Role of the Marine Division

[cincymarsdad]

This may be a silly question, dunno, but how does the role and TOE of the Marine Division differ from that of the Army infantry division? I have a clue about how the TOEs differ, but I am not sure about the missions of the two?

Do we currently have enough sealift in the event we needed to stage a division-sized amphibious assault? (while leaving the MEUs intact that is).


It strikes me that a Marine division has some capabilities relative to an Army division (ID), and vice versa, but those specialities are not as distinguishing as in years past. I may not be asking my question as clearly as I'd like.

Someone asked me why we have Marines in the middle of the desert, and I remarked that in part it was an attempt to give the force "on the job training" akin to the Army when opportunity presents itself, while also preventing the Army from becoming overstretched. Maybe this is wrong or there is another rationale.

I think in part I'm pondering why we have a "large" Marine Corps these days vis a vis a Corps which comprised however many MEUs, but no division sized components.

[USMCRET6391]

John go to this thread

United States Marine Corps

and scroll through it. All the blue letters are links that will better explain what is discussed there.

[USMC Chuter]

The biggest difference between an Army division and a Marine division is the way they're used. Every large-scale unit in the Marine Corps is part of a Marine Air/Ground Task Force (MAGTF). The MarDiv is the ground combat element, the Air Wing provides the aviation combat element, and the Marine Logistics Brigade (formerly Force Service Support Group) provides the beans, bullets, and bandaids.

The largest MAGTF is the Marine Expeditionary Force. There are 3, and each has a MarDiv, a Wing, and a MLB. A Marine Expeditionary Brigade is formed by a reinforced infantry regiment (ie has tanks and artillery, etc attached) with a similar sized force from the Wing and MLB. The Marine Expeditionary Unit is the MAGTF we most often hear about.. It's a reinforced infantry battalion-with an attached tank company and artillery battery, recon assets-plus a company-sized MLB attachment and a reinforced squadron of helos and harriers. Different sized MAGTFs are used for different sized missions.

MarDivs don't have a whole lot of internal support units, as we get our support from the battalions within the MLB. MarDivs are each comprised of 3 infantry regiments and an artillery regiment, plus a battalion each of tanks, light armored reconaissance, combat engineers, and armored amphibious vehicles.

[Panzerman]

There are other very large differences between an Army division and a Marine division. As far as I know, all the Army "Infantry" divisions are mechanized these days - my understanding was that an infantry division would have 5 Bradley battalions and 5 tank battalions, where an armored division might be more along the lines of 4 Bradley battalions/6 tank battalions.

One Army infantry division will have more tanks organic to it's TOE than the entire Marine Corps possesses. Marines are light infantry, as opposed to the Army's much heavier mech infantry formations.

On your sea lift question, if we actually needed to stage a division sized amphibious assault, the MEUs would be gone - their component units would be re-incorporated into their parent units for an operation that size.

And one very good reason for having a "large" Marine Corps is that we still fight wars that require division-sized Marine Corps components - we actually deployed an amphibious corps in Desert Storm, comprising the 1st and 2nd Marine divisions.

And as for having Marines out in the middle of the desert - that's the only place in the country where you can really do large scale combined arms training these days.

[USMC Chuter]

^ Partially correct, regarding Army infantry. Many Army infantry divisions are mechanized, and Army armored units usually contain organic mech infantry as described. The 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne, 10th Mountain, and 25th Infantry divisions on the active duty side are light on armor. They are classified as light infantry, and enter the battle by parachute, helo, or on foot/wheels. On the Army NG side, the 29th ID is also light, as are a few of the separate brigades. Light infantry is not dead in the Army.

The idea that an Army mech infantry division has more organic tanks and apc's than the entire Marine Corps is absolutely correct. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th infantry divisions; the 1st cavalry division, and the 1st armored division are all heavy. Same applies for the Army NG's infantry divisions, unless I'm mistaken.

My main point though, is that Army divisions usually have a lot of organic logisitical support, whereas the MarDiv does not. Regardless of the make-up, the mission of an infantry division is roughly the same in either service. Locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and manouver, and repel the enemy's assault by fire and close combat. Yut!

[Panzerman]

Those are all light divisions, but they're all classified as such, aren't they? I was just talking about the IDs - the 25th is still the 25th Infantry Division (Light), right?

[USMC Chuter]

It is. The Army's ID's are indeed different from one another, but 11B school sends soldiers to them all. A mech infantryman isn't trained any differently than a light infantryman when it comes to MOS training.

[cincymarsdad]

Do Marines receive special amphib training before joining an apmhibious assault division?

Is there any rough parallel to jump school?

Here's my point, I think. IF the infantry divisions have the same role, why have a Marine Corps division? Division-scale amphibious assaults appear to be a thing of the past (I realize they did after WW II also and yet there was one). Would our force structure be more capable with an extra Army division (light) with the same TOE, training, doctrine, and command as the rest of the Army and no Marine divisions?

Perhaps this is just a paperwork device for keeping Marines in organizations in peacetime knowing they would deploy as an MEF (etc.). I can see that havin a zillion MEU/regimental sized units all around could be organizational mayhem and you'd probably create a division structure to manage it. If Marines have unique capabilities, IMHO, those should not be in force structures that mirror comparable Army units.

Obviously, I mean no disprespect, I'm just trying to solidify my understanding of why things are so I can respond to people who ask me questions better.

