Get Rid of the Marine Corps???

Teufel

Force Recon
Verified SOF
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
4,560
Location
Tun Tavern
That's interesting. Six additional MONTHS? What is the Corps going to teach folks about infantry stuff in that length of time? Wouldn't they be better off in units?
I think the Commandant, who is a Recon Marine, wants to make all grunts into commandos like Thunder said. I think they are pulling a lot out of that training from the Basic Recon Course, which is almost 9 months long now.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,370
Location
CONUS
I think the Commandant, who is a Recon Marine, wants to make all grunts into commandos like Thunder said. I think they are pulling a lot out of that training from the Basic Recon Course, which is almost 9 months long now.
that sounds a lot like what LTG Barno (?) was looking to do with Army infantry.

In both cases, I think it's a very bad idea. But hey, at least the Marines aren't trying to put everyone into black berets...
 

Teufel

Force Recon
Verified SOF
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
4,560
Location
Tun Tavern
that sounds a lot like what LTG Barno (?) was looking to do with Army infantry.

In both cases, I think it's a very bad idea. But hey, at least the Marines aren't trying to put everyone into black berets...
Why do you think it's a bad idea? We actually have precedent doing this. The original Marine Raiders were amphibious super grunts. I'm not sure they will be able to pull this off across the entire Marine Corps infantry though. The Commandant wants to stand up 3 Marine Littoral Regiments eventually. Each of these regiments are built around an infantry battalion, a combat support battalion, and a fires battalion with long range rockets and anti-air capabilities. I think building three super grunt battalions is very feasible.
 

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,131
Location
Maricopa Basin
Interesting Editorial sort of defending the the re-design on T&P (I've stayed away from that place probably for over a year on purpose). But the author ends with a really stupid paragraph since the Army has definitely fought and won land wars in Asia quite well. Not really sure of the purpose of that other than to be a chode.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps is charging into the future, but some aren't ready for change

Although @Teufel I'm not sure of the whole idea of rocket artillery (Since rocket artillery tends to be heavy formations) for that purpose but I wasn't paid to think for that. But doesn't that idea exist already in an ad-hoc MEU structure generally?

Former SEN and SECNAV James Webb wrote an editorial critiquing the re-design. The Future of the U.S. Marine Corps

Just as I critiqued the Armor branch in every survey that was pushed down the Chief of Armor for failing to adequately train Cavalry Scouts or Tankers with them showing up underskilled and out of shape. I can definitely critique the Commandant for effectively stifling the pipeline to effectively staff Marine Infantry Regiments if the intent is to just jam another 6 months of training on top. What would the Marine or Soldier actually learn extra during that period of time that they couldn't learn through a work up. In order to meet through put to effectively staff units your recruiting numbers would have to jump significantly.

I suppose the question of Tanks being OPCONd to a MEU has been answered in Webb's Critique, I haven't really heard in the Armor community much talk of attaching units to MEUs. Seriously this would be a huge thing in that community as it would be a massive doctrinal shift and addition to the METL tasks that would need to trained at Battalion level.

I'm not saying the idea of a Commando Regiment is a bad thing, heck I had sort of thought that was the whole point of bringing back Raider battalions originally, but the Raider mission is completely different role and seems to sit in some quasi Army SF like role.
 

Teufel

Force Recon
Verified SOF
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
4,560
Location
Tun Tavern
Interesting Editorial sort of defending the the re-design on T&P (I've stayed away from that place probably for over a year on purpose). But the author ends with a really stupid paragraph since the Army has definitely fought and won land wars in Asia quite well. Not really sure of the purpose of that other than to be a chode.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps is charging into the future, but some aren't ready for change

Although @Teufel I'm not sure of the whole idea of rocket artillery (Since rocket artillery tends to be heavy formations) for that purpose but I wasn't paid to think for that. But doesn't that idea exist already in an ad-hoc MEU structure generally?

Former SEN and SECNAV James Webb wrote an editorial critiquing the re-design. The Future of the U.S. Marine Corps

Just as I critiqued the Armor branch in every survey that was pushed down the Chief of Armor for failing to adequately train Cavalry Scouts or Tankers with them showing up underskilled and out of shape. I can definitely critique the Commandant for effectively stifling the pipeline to effectively staff Marine Infantry Regiments if the intent is to just jam another 6 months of training on top. What would the Marine or Soldier actually learn extra during that period of time that they couldn't learn through a work up. In order to meet through put to effectively staff units your recruiting numbers would have to jump significantly.

I suppose the question of Tanks being OPCONd to a MEU has been answered in Webb's Critique, I haven't really heard in the Armor community much talk of attaching units to MEUs. Seriously this would be a huge thing in that community as it would be a massive doctrinal shift and addition to the METL tasks that would need to trained at Battalion level.

