# Get Rid of the Marine Corps???



## Marauder06 (Nov 13, 2020)

New DoD Adviser Has Made Controversial Proposal: Get Rid of the Marine Corps

Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, newly-appointed as a senior adviser at the Pentagon, has a track record of making controversial statements. But his most provocative of all might be a proposal to do away with the U.S. Marine Corps.


----------



## PineTrees500 (Nov 13, 2020)

No comment on the USMC comments, as that's totally his opinion. But from what I've read he was put in this position to help bring the troops home as quick as possible, and that I support. Personally I like the guy. He's very controversial and in todays age that's a good thing.


----------



## Kaldak (Nov 13, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> New DoD Adviser Has Made Controversial Proposal: Get Rid of the Marine Corps
> 
> Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, newly-appointed as a senior adviser at the Pentagon, has a track record of making controversial statements. But his most provocative of all might be a proposal to do away with the U.S. Marine Corps.



He's just upset that the Corps is better than the green machine 😉


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 13, 2020)

If someone would kindly provide me the good Colonel’s mailing  address, I could get these sent out.

Eat a bag of dicks


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 13, 2020)

He does NOT hide his biases in that article.  A therapist needs to ask him where the bad ol' marine Corps hurt him....

I'm not sure he's going to find many people who take his comments seriously.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 13, 2020)

I am going to guess that this “senior US Marine Corps officer” prays to Chesty every night that his name is never released! LOL

_Several years ago, I asked a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer to name each of the services’s most creative thinkers. His answers were entirely predictable to anyone with even a passing knowledge of those in uniform, except when it came to the Army. He didn’t hesitate: “It’s Doug Macgregor,” he said. “He’s the best thinker they have, living or dead.”_

The revenge of Col. Douglas Macgregor – Responsible Statecraft


----------



## Dame (Nov 13, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> If someone would kindly provide me the good Colonel’s mailing  address, I could get these sent out.
> 
> Eat a bag of dicks


Hmmmm. Now where was that gift thread?


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 13, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I am going to guess that this “senior US Marine Corps officer” prays to Chesty every night that his name is never released! LOL
> 
> _Several years ago, I asked a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer to name each of the services’s most creative thinkers. His answers were entirely predictable to anyone with even a passing knowledge of those in uniform, except when it came to the Army. He didn’t hesitate: “It’s Doug Macgregor,” he said. “He’s the best thinker they have, living or dead.”_
> 
> The revenge of Col. Douglas Macgregor – Responsible Statecraft



With all due respect, and I mean it because I said "with all due", he has said some things that I agree with, to wit getting out of Iraq, getting out of Syria, and getting out of Afghanistan.

That said, I think he thinks a little highly of himself, and he's probably not quite the Von Clausewitz/Napoleon military thinker that he thinks he is. I do find it ironic that one of the calling cards of the Marine Corps is to be lighter and faster and more mobile, which is exactly what he thinks the army should be doing. But that the army should be doing it, and not the Marines.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 13, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> With all due respect, and I mean it because I said "with all due", he has said some things that I agree with, to wit getting out of Iraq, getting out of Syria, and getting out of Afghanistan.
> 
> That said, I think he thinks a little highly of himself, and he's probably not quite the Von Clausewitz/Napoleon military thinker that he thinks he is. I do find it ironic that one of the calling cards of the Marine Corps is to be lighter and faster and more mobile, which is exactly what he thinks the army should be doing. But that the army should be doing it, and not the Marines.


Go find his wiki bio, it's interesting.
More Sun Tzu then Clausewitcz.

We don't need the Army taking the "Naval Infantry" role.
They'd fuck it up in 18-24 months.


----------



## Steve1839 (Nov 13, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> We don't need the Army taking the "Naval Infantry" role.
> They'd fuck it up in 18-24 months.


Optimist...


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 13, 2020)

No bias, but here's who I hope becomes the next SECDEF.

https://www.2ndmardiv.marines.mil/Leaders/Biography/Article/516073/major-general-francis-l-donovan/


----------



## Grunt (Nov 13, 2020)

I see the Good Idea Fairy is active again and trying to mess everything up!

He/She/It needs to go back to sleep....


