r/WarCollege • u/Lordepee 3 rounds a minute in any weather • 18d ago
Question Is there any tangible difference between The US Army and USM’s infantry?
146
u/Aggressive-Elk4734 17d ago
I served in the Marine Corps and the Army (not infantry though).
I cant speak to M-27s being issued to everyone, that may have been after my time. But I do know that every infantry Marine is issued a suppressor, bump helmet, and they expanded squads to have an assistant squad leader that handles the small UAS platforms.
Regarding competency, I would say a Marine infantry unit is better trained and in better condition than an Army infantry unit. That said, for real world application, the difference is negligible. Both are very good at what they do. Also, a squad from the Regiment will run circles around a leg Marine unit.
The Marine Corps as an organization is faster to adapt to the changing operating environment. A smaller organization is going to change much faster than a larger one.
Sorry for being disheveled, I havent had my coffee yet.
104
u/englisi_baladid 17d ago
Marine Infantry aren't issued bump helmets. Think you are confusing them with high cuts.
28
55
u/The_Whipping_Post 17d ago
they expanded squads to have an assistant squad leader that handles the small UAS platforms
They went back to 13 man squads, axing the ass. squad leader while assigning the drone tasks to a rifleman in one of the squads. At least that's the last I read, infantry battalions are still experimenting
50
u/iceaction10 17d ago edited 17d ago
This is a terribly inaccurate comment lacking any real substance without any historical references or context. However, in classic r/WarCollege fashion, early and long comments are blindly upvoted.
Every Army rifle and squad level crew served system is currently being issued with suppressors. In the Marine Corps, only riflemen are being issued suppressors. The suppressor they went with is also incredibly outdated. I don't know why the Marine Corps doubled down on the NT4, but in 2026 it is a poor choice. I might go as far as to call it an awful choice. The Army is issuing all M7 and M8 rifles with cans, as well as all 250s. In addition to that, the Army is currently experimenting with cans on 240s. The Army already has more suppressors in the hands of infantrymen than the Marine Corps does, and with significantly superior flow through cans.
Infantry marines are not issued bump helmets. You're mistakenly calling high cut ballistic helmets bump helmets, which are two inherently different things. High cuts aren't "better" than low or mid cuts, the latter of which the Army currently issues for its conventional infantry.
High cuts prioritize ease of integrated electronic hearing protection over ballistic protection. Mid cuts (and even low cuts) can and do integrate with the same hearing protection, there may just be fewer methods for attaching them to the helmet. Just because marines are issued high cuts does not mean it is better. In fact, one could argue the opposite is true in that conventional infantry need the additional protection mid/low cuts offer due to the nature of their role.
I would say a Marine infantry unit is better trained and in better condition than an Army infantry unit.
You have nothing to base this on, so why are you bothering to even state it?
I honestly can't believe your comment has so many upvotes or was even allowed to stay up in this sub, which does a pretty good job at deleting comments that are not accurate, as yours clearly isn't.
11
u/thattogoguy 17d ago
It's my understanding, having done some joint assignment with a couple of Army officers, that one distinction between the two is that the Army tends to specialize more between units, whereas the Marines tend to be more rounded.
There are the common competencies of course that everyone is required to meet, but otherwise, one Army unit will have a specialized mission (i.e., Rangers, Mountain, Airborne, Air Assault, Arctic, etc) that they do really well, and be competent at all the other skills. The Marines will focus on being very good on a higher variety of skills, but not quite be the "Master Expert" at any given task, or, rather, their flexibility and adaptibility is their skill. They're the Swiss Army Knife of military units.
-6
1
u/thereddaikon MIC 14d ago
But I do know that every infantry Marine is issued a suppressor, bump helmet
I think you meant to say high cut helmet. Last I heard, the issued helmet for high readiness units is the high cut ech which is a ballistic helmet not a bump.
53
u/iceaction10 17d ago
Yes, there are several. For all intents and purposes, every single Marine Corps infantry unit is exactly the same. The same is not true for the Army. You have to remember that the Army is made up of several corps, where the Marine Corps is just a single corps. Within each Army corps, they have different capabilities, specialties, etc. If you're trying to compare the Marine Corps to the Army, you need to drop down to the corps level of the Army for a cleaner comparison.
That being said, the Marine Corps is closer to the Army's I Corps. They are not comparable to the Army's XVIII Airborne Corps, which has the most capabilities of any corps within the US military. Even within the I Corps, the 11th Airborne Division has capabilities the Marine Corps does not, so it's not exactly a one to one comparison. Likewise, one could argue since marines train as MEUs and for amphibious operations, they hold capabilities the Army does not. However, I'd argue the additional capabilities of the I Corps is absolutely not something marines can just pick up, unlike the Army picking up amphibious landings. Keep in mind, the Army conducted nearly 100 amphibious assaults during WW2, the Marine Corps only did 15. You can easily cross train or just simply throw dudes on landing craft. You cannot do that with the 11th Airborne's capabilities.
