USMC perform atsame level or higher than comparable SOCOM units proven in head2head comparison: DET1

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Commandos and Special Operations Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: USMC perform atsame level or higher than comparable SOCOM units proven in head2head comparison: DET1
SCCOMarine 12/21/2006 7:01:59 PM

Marine Corps Special Operations Command Detachment 1 (MCSOCom Det 1) was created with a charter to examine the issue of a permanent Marine Corps force contribution to the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCom). Formally referred to as a "proof of concept," Det 1 completed a successful deployment under the operational control of USSOCom, demonstrated that Marines are fully capable of operating at the level of our Nation's other special operations forces (SOF), and paved the way for the creation of a Marine component to the USSOCom. As we prepare to case the colors of Det 1 and stand up U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MarSOC), it is appropriate to review and discuss what made Det 1 successful and any potential pitfalls to avoid as we move forward. Although the idea of a Marine Corps force contribution to USSOCom had been discussed since USSOCom's inception in the mid-1980s, it came to fruition only with the renewed emphasis placed on special operations in the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001. That fall, the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) directed the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), Gen James L. Jones, and Commander, USSOCom (CdrUSSOCom), Gen Charles Holland, USAF, to explore ways for the Marine Corps and USSOCom to work more closely together in what came to be known as the global war on terrorism (GWOT). The subject of assigning a Marine Corps unit-a force contribution-to USSOCom was raised early in the discussions and took on added significance in many Marine leaders' eyes when two of the Marine Corps' "crown jewels"-the 15th and 26th Marine Expeditionary Units (Special Operations Capable) (MEU(SOC)s)-were forced to sit on the sidelines during the early stages of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) in Afghanistan. Resistance from SOF commanders already on the ground and indifference from the Navy chain of command under which they were operating left the 15th MEU(SOC) languishing offshore for over a month. Even when these and later Marine units did make it ashore they were most often employed piece-meal in supporting roles to provide capabilities that SOF were deficient in or lacked altogether. In October 2002 Gen Jones, in consultation with senior USSOCom decisionmakers, sought to answer the force contribution question and increase Marine Corps involvement in the GWOT by approving an initiative to establish a purpose-built Marine unit for employment by USSOCom. In a message to senior leaders in the Marine Corps, the CMC directed them to: . . . develop a plan to provide forces to the Special Operations Command on a permanent basis in order to cement the relationship of our two organizations at the institutional level and provide our nation with an expanded special operations capability.1 In response to the CMC's message, the Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies, and Operations (DC PP&O) established a working group tasked with creating a rough table of organization (T/O) and table of equipment (T/E). The T/O they developed included only 86 line numbers divided among 4 sections-a 30-man reconnaissance element, a 29-man intelligence element, a 7-man fires element, and a lean headquarters. The intelligence element was further broken down into a 9-man radio reconnaissance team (RRT), a 6-man human intelligence (HumInt) exploitation team (HET), and a 12-man all-source fusion team. (See Figure 1.) The final administrative requirement was met in February 2003 when DC PP&O signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Deputy Commander, USSOCom. The MOA was jointly drafted by the Marine Corps and USSOCom and established the parameters for the proof of concept, including the mission, command relationships, and resourcing for Det 1. A ceremony held aboard Camp Pendleton on 19 June 2003 marked the official activation of Det 1. Execution of the detachment mission training plan began in earnest the week following the activation and culminated with a 3week capstone exercise at the Nevada Test Site and Indian Springs Auxiliary Air Field, NV in December 2003. After participating in an Navy special warfare (NSW) certification exercise and conducting additional sustainment training, Det 1 deployed to Baghdad for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM II (OIF II) in April 2004, just over 9 months after its activation. While operating as part of an NSW task group (NSWTG), Det 1 executed a number of direct action, coalition support, and battlefield shaping missions under the regional combined joint special operations task force (CJSOTF). By all accounts, Det 1 excelled and earned a reputation for professionalism, competence, and being "user friendly." A study conducted by the Joint Special Operations University (JSOU) found: The operational effectiveness of the MCSOCOM Det was high. . . . The trial deployment demonstrated the MCSOCOM Det could effectively conduct Direct Action (DA) and Special Reconnaissance (SR) in conjunction with a Naval Special Warfare Task Group

