arealdeadone | 01 Nov 2021 9:54 p.m. PST |
USMC continue their transformation. Next step is losing dedicated weapons platoons and companies and integrating these weapons into standard platoons/companies. This doesn't mean more rifle companies or even significantly larger companies as number per battalion is scheduled to be reduced by 200 men. link
link |
Dragon Gunner | 02 Nov 2021 2:57 a.m. PST |
It sounds like they are adopting a force structure similar to the Army. |
Irish Marine | 02 Nov 2021 4:18 a.m. PST |
The Corp is loosing its identity. |
Oddball | 02 Nov 2021 6:18 a.m. PST |
My nephew is 1 year out (has next summer for his 2nd trip to Quantico, already completed first) from attempting to get his commission in the Marine Corps. I hope there is a slot for him when he graduates from college in May, 2023. |
Oddball | 02 Nov 2021 6:19 a.m. PST |
Then again, maybe not, with the way the military is being used currently and most likely in the near future. |
Tgerritsen | 02 Nov 2021 7:21 a.m. PST |
It seems that the Marines are adopting a penny packet approach to force deployment. Has that EVER worked for anyone? Maybe the Boers? (But they eventually lost the war.) |
Legion 4 | 02 Nov 2021 9:42 a.m. PST |
The Corp is loosing its identity. Yes it seems that is true. The new USMC Gen is rewriting what they are all about. E.g. getting rid of all their M1s. |
Bismarck | 02 Nov 2021 9:58 a.m. PST |
This new Commandant is setting the Corps back worse than post WWII. I pray his successor will correct all these disastrous decisions. He is ruining the Corps. His legacy will be the worst Commandant in Marine Corps history. |
Tortorella | 02 Nov 2021 11:29 a.m. PST |
I know nothing here, but I have read that battlefield tech, drones, robotics, etc, is moving ahead at a fantastic pace and has been changing traditional roles and skills needed. Cyber warfare is a major concern. Is there a way for all the branches to keep their identities, traditions, morale, while taking on new roles and weapons systems? I hate the thought of losing the character that is at the heart of military service. |
Major Mike | 02 Nov 2021 12:32 p.m. PST |
It's always the debate over having the elements as part of the line units or in under a specific, separate HQ in garrison. Being in a separate HQ allows for specialized training to a single standard and better oversite of staffing of the sections and platoons. Once deployed and the elements are parceled out, you have a ready Company/Platoon Cadre that can be used as replacements. So, all I see is the Corps doing like the other services and cutting what they consider to be "fat" from the program. As with all such moves, only time will tell if the remaining commanders can keep what was the Weapons Company/Platoon personnel trained and effective. |
Irish Marine | 02 Nov 2021 12:41 p.m. PST |
The Corp is doing away with combat MOS's; 0331 Machine gunner, 0351 Demolition/Assault and I believe 0341 Mortars. The Army works like that. |
Dragon Gunner | 02 Nov 2021 1:35 p.m. PST |
My Army experience is some machine gunners could get the most out of their machine guns if they knew how to fully utilize the tripod and traversing and elevation mechanism. It also depended a lot on how the platoon leader and NCO's viewed support weapons. Some just employed them as an over sized squad automatic weapon. When I was in back in the 80's the old NCO's used to lament the the lost expertise on machine guns. Anti tank weapons were just some extra random gear we had to lug around in case we needed them. They were frequently set up in positions where they were useless. The prevailing though was the anti tank man is more of a rifleman or grenadier. Mortars were still a separate MOS. (some competence must be maintained or you end up with friendly fire incidents) Demolitions were, "Here is some C4, Det cord and blasting caps slap it on what you want to destroy and try not to kill yourself." Where should I place it sir? "I don't know just slap it on soldier!". ( We had combat engineers only saw them once in the field with demolitions) |
arealdeadone | 02 Nov 2021 2:25 p.m. PST |
I know nothing here, but I have read that battlefield tech, drones, robotics, etc, is moving ahead at a fantastic pace and has been changing traditional roles and skills needed. Cyber warfare is a major concern. Is there a way for all the branches to keep their identities, traditions, morale, while taking on new roles and weapons systems? I hate the thought of losing the character that is at the heart of military service. The Marines started using aircraft and tanks in the past and took on new roles such as amphibious landings, airborne fighter/attack etc and kept their identity. The real threat to military identity is modern cultural change. Eg the Australian defence department spent 10 years trying to get rid of the "Anglo-Saxon warrior mentality" in favour of a new diverse, tolerant, feeling culture. |
arealdeadone | 02 Nov 2021 2:34 p.m. PST |
I think Dragon Gunner hits the nail on the head. Specialist weapons require a different set of training and mentality to get the most out of their weapons and to maximise tactical efficiency. Jacks of all trades are good but you do lose skills with such approaches. It's like CAS in the air force. Sure an F-15E or F-16 can do it but those guys train much differently to the A-10 mob whose sole purpose is CAS. ----
I think the other issue here is USMC battalions are shrinking in size. At some point you lose critical mass.
