View Full Version : Marines dumping their tank units
I guess tanks aren't really a thing in the Pacific theatre?
"As part of Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David Berger’s plan to redesign the force to confront China and other peer adversaries by 2030, the Marines are axing all three of its tank battalions, and chucking out all law enforcement battalions and bridging companies, according to a news release from Marine Corps Combat Development Command.
The Corps is also cutting the number of grunt battalions from 24 to 21, artillery cannon batteries from 21 to five and amphibious vehicle companies from six to four, according to the release. Aviation is taking a hit too, the Marines plan to cut back on MV-22 Osprey, attack and heavy lift squadrons."
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2020/03/23/the-corps-is-axing-all-of-its-tank-battalions-and-cutting-grunt-units/
I think the new plan is for the Marines to provide security for missile/drone bases. From what I can tell hunker down on an island, use drones to locate enemy ships and lob missiles at them.
“Infantry battalions will be smaller to support naval expeditionary warfare” and designed to support a fighting concept known as Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations — which will see Marines decentralized and distributed across the Pacific on Islands or floating barge bases.
The changes, expected to take place over the course of the next 10 years, were first reported by the Wall Street Journal.
As the Corp divests of legacy equipment and units, the Marines say they plan to invest in long-range precision fires, reconnaissance and unmanned systems."
" The Corps wants to double the number of unmanned squadrons and “austere lethal unmanned air and ground systems, enhancing our ability to sense and strike,” MCCDC said in the release.
“The Marine Corps is not optimized to meet the demands of the National Defense Strategy,” MCCDC said in the news release. “Our force design initiatives are designed to create and maintain a competitive edge against tireless and continuously changing peer adversaries.”
The Marines says it wants a “300 percent increase in rocket artillery capacity” with anti-ship missiles. The Corps is eyeing a remotely operated rocket artillery HIMARS launcher that uses the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle paired with the Naval Strike Missile to sink ships at sea."
Not just armor, they're also going to get rid of an entire infantry regiment, 8th Marines. As well as some tilt rotor capability. This is a big freaking deal.
just a scout
03-24-20, 15:47
The Marines have just made themselves irrelevant. With this change, all they are good for is ship’s detachments, embassy guards and base defense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Pacific5th
03-24-20, 15:56
They are decimating the tube artillery. During the Iraq war 11th Marines 12 batteries shot so much 155 that we were dominating the supply chain. At one point something like 90% of the supply chain was 155 rounds and powder bags. We killed something like 60% of the targets between Kuwait and Baghdad. Not to mention that Marine arty has deployed almost as much if not more then the grunts lately to Iraq to provide fire support. I’m not sure what the end game is here but it seems like they are trying to go to a light infantry force.
Pacific5th
03-24-20, 15:58
I’m not sure how many Abrams the Marines even have. I was actually surprised they never looked into the tank cannon Stryker variant. It seems like a good fit for the Corp.
The Marines have just made themselves irrelevant. With this change, all they are good for is ship’s detachments, embassy guards and base defense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I don't know about that. I feel like this is the typical BS of cutting things post-war and then finding themselves in a different situation for the next conflict, but as the wiseman once said "we'll see".
I understand that they want a lighter faster force, and they even had a doctrine in place to do so as they were switching over to the tilt rotor. It was an emphasis on being America's 911 force, much like what Russia did in the Crimean Peninsula
https://www.mccdc.marines.mil/Portals/172/Docs/MCCDC/FDSP/USMC%20Force%20Development%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf?ver=2015-11-18-075025-083
They are decimating the tube artillery. During the Iraq war 11th Marines 12 batteries shot so much 155 that we were dominating the supply chain. At one point something like 90% of the supply chain was 155 rounds and powder bags. We killed something like 60% of the targets between Kuwait and Baghdad. Not to mention that Marine arty has deployed almost as much if not more then the grunts lately to Iraq to provide fire support. I’m not sure what the end game is here but it seems like they are trying to go to a light infantry force.
Tube artillery not much good for shooting at ships 100 miles away which is their new job apparently.
The Marines says it wants a “300 percent increase in rocket artillery capacity” with anti-ship missiles. The Corps is eyeing a remotely operated rocket artillery HIMARS launcher that uses the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle paired with the Naval Strike Missile to sink ships at sea."
Well if there was one thing we learned from the last couple of decades of war...
We have too much Infantry and too many armored vehicles. Next thing you know they will be asking for
un-armored Humvees...
MountainRaven
03-24-20, 16:29
Sounds like the Corps is tired of being the United States Marine Corps and wants to give being the Royal American Marine Corps a go.
Glock9mm1990
03-24-20, 16:50
The Marines have just made themselves irrelevant. With this change, all they are good for is ship’s detachments, embassy guards and base defense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Congress will have the final say and they usually end up blocking any planned cuts anyways.
Congress will have the final say and they usually end up blocking any planned cuts anyways.
