SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Force-Organization Changes in the U.S. Marine Corps Deserve Debate
Main Page The Lounge Force-Organization Changes in the U.S. Marine Corps Deserve DebateGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Fighting the good fight |
Tank Tip: You can hold twice as much ground if you detach the turret from the main body!   | |||
|
| Member |
hey -- it never hurts to ask !  just like you ask for priority air support, priority indirect (co and bn mortars AND Bn 105s), a squad of engineers, etc. they always seem to say no though.  ----------------------------- Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. | |||
|
Sigforum K9 handler |
Boy, you’d almost think that the Marine Corps didn’t exist before tanks. But, one of my DI’s was a S1 guy and you’d swear by him that admin was the most important MOS ever..... | |||
|
Glorious SPAM! |
Lol. Hey man I am a 2146. Tank guy. I love the crunchies too  My MIMMS bitch? Fuck. After we switched over in 2012 it was not pretty. I had a kid that was trained on GCSS but overseas we still ran MIMMS. He was about useless. BUT, he liked to leave his A4 in the DSESTS van which I appreciated. What I mean to say is that all NON 21- ordnance guys are fucked up. I mean some are. Most. Probably a lot. But I'm not checking that. But they are dirty.  | |||
|
| Sigforum K9 handler |
Lol. My boy is getting ready to go on a WestPac with a MEU attached to the dumb end of a M4/M203. | |||
|
| Member |
He land in 2/4? ______________________________________________________________________ "When its time to shoot, shoot. Dont talk!" “What the government is good at is collecting taxes, taking away your freedoms and killing people. It’s not good at much else.” —Author Tom Clancy | |||
|
Member |
Infantry. "Ninja kick the damn rabbit" | |||
|
| Glorious SPAM! |
As long as he ain't rolling out in the "Thirty Worst" MEU he'll be fine | |||
|
| Member |
I remember Gen Krulak started this sort of change in the late 90s. He called it SeaDragon. Tested a lot of new ideas (gear & new ways to fight battles) some good some not so good. Then GWOT came around and all that went away. | |||
|
| Member |
They are trading in their tanks for anti-ship missiles and drones. This is all about preparing for conflict in the Pacific. https://breakingdefense.com/20...rps-new-ship-killer/ | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money  |
What’s happening to the Marines? By Andrea Widburg Lately, when we think about what’s happening to America’s military under Biden, we’ve been focusing on the Pentagon’s obsessions with race, LGBTQ+++ issues (especially transgenderism), women’s rights, and political “wrong think” (i.e., conservativism). That obsession has consistently put progressive social policy ahead of military cohesion and readiness. However, Jim Webb, who was a Marine infantry officer while in Vietnam, then the Navy secretary under Ronald Reagan and, lastly, a Virginia senator during the Obama years, has written an op-ed about a different concern: The potentially damaging, purely operational changes Marine commandment Gen. David Berger intends to impose on the Corps. Webb raises the issues in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. Berger’s proposed changes including (1) eliminating infantry battalions, (2) reducing the number of Marines in the remaining battalions, and (3) eliminating two reserve-component battalions, 16 cannon artillery battalions (to be replaced by 14 rocket artillery battalions), all of the Marine Corps tanks, and multiple tilt-rotor, helicopter, and attack helicopter squadrons. From the outside looking in, that seems like a very significant force reduction. It turns out that this isn’t just an uninformed lay person’s perception. Marines are also worried about Berger’s plans: Among Marines there are serious questions about the wisdom and long-term risk of dramatic reductions in force structure, weapon systems and manpower levels in units that would take steady casualties in most combat scenarios. And it is unclear to just about everyone with experience in military planning what formal review and coordination was required before Gen. Berger unilaterally announced a policy that would alter so many time-honored contributions of the Marine Corps. The thing about the Marines is that they’re meant to be an all-purpose fighting force that can move quickly and go anywhere and do anything, fighting both on land and at sea. According to Webb, though, Berger’s unilateral decision-making will dramatically reduce the Marines’ unusual flexibility, turning them into a sort of generic, low-level fighting force associated with the Navy. And then there are the politics of the whole thing. When word got out about Berger’s plans, a lot of retired senior officers tried to talk with him about what was happening. When they were stalemated, rather than quietly going away, these same officers pushed back hard: Recently, 22 retired four-star Marine generals signed a nonpublic letter of concern to Gen. Berger, and many others have stated their support of the letter. A daily working group that includes 17 retired generals has been formed to communicate concerns to national leaders. One highly respected retired three-star general estimated to me that “the proportion of retired general officers who are gravely concerned about the direction of the Corps in the last two and a half years would be above 90 percent.” As far as Webb and these other retired officers are concerned, Berger’s planned changes are so momentous they never should have been done without a full review and debate in various Pentagon offices and even congressional oversight. Indeed, I gathered that Berger may have used the breakdowns in governance because of COVID (such as congresspeople running away in fear) as an opportunity to bypass this oversight. Webb closes his essay by noting that, had Berger gone through channels and been open about his changes, including explaining either their necessity or the benefit to be derived from them, 90% of retired generals would have supported him. (After all, at least on paper, Berger has huge amounts of both practical and theoretical knowledge and experience about the Marines.) However, writes Webb, “the realities of brutal combat and the wide array of global challenges the Marine Corps faces daily argue strongly against a doctrinal experiment that might look good in a computerized war game at Quantico.” Maybe these retired officers are simply reflecting the discombobulated times in which we live and are overthinking things. On the other hand, given the left’s hostility to a military that fights to protect America, and given the severely woke Pentagon under Austin and Milley, I’m inclined to believe that any big changes imposed on the military during the Biden administration should be presumed damaging and, therefore, must be closely scrutinized and, if necessary, fought at every turn. https://www.americanthinker.co..._to_the_marines.html "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| Sigforum K9 handler |