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

SCCOMarine 12/29/2006 5:34:25 PM

Also, a regular SEAL Team should not be as profecient as DET 1's DAP, as a regular SEAL Team does not specialize. For example,

how does DET 1's DAP swim? My guess: a regular SEAL Team could swim circles around the DAP.

how does DET 1's DAP perform on VBSS and OPLAT ops compared to the Teams? My guess: a regular SEAL Team is much better at these ops since this is sort of their specialization. Add water to the mix, and a regular SEAL Team has the advantage...don't believe me though, believe SOCOM.

Are SEALs better at C.Swm than FR, I believe they are, hydrogaphic survey, yes. Und.Wt. Sabotage, beach recon, UndWt Dem, and wt.tabling, yes.

Are they better than FR at: Amphibious Recon, no. Long Range and Deep Recon, no. Urban recon, no. Sniping, F**k no. Sabotage of land targets, no. Surveillance, no. Battlefield Shaping, no. CAS and ITG(inital terrminal guidance), no. VBSS and GOPLAT, no.

I already gave you the example of the Iranian GOPLAT incident. Where the ARG/MEU was tasked with safely disabling 4 GOPLATS in the PerGulf. FR was tasked with 3 the SEALs were tasked with 1. FR hit & disabled all 3 b4 the SEALs were finished w/the 1. Then the SEALs botched the demolition and burned down the whole GOPLAT. This was in '89.

There is no believe me, believe you. Have you look into the relationship between FR and SEALs on the ARG/MEU.

Don't believe me, I don't want you to but if the SEALs are better then FR in DA, VBSS, GOPLAT, IHR. Then why are they FRs back up on those missions. Ask yourself that question. The SEALs had the lead in the water missions. But that wasn't what was being debated.

Quote Reply

SCCOMarine 12/29/2006 6:34:11 PM

horsesoldier,
"Right. The USMC is the only group that does land nav training, or field training. Fam fire combat marksmanship training is not nearly the same thing as all that time wasted learning to shoot NRA positions at 500 meters (great if the Zulus are charging you with spears, retarded otherwise)."

Field training is a joke in the other services, especially in the army. I was on a Anti-Terror Det in the weeks prior to OIF I and had stopped at a Marine Camp near the border of Iraq. It was a large encampment of a few thousand Marine but it was well concealed. Very few Marines slept in tents, most were spread out in various fighting positions. They only came out of for chow which came around in a HMMV. It was slop on a paper tray. No one complained, the only thing they talked about was getting in there and "getting some".

The funny thing is days b4 we were at an army base, I believe that it was "Victory". It was just off a main road (how retarded was that) and came under mortar fire occassionally. What was worse was that they all slept big white AC/Heated tents that were clustered together. But what was even worse was that they congrated by the hundreds to eat in the chow halls & if they had money they went to eat at BK, Robinhood deli, or Pizza Hut. Where they would meet and men & women (fellow soldiers) and would hook up and cry about how hardlife was. "PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS" what a JOKE!

And EMP or "Confined Space Shooting" is a required 2wk course for all Marines when they report to the first units. In those 2wks they fire over 3,000 round from all angles. Its a course that few army infantryman will ever see. But its madatory training for everyone, even our cooks.

The MOUT fam course is given to all Supp Marines in MCT however all deploying Support Marines receive multiple 2wk MOUT courses prior to each deployment in their 6mth predeployment package.

And that intial fam course in MOUT that Supp Marines get is still more than the Rangers of TF Ranger got b4 Oct '93.

Do the research the Marines coin'd the phrase MOUT prior to the early '80s. When Gen A. Gray led the development of the Course and later made it mandatory for all Marines deploying on MEU(SOC)s to undergo in '85. 1985, 8yrs b4 TF Ranger, and by the time of Ranger it had already been integrated thru out the Corps'.