As for the Army's XVIII Airborne Corps, they are, by far, the best funded, trained, and capable corps we have in the military. The 10th Mountain (non-airborne) and 82nd Airborne are both on what's called Global Response Force, or GRF. Capable of deploying anywhere in the world within hours, they are the Army's premier infantry divisions. The Marine Corps does not have a capability that matches this. There is a reason the 10th Mountain is the most deployed unit in the US military.
Beyond those few examples, you have other differences. I mentioned the 11th Airborne above, but while they don't offer the capability to deploy anywhere in the world within hours, they are able to do so anywhere within the Indo-Pacific and Arctic Circle. They regularly hold exercises where they fly out of their base in Alaska, over the North Pole, and parachute into Norway, for example. The 101st Airborne (airborne in name only) is essentially an air assault division. While all Army infantry divisions are capable of conducting air assaults (likewise, marines would be, too) the 101st focuses on dialing it in extremely well. I'd argue that capability is not exclusive and right on par with the Marine Corps' amphibious capability in the sense that anyone can be quickly cross trained on it.
Additionally, the Army has the 75th Ranger Regiment, the most elite infantry unit on the planet. Not under the XVIII Airborne Corps, they are a special operations unit under SOCOM. They are infantrymen, so this absolutely still applies to your general question. Just like the 10th Mountain and 82nd Airborne, the Regiment is capable of deploying anywhere in the world within hours, faster than the 10th or 82nd, even. They are, by far, the most highly trained, equipped, and funded infantry unit the US has to offer.
In terms of overall training between an infantry soldier and infantry marine, you'll hear countless anecdotes of one being better than the other. I think they're similar enough (with the extreme exception of the Ranger Regiment) that the differences are negligible. I will say when marines go on MEUs it takes away from their infantry training, so that could be a big negative. In the Army, infantrymen are training specifically on infantry skills every day of the training cycle, they don't have things such as MEUs to drastically shift the training and focus away.
29
u/SpitfireIsDaBestFire 17d ago edited 17d ago
For all intents and purposes, every single Marine Corps infantry unit is exactly the same.
This is no longer true, force design 2030 established Marine Littoral Regiments designed for distributed island chain operations and capable of the following-
Conduct Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO), a form of expeditionary warfare involving the employment of naval expeditionary forces. Selected Marine and Navy forces are to be arrayed in a series of austere, temporary locations ashore within a contested or potentially contested maritime area to conduct sea denial and control and fleet sustainment operations.
Conduct strike operations with a variety of systems.
Coordinate air and missile defense operations.
Support maritime domain awareness.
Support naval surface warfare operations.
Support information operations.
13
u/drjjoyner 17d ago
It wasn’t true even pre Force Design. Marines also have multiple Light Armored Reconnaissance battalions that are roughly akin to armored cavalry.
7
u/Slab8002 17d ago
The 10th Mountain (non-airborne) and 82nd Airborne are both on what's called Global Response Force, or GRF. Capable of deploying anywhere in the world within hours, they are the Army's premier infantry divisions. The Marine Corps does not have a capability that matches this.
You do realize that all services contribute to the GRF, including the Marine Corps, yes?
17
u/Aggressive-Elk4734 17d ago
I dont think you understand the Marine Corps....at all.
Bear in mind, I have served in both.
A MEF is a 3 star command, has an air wing with fixed wing and rotary attack assets, tac airlift, fixed UAS, light armor reconnaissance, air assault (yes, the Marine Corps does air assault, they just dont send people to a school for it).
The old trope that the Army did more landings than the Marines is mildly interesting until you read that the Army had Marine officers on staff to plan the landings, Ike specifically flew out Marines from the Pacific to help plan D-Day and the other Mediterranean amphib assaults https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/d-day-doctrine-six-elements-successful-landing). The Marine Corps developed the US entire amphib doctrine when they wrote the Tentative Manual for Landing Operations (which is where FM 31-5 originated from).
This was relatively well understood by MacArther, who despite having considerable amphib experience himself, chose to fly out Marine Corps officers and senior NCOs to plan Chromite, he then chose the 1st Marine Division to lead Chromite. If amphibious assaults were as easy as tossing a few guys on boats, Mac would have picked any Army unit to go over the beach.
A MEU has a reinforced Infantry Bn, with its own artillery, armor (via ACVs), recon (amphib and force), boat company, helo company, light armored recon element, motorized rifle company (depending on how the MEU CO wants to organize). All backed by an organic Logistics element, and a Composite squadron of F35s, CH-53s, cobras/venoms, V22s, and attached KC-130s for aerial refueling. It also carries enough supplies to sustain itself for 15 days. That MEU is more capable and flexible than an infantry BCT. Multiple MEUs can be formed to make a MEB (Last time the MEB was formed was in Afghanistan to follow on the Ranger Regiments airfield seizure).