The war in Nagorno-Karabak and Ibdid province in Syria reminded us that in a peer level war casualties are massive even in a world of drones, high tech sensors and loitering munitions. In some ways these wars were even more lethal as the drones and precision guided weapons rendered traditional defences such as bunkers very vulnerable. So shrinking forces is bad because any casualties reduces your combat effectiveness much quicker. But the Marines obviously no longer intend to use Marines as infantry. Indeed some of the the articles I've read argued the USMC no longer has a clear role for infantry save ship guards and guards for deployed missile forces.
|
Dan Cyr | 02 Nov 2021 3:30 p.m. PST |
What exactly has the Marine Corps role or identity been in the near future past? Was it viable? Quick reaction force, amphibious assault, embassy guards, what? At one point in their history was that they guarded a ship's officers (captain in particular) from the crew, acted as snipers and on boarding crews in ship-to-ship combat, part of shore assaults and supplied gun crews. Those roles changed over time. By WWI they acted as straight leg infantry and then returned to amphibious assault forces in WWII and Korea. Since then they've seemed to struggle to justify why they're not the army. As well trained as they are, would they not be more of a quick reaction force or form of special ops force? They evolve with the times, this is just the latest change. Can anyone say that the army or navy has not been changing over the past 50 years? |
arealdeadone | 02 Nov 2021 4:07 p.m. PST |
Marines fought as a combined arms land force in Korea too, not just amphibious ops. They did this in Vietnam, Iraq (both times) and Afghanistan. QRF is also role of Army – 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, 10th Mountain Division, 75th Ranger Regiment. These are actually the most responsive units in the US military other than SOCOM as they are fully air transportable at short notice.
Can anyone say that the army or navy has not been changing over the past 50 years? Not in any fundamental way. Core missions and core strategic and tactical concepts are still fundamentally the same. |
Legion 4 | 02 Nov 2021 4:51 p.m. PST |
Dragon Gunner +1
The real threat to military identity is modern cultural change. Eg the Australian defence department spent 10 years trying to get rid of the "Anglo-Saxon warrior mentality" in favour of a new diverse, tolerant, feeling culture. Bingo ! Madness … just madness and as we see the US Military is basically doing the same. QRF is also role of Army – 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, 10th Mountain Division, 75th Ranger Regiment. These are actually the most responsive units in the US military other than SOCOM as they are fully air transportable at short notice. Yep … |
Tortorella | 02 Nov 2021 6:45 p.m. PST |
Does anyone see any impact regarding a tech revolution on the battlefield, ie drones, robotics, etc.? We seem to have automated weapons for air, land and sea that are replacing humans in some ways, as do our potential opponents. Or is this not yet much of a factor? |
arealdeadone | 02 Nov 2021 7:13 p.m. PST |
Tortorella, The Turkish, Israeli and Azeri (and to lesser degree Russian in Ukraine) experiences show you still need basic infantry, artillery and armour regardless of how many drones you operate. Indeed all three integrate the drones and loitering munitions with conventional forces. Eg pairing artillery with drones providing observation.
