# An Elite Infantry



## Gunz (Oct 3, 2017)

An Elite Infantry

The word “elite” relative to modern military units gets thrown around a lot especially since the unprecedented expansion of special operations forces over the past two decades. In the United States military, SOF are indeed the “elite of the elite,” men and women trained and skilled on a tier well above competence.

But among all these highly specialized units, there is still room for a larger, more conventional force of hard-hitting assault troops. And Marine Corps infantry, in my view, stills fills that niche. It is, arguably, one of the best, if not the best, elite infantry shock forces in the world. Our combat history and our assault tactics testify to that honor. We attack and continue to attack in spite of the odds, the terrain, the casualties, until the objective is taken and the enemy is dead. We have been criticized for our direct methods, our frontal assaults, by those who contend that those tactics are too costly. And yet we have fought this way since World War One and have never lost a battle.

Unlike Army Rangers, we are not airborne. We don’t need to be. We are trained in amphibious assault, air assault, vertical envelopment, and direct ground attack. Our job is to get to the battlefield as rapidly as possible and go into action immediately, sustained by our support arms and air assets. And we do not retreat.

The Marines have typically been described as America’s elite fighting force for many decades. We are not ordinary infantry. We are also not a special operations force. We bring to the battlefield our pulverizing firepower, our espirit de corps, our supreme self-confidence in our fighting abilities and our unshakable faith in our brother Marines, both infantry and those who support us.

Our training is still among the toughest for “conventional” troops. And what we don’t learn in boot camp, infantry training and advanced infantry and weapons training, we learn in the fleet, in our rifle and weapons companies. I believe Marines are still the finest marksmen the United States military turns out.

Our officers come to us from one of the most demanding infantry officer’s courses ever devised. They don’t have Ranger tabs or jump wings or some of the other bells and whistles that are highly prized by our Army brethren, but they’ve proven themselves by earning the title “Officer of Marines.”

So can an infantry unit still be considered “elite” among the glittering array of special operations units so prevalent in Western militaries? Yes. Marine infantry is still unique and elite…and will continue to live up to its glorious battlefield legacy.

Ocoka


----------



## Grunt (Oct 3, 2017)

I agree, but I am a little biased. 🤣


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 3, 2017)

That is an interesting perspective, and with the US Marines a micro look at larger Big Army applications but in a smaller scale:  the Army has a full helo-borne division, the Marines have helo-borne companies, etc.  It doesn't help (or maybe it does?) that within the Marines there is the SOF/not-SOF units like reconnaissance, and the want-to-be-SOF/not-SOF units like FAST; all of which are presumably "elite" but none really SOF.  Also in Europe "commando" is a title usually reserved for "elite"/SOF units; yet the Royal Marines ARE commandos and considered elite within the British military.

I think what sets the US Marines apart, makes it an elite-but-not-SOF (because the terms are not mutually inclusive), are: rapid deployability, rapid maneuverability, organic "packaged" MAGTF, and the ethos that's beat in recruits.

Of course, I am biased:  father retired from the Marines, and about a dozen other family members in the Corps since the 1930s.

Of historical note, something I find very fascinating, is that in the late 40s/early 50s the Marines were close to being folded into the Army as Truman ordered his SECDEF to reduce the size of the military from 41% of the GDP to 4% of the GDP.  There were some flag officers that compelled some congressmen to keep the Marines, but Korea really sealed the deal for the Corps not going away.  The army had been so decimated after WWII when Korea flared up the Marines were able to field units quickly and efficiently.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 3, 2017)

I was moto'd when I wrote that.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Oct 3, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> That is an interesting perspective, and with the US Marines a micro look at larger Big Army applications but in a smaller scale:  the Army has a full helo-borne division, the Marines have helo-borne companies, etc.  It doesn't help (or maybe it does?) that within the Marines there is the SOF/not-SOF units like reconnaissance, and the want-to-be-SOF/not-SOF units like FAST; all of which are presumably "elite" but none really SOF.   Also in Europe "commando" is a title usually reserved for "elite"/SOF units; yet the Royal Marines ARE commandos and considered elite within the British military.



On the flip side of the coin units like the Royal Marines, Paras, 75th, etc all have a selection and assessment process with significant attrition (by design, of course).

The 75th Ranger Regiment and the Marine Corps Infantry are two completely different animals.  If you want to compare the USMC Infantry to anything it would be the US Army Infantry.


----------



## Florida173 (Oct 3, 2017)

I will suggest that units like the 173rd are unique and specialized because of isolation and experience. I had greatly underestimated the unit before getting there from the 82nd. 

The airborne aspect doesn't need to be criteria for elitism.. it's just an added delivery mechanism and turns into unmitigated chaos on the dropzone anyway. 

I can't speak for the quality of an “Officer of Marines,” but it is nice when all the PLs have Ranger Tabs. At least there is some indicator of potential competency in the field.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 3, 2017)

ShadowSpear said:


> On the flip side of the coin units like the Royal Marines, Paras, 75th, etc all have a selection and assessment process with significant attrition (by design, of course).



I can't speak to any of the others but RM's initial training/boot camp is quite long, encompasses initial entry training with infantry.  Or at least it did; I got to know a few pretty well in the late 90s.  

