The Marines running full steam in adopting FD2030 ought to look at historical military innovations that have actually failed.
Looking back in the Germans “blitzkrieg” which revolutionary for its time and it worked very well because the Germans used armor in conjunction with infantry (combined arms). Compare the German innovation with that of the British innovation of using armor in WW I. The
Brits focused on the use of armor and armor alone which was not as successful, they performed rather poorly on the battlefield because support while in the attack.
The difference is, one was a combined mechanized force, while the other used one form of battle equipment.
Is FD2030 a rebirth of the British modernization effort of WW I?
Good points. It should also be noted that the initial Israeli response to the Egyptian attacks during the Yom Kipper War failed because they did not use a combined arms counter attack. They sent tanks in alone.
I for one love the M1A1. Before Desert Shield I could cared less, I was trained as an 0351. But sitting in the middle of the second mine field on our way into Kuwait the Colonel and I hear over the radio that there were Iraq tanks coming from our right flank. The next thing we hear over the radio is Colonel Diggs, the CO of the tank battalion, and our tanks runnin and gunning and Iraqi tanks being stopped. So, I love them tanks!!!
I wrote my Congressman about my concerns with FD2030. An Aide from his Office called me. I expressed my concerns, at that time, the lack of Tanks. The Aide said, "Tanks are heavy!" I said you've got to be sh**ting me! I hung up on the Aide. I can only pray that the Assistant Commandant answers the questions truthfully and doesn't say, "Tanks are heavy!"
When discussing tanks, we always think of the M1A1 Abrams. There are other vehicles out there such as: Swedish CV90-120, Italian Centauro II and the Army's new M10 Booker. I firmly believe there are some in the Marine Corps who just dislike tanks.
I still have heartburn over Marines involved in the development of Force Design 2030 being required to sign non-disclosure agreements. Why? So that fellow Marines wouldn’t be exposed to a major change in how the Marine Corps is organized and fights?
Chowder II should be invited to Lt. Gen. Mahoney's briefing.
The Marine Times 11/22/22 article that covered the MCA brief about "Myth-busters" at the Army Navy Club in Arlington presented by then Lt-Gen. Chris Mahoney was itself somewhat mythical. A significant myth revealed in the article was the one that attributed the origins of Force Design 2030 concept to the previous commandant, Gen. Robert Neller. This has been a prominent myth since 2019. In fact, learning of this comment made by Gen. Berger in 2019-20 led to Google research of Gen. Neller's official correspondence. The research led to Gen. Neller's 2018 "Statement to Congress." There is absolutely nothing in Gen. Neller's Statement to Congress in 2018 that in any way resembles the FD 2030 Marine Corps transformation ordered by Gen. Berger in 2019. There is no resemblance whatsoever.
A second significant myth revealed in the article was the claim by then Lt-Gen. Mahoney that Marine Corps aviation has not been diminished by the FD 2030 divest to invest policy. This is myth at the malarkey level. The Marine Corps 2022 Aviation Plan itself states that it is malarkey. There had been no annual Marine Aviation Plan published for two years until the 2022 plan was published. Once published, the 2022 Aviation Plan clearly states aviation assets had been cut beyond Marine aviation's capability to meet requirements. Then the plan's author left active duty.
As to the 2022 Aviation Plan claim that FD 2030 diminishes Marine aviation, a former ACMC who had been a Vietnam War, rotary wing, combat veteran stated unequivocally that FD 2030 was, "crippling Marine Corps aviation." Why would former ACMC Dake claim FD 2030 is crippling Marine Corps aviation? Has ACMC, Gen. Mahoney, made any effort tp find out why Gen. Dake would make such a claim? If Gen. Mahoney has not spoken with Gen. Dake, then he should explain why he hasn't.
Research of Gen. Mahoney's Record on Google reveals impressive command and staff assignments and an abundance of top level school completions. Actual combat experience, or deployments aboard ship are not highlighted. Expeditionary experience is noted. Amphibious, or MAGTF, experience is unknown.
Both Gen. Mahoney and Gen. Berger need to stop accrediting Gen. Neller with the origins of FD 2030. It is not so.
Finally, if 26 MEU Marines are ordered ashore at Yemen will missing tanks and cannon artillery divested by FD 2030 affect the order of battle? SF RW
The Marines running full steam in adopting FD2030 ought to look at historical military innovations that have actually failed.