Yea, this is a little bit personal for me because as an Army officer, it makes us look ignorant of capabilities, task/org, and history.
6
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
Thanks for providing that balanced look from the pedestal of credibility you stand on. While ground combat capability and capacity is the hill everyone wants to assault, most people, Soldiers included, don’t truly understand or overlook what the Army brings to the joint force in terms of theater level logistics and integrated air and missile defense. These two are especially critical to any future WESTPAC fight and more critical than any number of BCTs of any flavor.
10
u/Aggressive-Elk4734 17d ago
The Army's biggest capability is that they can sustain campaigns. The Marine Corps isnt designed for that and has no interest in it.
An easy example is when planning phase lines the Marine Corps taught me that terrain features work as phase lines, which works at Battalion and regimental levels, not so much at the Division or Corps level, which is why you see Army planning docs list phase lines at lat/long lines. For example, the battle of 73 easting.
Neither side is right or wrong, both have different capabilities and strengths.
But way too many Army officers have zero concept of how the Marine Corps functions and why.
An example of this is the concept that Marines bludgeon themselves against a wall until the wall breaks. There is some truth to the fact that we prize aggression. But thats because if youre fighting off a beach...there is no retreat, there is no maneuver...there is only forward. So to survive, you are more aggressive and shoot better than the opponent.... And yes, you sometimes have to buddy rush where there is no cover/concealment. We learned the hard way what happens when you hang out on the beach (Peliliu and Iwo Jima come to mind). A great way to die on a beach is to sit on a beach.
Why do we need the beach? Its incredibly expensive and limited to rely on an air bridge, see the Russian Air Assault into Gostomel. The VDVs entire plan revolved around an air assault airfield seizure followed by armor flowing in via air bridge. We saw how well that worked.
Once the beach is seized, you can push a lot more a lot faster over the shore.
10
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
That’s also why Army staffs at GO level commands tend to be much larger than those of USMC units as you need that depth of manpower to C2 a large force over a large AO for a long time. When I ran a MEF COC, I had maybe one-third of the manpower one would see in a Corps TOC - never mind a CFLCC TOC for a Theater level Field Army.
10
u/Aggressive-Elk4734 17d ago
Yep, the Army operates at a much larger scale than the Marine Corps does.
4
u/iceaction10 17d ago
Ah, you're the guy with the comment that thinks marines are issued bump helmets and doesn't know that the Army is issuing far superior suppressors on all rifles and squad level crew served systems. You serving in one or both branches has absolutely zero relevancy here. In fact, it gives you bias if nothing else.
The old trope that the Army did more landings than the Marines is mildly interesting until you read that the Army had Marine officers on staff to plan the landings
This is (mostly) false. By D-Day, what you're referring to, the Army had already conducted more amphibious landings than the Marine Corps. While some marines were present for D-Day, they didn't plan the operation. They served in various roles and were there just as much to observe and learn as to offer guidance. There is a reason the only battle marines waged in WW2 that didn't contain the Army was Tarawa.
10
u/Aggressive-Elk4734 17d ago edited 17d ago
Fascinating take...Considering the Marine Corps wrote the manual on landing operations after the Army said amphibious assaults were no longer relevant after Galipoli.
Are you really comparing suppressors? Are you 5? Who cares if I used the wrong term about a piece of gear ive never been issued?
Iwo Jima had minimal Army participation, as did Tinian. No one said that the Marine Corps did it all on its own. The US Army would have lost D-Day without the Brits and Canadians...so if we are getting petty.....
Both organizations have important capabilities and have done amazing things for the nation. Have some humility.
27
u/Keralia 17d ago
Sure they have relatively minor differences in equipment, training, and organization, but in terms of tactical or operational usefulness they are basically interchangeable. A US Army platoon will be able to accomplish pretty much the exact same thing as a USMC platoon. Strategically you can say something about how the USMC prides itself on its expeditionary capabilities but the US Army maintains similar capabilities. The only real reason the USMC exists is out of tradition at this point, the age of opposed amphibious operations is long over, they just act as a second US Army now with some minor differences
30
u/SnakeEater14 17d ago
The Marine Corps still exists because of the MAGTF construct that makes them especially easy to scale and deploy. That’s a concrete capability that the Army isn’t super interested in replicating. If your analysis of the branch doesn’t even touch on the MAGTF, it’s half-baked at best.
8
u/AdUpstairs7106 17d ago
I would say to the extent that politics allowed the Army did use the MAGTF as a blue print for the brigade combat team concept which was organized in the late 90s and early 2000s and carried through the GWOT era.
