I retired in 1975 after 22 years of service, so I proudly consider myself part of the 'Old Corps.' As the years go by, I find myself increasingly concerned about the future direction of our Marine Corps.
In the September issue of the Marine Corps Gazette, a captain put forth the idea that training all Marines to be riflemen is unnecessary and could even detract from our operational capabilities. While I firmly believe that every Marine has the right to voice their opinions, this suggestion strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a Marine. The idea that every Marine is a rifleman isn’t just a tradition; it's a core principle, one that has shaped the identity and success of our Corps for generations. To suggest abandoning it seems, to me, nothing short of sacrilege.
When I consider other recent changes, such as those proposed under Force Design 2030, I can’t help but question whether some of our current leaders fully understand what it means to be a Marine. We’ve always been about adaptability, but that adaptability was built on a foundation of shared skills and values. Straying too far from that foundation makes me wonder whether the Corps I served is the same one that exists today—or the one that will exist tomorrow.
I had the same exact feelings when I read the article. To me, I considered the Capt’s comments to border on sacrilege.
I am a Marine with a motor transport MOS. I don’t have any combat experience. But I have participated in many operations where having the basic infantry knowledge was crucial to my and my units success…I was attached to 1/6 and 3/6 back in the mid 1970’s. As a PFC, I stood watch in the BLT COC as the BLT worked up for our eventual deployment to the Caribbean. Thank God for my initial training as a basic rifleman; that knowledge is extremely beneficial.
I wrote a response to the Editor, but I don't know if it wll be printed:
To the Editor,
I disagree with Capt Tyler Gunn in his article, "When Training Hurts Operational Capabilities," published in the September 2024 issue of the Gazette. Capt Gunn suggests that training all Marines to be riflemen is unnecessary. While it’s true that many roles don’t require direct rifleman skills, this training is a fundamental requirement for all Marines, distinguishing us from other services. It is the heart of the Marine Corps.
In the early 1970s, I was assigned to the Office of Manpower Utilization at HQMC, a special study group established to analyze each occupational field in the Marine Corps. Our mission was to improve how enlisted Marines were selected, trained, and managed throughout their careers. As part of the analysis, we interviewed Marines in their respective fields, documenting the tasks they performed. One field I studied was MOS 257X, which involved Marines in the intercept and analysis of enemy communications. During one field visit, I interviewed a young Marine intercept operator at a Marine Cryptologic Support Battalion site. As he described his duties and tasks, he also voiced several concerns. This site operated jointly with personnel from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. His main grievance was that, after completing his watch, Marines were still required to attend professional military training, participate in physical exercise, requalify with their weapons, and take on other duties typically associated with infantry assignments. Meanwhile, personnel from other services were free to go on liberty, relax in the barracks, or do as they please.
To provide some perspective, I asked him to imagine a realistic scenario: "Picture yourself at a remote intercept site in Vietnam, similar to this one, with all branches of service present. You intercept a Viet Cong message indicating that your position is about to be attacked. Who would you want defending your position: the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines?" Without hesitation, he replied, "Marines." At that moment, I saw the realization in his expression and the pride that filled his face as he recognized the value of his training as a rifleman and the strength of being a Marine.
That training forms the foundation of the Marine Corps. Every Marine takes pride in having been trained as a rifleman, and though they may never need to use those skills, they are always ready.
Incidentally, the study I participated in led to the creation of OF26, Signals Intelligence/Electronic Warfare.
I made this argument before… but; Why not again! I always thought that the M1 Tank was too heavy and required too large of an operational logistic tail for the Marine Corps. I did think, when the Commandant canned all the M1 tanks, we still needed a "light tank" (maybe assault gun) replacement. I was surprised when the Commandant did not jump on the development and fielding of the Army's light tank the M10. https://www.twz.com/land/how-the-armys-new-m10-booker-light-tank-will-actually-be-used The US Army’s original idea here was a replacement for the Sheridan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan I always thought that the MEUs, MEBs and MEFs needed a light, direct fire, mobile assault and anti-tank vehicle. Initially the WW2 infantry divisions were equipped with towed anti-tank guns but the Army then recognized the need for a mobile "tank destroyer" with a turret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_tank_destroyer Apparently the US Army has upped their order of the new M10…Why? "M10 Booker reflects lessons from Ukraine’s ongoing war, where tanks remain crucial despite evolving threats like drones and advanced anti-tank munitions." https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/m10-booker-us-army-wants-massive-number-new-light-tanks-212547 Sitting here in North Carolina did I just hear a “OOPs!” coming from the Commandant’s office? Semper Fi
I retired in 1975 after 22 years of service, so I proudly consider myself part of the 'Old Corps.' As the years go by, I find myself increasingly concerned about the future direction of our Marine Corps.