----------



## Teufel (Nov 13, 2020)

It's not a new idea. This proposal pops up every time we draw down our military forces after a conflict. I haven't done the math but I bet you that it costs the Marine Corps less money to recruit, train, and equip our 180,000 people than it would take the Army to do the same for 180,000 soldiers. Secondly, while these conversations usually turn into Marine infantry vs Rangers debates for some reason, I don't think that's our major contribution to the joint force. I know that's really surprising coming from an infantryman. To be honest though, I think the Marine Corps is well suited for war, but is superior to other forces in peacetime. The Army has fly away capabilities that can respond to certain crises but none that match the spectrum of options that the Navy-Marine Corps team afloat provides. Marine Expeditionary Units are the force of choice to quickly respond to non-combatant evacuations, disaster relief, and other humanitarian assistance operations. The combination of amphibious connectors like the LCU and LCAC with the V22 means that they don't require landing fields and air strips, although they can build them for follow on joint forces. I also think that while we produce really good infantrymen, our real crown jewels are our combat support troops. They certainly aren't grunts, but they have a sense of service pride, physical toughness, and combat mindset that I don't see as much of in the other services.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 14, 2020)

Teufel said:


> It's not a new idea. This proposal pops up every time we draw down our military forces after a conflict. I haven't done the math but I bet you that it costs the Marine Corps less money to recruit, train, and equip our 180,000 people than it would take the Army to do the same for 180,000 soldiers. Secondly, while these conversations usually turn into Marine infantry vs Rangers debates for some reason, I don't think that's our major contribution to the joint force. I know that's really surprising coming from an infantryman. To be honest though, I think the Marine Corps is well suited for war, but is superior to other forces in peacetime. The Army has fly away capabilities that can respond to certain crises but none that match the spectrum of options that the Navy-Marine Corps team afloat provides. Marine Expeditionary Units are the force of choice to quickly respond to non-combatant evacuations, disaster relief, and other humanitarian assistance operations. The combination of amphibious connectors like the LCU and LCAC with the V22 means that they don't require landing fields and air strips, although they can build them for follow on joint forces. I also think that while we produce really good infantrymen, our real crown jewels are our combat support troops. They certainly aren't grunts, but they have a sense of service pride, physical toughness, and combat mindset that I don't see as much of in the other services.



I still think the best force reconfiguration I've heard was from Thomas Barnett.






Sorta follows suit with your take, which is solid.


----------



## Kraut783 (Nov 14, 2020)

Grunt said:


> I see the Good Idea Fairy is active again and trying to mess everything up!
> 
> He/She/It needs to go back to sleep....


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 14, 2020)

Teufel said:


> It's not a new idea. This proposal pops up every time we draw down our military forces after a conflict. I haven't done the math but I bet you that it costs the Marine Corps less money to recruit, train, and equip our 180,000 people than it would take the Army to do the same for 180,000 soldiers. Secondly, while these conversations usually turn into Marine infantry vs Rangers debates for some reason, I don't think that's our major contribution to the joint force. I know that's really surprising coming from an infantryman. To be honest though, I think the Marine Corps is well suited for war, but is superior to other forces in peacetime. The Army has fly away capabilities that can respond to certain crises but none that match the spectrum of options that the Navy-Marine Corps team afloat provides. Marine Expeditionary Units are the force of choice to quickly respond to non-combatant evacuations, disaster relief, and other humanitarian assistance operations. The combination of amphibious connectors like the LCU and LCAC with the V22 means that they don't require landing fields and air strips, although they can build them for follow on joint forces. I also think that while we produce really good infantrymen, our real crown jewels are our combat support troops. They certainly aren't grunts, but they have a sense of service pride, physical toughness, and combat mindset that I don't see as much of in the other services.


Your internal Combat Support needs augmentation for long hauls.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 14, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> Your internal Combat Support needs augmentation for long hauls.


They are a bridging solution for the joint force, just like the rest of the Marine Corps.


----------



## AWP (Nov 15, 2020)

You'd have a  better chance of ceding Florida to Cuba than killing the Marine Corps.


----------



## DasBoot (Nov 15, 2020)

Just stop trying to do this. The Marine Corps will likely outlast the United States. The Untied Status Marin Crops will be here for years to come. They’re like herpes- there’s no cure for that shit. It’s like the 82nd Airborne x10 (literally... 18,000 x10= 180,000. Drunk Ranger math FTW).


----------



## Steve1839 (Nov 16, 2020)

Teufel said:


> It I think the Marine Corps is well suited for war, but is superior to other forces in peacetime. The Army has fly away capabilities that can respond to certain crises but none that match the spectrum of options that the Navy-Marine Corps team afloat provides.


As one who participated in the early days of Operation Restore Hope, I've got to disagree...nothing to do with the quality of troops or leadership, but the Navy-Marine Corp did a piss poor job of sustaining operations in Somalia in 92-early 93...


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 16, 2020)

Teufel said:


> They are a bridging solution for the joint force, just like the rest of the Marine Corps.


