Do You Like How The USMC Are Re-Created In ASL?

Do You Like How The USMC Are Re-Created In ASL?

  • Yes

    Votes: 49 64.5%
  • No

    Votes: 14 18.4%
  • Indifferent

    Votes: 13 17.1%

  • Total voters
    76

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,104
Reaction score
2,371
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
As to the morale issue, it is well explained elsewhere. It has nothing to do with the Marines being better than the aArmy, it has everything to do with they type of fight they faced.
An assertion that weakened by the fact that they so often faced the exact type of fight faced by the US Army.
 

Psycho

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,445
Reaction score
1,509
Location
rectum
Country
llUkraine
Had it been me, I would have made them closer in line with other elite US troops, but with special capabilities during amphibious assaults.
I know it was argued before but I don't recall you giving examples of what you would do. How would you have handled the Marines?

Edit: Serious question even though it sounds like a setup. :D
 
Last edited:

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,104
Reaction score
2,371
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
I know it was argued before but I don't recall you giving examples of what you would do. How would you have handled the Marines?

Edit: Serious question even though it sounds like a setup. :D
Without lots of analysis (and indeed playtesting using revised counter strengths), I could not give you specifics. I have never tried to come up with a complete alternative system (since there was no point).
 

Blackcloud6

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
675
Location
New Baltimore, MI
Country
llUnited States
An assertion that weakened by the fact that they so often faced the exact type of fight faced by the US Army.
How many amphibious assaults did the US Army conduct like Iwo Jima, Tarawa, etc?

Also, I think the higher morale presents a better-trained unit. The USMC had the ability to completely rebuild their divisions after an invasion. They would bring the new Marines into units with veterans, especially NCOs and Officers. Then the Marine assault divisions could train for a specific operation. Army units tended to stay in campaign for a longer more protracted fight, thus causing the normal erosion of capability caused by such action.
 

Psycho

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,445
Reaction score
1,509
Location
rectum
Country
llUkraine
Without lots of analysis (and indeed playtesting using revised counter strengths), I could not give you specifics. I have never tried to come up with a complete alternative system (since there was no point).
OK I thought you might have a basic idea to start with.
 

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,104
Reaction score
2,371
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
How many amphibious assaults did the US Army conduct like Iwo Jima, Tarawa, etc?
The US Army conducted far more amphibious landings in the Pacific than the USMC did, but that is not what I was talking about. You suggested:

As to the morale issue, it is well explained elsewhere. It has nothing to do with the Marines being better than the aArmy, it has everything to do with they type of fight they faced.
I pointed out in response that:

An assertion that weakened by the fact that they so often faced the exact type of fight faced by the US Army.
In other words, your point might have validity if the USMC only engaged in quick assaults on small islands or atolls. However, all too often (on Guadalcanal, Bougainville, etc.) the fighting they engaged in was *exactly* the same sort of fighting the U.S. army was engaged in. Which means that your point is not valid in those situations, because the type of fighting they were involved in, in those situations, clearly does not justify a difference between the US Army and USMC.


Also, I think the higher morale presents a better-trained unit. The USMC had the ability to completely rebuild their divisions after an invasion. They would bring the new Marines into units with veterans, especially NCOs and Officers. Then the Marine assault divisions could train for a specific operation. Army units tended to stay in campaign for a longer more protracted fight, thus causing the normal erosion of capability caused by such action.
I do not think there is good evidence to support this assertion. There is no difference between the ability of the UMSC to rebuild a unit after an operation and the ability of an Army elite unit such as an airborne unit to rebuild itself after an operation. Thus there is no justification on this basis for a higher morale for a USMC unit than for some other elite US unit.
 

Doughboy

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
1,000
Reaction score
5
Location
Tonto from Toronto
Country
llCanada
How many amphibious assaults did the US Army conduct like Iwo Jima, Tarawa, etc?

Also, I think the higher morale presents a better-trained unit. The USMC had the ability to completely rebuild their divisions after an invasion. They would bring the new Marines into units with veterans, especially NCOs and Officers. Then the Marine assault divisions could train for a specific operation. Army units tended to stay in campaign for a longer more protracted fight, thus causing the normal erosion of capability caused by such action.
I'm sure there are a few Screaming Eagles and All Americans that would object to that. :clown:

The USMC certainly don't not have a monopoly on higher morale nor better training compared to the airborne (or the rangers) though what the USMC does have is the basic principle that every marine is a sharpshooter first. Still, the marines do have the advantage of coming to shore packed to hilt with heavy gear unlike the airborne who land lightly armed.

Of course, even with the best of units their combat effectiveness will erode rapidly the longer they stay deployed in active combat. This was especially true with the use of Canadian shock troops during the war in Italy and in Western Europe.

This is very important for people who want to design scenarios for they cannot assume that the troops are a homogenous quality. Unfortunately, there is only so much information provided in actual combat accounts and it is up to the scenario designer to make some educated guesses; that and some spirited playtesting for balance.

I would argue that for a lot of scenarios the quality of the troops depicted are anything but homogenous. But, that's history and this is a game..:eek:
 
Last edited:

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,408
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
When Gung Ho first came out, and I was a lot more naive, the Marines and their representation in ASL seemed perfect.
But I have heard several criticisms of their handling in the game system.
The main one being that they are too powerful. The others that there are too many squad types, and that their morale is better than the US Army squads.
Whats your take on this matter?
Do you like the way the Marines have been handled in ASL or not?
I agreee with the 'too many squads types' assertion.