The RMs and our MC are very parallel in training, schools, how they deploy, etc.  They just have that silly green beret thing.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 5, 2017)

Thought I would add this here rather than create a separate thread:

Marines to add a fourth phase to boot camp; or, how to 'Marine'

EXCLUSIVE: Marine Corps Plans To Add Fourth Phase To Boot Camp


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 5, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Thought I would add this here rather than create a separate thread:
> 
> Marines to add a fourth phase to boot camp; or, how to 'Marine'
> 
> EXCLUSIVE: Marine Corps Plans To Add Fourth Phase To Boot Camp



I read through that last night.  It's a good idea.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 5, 2017)

4th Phase: How to stay away from Jewelry stores in Oceanside, hookers in TJ, used car dealers on 17N in J-ville etc etc


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 5, 2017)

Saved for later.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 5, 2017)

Not Infantry over here, so I'm only dropping notes. Not sure what the full training process is for Royal Marines, but one can only be a Commando by passing the All Arms Commando Course and that things eats people alive.  However, the British Army Enlisted Infantry Training is 26 Weeks At Catterick and the mountains in that place do not look fun.  The British Army Armor and Cavalry Enlisted Training is 23 Weeks.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 6, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Not Infantry over here, so I'm only dropping notes. Not sure what the full training process is for Royal Marines, but one can only be a Commando by passing the All Arms Commando Course and that things eats people alive.  However, the British Army Enlisted Infantry Training is 26 Weeks At Catterick and the mountains in that place do not look fun.  The British Army Armor and Cavalry Enlisted Training is 23 Weeks.



32 weeks, and all RMs end their program by going through the commando course (All-Arms Commando Course is run by the RMs).


----------



## Gunz (Oct 6, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Not Infantry over here, so I'm only dropping notes. Not sure what the full training process is for Royal Marines, but one can only be a Commando by passing the All Arms Commando Course and that things eats people alive.  However, the British Army Enlisted Infantry Training is 26 Weeks At Catterick and the mountains in that place do not look fun.  The British Army Armor and Cavalry Enlisted Training is 23 Weeks.



I worked with RMCs in joint training exercises in '73, amphib assaults, helo insertions from assault ships, etc. I consider RMCs a bit closer to an SOF-type role than US Marines, although a lot of the training is similar. 

BTW, US Marine training for infantry MOS's, including bootcamp, is about 21 weeks. But training in the rifle companies is of course an on-going enterprise. In my case, after bootcamp, ITB and MG school, we spent 3 weeks humping up and down brown hills at Camp Margarita prior to deployment.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 6, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> I worked with RMCs in joint training exercises in '73, amphib assaults, helo insertions from assault ships, etc. I consider RMCs a bit closer to an SOF-type role than US Marines, although a lot of the training is similar.



I worked with them in the late 90s, same thing.  They were freaking hoot, all of them, and the drunker the better.  I agree they are more SOF-centric that the USMC, but they have a very loyal bond to the USMC, as close to a international brotherhood as I have seen.


----------



## Kaldak (Oct 6, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I worked with them in the late 90s, same thing.  They were freaking hoot, all of them, and the drunker the better.  I agree they are more SOF-centric that the USMC, but they have a very loyal bond to the USMC, as close to a international brotherhood as I have seen.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but they still send a Colour Sergeant to USMC OCS to run PT. That, is proof positive of @Devildoc ''s international brotherhood statement.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 6, 2017)

So can an infantry unit still be considered “elite” among the glittering array of special operations units so prevalent in Western militaries? Yes. Marine infantry is still unique and elite…and will continue to live up to its glorious battlefield legacy.

Ocoka[/QUOTE]

I am an Army guy... but by the definition of elite, US Marine Corps Infantry is the best at what it does!


----------



## Teufel (Oct 6, 2017)

I am incredibly biased and extremely proud of my time as a Marine Corps infantryman. Our infantry forces are highly motivated, very disciplined, and exceptionally deadly. I've served alongside the Royal Marines, the Army (10th Mountain) and the Ranger Regiment. Nothing is quite like the Marine Corps infantry.

That being said, I wouldn't call the Marine Corps infantry elite. Superior certainly but elite is a high bar normally associated with units who select and assess their personnel. Like the Ranger Regiment. The Rangers, in my limited experience anyway, seem to focus on platoon and company level light infantry operations though. The Marine Corps is a middleweight force that combines a superior light infantry battalion or regiment with armor, indirect fires, sustainnent and aviation. We are very good at this role. I wouldn't call it elite though..... unless I was talking to young infantry Marines! I would tell them they are the best in the world and challenge them to live up to that standard. Young Marines will always surprise you.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 6, 2017)

Teufel said:


> I am incredibly biased and extremely proud of my time as a Marine Corps infantryman. Our infantry forces are highly motivated, very disciplined, and exceptionally deadly. I've served alongside the Royal Marines, the Army (10th Mountain) and the Ranger Regiment. Nothing is quite like the Marine Corps infantry.
> 
> That being said, I wouldn't call the Marine Corps infantry elite. Superior certainly but elite is a high bar normally associated with units who select and assess their personnel. Like the Ranger Regiment. The Rangers, in my limited experience anyway, seem to focus on platoon and company level light infantry operations though. The Marine Corps is a middleweight force that combines a superior light infantry battalion or regiment with armor, indirect fires, sustainnent and aviation. We are very good at this role. I wouldn't call it elite though..... unless I was talking to young infantry Marines! I would tell them they are the best in the world and challenge them to live up to that standard. Young Marines will always surprise you.



Elite by definition doesn't equal specialization. Elite means you are the best at what you do. Marine Infantry is the best at what "they" do. But...What do I know, I am a US Army Armor guy. BTW, We are the best in the world at Armored ops!


