What do Marine Littoral Regiments have in common with USN Littoral Ships? Both are of limited utility and each will have an almost similar fate. Forbes May 20, 2021 “The Littoral Combat Ship Can’t FIGHT and the U.S. Navy is Finally Coming to Terms with It” Forbes by David Axe. Yes the USN spent billions w a B to build a total of 31 of these ships only to find they are to lightly armed, are limited to littoral zones ie not”multi purpose and can not face threats across the spectrum of conflict. So what is the USN doing w them? You answered correctly if you said decommissioning and or selling them to friendly foreign countries. How many Littoral Combat Ships are currently in the Red Sea ? If you guessed Zero you would be correct, how many Marine Littoral Regiments are ready to fight in the Red Sea yes Zero. What Marine Force is in the Red Sea ready to Land the Landing Force? Probably Zero.....yes the 26 MEU is afloat onboard the USS Bataan LHD -5 other ships in its ARG. Does it have any Tanks? How many tubes of Artillery? Are any of its Ospreys airworthy? Are any F35B onboard? How many King Stallions? Did any of the Marine Officer slip their Mameluke, is so perhaps it’s a Cold Steel version built to British standards and Razor Sharp! How many times has the 26th MEUs deployment been extended BECAUSE NO OTHER Expeditionary USN ships are ready to carry fresh Marines to a fight? We are in a PICKLE because Commandant Berger Retired and his tiny brain trust, pun intended, did what no enemy could do....DESTROYED THE USMC W/O FIRING A SHOT!
I am astonished at what the Corps is trying to become. Irrelevant comes to mind. During my 30 year tenure, I believe I can speak to the validity of the MAGTF. 1981, platoon leader for 1st plt, Co A, 1/6, I walked the Delta Corridor at 29 Palms for what was called a Combined Arms Exercise…A few years later, in response to a CMC White Letter, I went to flight school, landing in the venerable A-4. Flew up and down the Delta Corridor, and for those who remember, kicked off CAX with a serious smoke screen emanating from the underwing tank. After joining the Reserves, I landed at the 4th Tank Battalion, first as the AO, then the OPSO. Was fortunate to accept M1A1 Abram’s TANKS, and rode up and down the Delta Corridor in a beast of a machine. All the while, coordinated fires from infantry, artillery, aviation, and mech flew about in excess. We could “ locate, close with, and destroy the enemy “ with astonishing speed, firepower, and mobility…will tomorrows Marines, waiting on resupply on a sandspit in the Spratlys be able to make the same claim? Time to stop the insanity.
Thank you for everything you've done for the Corps, but please keep in mind that you were training for a major land campaign against the USSR. The Joint Force is now preparing for a fight against China that, if it comes to conflict, will likely take place across tens of thousands of small to medium islands in the W. Pacific. Tactics will need to change to confront this new challenge over much greater ranges than anyone has encountered in past generations. Resupplying Marines will not be easy, which is why the Corps is spending a lot of time exercising and wargaming contested logistics and writing requirements for logistics-carrying unmanned tech to provide support at scale.
Increased specialization of units results in decreased utility. General purpose forces with a broad range of synergistic capabilities have greater utility. In an ideal world the Marine as a Renaissance man, warrior athlete with exceptional morale, tenacity, flexibility and versatility would be reflected in the institution. They feed off of each other. That was reflected in the MAGTF with the ability to task organize. It is no longer the case. Narrow focus on a highly unlikely scenario in a single location. End result: irrelevant.
The United States Army is a large fighting organization with arctic, airborne, airmobile, infantry, motorized/mech and armored formation. This is what gives the Army its breadth of combat capability. The Marine Corps however, is a smaller fighting organization, and that is its strength. SInce it is smaller, it is a more general purpose fighting force to deal with a variety of military operations. The Marine Corps can organizationally be defined as a: medium-weight, general-purpose, task organized expeditionary force in readiness. With this definition, it can perform a variety of combat missions. While it is primarily an infantry force, it did have its own armor, mech, and did have its artillery force. It was task organized in that it (did) have many tools in its arsenal to confront any enemy force it encountered. This gave the Marine Corps a strong offensive capability.
Now with the elimination of all armor, all heavy engineering assets, most of its artillery, and some of its infantry and aviation assets, that offensive capability has been eliminated. Just think, a modern typical division has an artillery regiment or brigade (nine artillery batteries) in support. Today, the entire Marine Corps will have the equivalent of just two battalions of artillery (seven artillery batteries)! That is not much offensive firepower. I say, bring back the original Marine T/O of the Marine Division and add antishipping missiles to the artillery regiments. That would give the Marine Division another tool in its bag of firepower.
Offensive firepower will come from cannon artillery, rocket artillery, and long range fires capabilities. It will be complemented by USMC 5th gen fighters and JTACs who can talk to Army fires capabilities, Air force strategic bombers and fighters, Naval strike, etc. All that AND unmanned capabilities that will provide real-time ISR and loitering munitions.
We should remember that while the Marine Corps is shifting towards FD2030, it also has the mission of a naval expeditionary/crisis response force. It must be prepared for the the close fight. Long range precision fires are not what is needed for the close fight. In such cases, direct offensive firepower as part of a combined arms team conducting fire and maneuver is what is needed in such cases. The combined arms team is composed of infantry, artillery, and mobile protected firepower: an armored vehicle/tank. As far as I know, there are only two military arms which can close with and defeat the enemy by fire and maneuver: armor and infantry. Artillery and airpower are all supporting arms and cannot hold ground.
Love it! But we're preaching to choir, we here on Compass Points, It believe, all endorse keeping and upgrading the "Old" MAGTF. How do we convince the Commandant, Secretary of Defense, Congress, the Senate, and President that we are WAY off course! I've written letters to my Representatives, Senators, and U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. The only one I heard from was one of my Representatives and his Aide gave me the argument that "... Tanks are heavy...." As a Retired Gunny I blew a gasket.
What do Marine Littoral Regiments have in common with USN Littoral Ships? Both are of limited utility and each will have an almost similar fate. Forbes May 20, 2021 “The Littoral Combat Ship Can’t FIGHT and the U.S. Navy is Finally Coming to Terms with It” Forbes by David Axe. Yes the USN spent billions w a B to build a total of 31 of these ships only to find they are to lightly armed, are limited to littoral zones ie not”multi purpose and can not face threats across the spectrum of conflict. So what is the USN doing w them? You answered correctly if you said decommissioning and or selling them to friendly foreign countries. How many Littoral Combat Ships are currently in the Red Sea ? If you guessed Zero you would be correct, how many Marine Littoral Regiments are ready to fight in the Red Sea yes Zero. What Marine Force is in the Red Sea ready to Land the Landing Force? Probably Zero.....yes the 26 MEU is afloat onboard the USS Bataan LHD -5 other ships in its ARG. Does it have any Tanks? How many tubes of Artillery? Are any of its Ospreys airworthy? Are any F35B onboard? How many King Stallions? Did any of the Marine Officer slip their Mameluke, is so perhaps it’s a Cold Steel version built to British standards and Razor Sharp! How many times has the 26th MEUs deployment been extended BECAUSE NO OTHER Expeditionary USN ships are ready to carry fresh Marines to a fight? We are in a PICKLE because Commandant Berger Retired and his tiny brain trust, pun intended, did what no enemy could do....DESTROYED THE USMC W/O FIRING A SHOT!
I am astonished at what the Corps is trying to become. Irrelevant comes to mind. During my 30 year tenure, I believe I can speak to the validity of the MAGTF. 1981, platoon leader for 1st plt, Co A, 1/6, I walked the Delta Corridor at 29 Palms for what was called a Combined Arms Exercise…A few years later, in response to a CMC White Letter, I went to flight school, landing in the venerable A-4. Flew up and down the Delta Corridor, and for those who remember, kicked off CAX with a serious smoke screen emanating from the underwing tank. After joining the Reserves, I landed at the 4th Tank Battalion, first as the AO, then the OPSO. Was fortunate to accept M1A1 Abram’s TANKS, and rode up and down the Delta Corridor in a beast of a machine. All the while, coordinated fires from infantry, artillery, aviation, and mech flew about in excess. We could “ locate, close with, and destroy the enemy “ with astonishing speed, firepower, and mobility…will tomorrows Marines, waiting on resupply on a sandspit in the Spratlys be able to make the same claim? Time to stop the insanity.
Thank you for everything you've done for the Corps, but please keep in mind that you were training for a major land campaign against the USSR. The Joint Force is now preparing for a fight against China that, if it comes to conflict, will likely take place across tens of thousands of small to medium islands in the W. Pacific. Tactics will need to change to confront this new challenge over much greater ranges than anyone has encountered in past generations. Resupplying Marines will not be easy, which is why the Corps is spending a lot of time exercising and wargaming contested logistics and writing requirements for logistics-carrying unmanned tech to provide support at scale.
Increased specialization of units results in decreased utility. General purpose forces with a broad range of synergistic capabilities have greater utility. In an ideal world the Marine as a Renaissance man, warrior athlete with exceptional morale, tenacity, flexibility and versatility would be reflected in the institution. They feed off of each other. That was reflected in the MAGTF with the ability to task organize. It is no longer the case. Narrow focus on a highly unlikely scenario in a single location. End result: irrelevant.
The United States Army is a large fighting organization with arctic, airborne, airmobile, infantry, motorized/mech and armored formation. This is what gives the Army its breadth of combat capability. The Marine Corps however, is a smaller fighting organization, and that is its strength. SInce it is smaller, it is a more general purpose fighting force to deal with a variety of military operations. The Marine Corps can organizationally be defined as a: medium-weight, general-purpose, task organized expeditionary force in readiness. With this definition, it can perform a variety of combat missions. While it is primarily an infantry force, it did have its own armor, mech, and did have its artillery force. It was task organized in that it (did) have many tools in its arsenal to confront any enemy force it encountered. This gave the Marine Corps a strong offensive capability.
Now with the elimination of all armor, all heavy engineering assets, most of its artillery, and some of its infantry and aviation assets, that offensive capability has been eliminated. Just think, a modern typical division has an artillery regiment or brigade (nine artillery batteries) in support. Today, the entire Marine Corps will have the equivalent of just two battalions of artillery (seven artillery batteries)! That is not much offensive firepower. I say, bring back the original Marine T/O of the Marine Division and add antishipping missiles to the artillery regiments. That would give the Marine Division another tool in its bag of firepower.
Offensive firepower will come from cannon artillery, rocket artillery, and long range fires capabilities. It will be complemented by USMC 5th gen fighters and JTACs who can talk to Army fires capabilities, Air force strategic bombers and fighters, Naval strike, etc. All that AND unmanned capabilities that will provide real-time ISR and loitering munitions.
We should remember that while the Marine Corps is shifting towards FD2030, it also has the mission of a naval expeditionary/crisis response force. It must be prepared for the the close fight. Long range precision fires are not what is needed for the close fight. In such cases, direct offensive firepower as part of a combined arms team conducting fire and maneuver is what is needed in such cases. The combined arms team is composed of infantry, artillery, and mobile protected firepower: an armored vehicle/tank. As far as I know, there are only two military arms which can close with and defeat the enemy by fire and maneuver: armor and infantry. Artillery and airpower are all supporting arms and cannot hold ground.
Line 12 from top second word “if” vice “is. SW
Love it! But we're preaching to choir, we here on Compass Points, It believe, all endorse keeping and upgrading the "Old" MAGTF. How do we convince the Commandant, Secretary of Defense, Congress, the Senate, and President that we are WAY off course! I've written letters to my Representatives, Senators, and U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. The only one I heard from was one of my Representatives and his Aide gave me the argument that "... Tanks are heavy...." As a Retired Gunny I blew a gasket.
We can't convince our national leaders that a good plan is a bad one. The concept has been validated by everyone who matters.