SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    USMC Reform Plans
Page 1 2 3 4 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
USMC Reform Plans Login/Join 
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
"Force Design 2030". The link is a PDF.

Without the MAGTAF the Corps pretty much becomes useless. Honestly within ten years a lot of us see Congress asking why do we have a Marine Corps? I see them either going back to the 1920's Corps of guarding naval installations and security on ship or going away completely. If you want an infantry strike force to be stationed on a ship just put a Ranger Company there. USMC infantry TO&E has been pretty much the same since WWII. In the future they will look A LOT more like the Rangers. And the grunt commander's I have talked to are not happy. Especially when you take away the heavy junk and towed artillery.

https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/P...020-03-26-121328-460
 
Posts: 10645 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
My hypocrisy goes only so far
Picture of GrumpyBiker
posted Hide Post
Semper Gumby





U.S.M.C.
VFW-8054
III%

"Never let a Wishbone grow where a Backbone should be "



 
Posts: 6954 | Location: Central,Ohio | Registered: December 28, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I have been following the re-alignment closely and wanted to do some more research before I posted in this discussion.

It is time for me to extended my contract and I am thinking this will probably be my last three year hitch. With that being said I was looking to reclassify to either an Intelligence MOS or a Combat Engineering MOS. After reading about the Corps eliminating their Armor, Bridging and other units I have been contemplating changing to 19K (Armor).

I have read numerous articles stating that with the Corp eliminating their armor capability it will put undue burden on the current Army Armored units. I am hoping this will get the Army off their Keisters and started focusing, developing and refining armor tactics and doctrine. I am also hoping it will lead to more training for NG Armor units and hopefully assimilate them with Active duty armor units.

All the articles I read relating to the reform and elimination of those said units states that the Corp wants to get back to their amphibious roots. If that is truly the goal they will have to return to pre-WW2 status.

During World War II, the US Marine Corps formed six tank battalions that battled through the harsh conditions of the Pacific Theatre. Using the same basic tanks as the US Army, notably the M3 and M5A1 light tanks and the M4 Sherman medium tank, the Marines made both technical and tactical innovations to make them more effective in the fight against the Japanese. Deep wading equipment, flamethrower tanks, and even wooden armor all became part of the Marine arsenal.

And this tradition/innovation carried on through Korea, Vietnam up to the present.

I always studied/liked/admired the MAGTF and how effective it was.
 
Posts: 1864 | Location: In NC trying to get back to VA | Registered: March 03, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
quote:
I have read numerous articles stating that with the Corp eliminating their armor capability it will put undue burden on the current Army Armored units. I am hoping this will get the Army off their Keisters and started focusing, developing and refining armor tactics and doctrine. I am also hoping it will lead to more training for NG Armor units and hopefully assimilate them with Active duty armor units.


Here is the problem. The way the USMC uses armor and the way the US Army uses armor is COMPLETELY different. I mean like night and day.

In the Army armor exists to fight other armor. In the Corps armor exists to support the infantry. Thats all. Since WWII USMC armor trains to fight with the grunts. That's all we did. Sure gunnery had them calling fire commands to shoot other tanks but in reality their job was infantry support. Breaching. The USMC tank platoon existed to breach obstacles. Why? To allow the grunts to roll in. In the Army armor is king; in the Corps infantry is king. USMC armor has one job, and one job only: to breach the obstacle and support infantry. Period.

The Corps had the vendor put a tank infantry phone on the back of the tank during Iraq. Why? Because tanks support infantry. Just like Hue in '68 Marine grunts liked to be able to direct the fire of their tank support. That meant having a phone on the back of the tiger to talk to the TC. The Army scoffed at the idea. But for what the Corps needed, it worked. And even the Army has the TIP phone on their tanks now.

The Army has great armor training, and they can kill enemy tanks forever. But put an Army tank platoon with a Marine infantry company and all hell breaks loose. They just don't train for grunt support. Especially on the small scale that the Marines do (or did). One tank platoon attached to an infantry company is amazing. Especially when all they ever trained for was that scenario.

This is what a standard USMC tank platoon looked like in AFG. Plow, blade, roller. Ready to breech and ready to kick the door in for the grunts. We weren't in AFG to fight other tanks; we were in AFG to kick the door open for the grunts so they could do their thing.

 
Posts: 10645 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Then maybe the dimwits should just save all the BSing and stupid excuses and just eliminate them altogether!

The Leathernecks play a large part of our defense and positive part of our offensive forces.

Sounds to me like the same morons who want to do away with our police!
 
Posts: 1010 | Location: Northern Virginia | Registered: October 22, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
quote:
Deep wading equipment, flamethrower tanks, and even wooden armor all became part of the Marine arsenal.


We got rid of the flamethrowers and wooden armor, but we kept the deep water fording kits Smile

This pic is a test of the new engine intake seal back in the day. The Army required the tank to ford 48" and the USMC required it to ford 72" with 96" swells (for coming off of a landing craft). If you look closely you can see that yes, the tiger is running (exhaust coming out if the stack).

