Self-sustaining as they don't rely so much on a fixed depot for supplies.I don't really know how the USMC sustain themselves, but I do know how the army does it. We draw supplies from a fixed chain of command, depots, adminstrative chains and so forth. That sort of thing limits our deployment capability overseas. While this problem is usually solved by creating RDF forces, army RDF forces are either more vulnerable than most, because they're light infantry, or their presence in the field is more limited by fuel for helicopters and transport vehicles.Stark wrote: Self-sustaining like they carry more supplies, or they don't use as much?
And I kinda resent the 'more powerful' statement, since the USMC always loses wargames against AU forces, during the Bali deployment, they lost to a reserve unit. Obvously, however, I hardly hear about the reverses.
The Marines have it differently. For one, their deployment is aided by offshore prepositioning if equipment. At any moment in time, the USN maintains transports out in the ocean, carrying tanks, helicopters and artillery for the USMC. If a conflict erupts, while light infantry like the 81st Airborne mobilise and use air transport to reach the theatre, the US sealift will be sending its prepositioned ships into the theatre itself. They're get into a port, beach or whatnot and land the equipment. Meanwhile, marines from the US airlift into the theatre through civilian aircraft, then military C17s/C130s/whatever into the hostile zone, carrying nothing more than their M-16s.
