Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Restructuring the Marine Corps???

Status
Not open for further replies.

Corto

A-List Customer
Messages
343
Location
USA
Hard times. However, focusing on their "Small Wars" competencies will always keep them in business (and budget money) for years to come.
 

Guttersnipe

One Too Many
Messages
1,942
Location
San Francisco, CA
It makes a lot of sense that the USMC would seek to restructure, the Marine Corp must face pressure to refocus its core competencies (e.g. justify itself) as the US Army increasingly shifts away from a Corps/Divisional structure to the Brigade Combat Team model. For long time the Marines were the go to organization when circumstances called for a compact, rapidly deployable, self-sufficient fighting force - which is exactly what Brigade Combat Teams are intended to be. I thought Secretary Gates' point that large-scale amphibious landings on hostile beachheads are increasingly unfeasible because of technological changes. Hopefully these changes don't fall into the historically common phenomenon of militaries preparing for the last war, not the next one . . .
 

Widebrim

I'll Lock Up
Well, Dan, part of it makes sense. As the article states, the Marine Corps has kind of evolved into another land army. I mean, what are they doing in the Middle East, apart from the fact that we need numbers.? That is not in any way to devalue what they have done in that theater, but it is the Marine Corps, not the "Terrestrial Corps." At the same time, if we are to accept the fact that marines are supposed to primarily serve onboard watercraft, and serve as expeditionary troops, then why are there now plans to downplay their role in making beach-heads? It's true that we are not island-hopping at the moment, but we still need a branch or contingent that is capable of making the beach-heads, and do them better than anybody else at the drop of a hat. (That's why although there haven't been many combat jumps in the last 65 years, we still have an Army Airborne.) Regarding size, making the Marine Corps (eventually) smaller again makes sense, but tinkering with their equipment is something that should not be done without much consideration to what the branch's role should ultimately be. My 2 cents.
 

dhermann1

I'll Lock Up
Messages
9,154
Location
Da Bronx, NY, USA
That sums up my feeling, too. Whenever there is a war, everybody wants to get in on the act. That's why we have Navy Seals working thousands of miles from any salt water. I'm not so sure the Corps was looking for this sort of decision, but I think it makes a lot of sense.
 

Treetopflyer

Practically Family
Messages
674
Location
Patuxent River, MD
This reminds me of the 1950’s when the military’s mind set was that aerial combat was a thing of the past and air wars would be fought with missiles at long range and not close in dog fights with guns. They even initially produced the F-4 Phantom without guns. They quickly learned their lesson at the start of the Vietnam War. Luckily the corporate knowledge was still around to teach new pilots how to dogfight.

It seems as thought the military goes through these trends of getting rid of mission sets and then realizing that they really needed them and throw money at the problem to revamp the programs and equipment. Mine warfare in the Navy for instance. After the Korean War the Mine Warfare community was pretty much put on the back burner until the first Gulf War when several ships hit mines. Then the question was asked, “Where are all the mine sweepers?” The answer was that they were almost all broke down because they had not been updated since WWII. So, the Navy threw money at the problem to try to get new mine sweepers and hunters. Now that program is going away again. All the mine hunters have been decommissioned and the sweeps are getting old and breaking down with no money in the budget to fix them.

Bottom line, it is all about the money and what mission needs it the worst at the time of the crisis. We do not have the military budget that we had in the 1980’s.

My two cents.
 

Pompidou

One Too Many
Messages
1,242
Location
Plainfield, CT
The organization of our armed forces, as I see it, could be streamlined quite a bit. Seems to me, we need people who fight on land, people who fight at sea, and people who fight in the air. Army, Navy and Air Force seems like a streamlined proposition. Get rid of all the redundancies. Keep the mission sets and training like Treetopflyer talks about. It could probably save quite a bit in training and upkeep costs, if all the aircraft are managed by one organization, for example. Less waste.
 

Harp

I'll Lock Up
Messages
8,508
Location
Chicago, IL US
... we have Navy Seals working thousands of miles from any salt water.

:eek:fftopic:...and when it's Jungle-rules volleyball for Rolexes
those beach bums don't even want to hand em' over. Watch welchers.
That's why the goodies have to be collected first. Really sad but there it is.
And the honkers' beer cooler contributions leave a lot to be desired too. [angel]
 

1961MJS

My Mail is Forwarded Here
Messages
3,366
Location
Norman Oklahoma
Hi, based on reading a LOT of military history, and work in aerospace, I disagree with Pompidou. The USAF traditionally doesn't do as good a job of close air support as do the Marine air squadrons. The USAF used to think entirely strategic (Lemay's Bomber Mafia), now they are completely air to air combat (McPeak's Fighter Mafia). Note that neither mentions the A-10 or any other close air support. The Navy is also more serious about air to air combat, and protecting the fleet, not helping ground troops. Less waste, but less competency and less varied competency. It SHOULD work, but it doesn't.