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 7, 2017)

I saw a programme once that followed a bunch of RM recruits through their training. At one point the DS took a bunch of the guys aside and told them (paraphrased) "at the end of the day we are just infantry. We do the job of the infantry. What makes us different is that when our backs are to the wall we do not give up. We do not think that things are hopeless. We use our brains to solve that problem and then we go out and do it. And that's the difference."

Edit: I'm sure it's this one. It's on TPB if anyone is interested. 

Royal Marines Commando School, review: 'remarkably intimate'


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 7, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I saw a programme once that followed a bunch of RM recruits through their training. At one point the DS took a bunch of the guys aside and told them (paraphrased) "at the end of the day we are just infantry. We do the job of the infantry. What makes us different is that when our backs are to the wall we do not give up. We do not think that things are hopeless. We use our brains to solve that problem and then we go out and do it. And that's the difference."
> 
> Edit: I'm sure it's this one. It's on TPB if anyone is interested.
> 
> Royal Marines Commando School, review: 'remarkably intimate'



There is a whole series, you can find it on YouTube.

The RMs, their training is no joke, especially Commando school at the end. And 9 Mile ruck march with 10 minute miles? That's insane.  Yes, they are probably more Elite than the US Marines, but they share many philosophies and similarities.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 7, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> There is a whole series, you can find it on YouTube.
> 
> The RMs, their training is no joke, especially Commando school at the end. And 9 Mile ruck march with 10 minute miles? That's insane.  Yes, they are probably more Elite than the US Marines, but they share many philosophies and similarities.



Yeah but the ones I found are those annyoing youtube videos that only cover 1/4 of the screen. I'm not arguing in anyway their eliteness; I'm just relaying what they said from their own mouths.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 7, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> .... I'm not arguing in anyway their eliteness; I'm just relaying what they said from their own mouths.



Yeah, and in their eyes that's probably true. And I certainly have not gone through their course or their training, my experience has been cross training, imbedding with them a little bit, and observation.  And that was a long time ago, a very long time ago.

I see them as a cross between our Marine Corps, and our Rangers.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 8, 2017)

The Royal Marine Corps is very close to our own Marine Corps minus access to good live fire ranges and sufficient ammunition for training. We are remarkablely similar, which is not surprising given our shared history. We still appreciate the respect they showed the Marine Corps barracks during the War of 1812.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 8, 2017)

I'll preface this with the Geneva convention interpretation by Ricky Bobby of 'with all due respect...'

Superior to whom exactly?  Superior to other nations militaries - so are the other US service branches (with arguments on specific units and tactics).  Superior in amphibious landings at the BN and above - definitely.  Superior air/ground task forces - maybe, but I'd like to see some data.  When the Army and Air Force team up they do a pretty good job.  Superior light infantry?  Mechanized Infantry?  Armor? Reconnaissance?  The Army has all of those things and despite the storied history of the Corps would someone really say any of those capabilities are superior to those in the Army?

I don't think any of the services are in danger of being dissolved or absorbed into another - and harping about who is better than who is either an exercise in masturbation or a professional discussion about pros/cons.  Esprit is important to any organization at multiple levels but have to wonder what is the argument being made here.

Re-reading this it's coming off way harsher than I mean it.  I think there are a host of things to admire about the USMC and I have been very impressed with many of the Marines I've met and served with.  But what exactly are we talking about in this thread?


----------



## Teufel (Oct 8, 2017)

Superior in that no active duty Marine infantry officer has pledged allegiance to a faceless communist cabal to destroy our nation? 

My point was that we claim that we are elite but personally I think that's internal propaganda. I do believe that the Marine Corps infantry is a unique organization in several very positive ways. The Army had several excellent infantry divisions, but you can't tell me that 3rd ID is equal to 10th Mountain or the 82nd Airborne. Marine Corps infantry units vary in quality somewhat (in direct proportion to the quality of their commanders) but they are largely all the same. It helps to be a small agile force.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 9, 2017)

Teufel said:


> Superior in that no active duty Marine infantry officer has pledged allegiance to a faceless communist cabal to destroy our nation?
> 
> My point was that we claim that we are elite but personally I think that's internal propaganda. I do believe that the Marine Corps infantry is a unique organization in several very positive ways. The Army had several excellent infantry divisions, but you can't tell me that 3rd ID is equal to 10th Mountain or the 82nd Airborne. Marine Corps infantry units vary in quality somewhat (in direct proportion to the quality of their commanders) but they are largely all the same. It helps to be a small agile force.



I see your commie and raise you Marines United...not really.  I think it's an equally facile argument to talk about who has the most shitheads - I'm most familiar with Army shitheads so there's stories there that could go on forever.

I totally get what you're saying - and each of those Army Divisions does spout off about how different and elite they are compared to the other Divisions.  The Esprit de Corps position is valuable for the pride and team-building it engenders in units - just not sure how much of an empirical case it really is.  Every war/battle/engagement has unique aspects and success/failure depends on a host of factors.  With that, every unit has had variations in performance but overall it seems to me most like units have very similar capabilities light/light, heavy/heavy, and so forth.