Dumb*ss

Quote Reply

SCCOMarine 12/29/2006 6:57:38 PM

"Do the research the Marines coin'd the phrase MOUT prior to the early '80s. When Gen A. Gray led the development of the Course and later made it mandatory for all Marines deploying on MEU(SOC)s to undergo in '85. 1985, 8yrs b4 TF Ranger, and by the time of Ranger it had already been integrated thru out the Corps'."

Oh yeah and in case you didn't know. After Action reports on "BHD" attributed the loss of so much life to the lack of any MOUT training conducted by the Rangers. To them them it was one of the deciding factor in the perfomance the Rangers and the Marines. Who were called back in to quell down the city after the incident, after leaving the country 4mths earliar in peace. You can still find interviews of the survivors speak of having NO MOUT training prior to '93.

Its not a knock on the Rangers of TF Ranger they fought hard. However, they were unfortunate enough to fight for an Org. w/ lack of any real forsight. The US army

Quote Reply

longrifle 12/29/2006 7:37:32 PM

Jarhead,

Although you have been talking about more recent events, it's obvious that your feelings toward the Marne Corps and the Army are the result of an indoctrination that harkens back to a history much earlier than the more recent events you've quoted. You didn't aquire your attitude based soley on your own recent experiences, you were taught to disdain the Army and worship the Corps by Marines who've gone before. You were taught this before you even had any experience to form an opinion with.

Well, fellow soldiers, I guess we have to face the cold, hard facts.

If the 1st Marine Divison had been in the lead assault wave at Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, they would have gotten off the beach so much faster than the 29th Infantry Division that there's not even a comparison.

And it stands to reason, of course, that the 2d Marine Raider Battalion would have gotten to the top of Point Du Hoc in waaaay finer form than the 2d Ranger Battalion. Being gung ho and all, the Raiders would have found and knocked out the German battery faster and more efficiently too.

Has it ever occured to you, Jarhead, that only the U.S. Army has a history of defeating a modern combined arms force? Or that the U.S. Army also fought and defeated Japs in the Pacific without ANY Marine Corps help? Oh, I guess the Japs in the Phillipines and Burma were just not as dedicated as the ones on Iwo. Otherwise the Army couldn't have handled it.

Now, do you want to know about what was going on in the rest of Belleau Wood.....and Chateau Thierry?

Quote Reply

SCCOMarine 12/29/2006 8:28:35 PM

OK, for one you don't want to get in to it about history w/me b/c you'll lose. 2nd if you want a HIS 101 all you have to do is ask.

First off the tactics and techniques used to storm the beachs in France had been developed by the Marines w/the help of the Navy of the coasts of Vieques, Puerto Rico during the late 20's and 30's in anticipation for what the Marines considered an inevitable war. The Marines sent advisors to the western front early in the war when they began to plan the invasion. Look up "operation orange"

Prior to Marine ingenuity, the Amph. Assault was considered to be impossible after the Brits got destroyed on Gallopoli during WWI. The Marines made it work.

And yes the army assisted in the pacific but mostly in rear action i.e. the Philippines while the Marines drove straight for the juggular the Jp main Islands with very little Ally support. At the max less than 500,000 Marines served during WWII in that drive to the mainland compared to well over 3million soldiers in the army and the millions of Allied troops.

After Germany surrendered, the army shifted troops to the East to support the Drive. The US soldiers from Germany thought the Japanese would be a cake walk b/c of the success the Marines were having. But when they got to Saipan & Okinawa and got their asses handed to them. In Oki the soldiers attempted a full out retreat back to the ship they had just got off, and the Marines who were down on the beach were ordered by army Gen's to shoot any that got to the beach as deserters.

The US army had retreated from the Philippines, they had to go back and fight. But by the time that happened the Marines were already off the coast of Japan.

And I don't dislike the army but you people insist on putting the army on the same plateau as the Marine Corps. The army can't be compared to the Marine Corps as a Fighting Force. There has been few Forces in history to rack the combat record that the MC has. But everytime someone brings it up then that person gets labeled.

In fact some of the MCs greatest fans have been some of the army's greatest legends.

