Restructuring the Marine Corps???

[dhermann1]

Here's an interesting article about proposed changes to the USMC mission and structure.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/military/article_a74b5718-833a-5cb2-9438-78b1d3b18470.html

 

[Corto]

Hard times. However, focusing on their "Small Wars" competencies will always keep them in business (and budget money) for years to come.

 

[Guttersnipe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... we have Navy Seals working thousands of miles from any salt water.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Burton]

No big deal. We heard similar restructuring plans years ago. The Marine Corps adapts and moves on.

 

[rlandrews3rd]

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]

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]

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.

 

[dhermann1]

Like ^ .
How you been, sir? When you coming back to the Big Apple?

 

[1961MJS]

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]

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:

 

[WH1]

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.

 

[Harp]

I'm probably the only guy in the world who got his ass kicked by Mary Poppins. lol