Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USMC proposed restructuring

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Meanwhile, we no longer need the US Army. We just need a brand new, restructered and fully equipped USMC. Pans me to say that, being a retired Army guy myself, but there it is.
    I disagree. Don't know if you are serious or not, but, if so, nah, we need the U.S. Army.

    We need armored units, airborne units, air assault units, Stryker units, etc. And we need Army Special Forces training to perform the unconventional warfare mission and not just various "special operations forces" training mostly to perform direct action missions.

    There is no sense in the USMC structuring and training to perform those missions when the Army already is.



    "Shoot for the epaulets, boys! Shoot for the epaulets!" - Daniel Morgan

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by KRJ View Post

      I disagree. Don't know if you are serious or not, but, if so, nah, we need the U.S. Army.

      We need armored units, airborne units, air assault units, Stryker units, etc. And we need Army Special Forces training to perform the unconventional warfare mission and not just various "special operations forces" training mostly to perform direct action missions.

      There is no sense in the USMC structuring and training to perform those missions when the Army already is.


      Duplication of forces is unnecessary, and the USMC increasingly carries the burden of 4G warfare.

      The USMC works directly with the Navy and marine pilots to provide close air support, unlike relying on the pampered Air Force as the Army has to do.

      And the direct savings would be incredible.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #18
        Direct savings might be incredible in the short run.

        But if you give the Corps the responsibility of also preparing for large scale land warfare, then it'll grow to encompass at least a large chunk of the size of the Army. And ultimately wouldn't save that much money. We have to have a force ready to fight a China or North Korea or Russia, and the Corps for all it can do is not it.

        My thoughts to save money are to put the Air Force back into the Army as the Army Air Corps, where it should have been all along. The two nations to first make an independent air arm, namely Britain and Germany, both had the RAF and Luftwaffe show multiple times why an independent Air Arm turns into a bunch of prima donnas who are prone to not listen to the other forces they provide services to. Why on earth we did it after that is unknown to me. We at least let the Navy and Corps keep their independent air wings, a US Fleet Air Arm would have been an unmitigated disaster.

        I've always been of the mind that USSOCOM and the USMC should handle COIN, and Big Army should handle Big Army things. And that the Corps other focus should be on ship to shore break-ins, at which point they handle the greater ground operation to the Army.

        Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Fire power.

          As a former FO & fire support planner/executor I'm constantly seeing people wrapped around the axle on hardware. Even before training for the artillery I understood why there was a mix of fire support weapons, and that they were subject to evolution. A company of battalion commander does not really give a damm what put the rounds on target. Only that they are on time, accurate, and effective.

          Let me restate that: Effective fires It does not matter what puts it on target, any weapon will do as long as it is on time, on target, and does the necessary damage. Thats all the commander & I as his fire support staff cared about.

          Cannon artillery in the present form have been around for 120+ years. Its been at its engineering limits for some time. The main reason for its present widespread use is the development of rocket type artillery/fire support has been slow the past 75 years. Its caught up now & weapons like the M777 are less worth their cost in deck space aboard the amphibs. If you look back at the HIMARS described in the early posts here you may pick up on the antiship capability of the missile suite provided. The M777 has no real value as a sea denial or anti ship weapon. Neither is it competitive in range. The missile systems have longer range, precision guidance, a full array of munitions, & reliability. Cannon will remain for quite a while, but for littoral warfare the Navy/Marines don't need 48 or 60 per division.

          Aside from the missiles there are the RPV/UAV/Drones or what ever the current ad word is. A new generation of small weapon carrying models are not far off. The Marines have been providing battalion and company commanders with their own little squadron of reconnaissance drone for near two decades. During the next two decades this will solidify & the Marines fire support will come from RPV units that are attached directly to the landing force. These are likely to replace all those obsolete tactical support aircraft that served in the past. From the JN-2 to the AV-8 Harriers. The F35 may or may not have a place in the next few decades, but my guess its going to be increasingly irrelevant. The company & battalion commanders will draw on RPV groups that are part of the landing force for their close in fire support.

          Ditto for the deeper battle. The missiles & RPV of the larger amphibious force will be handling that with a few stray F35 in the way.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by KRJ View Post

            I disagree. Don't know if you are serious or not, but, if so, nah, we need the U.S. Army.

            We need armored units, airborne units, air assault units, Stryker units, etc. And we need Army Special Forces training to perform the unconventional warfare mission and not just various "special operations forces" training mostly to perform direct action missions.

            There is no sense in the USMC structuring and training to perform those missions when the Army already is.


            Agree here. We can't dismiss the possibility of a sustained land war somewhere. The ability to field a rapid deployment corps of 100,000 is needed and the ability to create a full size land army must be retained.

            Back in the 19th Century & on into the 1920s there was the idea the Army would provide the manpower for large scale amphibious transitions from sea to land. The amphibious ops of the Civil War & the Spanish America War are a couple of examples. But in the early 20th Century the US Army lost sight of that & the Navy was forced to expand the Marine Corps to fill in for the lack of Army interest. Hence the Expeditionary Brigades of the interwar years and 640,000 Marines in heavy land campaign configuration in WWII. Marines as a major interior land campaign element are unnecessary, unless you think they are. The Navy needs a robust Marine Corps, but not one it routinely loans out to the Dept of the Army.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Duplication of forces is unnecessary.......
              Agreed. So since the Army can field armored divisions and the USMC can't, why disband the Army and recreate armored divisions in the USMC? In a conflict with Iran or Turkey it will likely be important to be able to field armored divisions. As marine divisions exist now - with Amtracks, a tank battalion, and a light armored recon battalion - they are not armored divisions by any stretch of the imagination.

