Marines dumping their tank units

[seb5]

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.

[utahjeepr]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[chuckman]

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]

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]

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

[1168]

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.

[chuckman]

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.