Great, until they get into a long haul situation.
Army Reserve did most of the Combat Support for the Marines in Iraq.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 16, 2020)

You mean the Ops officer at 73 Easting who also wanted to topple Saddam when he was a Major? And was pissed about it ever since?  I read his book, know people who know him, some varying opinions.  He's out there, for SURE.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 16, 2020)

Teufel said:


> It's not a new idea. This proposal pops up every time we draw down our military forces after a conflict. I haven't done the math but I *bet you that it costs the Marine Corps less money to recruit, train, and equip our 180,000 people than it would take the Army to do the same for 180,000 soldiers. *Secondly, while these conversations usually turn into Marine infantry vs Rangers debates for some reason, I don't think that's our major contribution to the joint force. I know that's really surprising coming from an infantryman. To be honest though, I think the Marine Corps is well suited for war, but is superior to other forces in peacetime. The Army has fly away capabilities that can respond to certain crises but none that match the spectrum of options that the Navy-Marine Corps team afloat provides. Marine Expeditionary Units are the force of choice to quickly respond to non-combatant evacuations, disaster relief, and other humanitarian assistance operations. The combination of amphibious connectors like the LCU and LCAC with the V22 means that they don't require landing fields and air strips, although they can build them for follow on joint forces. I also think that while we produce really good infantrymen, our real crown jewels are our combat support troops. They certainly aren't grunts, but they have a sense of service pride, physical toughness, and combat mindset that I don't see as much of in the other services.



It would be interesting to see, especially when factoring in the re-enlistment rates of Marines comparative to other branches. It might be cheaper to produce Marines (and it might not be, I don't know...) but if you need to produce a lot more of them over "X" period of time, it might be a wash.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 16, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> It would be interesting to see, especially when factoring in the re-enlistment rates of Marines comparative to other branches. It might be cheaper to produce Marines (and it might not be, I don't know...) but if you need to produce a lot more of them over "X" period of time, it might be a wash.
> 
> View attachment 36905



At what proficiency level? Marine Corps pipeline is longer by some significant measure. Just looking at IET+AIT type scenarios for Infantry Only.

USA Army Boot Camp 10 Weeks
Marine Corps Boot Camp 13 Weeks
______________________________________
Infantry AIT 12 Weeks (As of 2019)
Marine Corps SOI-ITR 8 Weeks

So Infantry Soldiers receive 22 Weeks of training before first unit assignment and Infantry Marines receive 21 weeks.  Prior to 2018 pilot program that was adopted in 2019 for Infantry and Armor Branched Soldiers, Infantry Soldiers only received 14 weeks of training before going to a follow on school (airborne) or their first unit.  Now the training an Infantry Soldier receives is comparable to an Infantry Marine. So in all actuality, previously you could probably say Marines were more expensive to train.

(Jesus, I wish Scouts had 22 weeks of training when I was in the Army, there'd have been a lot less fat ones showing up as privates when I was a PL)

Also in my experience, Marine Officers are more expensive to train compared to Army Counterparts. For everyone but Academy Grads (OCS+TBS+MOSQ) vs most Army folks ROTC (LDAC*+MOSQ).

*West Point Graduates fulfill the equivalent of the LDAC requirement but it's in the West Point Curriculum.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 16, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> Great, until they get into a long haul situation.
> Army Reserve did most of the Combat Support for the Marines in Iraq.



Unless things have changed the Corps would deploy with organic needs for 90s days; afterward, they need sustainment.  They were built to be expeditionary and temporary; never designed for long-haul operations.  The vast majority of long-haul gets there by MSC ships anywhoo, regardless of army or Marine....so you could say that most of the army sustainment came from the navy ;)

The army being the log train for the Marines is a relatively new thing.


----------



## LimaPanther (Nov 16, 2020)

Having served both Marine Corps and Army, I have never seen any updated plans on how the Army would retake an island in the South Pacific. Any plans for  the Navy to haul the Army for an assault? Does the Army and Navy plan on SEALs and SF to swim in to take the island? Really not going to be able to jump in. Guess better keep the Corps for what they are best trained for. 

I think we have forgotten what each branch was trained to do and now want to all be door kickers. Back in my day, before SEALs, Marine Recon went in, either finning or by zodiacs, and did beach surveys looking for obstacles that would stop landing craft from bringing in the troops. UTD would blow up any obstacles. Recon would then move inland to recon the area forward. Remember we did without DEV GRP, Delta, MARSOC, etc. and seemed to kick ass.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 16, 2020)

Steve1839 said:


> As one who participated in the early days of Operation Restore Hope, I've got to disagree...nothing to do with the quality of troops or leadership, but the Navy-Marine Corp did a piss poor job of sustaining operations in Somalia in 92-early 93...