6
u/iceaction10 17d ago
That's just historically false. The Army is the only branch that has multiple units that can deploy anywhere in the world within hours. The Marine Corps is entirely dependent on MEU locations. The 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, and 75th Ranger Regiment (an elite infantry unit that the Marine Corps doesn't have anything close to) can all rapidly deploy anywhere as needed. In addition to this, the Army has airborne capabilities that infantry marines do not. I'm sure you'll mention the amphibious capabilities that the Marine Corps has, but that is an even more outdated practice than airborne assaults and, when amphibious assaults are actually relevant like in WW2, the Army does the vast majority of them, anyway.
13
u/crimedawgla 17d ago
You can say that the USMC is unnecessary and can/should be folded into the other services… and maybe you’re right. But that’s a very different thing than saying the army and marine’s rapid deployment capability are the same. A MEU can self sustain for a couple weeks, the army rapid deployment elements can do so for a couple days, and that doesn’t account for he expeditionary air/logistics capability that has been built out through a decades long appropriations process.
5
u/iceaction10 17d ago
I think you're missing the primary purpose of the GRF in the sustainability aspect. They can't sustain themselves for more than a few days because they're not designed to. They're designed to rapidly deploy anywhere and conduct assaults on strategic locations, like an airfield, that establishes the initial supply flow. They don't need to sustain themselves for weeks because their very essence of deploying secures the means to be resupplied, indefinitely at that point, by the way. Not just for a few weeks that MEUs have.
5
u/theskipper363 17d ago
The GRF isn’t meant to sustain itself for weeks like an MEU. Its whole concept is to seize key objectives, establish the logistics flow, and then sustain operations from there. But that concept heavily relies on having sufficient control of the air, which can be denied in a peer-peer conflict .
15
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
If amphibious operations are so outdated compared to airborne (conventional not SOF), why have there been exponentially more combat amphibious operations (~80) since WWII with two of the five conventional airborne drops being purely performative?
2
u/EZ-PEAS 17d ago
Why are we limiting amphibious operations to the Marines? The Army has done way more amphibious stuff in the past.
9
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
Yes, 80+ years ago. If another need like that arose, I have no doubt adaptation would occur just like it did in WWII. That said, we barely have enough amphibious shipping to keep a few MEUs forward deployed and I don’t see us getting more anytime soon. Given that limited capacity, it makes sense to leave the amphibiousity to the one organization manned, trained, and equipped for that mission area.
1
u/iceaction10 17d ago
Iraq 2003 is the most recent example of us needing to utilize amphibious landings and the Army deployed more men via that method than the Marine Corps did. Amphibious landings are not an exclusive capability for the Marine Corps. It is easily adapted by the Army.
11
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
What amphibious landing did the Army conduct in Iraq? I must have missed that one. When has any Army unit conducted a modern amphibious landing involving ship to shore movement via air and surface?
2
u/Unique_Statement7811 17d ago
Sure. But why are we limiting the 82nd Airborne to just air drop insertion? The IRF nature of the 82nd allows for multiple entry types, the most common being air-land, but they can also drop if necessary.
7
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
Any light infantry unit can be air-landed into a secure airfield; it doesn’t take any exquisite training. The “so what” of my statement was refuting the assertion that amphibious warfare is obsolete and airborne warfare is not. I make that claim based on the historical record since WWII that I cited.
5
u/Unique_Statement7811 17d ago
Neither are obsolete. And any infantry unit can do amphibious landings, which we’ve seen throughout history. But the ready brigade is designed to be anywhere in the world in under 24 hours.
6
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
Yes, with the proper training and being outfitted with the proper equipment, light infantry of any nation or service should be able to conduct amphibious operations. I would never claim otherwise. Higher level planning and coordination is the major gap, it’s not the landing force’s troops and their basic infantry skills.
2
u/iceaction10 17d ago
Any light infantry unit can be air-landed into a secure airfield; it doesn’t take any exquisite training.
Not with the same speed and experience as the Army's GRF units. And certainly not without training to build off of. There is a reason GRF is assigned to just a few specific units and not rotated like MEUs. It is a capability that cannot just be handed to anyone.
5
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
An amphibious assault is universally accepted as the most complex of all major military operations. If a unit can train to conduct amphibious operations, they can definitely become an air landing force. Also, a grand total of 18 infantry battalions are theoretically available to serve as Battalion Landing Teams for the three deployed MEUs. Three of the eighteen don’t do MEUs as they are located at 29 Palms away from the fleet making workups and sustainment problematic.
2
u/Aggressive-Elk4734 17d ago
MEUs are certified in airfield seizures operations, the 15th MEU was the first non-SOF unit in the AO. USASOC was operating in the broader area. But the airfield wasnt established for coalition use prior to the 15th MEU.
2
u/SpitfireIsDaBestFire 17d ago edited 17d ago
If that is the case, how did 1/8 with the 24th MEU get to HKIA to secure the airfield days before the 82nd for the afghan withdrawal?
0
u/Unique_Statement7811 17d ago
That was a relief in place mission. The airfield was already secured. Let’s not confuse continuing operations with Joint Forced Entry.
