Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USMC fire and movement techniques?
broadaxe    7/15/2004 4:55:09 AM
I've been reading a lot of the rantings of Mike Sparks ( if you don't know what I'm on about check out / ) and according to him marines aren't trained to move in bounds. Am I misunderstood or is there some truth in this? I would be grateful if anyone could tell me a bit about marine small unit tactics. Thanks.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
JFKY    Ah Lucky Us....   7/29/2010 7:59:15 PM
First mike Sparks shows up....here's a HINT Mikey, it ain't LIBEL unless:
1) It's untrue; and
2) You can show damages.
 
Then SCCOMarine shows up...the ANTI-Mike Sparks.
 
In Mike World the USMC was bad, is bad, and will ALWAYS be bad....
 
In SCCOMarine World the USMC was Great, IS Great, and WILL ALWAYS be great.
 
The truth is both PoV's are Bull Sh!te.
 
The USMC has NOT "outperformed" the US Army in the GWOT...you got any evidence Sunshine?  Who liberated Afghanistan or Iraq?  Why BOTH US Army AND Marines, of course...who provided Air Defenses, Logistics for the US Marines in Iraq, why the US Army of course, because the USMC doesn't operate in the "Big War" well....  The reality is the USMC has fought well, but no better than any other group of Light to Medium Infantry in the US inventory.  So get over yourself SCCOMarine...the IDF and the British Army are "interested" in USMC concepts as much as any other professional military is, sure, but rest assured neither Her Majesty nor Benyamin Netanyahu are going to lose any sleep if their militaries don't absorb Marine ideas, either...because BOTH are very capable and professional militaries.
 
Now I've been ranting against SCCOMarine because he seems a typical Partisan Jarhead, convinced of the absolute Awesomeness of the Marine Corps, over all other organization....whereas Mike Sparks is an IDIOT.  SCCO Marine can make some good points, when s/he isn't "demonstrating" that the USMC is the Finest Military ev-uh or the Originator of all Great Military Ideas and Things, whereas Sparks merely spews silly ideas like the Mountain Bike as the Combat vehicle of the Future and other idiocy.  So to me, SCCOMarine is salvageable, whereas Sparks is just a nut....Sparks is just dismissable.
 
As to US Army v. Marine small unit tactics, here's an news flash...what 9 guys or 13 guys can do on a battlefield is pretty limited, and so their tactics really aren't going to differ much either...a Marine squad has 3 SAW's v. 2 in the US Army Squad, 3 M-203's v. 2 M-203 (Army)...and 7 rifles or carbines v. 5 (Army)....please note THEY ARE THE ABSOLUTELY SAME WEAPONS!  A squad or a platoon in either organization is likely to fire and maneuver pretty much like any other body of similarly equipped and numbered men.  Marines crawl, Army crawls, Marines rush, Army rushes, Marines move by bounds, Army moves by bounds...the fellow upthread had it best it's at BATTALION and BRIGADE you're going to begin to see large differences, at the grunt level, guys with 5.56mm weapons and a GL are going to behave pretty much similarly, whether or no they know, or care, who "Chesty" Puller was.  So Mike or SCCOMarine, please give up this strange belief that the "other fellow" is an idiot...neither fellow is an idiot, except for Mike Sparks.  Biology calls it Convergent Evolution, IIRC, similar organisms, in similar circumstances, evolve in a similar manner.  Both the Army and Marine's fire teams face a similar pressure and have adapted in similar ways.
 
Finally, "Maneuver Warfare."  That's a phrase like "Justice," "Beauty,"  "Sustainability," or "Appropriate Technology."  EVERYONE supports them, but no one has a common definition.  I've read Leonhard's work, it's nice....and I've read about the Marine's discovering Maneuver Warfare....that's nice too....as far as either goes.  The US Army practiced Maneuver Warfare v. Saddam, in 1991 and 2003.  Would have tried it against the WTO in 1982....depending on your definition.  But Maneuver is never going to win a war, by itself....as one Army Corps Commander said in the 1970's "We're going to have to kill a lot of these Sons of B!tches just to get their attention."  SOME maneuver advocates act as if firepower is a bad thing or something that can be ignored....Maneuver Warfare is a term above the fire team and squad level, any way...it's about the Operational or Strategic Level of War.
 
Quote    Reply

SCCOMarine    JFKY   7/30/2010 2:03:16 AM
Am I partial to the USMC, of course. But I'm nothing like this guy. Nothing I say or have said is a lie, or half truth, or misunderstanding. The USMC is & has always been an innovator in Military Thought, Tactics, & Strategy. If ppl twist the facts, I'm going to straighten it out, nothing I said was a lie.
 
