grunt, Huntarr, and JohnO for expanding this soldier's understanding of the Marines)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff SgtMuhammed.

Can't claim the honor of being a Marine myself, but I will say that I had a lot of buddies who joined either the Corp or the Army Infantry straight out of High School (I'm from Kansas City, and in Kansas if you join the Marines or the Army, you don't opt for anything but line infantry.)

One thing of note was that Basic Infantry training changed everybody. But man, the guys who came back from Marine basic were just at another level. As those of you who've been in the service know, that post-basic training intensity tapers down. Still, the Marines were just off the page. Although I have to say that two of my friends who went Airborne (the 82nd AND the 101st) came pretty close to matching the intensity. And I certainly don't mean to say that the above phenomenon is anyway to measure a soldier or a Marine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...