Why a Marine Corps?

[Michael OLeary]

Why a Marine Corps?
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/20627/

Summary:  G.I. Wilson and guest author H. Thomas Hayden explain why America needs a Marine Corps.  As GW said before, “The USMC’s future lies its creative intellect, professionalism in the study and application of maneuver warfare, and delivering what the Nation needs post in a crisis be it humanitarian relief for disasters or launching forcible maritime operations from sea to attack in the littorals or several hundred miles in land to rescue civilians.”  At the end are links to other valuable articles about the future of the USMC.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently said that he had ordered a review of the future role of the Marine Corps amid “anxiety” that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had turned the service into a “second land army.”  In remarks for a speech at Marines’ Memorial Theatre in San Francisco Gates (transcript) said that the review would seek to define a 21st century combat mission for the Marines that is distinct from the Army’s, because the Marines “do not want to be, nor does America need” another ground combat force.

According to the Los Angeles Times, 13 August 2010, in ordering the Pentagon review, “Gates was deepening a long-running debate about the role of the Marine Corps, including whether one of its main missions, amphibious assaults on fortified coastlines, has become obsolete because of the changing nature of warfare and advances in precision weaponry.”

“Amphibious assault on a fortified coast line” is the dumbest and most ill informed or uninformed statement anyone can make. The beauty of amphibious shipping is that it can sail up and down a coast line and land Marines where the enemy is less likely to be defending a landing zone. No one in their right mind will do another Tarawa landing in World War II. Anyone remember Inchon, Korea?  It was landing where the enemy was less prepared.

The third edition of the Marine Corps Operating Concepts (PDF) notes that in the past twenty years,U.S. amphibious forces have responded to crises and contingencies over 120 times, a response rate more than double that of the Cold War.Furthermore, during the same period, forward-postured amphibious forces continually conducted sea-based security cooperation with international partners—reflecting the philosophy that preventing war is as important as winning wars.

The biggest reason there is a U.S. Marine Corps is simply because the American people love their Marines, need their Marines, want their Marines, and demand their Marines. Americans expect their Marines to be the first to fight and to do it to the enemy before the enemy does it to us.

More at link.

 

[tomahawk6]

The traditional role of the Marine Corps has been as an intervention force capable of over the beach operations. The USMC will no doubt see its current strength of around 203,000 trimmed. The cost of the Marine Corps is around $12b, a bargain I would say. They will repurpose itself for contingency operations and downsize accordingly. So yes a Marine Corps is needed because without it you would have to mothball all those amphibious ships.

 

[owa]

Speaking about the Marine Corps, I watched this documentary last night.  It's not really about them, but they're the only ones in it, so you learn a lot about them.  They seem pretty down to earth and intellectual (as mentioned in the article).

http://www.vbs.tv/en-ca/watch/vbs-news/obama-s-war

Kind of neat stuff.  But Jesus, some of them are so young.  One guy joined 5 days after he turned 18.  For a force so renowned, it still blows my mind that they can be so young and be so effective.  Good training.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Kind of neat stuff.  But Jesus, some of them are so young.  One guy joined 5 days after he turned 18.  For a force so renowned, it still blows my mind that they can be so young and be so effective.  Good training.

Just like your average rifleman in any CF regiment, eh?

As Gwynne Dyer said (in his admittedly cheesy book 'War'): 'any mother's son [or daughter] will do'

 

[owa]

Just like your average rifleman in any CF regiment, eh?

As Gwynne Dyer said (in his admittedly cheesy book 'War'): 'any mother's son [or daughter] will do'

I'm aware that most military's sport a pretty young group (that just makes sense), but you must also be aware of the global image the Marine Corps has (and I'm not saying it's completely justified or fair, but there it is) -- which was what I was getting at with my statement.  I was trying to find the right way to word that without bothering someone, but I guess I failed.  Just know it wasn't meant as a dig...  I obviously respect our Forces quite a bit, haha.

 

[wildman0101]

From the hall's of Momtizuma to the shore's of Tripoli
Semper Fi Marine's. 
Scoty B

 

[SevenSixTwo]

To me it seems the Marines always get shafted. The CFAT equivalent in the US army (ASVAB? I forget exact acronym) requires you to score atleast 50 to join but in the Marines only 40. On top of that Marines get all the old equipment.

 

[George Wallace]

.......... On top of that Marines get all the old equipment.

It may be true in some cases, but it may also be by design.  Take for instance the M1 Tank and the AH-64 Apache.  The Marines don't have these preloaded on their ships.  Perhaps there is a reason for them to still use the M60A3 and Super Cobras.  One Apache would take up the room of two, perhaps three, Super Cobras on the ship.  This would reduce the Attack Helicopter capabilities by 50 to 66 per cent.  Is that reduction in capabilities acceptable?  The same could be said of the larger M1, compared to the smaller M60.  What do they want "on the ground" in the first waves?