I am not going to speak for El jefe, but I think his point was from crisis-to-911-to-deployment, because a MAGTF or MEUSOC is always somewhere relatively nearby, there is a combined arms package ready to respond, and can, very quickly.  That's how I read it, anyway.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 16, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> I am not going to speak for El jefe, but I think his point was from crisis-to-911-to-deployment, because a MAGTF or MEUSOC is always somewhere relatively nearby, there is a combined arms package ready to respond, and can, very quickly.  That's how I read it, anyway.


Combined Arms package is becoming less combined arms now though.  All Tank Battalions have cased their colors. Reduced the number of Artillery Battalions and number of airframes in squadrons. The Corps is axing all of its tank battalions and cutting grunt units

Effectively a Marine Corps Landing team is now less capable unless we're creating US Army provisional tank companies to fulfill that role and attaching them to the Marine Corps for deployment?  I know guys who've been in provisional rifle companies in the Marine Corps, but in my experience, provisional companies aren't stood up in the Army too often.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 16, 2020)

LimaPanther said:


> Having served both Marine Corps and Army, I have never seen any updated plans on how the Army would retake an island in the South Pacific. Any plans for  the Navy to haul the Army for an assault? Does the Army and Navy plan on SEALs and SF to swim in to take the island? Really not going to be able to jump in. Guess better keep the Corps for what they are best trained for.
> 
> I think we have forgotten what each branch was trained to do and now want to all be door kickers. Back in my day, before SEALs, Marine Recon went in, either finning or by zodiacs, and did beach surveys looking for obstacles that would stop landing craft from bringing in the troops. UTD would blow up any obstacles. Recon would then move inland to recon the area forward. Remember we did without DEV GRP, Delta, MARSOC, etc. and seemed to kick ass.



I just came from USARPAC and there were plans aplenty, and they are exercised every year. The Army has a rather extensive (albeit poorly-supported and on the chopping block) "navy" that could be used, if it had a higher priority:  Save the Army’s 'Navy'.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 16, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Combined Arms package is becoming less combined arms now though.  All Tank Battalions have cased their colors. Reduced the number of Artillery Battalions and number of airframes in squadrons. The Corps is axing all of its tank battalions and cutting grunt units
> 
> Effectively a Marine Corps Landing team is now less capable unless we're creating US Army provisional tank companies to fulfill that role and attaching them to the Marine Corps for deployment?  I know guys who've been in provisional rifle companies in the Marine Corps, but in my experience, provisional companies aren't stood up in the Army too often.



Yeah, I should have specified that I wasn't talking about armor; that's never been organic to a MEU or MAGTF.  Heavy armor should not be part of a BLT; but that's just my anachronistic opinion.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 16, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I just came from USARPAC and there were plans aplenty, and they are exercised every year. The Army has a rather extensive (albeit poorly-supported and on the chopping block) "navy" that could be used, if it had a higher priority:  Save the Army’s 'Navy'.



I read that of the hundreds of boats on their rolls, they have few that can traverse the ocean without significant manning and maintenance.  I don't know how true it is or isn't.  They need it; ostensibly the Corps needs it.  Only so much forward-staging you can do, and 98% of the rest of the log train travels by sea.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 16, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> Yeah, I should have specified that I wasn't talking about armor; that's never been organic to a MEU or MAGTF.  Heavy armor should not be part of a BLT; but that's just my anachronistic opinion.



Prior to cutting the tanks, I had numerous friends deploy as part of the BLT.  Usually, a platoon of tanks was attached to an MEU for that purpose.


----------



## LimaPanther (Nov 16, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Save the Army’s 'Navy'.


Good article. Maybe undermanned because there is no high priority for recruiters to push the MOS.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 16, 2020)

Teufel said:


> It's not a new idea. This proposal pops up every time we draw down our military forces after a conflict. I haven't done the math but I bet you that it costs the *Marine Corps less money to recruit, train, and equip our 180,000 people than it would take the Army to do the same for 180,000 soldiers. *Secondly, while these conversations usually turn into Marine infantry vs Rangers debates for some reason, I don't think that's our major contribution to the joint force. I know that's really surprising coming from an infantryman. To be honest though, I think the Marine Corps is well suited for war, but is superior to other forces in peacetime. The Army has fly away capabilities that can respond to certain crises but none that match the spectrum of options that the Navy-Marine Corps team afloat provides. Marine Expeditionary Units are the force of choice to quickly respond to non-combatant evacuations, disaster relief, and other humanitarian assistance operations. The combination of amphibious connectors like the LCU and LCAC with the V22 means that they don't require landing fields and air strips, although they can build them for follow on joint forces. I also think that while we produce really good infantrymen, our real crown jewels are our combat support troops. They certainly aren't grunts, but they have a sense of service pride, physical toughness, and combat mindset that I don't see as much of in the other services.