I feel like the value comes more in diversity - as in similar units, similar missions, slight variations in culture, methodology, employment, etc.  Diversity in that sense, IMO, is valuable when you can objectively rate success/failure and then make adjustments - learn from success/mistakes of others.  I think we do that reasonably well inside our respective services but are unbelievably shitty at it between the services - for exactly what we're discussing here, the tribalism of our position of who is superior/elite all that jazz.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 9, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> I see your commie and raise you Marines United...not really.  I think it's an equally facile argument to talk about who has the most shitheads - I'm most familiar with Army shitheads so there's stories there that could go on forever.
> 
> I totally get what you're saying - and each of those Army Divisions does spout off about how different and elite they are compared to the other Divisions.  The Esprit de Corps position is valuable for the pride and team-building it engenders in units - just not sure how much of an empirical case it really is.  Every war/battle/engagement has unique aspects and success/failure depends on a host of factors.  With that, every unit has had variations in performance but overall it seems to me most like units have very similar capabilities light/light, heavy/heavy, and so forth.
> 
> I feel like the value comes more in diversity - as in similar units, similar missions, slight variations in culture, methodology, employment, etc.  Diversity in that sense, IMO, is valuable when you can objectively rate success/failure and then make adjustments - learn from success/mistakes of others.  I think we do that reasonably well inside our respective services but are unbelievably shitty at it between the services - for exactly what we're discussing here, the tribalism of our position of who is superior/elite all that jazz.



I agree with @Teufel in that by most objective measures the Marine Corps may not be "Elite".  He is right in that it is very much internally driven, but for a specific reason.

I agree with your last paragraph here, there is real value in being smaller, more easily deployed, but the real value is in the Marine air-ground task force. The Army can't do that, even with the Air Force. I mean, do they happen to take a squadron of CAS fixed wing with them all the time? That concept, the concept of maneuver Warfare, and the fact that they're floating within a few hours of most hotspots are what makes them different than everyone else. Which goes to a previous point of yours about no danger in being dissolved. The last half-century, that was not the case, but that has been a very real thing with the Marines, many times.  That's why they have to reinvent themselves, or add to their playbook every decade.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 9, 2017)

I can only speak to my experience and I am biased. The Marine infantry has always been raised to do more with less. We are a tenacious fighting force with a unique culture where the infantryman is seen across the Marine Corps as the focus of effort. This is not true in any other service. I also think that esprit de corps can be invaluable to maintain fighting spirit in challenging conditions. The Marine Corps doesn't have a monopoly on spirit but we do have a lot of it.


----------



## Florida173 (Oct 9, 2017)

Wars are fought at a Joint level. I don't believe units having everything organic to them makes them in anyway better.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 9, 2017)

Florida173 said:


> Wars are fought at a Joint level. I don't believe units having everything organic to them makes them in anyway better.



Marines aren't built to stay organic indefinitely; however, the organic nature of the MAGTF gives theater commanders an asset and capability that exists nowhere else.  Wars are fought at the joint level, but the other two dozen taskings a MAGTF or MEU have, are not, at least not within the first few weeks.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 9, 2017)

Florida173 said:


> Wars are fought at a Joint level. I don't believe units having everything organic to them makes them in anyway better.



This is true, although I would point out that we are far more joint at the operational level than the tactical. In any event I don't believe this thread was designed to spark an inter-service competition.

Keep in mind that the original poster grew up in a Marine Corps that existed before the creation of SOCOM. The Marine Corps infantry did some remarkable things in Vietnam. The Combined Action Platoons, for example, conducted a SOF mission with conventional infantry Marines and did it extremely well. Everyone's experience on this board is largely generational and I think it's important to keep that in mind on this thread in particular.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 9, 2017)

Thanks, @Teufel, honored, sir, you would say that about CAP. We lost more than our share of good Marines.

Yes, I'm extremely biased, that's why I started this thread with a major moto'd declaration of Marine badassness..._based on our combat history: _a pretty fair legacy of courage, honor and brutal killing and destruction against tenacious enemies that can't be denied. Certainly, there's no denying the Army can reference many hard won battles and glorious victories, too. I wasn't trying to start an Army/Marine pissing contest.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 9, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I agree with @Teufel in that by most objective measures the Marine Corps may not be "Elite".  He is right in that it is very much internally driven, but for a specific reason.
> 
> I agree with your last paragraph here, there is real value in being smaller, more easily deployed, but the real value is in the Marine air-ground task force. The Army can't do that, even with the Air Force. I mean, do they happen to take a squadron of CAS fixed wing with them all the time? That concept, the concept of maneuver Warfare, and the fact that they're floating within a few hours of most hotspots are what makes them different than everyone else. Which goes to a previous point of yours about no danger in being dissolved. The last half-century, that was not the case, but that has been a very real thing with the Marines, many times.  That's why they have to reinvent themselves, or add to their playbook every decade.



That seems like a reasonable hypothesis - organic air/ground task forces are superior to Joint integration of air/ground capabilities.  But, I can't think of any examples in the last 20 years where a Marine-pure unit out-fought or was better suited than an Army/Air Force element.  It seems like the sort of thing some SAMS folks would be all over - or even Joint planners in justifying the expense of each of the capabilities.

I don't have strong emotions about it.  I'm proud to be in the Army but no other services' accomplishments make me feel like serving in the Army is then less.  However, I think the case is an interesting one when the superiority of the USMC seems to be taken as gospel by a lot of folks - but doesn't seem to be born out by the way we actually fight wars.  I think @Florida173 is exactly right about the operational/strategic considerations by the Joint Staff on most conflicts.

I think @Teufel is absolutely right about differences in culture, mindset, and organization.  I'd just be curious on how one really measures what is the 'best' way to organize for ground combat - since there are such stark differences.  If the USMC really does it better - cheaper, more effective - why not shift the Army into doing it that way too?


