Marine leaders more aggresive than army ones

[patrickl]

Hi, I am curious why a large proportion of marine commanders have high aggressive ratings compared to army ones. I am tempted to put HM Smith and Rupertus in charge of army divisions but refrained from doing so.
Thanks!

[rogueusmc]

cuz theys jarheads son...OOOHRAAAH GIMME ONE OOOHRAAAH!![:D]

[DrewMatrix]

I am tempted to put HM Smith and Rupertus in charge of army divisions

As I recall, HM Smith wandered over to Makin one day, to see why the Army was doing not much of anything while the Marines were taking Tarawa, took charge of the Army units, and sort of forced the issue.

So a) Yes, USMC generals sometimes do take command of US Army units and b) Yes, USMC generals are more aggressive.

As I understand the big picture, the USMC generals are acutely aware of the loss of life and loss of bottoms going on out on the sea while the Army is proceeding casutiously. Their philosphy is to get the battle over with rather than draw it out a few more weeks losing all those DDs, CLs and AKs and the people on them.

[patrickl]

Thanks guys, It is good to know about such things.[:)]

[Lord_Calidor]

ORIGINAL: patrickl

Thanks guys, It is good to know about such things.[:)]

Of course, you could've just watched Full Metal Jacket. [;)]

[Tom Hunter]

Back in the 80s two of my buddies joined the military, one went to the army, the other to the marines, both as officer candidates.

Army comes back and says they taught him to recon, prep-fire (bombard) and flank attack.

Marines comes back and says they taught him to recon, prep-fire and frontal assualt.

That says it all.



During WWII there was fierce debate about the slower, lower daily casualty advance of the Army and the faster higher daily casualty advance of the Marines. The Marines argued that they too fewer casualties over all because the battle ended quicker, the Army argued that this was not true and thier way cost less blood. I have never seen anyone try to figure out which of these is true, but that was the debate.

[m10bob]

Hope I don't start any wars here with my Army buddies,but this is my personal observation.
1.I was (always will be),an Army Ranger..That said,bear with me:
2.The American Army and the USMC had different philosophies from day one.The Army kills it's opponent by slow movement and attrition through maintaining contact with the enemy in a forceful manner..
3.The USMC kills it's opponent by being the finest assault troops the world has ever seen.It maintains this by honestly not placing as much concern with it's own losses,as much as it's accomplishment of the goal.
I had Gyrenes in my AIT unit,and most of the "soldiers" in that AIT thought the Gyrenes were NUTS!.
While I was the only Ranger in that particular AIT,(and therfore could see both sides,the "soldiers" were amazed that in the AIT judo-pits,the Gyrenes went out of their way to "hurt each other",apparently by creed,whereas the soldiers "went thru the motions",which was all that was expected by the judo instructors.
While the Army trains it's people well,it still leaves a lot for the individual troop to learn "on the battlefield",whereas the Gyrene expects to have his roughest time in his boot camp,so any foreign enemy cannot possibly be as bad as wheere he has already been!.This ideology has been verbally confirmed for me by the Gyrenes I have met(and fought with) in my youth.
BTW,the battle cheer "UUURRAHHH" was a "Ranger-thing" waaaay before the Gyrenes started using it..

[usersatch]

I was a Ranger fellow as well (A Co 3/75 Rgr Rgt back in the 90's). We did some training with the Marines. I will refrain from my personal observations here because I am new to the board, but yes, they are the best at frontal assault and the best at taking casualties.

[DrewMatrix]

debate about the slower, lower daily casualty advance of the Army and the faster higher daily casualty advance of the Marines

Remember you also have to count in the casualty rate the cost of maintaining ships off an unfriendly island while the battle is ongoing.

Does anyone know for Guadalcanal and for Okinawa what the land casualties and the "sailor" (at sea) killed and wounded casualties were? Are they approximately equal or was one much larger?

[rtrapasso]

Does anyone know for Guadalcanal and for Okinawa what the land casualties and the "sailor" (at sea) killed and wounded casualties were? Are they approximately equal or was one much larger?

Not sure if this is what you mean, but the USN battle casualties at Guadalcanal (men killed, wounded, MIA,) in ships was far higher than the soldiers/marines (iirc, by about a factor of 2 to 1). If you count disease, i think the guys on shore had far higher losses.

[Bradley7735]

I'm certain that sailor losses in the months of battle for Guadalcanal greatly outnumbered the troop losses. But, there were a lot of traditional naval battles in that time. Guadalcanal and Okinawa are two different situations.

I also heard that we had more sailor losses than troop losses taking Okinawa. Mostly because of the Kamikaze's. But, I don't know for sure that we had more sailor losses. I'm guessing that the troops were having as hard a time as the sailors.

[Mr.Frag]

The marines were formed based on the concept of naval landings against prepared defenses. The core concept is pretty much fight for the right to be there right off the boat. As the type of attack is a rather brutal one, the expected loss rates are high. The aggressive nature is obviously required for that type of mission as the goal is pretty much win or die. One does not retreat from a failed landing so success is the only option.

It's like the para's ... you can't exactly change your mind once you leave the plane. [:D]

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag



It's like the para's ... you can't exactly change your mind once you leave the plane. [:D]

I like the line from Band of Brothers:
Soldier sez "We are surrounded"(at Bastogne).
Maj Winters:"Paratroopers are supposed to be surrounded!".

[anarchyintheuk]

Warning: significant generalizations approaching.

