That's right, one of the most cost effective killing machines ($ per kill) that the .GOV world has is soon to be a thing of the past.
WTF!?!

There's still going to be Snipers, but they will only be attached to Reconnaissance / Force Reconnaissance / MARSOC units and no longer Infantry Bns.

I have no idea on how the "Grand Restructuring" of the Marine Corps is going to turn out, but from where I'm standing, it's not looking hopeful.

(LINK)

https://www.marinecorpstimes.c...infantry-battalions/


(ARTICLE)

Marines remove scout sniper platoons from infantry battalions
By Irene Loewenson
Tuesday, Feb 28

Marine scout snipers conduct long-range live-fire training at Camp Fuji, Japan, in March 2022. (Lance Cpl. Manuel Alvarado/Marine Corps)
The Marine Corps is scrapping its scout sniper program and will soon house its snipers under reconnaissance, rather than infantry, battalions.

Instead of scout sniper platoons, infantry battalions will have scout platoons, an message sent to the fleet from the Corps’ Plans, Policies and Operations department on Tuesday said. The message called for the transition to happen immediately.


The message, first reported by Coffee or Die Magazine, said that scout sniper platoons didn’t provide battalion commanders with sufficient “continuous all-weather information gathering.”

The scout platoons are meant to “provide the commander with relevant, reliable, accurate and prompt information,” the message said.

“The shift to a Scout Platoon will allow those Marines to focus their training and evaluations on scouting, providing commanders the right tools to accomplish their mission,” Marine spokesman Capt. Ryan Bruce said in a statement to Marine Corps Times.

Bruce noted that infantry Marines will still have access to precision rifles as necessary.

The Marine Corps didn’t immediately respond to a Marine Corps Times request for information about what roles scout snipers will have and where they will be placed after the platoons disband.

Scout snipers have been part of the Marine Corps since World War II. They are trained not only in marksmanship but also in scouting, or reconnaissance.

They aren’t the only snipers in the Marine Corps; some reconnaissance Marines and Marine special operators are also trained as snipers.


The president of the USMC Scout Sniper Association wrote in a message to the association that he urged Berger to “reconsider this ill-advised policy decision.”

“It’s unlikely that any officer who commanded and employed Scout Snipers in combat agrees that removing a sniper capability from the infantry battalion makes sense,” retired Master Sgt. Tim Parkhurst wrote in the message.

Marine Commandant Gen. David Berger ordered the transition, according to the message. The move comes as part of Force Design 2030, the Marine Corps’ overhaul that called for a reorganization of infantry battalions and a doubling down on reconnaissance.

Separating the sniper role from infantry battalions is one aspect of the Force Design 2030 plan, which seeks to “divest the preponderance of weapon-specific military occupational specialties in the infantry battalions and build highly trained Marines who are capable of employing a range of weapons and equipment,” according to Bruce.


Scout platoons will be made up of 26 Marines: four teams of six infantry Marines, with a first lieutenant and a gunnery sergeant in charge. That’s larger than scout sniper platoons, which typically have 18 Marines.

The Marine Corps didn’t immediately provide the number of scout snipers currently serving.

In 2018, a Marine spokeswoman estimated the number at around 300. Thanks to shortfalls in the number of snipers, scout sniper platoons have in recent years consisted of lots of marksmen who undergo on-the-job training with help from fully trained scout snipers.

After fiscal year 2024, which ends in fall of that year, there won’t be any seats in the Scout Sniper Basic Course, according to the Plans, Policies and Operations email. The Marine Corps will still train snipers through the Reconnaissance Training Center and the Marine Raider Training Center, the message stated.

Marine snipers will bear a new 0322 military occupational specialty, designating reconnaissance snipers, rather than 0317; 0321 is the military occupational specialty for reconnaissance Marines.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: CPD SIG, March 05, 2023 08:16 PM

I adhere to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule, and doubt this is a good idea.

flashguy

Let's see. First, we get rid of armor, then we get rid of precision small arms. Next, we eliminate artillery, and finally, we wipe out the airwings.

Then, and only then, will the USMC be pure riflemen.

Then, and only then, will the USMC return to its essence.

Then, and only then, will the sole standing order be "Zog take hill."

Don't be Zog. Join the Army. We like, respect, and, most importantly, USE heavy weapons.

Go ARMY! Hooah!

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
Let's see. First, we get rid of armor, then we get rid of precision small arms. Next, we eliminate artillery, and finally, we wipe out the airwings.
<<snip>>
Go ARMY! Hooah!