----------



## Teufel (Oct 9, 2017)

I think that a lot of it has more to do with training and culture and less to do with organization. I would point to the extremely rigorous training and selection that infantry officers must undergo before they can lead Marines. I also understand that our infantry officers spend more time as platoon and company commanders than their peers in the Army. Most officers will get three years in a platoon and three as a company commander. I had six and five but I'm an exception to the rule. I think the Army would benefit from keeping their infantry officers in command longer. I think this investment up front has a ripple effect in the senior ranks. It worked wonders for Mattis, Dunford, and Kelly! I think General Miley also had a lot of command time. 

Also, keep in mind that the Army adopted a MAGTF like deployment model when it reorganized itself into the Brigade Combat Teams a few years into Operation Iraqi Freedom. I wouldn't say they copied it directly from us (like their digital uniforms) but I'm sure it wasn't unrelated. In any event the Marine Corps cannot function without the support of the other services. I'm not sure what we are arguing about. 

The Marine Corps has a phenomenal internal information operations campaign and you can see here how passionately Marines believe in our ethos. I can tell you from personal experience that it works. If these young Marines believe they are elite, who am I to tell them they are wrong!


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 9, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> That seems like a reasonable hypothesis - organic air/ground task forces are superior to Joint integration of air/ground capabilities.  But, I can't think of any examples in the last 20 years where a Marine-pure unit out-fought or was better suited than an Army/Air Force element.  It seems like the sort of thing some SAMS folks would be all over - or even Joint planners in justifying the expense of each of the capabilities.
> 
> I don't have strong emotions about it.  I'm proud to be in the Army but no other services' accomplishments make me feel like serving in the Army is then less.  However, I think the case is an interesting one when the superiority of the USMC seems to be taken as gospel by a lot of folks - but doesn't seem to be born out by the way we actually fight wars.  I think @Florida173 is exactly right about the operational/strategic considerations by the Joint Staff on most conflicts.
> 
> I think @Teufel is absolutely right about differences in culture, mindset, and organization.  I'd just be curious on how one really measures what is the 'best' way to organize for ground combat - since there are such stark differences.  If the USMC really does it better - cheaper, more effective - why not shift the Army into doing it that way too?



To your first paragraph, I agree.  I don't think it's an issue of 'out-fought' or 'better-suited,' at all.

To your second paragraph, any perception of superiority is downhill consequences of a massive and well-run PR campaign born out of WWII, when the Corps literally fought for its existence.  Problem is (for some), the Corps continued to perpetuate the mythos, and why not?  They do some things better, some things worse, almost all things differently.  You wanna see a microcosm of this very argument?  Let corpsmen and medics have a go at it.  But the Corps has the best PR team, historically with Madison Ave experience.

To your last paragraph, there is a _YUGE_ difference, in mindset, culture, and organization.  As previously mentioned, the whole do-more-with-less-look-at-us-always-underfunded argument plays well within the organization; it's like a rallying cry.  I certainly don't know the best metrics for measure 'best' either, and I am not sure that's the way to go.  Different, yes.  Best, maybe, maybe not, depends on the mission.  I don't know why the Army can't shift into that mindset, but one reason is that it can't think in terms of 'small' and 'flexible.'  I mean, how many bases does the Army have?  The Marines have essentially two major ones, Lejeune and Pendleton, and a handful of smaller ones.  The Army can't put it's forces to sea quickly without major planning and organization; it's just what the Marines do.  Lejeune and Pendleton are 30 minutes from a place to embark. 

To @Teufel's point, the internal information campaign is phenomenal.  Tell your people simultaneously you are underfunded and underloved and have to fighter harder than anyone while at the same time you are the best fighting force on the planet.  It's brilliant, and it works.

Whether the claim of the Marines being 'elite' is certainly debatable, most of the ammunitions for the claim comes from the history, the legend of the boot camp experience, and it's PR program.  Together they are pretty formidable wall to penetrate.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 9, 2017)

Teufel said:


> I think that a lot of it has more to do with training and culture and less to do with organization. I would point to the extremely rigorous training and selection that infantry officers must undergo before they can lead Marines. I also understand that our infantry officers spend more time as platoon and company commanders than their peers in the Army. Most officers will get three years in a platoon and three as a company commander. I had six and five but I'm an exception to the rule. I think the Army would benefit from keeping their infantry officers in command longer. I think this investment up front has a ripple effect in the senior ranks. It worked wonders for Mattis, Dunford, and Kelly! I think General Miley also had a lot of command time.
> 
> Also, keep in mind that the Army adopted a MAGTF like deployment model when it reorganized itself into the Brigade Combat Teams a few years into Operation Iraqi Freedom. I wouldn't say they copied it directly from us (like their digital uniforms) but I'm sure it wasn't unrelated. In any event the Marine Corps cannot function without the support of the other services. I'm not sure what we are arguing about.
> 
> The Marine Corps has a phenomenal internal information operations campaign and you can see here how passionately Marines believe in our ethos. I can tell you from personal experience that it works. If these young Marines believe they are elite, who am I to tell them they are wrong!



Yeah, I'm unsure on all that stuff - but it all sounds logical.  I think the Army should do a lot of stuff differently, many of them like the USMC (every-Marine-a-rifleman, more command time, greater emphasis on 'up-or-out', greater emphasis on standards, greater emphasis on the service as a team vs unit differences just to name a few).  However, I feel like in an increasingly Joint and resource-neutral force we should look at those assumptions very hard in an empirical manner.