You still need infantry and armour to take ground too. Drones aren't as capable as modern manned systems. An F-16 still offers infinitely more capability than a MQ-1/-9 Predator/Reaper let alone a cheaper Turkish or Chinese or Israeli drone.
And at some point the electronic warfare and and air defences will be more attuned to taking out drones.
The drone in fact has a weakness in that it's control can be hacked whereas a human can't (well not yet). The big changes are for the impoverished forces like those in Africa or insurgents who can now afford very cheap disposable air support. |
Tortorella | 02 Nov 2021 8:32 p.m. PST |
I get it Ardo and I don't disagree. I was also thinking of robotics on the ground firing all kinds of weapons, transporting ammo and supplies, picking up wounded, guarding perimeters. Assault vessels with no hand on the tiller. I cant imagine these things are not in development and some may even be operational with Special Forces. The Russians had those unmanned tanks in Syria, which were not very good, but the future has got to be heading this way IMO. |
machinehead | 03 Nov 2021 6:05 a.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 03 Nov 2021 10:20 a.m. PST |
Yep … as time goes on more & more 'bots, drones, AI, etc., will be on the battlefield. And maybe law enforcement too. Yes the Russians are going ahead with making robotic AFVs, etc. They may not be that good now … but as tech goes on they will get better and better.
show you still need basic infantry, artillery and armour regardless of how many drones you operate. Bingo !!! You still need infantry and armour to take ground too Bingo !!! Yes drones cannot hold ground. But they can support those forces can & do. Used as recon and firepower. I know some in the US gov't said high tech like drones could guard our southern border. Not alone they can't … They have to be integrated into a combine ops with LEOs, the military, etc. A drone can't stop anyone from crossing a border, etc. Unless it is armed. We can't do that to stop the flow of unarmed criminals/illegal aliens, etc., in the USA. It is a crime against humanity, etc. However, in war … they could, would, and do kill targets effectively. We have seen that in a number of conflicts. But have to be deployed & used correctly. Ask Iran's Suilamnni … doh … wait ! You can't … a drone strike killed him, another Shia militia Ldr and their troops. Don't know the the reliability of machinehead's source … However with the current USMC changes. It wouldn't surprise me if this occurred … that the UK's RMC and attached Dutch Marines "bested" the USMC. The RMC are a 1st rate unit. However, small in numbers, IIRC. Regardless … the USMC may need to look at how they are doing things. If this report is true. |
machinehead | 03 Nov 2021 10:51 a.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 03 Nov 2021 11:11 a.m. PST |
I don't doubt it ! Just have not heard this from another source. At the time I first read the link. However, the 3 other links you posted seem to strongly back up the first. Regardless … It is what happened. As I said the RMC is a very effective force. And IIRC the Dutch Marines were considered good troops as well. When on active duty, '79-'90, I worked with the USMC on a number of FTXs, etc. As well as was a grad of USMC/USN Basic Amphib training at Norfolk NAB. I found them to be very good soldiers/warriors, etc. I have a number of friends today who were USMC ! |
machinehead | 03 Nov 2021 11:23 a.m. PST |
I think they are redundant, the Army can do anything they can do. I was in the 2nd Armored Div. in the mid 70s. |
Dragon Gunner | 03 Nov 2021 11:56 a.m. PST |
I work with some ex Marines and they are always chanting, "first to arrive in battle". I tried to explain that was false and offered real world scenarios. Airborne and air transportable units arrive much quicker and can deploy anywhere. I also pointed out the Marine Corp MEU is limited to landing in costal areas. I learned to avoid conversations with these guys they just spin up, turn red faced and start bellowing… |
Steve Wilcox | 03 Nov 2021 12:45 p.m. PST |
I was in the 2nd Armored Div. in the mid 70s. Nice! A famous outfit! |
machinehead | 03 Nov 2021 12:49 p.m. PST |
Had a sort of famous commanding general too. Patton son of Patton, pearl handled pistols (ivory really) and all. :D |
Steve Wilcox | 03 Nov 2021 1:36 p.m. PST |
Wow! The full package deal! :) |
arealdeadone | 03 Nov 2021 2:56 p.m. PST |
I work with some ex Marines and they are always chanting, "first to arrive in battle". I tried to explain that was false and offered real world scenarios. Airborne and air transportable units arrive much quicker and can deploy anywhere. I also pointed out the Marine Corp MEU is limited to landing in costal areas. It's like the myth the Marines get hand me down equipment or don't get any new investment and have to make do with primitive broken junk. The overly expensive MV-22 Osprey, CH-53K King Stallion and F-35B Lightning II, UH-1Y Venom and AH-1Z Viper are all great examples of why this isn't true. Plenty of land projects too albeit the Marine and overall DoD procurement and development bungling has seen quite a few of these fail. Though they're still getting the new Amphibious Combat Vehicle even though it no longer has a mission under Berger's reforms (ie may be cancelled yet). |