I'm not saying the idea of a Commando Regiment is a bad thing, heck I had sort of thought that was the whole point of bringing back Raider battalions originally, but the Raider mission is completely different role and seems to sit in some quasi Army SF like role.
It's a princess bride joke. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,370
Location
CONUS
Why do you think it's a bad idea? We actually have precedent doing this. The original Marine Raiders were amphibious super grunts. I'm not sure they will be able to pull this off across the entire Marine Corps infantry though. The Commandant wants to stand up 3 Marine Littoral Regiments eventually. Each of these regiments are built around an infantry battalion, a combat support battalion, and a fires battalion with long range rockets and anti-air capabilities. I think building three super grunt battalions is very feasible.
-scale. There's a big difference in building three battalions vs. making every 0311 an uber-grunt. The Army thought it could make all of its troops super-Soldiers too. They were wrong.

-expense. Keeping all of those Marines in training for an additional 6 months seems unnecessarily expensive. What is this going to accomplish for the overall effort?

-time. Marine training is basic (3 months) then Infantry training (<2 months) then tack on another 6 months of training? The average Marine enlistment is 3 years. The highest period of attrition in the armed services is during initial training. Marines have the lowest re-enlistment rate of all of the services. So you're basically spending an entire year (if you count leave, transportation, etc.) out of three. More Marines in training mean more Marines not in the Fleet. That constant training churn means there are going to be a lot of holes in operational units due to the very lengthy training pipeline.

-effectiveness. Where are Marine Infantrymen more likely to get better at being Infantrymen, in the school house or in a unit? I think it's probably in a unit.

-it's redundant. Don't the Marines already have Recon and Raiders?

-LSCO. For the future fight, I don't think we need general purpose troops with that level of training. We're going to need a lot of troops with enough training to be lethal and to survive. We're also going to need money and troops in other functions that cost more to train in, and take more training to become proficient in.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,683
Location
Not Afghanistan
The pipeline duration for all Marine infantry will rival or exceed careerfields like electronics, aviation maintenance, and intel?
 

digrar

custom user title
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
2,415
Location
In the desert or Victoria, depending on the date
Wavel knew how tough it was being a grunt, and the job is getting more complex year on year.
Let us be clear about three facts. The art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm. The role of the average artilleryman, for instance, is largely routine; the setting of a fuse, the loading of a gun, even the laying of it are processes which, once learnt, are mechanical. The infantryman has to use initiative and intelligence in almost every step he moves, every action he takes on the battle-field. We ought therefore to put our men of best intelligence and endurance into the Infantry.

So let us always write Infantry with a specially capital "I" and think of them with the deep admiration they deserve. And let us Infantrymen wear our battle-dress, like our rue, with a difference; and throw a chest in it, for we are the men who win battles and wars.
 

Teufel

Force Recon
Verified SOF
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
4,560
Location
Tun Tavern
-scale. There's a big difference in building three battalions vs. making every 0311 an uber-grunt. The Army thought it could make all of its troops super-Soldiers too. They were wrong.

-expense. Keeping all of those Marines in training for an additional 6 months seems unnecessarily expensive. What is this going to accomplish for the overall effort?

-time. Marine training is basic (3 months) then Infantry training (<2 months) then tack on another 6 months of training? The average Marine enlistment is 3 years. The highest period of attrition in the armed services is during initial training. Marines have the lowest re-enlistment rate of all of the services. So you're basically spending an entire year (if you count leave, transportation, etc.) out of three. More Marines in training mean more Marines not in the Fleet. That constant training churn means there are going to be a lot of holes in operational units due to the very lengthy training pipeline.

-effectiveness. Where are Marine Infantrymen more likely to get better at being Infantrymen, in the school house or in a unit? I think it's probably in a unit.

-it's redundant. Don't the Marines already have Recon and Raiders?

-LSCO. For the future fight, I don't think we need general purpose troops with that level of training. We're going to need a lot of troops with enough training to be lethal and to survive. We're also going to need money and troops in other functions that cost more to train in, and take more training to become proficient in.
Marauder, great comments as always. I respect your insight and experience, even if your choice of service academy football teams makes me doubt your judgement sometimes.

Our minimum enlistment is actually 4 years. Some MOSes like Recon and cyber require longer contracts now.

Recon has always followed this training model with a similar fiscal and time investment on a 4 year contract. I haven't been in these discussions, so these are purely my opinions and not that of the Marine Corps in any way, but it seems to me that the Marine Corps is building a SOF like service retained amphibious infantry field. I think it will be six months (this supplants the 2 months of infantry training previously given) because they are going to run them through most of the Basic Recon Course minus the combat swimming. I think this will be very similar to the original Raiders. The current Raiders don't work for the Marine Corps so it would not be a redundant capability. Recon will perform recon tasks, probably augmented with other collection capabilities, not beach assaults.