An example would be USMA - not to start trashing on another sacred institution.  I don't think anyone can argue the resources put into a 2LT coming out of USMA is far superior to any other commissioning source - but especially the main one for the Army, ROTC.  However, is the average USMA 2LT superior to the average ROTC 2LT?  Probably, but the extremes at the top and bottom are similar.  Once they're CPTs there is almost no difference - and absolutely none at the field grade ranks.  So, is USMA the right investment when it's so much more resource-intensive than other methods for a similar result?  Is a cost-benefit ratio the right way to make those decisions?  Are there other benefits to service academies that transcend the commissioning process?

That's an example - not trying to hijack the thread.  I just think when we talk about elite and superior those are useful in pulling out lessons across the services.  But, if we're not empirical about what we're talking about we get lost in the emotions.  There are some that argue GEN Shinseki was trying to address some of the Army esprit issues with the introduction of the beret - trying to get after the cultural exclusiveness and discipline that the USMC has.  Clearly the beret didn't quite turn it around for us but I'd be interested if there are practical ways to incorporate 'best of breed' innovations or standards from each of the services.  Especially when you look at functions with the same mission across services - ground maneuver may not be the best place to start, maybe medical, logistics, signal, cyber, intelligence, etc. are better places.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 9, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Yeah, I'm unsure on all that stuff - but it all sounds logical.  I think the Army should do a lot of stuff differently, many of them like the USMC (every-Marine-a-rifleman, more command time, greater emphasis on 'up-or-out', greater emphasis on standards, greater emphasis on the service as a team vs unit differences just to name a few).  However, I feel like in an increasingly Joint and resource-neutral force we should look at those assumptions very hard in an empirical manner.
> 
> An example would be USMA - not to start trashing on another sacred institution.  I don't think anyone can argue the resources put into a 2LT coming out of USMA is far superior to any other commissioning source - but especially the main one for the Army, ROTC.  However, is the average USMA 2LT superior to the average ROTC 2LT?  Probably, but the extremes at the top and bottom are similar.  Once they're CPTs there is almost no difference - and absolutely none at the field grade ranks.  So, is USMA the right investment when it's so much more resource-intensive than other methods for a similar result?  Is a cost-benefit ratio the right way to make those decisions?  Are there other benefits to service academies that transcend the commissioning process?
> 
> That's an example - not trying to hijack the thread.  I just think when we talk about elite and superior those are useful in pulling out lessons across the services.  But, if we're not empirical about what we're talking about we get lost in the emotions.  There are some that argue GEN Shinseki was trying to address some of the Army esprit issues with the introduction of the beret - trying to get after the cultural exclusiveness and discipline that the USMC has.  Clearly the beret didn't quite turn it around for us but I'd be interested if there are practical ways to incorporate 'best of breed' innovations or standards from each of the services.  Especially when you look at functions with the same mission across services - ground maneuver may not be the best place to start, maybe medical, logistics, signal, cyber, intelligence, etc. are better places.


Honestly I think the joint force is most interested in our combat support because of capacity shortfalls in high demand/low density fields. The "every Marine a rifleman" ethos produces a unique kind of support Marine who is motivated, disciplined, and expeditionary.

I love the infantry but we can only do so much without more armor and mechanized vehicles in a high intensity conflict. I have argued before that the Marine Corps should drop our tank battalions and form partnerships with Army units similar to the Royal Marine model. The British Army has attached armor and cavalry units to the Royal Marines.


----------



## Serenity (Oct 9, 2017)

Well, I'm not biased.  I've always gotten the impression from my interactions with those who carried the title of Marine, carried it with pride and responsibility of what that meant.  At the very least, somebody did some brilliant motivational marketing.  I'm not talking down on the other branches, I just wanted to share my own outsider point of view.  It's only since being here that I've learned more about the Army.  But I still have to think, when someone yells,"Don't embarrass us, you're a soldier!!" it doesn't have quite the same effect as "Don't embarrass us, you're a Marine!!" 

It's that strong sense of identity across all levels that is something very special, even if it's not 'elite' by everyone's standards.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 9, 2017)

I'm gratified to see this thread has generated such a learned discussion from our career officers. Marines get plenty of Corps history in the pipeline, we're told we're the best, it's hammered into us until we start to believe it. In the words of my SDI: "Marines can do anything but put wheels on a miscarriage or sew the crack of dawn shut."

The emphasis is on instant obedience to orders, aggressivenes, teamwork, and building unquestionable confidence in our ability to adapt, improvise and overcome any challenge.

Even if we're not "elite" by definition the belief that we are has helped carry us through many a tough fight.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 9, 2017)

Teufel said:


> Honestly I think the joint force is most interested in our combat support because of capacity shortfalls in high demand/low density fields. The "every Marine a rifleman" ethos produces a unique kind of support Marine who is motivated, disciplined, and expeditionary.
> 
> I love the infantry but we can only do so much without more armor and mechanized vehicles in a high intensity conflict. I have argued before that the Marine Corps should drop our tank battalions and form partnerships with Army units similar to the Royal Marine model. The British Army has attached armor and cavalry units to the Royal Marines.