Somewhere I have some pics of a tank coming off of an actual landing craft I'll see if I can find them. I know a few guys that sunk them coming off of LCU's in various places...anphib landings aren't always wine and roses. And the recovery sucks Wink

 
Posts: 10645 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
SIGforum's Berlin
Correspondent
Picture of BansheeOne
posted Hide Post
Here's my friend I mentioned in the OP coming ashore on his M48A3 from an LCU at Capo Teulada, Sardinia in December 1970 during a Med cruise. He likes to tell the story thus:

quote:
I did the full spec of 8' initially, and then some, as my driver, doing it for the first time, 'made sure' by stomping on the throttle before we got off the ramp, sending a wave up the turret face, splashed a bit into the loader's hatch. My apparently heroic pose of 'charge' is actually me frantically waving to people on the beach to GTF out of the way, because some water shorted out the intercom and I could not give the driver any steers. A few shouts from the gunner and he stopped once high & dry.


 
Posts: 2466 | Location: Berlin, Germany | Registered: April 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
SIGforum's Berlin
Correspondent
Picture of BansheeOne
posted Hide Post
Not sure if this is related to the USMC reform, or the plans to relocate troops from Germany, despite the official denial of the latter.

quote:
Major Changes Coming for Marines’ Norway Deployments

7 Aug 2020
Military.com | By Gina Harkins

The Marine Corps will overhaul its mission in Norway this fall, swapping its yearlong presence for shorter stints in the Scandinavian country that will put as many as 1,000 troops there at once.

Hundreds of Marines have been deploying to Norway every six months for nearly four years. Starting in October, though, the rotations will be switched to what the Marine Corps is calling an "episodic deployment model" that will align with major Norwegian military training events.

The decision was made in close consultation with the Norwegians and will improve the overall readiness of the Marine Corps, Maj. Adrian J.T. Rankine-Galloway, a spokesman for Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa, said in a statement. The changes are unrelated to the recent announcements about withdrawing nearly 12,000 troops from Germany, he added.

"This change in deployment models will enable U.S. Marine Corps forces to achieve the appropriate balance between Arctic warfare training in Norway and large-scale unit training as a naval expeditionary force," Rankine-Galloway said.

He stressed that the Marine Corps is not drawing down its presence in Norway since, at times, it will have a greater presence in the country than it does now. About 400 Marines will be deployed to Norway from October to December, he said. But the next rotation, scheduled from January to March of next year, will include about 1,000 Marines.

"Additionally, as in years past, we expect U.S. Marines will participate in even larger numbers in Norway's major exercises," Rankine-Galloway said.

The Barents Observer, an English-Russian online newspaper, reported the shift "inevitably will affect the military situation in the region."

The Marine Corps' presence in Norway, which is near the Russian border, has for years rankled officials in Moscow. When the service doubled the size of its biannual rotation in 2018, Russian leaders called the move "clearly unfriendly," and have even threatened possible retaliation.

Rankine-Galloway said close defense and security cooperation between the U.S. and Norway is not ending.

"This new deployment model contributes to a more lethal and capable Marine Corps, which supports the National Defense Strategy and, by extension, the capabilities of the NATO Alliance to defend against threats from peer competitors," he said.

The Marine Corps is undergoing a host of changes tied to Commandant Gen. David Berger's planning guidance, which emphasizes a return to sea-based operations in preparation for possible conflict in the Asia-Pacific region. The service is downsizing and folding its tank battalions and some other units as leaders prepare the force to face off against a near-peer adversary.

"This new deployment model will allow us to train as we intend to fight in any location, as an integrated Navy-Marine Corps force," Rankine-Galloway said.


https://www.military.com/daily...way-deployments.html
 
Posts: 2466 | Location: Berlin, Germany | Registered: April 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
Love those pics Banshee! M48A3 with the 90mm. Nice. The last M48 the USMC used was the A5 with the 105. But that was before my time lol. WAY before.

I haven't heard anything about drawing down the Norway deployments (but then I'm not really in the loop anymore). A buddy's son just got back from there a month or so ago. Wonder if he has heard anything.

We did keep a few tanks over there in the caves. Used to send mechs to service them every six months or so. Video is from one of the deployments a few years ago. The only time I ever drove a tank in the snow was up at the old Syracuse USMC reserve station years and years ago.

 
Posts: 10645 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
SIGforum's Berlin
Correspondent
Picture of BansheeOne
posted Hide Post
The guy has some funny stories to tell, and is also a published historian. Might as well advertize the books he has written on the USMC, armor, and USMC armor. Additionally, the extended edition of his thesis about Western European Volunteers in the German Army and SS during WW II is the best I've seen on the topic.
 
Posts: 2466 | Location: Berlin, Germany | Registered: April 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    USMC Reform Plans

© SIGforum 2024