Bold face part.
Standard argument that ignores:
Navy providing medical services.
Air Force, Army, and Navy doing most of the weapons acquisitions for the Marines.
Plus a lot of other small support functions the other services provide, usually at no cost.
Put those costs into the Corps budget, then tell me how efficient you are.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 16, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> Bold face part.
> Standard argument that ignores:
> Navy providing medical services.
> Air Force, Army, and Navy doing most of the weapons acquisitions for the Marines.
> ...




Hell, we can pump the brakes on that whole cost argument with two airframes.

V-22
F-35B


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 16, 2020)

Ranger Psych said:


> Hell, we can pump the brakes on that whole cost argument with two airframes.
> 
> V-22
> F-35B


Add the$35M/airframe CH-53K


----------



## Teufel (Nov 16, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> Great, until they get into a long haul situation.
> Army Reserve did most of the Combat Support for the Marines in Iraq.


That’s how the joint force works. A bridging force provides the GCC with a 60-120 day solution while the other services mobilize their forces. The Marines aren’t supposed to be a long haul solution.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 16, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> It would be interesting to see, especially when factoring in the re-enlistment rates of Marines comparative to other branches. It might be cheaper to produce Marines (and it might not be, I don't know...) but if you need to produce a lot more of them over "X" period of time, it might be a wash.
> 
> View attachment 36905


It’s a good point. The Marine Corps is actually designed to be mostly populated with first term enlistees. We force people out all the time. I think we are the only service who culls our company grade officers. We board all our officers between O2 and O3 and force out the bottom quarter to third depending on the year.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 16, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> At what proficiency level? Marine Corps pipeline is longer by some significant measure. Just looking at IET+AIT type scenarios for Infantry Only.
> 
> USA Army Boot Camp 10 Weeks
> Marine Corps Boot Camp 13 Weeks
> ...


Most Marine billets are manned at one rank below the Army. Squad leaders are supposed to be Sergeants, not SSGTs like the Army for example. They are usually Corporals though. We also have the lowest officer to enlisted ratio (7.7 to 1 vs roughly 4 to 1) of all the services.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 16, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> Bold face part.
> Standard argument that ignores:
> Navy providing medical services.
> Air Force, Army, and Navy doing most of the weapons acquisitions for the Marines.
> ...


Again this is how the joint force is supposed to work. Why duplicate acquisition efforts?


----------



## Teufel (Nov 16, 2020)

Steve1839 said:


> As one who participated in the early days of Operation Restore Hope, I've got to disagree...nothing to do with the quality of troops or leadership, but the Navy-Marine Corp did a piss poor job of sustaining operations in Somalia in 92-early 93...


The Marine Corps shouldn’t be a long term sustainment solution. The MEU can cover 90 days of a crisis without support.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 16, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Combined Arms package is becoming less combined arms now though.  All Tank Battalions have cased their colors. Reduced the number of Artillery Battalions and number of airframes in squadrons. The Corps is axing all of its tank battalions and cutting grunt units
> 
> Effectively a Marine Corps Landing team is now less capable unless we're creating US Army provisional tank companies to fulfill that role and attaching them to the Marine Corps for deployment?  I know guys who've been in provisional rifle companies in the Marine Corps, but in my experience, provisional companies aren't stood up in the Army too often.


This is why I think the MEU is best suited for humanitarian relief and small scale crises that don’t require tanks now. We probably should get more joint across the board. Why not use Army tanks? We already rely on purple air.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 16, 2020)

Ranger Psych said:


> Hell, we can pump the brakes on that whole cost argument with two airframes.
> 
> V-22
> F-35B


I think the V22 was money well spent. The F35B....


----------



## Teufel (Nov 16, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> Add the$35M/airframe CH-53K


That’s around the same cost for an Apache or a chinook. Helicopters are expensive.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 17, 2020)

Teufel said:


> I think the V22 was money well spent. The F35B....


@amlove21 can I escort you into this discussion?


----------



## Teufel (Nov 17, 2020)

And of course, in conclusion:


----------



## Hillclimb (Nov 17, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> Bold face part.
> Standard argument that ignores:
> Navy providing medical services.
> *Air Force, Army, and Navy doing most of the weapons acquisitions for the Marines.*
> ...



What? Can you elaborate?

Because I can name a dozen things service provided or transitioned from our CD&I office that arent. We always goto Marine Corps Warfighting Lab to partner up, or with transition in mind.

I will say we hide a lot of our aviation budget in the Navy. 😅 we can barely afford that, thats why shits always breaking down


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 17, 2020)

Ranger Psych said:


> @amlove21 can I escort you into this discussion?


Cursed. CURSED. C U R S E D. The CV (or MV, or just V) 22 is just so ugly, even helicopters make fun of it. 