True. Thank God we have elected officials that fully understand the scope and nuance of strategic military planning, and with that I give you Congressman of the week (due to HR5717) Hank Johnson from the great state of Georgia.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjG958lZ1KI
Diamondback
03-24-20, 17:25
...I give you Congressman of the week (due to HR5717) Hank Johnson, blight upon the great state of Georgia.
FIFY!
FIFY!
Thank you, thank you ;)
Averageman
03-24-20, 17:30
I’m not sure how many Abrams the Marines even have. I was actually surprised they never looked into the tank cannon Stryker variant. It seems like a good fit for the Corp.
No really that is a nightmare beyond anything previously known to man.
The kinks in that system are kinkier than Plato's Retreat on a coke filed Friday night circa 1979.
OK here's the elephant in the room, how can the Marines fight the Chinese in the Pacific theater, they are not going to win a stand up land battle. Asymmetric warfare, scatter small groups of Marines with drones and anti-ship rockets across multiple islands and wait until their ships come into range, fire your rockets then E&E. The biggest problem will be that any conflict with China and their first target will be the GPS satellites so those will be off the table.
Averageman
03-24-20, 17:33
You're just not rocking a lot of beach assaults without the help of direct fire.
Tanks on the beach are more fun for Marines than finding sand dollars
I'm still waiting on the crap they promised us in Aliens. Drop ships, the truck, and nukes. High yield nukes deployable by "Jr" NCOs like Cpl Hicks. That is how you update the Corps!
SeriousStudent
03-24-20, 20:07
Fascinating. I'd love to see the reaction at Happy Camp Horno by the Sea.
And regarding 8th Marines, they are moving two battalions to different regiments, deactivating a third battalion along with the 8th Marine Regiment HQ Company.
I actually read CMC's guidance on this - amazing, huh?
Personally, as a former 03, I have a love/hate relationship with our armored brethren. Nice to have around when people are irritated at me. But they have a tendency to view us as small squishy speedbumps, which gives me a sad.
BoringGuy45
03-24-20, 20:21
Sounds like the Corps is tired of being the United States Marine Corps and wants to give being the Royal American Marine Corps a go.
Here's a thought: Maybe that's not a bad idea. Most of the old "send in the Marines" expeditionary and rapid deployment missions are now going to Army airborne units and SOCOM units. The fact that the Corps established the Raiders after decades of the "EVERY marine is elite" doctrine shows that they saw the winds of change blowing after 9/11. In addition, Marine infantry has mostly been used in much the same way that Army infantry is used, and other than guarding embassies and Navy installations, the Corps doesn't really have a niche anymore. Even as far back as WWII, the Army showed that they were also capable of doing amphibious assaults and establishing beachheads.
Perhaps going to the UK/Dutch marine model and becoming lighter and more flexible, conducting smaller scale missions, raids, etc. would make them more valuable in the eyes of politicians. It may be beneficial to establish Marine infantry as an elite unit that takes missions more along the lines of the 82nd Airborne or the Rangers, only with an amphibious emphasis, i.e. while Rangers and paratroopers are used to seize airfields, the marines would primarily be utilized to seize ports, boatyards, and other targets in a coastal area. Basically, they'd take light infantry/special operations missions that require larger units than SEALs or Raiders would use.
Of course, I'm just giving an outsider's perspective.
Here's a thought: Maybe that's not a bad idea. Most of the old "send in the Marines" expeditionary and rapid deployment missions are now going to Army airborne units and SOCOM units. The fact that the Corps established the Raiders after decades of the "EVERY marine is elite" doctrine shows that they saw the winds of change blowing after 9/11. In addition, Marine infantry has mostly been used in much the same way that Army infantry is used, and other than guarding embassies and Navy installations, the Corps doesn't really have a niche anymore. Even as far back as WWII, the Army showed that they were also capable of doing amphibious assaults and establishing beachheads.
Perhaps going to the UK/Dutch marine model and becoming lighter and more flexible, conducting smaller scale missions, raids, etc. would make them more valuable in the eyes of politicians. It may be beneficial to establish Marine infantry as an elite unit that takes missions more along the lines of the 82nd Airborne or the Rangers, only with an amphibious emphasis, i.e. while Rangers and paratroopers are used to seize airfields, the marines would primarily be utilized to seize ports, boatyards, and other targets in a coastal area. Basically, they'd take light infantry/special operations missions that require larger units than SEALs or Raiders would use.
Of course, I'm just giving an outsider's perspective.
The Marines with regards to MEUs have a capability that no other branch has, not the Army, not the Air Force. I really don't see that mission going away.
I can kind of see some of the cuts are talking about, they never liked having big armor, doctrinally that was more of an army thing than a Marine Corps thing. but chopping in the tire infantry regiment? That's huge.
The Marines with regards to MEUs have a capability that no other branch has, not the Army, not the Air Force. I really don't see that mission going away.