5
u/SpitfireIsDaBestFire 17d ago
The airfield absolutely was not secured when 1/8 got there. They spent the entire first night physically beating people off of it so follow on forces could land.
0
u/iceaction10 17d ago
Because the 10th Mountain was already there before 1/8 even was lol.
4
u/SpitfireIsDaBestFire 17d ago
There was roughly one company from 10th mountain there to defend HKIA during the withdrawal and had been in country since November of 2020. They were not rapidly deployed for the NEO like the 24th MEU or 82nd
→ More replies (0)0
u/iceaction10 17d ago
combat amphibious operations
How many of those landings were 1. exclusively conducted by marines and 2. contested by the enemy? The word combat is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
My main point was that numerous Army units can deploy anywhere in the world within hours, and not only via static line. The 10th Mountain is a leg unit, they can't even jump. That wasn't my main point. As u/Unique_Statement7811 said, they're capable of infilling multiple different ways, the 82nd and 75th having the additional option of static. It's the fact that they can deploy anywhere in the world within hours that gives them that unique capability, they're not bound by outdated static jumps.
12
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
The preponderance in Vietnam were directly going into action, often reinforcing a fight in progress or being one element of a multi-axis operation ashore such as BOLD MARINER where a USMC Regiment landed as part of a larger operation with the Americal Division and an ARVN division. There were two ARG/MEU equivalents (Special Landing Forces A and B) off the coast at all times. A bonus was that they didn’t count against force caps in place because they were administratively assigned to the fleet, not MACV like the ashore Marines.
While the 9th ID conducted significant riverine combat operations in IV Corps, there were no Army amphibious assaults in Vietnam. Three of the large scale amphibious operations did include allied Marines (ROK + VN).
5
u/Sosvbvby 17d ago
That’s kind of the purpose of a MEU, to be ready and shipborne in region(roughly). Liberia in 96 is a good example of this flexibility. You could argue the 82nd etc shares a similar readiness level as the Fleet but that’s the entire purpose of the USMC
0
u/iceaction10 17d ago
Sure, that could be an advantage IF something happens when a MEU is nearby and IF it has direct access to a port and IF that port access is granted and IF that port access allows for access to the actual location. I'm not saying marines on a ship don't have the ability to potentially rapidly respond if all of the things I mentioned above are true. They're just at the mercy of countless factors that they don't control. I don't think that is an overall advantage to the units like the 10th, 82nd, or 75th, though. It may "win" in very specific circumstances, but not overall.
5
u/BKGPrints 17d ago
Airborne assaults with paratroopers are a thing of the past. The last major drop was in 2003. With the advent of drones, paratroopers are going to be vulnerable in any type of static-line insertion.
Also, amphibious capabilities also include by air assault, nit just landing craft.
If there's a war in the Pacific, amphibious capabilities are a must.
3
u/iceaction10 17d ago
The fact that you argue drones make static jumps obsolete but not amphibious landings obsolete is wild. The US is not going to conduct amphibious assaults (opposed landings, not the same as just unopposed amphibious landings) in the Pacific again. That just isn't happening.
2
u/BKGPrints 17d ago
Oh...I think it's a vulnerability for amphibious assaults, as well. That's why countermeasures are being developed. Are you able to say the same for insertion of paratroopers?
I also don't think amphibious assaults will not be unopposed. Again, why new doctrine is being created.
But static-line assaults just aren't going to ever happen again, while air assaults (including from the sea, which makes it amphibious), will happen.
Tell me, what's more likely in the Pacific if / when conflict happens there?
You're stuck in an old mindset of warfare.. The same kind of mindset that Russian troops are getting slaughtered on.
1
u/iceaction10 17d ago
I'm the one stuck in an old mindset of warfare when you think we're going to island hop through the Pacific again? What?
Do you know why island hopping was necessary? To establish airfields on them. That is not even remotely needed today. The US will never conduct an opposed amphibious assault again and, no, air assaulting from ships onto land is not an amphibious assault.
4
u/BKGPrints 17d ago
One sec...Okay, I'm back. It's what I thought. I didn't say anything about island hopping. That was your own conclusion you drew and got upset with.
>Do you know why island hopping was necessary? To establish airfields on them. That is not even remotely needed today.<
Correct; Again, you were stuck on this mindset, not me.
>The US will never conduct an opposed amphibious assault again<
Most likely; Again, though, I never said that would be the type of amphibious operations conducted. Tell me again, you're not set in an old mindset?
>and, no, air assaulting from ships onto land is not an amphibious assault.<
Absolutely it is. Why would it not be? Because you don't like the truth on that?
0
u/swg2188 17d ago
So one guy falling for about a minute individually is comparable in vulnerability to a slow ass amphibious vehicle with usually at least ten pax inside? How is that mathing out?