I think we all agree a fast platform, able to land anywhere and defeat the tyranny of distance, is a good idea. Next time we make one, we are going to go full regalia. This time didn't work out great. Next time though, we are really gonna crush it. 

As an infantry, small force delivery/extract platform, it's ok, I guess? In reality, it's just not as versatile as we need it to be.

And what I mean is- it has some weapons but isn't a great weapons platform. It has some sensors but isn't a great ISR platform. It has a hoist, but you don't want to actually hoist from it. It's got the ability to fast-rope and rappel.... but also hard pass.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 17, 2020)

Not wanting to dog pile on the Osprey, but...I was on an Osprey for a training at Camp Lejeune a few weeks before my first anniversary 20 years ago; just a couple weeks later, that same aircraft augured into the Onslow County countryside just outside of Lejeune.  I've been in a hard landing on a -46, which I still like, but the Osprey, man, it feels like bad ju-ju to me....


----------



## SOSTCRNA (Nov 20, 2020)

One of our teams saved a Ranger with an in-flight thoracotomy a few years back and I think it was on an Osprey. I may be wrong but I know I have set up and flown them on several missions and they worked well for us.


----------



## AWP (Nov 20, 2020)

amlove21 said:


> I think we all agree a fast platform, able to land anywhere and defeat the tyranny of distance, is a good idea. Next time we make one, we are going to go full regalia. This time didn't work out great. Next time though, we are really gonna crush it.
> 
> As an infantry, small force delivery/extract platform, it's ok, I guess? In reality, it's just not as versatile as we need it to be.
> 
> And what I mean is- it has some weapons but isn't a great weapons platform. It has some sensors but isn't a great ISR platform. It has a hoist, but you don't want to actually hoist from it. It's got the ability to fast-rope and rappel.... but also hard pass.



As the 1st Gen of its kind, I'd like to think a lot of lessons were learned towards whatever they build next in that class.

I have yet to meet the person who wants to fast-rope from a -22. One guy said it wasn't a firepole as much as a Slide for Life, no "verticality" to the rope at all.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 20, 2020)

I'd do it just to try it, but it's not like it'd be my first bad decision in life.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 21, 2020)

AWP said:


> As the 1st Gen of its kind, I'd like to think a lot of lessons were learned towards whatever they build next in that class.
> 
> I have yet to meet the person who wants to fast-rope from a -22. One guy said it wasn't a firepole as much as a Slide for Life, no "verticality" to the rope at all.


Im your huckleberry! No thrill seekers in the crowd? This is why 1st Force was the first unit to test the fulcrum sky hook.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 21, 2020)

Teufel said:


> Im your huckleberry! No thrill seekers in the crowd? This is why 1st Force was the first unit to test the fulcrum sky hook.


Absolute pass. Hard pass. 

I have a 200 foot near zero illum hoist on an Osprey, and have tested them in the water. I will pass. For all the things.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 21, 2020)

amlove21 said:


> Absolute pass. Hard pass.
> 
> I have a 200 foot near zero illum hoist on an Osprey, and have tested them in the water. I will pass. For all the things.


It’s better for the general purpose force than SOF.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 21, 2020)

It is fast, and it has range, but to quote a great American leader and Patriot, give me the 46 or give me death.  I'm pretty sure he also said that a 53 would do in a pinch.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 25, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> At what proficiency level? Marine Corps pipeline is longer by some significant measure. Just looking at IET+AIT type scenarios for Infantry Only.
> 
> USA Army Boot Camp 10 Weeks
> Marine Corps Boot Camp 13 Weeks
> ...


The Marine Corps is seriously considering extending the school of infantry by six or more  months and significantly raising the graduation standard. We will see what ultimately happens but the infantry is definitely getting a dramatic upgrade.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 26, 2020)

Teufel said:


> The Marine Corps is seriously considering extending the school of infantry by six or more  months and significantly raising the graduation standard. We will see what ultimately happens but the infantry is definitely getting a dramatic upgrade.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 26, 2020)

Teufel said:


> The Marine Corps is seriously considering extending the school of infantry by six or more  months and significantly raising the graduation standard. We will see what ultimately happens but the infantry is definitely getting a dramatic upgrade.


That's interesting.  Six additional MONTHS?  What is the Corps going to teach folks about infantry stuff in that length of time?  Wouldn't they be better off in units?


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 26, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> That's interesting.  Six additional MONTHS?  What is the Corps going to teach folks about infantry stuff in that length of time?  Wouldn't they be better off in units?



Royal Marine training is 32 weeks, basically boot camp, infantry school, and some other specialty training.  But they have much much lower numbers and their roles are much much narrower.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 26, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> That's interesting.  Six additional MONTHS?  What is the Corps going to teach folks about infantry stuff in that length of time?  Wouldn't they be better off in units?



