Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

Esprit de Corps: The Marines started the war as a small force. The "Old Breed" (pre-war Marines) numbered two understrength divisions. The Corps never had more than 6 divisions, and elements of those were created by canabalizing other elite non-divisional Marine units; such as ranger and parachute battalions. The wartime expansion - 2 divisions to 6 - was proportionally small enough, especially compared to the US Army, that there were always enough seasoned veterans to set the tone for a new unit.

Probably the most important factor. The US Marines FELT the were special..., a "cut above" as it were---so they tended to fight that way.

Napoleon found the same "trick" worked with his "Young Guard". Basically just conscripts, but given a fancier uniform and distinctions, they performed better than other conscripts trying to live up to the "Guard" tradition. Marine training and indoctrination has always emphasized that Marines were different and better than everyone else, and the average "jarhead" has strived to live up to the "rep".

Don't forget the UK's Royal Marine Commando's. These days they are considered an elite fighting/deployment force (2nd only to the SAS, whom take a lot of their recruits from RMC's) and the same was true in WWII (when my father was a member of 'X'-Troop, 4th Commando Brigade, which ironically was composed almost entirely of Germans...)

No, the USMC were not elite.

Their fighting ability bears no relevance to having an "elite" status.

Many other Divisions could claim as good a fighting record without being elite.

To be elite implies a special selection criteria, a la SAS Rgt, Rangers, LE, Brandenburgers, Selous Scouts, Sayaret Maktal etc and may include some forces with far from respectable fighting records.

Of course the United States Marines were an elite organization in World War II (and afterwards).
 
In addition to the factors mentioned above (esprit de corps, training, and record), they had a reputation for toughness in the enemy camp.
 
And while green recruits replaced veterans as the war dragged on, undeniably reducing the overall quality of a Marine unit, enemy strength and condition was also deteriorating and probably at a faster rate.  So vis-a-vis the enemy, the elite status of Marine units probably increased as the war continued.
 
Perception is a big, big part of "eliteness," and the Marines have it (and have earned it over and over again). 

I am not sure if it qualifies them as elite or not, but the Marines were trained as assault troops, and not just on the beaches. In the larger island campaigns they regularly gained more ground than adjacent US Army troops because they were willing to accept losses in the short term if it gained ground and accelerated the overall victory.

It wasn't that they were careless with lives, their style of warfare just emphasized speed and close in fighting to unhinge the enemy. The US Army on the other hand believed in pre-attack bombardments and a more orchestrated set-piece type of battle that often sacrificed momentum for lower casualties.

Mike

Maybe somebody should have defined "elite" before you started the argument. Blackhorse made a good effort to define it in his treatise, but I think he overlooked a few points.

Personally, I think the word is overused, and in practice by military "experts" is usually reserved for mythical units on the other side to instill determination in one's own side. "Ok, gentlemen, were up against the 'elite' 1st Panzer Division. Get your stuff [sic] together."

The mass media, of course, use the term for no good reason, ever. To them, "elite" means the unit can march and chew gum at the same time. "The (insert country) _________ 'elite' 5th division stands in the US troops way," they say, as the 5th Division retires in utter disorder at a level unseen since Bull Run. Or, alternatively, they use it as a way to say that the other side's troops are superior and will kick our patoots. "President Jones has US units facing 'elite' troops from ____________, and must therfore take this into consideration before ordering in the Marines."

The most frequent use, however, is by individual soldiers and marines who are in a bar with a woman, or very soon, another man. "I'm in the 'elite' mess section of the 1st battalion," one might say. "We're deploying in the morning." It always worked in the past. Well, sometimes.

So, are the gyrines elite? I don't know. Maybe. Probably. Were they well trained? Well, maybe. But not by today's standards. There was a war to fight and deployed units needed replacements. What I do know is that they had more "warrior spirit" than just about any army unit at the time. Maybe the espirit de corps they had qualifies them. Maybe.

So, there, I've givein a definitive answer. Maybe.

I think US marines WON their right to call themself as elite. Same was for example with russian marines and seamen  of Chernomorsky and Baltiyskiy fleet wich fought against regular german troops  with their light weapons but made brave and deadly attacks, and earned nickname from the enemy  - Black Death.
 
Same happened with airborne units, like US 101th and 82th, german paratroopers and russian desantniki who stromed Dnepr river in late 1943.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

They would have considered themselves elite. [:D]

USMC had a strong core of "old breed" regulars, career soldiers who knew their stuff. According to Bergerud, the USMC emphasised rifle marksmenship to a greater degree vs. the Army, which moved more towards greater success through firepower as the ultimate formulae for success. Like the army though, the USMC had to expand by incorporating fresh drafts. The story of how the USMC 1st div was brought up to TO&E for WATCHTOWER made for interesting reading. (basically borrowing vets from other regiments to build a strong core....filled out by green drafts)

This takes me back to when I was chief engineer for one of their command and control systems. At that time, I was also doing a sociological study of morale. Their tactics emphasised high tempo, tactical mobility, and initiative, which were dependent for success on having intelligent soldiers with strong character. They *were* elite, and necessarily selective in who they recruited.