Legion 4 | 03 Nov 2021 3:20 p.m. PST |
Nice! A famous outfit! Hell On Wheels ! Airborne and air transportable units arrive much quicker and can deploy anywhere. Airborne !!! 🪂Air Assault !!! 🚁 |
arealdeadone | 03 Nov 2021 3:29 p.m. PST |
The RM-USMC exercise is meaningless without context. What was force composition, what were the restrictions and what were the objectives? And note it wasn't just RM but also other forces from UAE, Canada, Netherlands and other US units that opposed the Marines. Indeed a single RM battalion (600-800 men) would struggle to maintain a presence over a 3,500 km square area let alone control over 65% of such a large battlefield. --------- And I also doubt the validity of many of these exercises – it's been proven time and again that many exercises are very flawed in their conceptualisation. Very often Red Forces are deliberately hamstrung. The Red Force may not be allowed to use realistic tactics, engage offensively or have poor composition. The Navy once got "sunk" in an exercise against a force that used actual Iranian tactics in an offensive manner. The Navy was pi$$ed because the red commander was under orders to not use these tactics but instead play a passive game. Sometimes there isn't even a Red Force. Eg latest Marine exercises to test new concepts – the Marines flew in missiles aboard a C-130, landed without issues, "fired" missiles and took off. There was no enemy Red Force to counter this – not even so much as a patrol boat! At times even Blue Forces have daft restrictions. I remember reading of one exercises where F-22s weren't allowed to use their superior BVR capabilities and the Germans sent Eurofighters stripped right down so they could beat the F-22s in visual range combat. Often the force composition is unrealistic too. Again Marines operate as combined arms – did they have access to tactical air power (AV-8, F/A-18, F-35) It only mentions gunships. Did they have aerial reconnaissance ala long endurance drones or supporting USAF assets such as E-8 JSTARS which provide superb battlefield tactical awareness or US Army RC-12 SIGINT/ELINT/ISTAR aircraft?*
The other thing is most electronic systems don't operate at full spectrum either even in allied exercises. This is due to highly classified nature of EW (and it can also have massive impacts on local civilian infrastructure). These days it gets even worse with many units being "virtual" ie in a computer. Latest USN global exercise had a lot of virtual units, but very few real actual units. --- *I think the Marines are really lacking in aerial reconnaissance and battlefield control. They have 12 recce equipped F/A-18s spread out across the 4 VMFA(AW) squadrons. They have no aircraft with large powerful radar and battlefield control systems (hence my reference E-8 JSTARS). Their drones are largely small ones used for local tactical control, not larger long endurance missions. With retirement of EA-6B Prowler they're also lacking in EW capability (they never acquired the EA-18G Growler). |
Legion 4 | 03 Nov 2021 3:42 p.m. PST |
What was force composition, what were the restrictions and what were the objectives? That would be interesting to know. it wasn't just RM but also other forces from UAE, Canada, Netherlands and other US units that opposed the Marines. Yes … Is here a list of these forces & strengths, etc. ? But again the USMC is good outfit … And sometimes after an FTX … you may have to reevaluate how you do things, SOPs, etc. That is why you run FTXs, etc. |
Irish Marine | 03 Nov 2021 5:56 p.m. PST |
Well it looks like a bunch of Colonels, Majors and Captains need to go back to school. We aren't fighting a bunch of savages anymore and chances are we will be fighting other armies who have had real training with real support services and air power. |
Legion 4 | 04 Nov 2021 12:36 p.m. PST |
Good point … Have to be able to fight conventional & COIN. But again that takes a lot of training, etc. |
arealdeadone | 04 Nov 2021 3:08 p.m. PST |
Unless you are going back into business of occupying third world hellholes, SOCOM is actually all you need for COIN. |
Thresher01 | 04 Nov 2021 7:03 p.m. PST |
Seems to me they are adopting a "light infantry" role and tactics. I worry that may be a big mistake against near-peer forces who are better armed. |
arealdeadone | 04 Nov 2021 7:16 p.m. PST |
Thresher, they are not adapting a light infantry role. Berger is clear in his intent – Marines are to be ship hunters (as well as possibly submarine hunters). The main future modus operandi for the Marines is to insert small groups of Marines (50-75) on to unguarded (yet strategically located) islands and then lob antishipping missiles.