I can kind of see some of the cuts are talking about, they never liked having big armor, doctrinally that was more of an army thing than a Marine Corps thing. but chopping in the tire infantry regiment? That's huge.
CMC's comment: "We are designed ... for a competition behind us, not in front of us," he said last fall. "That's driving the Marine Corps to redesign our force."
The article with CMC's guidance: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/03/23/marines-shut-down-all-tank-units-cut-infantry-battalions-major-overhaul.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2S-1HBrt2DP_VwjuGwbHhS6mI8n46z7m7edjVgY_0VJnk99Wi1_bvy2h8#Echobox=1584990680
"Developing a force that incorporates emerging technologies and a significant change to force structure within our current resource constraints will require the Marine Corps to become smaller and remove legacy capabilities."
By 2030, the Marine Corps will drop down to an end strength of 170,000 personnel. That's about 16,000 fewer leathernecks than it has today.
"The Marine Corps is redesigning the 2030 force for naval expeditionary warfare in actively contested spaces," the announcement states.
1) The Marines will have three fewer infantry units and will shed about 7% of its overall force as the service prepares for a potential face-off with China;
2) The Marine Corps is cutting all military occupational specialties associated with tank battalions, law enforcement units and bridging companies.
3) The Marines are also reducing its number of infantry battalions from 24 to 21 and cutting tiltrotor, attack and heavy-lift aviation squadrons.
4) Units and squadrons that will be deactivated under plan include:
3rd Battalion, 8th Marines
Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 264
Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 462
Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 469
Marine Wing Support Groups 27 and 37
8th Marine Regiment Headquarters Company.
5) The 8th Marine Regiment's other units -- 1/8 and 2/8 -- will be absorbed by other commands.
6) Artillery cannon batteries will fall from 21 today to five. Amphibious vehicle companies will drop from six to four.
Cost savings associated with trimming the ranks will pay for a 300% increase in rocket artillery capabilities, anti-ship missiles, unmanned systems and other high-tech equipment leaders say Marines will need to take on threats such as China or Russia.
7) The Marine Corps will also create three littoral regiments that are organized, trained and equipped to handle sea denial and control missions. The news release describes the new units as a "Pacific posture." Marine expeditionary units, which deploy on Navy ships, will augment those new regiments.
I have to say, though I love they are getting rid of MP units (so it reads). About useless. What can the army and Marines agree on? MPs are useless.
I will also say that although this is Berger's baby, we'll see what happens when congress gets through with the plan.
BoringGuy45
03-25-20, 07:24
I have to say, though I love they are getting rid of MP units (so it reads). About useless. What can the army and Marines agree on? MPs are useless.
I will also say that although this is Berger's baby, we'll see what happens when congress gets through with the plan.
Who would handle law enforcement on the bases without MPs?
Who would handle law enforcement on the bases without MPs?
Many places have DOD or contract police. The feud had been going on forever.
BoringGuy45
03-25-20, 07:32
Many places have DOD or contract police. The feud had been going on forever.
Contract police? So, is that private security, or do you mean they contract with local LE to provide service to the base?
Contract police? So, is that private security, or do you mean they contract with local LE to provide service to the base?
As I remember it correctly for Miramar and Pendleton, it was former Navy/Marines who then were hired under the DOD to provide police services in conjunction with PMO/MP's, this was the way it was until early 2012. They did all their training with the San Diego County Sheriffs department (I maybe incorrect with this), but that was my understanding at the time. I'm assuming that they would bring them on as civilians who work for the Marines, the same as NCIS. Most are prior military or have some affiliation before being hired and put through their own schools.
From a guy I know, a tank company commander:
"To say I am personally devastated is saying the least. Everyone’s specific situation is going to be different so I won’t comment on it but almost all of us are going to be forced out or early separated. My career as a Marine is over.
The loss of the combined arms breach ability will cost Marines lives. The loss of armor protected shock firepower will cost Marines lives. The loss of the best anti tank ground weapons system the Marine Corps has will cost Marines lives.
I have read the plan, the guidance and understand what the commandant wants. The Marine Corps is fighting for relevance and is willing to sacrifice generations worth of specific combat and tactical knowledge to get it. So be it, I won’t be there to see it, wasn’t even asked to.
All I know is I am heart broken, not only because I am getting told to go away by the organization that I served tirelessly, but because in my heart I know in our next conflict that an 18yr old manning a TOW will cut in half believing in that same organization and that he is the best weapon they have to fight a tank...
I cannot even believe I am one of the last Tank Commanders the Marine Corps will ever have. I have to fight the thought of wondering was this even all worth it? My body has been forever battered by my job, herniated disks, multiple contusions, nerve damage and TBIs. All for this to be the end state...
I don’t work in shape at DC and quite frankly I am too emotionally involved to speak any more on it without extreme personal bias so I’m not going to comment any further.
To all who have ridden the steal chariots of war, it was an honor to serve along side you and carry your legacy to its end.
Semper Fidelis."