[Panzerman]

Do Marines receive special amphib training before joining an apmhibious assault division?

Nope, unless you count swim qual. There's really not a lot of special skills needed at the individual level - and any special skills that are required (small craft raiding, for instance) will be learned while with the unit during the pre-deployment workup.

IF the infantry divisions have the same role,

They don't. The Army isn't amphibious.

Division-scale amphibious assaults appear to be a thing of the past (I realize they did after WW II also and yet there was one).

If Kuwait hadn't cooperated in 2003, there would have been one. We came real close to needing that capability again. A large scale amphibious assault is still perfectly viable against an enemy who can't direct nuclear weapons at the amphib fleet or landing beaches.

Would our force structure be more capable with an extra Army division (light) with the same TOE, training, doctrine, and command as the rest of the Army and no Marine divisions?

No, because our TOE, training, doctrine, and command are all better than the Army's. And what's the alternative? Have a Marine Corps without infantry Marines who's sole purpose is to provide transport, logistical support, and CAS for an Army light infantry division, just in case we needed to mount an amphibious operation? I understand you're playing devil's advocate here, but that's absurd.

If Marines have unique capabilities, IMHO, those should not be in force structures that mirror comparable Army units.

Force structure is only a very small part of what gives Marines their capabilities. We use the divisional system because it's the only workable organization for a large, independant infantry fighting force that anyone's come up with since the Roman legion. It works because it's flexible - which is demonstrated by the fact that the Army uses it to organize their forces for fighting WWIII in the Fulda Gap, while the Marine Corps uses the same system to organize their forces for detatching units out to fight small-war all over the globe while retaining the capability of delivering a massive amphibious invasion.

Hope that clears it up a little.

[cincymarsdad]

"My" alternative would have Marine infantry in MEU sized units afloat or in training. (I'm glad you understand I'm trying to play DA and in no way would support my notions, not that my support matters. I don't understand some small items and the discussion here helps when I get asked questions like this.)

MEUs are clearly unique vis a vis Army capabilities (though Airborne mirrors some of the same strategic function).

Marine divisions - aside from amphib capability - do look like an Army "light" division in some respects. The amphib capability comes from the Navy.

I think I will stipulate your point that divisional-scale amphib assaults could still be needed. It looks to me like this would require a lot of shifting and mobilization or resources to provide the sealift to execute. We pulled off Inchon in pretty short order, impressive when I think about it a bit. I imagine today of the CiC have the order for 1st MarDiv to take a beach in say Iran it would take "a while" to execute, whereas a couple MEUs could be there in a week or so or less considering where it is.

Thanks for responding to my civvy questions - I do appreciate your forebearance.

[Panzerman]

"My" alternative would have Marine infantry in MEU sized units afloat or in training.

Well, that's what we do in practice. For the most part, the infantry battalion is the primary independant tactical infantry unit for the Marine Corps. We train and deploy as battalions, and Marines identify themselves with their battalions, as opposed to their respective regiments or divisions.

Marine divisions - aside from amphib capability - do look like an Army "light" division in some respects. The amphib capability comes from the Navy.

Yes and no. While the divisions may look the same on the surface, the Marine infantry battalion actually differs pretty radically from an Army infantry battalion. The rifle companies in a Marine battalion all have different amphibious specialties - there's traditionally a small craft boat raiding company, an amtrac company, and a helicopter company. The ships may move the Marines around, but for the most part, Marines take infantry Marines from ship to shore - be it the small rubber boats that are actually organic to the boat company, or detachments from the AAV battalion or a medium lift helo squadron. Marine infantry is sort of like a mechanized/airborne assault/maritime commando force all rolled into one.

I think I will stipulate your point that divisional-scale amphib assaults could still be needed. It looks to me like this would require a lot of shifting and mobilization or resources to provide the sealift to execute. We pulled off Inchon in pretty short order, impressive when I think about it a bit. I imagine today of the CiC have the order for 1st MarDiv to take a beach in say Iran it would take "a while" to execute, whereas a couple MEUs could be there in a week or so or less considering where it is.

If 1st MARDIV is moving in to take a beach, we're talking about an operation that would be aimed at the overthrow of a signifigantly powerful opposing nation - and that would take a bit of time to prepare for in the even bigger picture than a seaborn assault. A few MEU's is pocket change when you're comparing them to the combat power of the entire MEF. And as far as sealift goes, we've got enough ships.

[USMC Chuter]

I agree with everything Panzer is saying. The MarDiv is a unique combat asset. We differ from the Army's divisions in doctrine and structure, more so than mission. There are a lot of similarities and cross-cababilties, but Marines provide a warrior culture that is distinct from our Army brothers.

I would draw a parallel to the difference between the Navy carrier air wing and the Air Force. Yes, the both fly fighter jets... But the employment of those assets is different. Like a Navy carrier air wing, the Marine Corps is expeditionary in nature. We're out there floating around in theater, as MEU's, waiting for the call. We also retain the ability to field regiments and divisions for security and sustainment ops, such as what we see in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Marine Corps' experience in such ops dates back well into the 1800's.

The Marine Corps trains differently than the Army, therefore we fight differently. We provide many of the same capabilities, but from a different cultural position as warriors. The Army does a fine job. We do the same job, only differently; arguably more aggressively. I prefer to think that the Army and the Marine Corps compliment each other, rather than compete.