In this instance the infantry's role is guard duty for the antishipping battery.
Hence a few articles have already discussed how the infantry (and what's left of artillery and light armour) fit into this role.
Tactical air is already shrinking too – they are disbanding units equipped with (brand new) AH-1Z and UH-1Y helos whilst the future fighter fleet is still under review and expected to decline. |
Legion 4 | 05 Nov 2021 8:22 a.m. PST |
Unless you are going back into business of occupying third world hellholes, Hopefully we have learned some lessons. SOCOM is actually all you need for COIN. Probably … but troops need to train for all contingencies, etc. That was my experience as a Rifle Plt Ldr & Mech Co. Cdr. |
JRR Tokin | 07 Nov 2021 3:11 p.m. PST |
Lost quite a few companies due to the vaccine mandate, too, as I understand it. |
arealdeadone | 07 Nov 2021 3:28 p.m. PST |
Probably … but troops need to train for all contingencies, etc. That was my experience as a Rifle Plt Ldr & Mech Co. Cdr. True but it is hard to be a jack of all trades, master of none. I think it's a case of really trying hard to maintain your forces tied in with your strategic vision and doctrine. |
Legion 4 | 07 Nov 2021 4:33 p.m. PST |
True but it is hard to be a jack of all trades, master of none. Well we were masters of many tasks that Infantrymen did/do. We were evaluated often … Being both Light & Mech, and I was not rare, we rotated in and out of Light & Mech unit thru out our time in the US ARMY. Thru various schools, courses, FTXs, in many environs and countries. If nothing else we were masters of dismounted patrolling ops. Many tasks in patrolling are critical to all forms if Infantry missions and even combined arms. We were Jacks of all trades in the Infantry and mastered many of the tasks. By training and gaining experience, the learning curve will be less steep, if at all … IMO I think it's a case of really trying hard to maintain your forces tied in with your strategic vision and doctrine. We training and practice etc., etc., for many missions. But in many cases you have to master basic & advanced Infantry skills in all forms. Or yes … try … Regardless of the OPFOR, mission, etc. Again Patrolling, etc., skills work in many environs, missions, etc. No matter who you are fighting. |
arealdeadone | 07 Nov 2021 5:19 p.m. PST |
Legion but then you read someone else's experiences in the US Army (Dragon) and his superiors trained as Jack of all trades didn't know how to fully exploit specialist weapons like ATGMs and in fact used them badly.. The US model has been criticised for a while as it is based on officers seeking constant rotations and promotions instead of developing specialised services skills. |
Dragon Gunner | 07 Nov 2021 11:11 p.m. PST |
The NCO's used to complain we would get in a butter bar LT, hold his hand and train him up to be our leader. About the time he was considered fully competent he would be promoted to 1st LT, transferred to an XO slot, HQ company or some other function. Then we would receive a brand new LT and start over. Not all LTs are created equal and it really showed when we had one that was just passing through, he would let the platoon sergeant make all the decisions. I considered us blessed when we received an LT that actually liked being an infantry platoon leader and was well versed in military tactics and strategy. |
Dragon Gunner | 07 Nov 2021 11:47 p.m. PST |
"And I also doubt the validity of many of these exercises". When my I was in the 82nd 1/504 airborne infantry battalion we rotated through Fort Irwin. One of the things we noticed is we brought with us brigade and division level assets (armor and artillery). We also had air support and transport. All on a scale I have never witnessed before or after. I questioned the validity of the exercise that all this support would be made available to just one battalion of the 82nd when there were a total of nine infantry battalions in the division. Possible yes but not likely! |
Legion 4 | 08 Nov 2021 5:05 p.m. PST |