Presumably, the USMC would be part of a combined-services effort in any major (future) conflict, with the Army providing tanks in any situation that required them.
Way out of my lane, but I would think that any lightly equipped Marine force would be at some sort of a disadvantage if fighting by itself against enemy heavy forces.
Glock9mm1990
03-25-20, 13:46
True. Thank God we have elected officials that fully understand the scope and nuance of strategic military planning, and with that I give you Congressman of the week (due to HR5717) Hank Johnson from the great state of Georgia.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjG958lZ1KI
Not sure what HR 5717 has to do with this situation. But Congress has a history of rejecting proposed cuts. The Army was trying for years to halt M1 Abrams production for years to save money with Congress blocking it. I have a hard time believing they will be onboard with such major changes.
Not sure what HR 5717 has to do with this situation. But Congress has a history of rejecting proposed cuts. The Army was trying for years to halt M1 Abrams production for years to save money with Congress blocking it. I have a hard time believing they will be onboard with such major changes.
HR 5717 has nothing to do with the situation, but mentioning congress and the Marine Corps brings to mind Hank Johnson per the video. I agree with you, he only has so much power, congress doesn't want the loss of jobs tied in with the Military, especially in the towns surrounding 29 Palms and Camp Lejeune.
I will always remember the USMC Abrams parked on the turnoff from Ramadi to Blue diamond. I was glad he was there on more than one occasion.
Anyway, anytime we're getting leaner and lighter it really means less expensive with less capability............light infantry doesn't fare well against heavy armor
Then there's also the thought that in the last two wars the Army and Corps were doing so many of the same things that an outsider could wonder why have both?
sundance435
03-25-20, 14:44
CMC's comment: "We are designed ... for a competition behind us, not in front of us," he said last fall. "That's driving the Marine Corps to redesign our force."
The article with CMC's guidance: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/03/23/marines-shut-down-all-tank-units-cut-infantry-battalions-major-overhaul.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2S-1HBrt2DP_VwjuGwbHhS6mI8n46z7m7edjVgY_0VJnk99Wi1_bvy2h8#Echobox=1584990680
"Developing a force that incorporates emerging technologies and a significant change to force structure within our current resource constraints will require the Marine Corps to become smaller and remove legacy capabilities."
By 2030, the Marine Corps will drop down to an end strength of 170,000 personnel. That's about 16,000 fewer leathernecks than it has today.
I wasn't sure what to make of this at first, but with the new information, it seems to make sense to me. The Marine Corps of the 1900's and 2000's isn't going to be nearly as capable (without sustaining horrific casualties) as it's currently configured in the most likely scenarios of the future - near-peer conflicts in contested or semi-contested environments where A2AD is going to be the primary concern. Marines, to my knowledge, have never fought as far from the landing site as they will in the future. Add to that the relative ease with which even non-near peers can acquire substantial A2AD assets, it's not viable to keep the Corps as it is. This future concept might also help dissuade people from using the marines in roles for which they were never intended like they are now - yes, they'll be light infantry, but highly-specialized light infantry.
There's just not enough known to make any guesses about how lack of heavy armor, let alone light armor, might negatively impact capabilities. I'm no strategist, but I don't see how any light infantry can operate in future environments like those they'll be tasked without some armor. I think they still need something between a LAV and an M1 - something with more protection, power, and firepower of the LAV, but with less troop-carrying capacity and without the size and weight of an M1. Nothing remote, guided, etc. can replace a 120mm cannon at your immediate disposal. Again, back to a better powered and protected LAV with at least a 105mm gun. The fact that we're rushing to up-gun cavalry and BCT IFVs should be proof enough for that. Something like that could easily turn into an F-35 unicorn-type program and fall into the "is it an IFV or a tank" paradox.
As far as direct-fire support, this is one area where they're probably dead on. There's really no need for it if the missile/drone concepts work out. Drones could drastically increase what constitutes direct fire and from ranges that a howitzer will never come close to, regardless of upgrades, which is key in A2AD scenarios. 15-30 miles will be mortar range in near future.
A possible silver lining for the Corps is that all of their equipment is so old and in need of replacement that this could be the perfect opportunity to start from as close to scratch as possible. If they come close to working this concept out, I'd say the Corps is for once the most forward-thinking service branch. Every other service is offering patchwork solutions based on the huge disparities between their existing equipment.
Presumably, the USMC would be part of a combined-services effort in any major (future) conflict, with the Army providing tanks in any situation that required them.
Way out of my lane, but I would think that any lightly equipped Marine force would be at some sort of a disadvantage if fighting by itself against enemy heavy forces.
Light infantry is always at a disadvantage against anything equipped above light infantry - air power can only make up so much of the difference, even less with the proliferation of more capable SAMs. I would assume the Army would provide tanks, if needed, but that's far from ideal. The scenarios I picture them envisioning wouldn't have them up against heavy infantry. The problem with that is technology has allowed many heavy infantry components to be dispersed to lighter units. That's, I think, what they're going for - a notional light infantry that has the ability to fight heavier without the heavy equipment in littoral/amphibious environments. Someone is going to have to get them to stop trying to use marines as traditional heavy combat infantry or true light infantry, though.