Quote Reply

joe6pack 12/29/2006 9:59:27 PM

"And yes the army assisted in the pacific but mostly in rear action i.e. the Philippines while the Marines drove straight for the juggular the Jp main Islands with very little Ally support."

Ah, the all I ever need to know about history I learned in a Marine Corp brochure and by watching John Wayne movies version of things. Maybe it you could get some leverage on your above point if we pretend real hard that all the Army troops on the joint operations were really Marines.

Lets see, Guadalcanal 1942-1943 2 Marine Divisions, 2 Army Divisions + an additional regiment

New Guinea, lets see, oh that was the Australians and oh yeah, the US Army.

New Georgia and Bougainville, the Marines... and oooh wait for it... the US Army.

The Aleutians, oh that would be the Army and Canadians.

Burma - oh that's the Army again.

There was this guy named Merrill too, he was a real REMF slacker. I suppose the Marines would have done better.

While the Marines were landing on Tarawa, the oh.. Army was landing on Makin.

Yeah, the whole fight for the Philippines was just a minor scuffle after all, hardly worth mentioning. You point out that the Army lost there originally and so they did. But only after being cut off and abandoned by the Navy, which the Marines have the pleasure of being part of.

And while the Marines were on Okinawa, the US tenth Army was there in the same island chains suffering right along with the Marines. See the Ryukyus campaign.

This is in no way a knock against Marines, amphibious landings and the type of fighting done in the Pacific was certainly their gig. The Marines fought and won some incredible battles. However, to write it off like the Marines won the whole Pacific campaign all by their lonely little selves is crock full of Jarhead BS.

Quote Reply

SCCOMarine 12/29/2006 10:11:54 PM

These are all quotes from army admirers of the Marine Corps longrifle, I hope they're not considered BRAIN WASHED JARHEADS LOVERS!!

Where should I start, how about Army Gen Douglas A. MacArthur,

I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!
—General of the Army Douglas MacArthur on the outskirts of Seoul, Korea, 21 Sept. 1950

Funny I had just said that! But there’s more.

I know that this operation will be sort of helter-skelter. But the First Marine Division is going to win the war by landing at Inchon.
—Gen Douglas MacArthur, USA, in conversation with MajGen Oliver P. Smith, USMC, August 1950 Korea

And then I few months later the “Great Korean Bug Out” in Nov. 1950 happened. Where the whole US army 8th Corps retreated in a full sprint back across the 38th parallel when the were supposed to be the 1st MarDiv’s left flank guard. They left their equipment, ammo, and weapons. The 24th ID left something much worse behind their dead and wounded. MacAuthur was so pissed he said this:

If I had one more division like this First Marine Division I could win this war.

General of the Armies Douglas McArthur in Korea-1950

The Marines were order to withdrawal. The 8th army Gen told the Commanding Gen of 1st MarDiv to do the same as his troops. MGen Smith replied.

I’m going to fight my way out, I’m going to take all my equipment and all my wounded and as many dead as I can. If we can’t get out this way, this Division will never fight as a unit again.
—MajGen Oliver P. Smith, CG, lstMarDiv, Korea, 1950, to LtGen Ned Almond, USA, X Corps, who suggested Smith’s division escape the Chosin Reservoir by letting “every man go out on foot by himself.”

13,000 Marines split in 5 units sliced thru 80,000 Chine

Quote Reply

Tiber1 12/30/2006 5:27:54 PM

This Jarhead is actually attempting to claim that a average Marine cook is better then a Army Infantryman? I know the Marines prefer Brawn over Brains, but gees... I'll give you that your average Marine cook is most likely better in the field then your average Army cook, but to compare a professional soldier like a Army Grunt to a amateur like a Marine Cook is just a joke or a symbol of stupidity. It's like trying to compare a High School Football team with a Pro Team just cause the HS team went to some special 2 week training camp one summer. Even the worst Pro Team would smoke the best HS team in the nation any day of the week.

I'm ex-Army Infantry. When I was in we spent over 200+ days a year in the field training. I'd be really surprised if any regular Marine Infantry unit was able to spend that much time in the field, if even just cause of their ship time. Being stuck inside a ship lifting Iron will never equal time spent in the mud.