 

[SevenSixTwo]

It may be true in some cases, but it may also be by design.  Take for instance the M1 Tank and the AH-64 Apache.  The Marines don't have these preloaded on their ships.  Perhaps there is a reason for them to still use the M60A3 and Super Cobras.  One Apache would take up the room of two, perhaps three, Super Cobras on the ship.  This would reduce the Attack Helicopter capabilities by 50 to 66 per cent.  Is that reduction in capabilities acceptable?  The same could be said of the larger M1, compared to the smaller M60.  What do they want "on the ground" in the first waves?

What? I was almost positive Marines don't use the M60A3 anymore and they use the M1A1 Abrams (old Abrams) while the Army uses the M1A2 and M1A2 SEP. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think they use the M60A3 anymore and I think the M1A1 and M1A2 are relatively the same size on a boat so it just seems like they got the older equipment.

 

[George Wallace]

You are probably correct.  I haven't kept up with what they are currently prepositioning.  Suffice it to say, that sometimes they will look at size vs numbers in what they will use. 

 

[SevenSixTwo]

You are probably correct.  I haven't kept up with what they are currently prepositioning.  Suffice it to say, that sometimes they will look at size vs numbers in what they will use.

Wiki isn't the most reliable but it says the M60A3 was retired in 97 and that it is now only in storage for the United States. Interestingly enough the IDF still uses it today.

Would it not also, make sense to have smaller...small arms as well? The M240 (C6) for example is extremely heavy (despite being an amazing weapon).

In WW2 I believe the marines were the last to receive the M2 Browning and M1 Garands also.

The only time in history I believe the Marines got the best equipment (correct me again if I am wrong) was their first deployment. I can't remember the battle but it was against the Spanish (I believe) and they were given brand new rifles but the Kar (german rifle) proved to be better at the time.


EDIT: Got a boner when I read this on wiki "The U.S. Army is currently working on reducing the weight of the M240B by between four and seven pounds, in the M240B Weight Reduction Program."


EDIT 2: They already completed it apparnetly it's beautiful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileEO_M240L_MG_Telescoping_Stock_Right_Side.jpg

 

[Bluebulldog]

To me it seems the Marines always get shafted. The CFAT equivalent in the US army (ASVAB? I forget exact acronym) requires you to score atleast 50 to join but in the Marines only 40. On top of that Marines get all the old equipment.

I tend to agree as well. They always seem to be treated like the stepchild of the Navy, getting the older equipment to use. Some would argue that the equipment they're issued is "battle tested / proven" which I guess is an apt description, they are however still using Vietnam era hueys for any air activities, unless there has been a change in the last year or so.

IMHO the Marines have always been typically regarded, and deployed as a rapid reaction force, much like the 1 SSF was. As the US Army has typically been a follow on force, after the "beachhead" has been established ( of course beachhead is a figurative term.)

 

[George Wallace]

In WW2 I believe the marines were the last to receive the M2 Browning and M1 Garands also.

At the same time they had the Johnson M1941 and M1944 light machine gun , which the other Branches didn't have.  A few managed to "make their way" to FSSF.

 

[SevenSixTwo]

I tend to agree as well. They always seem to be treated like the stepchild of the Navy, getting the older equipment to use. Some would argue that the equipment they're issued is "battle tested / proven" which I guess is an apt description, they are however still using Vietnam era hueys for any air activities, unless there has been a change in the last year or so.

IMHO the Marines have always been typically regarded, and deployed as a rapid reaction force, much like the 1 SSF was. As the US Army has typically been a follow on force, after the "beachhead" has been established ( of course beachhead is a figurative term.)

Every branch in the U.S. Military still uses the hueys.


Contrary to my earlier posts I remembered a specific aircraft that the marines got before anyone else and more of:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22

 

[Kirkhill]

You might want to add on:

The harrier
LCACs
AAVs in various generations and configurations
A whole range of LCCs, LCSs, LCAs, LPDs, LPH, LHAs and other very large seagoing vehicles that would have been surplus to requirement without a Marine Corps.

They get money.  It just gets spent differently.

 

[Kirkhill]

Looking for a fire extinguisher? ;D

I suppose a cynic could say that all those seagoing vehicles were really built to supply jobs for Admirals that didn't get a Carrier.....

But I'm not that much of a cynic......most days.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The only time in history I believe the Marines got the best equipment (correct me again if I am wrong) was their first deployment. I can't remember the battle but it was against the Spanish (I believe) and they were given brand new rifles but the Kar (german rifle) proved to be better at the time.