I've always thought it was speed and versatility.  A MAGTF can be moving with a wide-array of capabilities in a very short time.  It's interesting though because the GCCs most frequently have the say on what capability they want - so aren't necessarily looking at it the same way as the joint staff.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 9, 2017)

I've always liked Marines, in this pissing contest, I think the idea is can you develop an elite infantry model that can be established over time that is larger than a Brigade sized element.  Or even a battalion sized element.  When I was an augment OC at NTC I was on Spartan Team  (SOC OCs), there was some issue after having trained Ranger Regiment OC/Ts they still needed OC/Ts on the ground that were directly responsible to the COG.  So they threw the team together.

During that time I did not see the 3rd RGR BN do a full battalion movement, but I followed a company over a long period of time and the amount of resources dedicated to a Ranger Company is immense.  The amount of gun time, and maneuver time, and Lift dedicated to training for an NTC or JRTC rotation but doesn't even build to a deployment is well over what was dedicated to entire brigades in 1AD.

Regular army units are stuck with Red Cycle, White Cycle, SGM Details that never end.

When it comes to Esprit De Corps, I don't think the Corps has reinvented itself.  It has stayed on Message with Violence, the ads are the same, slogans are the same, dress uniforms are the same, they still drill well on parade field.  

The Army changes it's slogan every day and every new SMA is mucking around with uniforms.  All of that leads into the tip of the spear.


----------



## Muppet (Oct 9, 2017)

I am biased, being a former medic for Airborne Infantry. I loved my time there and most of the brothers were motivated hard dicks. With that said, I personally saw Infantry Marines when we jumped into Lejeune one year and they seemed hard as fuck, squared away, especially when we had grub. The amount of crayons and elmers glue consumed was staggering! 

M.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 9, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> When it comes to Esprit De Corps, I don't think the Corps has reinvented itself.  It has stayed on Message with Violence, the ads are the same, slogans are the same, dress uniforms are the same, they still drill well on parade field.



With regard to Esprit de Corps and image, no, the Corps has not reinvented itself.  As far as missions, they have had to.  Not too many amphibious assaults going on these days.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 9, 2017)

Muppet said:


> I am biased, being a former medic for Airborne Infantry. I loved my time there and most of the brothers were motivated hard dicks. With that said, I personally saw Infantry Marines when we jumped into Lejeune one year and they seemed hard as fuck, squared away, especially when we had grub. The amount of crayons and elmers glue consumed was staggering!
> 
> M.



Jump out of plane. Eat krayon with mureen.


----------



## Muppet (Oct 9, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Jump out of plane. Eat krayon with mureen.


LMFAO!

M.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 10, 2017)

Y'know, now that you mention it, @Muppet, I'd probably equate Marine infantry on par with Airborne troops. Obviously we go in heavier, but man for man, rifle to rifle I think the two are made from much of the same clay. Except for the jumping out of perfectly functional aircraft part.

My Bn spent several months deployed with 82nd guys down at Homestead where we tried to out badass each other every day and nobody stayed King of the Mountain for long. Like I said, a lot of similarities re motivation, self confidence & fighting skills.


----------



## Bob Westermann (Oct 17, 2017)

I think instead of dick measuring contests of physical training, one should contemplate the customs and more importantly, the words. Letherneks and bootnecks. Eternally at odds? Or best frenimies.

As for you spitfire that’s pretty homosocial, posting that UK article unsolicited. Erotic, even. DADT’s been repealed, I suppose. I’m aware that both NZ and the United States broadcast medical advertising, yet not of watershed moments and your nations relation to the crown.

Perhaps you can enlighten me? Go All Blacks.


----------



## Bob Westermann (Oct 17, 2017)

Ooh rah, motivator! Badass rolling, or badass like how much c4 can you expend as coffee warmer?
Both probably. Respect to the Screaming Eagles! And the one oh one et al


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 17, 2017)

Bob Black said:


> I think instead of dick measuring contests of physical training, one should contemplate the customs and more importantly, the words. Letherneks and bootnecks. Eternally at odds? Or best frenimies.
> 
> As for you spitfire that’s pretty homosocial, posting that UK article unsolicited. Erotic, even. DADT’s been repealed, I suppose. I’m aware that both NZ and the United States broadcast medical advertising, yet not of watershed moments and your nations relation to the crown.
> 
> Perhaps you can enlighten me? Go All Blacks.



The Royal Marines had already been discussed. The rest of your post is a nonsense.


----------



## Bob Westermann (Oct 17, 2017)

I’m new to forums. Thank you for the instruction. Don’t confuse elegance with nonsense


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 17, 2017)

Bob Black said:


> I’m new to forums. Thank you for the instruction. Don’t confuse elegance with nonsense



I'll try not to confuse confidence with arrogance while I'm here then, yes?


----------



## Kakashi66223 (Oct 17, 2017)

I loved every day as a Marine, still somewhat tickled thinking about it. I was at an appointment at the VA was on my way visiting AW2 saw a Korean era man coming down the hall cutting up being loud turned to his nurse pushing his wheel chair "I was a Marine. Fought in Korea. How I managed to make it this far, I dunno." What he was told I didn't hear. He was being pushed into Lab area.

Thought to myself, because God didn't say you could die yet. That's what I would have wanted to hear.

Others I've seen or heard tell their wives in profound amazement "I was a Marine, served _____ did _____." 
Semper Fidelis. The few, the proud..


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 17, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I'll try not to confuse confidence with arrogance while I'm here then, yes?