Looking back in the Germans “blitzkrieg” which revolutionary for its time and it worked very well because the Germans used armor in conjunction with infantry (combined arms). Compare the German innovation with that of the British innovation of using armor in WW I. The
Brits focused on the use of armor and armor alone which was not as successful, they performed rather poorly on the battlefield because support while in the attack.
The difference is, one was a combined mechanized force, while the other used one form of battle equipment.
Is FD2030 a rebirth of the British modernization effort of WW I?
Good points. It should also be noted that the initial Israeli response to the Egyptian attacks during the Yom Kipper War failed because they did not use a combined arms counter attack. They sent tanks in alone.
Extremely good article and really hits the nail on the head.
I for one love the M1A1. Before Desert Shield I could cared less, I was trained as an 0351. But sitting in the middle of the second mine field on our way into Kuwait the Colonel and I hear over the radio that there were Iraq tanks coming from our right flank. The next thing we hear over the radio is Colonel Diggs, the CO of the tank battalion, and our tanks runnin and gunning and Iraqi tanks being stopped. So, I love them tanks!!!
I wrote my Congressman about my concerns with FD2030. An Aide from his Office called me. I expressed my concerns, at that time, the lack of Tanks. The Aide said, "Tanks are heavy!" I said you've got to be sh**ting me! I hung up on the Aide. I can only pray that the Assistant Commandant answers the questions truthfully and doesn't say, "Tanks are heavy!"
When discussing tanks, we always think of the M1A1 Abrams. There are other vehicles out there such as: Swedish CV90-120, Italian Centauro II and the Army's new M10 Booker. I firmly believe there are some in the Marine Corps who just dislike tanks.
I still have heartburn over Marines involved in the development of Force Design 2030 being required to sign non-disclosure agreements. Why? So that fellow Marines wouldn’t be exposed to a major change in how the Marine Corps is organized and fights?
Chowder II should be invited to Lt. Gen. Mahoney's briefing.
Regarding the Hudson Institute, I just visited it’s website, this is the headline article, “Jan 17, 2024
Hudson Institute
The Painful Lesson: Defense Is Not Enough ‘
John P. Walters
The Marine Times 11/22/22 article that covered the MCA brief about "Myth-busters" at the Army Navy Club in Arlington presented by then Lt-Gen. Chris Mahoney was itself somewhat mythical. A significant myth revealed in the article was the one that attributed the origins of Force Design 2030 concept to the previous commandant, Gen. Robert Neller. This has been a prominent myth since 2019. In fact, learning of this comment made by Gen. Berger in 2019-20 led to Google research of Gen. Neller's official correspondence. The research led to Gen. Neller's 2018 "Statement to Congress." There is absolutely nothing in Gen. Neller's Statement to Congress in 2018 that in any way resembles the FD 2030 Marine Corps transformation ordered by Gen. Berger in 2019. There is no resemblance whatsoever.
A second significant myth revealed in the article was the claim by then Lt-Gen. Mahoney that Marine Corps aviation has not been diminished by the FD 2030 divest to invest policy. This is myth at the malarkey level. The Marine Corps 2022 Aviation Plan itself states that it is malarkey. There had been no annual Marine Aviation Plan published for two years until the 2022 plan was published. Once published, the 2022 Aviation Plan clearly states aviation assets had been cut beyond Marine aviation's capability to meet requirements. Then the plan's author left active duty.
As to the 2022 Aviation Plan claim that FD 2030 diminishes Marine aviation, a former ACMC who had been a Vietnam War, rotary wing, combat veteran stated unequivocally that FD 2030 was, "crippling Marine Corps aviation." Why would former ACMC Dake claim FD 2030 is crippling Marine Corps aviation? Has ACMC, Gen. Mahoney, made any effort tp find out why Gen. Dake would make such a claim? If Gen. Mahoney has not spoken with Gen. Dake, then he should explain why he hasn't.
Research of Gen. Mahoney's Record on Google reveals impressive command and staff assignments and an abundance of top level school completions. Actual combat experience, or deployments aboard ship are not highlighted. Expeditionary experience is noted. Amphibious, or MAGTF, experience is unknown.
Both Gen. Mahoney and Gen. Berger need to stop accrediting Gen. Neller with the origins of FD 2030. It is not so.
Finally, if 26 MEU Marines are ordered ashore at Yemen will missing tanks and cannon artillery divested by FD 2030 affect the order of battle? SF RW