The relative agressiveness of marine commanders vs. army commanders is based, as mentioned above, on how they were generally going to be deployed (island assault vs. continental sized operations) which in turn influenced the to&e of their commands. In a kind of circular logic the to&e of a division reinforced the aggressiveness or lack of aggressiveness of its commander.

Marine divisions were expected to be assault type units with short deployment cycles, never having a frontage of more that 3-5 miles (generally much lower than that). Normally they did not have to worry about flanks and, in turn, they could not outflank their opponents at least on a company or higher level. The marines would rely on other services or units to provide whatever logistic, anti-air, artillery and rear-echelon security. Marine IDs had no or relatively little of these elements organic to its structure compared to an army ID. Due to these factors and others (i think marine rifle companies were larger than army rifle companies 220-240 vs. 140-160) marine IDs had greater number of riflemen in total and percentage in their oobs. Their deployment demanded and their to&e allowed for their commanders to be aggressive in terms of tactics and absorbing casualties.

Army IDs were organized to fight continental sized operations with much longer deployment cycles. The divisions would be expected to hold a frontage anywhere from 10-30 miles. A significant portion its total strength was employed in organic units doing those tasks listed above. Artillery, anti-tank and anti-air was needed for the lengthened frontage. An army ID may also be deployed anywhere from 20-150 miles from its depot so it had a large organic transportation element to supply it. It was also expected to be mobile, further adding to the amount of potential combat strenght diverted to transportation, loc troops, supply, etc. With these organic elements requiring more manpower army IDs had a smaller total and percentage of riflemen in their oob compared to marines. Because casualties in island combat were very high for a short period Army IDs tended to be somewhat brittle due to their smaller number of riflemen. I believe that their commanders took this into account in their tactics.

Differing deployment cylces also affected the commanders. Marine IDs (with exceptions such as Guadacanal, Iwo Jima and Okinawa) generally had very short combat operations followed by extensive rest and refit. Although I've never seen a reason for the larger rifle companies stated, I've always thought that this allowed the marines to, in effect, carry their own replacments with them for a landing. Casualities would be replaced after the operation was over. Army IDs were generally in the front lines longer and, although the combat would be at a generally lower pace, required a pipeline of replacement troops. This pipeline of replacements was not readily reproducible in island campaigns.

Sorry, that was a little longer than i thought.

[rogueusmc]

Y'all are all saying the same thing I did...just that I said it simpler...[:D]

[Grunt]

Former Marine here. We summarized our tactics as "Hey diddle, diddle, straight up the middle!"

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Y'all are all saying the same thing I did...just that I said it simpler...[:D]

Both of us being from texas we should have the same relative amount of brain damage caused by the sun. Hmmm. . . .

[Graycompany]

Well i have to say im a bit biased in this, but the best way I can describe the differences between the other services and the marines, is by a story.

I was at a defence conference one time, and there was a high ranking representitive from each of the services, including the coast guard.

I watched as each one got up and gave a talk about what their service's did and how they each needed the other services. It was all so politically correct, the Navy admiral was very very good at talking and praised each of the other services. Finnally the Marine General got up, Was Gen Gray( later went on to be the commadant). He said "one day there were this army guy, a navy guy, and airforce guy who all had been killed one way or the other. They were in a elevator going to heaven, and got to talking , when the airforce guy says. Hey there isnt a marine in here? and the navy guy and army guy start laughing. they say no way, marines arent allowed in heaven. The airforce guy dosent think this sounds right, but dosent say anything. They get up to saint peter, and he checks their service records, and passes each of the 3 guys, army, navy airforce. The airforce guy cant let it go, and asks St.. Peter, hey, is it true their are no marines in heaven? St. peter laughs, and says, yes thats true, their are no marines here. the 3 walk down the corrider, and at the end they see this guy in marine dress blues, sword and all marching up and down the passage way. they are shocked, they run back to st peter and say, quick look down there, thats a marine. St peter pops his head around the corner, looks back a the 3 an busts out laughing again. Gentelmen, he says, that isnt a marine, thats just GOD, he just thinks he is a marine." well the whole place erupts in laughter, except the other brass on the podium with Gen Gray. (except im sure I saw the Admiral put his head down smiling). Gen gray goes on to tell everyone there that we dont need the other services at all, the marines can do it all. Was at that moment that I thought, Im going to be a marine. [;)]

[rogueusmc]

A.M.Gray was a nut anyway...great combat leader but a nut nevertheless...[:D]

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

During WWII there was fierce debate about the slower, lower daily casualty advance of the Army and the faster higher daily casualty advance of the Marines. The Marines argued that they too fewer casualties over all because the battle ended quicker, the Army argued that this was not true and thier way cost less blood. I have never seen anyone try to figure out which of these is true, but that was the debate.

Interesting. At the end of WWII there was a meeting between Soviet and US (or British) generals/marshals. DOn't remember the name, but one of the Western said that the Soviet assaults were really too bloody and that any Western general with such a casualty rate will be sacked. The reply was that Soviet liked better to lose 10 000 men one day and achieve a breaktrough straight away rather to lose 1 000 men each day to see the Germans retire in order after a week "like US did".

In that case, numbers are wrong. The Red Army lost 12 000 - 14 000 dead an average day.... so casualties on first day of offensives should be even more. While the average war day costed the US a little more than 300 dead. In 1944-1945, the rate should be between 500 and 1000 a day as this was the period where the bigger number of US troops were engaged.

In WITP, I think a majority of players use 'shock assault' more often than 'deliberate attack'