What PODs would be required for there to be created by 1900-01 an Australian Marine Corps along the lines of the USMC or RM Commandos, and what impact would such an Aussie Leatherneck force have on our military hist ?
Australian Marine Corps
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
Melvin Loh said:
#1. Get a good song. This isn't so crazy though, because what you really need to do is build a the tradition of the corps.
Now this could be a problem for Australians, but you'l just have to do it.
#2. During the formative years publicize only the battles you win.
A winning tradition is everything. Savings widows and orphans is a good idea, maybe missionaries are rescued in New Guina.
#3. Sometime later in the development of the Corps, you want to have martyrs to the cause.
Self sacrifice is the central virtue of a good marine. They have to be their for their buddies. Seems to me Australians should excel at this.
#4. Emphasize the tradition of the Corps.
Kadyet
Banned
MBarry829 said:
The Marines did manage to steal a good amount of credit from the Army during WWI (though that was in large part due to the media not getting their facts right) as well as in WWII. Army had more divisions in the Pacific if I remember correctly, but you only hear about the Marines.
I'll give the comment about WWI credit were credit is due. The army had a standing policy of keeping the press away from the fighting units. So the Marines let the Army tag along.
For WW2, yes the army did have more divisons there, but there was really 2 differnt campaigns being fought(thats even a gross simplification). The army units were, for the most part used in MacArthur's campaign that cumlinated with the liberation of the Phillipines. The USMC was used entirely in the Central Pac as part of the US Navy's "right up the middle" campaign. The USMC max strength during WW2 was 6 divisons, vs over 100 army divisons, they didn't have the resources to do it all there. But in the Navy stragegy the bulk of the fighting was done by Marines, at least intially.... often once an island was declared secure an Army divison would conduct wrap-up operations. Only at Guadalcanal, Saipan, and Okinawia would USMC and US Army units fight side by side in the intial operation.
historical tidbit: The was no mention of the 2 Marine Divisons that would have participated in the landings in Japan. It was assumed they would be combat ineffective by D +30.
For WW2, yes the army did have more divisons there, but there was really 2 differnt campaigns being fought(thats even a gross simplification). The army units were, for the most part used in MacArthur's campaign that cumlinated with the liberation of the Phillipines. The USMC was used entirely in the Central Pac as part of the US Navy's "right up the middle" campaign. The USMC max strength during WW2 was 6 divisons, vs over 100 army divisons, they didn't have the resources to do it all there. But in the Navy stragegy the bulk of the fighting was done by Marines, at least intially.... often once an island was declared secure an Army divison would conduct wrap-up operations. Only at Guadalcanal, Saipan, and Okinawia would USMC and US Army units fight side by side in the intial operation.
historical tidbit: The was no mention of the 2 Marine Divisons that would have participated in the landings in Japan. It was assumed they would be combat ineffective by D +30.
Kadyet said:
Um...so I'm guessing you have never heard of Sgt. Alvin York. But maybe that is a fair trade for getting the short end of the budget stick and having your service nearly wiped out on several occasions by the lobbying brass in the Army.
You really need to read up on your military history. Weren't you the one who also asked if the Army was segregating again?
I've seen a lot of spouting off on these boards by a lot of people that would get the crap beat out of them at the local VW or American Legion. Let me just give the summary: The Corps earned its rep. because they were baddest motherf**kers on the field. It didn't have to "steal" credit from anybody. Doesn't mean that the doesn't have Army has its own rep. too. It has a proud history: 82nd and 101st Airborne, 7th Calvary Division, Rangers, Delta, Special Forces, US Army Air Corps, et. al.
Here is my advice for an Australian Marine Corps. Set the PoD to WWI so that you get the USMC and Australian forces working together. Duly impressed, the Australian government decides to form its own Corps modeled on the USMC. That isn't far off. We did the same with Delta, modeling after the SAS, and we have worked closely with the Australian SAS for some time.
My apologies. There someone around here that asked that. Sorry that I associated you with that.
