Marines dumping their tank units

[chuckman]

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.

[26 Inf]

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/...box=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.

[chuckman]

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]

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?

[chuckman]

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]

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?

[Hank6046]

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.

[chuckman]

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."

[Slater]

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]

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.