Bob Black said:


> I’m new to forums. Thank you for the instruction. Don’t confuse elegance with nonsense



Good morning @Bob Black , I don't even have my first cup of coffee injected yet and I'm drawn to your post.  One problem with the internet (among many) is that until someone gets to know someone a bit, it is difficult to tell if they are being slyly sarcastic or trying to come across as a bit of a dick. 

At this point either one is fine with me, but since your post gave me pause, I thought I'd point that out before it escalated into something you did not intend.

If you haven't yet, check out this post.  A Protocol Primer for ShadowSpear
Highly recommended reading for all; and especially the recent group of new members who have joined.

No response needed or required - just a friendly observation.


----------



## Bob Westermann (Oct 17, 2017)

yes. :) that’s the first emoji I’ve used in years, I’m trying to follow the advice given by the site. No hard feeling. It’s rudimentary but I’m just now contemplating Poe’s law


----------



## Topkick (Oct 17, 2017)

Teufel said:


> Superior in that no active duty Marine infantry officer has pledged allegiance to a faceless communist cabal to destroy our nation?
> 
> My point was that we claim that we are elite but personally I think that's internal propaganda. I do believe that the Marine Corps infantry is a unique organization in several very positive ways. The Army had several excellent infantry divisions, but you can't tell me that 3rd ID is equal to 10th Mountain or the 82nd Airborne. Marine Corps infantry units vary in quality somewhat (in direct proportion to the quality of their commanders) but they are largely all the same. It helps to be a small agile force.



The 10th, 82nd, and 3rd have an entirely different METL. The 3rd ID is a great division, very good at what they do. They can do what the 82nd can't, vice versa. Can't compare.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 18, 2017)

Why don't ya'll just admit it. You hide yer wimin and yer likker when a Marine walks in the room.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 18, 2017)

I'd also hide the cat, the dog, socks, the vegemite...the list is endless!


----------



## Gunz (Oct 23, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I'd also hide the cat, the dog, socks, the vegemite...the list is endless!




Don't forget the crayons. Burnt Sienna with a side of Magenta.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 23, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Don't forget the crayons. Burnt Sienna with a side of Magenta.



We have a new guy with my workout group, a former C-130 navigator, a Marine.  I was joking with him about his favorite Crayola flavor, he thought is was funny.  The other guys thought I was being downright abusive and mean.


----------



## reed11b (Oct 29, 2017)

Bob Westermann said:


> I think instead of dick measuring contests of physical training, one should contemplate the customs and more importantly, the words. Letherneks and bootnecks. Eternally at odds? Or best frenimies.
> 
> As for you spitfire that’s pretty homosocial, posting that UK article unsolicited. Erotic, even. DADT’s been repealed, I suppose. I’m aware that both NZ and the United States broadcast medical advertising, yet not of watershed moments and your nations relation to the crown.
> 
> Perhaps you can enlighten me? Go All Blacks.


WTF did I just read? And I was just about to say nice things about Marines.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 30, 2017)

reed11b said:


> WTF did I just read? And I was just about to say nice things about Marines.



The mods have attended to that post. We don't all eat from the same crayon box, unfortunately.


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 31, 2017)

I didn't want to create a new thread for this so I figured this was the best place to plop it.  

War stories

The first Ted Talk in this play list is by Thomas Barnett called, "Let's Rethink America's Military Strategy."  

He raises several interesting points in this, however if you skip to the second half, he talks about creating two different forces, one a department of war and one of something else. Especially important in his point is the DOD currently tasks its infantrymen to do two (2) things, humanitarian assistance and then flip a switch and destroy the enemy. Those are two vastly different mission sets, yet for as long as I can remember, we ask our grunts to win their hearts and minds. Is that the job though of an infantryman? As he says around 20:00, let the Marines be Marines and kill the people who shoot at the other force As he says, "it keeps us from becoming a pussy force." Would Joe become more elite by not being tasked to conduct such a mission? I believe so, but at what cost? Can we scale down the size of the 03 and 11 force in order to fill in that "new" area and still be ready to protect America and our allies with whatever the world may throw at us? I am curious for the input of others on this.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 31, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> I didn't want to create a new thread for this so I figured this was the best place to plop it.
> 
> War stories
> 
> ...



It's a variation of Charles Krulak's "Three Block War" that all Marines (and soldiers) end up working:  warfighting, peacekeeping, and humanitarian operations all within three blocks, from one spectrum seemless to another.  Because these asymmetrical threats can flare up and down so fast, I am not sure a different 'force' would be beneficial.  It's easier for the hammer to ramp down to hand out MREs than the peacekeeping/humanitarian force to ramp up to become a hammer.  But there's a lot of room for error, misuse, and square-pegs-in-round-holes.

But it's not just the US grappling with that paradigm shift.  Our esteemed Brethren to the north have also wrestled with it, as articulated in this journal article:

The Rise and Demise of the “Three Block War”


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 1, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> It's a variation of Charles Krulak's "Three Block War" that all Marines (and soldiers) end up working:  warfighting, peacekeeping, and humanitarian operations all within three blocks, from one spectrum seemless to another.  Because these asymmetrical threats can flare up and down so fast, I am not sure a different 'force' would be beneficial.  It's easier for the hammer to ramp down to hand out MREs than the peacekeeping/humanitarian force to ramp up to become a hammer.  But there's a lot of room for error, misuse, and square-pegs-in-round-holes.
> 
> But it's not just the US grappling with that paradigm shift.  Our esteemed Brethren to the north have also wrestled with it, as articulated in this journal article:
> 
> The Rise and Demise of the “Three Block War”




Great link!!


----------