Tube artillery is already gone. 1/2 the rocket artillery is gone. Close air support aircraft are being reduced already.

The number of Infantry battalions is being reduced. And I think but don't know that the number of 0311s (rifleman) per battalion is being reduced.

I haven't seen yet how many general officers and colonels are being reduced. I crack myself up

Hmmmm, I knew a guy who was a USMC sniper (I trained him as a baby cop) and from what I understood-most of the job was actually being the eyes and ears for the group they were attached to…

As a CO I’d want to know as much as I could before committing troops and what not. Seems like scout snipers are perfectly designed for that job.

This seems like a bad idea. But what do I know, I was a sailor.

Removing assets that provide real time intelligence as well as select targeting capabilities is tantamount to disaster in any battle space.

The decision makers seem to have decided there is too much toxic masculinity in the Marines, my guess is someone is going to be sorry somewhere down the road.

I'm not familiar with the nuances of Marine units, is this simply rearranging the chairs in the ballroom so to speak?

I know Scout-Sniper is a separate MOS however, Infantry battalions aren't loosing bodies or weapons, they're simply eliminating a specialty platoon, and rolling all those personnel into the Scout platoon, which currently does more recce & surveillance vs trigger-pulling? The weapons stay, however closing the unique school houses (there's 3 scout-sniper schools for the MOS?), chisels-down budgetary impact while retaining all the toys?

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
Removing assets that provide real time intelligence as well as select targeting capabilities is tantamount to disaster in any battle space.

They're not removing intelligence assets. The scout-sniper platoons within infantry battalions (only) are becoming scout platoons, with even broader intelligence/reconnaisance capabilities than the scout-snipers. And 8 additional Marines too.

This thread title is also intentionally misleading... They're not doing away with USMC snipers altogether. The scout-snipers are just going to be housed within MARSOC Raider battalions, Division Recon battalions, and Force Recon companies. The only units losing their snipers are the line Marine Infantry Battalions, and these units will still retain designated marksmen, just not full-blown snipers.

So they're basically removing a specialized, narrowly-focused scouting unit within each infantry battalion, and replacing it a more broadly-capable battalion scouting unit. That's a good thing for the infantry battalions. And the USMC will still retain the ability to reach out and touch people with snipers when needed.

In the new "lean and mean" USMC, there's not room for super-specialized roles if more generalized capabilities are lacking, and the article I read stated that the USMC decided that their infantry battalions demonstrated a lack of sufficient intelligence/recon capabilities, with the battalion scout-snipers' capabilities not cutting it, hence this replacement with a more broadly capable scouting-focused platoon. It tracks back to the USMC's current push to streamline the corps, to regain their capabilities for rapid amphibious and littoral strikes in the Pacific. Returning to their roots, so to speak, rather than trying to be "the Army, but with boats" which is the route they've been pushed over the previous many decades.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
Let's see. First, we get rid of armor...

As for the USMC losing their tanks, I was pretty shocked by that myself when it was enacted several years ago. However, in light of what we've seen over the past year in Ukraine, with the overwhelming effectiveness of modern man-portable and drone-based anti-tank capabilities (even taking into account Russia's tactical failures), I can now appreciate that maybe that wasn't such a bad call for a smaller specialized force like the USMC. While tanks will probably still have some role on the battlefield with the conventional Army units, I suspect their effectiveness will be greatly diminished in near-peer warfare in coming years. So for a more streamlined force like the revamped USMC, the reduced usefulness of the tank in modern combat very likely is no longer worth the huge logistical requirements.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RogueJSK, March 04, 2023 08:52 AM

Snipers are such a politically incorrect solution to the terrorist problem.
No time for a jury trial and the endless appeals before the death sentence is applied and no guarantee of a painless death either.

I (somewhat) agree Rogue, but for the fact that we have been pouring significant resources into both area denial and man portable drone jamming equipment.

Tanks, despite their fearsome reputation, are really a combined arms multiplier, not a singular force. I worry that the USMC will end up as the Navy's version of the Army's airborne, i.e., solely a light assault force, and not a small, elite, combined arms operation.

Perhaps that's the goal, but given historical Army - USMC cooperation, and the difficulty of operating combined logistics and planning, I'm not sure it's a good ideal.

A lot of bad reporting this week. Too many articles were written to make it sound like the Scout/Sniper program was killed off. The Sniper school is still going, just how they are being utilized is what is changing.

