USMC retains Raiders, Paras

[Melvin Loh]

How would the course of the Pacific War, and US Marine hist generally, have changed had the USMC in 1942-43 decided to continue using and developing the Raider and Parachute bns instead of OTL disbanding these elite outfits to form trained cadres for the new Marine divs which were being formed ?

[NapoleonXIV]

I, for one, might be better able to answer this if I knew just why we have a Marines anyhow. I mean, the Army doesn't have a few BSS and call it their Seagoing Auxiliary. Why should the Navy have an....Army?? I'm not trying to be hostile, really but I've never really understood this.

[Beck Reilly]

Originally Posted by NapoleonXIV

I, for one, might be better able to answer this if I knew just why we have a Marines anyhow. I mean, the Army doesn't have a few BSS and call it their Seagoing Auxiliary. Why should the Navy have an....Army?? I'm not trying to be hostile, really but I've never really understood this.

In the beginning, Marines were positioned aboard ships and actually fended off boarders, boarded other ships, and sat in the rigging as snipers. They were the close-in defense of an 18th Century ship. Now, they are the amphibious corps of the Navy. They serve as the ambulance to the Army's hospital, if that makes sense. They're more mobile and infantry-based and have the amphibious skills the current army lacks to some extent.

[GreyGhost]

It is my understanding that the USMC is able to deploy more of their forces quicker to trouble spots.

[carlton_bach]

From what I read it was a matter of 'finding a niche and filling it'. After the end of the 19th century, bnavy ships no longer carried Marine detachments, so the Corps had no real raison d'etre any more (before c. 1850, almost all European nations had Marines, though not always subordinated to the Navy. Frex, pre-Revolutionary France had an Army regiment 'Royal Maritime', and the Royal Marines also started out like that).

The US Marines hung on by dint of a blend of mystique and bureaucratic inertia until WWII. Then they became the US 'maritime deployment' fighting arm (which IIRC is still resented by some in the Army who point out that it was Army troops, not Marines, that carried Torch and Overlord. Still, given the degree of specialisation I think it's pretty much a set fact now.)

I recall a quote from one Marine general (no name handy): "The nation needs an Army, Navy and Air Force, but it WANTS a Marine Corps."

[david3565]

Short answer is, as stated above, a specialized niche. At their root, any marine force is amphibious infantry. The overall techniques may change, but the purpose of a mobile and rapidly deployable force does not. The Army is more focused on land warfare and by their very nature, slower to deploy. The Marines are intended to always the first in and last out. They serve as the tip of the spear when deploying abroad; they are equiped to take objectives and get the job of the other branches done until other forces can arrive.

Then they became the US 'maritime deployment' fighting arm (which IIRC is still resented by some in the Army who point out that it was Army troops, not Marines, that carried Torch and Overlord. Still, given the degree of specialisation I think it's pretty much a set fact now.)

Historically, there were a few that resented it, but by and large, when speaking with veterans of various branches, I have never seen resentment. Their answer has always been that each branch and unit has its own purpose.

[Steffen]

short time consequences

well, witout the cadres, lower-skilled divisions, so the island hopping will be bloodier. But that´s nearly without consequences as these are in fact battles that can´t be lost.

Other point comes down to the question: where to use the units? I´d say the reason the raiders were disbanded they fulfilled no practical purpose.
the same for the ridiculous idea of paratroopers in the marine.

- on the islands, you would drop them literally on the enemy.
- on the philipines, you can´t use battalion size troops to a practical purpose or you send them into captivity.


long-term: maybe it ends the marine corps:

- the army has shown it can handle amphibious landings.

than there´s the performance analysis. If marine divs have higher loss rates, the question comes up if the army can handle this better.

[david3565]

Originally Posted by Steffen

short time consequences

well, witout the cadres, lower-skilled divisions, so the island hopping will be bloodier. But that´s nearly without consequences as these are in fact battles that can´t be lost.

Other point comes down to the question: where to use the units? I´d say the reason the raiders were disbanded they fulfilled no practical purpose.
the same for the ridiculous idea of paratroopers in the marine.

- on the islands, you would drop them literally on the enemy.
- on the philipines, you can´t use battalion size troops to a practical purpose or you send them into captivity.

The reason that they Raiders were disbanded is that the Corps takes issue with have elite units in an already elite force. That, and the US military had no interest in guerilla warfare. Force Recon pretty much toook the place of the Raiders, though.

Originally Posted by Steffen

long-term: maybe it ends the marine corps:

- the army has shown it can handle amphibious landings.

But that isn't the Army's forte. The SEALs have handled working with and training indingenous forces, but they don't they don't train for that. You send in the right tool for the right job. I don't see see the Marines disappearing so quickly.