We have a thread on this...they want to make everyone a Commando. 

Proposed Marine "Commandos"


----------



## Teufel (Nov 26, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> That's interesting.  Six additional MONTHS?  What is the Corps going to teach folks about infantry stuff in that length of time?  Wouldn't they be better off in units?


I think the Commandant, who is a Recon Marine, wants to make all grunts into commandos like Thunder said. I think they are pulling a lot out of that training from the Basic Recon Course, which is almost 9 months long now.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 26, 2020)

Teufel said:


> I think the Commandant, who is a Recon Marine, wants to make all grunts into commandos like Thunder said. I think they are pulling a lot out of that training from the Basic Recon Course, which is almost 9 months long now.


that sounds a lot like what LTG Barno (?) was looking to do with Army infantry.

In both cases, I think it's a very bad idea. But hey, at least the Marines aren't trying to put everyone into black berets...


----------



## Teufel (Nov 26, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> that sounds a lot like what LTG Barno (?) was looking to do with Army infantry.
> 
> In both cases, I think it's a very bad idea. But hey, at least the Marines aren't trying to put everyone into black berets...


Why do you think it's a bad idea? We actually have precedent doing this. The original Marine Raiders were amphibious super grunts. I'm not sure they will be able to pull this off across the entire Marine Corps infantry though. The Commandant wants to stand up 3 Marine Littoral Regiments eventually. Each of these regiments are built around an infantry battalion, a combat support battalion, and a fires battalion with long range rockets and anti-air capabilities. I think building three super grunt battalions is very feasible.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 26, 2020)

Interesting Editorial sort of defending the the re-design on T&P (I've stayed away from that place probably for over a year on purpose). But the author ends with a really stupid paragraph since the Army has definitely fought and won land wars in Asia quite well.  Not really sure of the purpose of that other than to be a chode.  

The Commandant of the Marine Corps is charging into the future, but some aren't ready for change

Although @Teufel I'm not sure of the whole idea of rocket artillery (Since rocket artillery tends to be heavy formations) for that purpose but I wasn't paid to think for that. But doesn't that idea exist already in an ad-hoc MEU structure generally?

Former SEN and SECNAV James Webb wrote an editorial critiquing the re-design.  The Future of the U.S. Marine Corps

Just as I critiqued the Armor branch in every survey that was pushed down the Chief of Armor for failing to adequately train Cavalry Scouts or Tankers with them showing up underskilled and out of shape.  I can definitely critique the Commandant for effectively stifling the pipeline to effectively staff Marine Infantry Regiments if the intent is to just jam another 6 months of training on top.  What would the Marine or Soldier actually learn extra during that period of time that they couldn't learn through a work up.  In order to meet through put to effectively staff units your recruiting numbers would have to jump significantly. 

I suppose the question of Tanks being OPCONd to a MEU has been answered in Webb's Critique, I haven't really heard in the Armor community much talk of attaching units to MEUs.  Seriously this would be a huge thing in that community as it would be a massive doctrinal shift and addition to the METL tasks that would need to trained at Battalion level. 

I'm not saying the idea of a Commando Regiment is a bad thing, heck I had sort of thought that was the whole point of bringing back Raider battalions originally, but the Raider mission is completely different role and seems to sit in some quasi Army SF like role.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 26, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Interesting Editorial sort of defending the the re-design on T&P (I've stayed away from that place probably for over a year on purpose). But the author ends with a really stupid paragraph since the Army has definitely fought and won land wars in Asia quite well.  Not really sure of the purpose of that other than to be a chode.
> 
> The Commandant of the Marine Corps is charging into the future, but some aren't ready for change
> 
> ...


It's a princess bride joke. I wouldn't take it too seriously.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 26, 2020)

Teufel said:


> It's a princess bride joke. I wouldn't take it too seriously.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 26, 2020)

Teufel said:


> *Why do you think it's a bad idea*? We actually have precedent doing this. The original Marine Raiders were amphibious super grunts. I'm not sure they will be able to pull this off across the entire Marine Corps infantry though. The Commandant wants to stand up 3 Marine Littoral Regiments eventually. Each of these regiments are built around an infantry battalion, a combat support battalion, and a fires battalion with long range rockets and anti-air capabilities. I think building three super grunt battalions is very feasible.


-scale.  There's a big difference in building three battalions vs. making every 0311 an uber-grunt.  The Army thought it could make all of its troops super-Soldiers too.  They were wrong.

-expense.  Keeping all of those Marines in training for an additional 6 months seems unnecessarily expensive.  What is this going to accomplish for the overall effort?