Yep. The interwebs is awash with clickbait headlines of "OMG THEYRE CANCELLING SNIPERS!!!!1"

Much ado about nothing, unless you're one of the current infantry battalion scout-snipers who can't get a spot in a dedicated Division/Force Recon or MARSOC scout-sniper unit, and thus have to transition to merely being an infantry scout-[sniper] on paper, devoting less of your training time to sniping and more to being a scout. (Though even then they'll still retain access to sniper rifles if needed.)

quote:

...
After fiscal year 2024, which ends in fall of that year, there won’t be any seats in the Scout Sniper Basic Course, according to the Plans, Policies and Operations email. The Marine Corps will still train snipers through the Reconnaissance Training Center and the Marine Raider Training Center, the message stated.

...

Slight thread drift; I've had a question, for years now, and I'm not completely certain of the answers I've come up with.

What is the difference between reconnaissance ("recon") and scouting ("scout")?

Confusing article, part makes you believe they are shutting down the program, part makes you believe its a shift in resources, then another part they are just going to scout.

Seems like I recall USMC shutting down this program several times in the past, only to realize they had a need again and had to spool up a program pretty fast.

quote:

Originally posted by dwd1985:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by IrishWind:
snip

THANK YOU! I am so tired of seeing everyones reactionary freaking out to this when they have no clue what the Marine Corps is actually up to.
snip

I have a clue and I'm not a reactionary and I have a different view, respectfully. The below is from a newsletter called 'compass points' the link to this attachment is in the middle of it.
I offer this as one piece of the many that are on the subject. And by the way, every former commandant has taken an opposing view to this revolution.

From Compass Points:

The German Defense Minister said this week that the German armed forces are not capable of defending Germany. The Defense Minister blames years of bad policies and inadequate funding. The Minister advocates building up the military. Japan is building up its military. The same is true in all western nations.

One clear lesson from Ukraine is free nations, if they want to remain free, must maintain a robust military force. There is no western nation in the world shrinking its military. No military force is getting rid of tanks, snipers, assault bridging, and reducing its artillery, fixed wing aircraft, rotary wing aircraft, and logistics. With active threats and aggressions from Russia and China and others ongoing around the world, every military force needs to grow stronger, not weaker, grow more capable not less capable.

Sadly, there is one exception. The only exception to the rule that all military forces are growing stronger today is the United States Marine Corps.

As recently quoted on Compass Points:

In order to pay for what is extensive new and emerging technology, the Commandant has effectively held a yard sale. In the last three years, the Marine Corps has divested 21% of its infantry, 100% of its tanks, 100% of its bridging and mine clearing capability, 67% of its cannon artillery, 29% of its fixed wing aircraft (fighter/attack) and 29% of its rotary wing assets (heavy lift, V-22, and attack helicopters), 100% of its military police units (rear area security during time of war), and a significant amount of its logistics capability . . .

-- Alex Friedman, Jackson Hole Economics

https://jheconomics.com/the-un...ine-corps-quo-vadis/

.

The Marine Corps is divesting combat capabilities so quickly Alex Friedman was not even able to include the most recent subtraction, the Marine Corps announced it is terminating its scout sniper program effective immediately.

DOD News announced Friday that another $400 million of equipment is being sent to Ukraine. The photograph distributed with the announcement showed some of the assault bridging equipment being sent to Ukraine. The equipment is the M-9 ACE (Armored Combat Excavator) & AVLBs (Armored Vehicle Launched Bridges). This is actual Marine Corps equipment. It is clear these are the older USMC AVLBs because of the M-60 chassis, not the M-1 chassis.

Obviously, it is good to help a nation attacked by Russia, but the Marine Corps no longer has assault bridging equipment, units, or capability. Any policy that makes the Marine Corps the only military force in the world that is shrinking and shedding critical capabilities is bad policy.

One clear lesson from Ukraine is the days of making military forces smaller and less capable are over. Bad policy from the past must be reversed. Military forces must be rebuilt, upgraded, and restored. What is true for every military force in the world, is true for the United States Marine Corps.

.

- - - - - - - -

.

DOD News (defnese.gov/News) 03/03/2023

U.S. Sends Ukraine $400 Million in Military Equipment

.

The United States will transfer military equipment worth up to $400 million to Ukraine to aid its defense against the Russian invasion, Defense Department officials said today.

.

By Jim Garamone , DOD News

.