Yes, you are wrong.

One only has to recited the opening line of “The Marine Hymn” to recall the early history of the Corps (actually its history goes back farther than sung about)

From the Halls of Montezuma (Battle of Chapultepac 1847 – Mexican American War)
To the Shores of Tripoli (Battle of Derna 1804 – First Barbary War)

Neither of these engagements was against Spaniards (though the Mexicans did speak Spanish).  Even the first deployment (and first amphibious landing) of United States Marines was years before these lauded actions. In March 1776, Marines landed on the British colony of Bermuda and participated in what is referred to as the Battle of Nassau.  While George Washington may have objected to the recruiting of soldiers already serving in the Continental Army to be Marines and was adamantly opposed to the re-roling of units, he had nothing to say about the organization, employment and equipping of “sea soldiers”.  That was the responsibility of the (political) department of the navy.

Then, as now, the equipping of the Marines is a balancing juggling act between among available budgets (a political decision), their own operational doctrine, the equipment/technology available to perform their mission and the desires of Marine Corps leadership.  It sometimes seems that many think that the Marine Corps has historically received “second-hand” equipment, however that is a misperception.  Granted, the Marines may sometimes receive major equipment types after the same (or similar) type has already been in service with the Army (or Navy, or Air Force), but that has probably been more to do with the Marines deciding to not be a participant in the original development and procurement program.

As Kirkhill pointed out, there are many weapons systems (besides the ships) that are unique to the Marine Corps or that they were the first to procure.  Often that is a function of their doctrine; they do things differently from the Army and thus acquire equipment that does the “same job differently”.

 

[GAP]

Probably two recent examples are the Amtracs and the Air Cushion Landing Craft.....I believe the were mainly developed for the Marines initially....I'm probably wrong, but that's OK.... ;D

 

[MarkOttawa]

Bill Sweetman at the "Ares" blog on the UK cancellation of the F-35B, possible implications for the USMC, and the USMC's future generally:

The Next JSF Debate
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a501391e5-eb78-4e9d-8824-895c5e8d4fc6

Is the F-35B - and, by extension, Marine tactical aviation - at risk?

The conventional wisdom on that question was expressed by my tactful colleague Robert Wall: "What are you smoking?" The Marines have, for the last 30 years at least, have been very successful at getting what they want through Congress, and something that they want very much is their own tacair. The Harrier's short-take-off, vertical landing  performance, from the early 1970s, relieved the Marines from total dependence on the navy's big-deck carriers.

With their corporate memory haunted by Guadalcanal (when Adm Frank Jack Fletcher pulled carriers away from the island as a Japanese fleet approached) the Marines deftly maneuvered into a position where their new STOVL jet has become the leading edge of a massive international program - and they are not about to give it up.

As noted last week, the UK's decision to abandon the B removes one prop from the program - the fact that any Pentagon action against the B would result in the DoD getting nastygrams from State. But it also doesn't indicate a lot of British confidence in the program.

The UK government can try as hard as it likes to blame the magnitude of last week's cuts on its predecessor, but it also knew very well that its actions with the carriers would expose it to criticism and even outright ridicule:  to scrap the UK Harrier force and the last carrier, to finish the first new carrier with only helicopters, spend a lot of money to finish the second ship (late) with catapults (risky) and then mothball the first ship after a few years in service.

There had to be a very powerful reason to do that. My speculation is that, at some point in the defense review discussions, defense minister Liam Fox looked someone in the eye and asked them if they could guarantee that the F-35B would fly, would be reliable in service and not break the bank in terms of acquisition and sustainment costs, and that the US would never cancel it - and the answer was not the right one.

But the UK's pull-out comes as the Marine role is being reassessed. In a recent Armed Forces Journal paper, two Marine officers respond to earlier criticism of the B (from a Navy aviator). The piece serves to remind us of why the F-35B exists: because the Marine Air Ground Task Force "has the self-sustaining capability to apply power to a wide variety of scenarios — from a non-combatant evacuation operation to high-intensity combat."

That's precisely the doctrinal issue that is in question now. The "self-sustaining" role of the MAGTF was a Marine dream in the 1950s and 1960s, which was gradually realized - at least in doctrine and theory - with the arrival of the AV-8A Harrier, the Harrier II and (finally) the Harrier II Plus with radar and AMRAAM.

But is the MAGTF to remain self-sustaining? More likely, its new role will be joint - so in a "high-intensity" environment, it would be accompanied by a carrier group.

In that case, according to Navy documents, the most aviation-capable type of amphib - the new LHA-6 USS America or later - would add six jets to the carrier's nominal 49 (44 tactical fighters and five Growlers).

