This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!
They were probably very skilled in assaulting islands, but overall they did not see very many continues combat weeks compared to most other formations that fought in WW2, and very little combat compared to most elite units of WW2.
Their tactics involved high tempo advance over a short period. Their leadership figured they lost less of their men that way. Long-term continuous combat would have worn them out.
My dad was at Quantico on December 7th, and that's what they were teaching in his day.
USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year
ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
By any reasonable standard, the marines were "elite."
[snip]
Bravo on the props...and from a Blackhorse, it means something.[8D]
Credit where it is due, Rogue . . .
I stand with the great American general and diplomat Vernon A. Walters, who on the occasion of being incorrectly introduced as a Marine General, said, " I am a soldier, not a Marine. But I would be damn proud to be either."
WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change? Moriarty: Crap!
"The Marine Corps is the Navy's police force and as long as I am President that is what it will remain. They have a propaganda machine that is almost equal to Stalin's."
-- Harry S Truman
Yeah, and there would be only one Korea had it not been for 1stMarDiv at Pusan and at Inchon.
IIRC there was only a provisional brigade at Pusan.
Yeah, it was composed around Fifth Marines, but I didn't want to get into that detailed of a discussion.
"The thing is, Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care."
I recently was discharged from the marines (2001-2009) for medical complications while overseas. I got diagnosed with Chronic Cluster Migraines, which is quite rare disease, however one of the most painful sufferings you can ever go through, also known as "suicide migraines". But if I had to live 100 years with this horrible pain just to serve one more day in the Corps, I'd gladly suffer because nobody was better.
Kilo 3/5
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
Judging whether the Marines are considered "elite" is the wrong way to go about looking at the subject matter. Any unit can be trained up to a level of competence and after a certain point the law of diminishing returns sets in and additional training past a certain point produces less and less results for a given amount of training. Same applies for battle hardening by combat. Once you get past a certain point the positive returns from trial by fire begin to diminish.
IMO What sets the Marines apart is the complete integration of fixed and rotary wing assets dedicated to supporting the ground units. As others have mentioned the Army has to rely on the Air Force for fixed wing air support and the Air Force has never really embraced the ground support mission. Eisenhower took command of the Army Air assets before the Normandy invasion, because he wanted to make sure the Army Air Corp would fully execute missions supporting the ground troops and give it maximum effort. There was a lot of politics going on between the Army and Army Air Corps.
By fully integrating fixed and rotary wing assets the Marines have a big advantage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand even if your a flyboy in the Marines you will completely understand the grunt on the ground and you will be 100% dedicated to supporting the Marines on the ground.
Another thing that sets the Marines apart is the willingness to innovate. They may have been given the hand me downs, but they have also been in the forefront and taken risks. When the Harrier first appeared in the late 60's a couple of Marine aviators saw it in action in Europe and immediately went to higher ups and said "we got to get Harriers". That was a risky decision and not without controversy over the years due to the high accident rate of the Harrier. Yet they stood behind the Harrier because it fit perfectly with their operations and style of fighting.
The same can be said for the Osprey. Its not been a project without controversy. Yet you have to admire the willingness to take risks if the system fits into your style of operation. Considering the relatively small budget of the Marines compared to the other services, the willingness to put a large chunk of their budget into cutting edge high risk venture is worth nothing.
The Pentagon and the military are the biggest government employers and like all large organizations there is a tendency to be conservative and risk adverse. It takes a different mindset to take risks and be innovative.
I agree very much, I believe the Marines are able to adapt in any role they are given where other branches are unable to deviate to such roles, which is one reason the Marines are able to stand on their own 2 feet regardless how bad a situation is.
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
well if nothing else, this thread allows me to utilize my dogearred neglected copy of Bergerud's lesser well known 'Touched with Fire'.
USMC's 1st two divisions were only authorized in 1941, with the 2nd mostly a paper org till late 1942. By the time of PH the USMC in totum consituted 70,000 men (including 10,000 in the air units), expanded from an org of 19,000 in 1939. They were, as mentioned, miserably equipped initially, the inter-service rivalries hindering development, right down to the Navy refusing to utlize Army expertise in rapid expansion.
1st USMC div, did however benefit from having 7th Marine regiment in it's org, which was considered the most experienced unit. As mentioned, the "Old Breed" career soliders were a vital stiffening agent for the green drafts that were brought in as the USMC expanded. Overall however, as quoted in Bergerud, "In early 42, the Marines were small, badly equipped, inappropriately deployed, and in organizational chaos." There was no evidence that Basic Training was any tougher than in other services, 12 weeks initially, later reduced to 8 weeks. Like other US services, initial training in the early days was shockingly deficient.