HR 5717 has nothing to do with the situation, but mentioning congress and the Marine Corps brings to mind Hank Johnson per the video. I agree with you, he only has so much power, congress doesn't want the loss of jobs tied in with the Military, especially in the towns surrounding 29 Palms and Camp Lejeune.
The net gain as written would be Lejeune; they lose 8th Marines, but they'll get picked up by one or two Pendleton/Oki units, but some Lejeune units will also get some; of the aviation units, 262 is at New River; 462 & 469 are west coast; a balance between aviation support, MPs, armor, and bridging. But all of MARSOC will be at Lejeune. Tiebreaker goes to Lejeune.
The USMC's new amphibious vehicle is an Italian design (selected over a Singaporean one), so maybe the Italians could provide a few of these. Fairly fast and armed with a 120mm gun. Fanciful thinking of course, but it could be useful in various scenarios:
https://www.iveco-otomelara.com/wheeled/centauro8x8.php
This is fascinating, and although an armor geek, as a prior service Marine I can see how the restructuring fits with the proposed future mission. Problem is, Marines don't pick the mission. They go where they're told with what they've got. If it were me, I would want Marines in my supporting armor, with whom I had already trained/deployed... No offense meant, Army.
This is fascinating, and although an armor geek, as a prior service Marine I can see how the restructuring fits with the proposed future mission. Problem is, Marines don't pick the mission. They go where they're told with what they've got. If it were me, I would want Marines in my supporting armor, with whom I had already trained/deployed... No offense meant, Army.
This does make sense as well. I was an airwinger, but we knew why we did our job and that was to support the guy on the ground. Great point.
Averageman
03-25-20, 22:09
From a guy I know, a tank company commander:
"To say I am personally devastated is saying the least. Everyone’s specific situation is going to be different so I won’t comment on it but almost all of us are going to be forced out or early separated. My career as a Marine is over.
The loss of the combined arms breach ability will cost Marines lives. The loss of armor protected shock firepower will cost Marines lives. The loss of the best anti tank ground weapons system the Marine Corps has will cost Marines lives.
I have read the plan, the guidance and understand what the commandant wants. The Marine Corps is fighting for relevance and is willing to sacrifice generations worth of specific combat and tactical knowledge to get it. So be it, I won’t be there to see it, wasn’t even asked to.
All I know is I am heart broken, not only because I am getting told to go away by the organization that I served tirelessly, but because in my heart I know in our next conflict that an 18yr old manning a TOW will cut in half believing in that same organization and that he is the best weapon they have to fight a tank...
I cannot even believe I am one of the last Tank Commanders the Marine Corps will ever have. I have to fight the thought of wondering was this even all worth it? My body has been forever battered by my job, herniated disks, multiple contusions, nerve damage and TBIs. All for this to be the end state...
I don’t work in shape at DC and quite frankly I am too emotionally involved to speak any more on it without extreme personal bias so I’m not going to comment any further.
To all who have ridden the steal chariots of war, it was an honor to serve along side you and carry your legacy to its end.
Semper Fidelis."
As a career Armor Enlisted guy, that was gut wrenching to read.
We always go in to the next war with the TO&E we needed in the last one, not in the one we are presently fighting. We shoot ourselves in the foot like this time and time again.
So based on this decision, is the Army suddenly going to begin loading their tanks on ships?
I was a bit flippant earlier, but this is seriously a troubling turn.
Marines will do what Marines always do, fight as best they can with what they have. They will take the short straw, sharpen it, and carry it to war. Marines have been handed the shitty end of the stick so many times in their history that it is basically SOP.
Then they take that shitty stick and beat the enemy to death with it.
dwhitehorne
03-26-20, 07:55
I think all of these proposed changes will be up in the air when the next Commandant comes in. In 1988 I was in 2/8 weapons company. Before going to Okinawa in June of 88 we literally had a ceremony on Camp Geiger where we traded guidons with 2/6. We went to Okinawa as 2/6 weapons company. When I got back from Okinawa in January 89 all of 2/6 was deactivated and I was reassigned to 3/6 Lima company. The idea we were told at the time was General Al Gray wanted to change the infantry back to a WWII/Korea organization of 11 man squads and have units with two battalions and two regiments instead of three we were using.
20 years later and I was talking with and officer I worked with about being on embassy duty when Desert Storm started. He complained that he was on stuck on a ship off the coast of Iraq and did nothing during the invasion in a new unit created called 2nd battalion 6th Marine Regiment. So we spent the time discussing how the unit was deactivated. for about a year before it was started back up.