In the September issue of the Marine Corps Gazette, a captain put forth the idea that training all Marines to be riflemen is unnecessary and could even detract from our operational capabilities. While I firmly believe that every Marine has the right to voice their opinions, this suggestion strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a Marine. The idea that every Marine is a rifleman isn’t just a tradition; it's a core principle, one that has shaped the identity and success of our Corps for generations. To suggest abandoning it seems, to me, nothing short of sacrilege.
When I consider other recent changes, such as those proposed under Force Design 2030, I can’t help but question whether some of our current leaders fully understand what it means to be a Marine. We’ve always been about adaptability, but that adaptability was built on a foundation of shared skills and values. Straying too far from that foundation makes me wonder whether the Corps I served is the same one that exists today—or the one that will exist tomorrow.
I had the same exact feelings when I read the article. To me, I considered the Capt’s comments to border on sacrilege.
I am a Marine with a motor transport MOS. I don’t have any combat experience. But I have participated in many operations where having the basic infantry knowledge was crucial to my and my units success…I was attached to 1/6 and 3/6 back in the mid 1970’s. As a PFC, I stood watch in the BLT COC as the BLT worked up for our eventual deployment to the Caribbean. Thank God for my initial training as a basic rifleman; that knowledge is extremely beneficial.
I wrote a response to the Editor, but I don't know if it wll be printed:
To the Editor,
I disagree with Capt Tyler Gunn in his article, "When Training Hurts Operational Capabilities," published in the September 2024 issue of the Gazette. Capt Gunn suggests that training all Marines to be riflemen is unnecessary. While it’s true that many roles don’t require direct rifleman skills, this training is a fundamental requirement for all Marines, distinguishing us from other services. It is the heart of the Marine Corps.
In the early 1970s, I was assigned to the Office of Manpower Utilization at HQMC, a special study group established to analyze each occupational field in the Marine Corps. Our mission was to improve how enlisted Marines were selected, trained, and managed throughout their careers. As part of the analysis, we interviewed Marines in their respective fields, documenting the tasks they performed. One field I studied was MOS 257X, which involved Marines in the intercept and analysis of enemy communications. During one field visit, I interviewed a young Marine intercept operator at a Marine Cryptologic Support Battalion site. As he described his duties and tasks, he also voiced several concerns. This site operated jointly with personnel from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. His main grievance was that, after completing his watch, Marines were still required to attend professional military training, participate in physical exercise, requalify with their weapons, and take on other duties typically associated with infantry assignments. Meanwhile, personnel from other services were free to go on liberty, relax in the barracks, or do as they please.
To provide some perspective, I asked him to imagine a realistic scenario: "Picture yourself at a remote intercept site in Vietnam, similar to this one, with all branches of service present. You intercept a Viet Cong message indicating that your position is about to be attacked. Who would you want defending your position: the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines?" Without hesitation, he replied, "Marines." At that moment, I saw the realization in his expression and the pride that filled his face as he recognized the value of his training as a rifleman and the strength of being a Marine.
That training forms the foundation of the Marine Corps. Every Marine takes pride in having been trained as a rifleman, and though they may never need to use those skills, they are always ready.
Incidentally, the study I participated in led to the creation of OF26, Signals Intelligence/Electronic Warfare.
Don Whisnant, Major USMC (Ret)
Perfect! Spot on, sir!
Oops!
I made this argument before… but; Why not again! I always thought that the M1 Tank was too heavy and required too large of an operational logistic tail for the Marine Corps. I did think, when the Commandant canned all the M1 tanks, we still needed a "light tank" (maybe assault gun) replacement. I was surprised when the Commandant did not jump on the development and fielding of the Army's light tank the M10. https://www.twz.com/land/how-the-armys-new-m10-booker-light-tank-will-actually-be-used The US Army’s original idea here was a replacement for the Sheridan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan I always thought that the MEUs, MEBs and MEFs needed a light, direct fire, mobile assault and anti-tank vehicle. Initially the WW2 infantry divisions were equipped with towed anti-tank guns but the Army then recognized the need for a mobile "tank destroyer" with a turret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_tank_destroyer Apparently the US Army has upped their order of the new M10…Why? "M10 Booker reflects lessons from Ukraine’s ongoing war, where tanks remain crucial despite evolving threats like drones and advanced anti-tank munitions." https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/m10-booker-us-army-wants-massive-number-new-light-tanks-212547 Sitting here in North Carolina did I just hear a “OOPs!” coming from the Commandant’s office? Semper Fi