. . . The package also includes armored vehicle-launched bridges. These vehicles are designed to accompany armored columns and give them the ability to cross rivers, streams, ditches and trenches. The bridges are carried on the chassis of armored vehicles and launched at river or stream banks. Once the crossing is finished, the vehicle can pick up the bridge on the far bank and carry on.

The package will also include demolition munitions and equipment for obstacle clearing. To help the Ukrainians sustain their forces in combat, the package also includes testing and diagnostic equipment to support vehicle maintenance and repair, as well as spare parts and other field equipment . . . .

.

- - - - - - - - -

https://www.defense.gov/News/N...-military-equipment/

.

- - - - - - - - -

.

First Post (firstpost.com) 03/02/2023

.

German defence minister says his country cannot protect itself in war

.

The Germany Defence Minister said the army of his country is understaffed and does not have adequate equipment as it has been neglected from the federal government for decades

.

By Umang Sharma

.

. . . Berlin: German army is not capable of protecting the country against any offensive, said Defence Minister Boris Pistorius. He further alleged that the Bundeswehr is understaffed and under-equipped after being left neglected from the federal government for decades.

“We have no armed forces that are capable of defending [Germany] that is, capable of defending [it] against an offensive, brutally waged aggressive war,” German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said during a meeting with fellow members of the Social Democratic Party . . .

.

- - - - - - - - -

https://www.firstpost.com/worl...in-war-12232132.html


Thanks for reading Marine Corps Compass Points! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.

Pledge your support

Compass Points is independent. The views expressed here are those of the authors and not the official position of the Marine Corps, or any other agency, organization, or enterprise.

If you liked this post from Marine Corps Compass Points,, why not share it?

Share

LIKE
COMMENT
SHARE

Read Marine Corps Compass Points in the app
Listen to posts, join subscriber chats, and never miss an update from Marine Corps Compass Points.
Get the iOS appGet the Android app
© 2023 Marine Corps Compass Points
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Unsubscribe
Start writing

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:

I have a clue and I'm not a reactionary and I have a different view, respectfully. The below is from a newsletter called 'compass points' the link to this attachment is in the middle of it.
I offer this as one piece of the many that are on the subject. And by the way, every former commandant has taken an opposing view to this revolution.

Every previous commandant has had a different take…How many of them faced a coming war with strengthened and modernized China? Not to mention how many of those clowns helped to create a Marine Corps (before modernization efforts began) that is NOT amphibious and NOT expeditionary and they also created asinine and arbitrary policies that helped us lose in Afghanistan. Seems like maybe they didn’t get it right with the same sold some old.

You link an article that talks about the percentage of USMC forces divested. So let’s look at that:

-The Marine Corps has had to shrink from 202,000 to its current strength of 175,000, a 15% decrease in overall strength. That’s not the Commandants choice, that’s what’s been authorized by Congress. Do you think that the Corps can decrease the overall number of Marines and still maintain every single asset?

-The numbers cited are painfully misleading. They ENTIRELY ignore what replaced every one of those assets. For example, the article cites that 67% of cannon artillery was divested. True. But it fails to state that those batteries were replaced with rocket artillery. Seems like fake news to claim that combat power was divested, no?

-The article ignores the other capabilities the Marine Corps has added to be able to operate in modern warfare. Cyber, etc. It also ignores the fact that the US Navy is woefully unable to transport USMC assets at this point so deckspace on ship is at a premium. Should we transport a single tank which will have 0% survivability and no logistics support in the pacific fight, or should we replace that with something that can actually survive first contact and can be supported adequately with food and ammunition?

-Not to mention you personally failed to address the topic of scout snipers being replaced by scouts. You essentially ignore that every divestment of a capability is actually replaced by a different, modern capability.

Just a thought on the expanding role of Marines.

Was some of the expansion during the Cold War more about the need for professional soldiers vs the conscripts in the Army?

Does reducing their roles make sense, now that the Army is also volunteer/professional?

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
Just a thought on the expanding role of Marines.

Was some of the expansion during the Cold War more about the need for professional soldiers vs the conscripts in the Army?

No. Up until the end of the draft for all of the armed forces in the early 1970s, the Marine Corps relied on draftees too. The last batch of conscripts to be drafted into the Marine Corps was in February 1970.

So the USMC transitioned to all-volunteer at around the same time as the Army, although during the draft period the Corps had been made up of a smaller percentage of conscripts than the Army.

As of 1973, all branches were strictly all-volunteer.

quote:

No more USMC Snipers

quote:

There's still going to be Snipers …

Which is it?