"The USMC has NOT "outperformed" the US Army in the GWOT...you got any evidence Sunshine?  Who liberated Afghanistan or Iraq?"
 
1) Where to start, Al Anbar? Lets go a little before that to the end of Major Combat Operations. Iraq was divided up & I-MEF got the area the was assumed to pose the biggest threat due to Iranian influence; the area just south of Baghdad & north of Basra.
 
Despite the many early clashes by August the area had been pacified & the Marines no longer patrolled in ANY body armor. In fact, the Shi'ite Council of Karbala voted to elect the Marine BN Cmdr in charge of the city as Mayor of Karbala. The Marines were gone by Sept. in a peaceful turn over only to be recalled to go to Al Anbar in October.. Their gear was still on ship.
 
When I-MEF took over in March/April '04 EVERYTHING they did was different from what the Army was doing in Iraq & the Cmdr of the 82nd AB, MajGen Swannack, laughed at the Marines & called them & their approach soft & backwards.
 
USMC approach: Squad-sized foot patols w/a 24hr presence vs 82nd: Co.-sized, mostly day time, vehicle mounted patols.
USMC: Decentralized Squad-sized Outpost in every neighborhood vs 82nd: Centralized single BN-sized Outpost.
USMC: Embed 1 USMC squad w/1 IP or IA unit per neighborhood vs 82nd: No direct long-term relationship on Small unit level.
USMC: Focus on Tribal Sheiks & Imans vs 82nd: Push Central Gov't
USMC: Develop Tribal & Neighborhood Militias to engage AQI via Proxy vs 82nd: Continue to push Central Gov't
 
The list goes on..  By summer of '06 the remaining  Sunni Tribes flipped on AQI & by Dec '06 violence in Al Anbar is down by over 90%. End of '06 Gen Petraeus pushes a strategy that takes the success the Marines had & spreads it across Iraq.
 
2) How about Najaf in summer of '04, the Sadr Militia was cleaning 7th Cavs clock. The 11th MEU was called in devising a plan that slaughtered 100s of militia men in days & chased the remainder of the Militia into the Golden Mosque surrrendering to the New Iraqi Gov't in less than a week.
 
3) A'stan '08 the 24th MEU had 2mths to finish their MEU Certs & train for COIN in A'stan. Still they easily swept thru several areas the ISAF forces had previously been stuff at. They were seizing so much territory they had to be reigned in at Garmsir b/c ISAF didn't have the #s to hold all the area they took.
 
4) In '04 the 22nd MEU(SOC) was attached to US Army's CJTF-76. At the conclusion of their deployment the US Army Cmdr called it..
 
·         "The most successful military offensive since Operation ENDURING FREEDOM began,"  and

 

·         "This has been t

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    SCCOMarine   7/30/2010 1:17:53 PM
1) The US Army provided the MAJORITY of combat troops in Iraq....ergo the majority of the victory flows to the US Army.  The USMC  provides about 1/3 the manpower of the US Army, and less than 1/3 of the Ground Power, as you have the Marine Air Wing.  So it's unlikely that less than 1/3 of the troops provided the bulk of the victory, but thank you for playing...
 
2) As to this squad of 13 showing that the USMC has a more NCO-oriented approach..BUSHWA...The USMC Officer Corps is as micro-managing as the US Army's, I'm willing to bet. Or, conversely, the Army is as trusting of it's NCO's, in the field, as is the USMC.
 
The squad difference is based not on some organizational principle of dispersed v. centralized, per se....the US Army fielded 12 man squads in WWII and Korea, possibly in Vietnam...the M-113 squad was 12 men, in three teams, the track team, and two fire teams.  Post-Vietnam the squad had 11 men.
 
What changed was the US Army adopted the Bradley and the Bradley squad became a 9 man unit.  The US Army decided that it would cut personnel costs, and standardize on a 9 man squad.  For the US Army, 1975 until 2000-plus the focus was the mechanized battlefield, firepower and capital...not human cost.  So, to reduce the most expensive item of the budget, people, whilst maintaining an essential ability, the Army adopted the 9 man squad.
 
The USMC is a light to medium infantry force...it uses manpower...substituting people for firepower....it makes for a cheaper and more operationally deployable force, though it limits your tactical mobility.  So the USMC has the 13 man squad...not having to fit a large portion if not a majority of your infantry into an UH-60, or an M-113 or a Bradley you can use a larger squad.  Plus, for what the Corps does, people are very important.
 