I do know when Desert Storm started the USMC only had M60 tanks in the inventory. They spent the 6 month work up getting Abrams tanks out of the strategic war reserves and cross training the M60 crews for invasion. So what goes around comes around. David
Averageman
03-26-20, 08:23
I do know when Desert Storm started the USMC only had M60 tanks in the inventory. They spent the 6 month work up getting Abrams tanks out of the strategic war reserves and cross training the M60 crews for invasion. So what goes around comes around. David
I was in what was left of 2nd AD and we were the Armor support, Tiger Brigade for the Marines during the invasion.
What was striking to me was the amazing differences in the M60 and M1 Tank survivability. One Marine Tank was on my left and we were the initial breeching vehicles for the Division + size element. They hit a mine about halfway through the breech and were incapable of moving. We made it to what was guaranteed to be the end of the minefield and hit a mine and were able to continue the fight with some minor emergency maintenance.
When you need a Tank, you need a Tank, three Bradley's or Strykers or whatever the flavor of the day light Armor isn't going to get the job done.
I always wondered what happened to that Tank Crew because they were giving first aid on top of the Turret as we moved forward. It is highly likely a very difficult extraction.
I will always remember the USMC Abrams parked on the turnoff from Ramadi to Blue diamond. I was glad he was there on more than one occasion.
In Ramadi, I found a certain degree of comfort in having Marines with tanks nearby. Along with all the other assets and personnel. That place was intense, and everybody put in work.
In Ramadi, I found a certain degree of comfort in having Marines with tanks nearby. Along with all the other assets and personnel. That place was intense, and everybody put in work.
The three people who never have to pay for a drink if I am in a bar with them: armor, artillery, and CAS. With these I include their representatives to our units: spotters, CCT/JTACs, forward observers.
I have very mixed feelings about canking USMC armor. This is no slight to our dogface colleagues, at all, but we speak the same language, we know the same doctrine, we understand the same culture.
Some of the other units mentioned, no prob. MPs: buh-bye. Bridging: we can get combat engineers or SeaBees.
sundance435
03-26-20, 13:22
This is fascinating, and although an armor geek, as a prior service Marine I can see how the restructuring fits with the proposed future mission. Problem is, Marines don't pick the mission. They go where they're told with what they've got. If it were me, I would want Marines in my supporting armor, with whom I had already trained/deployed... No offense meant, Army.
A big problem with what the Commandant has outlined is that it will take a huge leap in institutional thinking to only call in the Marines for what the Corps is actually intended to be in the future. I could be wrong, but I recall one of the primary reasons the Marines were deployed at all to Afghanistan was because of the insistence of Corps leadership who were afraid of missing out. No more true-light infantry, true-heavy infantry, or heavy-light infantry - they're a very specialized branch with essential special skills not to be squandered in every desert camel-fv@6 we get involved with.
If they stick with the program, there may not be much need for MBTs, but they still need some armor with more punch than a LAV or anything with a 40mm gun can provide. There's just no replacement in the present and near-future world for really mobile heavy firepower. Drones and missiles would have to advance a lot further to even consider it.
vicious_cb
03-26-20, 13:44
Maybe its a backdoor ploy to get into the MPF program. Much like how they tried to backdoor the HK416 with the IAR. The MPF suits the USMC much better anyway.
https://api.army.mil/e2/c/images/2018/12/17/539370//size0.jpg
The Army hasn't had much more success with the MPF program over the years than they've had finding a Bradley replacement.
My question is does anyone foresee the Marines getting involved in big land battles against the Chinese in the Pacific? I see this as the Marines repositioning from being a competitor for Army roles back to a more traditional role of Naval Infantry. Whether this is good or bad we will have to wait and see, but I can understand the reasoning, conventional land warfare in Asia against a near peer enemy is not a winning proposition for the US.
Business_Casual
03-26-20, 19:27
Space Marines?
It might make sense, what do I know, but I don't like it. Build it, tear it down, build it again.....
PB
...MPs: buh-bye. Bridging: we can get combat engineers or SeaBees.
Art thou mad?! We can't afford to lose MPs!
The MPs are the first and last line of firepower, the last bastions of freedom, demigods in a world of weak men who need heroes...they tell us all the time, so they must be right...
Some of the other units mentioned, no prob. MPs: buh-bye. Bridging: we can get combat engineers or SeaBees.
Damned right, us Bees are more comfortable around the Marines than the Army or even the Navy fleeters. In Iraq we worked for the MEF, in Afghanistan we worked for an Army Eng Brigade. That was painful as we speak different languages.
Whatever the plan, when it doesn't work future Marines are gonna have to fill the holes with bodies and blood. I ain't saying it's right, it just ain't nothing new.
It's right there out front with the E.G.&A.
You proud few get to defend this country (eagle), against the world (globe), with a bunch of obsolete, F'd up gear. (fouled wooden anchor).
Pacific5th
03-27-20, 00:41
Art thou mad?! We can't afford to lose MPs!
