I'm not sure that there is a valid comparrison to make here. Which publications are we talking about? On the one hand, you guys are referring to references that every soldier might be familar with, but you are also talking about high level staff material.
The Army has a basic system for publications that individual soldiers need to know. These are not typically FMs and are written in an easy to understand style with plenty of illistrations. Examples would be the SMCT (Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks), battle drill TCs, etc. There are several versions of the SMCT which cover warfighting skills at various levels. There are also some common FM's that provide step-by-step instructions on particular techniques. Soldiers are tested on their proficiency at these skills on a regular basis (and they don't get to use a manual).
Army doctrine is a whole different story. These FM's are far more difficult to grasp because they assume the reader already knows everything in the manuals above and is proficient at them. They also assume the reader is familiar with Army terminolgy and basic organization. Many of these will probably never be used by the average soldier as they are simply beyond the scope of his duties. They're written for commanders and staff officers/staff NCOs. I agree that they are dry, but they are also extremely meticulous.
You also have to bear in mind that there is simply no comparing the Army and Marine Corps. They are two different organizations with completely different missions. The Marines are a small, specialized force which can concentrate its efforts in a few high payoff diciplines. The Army, on the other hand, must be a jack of all trades as it will typically be the major power in theater. Not only that, but the vast majority of operations will see the Army in overall command. Senior Army officers often find themselves not only in control of Marine/Air Force assets, but frequently foreign military forces as well. Army doctrine must be very broad and comprehensive to deal with such a open ended mission statement.
As to which military forces are better...well, the battlefield is the only place to answer that. There is no substitute for raw experience. I trained with the Korean Rangers while I was with 2ID. I can honestly say the average Rock Ranger was tougher than our average soldier and quite motivated. Their patrol techniques were excellent and they are willing to accept a higher degree of risk than most US commands would allow. They're also on their home turf, which doesn't hurt. I can also say without hesitation that in a fight between one of our brigades and one of theirs, we could take their ass apart inside 2 hours. The US Army isn't pretty and it doesn't have much of a mystique to it. On the other hand, it's without a doubt one of the most lethal force on the planet at the moment. Most armies train a lot, but they have no experience doing this stuff for real. Any country can send a couple of hand picked battalions on a deployment and expect reasonably good results. Try putting up an armored corps against a US Army armored corps and see what happens.
A fight between a heavy US Army division and a Marine division? An interesting concept. They would probably tear each other to shreads! I would probably have to give the advantage to the Army division because it just brings more raw firepower to the table. A MEU is a thing of beauty, but I have doubts about its ability to complete against an Army heavy maneuver element. Perhaps I'm biased.
:nofear:
Sounds like a good DA scenmario to me!
), so I freely admit I am biased in that sense.