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

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.

All I have to say is this: if you take an average unit, lead it well and keep it supplied after a battle or 2 it will become "battle hardened" and capapble of taking on an elite unit on equal terms. Many "average units" not considered "elite" stood up to elite units under equal or disadvantegous conditions simply due to the fact they were very battlehardened- the Bloody Bucket 28th infantry division, Go for broke 442 RCT are just a couple of examples. Even a green division like the 99th did well in the Ardenes.

As for amphibious landings as another poster mentioned the Army did as many if not more. You also had Normandy. Those Army units trained extensively for amphibious landings and many had previous amphibious experience from North Africa and Italy. I'd consider those untis as good as anyone else when it came to the art of amphibious landings.

The overall effectiveness of an nations military is based on the effectiveness of regular units, not just a few select units.

ORIGINAL: herwin

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.

I've read this very specific claim and of arguments with US Army commanders over the tactics involved. Although no strategy will be appropriate 100% of the time, this one makes sense for the great majority of times. After (was it Geiger?) the USMC general took over the combined USMC/USA command of Okinawa, didn't he sack a US Army general for moving too slowly for him?

As far as the long-term issue what you say makes sense, but I've seen reference elsewhere in the thread to weeks - certainly many of their campaigns were long by those standards. There is a myth about all of their invasions being over in some modest number of days. Guadalcanal (4 or 5 months before replacement), Peleliu (~30 days intense), Okinawa (~3 months intense with a few days off the line here and there) are ones I've read about recently that were much longer than a few days.

With some caveats, I very much consider the Marine Divisions in WW2 as elite units.  There was certainly no deliberate attempt to stack the Marines with the best troops -- the traditional definition of elite -- but it happened anyway.

First, the USMC received the cream of the post-Pearl-Harbor volunteers.  I think this was mostly due to the excellent performance (and public relations related to same) of the Marine regiments in WW1.  If you wanted to fight the Japanese the Marines were clearly the organization you wanted to be in -- and the excellent uniforms certainly didn't hurt.

Second, the Marines in 1941 had an outstanding cadre of combat-experienced officers and (most importantly, IMO) NCOs due to the "Banana Wars" in Central America.  This meant that the Marine divisions retained much of their institutional experience even when they were filled out with new recruits after Dec 7.  In the Army, any similar cadre was hugely diluted as the Army ballooned to many dozens of divisions.  Consider Chesty Puller -- I'd be amazed if any battalion commander in the Army had anything even approaching his level of experience and he was not an atypical field-grade Marine officer.

By equipment, training and selection: no. By morale: maybe. Overall: no.

I guess my old man would've thought so.............but being an ex-jar head (1st Division Korea) I cant fault him for thinking that now can I! [;)]

The Marine Divisions in WWII were most certainly elite. From training to execution of operations definately elite. Doggie boot camp was nothing like Marine Boot Camp. As for Army elite units ... 1st, 2nd and 3rd ID in Europe and the 25th in the Pacific, 2nd ID didn't do any beach assaults but 1st and 3rd did. At the begining of the war the Marines didn't have the best equipment but by the end they did. They also stole a lot of gear from the US Army when ever they were in close proxsimity.
 
Now for the people who include SS divisions in elite class I'd have to say bupkiss to that. They were over man powered and over stocked units, with a lot of fanatics it their ranks. Does that make them elite ... no ... but it does make them dangerous, but not skilled. If being a fanatic makes you elite then every Japanese soldier who fought in the Pacific was elite. IMHO.

form the original question, were we considered elite, yes I think so. Are we elite? no, we are Marines.

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

One reason for the mystique is that Marines were and are better at PR than the Army (with just a couple of notable exceptions like MacArthur and Patton).

Cheers,
CC

"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.

ORIGINAL: Whisper

form the original question, were we considered elite, yes I think so. Are we elite? no, we are Marines.

oo-rah!

ORIGINAL: Cajun Tifoso

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

One reason for the mystique is that Marines were and are better at PR than the Army (with just a couple of notable exceptions like MacArthur and Patton).

Cheers,
CC

"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.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

i do believe the espirit de corps is what makes an elite unit 'elite'. not ever being a soldier i woill not know what it is from the inside but as a student and teacher of history you get a feel for it through the history books. Espirit des corps for one could be fanatiscism for the other. yet the result is the same. For this read 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 12th SS Panzer Divisons. Brit 7th Armoured in the desert. Certain FJ units. 1st british airborne, what those boys did at Arnhem takes serious balls. 1st Marine Divison, Napoleons Guard and the many others that echo through history.

thanks again for yoru input guys.