Later
 

Pompidou

One Too Many
Messages
1,242
Location
Plainfield, CT
Hi, based on reading a LOT of military history, and work in aerospace, I disagree with Pompidou. The USAF traditionally doesn't do as good a job of close air support as do the Marine air squadrons. The USAF used to think entirely strategic (Lemay's Bomber Mafia), now they are completely air to air combat (McPeak's Fighter Mafia). Note that neither mentions the A-10 or any other close air support. The Navy is also more serious about air to air combat, and protecting the fleet, not helping ground troops. Less waste, but less competency and less varied competency. It SHOULD work, but it doesn't.

Later

I believe you, but you don't think they could cooperate or change their ways of thinking if the situation called for it?
 

Harp

I'll Lock Up
Messages
8,508
Location
Chicago, IL US
The USAF traditionally doesn't do as good a job of close air support The Navy is also more serious about air to air combat, and protecting the fleet, not helping ground troops. Less waste, but less competency and less varied competency. It SHOULD work, but it doesn't.

Later

From experience:
Calling in air support is difficult; all the more so when Airtacs are cherry
or unfamiliar with close ground support. However, air support is a viable
concept, but extraordinarily complcated under the "best" circumstance.
 

rlandrews3rd

New in Town
Messages
25
Location
Texas
All new Marine officers go through the same training at The Basic School in Quantico, Va. They all experience ground warfare and thus those that become pilots have a great idea of what their infantry brother on the ground needs when the infantry calls for air support. I saw this first hand as a young enlisted infantryman, then getting a commission and assignment to the air wing, then back into the infantry in the reserves. It's a synergism not seen in the other services and is mainly because we were so small that we could do the type of close-knot training that is oh so effective in combat.
 

1961MJS

My Mail is Forwarded Here
Messages
3,366
Location
Norman Oklahoma
I believe you, but you don't think they could cooperate or change their ways of thinking if the situation called for it?

Hi

Unfortunately NO, they probably won't until it's too late for a bunch of kids. They're taught what they're taught throughout their careers. Bad experience is a real changer, but we don't want to have the bad experience if we can avoid it...

Later
 

WH1

Practically Family
Messages
967
Location
Over hills and far away
I agree with Harp about difficulty of CAS. Have used A10's on multiple occasions and while effective a lot more difficult than using our own pilots. There have been multiple fratricide incidents involving USAF and Marine infantry particularly Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR).
Marine Corps will adapt, which is what we do better and faster than any of the other services. One of the biggest reasons for the continued existance of the Marine Corps is the simple fact that we are the smallest of the four, possess a lean culture, a focus on high speed power projection (current and future operations) provided by our shipborne continual presence in each ocean (how do you think we keep evacuating embassies), and have a reputation throughout the world which frequently means that our presence alone is enough to calm the scene. All of the services have special operations units capable of these things but not on the scale the Marine Corps provides. At the end of the day the Marine Corps is being used far from the beachs due to the effectiveness we bring to combat operations. That is not downplaying the abilities of the 101st/82nd, JSOTF, the Rangers or any of the other combat types out there, I have worked/am working with almost all them and have found most of them to be very, very good. But as a Marine the sheer arrogance of those who say we are unneccessary irritates the h*ll out of me. Truman tried to do away with the Marines in Korea and was hammered for it. There will always be a need for us because the American people and a surprising number of people around the world expect us to be there when the balloon goes up. Just my 2 cents.
 

1961MJS

My Mail is Forwarded Here
Messages
3,366
Location
Norman Oklahoma
Hi

""The worst of all fears is the fear of living." T.R.
"Life is conflict, survival and conquest."
Col. John Boyd"

I've read one of Colonel Boyd's books. I was VERY impressed.

Later
 

Harp

I'll Lock Up
Messages
8,508
Location
Chicago, IL US
Have used A10's on multiple occasions and while effective a lot more difficult than using our own pilots. There have been multiple fratricide incidents involving USAF and Marine infantry particularly Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR).

Once caught in a Phantom air strike at Elefsis, Greece during a coup d'etat
staged by paras---Hellenic Air Force very precise and deadly---stopped it cold
bloodedly. Guns and ordinance. Whoever called those bastards in, called in
the best SOBs and they just laid down the law like a hanging judge.
Text book perfect. Lousy to experience but a clean strike.

One year later with the 101st at Ft Campbell, Ky an air strike exercise
with USAF proved need for greater infantry/USAF teamwork.
No doubt USMC needs its air wing with Marine pilots.
I would prefer to call USMC in over AF or Navy....:target:
 
Last edited:

WH1

Practically Family
Messages
967
Location
Over hills and far away
Damn Harp!!!
Coup d'etats, hellenic air force, Mary Poppins below the DMZ, etc. When are you going to write the autobiography, sounds like a good read, better than Demo Dick's.;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
107,579
Messages
3,041,011
Members
52,951
Latest member
zibounou
Top