Right now they are talking about making all grunts into super grunts but it's still in the testing phase. I bet they settle on a more realistic goal eventually. It sounds like they are trying to build the Marine Corps version of the WWII Rangers or 101st Airborne to facilitate forcible entry operations.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,370
Location
CONUS
Lol the first part was meant to be serious. We are actually really good friends. I visit his family all the time and have served them barbecue more than once!
Totally true. Although I had to move to Hawaii to get him to actually visit... for some reason he couldn't bring himself to come see us at West Point. Maybe this time around...

For those who haven't met him yet, Teufel is one of the best storytellers I've ever met. My children would get so excited when I would tell them he was coming to town. My oldest insisted on riding with me to drop him off at his hotel so she could hear more stories about @pardus , who she also met many years ago at @Ex3 's summer home.

He's also an amazing cook. 10/10, would recommend having him come over to your house for dinner. :)
 

digrar

custom user title
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
2,415
Location
In the desert or Victoria, depending on the date
but it seems to me that the Marine Corps is building a SOF like service retained amphibious infantry field. I think it will be six months (this supplants the 2 months of infantry training previously given) because they are going to run them through most of the Basic Recon Course minus the combat swimming. I think this will be very similar to the original Raiders. The current Raiders don't work for the Marine Corps so it would not be a redundant capability. Recon will perform recon tasks, probably augmented with other collection capabilities, not beach assaults.

Right now they are talking about making all grunts into super grunts but it's still in the testing phase. I bet they settle on a more realistic goal eventually. It sounds like they are trying to build the Marine Corps version of the WWII Rangers or 101st Airborne to facilitate forcible entry operations.

I know 2RAR Amphibious has worked with both the RM and USMC to get to where it is now as the Pre Landing Force for the Australian Army (allegedly to be replicated by a re raised 4RAR up in Darwin in the coming half decade or so), is that sort of where you guys are going?
 

Teufel

Force Recon
Verified SOF
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
4,560
Location
Tun Tavern
I know 2RAR Amphibious has worked with both the RM and USMC to get to where it is now as the Pre Landing Force for the Australian Army (allegedly to be replicated by a re raised 4RAR up in Darwin in the coming half decade or so), is that sort of where you guys are going?
I’m not 100% sure to be honest. They are still experimenting with the model. I think it’s focused on seizing small islands and creating expeditionary support bases for the joint force.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,683
Location
Not Afghanistan
I’m not 100% sure to be honest. They are still experimenting with the model. I think it’s focused on seizing small islands and creating expeditionary support bases for the joint force.

For us non-Marines, how does that differ from what the Corps already offers?
 

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
5,996
Location
Durham, NC
For us non-Marines, how does that differ from what the Corps already offers?

I am sure the Sir can offer a better, more Marinatorial explanation, but when I was in, it was still all about the global war and terror and 9/11. We were expeditionary yes, maneuverable yes, but put into very routine and army-like operations, aside from a MEU float. Even then most operations are about 96 hours in duration until support, and then we go back board ship.

The old island seizing, island hopping, that is the Marines' history, but it's new to today's generation.
 

Teufel

Force Recon
Verified SOF
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
4,560
Location
Tun Tavern
For us non-Marines, how does that differ from what the Corps already offers?
I think we are a fairly balanced force presently that can easily adapt to different missions. The current direction is to invest everything in this concept and divest of anything that does not directly support this mission. It's also a cultural shift. We go from "the nation's 9/11 force" to a service entirely dedicated to directly supporting the Navy in their quest for sea control. The Marine Corps has always had a island seizing mission. The Commandant is talking about building up little island fortresses similar to what the Chinese are doing and staying within the adversary's weapons engagement zone. We are dropping almost all conventional artillery in favor of multiple launch rocket systems and I assume eventually anti ship missiles. Each of the Marine Littoral Regiments will have anti-air capabilities that do not presently reside within the Marine infantry divisions (they are with the Air Wing). The commandant has even talked about getting into the anti-sub game Marines Will Help Fight Submarines. I think that these new Marine commandos may be using small boats and maybe even swimming ashore to infiltrate into the littorals. That said, I'm not in any of the experiment and war gaming groups so this is all my opinion and guess work.
 

The Hate Ape

MARSOC
SOF Support
Joined
Oct 6, 2011
Messages
636
Location
West Coast
Call it “Rah Rah” bravado if you wish but Ive never EVER seen the arrival of Marines not appreciated by other services.. except this guy apparently.

The Marine Corps will stay until someone else becomes stubborn enough to accomplish what we accomplish using what we are provided and for however long it takes to do so.

What we do is both inspiring & horrifying.
 
Last edited:
Top