Lastly, as the Corps relies on the other services for essential logistical and fire support, the Marines can focus their budget on say things like the Fire Team.  The Army has to provide truck companies, medical support, and the like, AS WELL AS, infantry...the Marine Corps less so, much of your support coming from the Navy, Air Force, or Army.  meaning the USMC can devote a higher proportion of it's budget to "teeth" of the organization.  In the USMC's case that will be it's infantry battalions...unlike the Army which maintains a range of battalions, armour, infantry, airborne, cavalry and the like.  You can afford a 13 man squad....but let's don't try this other crap to justify it.
 
Bottom-Line: the USMC mission requires more infantry and you can afford to buy them because other services provide support and capabilities the Marines lack....and BTW, that's a description not an indictment.  The USMC provides very costly infantry battalions, after you factor in the air and sea left and the air support...but sometimes that's what you need.  So the USMC provides a very useful capability.
 
Quote    Reply

SCCOMarine       7/30/2010 6:00:16 PM
"1) The US Army provided the MAJORITY of combat troops in Iraq....ergo the majority of the victory flows to the US Army.  The USMC  provides about 1/3 the manpower of the US Army, and less than 1/3 of the Ground Power, as you have the Marine Air Wing.  So it's unlikely that less than 1/3 of the troops provided the bulk of the victory, but thank you for playing..."
 
The USMC is 1/3 the size of the Army & the USMC/USMCR combined are only 1/6 the size the combined US Army. But we weren't talking about a share or bulk of victory. We were talking about Marine units outperforming & Marine strategies proving most effective, so pls don't spin the subject.
No matter where Marine units have been put & no matter how badly the previous units have failed, the Marine units excel. Thats not an exaggeration its fact.

 
"2) As to this squad of 13 showing that the USMC has a more NCO-oriented approach..BUSHWA...The USMC Officer Corps is as micro-managing as the US Army's, I'm willing to bet. Or, conversely, the Army is as trusting of it's NCO's, in the field, as is the USMC. The squad difference is based not on some organizational principle of dispersed v. centralized, per se....the US Army fielded 12 man squads in WWII and Korea, possibly in Vietnam...the M-113 squad was 12 men, in three teams, the track team, and two fire teams.  Post-Vietnam the squad had 11 men. What changed was the US Army adopted the Bradley and the Bradley squad became a 9 man unit.  The US Army decided that it would cut personnel costs, and standardize on a 9 man squad.  For the US Army, 1975 until 2000-plus the focus was the mechanized battlefield, firepower and capital...not human cost.  So, to reduce the most expensive item of the budget, people, whilst maintaining an essential ability, the Army adopted the 9 man squad.
 
The USMC is a light to medium infantry force...it uses manpower...substituting people for firepower....it makes for a cheaper and more operationally deployable force, though it limits your tactical mobility.  So the USMC has the 13 man squad."

As it should, as doctrine & Tactics, Techniques, and Procedure (TTP) changes so does Table of Organization (T/O). The size reflects the doctrine & warfighting philosophy. The problem is that you don't fully understand the things your talking about & thats ok.
 
The US Army & the USMC are Doctrinally very different Orgs. As far as Micro-Manage, any leader can M-M, but it doesn't reflect the Org. It also doesn't reflect what I said.
 
The US Army is a Centralized, Officer-centric, Top-down Org. To use  your example, the Top eyes a new APC, but it carries 14ppl, it will develop new doctrine & TTP based around that APC. 10yrs later, a newer better one fits only 11 it will change squad T/O & TTP again based around the new Acquisition.
 
A Centralized system sees the Equipment (Mech-APC, Air Cav-Helo, etc) then the Officer leading it as the base, then devise TTP & T/O around that platform, and thats fine it works for them.
 
However, a Decentralized, Bottom-up Org is much different; everything is shaped around the base unit, but doctrine shapes that base unit. In the USMC the base unit is the Rifle Squad, Everything is built around that unit. 13 is not some random # or a Traditional # held onto fr/WWII but one thats under constant scrutiny based on current doctine. If that # changes it won't be b/c of a new Helo or APC, but a doctrinal change.
 
An example you might understand. The Army SF is built around the 12man ODA, everythings starts w/that 12man ODA & works its way up. Its is a well tested, effective base formation. If that # ever changes it will be do to Doctrinal, Bottom up change, & not due to a new piece of gear or transport.
 