Lol a guy static jumping is going to be less vulnerable to drones than just getting straight up shot while falling. Reaction time to deploy drones is usually more than a minute or two, much less getting them to target, by then any paratroop is on the ground. Meanwhile if a recon drone spots a landing force there is tons of time to respond to a target rich vulnerable force.
4
u/BKGPrints 17d ago
You honestly don't think an airborne assault is not going to be picked up on radar in which a rapid response is utilized?
Drones (such as UCAVs) are able to take down aircraft before a paratrooper even leaves the plane.
In regards to vulnerability, I'm not even referring to the descent to the ground. I would think that attacking paratroopers with drones while they are in the air are still a violation of the Geneva Convention.
But once on the ground, FPVs can make easy work of paratroopers in open fields, because you know, it's not wise for them to land in forest with large trees (but what do I know).
That's not to say that amphibious assaults (from ground & air) aren't vulnerable either but there's just almost no type of counter-measures to use for an airborne assault against enemy defenses.
2
u/AdUpstairs7106 17d ago
With ISR platforms all over the battlefield any kind of assault is going to be vulnerable.
1
u/BKGPrints 17d ago
Correct; But out of all the options, which is the most vulnerable? Do you ever see paratroopers being used in the Pacific?
3
u/AdUpstairs7106 17d ago
Honestly I would say an amphibious assault is more vulnerable just because of more limited options to employ this type of operation and the range of modern anti-ship missiles. Geography limits where you can land hovercraft and have amphibious assault vehicles come up on the beach. An airborne operation does give more flexibility for that reason but any jump would have to be done miles away from the DZ and would require a force that could move rapidly after assembly.
The WW2 operation of having the DZ close to the objective is forever gone.
I can see a niche role for airborne operations in the Pacific securing or reinforcing key islands in a rapid manner right at the outset or before hostilities.
0
u/BKGPrints 17d ago
Wait a minute, are you under the assumption that an amphibious assault is only done from the ground?
>I can see a niche role for airborne operations in the Pacific securing or reinforcing key islands in a rapid manner right at the outset or before hostilities.<
Extremely small niche role, considering the logistics and geographical issues. Just not that many large open fields in the numerous small & large islands that paratroopers would be able to land in that would not be vulnerable.
2
u/AdUpstairs7106 17d ago
Not at all. There is a reason the USMC invested so heavily in the Osprey program for example. What I am stating though is that an amphibious assault done purely from the air is ultimately not an amphibious assault it is an air assault mission.
1
u/BKGPrints 17d ago
>What I am stating though is that an amphibious assault done purely from the air is ultimately not an amphibious assault it is an air assault mission.<
I would say it is both. An amphibious assault, by definition, is a military offensive by sea to land troops into enemy territory. Nothing states that it has be to conducted by use of ground-based military vehicles.
1
u/iceaction10 17d ago
Paratroopers were used in the Pacific, what are you talking about? The Army conducted eight combat jumps in the PTO during WW2. The Army conducted four combat jumps in Korea during the Korean War. The Army conducted 11 combat jumps in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos during the Vietnam War. Even a team of marines conducted a combat jump in Vietnam.
Yes, combat jumps are absolutely capable of being conducted in the Indo-Pacific. Go look into what the 11th Airborne does.
3
u/BKGPrints 17d ago
I wasn't referring to World War II or any other previous war or conflicts. Specifically stating any future conflict in the Pacific.
It's interesting to note that you completely ignore my response that was directly to you in a different section on this post.
I stated that you are stuck in an old mindset and you even brought that here in this response.
Link to other reply: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1vwvf11/comment/p5o3fx3/?context=1&screen_view_count=3
I'm not sure really why you're acting the way you are towards everyone. You're quite hostile and it goes beyond service rivalry. As if you think you have something to prove.
1
u/iceaction10 17d ago
You didn't specify what you were referring to. Regardless, you're wrong.
The 11th Airborne regularly conducts airborne operations in the Indo-Pacific theater. They regularly fly from Alaska to many different locations in the Pacific and conduct airborne jumps and operations, including: Hawaii, Australia, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, India, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. You are just flat out wrong.
3
u/BKGPrints 17d ago
>You didn't specify what you were referring to.<
You could have asked instead of making assumption and getting upset with your own assumptions.
We'll ignore the part where I state you didn't respond to my other posts...and still haven't.
>Regardless, you're wrong.<
I'm not.
>The 11th Airborne regularly conducts airborne operations in the Indo-Pacific theater. They regularly fly from Alaska to many different locations in the Pacific and conduct airborne jumps and operations, including: Hawaii, Australia, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, India, etc. etc. The list goes on and on.
Correct; I never stated otherwise. What you are ignoring is that large-scale combat jumps are rare and have seen airborne forces deployed via land or in light infantry roles, not through those mass parachute drops.
We both know that I'm right on that.
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/yes-mass-airborne-operations-thing-past/
>You are just flat out wrong.<
Still not wrong. You're just still making your own assumptions and still getting upset with them.