              That's just one example. Other examples could be used: airborne division, etc. Disband the Army and that capability would have to be recreated in the USMC.

              "Shoot for the epaulets, boys! Shoot for the epaulets!" - Daniel Morgan

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by KRJ View Post

                Agreed. So since the Army can field armored divisions and the USMC can't, why disband the Army and recreate armored divisions in the USMC? In a conflict with Iran or Turkey it will likely be important to be able to field armored divisions. As marine divisions exist now - with Amtracks, a tank battalion, and a light armored recon battalion - they are not armored divisions by any stretch of the imagination.

                That's just one example. Other examples could be used: airborne division, etc. Disband the Army and that capability would have to be recreated in the USMC.
                The USMC has armored forces and could field armored divisions if it took over as the primary military force. After all, the Army has trained in the past for amphibious invasions.

                The role of airborne units has virtually disappeared since WWII.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  The USMC has armored forces and could field armored divisions if it took over as the primary military force.
                  One tank battalion and one light armored recon battalion per Marine Division. Not even close to an armored division. So your proposal would require moving the Army's tanks, IFVs, and armor support and logistics to the USMC. And then training most of the USMC to do the job of the armored soldiers that you just "laid off"; it would amount to turning the USMC into the United States Mechanized Corps after disbanding a mechanized corps already in existence.

                  Also, I believe the USMC's idea about armor is usually to use it as infantry support; there's one tank platoon in a MEU for goodness sake. That's different than using armor for a spearhead, a breakthrough, a penetration, an exploitation, a pursuit. It requires a reorientation of the operational mindset and institutional memory. Again, all done after you "laid off" the armored soldiers who were already doing it.

                  But if you read the linked articles again, your proposal isn't even close to what is being considered. What is being considered is lightening up the USMC, not giving it more heavy units.

                  After all, the Army has trained in the past for amphibious invasions.
                  Based on this logic, I could turn your argument around and say that since the Army has trained in the past for amphibious invasions - and operated as a riverine force in Vietnam - it could fulfill those roles again if we disbanded the USMC and the Army was the only ground combat force. The Army could field the LIGHT INFANTRY BRIGADE (LITTORAL), or something along that line. Well, it could. But at this point, with an operational USMC, why would it?

                  The role of airborne units has virtually disappeared since WWII.
                  This sentence is really the subject for another thread entirely, one that has been done before and one that I don't feel like starting again right now. But if you or others insist, who knows?
                  Last edited by KRJ; 04 Apr 20, 22:39.
                  "Shoot for the epaulets, boys! Shoot for the epaulets!" - Daniel Morgan

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                    The role of airborne units has virtually disappeared since WWII.
                    One could also argue the role of amphibious warfare has disappeared since Korea. What was the largest amphibious op since the Inchon landings in 1950?
                    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
                    Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 17thfabn View Post

                      One could also argue the role of amphibious warfare has disappeared since Korea. What was the largest amphibious op since the Inchon landings in 1950?
                      Operation Musketeer 1956 - Anglo-French Invasion of Egypt

                      war-of-algeria-operation-musketeers-or-operation-700-le-31-aot-1956-picture-id162857513.jpg

                      Operation Sutton May 1982 - British invasion of the Falklands

                      The_empire_strikes_back_newsweek.jpg
                      Attached Files
                      Last edited by OttoHarkaman; 05 Apr 20, 18:07.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post

                        Operation Musketeer 1956 - Anglo-French Invasion of Egypt

                        war-of-algeria-operation-musketeers-or-operation-700-le-31-aot-1956-picture-id162857513.jpg

                        Operation Sutton May 1982 - British invasion of the Falklands

                        The_empire_strikes_back_newsweek.jpg
                        Good points. So two in the last 70 years.
                        "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
                        Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 17thfabn View Post

                          Good points. So two in the last 70 years.
                          You have to give credit to British officer training to organize and improvise, both operations were slapped together quickly. Good officers and training cadres worth more than equipment?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post

                            You have to give credit to British officer training to organize and improvise, both operations were slapped together quickly. Good officers and training cadres worth more than equipment?
                            With out a doubt Good officers, including NCOs and training are key to a successful op.
                            "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
                            Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 17thfabn View Post

                              One could also argue the role of amphibious warfare has disappeared since Korea. What was the largest amphibious op since the Inchon landings in 1950?
                              The marines still use small scale amphib as a means of littoral combat. I's already part of their combat profile, and essential if control of the air is at all questionable over the target. Helos don't digest SAM's very well, and these days, everybody's got one.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                                The marines still use small scale amphib as a means of littoral combat. I's already part of their combat profile, and essential if control of the air is at all questionable over the target. Helos don't digest SAM's very well, and these days, everybody's got one.
                                And LCAC & Amtracs don't digest Kornet missiles very well.

                                I understand the US military needs some amphibious capability.
                                "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
                                Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X