Quote Reply

SCCOMarine 12/30/2006 5:38:34 PM

"And yes the army assisted in the pacific but mostly in rear action i.e. the Philippines while the Marines drove straight for the juggular the Jp main Islands with very little Ally support."

Lets see, Guadalcanal 1942-1943 2 Marine Divisions, 2 Army Divisions + an additional regiment

New Guinea, lets see, oh that was the Australians and oh yeah, the US Army.

New Georgia and Bougainville, the Marines... and oooh wait for it... the US Army.

The Aleutians, oh that would be the Army and Canadians.

Burma - oh that's the Army again.

There was this guy named Merrill too, he was a real REMF slacker. I suppose the Marines would have done better.

While the Marines were landing on Tarawa, the oh.. Army was landing on Makin.

And while the Marines were on Okinawa, the US tenth Army was there in the same island chains suffering right along with the Marines. See the Ryukyus campaign.

If you want a history lesson then I'll be happy to oblige. The thing that bothers my about these discussions is how easily the a lot of people like to gloss over the important details of history. The problem is that you lose the context of not only the discussion but also the understanding of the facts on the ground as they occurred. For ex. an earlier poster added how the Rangers and an Army Div took a particular beach on D-Day & gave a short descript of their diff. task. Now because you all are engrossed w/SOF, in his quick gloss over no one had to take the time to explain to you the difference between a Ranger and a Div soldier, or the difference in their tasks. Rangers spearhead assaults & take ground, the Divs tasks are holding, ocuppying ground and clearing it out. You know nothing about the MC history or their mission taskings. So your gloss overs dont do justice to what it is that Marines do or have done.

We are the world's premier "Forced Entry" force, the first one's to be called by the title "Shock Troops", and not in a unit letter head or speech by CO, but by the enemy. The best army in the world at that time. When the US, Brits, and French armies were running in retreat the Marines were running past them the other way asking, "where's the enemy". When a US Army COL saw them he ordered, a Marine platoon to retreat w/ his men to provide rear sec. When the plt's Co. Gunny(= to a SFC in the Army, but not a Plt SGT like in the Army) heard this he ordered his men to keep pushing and told the COL what became a famous saying of day,"Retreat! Hell, we just got here" and they kept pushing. That Brigade of Marines went on to crush the best Div in the Ger army days later. Even though they lost 1/3 of the Brigade they kept fighting, pushing, and killing until they did to the Ger's what nobody had done to that point. Made them drop their weapons in a full sprint back behind their lines, "Yelling the American have sent their "Sturm Trupers".

If you look at the National Security Act we are the ones, the only ones giving that title and Presidential authority. It reads:

Quote Reply

SCCOMarine 12/30/2006 6:20:21 PM

Hey tiber, did I say that, no read the post more carefully and the ones previous. The topic was the amount of basic inf. training the avg non-infantry support Marine receives, not are they better grunts. An earliar poster called the training into question, the level & type of training they rec'v. I expl'd.... In that explanation I said there is instruction that Supp Marines rec'v that most army infantryman don't, one example is EMP.

I went on to give presidence i.e. when in '85 Gen Gray made it mandatory that all deploying Marines go thru MOUT courses b4 deployment. In the early '90s by the time of TF Ranger, it was mandatory training for all the Corps. If you talked to Rangers from TF Ranger or read any of their interviews they'll tell you they recv'd ZERO training for urban combat.

Does that say the avg support Marines better than a Ranger....F**k no! But it does say what it was intended to say, in Supp Marine's basic inf. training it incl's a lot of instruction that most Army infantry don't get.

In fact the Iraq war has highlighted many deficiencies in the Army training and how they've been transforming their training to be more like the Marine Corps. I'm not the one saying it, pull up the reports and articles written in the past 3yrs about the subject.

And its not just about tranforming to a faster lighter army. Its what the MC has been about 231yrs superiortraining for each individual. Superior Individual training, Superior Individual training, Superior Individual training!!!

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT