You can pull up this document and read it if you are so inclined. THE "AFLOAT-READY BATTALION"
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE U.S. NAVY–MARINE CORPS AMPHIBIOUS READY GROUP/MARINE EXPEDITIONARY UNIT, 1898-1978
BY COLONEL DOUGLESS E. NASH SR., USA (RET)*
PRINTER FRIENDLY PDF
As any student of naval and maritime history knows, sea power is the ability of a nation to use and control the sea and to prevent an opponent from using it. Merely having a fleet is not enough; any nation that wishes to control the sea must be able to project its power in real or concrete form. According to current U.S. N…..
Thank you, Sir, for putting out this research info. It is a treasure trove of information. This is what the Marine Corps is, and should be. It must be saved!
It was not meant as a criticism of you any anyway. My apologies if it appeared that way. I misspelled bitch. Hard to write on IPhone . If to pull up the article it will explain the evolution to our liberation and its successes. The FD reverses all of this progress.
As to service seniority first and foremost, Marines are naval officers. If my memory serves me, studies, or games, or exercises in the 1990s concluded a Marine could command an ARG as well as a Navy officer. In keeping order in military chains of command the ARG would still be under the Fleet Commander should this be the ARG command circumstance.
Should the ARG MAGTF compoment swith operational control ashore, it would then fall under the command of the Land Component Commander.
In neither instance described does the military chain of command change the Marine Corps status as an equal but separate service. I will close with the statement that the title *Department of the Navy* is a misnomer that should be corrected to *Naval Department.*
Yes…thank you for your participation and long service to Our Corps. We may not be able to do a double running of the obstacle course or even look at the Hill Trail but Our Minds remain functional with clear memories.
Some great commentary. Of them all, I rank Polar Bear's comment as number one when he wrote, "The United States Marine Corps' purpose is simple and clear, it is amphibious assault.
Earlier amphibious assaults led to what evolved into the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) concept for amphibious operations. In April 1965 aboard the USS Boxer, LPH-4, a heliborne amphibious assault landed the 3rd Bn, 6th Marines ashore in Santo Domingo as the initial step that led to the involvement of the Organization of American States. This kept Santo Domingo from becoming a second Cuba in the Caribbean. Later, June 1966 aboard the USS Iwo Jima, LPH-2, the 1st Bn 26th Marines, as part of the Special landing Force, were landed in the DMZ area of South Vietnam for Operation Hastings. A follow-on DMZ area amphibious assault for Operation Prairie occurred in July 1966. The final deployment of the Iwo Jima was offshore Beirut in 1983.
The key adjective in Polar Bear's statement, and in the operations described above, is the word amphibious. They were not expeditionary assaults. It was a mistake to title the MAGTF commands as being "Expeditionary" vice being "Amphibious" as was initially the case. The amphibious title connotes naval whereas the expeditionary title connotes land. It is the naval amphibious title that distinguished the MAGTF from all other expeditionary organizations. The Navy retained its Amphibious Ready Group title as an important component of United States naval power vice shifting to the more common expeditionary title. The Marines should heed their wisdom. The Marine Corps is an organization capable of the entire range of amphibious operations. If need be, it can also serve as a second land army.
The Marine Corps shift to the Expeditionary title removed a sense of its uniqueness. The second land army mindset became the norm for Marine leaders. The importance of the amphibious capability waned as Marine leaders considered the future of the Marine Corps. The importance of the numbers of amphibious ships and their status and availability receded into the background. The 2019 thinking, that the Marine Corps cant survive as a second land army, led to what would become FD 2030.
MAGTF commands that remain under a naval commander should retain the Amphibious adjective in their title. Only when operational control shifts ashore should a MAGTF title become Expeditionary.
You are spot on Polar Bear. Marine leadership needs to hear you.
Rec you pull this up and read it. We are no longer under the thumb of the USN….we are co qual w all services Hold Water Nichols is law. What Berger die was in violation of Goldwater Nichols. Howlin Mad Smith’s book “Coral and Brass” sums up the dysfunction of being the Navy’s Butch. “THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE U.S. NAVY–MARINE CORPS AMPHIBIOUS READY GROUP/MARINE EXPEDITIONARY UNIT, 1898-1978”…SF
A bit perplexing how anything I wrote could be construed as placing the Marine Corps under the Navy's thumb or how the amphibious assaults referenced implied the Marines involved were part of the Navy's butch. That characterization is very new to me. The amphibious assaults referenced were some I participated in. My second tour in Vietnam was fixed wing attack. Do you have any amphibious assault experience, or any combat experience for that matter?
You can pull up this document and read it if you are so inclined. THE "AFLOAT-READY BATTALION"
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE U.S. NAVY–MARINE CORPS AMPHIBIOUS READY GROUP/MARINE EXPEDITIONARY UNIT, 1898-1978
BY COLONEL DOUGLESS E. NASH SR., USA (RET)*
PRINTER FRIENDLY PDF
As any student of naval and maritime history knows, sea power is the ability of a nation to use and control the sea and to prevent an opponent from using it. Merely having a fleet is not enough; any nation that wishes to control the sea must be able to project its power in real or concrete form. According to current U.S. N…..
Thank you, Sir, for putting out this research info. It is a treasure trove of information. This is what the Marine Corps is, and should be. It must be saved!
Thank you!
Sorry I hammered up the first attempt.
Thanks for “superb curation “ of MCCP!
Their work and the participation of all exemplifies “Semper Fidelis “.
It was not meant as a criticism of you any anyway. My apologies if it appeared that way. I misspelled bitch. Hard to write on IPhone . If to pull up the article it will explain the evolution to our liberation and its successes. The FD reverses all of this progress.
Understand the thumb and posts arrows.
As to service seniority first and foremost, Marines are naval officers. If my memory serves me, studies, or games, or exercises in the 1990s concluded a Marine could command an ARG as well as a Navy officer. In keeping order in military chains of command the ARG would still be under the Fleet Commander should this be the ARG command circumstance.
Should the ARG MAGTF compoment swith operational control ashore, it would then fall under the command of the Land Component Commander.
In neither instance described does the military chain of command change the Marine Corps status as an equal but separate service. I will close with the statement that the title *Department of the Navy* is a misnomer that should be corrected to *Naval Department.*
Yes…thank you for your participation and long service to Our Corps. We may not be able to do a double running of the obstacle course or even look at the Hill Trail but Our Minds remain functional with clear memories.
Some great commentary. Of them all, I rank Polar Bear's comment as number one when he wrote, "The United States Marine Corps' purpose is simple and clear, it is amphibious assault.
Earlier amphibious assaults led to what evolved into the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) concept for amphibious operations. In April 1965 aboard the USS Boxer, LPH-4, a heliborne amphibious assault landed the 3rd Bn, 6th Marines ashore in Santo Domingo as the initial step that led to the involvement of the Organization of American States. This kept Santo Domingo from becoming a second Cuba in the Caribbean. Later, June 1966 aboard the USS Iwo Jima, LPH-2, the 1st Bn 26th Marines, as part of the Special landing Force, were landed in the DMZ area of South Vietnam for Operation Hastings. A follow-on DMZ area amphibious assault for Operation Prairie occurred in July 1966. The final deployment of the Iwo Jima was offshore Beirut in 1983.
The key adjective in Polar Bear's statement, and in the operations described above, is the word amphibious. They were not expeditionary assaults. It was a mistake to title the MAGTF commands as being "Expeditionary" vice being "Amphibious" as was initially the case. The amphibious title connotes naval whereas the expeditionary title connotes land. It is the naval amphibious title that distinguished the MAGTF from all other expeditionary organizations. The Navy retained its Amphibious Ready Group title as an important component of United States naval power vice shifting to the more common expeditionary title. The Marines should heed their wisdom. The Marine Corps is an organization capable of the entire range of amphibious operations. If need be, it can also serve as a second land army.
The Marine Corps shift to the Expeditionary title removed a sense of its uniqueness. The second land army mindset became the norm for Marine leaders. The importance of the amphibious capability waned as Marine leaders considered the future of the Marine Corps. The importance of the numbers of amphibious ships and their status and availability receded into the background. The 2019 thinking, that the Marine Corps cant survive as a second land army, led to what would become FD 2030.
MAGTF commands that remain under a naval commander should retain the Amphibious adjective in their title. Only when operational control shifts ashore should a MAGTF title become Expeditionary.
You are spot on Polar Bear. Marine leadership needs to hear you.
THE "AFLOAT-READY BATTALION"
Rec you pull this up and read it. We are no longer under the thumb of the USN….we are co qual w all services Hold Water Nichols is law. What Berger die was in violation of Goldwater Nichols. Howlin Mad Smith’s book “Coral and Brass” sums up the dysfunction of being the Navy’s Butch. “THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE U.S. NAVY–MARINE CORPS AMPHIBIOUS READY GROUP/MARINE EXPEDITIONARY UNIT, 1898-1978”…SF
BY COLONEL DOUGLESS E. NASH SR., USA (RET)*
A bit perplexing how anything I wrote could be construed as placing the Marine Corps under the Navy's thumb or how the amphibious assaults referenced implied the Marines involved were part of the Navy's butch. That characterization is very new to me. The amphibious assaults referenced were some I participated in. My second tour in Vietnam was fixed wing attack. Do you have any amphibious assault experience, or any combat experience for that matter?