1. The Rules of Spacebattles are now in a convenient location. Read them. Do it now.

Royal Marines vs United States Marines

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by EricD, Apr 2, 2011.

  1. EricD The Bee-Wolf

    Two similarly named organizations, but with drastically different doctrines, capabilities, equipment and missions. So, let us say that, by the will of ROB, a section of Royal Marines will be facing a squad of United States Marines in a firefight. There shall be three scenarios we shall consider:

    A: A firefight in a built-up/urban setting

    B: A firefight in a temperate woodland/jungle setting

    C: A firefight in an open grassland/desert setting.

    Both sections are dismounted, so no vehicle support, just section-level equipment and tactics. We shall assume that both the Royal Marine troop and the US Marine squad are made up of soldiers about equivalant in competency for their different missions, and led competently.

    So, in an advance to contact in the three settings I named, who would win?
  2. higbvuyb Solidarity

    In before vendetta
  3. IXJac Citizen

    The Royal Marines in all scenarios, since they have at least a 3-1 numbers advantage.

    Why? Because a British "troop" is equivalent to an American "platoon." A "section" is the equivalent of a "squad."

    ;)
  4. MJ12 Commando Solidarity

    As I understand, the Royal Marines are a more elite unit than the USMC, because they're basically a special ops group while the USMC isn't. So they probably end up with a slight edge, but really it's more dependent on positioning and luck.

    Of course, I'm not military so that's just gut instinct talking.

    Well, or IxJac can give a really convincing reason for the Royal Marines winning while I'm in the middle of typing a post. :D
  5. PaRappaTheRappe Brokeback Mountaineer

    The USMC platoon is heavier in organic firepower than the RM troop. But this is probably squad vs section w/out a platoon wpns det, right? I'd guess there is a perceptible advantage in numbers for USMC squad, three fire teams. The RM have a longer recruit training cycle, but the USMC have struck me as having more cohesion and motivation, and better trained once having gone through the in-house training pipeline. At squad level though the only thing that stands out is that the US squad can afford a few more casualties before losing its punch.

    Squad on squad the first side who can get off with their casualty-producing weapon effectively will decide it. Thats why Small Unit Tactics emphasize that thought process so much.
  6. EricD The Bee-Wolf

    Haha, sorry about that guys! I edited the opening post, I meant section and got my nomenclature mixed up.
  7. Since the RM is essentially a special ops group, what is the British equivalent to the USMC?
  8. The British Army lol.Royal Marine commandos are very good infantry not special forces.Could go either way.
    If it was fighting in clubs and bars I would give it to Royal as their tendency to
    go drinking in drag or get naked would put off the USMC guys.
  9. Skyzeta Friendly Oppressor

    Everything I've read about the Royal Marines is that they occupy a similar role to the US Army Rangers: elite light infantry with a strong emphasis placed on small unit tactics, unconventional warfare and being able to operate in terrain that otherwise might call for specialized units and equipment. The USMC on the other hand is similarly an elite infantry with a strong emphasis on being able to operate in any terrain, but is ultimately one that's more specialized to operating as part of a larger expeditionary force. Thus I'd probably say that the Royal Marines probably have a slight advantage, mostly because this is closer to what a Royal Marine trains for than an American Marine trains for but not enough to say the Royal Marines reliably win.
  10. PaRappaTheRappe Brokeback Mountaineer

    There's nothing about how the RM train their people for SUT that is so remarkable compared to how a USMC rifle squad trains, or a bog-standard US Army squad. It's not rocket science, you basically need all your senses tuned, aggressive thinking with common sense, make sure everyone does their IMT right and organize their fires better and faster than the other guy. What it comes down to once you've established the support by fire is maneuver the weapon that does the most shit to him, to where it will do the most shit to him. The trick is that weapon is his target priority as well so you might rush your people into his fire, that's where everything else comes into play.
  11. An Ancient God of Zeppelins

    The Royal Marines have the longest training period of almost anyone, and are stupidly selective. Ultimately, this fight is almost what the Royal Marines are about as light/medium infantry, they're used to operating in small self-supporting units with minimal vehicle support and almost no heavy weapons beyond that which they can carry.

    The USMC is good, but they're used to having a lot more mechanical might behind them. As such, at the force level being postulated the Royal Marines are probably indvidually carrying more heavy weapons. Also, a lot of Royal Marines will have been through one or more of the many specialist schools they operate, so the statistical odds of having a fully trained sniper, close quarters specialist, heavy weapons operator or ex-SBS/FPG member in the RM unit is quite high.
  12. In any sort of 'fair' fight the Royal Marines should win.

    Not that it would ever be anything like a fair fight. The US Marines aren't Marines anymore, they're just an army. An army which is as big as the whole British Army. They'll have bigger shit and more of it.
  13. PaRappaTheRappe Brokeback Mountaineer

    I don't think I understand exactly what aspect of RM dismounted MOUT gives them any kind of identifiable edge over USMC MOUT. If anything, the USMC MOUT coursework is more timely material and delivered in more advanced methods of range and scenario design. Typically the British ranges are smaller and cheaper, often by a great margin. My sense is that US courses turn out guys with more relevant practicals.