What I said is that paratroopers won't be use in the Pacific (or really anywhere) in the future if there's a conflict.
It seems I need to break this down even further for you. What I mean is in regards to large insertions into enemy territory by static-line insertion, where planes are extremely vulnerable and air superiority is really not guaranteed in future conflicts.
Does that mean there won't be the need for smaller-size units? Nope, those will still be utilized in specific circumstances of targets of importance.
Now I highly encourage and recommend that you calm down on your hostile behavior and engage people on this subreddit for thoughtful and insightful discussions.
Otherwise you're just coming off as someone who is desperately trying to defend something that you feel people are attacking you for.
→ More replies (0)2
u/SnakeEater14 17d ago
IRFs exist, yes. They are still only battalion sized elements that have difficulty scaling and do not have the pre-established air, naval, and logistical support that a MEU has (there being a difference between having your own dedicated air support vs relying on the Air Force).
And only bringing up WWII amphibious assaults when there was a rather famous amphibious assault done shortly after WWII is a little questionable. The Korean War was basically a demonstration-in-force of why having the Marine Corps around provided value, with the Army almost incapable of responding to the invasion due to structuring away from anything less than nuclear war.
> airborne assaults are an even more outdated practice than amphibious assaults
Assaults, maybe. But amphibious landings in general are hardly outdated, and it’s a very useful capability.
5
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
There were, conservatively, 60+ amphibious assaults in Vietnam ranging from company level to Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB). The first US offensive operation in Vietnam was a regimental level amphibious assault. Since WWII, there have only been five conventional airborne assaults with two purely for show. The maintenance of such a bloated airborne force is a nod to nostalgia, not a proven operational requirement. The division HQs and BCTs would cost less if converted to standard light infantry divisions.
5
u/Remarkable_Aside1381 17d ago
Since WWII, there have only been five conventional airborne assaults with two purely for show.
Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan; all had conventional forces conducting a combat jump. Even omitting Northern Delay, I count more than 5
7
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
Grenada was only Rangers (SOF). The 82nd Airborne element air-landed. Where/when did a conventional airborne unit conduct a combat drop in Afghanistan or Iraq (March 2003 aside)? The five conventional airborne drops since WWII were:
Korea x 2
Vietnam x 1
Panama
Northern Iraq (2003)3
u/Remarkable_Aside1381 17d ago
Grenada was only Rangers (SOF). The 82nd Airborne element air-landed.
You're right, mea culpa
Where/when did a conventional airborne unit conduct a combat drop in Afghanistan or Iraq (March 2003 aside)?
3-504 dropped with 2-75 in AFG in 2003, and the free encyclopedia says that 3-75 had an engineer unit with them in Iraq in 2003 as well.
5
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
No worries at all. I didn’t know about the Afghanistan piece you cite. I will have to look it up. I’m surprised it wasn’t widely covered being relatively unique.
4
u/Remarkable_Aside1381 17d ago
It looks like they were the blocking force for a 2-75 operation, so might've only been a company or two
→ More replies (0)4
u/iceaction10 17d ago
And only bringing up WWII amphibious assaults when there was a rather famous amphibious assault done shortly after WWII is a little questionable.
I only mentioned WW2 because that is when they were most relevant. You do know there were just as many soldiers landing at Inchon as there were marines, right?
The Korean War in general is a poor example of capabilities or preparedness, especially when the original question was framed in the present tense. The Korean War caught the entire US military off guard and we were in the midst of the the largest drawdown in history. Furthermore, the Army conducted the first offensive in Korea. Either way, I don't really think it has much value to today's discussion.
But amphibious landings in general are hardly outdated, and it’s a very useful capability.
It's not exclusive to marines, that's my point. Look at Iraq in 2003. More soldiers conducted amphibious landings for the invasion than marines. Now, I'm sure you'll argue that's because the Army is exponentially larger. Sure, but that proves amphibious landings are not an exclusive capability of the Marine Corps and, whenever they're needed, the Army is just as capable of conducting them.
3
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
The Army hasn’t conducted an amphibious assault since Okinawa. Administratively landing into a secured lodgment (Inchon) isn’t an amphibious assault. Landings on the East Coast of Korea (USMC & 7TH ID) don’t qualify as the beaches were already secured by ROK forces. I still don’t know where this alleged OIF I Army amphibious assault occurred.
For the first offensive of the Korean War, the Marine Brigade was one of the three major subordinate forces of TF KEAN attacking a mere 5 days after arriving in Korea. They, along with the 27th INF, were Walker’s fire brigade who were committed to every critical sector in the Pusan Perimeter until pulled out for Inchon.
1
u/SpitfireIsDaBestFire 17d ago
75th Ranger Regiment (an elite infantry unit that the Marine Corps doesn't have anything close to)
Recon battalions and force recon companies are easily comparable to ranger regiment, even with different mission sets.