On the plus side however, the Marine veterans contributed some splendid officers to the war effort, the senior leaders being highlighted by Bergerud as unusually good tacticians. The younger 'veterans' were fit enough to serve as a good cadre of junior officers and senior NCO's. Through their efforts they did much to make their young charges competent soldiers. While more aggressive in comparison to the US Army, they were far more restrained in comparison to the Japanese who's banzai type tactics were viewed as overly flashy and (my favorite term), "Tactically dramatic" USMC tactics were more metholodical in comparison if determined/aggressive. US army was more willing to break off and blow the crap out of a tough nut. As in the case of all generalizations, one must take a grain of salt. For example the USMC found offensive ops on Lunga just as difficult to pull off as the Japanese. Defensive battle where heavy firepower could be brought in made things easier. When Army units joined them, grudging respect was bestowed on them when the Army grunts proved that they too were up to the task. The initial landing itself (WATCHTOWER) was a clusterf* and as Richard Frank commented, was just as well that it was unopposed. One learns by doing. Theory is all fine but it takes actual exp to refine such a difficult type of warfare. 1942/early 43 was the lab. 1944 would benefit from what was gleaned.
Were Marines considered elite in WW2 in the same vein that some Waffen SS Divisions and some Red Army Guard units were? Or is regarding them as simply sea borne infantry trivialising them somewhat
Thanks
Well the Waffen SS was not an elite unit. The losses in these units were much higher then in the regular wehrmacht divisions without achieving much more. Some formation were elite from the point of equipment. But the Heer had these units too (Lehr-Divion)... .
Literally, if you say 'Elite', it means a privilaged class. So this would mean units that get better funding, more advanced weapons, higher pay, better living conditions, better training. Examples are Knights, Royal Guards, Waffen SS. You don't see Marines (at least in WW2) as a privilaged class.
On the other hand, a lot of people consider 'Elite' troops as those who are effective in battle. Better funding and equipment can influence morale and fighting ability. But Marines are definitely effective in battle despite not being pampered.
I guess these two perspectives is the source of conflict in this post. But no one actually disputes that Marines are an effective fighting force.
Excuse me, but there was no retreat by the 1st MarDiv at the Chosin Reservior. After being heavily engaged by eight Chinese Divisions, they simply made a 180 degree turn and attacked on a new front. Just ask my dad, he fought with the 1st.
ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
ORIGINAL: Cajun Tifoso
If you don't believe it, check out the 1st MarDiv's campaign in the Chosin Reservior in 1950.
Yes! I read a book about the battle at Chosin Reservoir in college (military history class) and all I can say is "Wow." The retreat from Chosin, and the role the marines played was epic! I'd bet on a Marine division vs any of the elite German or Russian divisions any day.
Were Marines considered elite in WW2 in the same vein that some Waffen SS Divisions and some Red Army Guard units were? Or is regarding them as simply sea borne infantry trivialising them somewhat
Thanks
Well the Waffen SS was not an elite unit. The losses in these units were much higher then in the regular wehrmacht divisions without achieving much more. Some formation were elite from the point of equipment. But the Heer had these units too (Lehr-Divion)... .
what you said actually proves they were elite or fanatic in combat. Even though they were heavily outnumbered they overcomed and in many cases won the day.
What is most important and what usually isen't taken in account is that elite units are on on pinpoint of an attack while 90% of army did support/supress enemy.
Although kursk was massive battle (2 mil. men) relatively few men decided outcome of whole battle at Prohkorovka.
II SS Panzer Corps
german:
* 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler
* 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich
* 3rd SS Division Totenkopf
russian:
Voronezh Front
* 1st Tank Army
* 69th Army
Steppe Front
* 5th Guards Tank Army
* 29th Tank Corps
* 5th Guards Mechanized Corps
* 5th Guards Army
Just look at those names, they are best of the best.
I stand with the great American general and diplomat Vernon A. Walters, who on the occasion of being incorrectly introduced as a Marine General, said, " I am a soldier, not a Marine. But I would be damn proud to be either."
Bringing to mind one of my teeth-grinding issues with the current media: everybody now, in war reporting, is a "troop." When I was a kid during the Vietnam era, a lot of reporters had military experience due to the draft, and knew that soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are different types of folks. By training, job, attitude, and fanciness of recreation facilities respectively. Now it's "Six troops lost in Afghanistan." Like they're stock units at Wal-Mart. Hate it.