Helpful, yes, but decisive? You could add more JSFs to the amphib, but that would mean trading off the workhorse V-22 transports - probably one-for-one, since the F-35B and V-22 are about the same size.

The Marine plan for JSF calls for F-35Bs on the CV decks too - that's why the most widely quoted split of the 680-aircraft "department of the Navy" JSF buy includes 420 Bs [that's only 260 for the USN] , far more than is needed to replace AV-8Bs. Those aircraft would be able to flex among carrier and amphib decks and austere fields ashore.

But as reported earlier, deputy Navy secretary Robert Work - reviewing the future role and structure of the Corps - is not convinced that extensive forward basing will work when insurgents are armed with guided rockets and mortars. The forward base is a big. soft target - indeed, it always was, but back when the RAF conceived the idea, in the Cold War, it was protected from Russian missiles and special forces by secrecy. The actual sites for off-base Harrier operations were pre-surveyed, but there was no visible preparation, and with the reconnaissance technology of the day the sites would be hard to locate.

The Marines in AFJ talk about "countless battlefield examples" of forward-based airpower, but cite only three times this has been used in the 35-year history of Marine Harriers. In the most recent,"basing AV-8Bs at FOB Dwyer during the fight for Marjah resulted in 65 percent of their sortie duration being spent on station. In comparison, aircraft based at Kandahar spent 55 percent of their sortie duration on station."

Again - is that decisive? And is it worth the very large sums still to be spent on acquisition and operation of the F-35B?

Earlier thoughts on this subject here.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogscript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A3460ee22-8582-4dab-8eda-8a4c183dbd40

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

The debate continues (lengthy article)--remember the huge political support the USMC has, and is not shy about exploiting:

Marines define future role amid budget cuts
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MARINES_BUDGET_WOES?SITE=TXNEW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-02-12-15-36-44

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (AP) -- A faster, high-tech seafaring tank for U.S. Marines has hit countless setbacks and cost overruns during the past two decades, and now it is one of the pricier items on the Defense Department's budget-cutting list.

Even the Marine Corps' top brass agrees the estimated $12 billion program has to go. But that doesn't mean the debate is over.

A group of Republican lawmakers is questioning the Marine Corps leadership's sudden change of heart over the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Generals have long said the amphibious tank under development had come to symbolize the force's very identity and represented the future of the Marine Corps, which has been relegated largely to landlocked wars over the past decade...

EFV supporters worry if it is scrapped, it will inadvertently threaten the Marine Corps' large-scale amphibious assault capabilities, which sets them apart from the Army.

The Marines Corps is at a critical crossroads with plans to drastically reduce the elite force now leading the war in Afghanistan by 2015. Gates' decision to cut the EFV comes only months after he asked the new commandant, Gen. James Amos, to define the future role of the military's smallest branch.

Gates has acknowledged Marine amphibious assault skills were an asset during the first Gulf war, and that the capabilities have been key to humanitarian missions when people needed to be evacuated quickly. But he has questioned whether Marines will ever storm beaches again, when potential U.S. adversaries are developing sophisticated missiles that can easily attack ships cruising close to shore.

"On a more basic level, in the 21st century, what kind of amphibious capability do we really need to deal with the most likely scenarios and then how much?" Gates asked sailors and Marines months before making his decision.

For the Marines, the EFV had become a tangible guarantee that they would return to their roots as "soldiers of the sea," as the only force capable of debarking from a Navy ship in floating tanks to make a beach landing.

Gates has vowed to budget money to develop a more affordable option for troops to use their ship-to-shore capability but critics say his actions in axing the EFV indicate he still has doubts...

Iran, North Korea and Somalia are all modern day locales where Marines may need to put their amphibious assault expertise into action, EFV proponents say.

The service's top leader, Gen. Amos, says national security requires Marines' ship-to-shore capabilities but he agrees with the Pentagon that the EFV is too costly to do the job. He wants an alternative option quickly and says the Corps is already working on sending out a notice to the defense industry for new ideas.

Amos, in a Feb. 8 speech to the Marines' Memorial Club in San Francisco, said Gates assured him "the cancellation of the EFV is by no means a rejection of the Marine Corps' amphibious assault mission."..

Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary who oversaw military manpower and reserve affairs during the Reagan era, said the Marines are the last military branch to get caught in the cross-hairs of the Pentagon's budget cutters. The Air Force and Army have already lost key equipment and have had to learn to adapt.

"The Air Force has had to switch to unmanned places, which undermines its whole mandate. People had this image of a guy up in a cockpit with a scarf around his neck as opposed to some kid working on computers," said Korb, now a senior fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress.

"You've got to make choices in terms of the probability of how a military force will be used in the future [emphasis added, something to consider with respect to the CF]."

Mark
Ottawa