 
"..not having to fit a large portion if not a majority of your infantry into an UH-60, or an M-113 or a Bradley you can use a larger squad. Plus, for what the Corps does, people are very important."

 And thats the point. In a Small Unit-centric Org, the Base Unit is the focus. Acquistions-Tactics-Strategy is built around that principle..  for the USMC its "to support the mission of the Rifle Squad". Same for SF, Everything (acquistion/etc) supports the mission of the 12man ODA.
 
 
"Lastly, as the Corps relies on the other services for essential lo
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Say SCCOMarine   7/30/2010 7:35:21 PM
1) Who pays for your deep strike and BAI...oh that's right the USAF and the USN, via their budgets....
2) Who's budget pays for the 'Gator Navy that transports you...that's right the USN's.
3) Who's budget buys your medical support, right again the USN....
4) Well who provides your construction and logistical support, well the USN again...
5) When you're operating 50 kilometres from the shore who provides the trucks, fuel, and MRE's, the parts for those trucks, and other logistical support...why yes it's the US Army.
 
The USMC's "budget" wouldn't buy a tithe of the TRUE cost of the USMC....
 
Your "budget" covers the acquisition, operations and maintenance of the "green" portion of the USMC, not the TOTAL cost.  Other services, primarily the US Army and the US Navy, provide you critical support, everything you need in Iraq came up via an Army and Army protected convoy.  A convoy bought and paid for from US Army's budget...the Ships you rode to t the Gulf on, paid for from the Navy's budget.
 
Dood/doodette your service is a "free-loader"....You provide a very useful service, and the US is better for having you, but don't try "We're cheap" because YOU'RE NOT, and "real" budgeting would leave the USMC without much of any force whatsoever.
 
Quote    Reply

SCCOMarine       7/30/2010 10:36:48 PM
Your either arguing just to argue or not reading or trying to understand anything outside of what you want to shout. Who provides trucks 50km fr/shore.. We weren't even talking about that.
 
Everytime I show where your wrong, you start ranting about something we weren't even talking about. I'm not going to argue w/you, I'm just going to keep stating facts.
 

"1) Who pays for your deep strike and BAI...oh that's right the USAF and the USN, via their budgets....
2) Who's budget pays for the 'Gator Navy that transports you...that's right the USN's.
 
I already answered this, the USMC & Navy are so intertwined the USMC doesn't see itself as separate fr/the Navy & is DESIGNED as an Extention of Naval Power, much like a Carrier Fighter Squadron.


"5) When you're operating 50 kilometres from the shore who provides the trucks, fuel, and MRE's, the parts for those trucks, and other logistical support...why yes it's the US Army... The USMC's "budget" wouldn't buy a tithe of the TRUE cost of the USMC...."
 
I wrote on this earlier. The Joint nature of the Services means that they are complimentary by design, also meaning they all serve different roles & a Cmdr will make the most efficient use of these roles.
 
On a mature Battlefield the Marines might travel 50, 500, or 5km fr/shore & use Army or Air Force supply lines & vice versa.
 
BUT, the role the USMC plays in a Joint environment is "Forced Entry". Meaning before those Army trucks roll or AF jets land, Marines 1st go 50km fr/shore alone to build that Airfield & Infrastructure for that supply line to begin. As demonstrated in A'stan in '01.
 
Example: It was the Marines seizing & building an Expeditionary Airfield at Rhino that solved the pesky problem of, "How do you get troops into a land locked country w/out building in a neighboring one?"  This 1) allowed AF planes to finally land & resupply SOF units spread thru out A'stan.  2) allowed for the 1st platform to build, prepare, & launch Assault Forces fr/entirely in country.
 
Since your adding indirect costs, don't forget to debit that fr/your tally. In the end they're all complimentary & balance out.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    No SCCOMArine   7/31/2010 10:36:40 AM
That's EXACTLY what we're talking about YOUR inability to grasp certain things:
1) that the Marines being "expeditionary" does NOT mean you don't use other services, but instead that you are even MORE dependent upon them;
2) The reason the USMC is "cheap" is that your budget does not cover the true costs fo the US Marines.
 
And rest assured the navy does count you and your costs...at the squadron level there may be no differentiation, but rest assured at the Command level and the like the cost of flying support or sailing the Marines around gets counted.
 
Quote    Reply

SCCOMarine       8/1/2010 2:04:10 AM

That's EXACTLY what we're talking about YOUR inability to grasp certain things:

1) that the Marines being "expeditionary" does NOT mean you don't use other services, but instead that you are even MORE dependent upon them;

2) The reason the USMC is "cheap" is that your budget does not cover the true costs for the US Marines.
 