2/1 | |||
|
| Member |
This changing of the Marine's force structure is not a left-wing attempt at destroying the Corps. This is an attempt to re-orient the force into something that is more likely to make a major difference in a naval war with China. They are trying to get lighter, more nimble but more able to rapidly bring longe-range fire to bare on Chinese shipping. | |||
|
| Semper Fidelis Marines |
2/1[/QUOTE I thought they disbanded 2/4 thanks, shawn Semper Fi, ---->>> EXCUSE TYPOS<<<--- | |||
|
| Member |
Nope, The Magnificent Bastards are up and running. They're ready to do a Deployment as well. ______________________________________________________________________ "When its time to shoot, shoot. Dont talk!" “What the government is good at is collecting taxes, taking away your freedoms and killing people. It’s not good at much else.” —Author Tom Clancy | |||
|
| The Main Thing Is Not To Get Excited  |
This changing of the Marine's force structure is not a left-wing attempt at destroying the Corps. This is an attempt to re-orient the force into something that is more likely to make a major difference in a naval war with China. They are trying to get lighter, more nimble but more able to rapidly bring longe-range fire to bare on Chinese shipping.[/QUOTE] You lost me on that last curve: what does 'bringing long range fire' to the fight against shipping have to do with making the Marines into naval infantry? I'm not arguing, I don't understand what you mean. _______________________ | |||
|
| Member |
You lost me on that last curve: what does 'bringing long range fire' to the fight against shipping have to do with making the Marines into naval infantry? I'm not arguing, I don't understand what you mean.[/QUOTE] If the US goes to war with China, it is expected to primarily be a Naval war. The Marines want to be able to rapidly deploy to some of the many small islands in the Pacific. From these islands, with the right weapons, they should be able to deny access to swaths of the ocean to Chinese shipping or at least slow them down. Where this is controversial is you'd end up with small groups of marines spread out all over the place where it might be tough to resupply or reinforce them if they are attacked. While this might not seem like a traditional use of Naval Infrantry, I'd argue Marines with Naval Strike Missiles are more likely to be useful than Marines with M1 Abrams Tanks in a Naval War with China. | |||
|
| The Main Thing Is Not To Get Excited |
If the US goes to war with China, it is expected to primarily be a Naval war. The Marines want to be able to rapidly deploy to some of the many small islands in the Pacific. From these islands, with the right weapons, they should be able to deny access to swaths of the ocean to Chinese shipping or at least slow them down. Where this is controversial is you'd end up with small groups of marines spread out all over the place where it might be tough to resupply or reinforce them if they are attacked. While this might not seem like a traditional use of Naval Infrantry, I'd argue Marines with Naval Strike Missiles are more likely to be useful than Marines with M1 Abrams Tanks in a Naval War with China.[/QUOTE] got it. thanks _______________________ | |||
|
| Fighting the good fight |
(Psst... There's really no need to include paragraphs of triple-nested quotes if you're only going to be adding a couple word generic reply to the immediately preceding post. It only serves to clutter up the page, especially when you miss a quote tag or two so the quotes aren't even properly nested.) | |||
|
| Member |
The Marines Got Rid of Their Tanks. Is Ukraine Making Them Look Smart, or Too Smart for Their Own Good? Ben Connable 3/28/2022 Anyone watching video footage of the war in Ukraine has seen Ukrainian light infantry destroying lots of Russian tanks. In one video, a British NLAW—a cheap, single-shot, shoulder-launched rocket—darts out over the top of a tank, blasts a hole in its thin top armor, and sets it on fire. In another video, a Ukrainian drone follows a hapless Russian tank down a street before it, too, is destroyed by rockets, setting it on fire and sending a lone surviving crewman scrambling for cover. Video after video, photo after photo, shows almost every variant of Russian tank lying tracked and crippled on a highway, smoldering in a field of burnt grass, or decapitated, cast metal gun turret lying uselessly in the mud a few feet from its body. Poor tank performance in Ukraine does not bode well for the armor-dependent Russians. It also may not bode well for the future of the tank as a tool of modern warfare. Marine Commandant David H. Berger sees the Ukraine war as vindication of his Force Design 2030. Last year, the Marine Corps got rid of the last of its active duty tank units and most of its traditional tube artillery as part of FD2030. This was Berger’s plan to reshape the Marine Corps primarily to fight a prospective long-range, high-tech, over-water war with China. Berger has taken—and is taking—plenty of barbs from within the senior ranks of the Marine Corps and from external critics for his new direction. Given what has happened to tanks in Ukraine, was Berger prescient?... Complete article: https://www.realcleardefense.c...own_good_823985.html | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Force-Organization Changes in the U.S. Marine Corps Deserve Debate
Main Page The Lounge Force-Organization Changes in the U.S. Marine Corps Deserve Debate© SIGforum 2024