    Saying the USMC squad is somehow married to its vehicles and mounted weapons and is weak dismounted, I don't know where that comes from. We're not talking old-school 11M soldiers here. The Marine squad has 150% more manpower and carries more firepower even proportionally to the RM section. These guys have weapons pooled at the next lower echelon, each echelon. Anyone matching USMC dismounted firepower on a peer (as in unit-level equality) basis is asking for an assreaming. Of course, they're not so hot mechanized, but that's not the point.
  14. higbvuyb Solidarity

    The stiff upper lip, of course.


    Also, if you explained what the abbreviations you use in many your posts are (well, except for the common ones like MOUT or USMC), then more than 5% of the board will understand what you're saying. :p
  15. PaRappaTheRappe Brokeback Mountaineer

    Which ones? IMT individual movement techniques, SUT small unit tactics... think that's it.
  16. An Ancient God of Zeppelins

    What makes you beleive USMC training is superior to Royal Marine training? Especially given the additional time the RM's get and the fact that NATO generally acknowledges the RM course as the toughest non-spec ops training course any member country has?

    As far as firepower goes, the USMC are fixed at 1 SAW and 1 40mm grenade launcher per 4 man team. The Royal Marines can take a heavier GPMG as a matter of course, and there is no restriction on the number of grenade launchers the team takes. The RM weapons load-out is less regimented, indeed training manuals state the number of grenade launchers is 'at the section commanders discretion'.

    So, squad vs section the USMC may have an additional SAW, but the two RM MG's may well be heavier weapons and there is every chance that, given foreknowledge of their enemies, the RM section may field six grenade launchers.
  17. PaRappaTheRappe Brokeback Mountaineer

    1. The RM recruit training cycle is long and physical. That doesn't address the fact that fundamentals in the USMC are elaborated upon by in-house and TAD courses in the pipeline. The RM compress a difficult assault / platoon tactics course onto an SOI-type series of modules in their recruit training. USMC breaks this up with a two tracks: a career accession pipeline (mostly TAD) that you pursue IAW class slot availability and unit schedules, and the METL requirements on workup toward deployment certification, timed on the unit readiness cycle. Professional development does not end when you finish your recruit training, the USMC philosophy is that you will be fully combat ready on the unit timetable not necessarily out the gate, because readiness at deployment is what matters.

    2. I note you did not remark upon the quality of the coursework. American classes and range practicals are of the most advanced standard, and the material is updated relentlessly by feedback from the 'end user'. We can afford to do this. It's not a slight on how intelligent and rigorous the instructors of RM personnel are, it's a recognition that the USMC, as with the Army, have the resourcing to make good on our deliberate effort to gain and exploit feedback from the ground truth of our training topics.

    3. A US squad is only 'fixed' in its load-out as a UK section is: on paper. And you will find that in particular, not only are the Marine squads bigger by half, but if you allow the UK squad to draw platoon or company weapons, good Lord, just ask a Marine platoon leader what he can expect from Company and what he'd attach to a squad going into known contact. I don't know how you get that the USMC restricts its commanders' discretion on allocation of weapons, you see how they handle break-out of their weapons units in the field.
  18. Minohtar Advocatus Diaboli

    As long as basic training weeds out the stupid, the weak, and the incompetent, it doesn't matter too much how long it is. Worst case scenario, you deploy with a couple guys who are under-trained, but that's not the end of the world.... so yeah, length of initial training is hardly the deciding factor you'd think it is, given how much it comes up in War Room threads.

    EDIT:

    Along those lines, I've read of USMC platoon leaders requesting stuff like .50 cals and carrying them on foot specifically because they wanted the extra firepower to break Taliban ambushes more quickly. So yeah, the RM getting to request heavier weapons while the USMC doesn't just isn't going to fly.
  19. higbvuyb Solidarity

    No, no, An Ancient is clearly right. You stop gaining experience points as soon as you finish basic, and you certainly don't learn anything afterwards. :p
  20. Harbinger Apparent Cult Member

    Would it be fair to say that in this scenerio (relatively even strength and equipment) that you should just flip a coin because that would be as effective in deciding a victor?
  21. Vendetta Internet Superhero

    No, this is the war room where the ludicrous is fact and the impossible is common place.
    If the odds are a draw - America wins. If the odds are against American - America wins...at worst, it's a draw (with a twist in Americas favour)

    If you argue honestly and the facts go against America, you're a nationalist, anti-american and don't know what you're talking about. If you agree America is the winner, you're honest.

    The War room is the one forum that makes the V's debate forum seem balanced. It should be renamed The America Fuck Yeah Forum
    :p 3...2...1
  22. The USMC wins by default, as the Royal Marines get eliminated by the latest round of Ministry of Defense budget cuts. ;)
  23. He's using the theory of diminishing returns.
  24. Bryan <font color=yellow>The Great Goof!</font>


    If only their training were like the Freeholders. :(
  25. Small-unit firefights like this between highly-trained forces are so unpredictable. There are lots of variables and I believe the winner would emerge out of chance more than anything -- there's not enough of an experience, training, numerical, or equipment-based disparity to select a clear winner.

Share This Page