An Elite Infantry

[Devildoc]

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]

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]

.... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Devildoc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.