The MPs are the first and last line of firepower, the last bastions of freedom, demigods in a world of weak men who need heroes...they tell us all the time, so they must be right...m
nothing productive, don't repeat
BoringGuy45
03-27-20, 00:43
I could be wrong, but I recall one of the primary reasons the Marines were deployed at all to Afghanistan was because of the insistence of Corps leadership who were afraid of missing out.
If I recall, that was a huge reason for that, rather than a real necessity for any specific skills the Marines offered in that theater that the other services did not. It was also the main reason why MARSOC was created. To my knowledge, the Raiders don't really fill any particular need that wasn't already covered by SEALs, Special Forces, Rangers, or Delta. For years, the Corps insisted that ALL marines were special forces, and they weren't going to have an "elite force within an elite force", and marines should only support marines, and the U.S. just can't have a war and expect to win without the Corps playing a central role...then 9/11 happened, and "send in the Marines" turned into "send in SOCOM." It became pretty clear that the special ops units had replaced them as the first responders, and the Army airborne units were right after that. The only way they were going to get in on the action is to give up some of their best marines to SOCOM.
The Marines, despite their bravado and prestige, have always been the redheaded stepchild of the DoD.
Coal Dragger
03-27-20, 00:43
Not a fan of this decision by the Commandant, but I understand it.
The current MBT is getting long in the tooth, and the in service units are now well used and abused. Probably expensive to keep running and at their current age and level of wear and tear any given Abrams in inventory is probably a laundry list of problems to be repaired. Like an old car nothing is ever all working right at the same time.
Anti-tank weapons are getting more sophisticated, more effective, and more widespread. Making heavy armored vehicles more vulnerable to attack by infantry with newer anti-tank missiles, or by drones with anti-tank missiles etc.
Heavy armor is tougher to land on beaches and more resource intensive, so an expeditionary force of naval infantry will have limited opportunities to utilize heavy armor on smaller scale operations or geographically small landing areas like islands.
So if my beloved Corps is going to reorganize to counter China in the South China Sea and other areas of the Pacific, with the intent being area denial, anti-shipping, and missions of that nature MBT’s don’t really fit.
A small island occupied and fortified to lob anti-ship missiles at Chinese warships can’t be sunk, and can be defended against other naval infantry without tanks. If the mission is denying the Chinese Navy operational areas a 120mm smoothbore cannon on the beach or a 155mm howitzer battery on the beach aren’t gonna get much done. You can accomplish a lot of ass pain to a naval force by making it tough to attack an island where troops are dug in, have effective long range anti-ship weapons, effective air defense, and enough ground fortification to make rooting them out very very costly.
Not a perfect solution, but certainly one that doesn’t have a huge role for tube artillery and armored units.
If I recall, that was a huge reason for that, rather than a real necessity for any specific skills the Marines offered in that theater that the other services did not. It was also the main reason why MARSOC was created. To my knowledge, the Raiders don't really fill any particular need that wasn't already covered by SEALs, Special Forces, Rangers, or Delta. For years, the Corps insisted that ALL marines were special forces, and they weren't going to have an "elite force within an elite force", and marines should only support marines, and the U.S. just can't have a war and expect to win without the Corps playing a central role...then 9/11 happened, and "send in the Marines" turned into "send in SOCOM." It became pretty clear that the special ops units had replaced them as the first responders, and the Army airborne units were right after that. The only way they were going to get in on the action is to give up some of their best marines to SOCOM.
The Marines, despite their bravado and prestige, have always been the redheaded stepchild of the DoD.
I was there in the beginning when they started Det 1. How the GWOT raped and mutated SOCOM is a thread all it's own, especially NSW. But I digress.
The Marines were among the first units in Afghanistan, just weeks after 9/11 (15th MEU, Camp Rhino, etc.). They helped establish a footprint, which was more than anything the foundation of their use in Afghanistan. Mattis saw the need for the Marines there in the beginning, also saw the danger of them being used as traditional infantry. But in Astan, they were "just another infantry," and had a major pivot from traditional Marine operations. I agree it was a bad idea when Gray decided to give the middle finger to SOCOM instead of supporting and calling the MEUs MEU(SOC)s. Speaking of Raiders, they are far more like SF than any of the other units. The recon/force recon units are a bit apart from the others.
Their bread and butter remains force in extremis with the afloat MEUs. Those guys still get emergently deployed from the boats for little ops here and there, but it's not sexy and often doesn't make the news. That's a role that even Army SF decided to give up (actually just recently, Army gave up SF CRF, in part because theater commander called the Marines).
Totally agree, redheaded stepchildren. But I loved my time as a corpsman.
BoringGuy45
03-27-20, 07:27
Speaking of Raiders, they are far more like SF than any of the other units. The recon/force recon units are a bit apart from the others.
