MIL I'm confused

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by pmoney, Jun 20, 2009.

  1. pmoney

    pmoney OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Messages:
    75,288
    Likes Received:
    68
    Location:
    Bethesda, MD
    Granted I know nothing about the military but lettuce discuss.

    If the Army was as small as the USMC would they have the same "higher" standards and discipline as the USMC?

    If the USMC was as large as the Army (and all its extra support shit) would they be able to maintain their current standard?

    Now this isnt an argument or discussion over whether or not the marines are really so much better than the army or vice versa...but I'm sure simple size plays a big role in this. I'm sure there are a lot more "marine quality" soldiers than there are marines - granted thats just the nature of the beast since its so large but it gets you thinking.

    This might be too deep for this forum but shoot I want to hear what you guys have to say.
     
  2. WildBull

    WildBull Guest

    yes, you lose standards when you grow in size, however, the Corps gained something like 5K more Marines without dropping standards. But that's a small increase.
     
  3. TRN

    TRN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    Messages:
    55,113
    Likes Received:
    130
    Location:
    North East
    I'd say that's pretty accurate.
     
  4. nsxrebel

    nsxrebel New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    3,272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't forget also, the Corps was much larger in years past before the reductions in numbers. I don't recall off the top of my head how many more Division & Wings the Marine Corps used to have. Yet, it still maintained its higher standards. So I can't fully agree on the "quantity vs quality" argument.
     
  5. Short Bus

    Short Bus Beep beep!

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2001
    Messages:
    104,725
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the key to this discussion lies in the basic battle doctrine outlined for each service. How the Marines operate is drastically different than the regular Army. My understanding is that for the Marines, the MAGTF concept is basically the core operational principle. While the Army is typically tasked to fulfill a more generalized mission of broader scope.

    I don't believe this is to say that the Army can not function in a capacity that is normally reserved for the Marines. If this were true then there would be no Airborne, Ranger, or Special Forces arms.

    Somebody tell me if I'm talking out of my ass or if this is close to reality. Having a better understanding of this is actually good for my job.
     
  6. nsxrebel

    nsxrebel New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    3,272
    Likes Received:
    0
    History does.
     
  7. nsxrebel

    nsxrebel New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    3,272
    Likes Received:
    0
    thank you. :h5:
     
  8. nsxrebel

    nsxrebel New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    3,272
    Likes Received:
    0
    damn skippy. besides, you can't handle the truth.
    [​IMG]



















    :mamoru:
     
  9. Ranger-AO

    Ranger-AO I'm here for the Taliban party. Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    34,662
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    the places in between
    Makes sense to me. It's basically a matter of different tools for different roles. Generally speaking, Marines are reserved for use as a strike force, while Army is reserved for use as a holding force. Marines and Army have both been successfully used for strike and holding forces in the past. Of course, that concept was more valid when we only expected to be in a stand-up fight against a uniformed enemy. It doesn't work so well against in an insurgent war of attrition.
     
  10. Cobra Commander

    Cobra Commander OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    20,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    wat

    since main forum is much more intelligible

    lol
     
  11. Short Bus

    Short Bus Beep beep!

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2001
    Messages:
    104,725
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, the huge distinction between the two is that air support is built into the MAGTF, and it is not with the BCT. In fact, as far as joint doctrine is concerned, the MAGTF is the one and only exception to the JFACC concept (Joint Force Air Component Commander) in terms of offensive use of air power. In joint operations the Navy designates a certain percentage of it's air assets for fleet defense, but the rest go into a bucket for use as the JFACC sees fit (strategic attack, offensive counter air, defensive counter air, close air support, etc). This all revolves around the Air Force fundamental tenets of air power known as centralized control, and decentralized execution.

    Basically the JFACC is an officer that is provided by the service that brings the most birds to the party. Most often it's the Air Force (surprise surprise), but has also been the Navy and Marines on certain occasions.

    But I digress.... Basically, in Marine MAGTF doctrine, it's a Marine officer who's in charge of both his ground and air assets. The MAGTF has air assets that a JFACC can't touch. In the BCT doctrine, an Army officer is in charge of his ground assets, and likely works through a JFACC from another service to provide air support. The "drastic difference" I speak of is that the MAGTF is a complete combined arms suite with all assets controlled by a single commander, and the Army has nothing quite like it.

    All that said, I'm not sure how the Army's own CAS units (helicopters) interact with the BCT commander. I only know that they're not an integrated part of the BCT concept.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2009
  12. Short Bus

    Short Bus Beep beep!

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2001
    Messages:
    104,725
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absolutely. As a whole the Marines seem to be a little more streamlined for strike operations. But it's not like the Army doesn't have it's own highly effective shock troops. My somewhat limited knowledge of the Army leads me to believe that it's the Airborne soldiers and Ranger that tend to fulfill this role.

    I think the perception of the Army as being somewhat "lesser" when compared to the Marines has everything to do with size and scope, as the original poster said. The Marines are more specialized as a whole, while the Army is expected to fill a wider variety of missions, and as such seem to be used as a holding force more often than the Marines are these days. But then again.... this perception may again have to do with size. As far as I know the average Marine's ops tempo for holding actions may very well be just as high as the average Army soldier.
     
  13. thekinggovernor

    thekinggovernor OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    157,270
    Likes Received:
    760
    Location:
    NEW YORK FUCKING CITY
    from my experience the fundamental difference between the Marine Corps and other branches is how much responsibility and expectation is pushed on lower ranks. E-3s are expected to perform like NCOs and the NCOs are expected to be able to run full size platoons, that doesn't happen in other branches.
     
  14. Ranger-AO

    Ranger-AO I'm here for the Taliban party. Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    34,662
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    the places in between
    :hsugh:
     
  15. thekinggovernor

    thekinggovernor OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    157,270
    Likes Received:
    760
    Location:
    NEW YORK FUCKING CITY
    :rofl:
     

Share This Page