Excuse me, but there was no retreat by the 1st MarDiv at the Chosin Reservior. After being heavily engaged by eight Chinese Divisions, they simply made a 180 degree turn and attacked on a new front. Just ask my dad, he fought with the 1st.
From reading a fairly recent book on the episode, that is exactly what happened.
I stand with the great American general and diplomat Vernon A. Walters, who on the occasion of being incorrectly introduced as a Marine General, said, " I am a soldier, not a Marine. But I would be damn proud to be either."
Bringing to mind one of my teeth-grinding issues with the current media: everybody now, in war reporting, is a "troop." When I was a kid during the Vietnam era, a lot of reporters had military experience due to the draft, and knew that soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are different types of folks. By training, job, attitude, and fanciness of recreation facilities respectively. Now it's "Six troops lost in Afghanistan." Like they're stock units at Wal-Mart. Hate it.
Even worse, for a while the media started referring to all US military lost as 'fighters' to mimic the term that the Defense Department was using for the combatants of various insurgent, terrorist, and other groups.
I stand with the great American general and diplomat Vernon A. Walters, who on the occasion of being incorrectly introduced as a Marine General, said, " I am a soldier, not a Marine. But I would be damn proud to be either."
Bringing to mind one of my teeth-grinding issues with the current media: everybody now, in war reporting, is a "troop." When I was a kid during the Vietnam era, a lot of reporters had military experience due to the draft, and knew that soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are different types of folks. By training, job, attitude, and fanciness of recreation facilities respectively. Now it's "Six troops lost in Afghanistan." Like they're stock units at Wal-Mart. Hate it.
Even worse, for a while the media started referring to all US military lost as 'fighters' to mimic the term that the Defense Department was using for the combatants of various insurgent, terrorist, and other groups.
Fortunately (for my sanity) I have not heard that one. Reminds me that everything that's gray and floats is a "battleship" to a "reporter."
I stand with the great American general and diplomat Vernon A. Walters, who on the occasion of being incorrectly introduced as a Marine General, said, " I am a soldier, not a Marine. But I would be damn proud to be either."
Bringing to mind one of my teeth-grinding issues with the current media: everybody now, in war reporting, is a "troop." When I was a kid during the Vietnam era, a lot of reporters had military experience due to the draft, and knew that soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are different types of folks. By training, job, attitude, and fanciness of recreation facilities respectively. Now it's "Six troops lost in Afghanistan." Like they're stock units at Wal-Mart. Hate it.
Yeah gotta love watching CNN just slander our soldiers being killed overseas with the typical 15 second photo shot of a soldier killed just hours before, and then back to BREAKING NEWS! Elmo locked his keys in the car. I refuse to watch CNN or Fox news, frankly if paris hilton or lindsey lohan suddenly died neither news agency would have a breaking news story until they figured out exactly how to report the news period.
Frankly I would rather the military keep the press separated and not even near FB's. However freedom of the press, they will whine like school girls until they get what they want.
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
I stand with the great American general and diplomat Vernon A. Walters, who on the occasion of being incorrectly introduced as a Marine General, said, " I am a soldier, not a Marine. But I would be damn proud to be either."
Bringing to mind one of my teeth-grinding issues with the current media: everybody now, in war reporting, is a "troop." When I was a kid during the Vietnam era, a lot of reporters had military experience due to the draft, and knew that soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are different types of folks. By training, job, attitude, and fanciness of recreation facilities respectively. Now it's "Six troops lost in Afghanistan." Like they're stock units at Wal-Mart. Hate it.
Yeah gotta love watching CNN just slander our soldiers being killed overseas with the typical 15 second photo shot of a soldier killed just hours before, and then back to BREAKING NEWS! Elmo locked his keys in the car. I refuse to watch CNN or Fox news, frankly if paris hilton or lindsey lohan suddenly died neither news agency would have a breaking news story until they figured out exactly how to report the news period.
Frankly I would rather the military keep the press separated and not even near FB's. However freedom of the press, they will whine like school girls until they get what they want.
I'm actually the opposite. The wars of this decade have been MASSIVELY under-reported compared to Vietnam, often with the military's insistence. Dan Rather used to fly into hot LZs with the choppers, and now it takes an act of Congress almost to get one reporter "embedded" for two days. These wars have taken place outside the view of the citizens, but most don't care because there's no draft and their kids aren't going. The military in general does not like having the press along, even less after the Vietnam experience.
I think we need far more coverage, and pictures, of what our men and women are doing. In very real ways, compared even to newsreels in WWII, these two wars have been invisible.