5-5-8s and 7-6-8s would have been plenty, IMO.
 
Last edited:

David Hughes

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
185
Reaction score
1
Location
Sydney, Australia
Country
llAustralia
I vote yes

My intital reaction was that it was another example of ASL as Hollywood...then I read Utmost Savagery (about Betio) and there were plenty of -2 leaders, heros and 768s on that beach.

Anyway, it adds another interesting counter into the mix.
 

James Taylor

I love women with brains
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
6,486
Reaction score
377
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
Just anecdotal

Not scientific by any stretch but....

My father fought in the Phillipines as U.S. Army (38th Division). I asked him about the Marines and he told me this (paraphrasing):

The army got short changed by the media, as the Marines normally landed first and got the press. Afterwards the army would come in and have to mop up, finding some still quite fierce Japanese.

Nevertheless he would much rather fight the Japanese than the U.S. Marines. In his opinion, the Marines were a little too "gung ho"... a little to eager to kill.

He also said he was glad they were on our side.

FWIW.

JT
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,408
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Not scientific by any stretch but....

The army got short changed by the media, as the Marines normally landed first and got the press. Afterwards the army would come in and have to mop up, finding some still quite fierce Japanese.
I've heard it said the most dangerous place on a battlefield is between a Marine and a camera.
 

Blackcloud6

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
675
Location
New Baltimore, MI
Country
llUnited States
The US Army conducted far more amphibious landings in the Pacific than the USMC did, but that is not what I was talking about.
A quick look at a list of major amphib "landings" at
may not support that assertion. And furthermore I stated "assaults." In the most major landings in the Pacific that involved both Marine and Army forces, the marines were the intial assualt force and the Army was a reinforceing force or replacment forces (such as at Guadalcanal).

Now if you add up less than division scale landings, there may be more Army landings in number.

As to unit training, a good exercise would be to determine the following:

How many days between landings were Marine & Airbonre units units out of contact and able to train.

How many combat veterans were infused into newly built divsions. How many of those veterens had made an amohib assualt.

Critically, how many unit staffs & Commanders conducted mulitple landings.

Did Army divisions train specifically for amphibious assaults? Did they train to the same standard and doctrine as the USMC (or better)? (Talking only Pacific Army divisons in all of this)

However, all too often (on Guadalcanal, Bougainville, etc.) the fighting they engaged in was *exactly* the same sort of fighting the U.S. army was engaged in.
That is a tough one to consider. To me, the fight that the 1st MARDIV had on Guadalcanal was different that of the Army. the 164th Regiment only faced a few nights of the Japanese attacks whereas the Marines did for months. The rest of the fight on the island was going on the offense.

The fight on Iwo Jima was different than that of Bougainville. Okinawa was different than both.

So it is hard for me to understand what you mean by "exactly" the same fight. Similar, maybe, but hardly exactly. Please elaborate.
 
Last edited:

King Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
2,274
Reaction score
372
Location
Fullerton
Country
llUnited States
I've heard it said the most dangerous place on a battlefield is between a Marine and a camera.
Not to throw this any more off topic...but... :D

It is true that no other branch of the US military comes anywhere close to the Marines P.R. machine (I'm not talking about Puerto Ricans). Many lingering resentments in the Army from the Marines PR "coups" in WWI was one of the reasons that the USMC was "kept out" of the European theatre (not to mention the fact that there were not enough Marine divisions to "participate" in Europe, and their need in the Pacific...keep in mind that the USMC was, at the start of the war, immensely better trained, equiped and experienced in amphibious assault compared to the Army, having spent the greater part of the '20's and '30's perfecting their amphibious assault doctrine).

Why did the USMC have a better PR machine than the Army? For the majority of the USMC's life, they have had to fight a budgetary battle for funding and their continued existance. One of the most effective tools that the USMC wielded in these battles was their PR machine (and their training/structuring/use as a rapid-deployment force). At the same time, the Marine PR machine has been one of the leading causes of "interservice jealousy/rivalry"...nothing galls the Army/Navy more than to fight a good fight and have the Marines grab the headlines.

Look at what the Marines have been able to do with just a little comment made by a German officer in WWI when he said the Marines fought like "Teufel Hunden" (Devil Dogs) after Bellau Woods. The Army did quite well themselves during WWI, but nobody rans stories about them being Devil Dogs or the like. Or look at the Korean War sobriquet by the Chinese to avoid the "Americans with yellow legs" (refering to the Marines continued use of gaiters/leggings). The Marines take small comments like these and run with them, turning them into part of the Marine Corps legend.

The bottom line is that the Marines do a good job of building/increasing/maintaining the "aura of mystique"...better than any other US military branch. Look at Marine Corps recruiting phrases of the Marines like "Send in the Marines", "Devil Dogs", "The few, the proud, the Marines" or "First in" as compared to Army phrases like "Be all you can be", "An Army of One" or the most recent (and lamest) "Army strong" or the Navy's "It's an adventure"...call me biased, but the Army and Navy terms sound pretty lame in comparison.

Are the Marines "horn blowers"?...you bet...but they are better at it than anyone else.

Semper Fi!
Scott
 
Top