From my understanding, the Raiders are kind of a middle ground between the SEALs and SF in terms of missions, with some of the capabilities of the Rangers. That is, they're more direct action oriented than SF, but have more training in unconventional warfare than the SEALs. They usually operate in small teams, but are also capable, like the Rangers, of operating in larger units and doing light infantry special operations . Basically, they're an "all of the above" type of unit.
just a scout
03-27-20, 07:30
If I recall, that was a huge reason for that, rather than a real necessity for any specific skills the Marines offered in that theater that the other services did not. It was also the main reason why MARSOC was created. To my knowledge, the Raiders don't really fill any particular need that wasn't already covered by SEALs, Special Forces, Rangers, or Delta. For years, the Corps insisted that ALL marines were special forces, and they weren't going to have an "elite force within an elite force", and marines should only support marines, and the U.S. just can't have a war and expect to win without the Corps playing a central role...then 9/11 happened, and "send in the Marines" turned into "send in SOCOM." It became pretty clear that the special ops units had replaced them as the first responders, and the Army airborne units were right after that. The only way they were going to get in on the action is to give up some of their best marines to SOCOM.
The Marines, despite their bravado and prestige, have always been the redheaded stepchild of the DoD.
I’ll throw this out there. Knowing about the POI for Raiders, and seeing how much the SEALs have stepped on their dicks the past 20 years at every opportunity, I can see the leash being yanked hard on the SEALs and the Raiders taking over that mission.
And I see how SOCOM is/has been trying to be the dog instead of the tail, but there is a strong push to bring it to heel and return to their METL. Not every SOCOM unit needs to be All Raid, All the Time. SF is supposed to be FID/UW. SEALs are supposed to be amphibious recon and DA. If you wants raids, you have the Raiders and Rangers. If you want HVT/DA, you have Delta and Rangers. We’ve given up too many capabilities chasing rabbits that we need to have for peer conflict. And the SEALs have become glory hounds and press whores that are totally off the reservation. If a tenth of the rumors I hear are true, they should all be court martialed and the guidons rolled up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
SOCOM, and SOF in general, are victims of success. They became the easy button. They were simply very good at executing the missions with minimum fallout, and quietly. Even during the Obama years, where the taxpayer didn’t want to know we were doing anything but pulling out. But, rest assured that dudes were out putting in work. All over the place. All the time. And being on recall leashes between rotations. Getting run ragged. Burnout was very real, and got studied a few years back in depth by USSOCOM, with a few changes made to try to mitigate the effects.
There were Generals and Admirals that advised the civilian leadership of this, but I’m not sure they cared. Why would they? The guys put in the work, and the politicians could pick and choose which missions they wanted to take the credit for with the voters.
All of the organizations are changed now due to the GWOT and the second and third order effects from the way they were employed. SF, SEALS, Rangers, Delta, PJ’s, the entire USMC, all shifted into roles they were not made for.
From my understanding, the Raiders are kind of a middle ground between the SEALs and SF in terms of missions, with some of the capabilities of the Rangers. That is, they're more direct action oriented than SF, but have more training in unconventional warfare than the SEALs. They usually operate in small teams, but are also capable, like the Rangers, of operating in larger units and doing light infantry special operations . Basically, they're an "all of the above" type of unit.
Like SF, not all MARSOC are divers, so their waterborne capability isn't quite like that of the SEALs (or even Recon). Definitely DA/SR, yes also heavy in UW. Also definitely less, ah, parochial than Recon.
Belmont31R
03-27-20, 18:25
SOCOM, and SOF in general, are victims of success. They became the easy button. They were simply very good at executing the missions with minimum fallout, and quietly. Even during the Obama years, where the taxpayer didn’t want to know we were doing anything but pulling out. But, rest assured that dudes were out putting in work. All over the place. All the time. And being on recall leashes between rotations. Getting run ragged. Burnout was very real, and got studied a few years back in depth by USSOCOM, with a few changes made to try to mitigate the effects.
There were Generals and Admirals that advised the civilian leadership of this, but I’m not sure they cared. Why would they? The guys put in the work, and the politicians could pick and choose which missions they wanted to take the credit for with the voters.
All of the organizations are changed now due to the GWOT and the second and third order effects from the way they were employed. SF, SEALS, Rangers, Delta, PJ’s, the entire USMC, all shifted into roles they were not made for.
Bold part mine.
The entire military was not made for the GWOT, and deployment after deployment. The military at the start of the GWOT was still Cold War equipped and focused after the 90's neglect and reductions. Entire divisions and bases got wiped off the map. Then they were told to go invade two countries. SOF is no different in that regard and took a long time to catch up to the mission.
The harder part for SOF is that the training pipeline to get a new qualified dude takes WAY longer than conventional forces so you can't just have a recruiting surge or change entry requirements on the fly. If you look at something like Army SF taking a guy from a civilian off the street to a qualified 18 series, getting them to a team, and then doing a deployment work up, doing a deployment, and then coming back home could eat up almost all of a typical 4 year initial enlistment. You can recruit someone as an 11B, send them through OSUT, and on a deployment in less than 6 months. I went to basic in June 03 and was deployed by January 04 with IET that took longer than 11B OSUT.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.