Legion but then you read someone else's experiences in the US Army (Dragon) and his superiors trained as Jack of all trades didn't know how to fully exploit specialist weapons like ATGMs and in fact used them badly.. That was not my experience. Every quarter or so, we'd rotated weapons. So all the troops in the squad knew how to use them. And we ran qual ranges as well, quarterly. Everyone was cross trained in every weapon in the Sqd & Plt. That is the way we/I did it. I saw no problem in with that system. The US model has been criticised for a while as it is based on officers seeking constant rotations and promotions instead of developing specialised services skills. No, the officers I knew were not as you say in your post. Generally you get promoted by time in service. If you proved capable and didn't something up. You got promoted. Again Not all officers are as you allude to in that post. Again based on my experiences. Usually MAJ is the big cut off. LTs & CPTs … well I know I and all the officers I knew, IIRC, went from 2LT to 1LT to CPT in about 4 or 5 years. We rotated out of a unit every 3 years or so. Save for the ROK, which is a 12 month tour. I did 22. The ROK was the best place to really do soldiering, IMO. An unaccompanied tour, no wives or kids to be concerned with. We had a real enemy. We were within their FA's ranges. You were concerned about being a soldier, etc. The same could be said when I was in the 101 when we deployed to Panama. And some other off post exercises, etc. As well as when I was in the 197th Mech Bde. At the NTC and REFORGER. As an officer you were only concerned about promotion so you could stay in the ARMY and continue your journey/trek as a officer/soldier. Maybe be making 20 … I did not know anyone who was only there to make GEN. Rotating from the 101, a Light Inf unit to a Mech unit in various locals and environs. Made you just a better soldier. In the Infantry especially you were a Jack of all trades … you had to be. But that did not stop you from being a master of many trades. The NCO's used to complain we would get in a butter bar LT, hold his hand and train him up to be our leader. About the time he was considered fully competent he would be promoted to 1st LT, transferred to an XO slot, HQ company or some other function. Then we would receive a brand new LT and start over. Yes that is true … and my experience. Even as a Co. Cdr. I no sooner had work with & train an LT. The Bn Cdr would send them to another unit. As an LT, in the 101, I never went from Plt Ldr to Co. XO. I went, after about 12+ months as I Plt Ldr to the Bn Air Ops Officer (S3 Air). As I said I think rotating from position to position and then unit to unit, e.g. from the 101 to the 2ID. Makes you a better officer or even NCO. Not all LTs are created equal and it really showed when we had one that was just passing through, he would let the platoon sergeant make all the decisions. I considered us blessed when we received an LT that actually liked being an infantry platoon leader and was well versed in military tactics and strategy. So very true again. LTs are like players on a football Tm. Not all are starters/First stringers/stars … I didn't know of any officers, just passing thru. But I don't doubt they were out there. But it became obvious after a while … who the Alphas were. And associated with one an other. As they were cut of the same cloth. For me … it was all about weapons & tactics. But of course I still had a lot to learn from some of the NCOs and even more senior officers. Many had served in Vietnam … Then after a while, the newer LTs were asking me questions about how to do things, etc. Just I as did … about year or so ago, after being in the Bn. And I felt I was still learning too. But having that year or so experience with all the training, FTXs, etc. You were someone the "newbees" would ask. Dragon – 504th, "the devils in baggy pants" !
Of course Dragon being a trooper vs. being an officer … we will, in many case have a different POV, etc., obviously … From what I can tell … he must have a pretty good troop. Did his job, no problems . And ardo your POV is going to very different from Dragon or I. You were on the outside looking in. We were on the inside with a different experience, creating our POV … |