But the Army did equal "stealing." To be accurate, the grunts on the front line in either service weren't responsible. The media and the politicians in uniform can take full credit for that struggle. In the end, each service has fairly earned the reputation it has and stealing the limelight is largely irrelevant to subject.
BTW, nice Chesterton quote. Where did you get it?
But the Army did equal "stealing." To be accurate, the grunts on the front line in either service weren't responsible. The media and the politicians in uniform can take full credit for that struggle. In the end, each service has fairly earned the reputation it has and stealing the limelight is largely irrelevant to subject.
BTW, nice Chesterton quote. Where did you get it?
David's got a good point. Most of the Modern Marine Corps that have any type of reputation(besides the Royal Marines that is) and numbers had a close tie with the American Marines early in their history. Specifically the Korean Marines. Having closer ties with the US Marines is a good way to get Aussie Marines.
Why would the Australians turn to the USMC for inspiration when they've got a much longer association with the armed forces of the Mother Country? Simply have the Australians decide to form a small marine corps to perform the same duties as the Royal Marines when the RAN is created. After that the RAM follows the same path as their British counterparts eventually becoming a commando force that specialises in jungle warfare and raiding behind Japanese lines in Burma and the Pacific during WW2. Like the Royal Marine Commandos the Australian force retains this role post war and in 2005 you have a Royal Australian Marine Regiment that serves as Australia's rapid deployment force from the RAN's amphibious landing vessels.
Michael said:Pft, you fool Landshark, you realise this is ah.com, not ah.gb(or whatever the british thing is) all timelines and what if's have to somehow revolve around America
You mean like TL's where America dies at birth and becomes a loyal part of the Empire or one where America is conquered in 1812 and becomes a loyal part of the Empire or one where America is washed away by a rain of badger phlegm and the now empty lands are reintergrated into the Empire?
(BTW it's .co.uk)
Landshark said:
Good point. Makes a lot more sense to do it that way. But let me flip to the other side of the coin. Why wouldn't they model themselves on the Royal Marines? Now that may seem stupid to ask, but there are several reasons.
1.This marginalization of Australia introduces a potential rift: Australia was seen as the red-headed step child of the Empire (or would that go to Ireland?). The Aussie dialect was looked down upon as inferior to the Crown's English and their common descent thieves and criminals didn't do much for their image either. In the end, American Marines and Australian may have more in common with each other than the Australians would with British troops.
2. The training and culture of the Marines may be more conducive to Australian sensibilities: The training methods of the Royal Marines maintain a distinctly "Royalist" or Old World flavor: Their is a chasm between the enlisted man and the officer, reminiscent of a time when the officer would have been likely to be minor nobility and the enlisted a former urchin off the streets of London.
I'm not impugning it. It works. But it also the reason why Brits in the Navy defected to the US in the thousands through the early 19th century. And it may be a reason for the Aussies to look to US for a model.
3. Personal relationships may be a factor: Let us assume that along with the Army's Second Division and the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments of the 4th Brigade, that there was an Australian Army regiment along with them. Ten or twenty years down the line and that connection may mean people become godparents or their children marry. Those connections, which are almost indescribable to anyone who hasn't spent time in the military, may very well determine the direction of the political winds when privates becomes 1st sgts. and Lts. become colonels.
4. Shifting politics may influence choices: Post-WWI, the British Empire is in decline, recovering from the debt and damage of war, and the US is on the rise. The colonies and Dominions on the Empire are moving toward more and more autonomy. Australia wants to strike out on its own. A good political move for doing that, without ticking off the Crown, is to turn to a close British ally.
Now, all of this is "plausible," but not the most likely choice. Going with the RM is far more likely, but IF you wanted a connection between the USMC and the Aussies, it is possible with out going in to ASB territory.
The answer to Melvin Loh is simple. In 1901, when the Australian military forces were established, they simply follow the British pattern even more so, & establish a Marine Corps as part of the Royal Australian Navy. As it was, everything else was copied, albeit with some Australian flavour added, so it's not hard to take it that one extra step in establishing such a small Royal Australian Marine Corps as part of the Navy at Federation.