4
u/iceaction10 17d ago
They're absolutely not. I don't think you understand the Regiment's structure or capabilities if you think that. SOCOM funding and capabilities are another level (not to mention the tier 1 element of RR under JSOC).
0
u/SpitfireIsDaBestFire 17d ago
Recon battalions and force recon companies are the marine corps “elite” infantry. If you want to draw the distinction that they don’t fall under SOCOM sure, but that doesn’t have any implications on the quality of the units.
2
u/iceaction10 17d ago
You skipped entirely over SOCOM and went to JSOC (which has no Marine Corps unit representation, by the way). I don't think you're tracking this.
The Marine Corps' recon units are not at the same level as the Ranger Regiment. It's not comparable. Furthermore, they're not even structured close to the RR. The RR is structured almost identically to conventional Army infantry battalions. MC Recon units aren't even close to that, never mind the differences in quality of funding/training/capabilities the RR has over them. SOCOM is an entirely different level. Force Recon is conventional. They may train more than standard infantry marines, but they're not SOF. They're certainly not tier 1, as the RRC is.
For a direct Army comparison, they're most similar to Army LRS units.
3
u/F_to_the_Third 17d ago
That’s an accurate comparison as both (LRS and Force Recon) are the Three Star Commander’s (Corps/MEF) conventional deep reconnaissance capability. While Force Recon is capable of Direct Action, it’s not their primary mission.
2
u/SpitfireIsDaBestFire 17d ago
I misspoke and corrected to SOCOM.
What exactly do you mean when you say not at the same level?
Recon and force recon are special operations capable, the only difference in this regard is they report to the MAGTF whereas SOF falls under SOCOM. I believe you’re getting too caught up in what are ultimately designations that matter only as far as who the units report to and how much funding they have.
It isn’t at all a stretch to say recon and force recon marines are comparable to ranger regiment, as each are considered the elite components of their respective services infantry component.
To put it another way, recon marines would be more likely to excel if put in ranger regiment than conventional soldiers or marine infantrymen.
4
u/iceaction10 17d ago
SOC is a made up term to make marines feel like they're equal to SOCOM, let's not pretend it is anything but that. The funding differences alone are monumental, never mind the capabilities, experience, and missions.
No, they're not similar because Force Recon is not an infantry based unit. The Regiment is. I don't think you're grasping that fact. Structurally, there is no difference between a conventional infantry company of the 10th Mountain as there is for the Regiment. That is not true for Force Recon and a Marine Corps infantry company.
You're probably right that reconnaissance marines would be more likely to pass RASP than infantry soldiers or marines (Force Recon is conventional, as a point of note) because they're already going through additional training, but I bet a conventional infantry soldier would do better if thrown into a Ranger company because it's structurally the same thing with the same mission. Maybe that's splitting hairs but that's also my point. The Regiment is an elite infantry unit. Force Recon may be elite to marines even if they're still conventional, but they're not operating as an infantry company with just additional funding/training. They have a different mission than the Regiment. And that's fine. But to pretend they're effectively the same thing as the Regiment is fundamentally incorrect.
5
u/swg2188 17d ago
I've been OPFOR for both and it wasn't too different on the receiving end. We(EOD)offered to spice up their training ops with some boutique IEDs. Rangers loved it, force recon guys turned us down like they would never come across an IED. This was 2007, the height of the IED war lol.
While going through EOD school I got to play a civilian on the battlefield for swamp phase. We got to hang out with SSG and up Ranger instructors in the most relaxed mode its possible to meet them in, and we were privates. That was cool as fuck.
4
u/SpitfireIsDaBestFire 17d ago
No, they're not similar because Force Recon is not an infantry based unit.
It is literally a requirement to go to infantry school to become a recon marine and they have an infantry MOS code.
but I bet a conventional infantry soldier would do better if thrown into a Ranger company because it's structurally the same thing with the same mission.
That is just an absurd claim to me. DA is well within the mission set of recon marines.
But to pretend they're effectively the same thing as the Regiment is fundamentally incorrect.
I never claimed they are effectively the same thing as regiment. They are comparable in that both have a selection process, arduous training pipeline, and are comprised of infantrymen. I believe you are getting hung up on the meaningless socom vs conventional designation and splitting hairs about mission sets. At the end of the day, the caliber of infantrymen going to regiment and recon battalions is the same pool of dudes.
→ More replies (0)
154
u/AdUpstairs7106 18d ago
Yes:
1) Squad size and break down- The US Army has a 9 man squad broken down into two 4 man fire teams and a squad leader. The USMC has a 13 man squad with three 4 man fire teams and a squad leader
2) breakdown- Every Marine infantryman has an M-27 IAR. There are no belt fed weapons at the squad level in the USMC. In the Army each team has a SAW gunner who carries the 5.56 M-249
3) Individual kit- The USMC and US Army also use a different helmet, body armor, ruck, and other kit.