The only person showing a lack of grasping things is you, this is exactly what I wrote in my last post:
 
"The Joint nature of the Services means that they are complimentary by design, also meaning they all serve different roles & a Cmdr will make the most efficient use of these roles.
 
On a mature Battlefield the Marines might travel 50, 500, or 5km fr/shore & use Army or Air Force supply lines & vice versa."
 
I have a clear grasp on it.
 
But your trying to make the case that the Marines are unduly sapping fr/the other services & racking up Indirect costs paid for by the other services. In your "True Cost" theory.
 
This is false for many reasons:
1) The services compliment each other & share the load.
 
When a MAGTF enters a mature theater command their Logistics & Aviation plugs into the network. There's a Regional Air Boss that takes possession of those assets & combines them. So that ACE is just as likely to support some Army BCT as the MAGTF it came into theater with.
 
2) Your "True Costs" theory tries to tally costs for Marine units plugged into a Joint theater, but its unbalanced b/c it doesn't take into account the costs the Marines incur intially on their own as 1) the Entry Force and 2) in establishing the intial Infrastructure thru either Building it fr/scratch or Seizing it. 
 
This is what the Mature Battlefield of rolling Army trucks or landing AF planes is later Built On. Are those costs in your equation?
 
The services are COMPLIMENTARY making those costs are SHARED & balance out.
 
 
 
 
COMPLIMENTARY:
In the build up to the Iraq war the Army & AF had to rush millions of tons of stockpiled gear to the Gulf. Most of this was done w/ expanded Shipping Contracts w/Civilian companies. Marine Gear is Globally Pre-Positioned so our gear was already on station.
 
It was Marines fr/my Unit (SCCO) also FAST Det 5th Fleet & Kilo 3/8 that formed 15man DETs that provided Security for the ships carrying the most Sensitive AF & Army Material thru the choke pts fr/the Suez, around HOA & Yemen, & thru Hormuz.
 
Guess you don't account for that or the other similar missions the USMC provides the other services Globally, during war time or not.
 
Or the Specialized Security services we provide the Navy or the team of Marines that fly in WHENEVER a nuclear ship or Sub makes a Port call ANY WHERE in the world.
 
How about ANGLICO, a specialized Marine trained and funded Unit developed Specifically for the use of US Army & Coalition Forces.  Marine Units aren't even alloted the use of ANGLICO.
 
 
This isn't a Tit-for-Tat.  But for every $ you count another service spending on the USMC in Indirect costs, the USMC spends right back PROVIDING A COMPLIMENTARY SERVICE, in the end they break even. The only person who doesn't seem to grasp this is You.
 
Now that your proven wrong Again.. what other misinformation are you going to claim to say that I don't get it??
 
 
 
ALSO: ...& PLS READ & VERIFY THOROUGHLY
If your trying to make the suggestion that b/c the Marines are on Navy ships thats another "True Cost" thats not accounted in the Marine Budget, then your WRONG & it shows again how much you DON'T UNDERSTAND about the Marines Budget.
 
The thing
 
Quote    Reply

TravisM    Good grief.   8/1/2010 1:36:47 PM
For crying out loud, the US Army and USMC are both professional warfighting outfits that have their own particular strengths and weaknesses that are on the same side. Both services have tidbits of information and operational value that would be useful to the other.
 
I used to think that professionalism was a hallmark of military service, but the arguments on here are petty and useless. It's like watching politicians.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       8/1/2010 6:37:50 PM
This is funny.  I'm glad you guys are on my side.  Thank you.  I'm a civilian.  If I'm wrong on anything, please correct me.
 
Fallujah illustrates how the Marines need the Army for backup, and not just for sheer numbers.
 
If the Marines get to be part of the Navy, then the Air Force should get to be part of the Army I would think in this battle of "my balls are bigger than yours".
 
Tactical movement is just different I think.  Marines have boats and Ospreys, Army has more macho IFVs and...who has more/better transport heliciopters? I suspect Army (Blackhawk?) though I've heard the Marines use helicopters in more varied environments and need the mobility for flexibility in amphibious attack.
 
I read somewhere that tank doctrine is different; that the Marines tend to support tanks on foot, whereas the Army does so mounted more often.  I also read that the attack helicopter was an Army invention brought about by the need to pursue retreating enemies in Korea; they needed a "Light Cavalry" unit.  But then Marines are more mobile around shorelines, swamps and rivers which is where the vast majority of civilization actually is.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics