Matrix Games Forums

Go to a local library and look for military history. I dont know anymore what books to recommend, been 10 years since I left the Corps.

The Marines fought in China against insurgents and bandits, the Marines fought in Central america against Insurgents and Bandits all through the 20's and 30's. And at Wars start a lot of marines were still left from WWI. Their training was a LOT different from the army which and motorized as well.

As for blooded units, the Army sent National Guard Divisions to War, with nothing more than their local training and what ever training they got in theater.

If you want to know why marines are rated higher than army units, go read about some of the battles that took place. It was common for the Marines to take 60 to 80 percent casualties and continue functioning. Most Army units folded, though a few managed it as well.

If you want to know why Marines are rated higher or as high as Japanese units, again read some of the war history. The fact is the "untrained marines" kicked the Japanese asses.

yes, because they were better feeded, better armed, had better support and better health care.. oh, and i forgot, the japanese troops they encoutered mostly were green units too...

nobody said that the xy.divison of the japanese army singlehanded should defeat all american navy troops...

just that green troops should be green and marines without combat experience are green. well trained, yes.. well prepared, yes...

oh, the ww1-experience, yes, this IMPROVE the fighting capability a lot... really. [:'(]

yes, they kicked japanese butts, cause of better circumstances, but not cause they were so experienced combatants.... they learned to be hard fighters, but not in the beginning.

I disagree, the Marines were better than the Army troops they fought in theater with. They were better than the Japanese troops they fought against. Name one fight they lost or were in jeapordy of losing? Guadalcanal was their first action, they were literally abandoned on the beaches and survived just fine, slaughtering elite Japanes BNs thrown against them.

Since the Japanese doctrine was bad, they definately SHOULD have higher ratings then most japanese units. If stats mean anything, then lowering the ratings will ensure the Marines dont work as they did Historicly. Something made them better. From the START.

Hey Tribes I think I may have come across as disrespectful to the Corps-not my intent.
And no one could possibly suggest that Marines haven't earned their glory...I was asking about 90/90 ratings. I was asking for historical reasons they should be so 'experienced'-and you told me 'bandits in China'-
I asked for something to detail why they should be considered experienced troops, and other than offering us "they were better soldiers than the regular US troops, or Japanese" I'm still no further.

The only thing I took to task was that the method of immersion of veteran troops with cadets or newbies-all armies do that. I think the gung-ho attitude you're a perfect example of-that, the Corps has-so I was definitely in favor of giving them high morale. I was definitely in favor of leaving their training relatively high.
But 90/90? that was my issue.

All I want is my USMC units to grow, grow-like happy little sprites on my computer screen....I want to follow development of them as they leave San Fran relatively green to battle and get 'blooded'. I don't want them coming out of the gate as 'supermen' cause they weren't. There are good Marines and bad Marines. I want my units personalized.

So lads, no disrespect (AGAIN) meant to the Corps' proud history.

ah, something made them better... sorry, sound like "Der Deutsche Soldat will immer überlegen sein" (the german soldier will be allways superior"... sorry, no insult included, but how do you think this is justified ?

i mean, they had zero combat experience the last 20 years, no wait 23 years, so they had no junior officers with (new) combat experience...

they were very good trained and had been fanatics... like other fanatics they were able to absorb heavy losses and recover fast cause of the corps-spirit. nothing uncommon... so they should have high moral and a quick recovery...

they were well trained, well equipped and had very good support (cause the americans tend to SUPPORT their troops at landings... ) but still, these men nether fired a weapon in a real combat or this was latest in 1918 and so these men had grown "old"...

they had no experience how they could fight the japanese troops cause they learned it later, not first. Many tactics went wrong (as all tactics you use firsttime they need to be adopted)... nothing to bash the soldiers.
but to tell the world that exp. 90 is justified is wrong. But i also said the game need different multiplicators, combat exerience, trainig, fat, moral, etc... so the not-experienced marine troops could defeat high experienced but bad shaped and equipped japanese troops. If your personell moral attitude to the marine corps is involved, sorry.... if fighting bandits in china is combat experience then i suggest that any german troop near to a frontline (say 1000 km away) has elite-status either... cause most of these men fought in ww1, many had to fight later on in the revolutions, were fighting against partisans or sat in france with the danger of beeing shot

again, i agree that the game should show the fighting power of these GREEN and Well trained troops... they should not be kicked out cause of their "bad" experience... but still your point about the superiority of certain troops without combat experience is not okay for me...

oh, same attitude for me if we would speak about SS-Troops , they are NOT elite per se... even "famous" troops that burnt out and were refilled should loose elite status... and fall back... if the "name" of an unit is "Das Reich" but the divison is burn out with 10% survivors, they need trainnig and recruitment to get green again... een if this mean a socallced elite division is just average.... so, no marine bashing, just correcting some widespread wrong issues...[:)]

Edited:
i still want to make clear, nobody should feel insulted.... that is not my subject.
just this "they need to be elite" stuff make me a little bit upset... for all sides... not only the marines...
as i wrote, i think we need more influence to make a better picture....

Same with weapons... if you have german mg42 in the jungle, this is not very helpful, if you have em in the desert... well this should improve firepower really... so, we would have for the troops many modifications and could bring in the thing of corps spirit by high moral standings and recovery, but also could model the green troop thing... if they get better and better (for the experience) you could increase this factor... a 90/90 ELITE marine troop would really a fragging unit.
If we play a scenario from 1944 on, you hsould have experience85 troops, cause of combat experience.

But i agree, the game engine is not so detailed at it should be....

Canuck et al,
Certainly no offense taken.

The reasons USMC units fought so well in history are primarily due to 5 factors, in no particular order:
1. Training
2. Discipline
3. Esprit de Corps
4. Marksmanship
5. Combined arms tactics
6. Amphibious warfare expertise

Volumes have and will be written on these topics, but in a nutshell: From Day 1 of recruit training or OCS one is indoctrinated in the history and traditions of the Corps. The quality of training, discipline, and camaraderie make it anything but "An Army of One." The basis for training is better from the start. Next, marksmanship was and continues to be stressed at a high level. You must hit point targets consistently at 500 yds. Lastly, the doctrine of "Every man is a rifleman first" is a force multiplier. Marine cooks, clerks, mecahnics, pilots, and logisticians all have a decent apprehension of infantry tactics. There are no REMFs.
As for combined arms - the Corps wrote the book on close air support starting in Nicaragua in 1927. Wherever USMC forces were, they always looked to a fire plan which brought mass fires on the enemy in the event of impending overrun. They used air, art'y, naval guns in voluminous amounts.
The USMC spent the decade of the 1930's refining amphibious warfare doctrine.

For all these reasons, nowhere in WWII did Marines fight poorly at the battalion level or above, so I think that the efficiency and morale ratings in WITP are do-able..

As Jim Rome would say, "Scoreboard."

Oops 6 factors!!!! I sound like Graham Chapman...

Adnan did you read anything that was said? The small unit leaders DID have combat experience.

I don't think anyone is disputing that the Marines are better units than the average newly raised US army unit, and the factors that V2 identified are certainly important, and in terms of close air support the marines had an edge over most other units

however one problem is that they come in about 10 - 15 points higher than war experienced British divisions, the 70th for examle which had just fought an active war in the desert against Rommel, and cetainly had achieved a great deal of experience and in combined arms operations etc.

I can't think of any reason why the marines are raited higher unless its a case of our soldiers are better !

I suspect the reason in game terms is to make them more capable in assault landings which might be better handled by giving them a bonus in amphibious assaults

just my two pennyworth

No Offense to teh Brits and other armies that had fought in North Africa and Europe, but they most experience they had was in retreating. They lost massive amounts of personell and materiel. The Units from teh Austrailian army that are represented in teh game do have good Exp/Morale scores, but they are restricted to where they were used historically. The other units in theater are garrison forces or Colonial troops. They were never a great concern of there own country and show it when the war starts. AS teh War Progresses, take in to account teh large attrition that occured wiht units moving from Europe to Asia. the tactics due ot terrain and climate would negate much of what they had learned in temperate Europe.

The marines had been in a constant start of war from the end of the first world war 'till the Second. They fought in teh banna wars in Costa Rica and Nicuragua, as well as China. They developed amphibious doctrine, and the only real changes that were made during teh war were the specialized assault craft and the leasson on Naval bombardment learned at Tarawa. The Corps was a small unit, I believe in the inter war years less than 25,000 strong, whose members were expected to rotate through all of there functions. This made for a large cadre of expereinced troops. When teh war was started tehre was a preference to any Americans that had prior service, and this woudl mean tha you had expereinced troops coming back in as fresh troops with COmbat experience.

The Japanese had only one thing going for them and it was psycological. It was there un-ending brutality. The Marines Learned from a Master, and matched them in being brutal. there was more than teh Japanese desire to die for the emperor at work. WHen you have 40,000 Japanese soldiers on an island you expect more than 24 survivors, even if they were wounded. they didn't occur, and it was not a cyinide capsule either.

I think the Japanese are over rated in there lcu effectiveness. In the beginning of the war sure, but late in the war, it is ridiculous.

UB

yes, i read it... you mentioned fighting against bandits in china.... i would not count this as combat experience.... sorry.

but v2 brought it to the point. but still no combat experience.. the marines are trained as they could be, but lack experience. in witp, maybe we need high levels, but with a better system of rating there should be still zero combat experience... at last this is my opinion... combat experience is just something you learn in war, not in training.. maybe today but i still doubt this could be trained. Name it a personell pov... if you tell me that unting bandits is combat experience i would not agree to your statement [:D] but it is your right to have a different opinion.

so please, no bad feelings about it. thank you and have fun [:)]

UB

there as certainly a lot of retreating going on in europe and north africa in 40 & 41, I dont think many units were sent to the pacific from the far east after 1942 only individual replacements.

however the 70th division had just completed a victorious battle in december 1941, Operation Crusader the relief of Tobruk, the first defeat inflicted on German arms in WW2 unless you count the defence of that port earlier by the Australians earlier that year.

the 70th division and the 7th armoured brigade were sent to hold the line in the Far East early in 1942,

both these formtions had extensive experience in active warfare which is somehow exceeded by the marines which were probably in the same state experience wise as a british division with a few pre war regular battalions, before going into action.

Experience of colonial warfare, esprit de corps, and realistic training, not being exclusivle to the US Marine Corps

dont you think it would be more realistic if the marines earned their quality in the game rather than it being handed to them at the start of the war

UB,
Yer my hero. To all: Ever meet, listen to, or read about a Marine at Iwo Jima that actually talked about his experiences? It's just not there in the record. Mass slaughter is just not nice, but it is effective. Put simply, we just killed the eff outta these bastards, and it was the ugliest thing in the world, even for the victors. The Marines involved were deeply affected by their actions. Has anyone wondered why there were very few Jap "prisoners" in the Pacific? Uh, the books will tell you that the Japs just didn't surrender, and preferred to get shot for the Emperor.
Well, let's just say that the Corps was tired of their suicidal and homicidal bull****. It was the nth degree of obscenity.
Wish we could sprinkle some o' that on Fallujah, eh?
In sum: I'm fine with 90-90 on the ratings. S/F.

"dont you think it would be more realistic if the marines earned their quality in the game rather than it being handed to them at the start of the war"

Hipper check the scoreboard. Wake, Midway, Makin, Tulagi, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, all before 1943 ended, all with "green" units. USMC kicked the crap outta the opposition, right out of the starting gate. And they would have done worse to folks who actually conceive of the word "surrender" like the Brits (Stilwell) and the French (every war since 1815) and the Germans and the Russians.

They earned their quality before WWII started. Capice, paisano?

The Marines are overrated at beginning of game, IMHO. They fought well but enough with the rah-rah displayed above. I'd reply in kind but it only encourages more of it so IGNORE will suffice. Yes the Marines were the best trained units of US Armed forces at beginning of WW2 and should reflect that. But 90 experience should be reserved for troops that deserved it from fighting and learning it in battle as a unit, not from training/veterans amongst the cadre.

While on the beach at Tarawa a Marine private was heard to say, " This is almost as bad as boot camp". As has been pointed out above the last thing a Marine would allow to happen is failure in a mission. This is beaten into him (or her) from the very first day of training. And no beaten wasnt added for effect, it is the truth and personal experience. They were trained to win, because getting back on a boat under fire is harder than getting off.

The sole purpose of the Marine rifleman is to engage and destroy the enemy using fire and manuver. From talking to veterans who were on Iwo and Saipan they belived it and more so practiced it. Both were just farm boys before they volunteered, they both have said there wasnt anything to do but to do what you had been trained to do.

One last thought, while the Army was screaming for replacements in early 44; the Marines were giving deferments till they had room in boot camp for the volunteers who wanted to join. They had people on a waiting list to go to boot camp because they were not going to send out half trained Marines to the Fleet.

Dirtdog 20

Ok now we are getting some information

if the marines were mostly Volunteers in 1944 that is an excelent justification for high morale ratings,

Tough and realistic infantry training especially if they were trained as a unit then sent out as a unit to fight should give
high experience rating, but higher than units that have seen extensive combat ? That's the problem.

one thing I have found out that impressed me is that the later marine divisions were formed from disbanded paratroop and raider battalions, In my opinion proliferation of these types of unit is always an indication of an army in trouble.

Be aware that at some / most of the experience gain should be at staff level rather than the individual soldier / junior officer level

cheers

V2,

I find your remarks about Fallujah to be very inappropriate for this board; If your country was conquered and looted and your religion was being villified by another Religion, how would you feel?

Also, the French bashing is silly and uneducated in the extreme. You may want to read about WW1 for example.

Mike

Hipper,

I would not be upset if the Marine ratings were reduced to say 80/80, or 85/80. As for teh comment on the disbanded Para units, if I understand you correctly that when an army starts to disband these units into other units it is an army in trouble. The Marine Para troopers are a differnt animal. The Marine Paratroops were designated as such after teh Germans used them to such effect in Europe. After the war progressed for quite sme time, it was determined that teh Para units were just not needed. The extra training, and very high cost (it was an extra 100 bucks per enlisted man for Marine Para units per month) The circumstances to use paratroopers in teh Pacific were just not there. All Marines are Riflemen first, so they just rolled them back into the regulart formations. However these are now HIGHLY trained and motivated troops. I will attach a link to some interesting history of the Paramarines. Damn, I can't find the link I had. I wish I had mad ea point of putting it in my favorites. If I find it I will post it. Very interesting went through the history of all the bases in San Diego, and what units were stationed there and what they did with history on each.

UB

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

V2,

I find your remarks about Fallujah to be very inappropriate for this board; If your country was conquered and looted and your religion was being villified by another Religion, how would you feel?

Also, the French bashing is silly and uneducated in the extreme. You may want to read about WW1 for example.

Mike

Lemurs, please. Myopia kills. My religion IS being villified by another religion, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna feel sorry for winning (i.e. conquering.) Also, US Armed Forces are NOT looting in Iraq. Quite the falsehood. I agree that French bashing is silly.

On another note (don't want to use a separate post) I love, and I mean LOVE, your scenario 26. My only prob is that I prefer the American nicknames for Jap aircraft, because they're easier to remember. Is there an easy fix for that? I'll buy ya a case of beer...?