-time. Marine training is basic (3 months) then Infantry training (<2 months) then tack on another 6 months of training? The average Marine enlistment is 3 years. The highest period of attrition in the armed services is during initial training. Marines have the lowest re-enlistment rate of all of the services. So you're basically spending an entire year (if you count leave, transportation, etc.) out of three. More Marines in training mean more Marines not in the Fleet. That constant training churn means there are going to be a lot of holes in operational units due to the very lengthy training pipeline.

-effectiveness.  Where are Marine Infantrymen more likely to get better at being Infantrymen, in the school house or in a unit?  I think it's probably in a unit.  

-it's redundant.  Don't the Marines already have Recon and Raiders?  

-LSCO.  For the future fight, I don't think we need general purpose troops with that level of training.  We're going to need a lot of troops with enough training to be lethal and to survive.  We're also going to need money and troops in other functions that cost more to train in, and take more training to become proficient in.


----------



## AWP (Nov 26, 2020)

The pipeline duration for all Marine infantry will rival or exceed careerfields like electronics, aviation maintenance, and intel?


----------



## digrar (Nov 27, 2020)

Wavel knew how tough it was being a grunt, and the job is getting more complex year on year. 


> Let us be clear about three facts.  The art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm. The role of the average artilleryman, for instance, is largely routine; the setting of a fuse, the loading of a gun, even the laying of it are processes which, once learnt, are mechanical. The infantryman has to use initiative and intelligence in almost every step he moves, every action he takes on the battle-field. We ought therefore to put our men of best intelligence and endurance into the Infantry.
> 
> So let us always write *I*nfantry with a specially capital "*I*" and think of them with the deep admiration they deserve. And let us Infantrymen wear our battle-dress, like our rue, with a difference; and throw a chest in it, for we are the men who win battles and wars.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 27, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> -scale.  There's a big difference in building three battalions vs. making every 0311 an uber-grunt.  The Army thought it could make all of its troops super-Soldiers too.  They were wrong.
> 
> -expense.  Keeping all of those Marines in training for an additional 6 months seems unnecessarily expensive.  What is this going to accomplish for the overall effort?
> 
> ...


Marauder, great comments as always. I respect your insight and experience, even if your choice of service academy football teams makes me doubt your judgement sometimes. 

Our minimum enlistment is actually 4 years. Some MOSes like Recon and cyber require longer contracts now. 

Recon has always followed this training model with a similar fiscal and time investment on a 4 year contract. I haven't been in these discussions, so these are purely my opinions and not that of the Marine Corps in any way, but it seems to me that the Marine Corps is building a SOF like service retained amphibious infantry field. I think it will be six months (this supplants the 2 months of infantry training previously given) because they are going to run them through most of the Basic Recon Course minus the combat swimming. I think this will be very similar to the original Raiders. The current Raiders don't work for the Marine Corps so it would not be a redundant capability. Recon will perform recon tasks, probably augmented with other collection capabilities, not beach assaults. 

Right now they are talking about making all grunts into super grunts but it's still in the testing phase. I bet they settle on a more realistic goal eventually. It sounds like they are trying to build the Marine Corps version of the WWII Rangers or 101st Airborne to facilitate forcible entry operations.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 27, 2020)

Teufel said:


> Marauder, great comments as always. I respect your insight and experience, even if your choice of service academy football teams makes me doubt your judgement sometimes


The velvet daggers. Truly some shot to behold.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 27, 2020)

amlove21 said:


> The velvet daggers. Truly some shot to behold.


Lol the first part was meant to be serious. We are actually really good friends. I visit his family all the time and have served them barbecue more than once!


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 27, 2020)

Teufel said:


> Lol the first part was meant to be serious. We are actually really good friends. I visit his family all the time and have served them barbecue more than once!


Totally true.  Although I had to move to Hawaii to get him to actually visit... for some reason he couldn't bring himself to come see us at West Point.  Maybe this time around...

For those who haven't met him yet, Teufel is one of the best storytellers I've ever met. My children would get so excited when I would tell them he was coming to town. My oldest insisted on riding with me to drop him off at his hotel so she could hear more stories about @pardus , who she also met many years ago at @Ex3 's summer home.

He's also an amazing cook.  10/10, would recommend having him come over to your house for dinner.  :)


----------



## digrar (Nov 27, 2020)

Teufel said:


> but it seems to me that the Marine Corps is building a SOF like service retained amphibious infantry field. I think it will be six months (this supplants the 2 months of infantry training previously given) because they are going to run them through most of the Basic Recon Course minus the combat swimming. I think this will be very similar to the original Raiders. The current Raiders don't work for the Marine Corps so it would not be a redundant capability. Recon will perform recon tasks, probably augmented with other collection capabilities, not beach assaults.
> 
> Right now they are talking about making all grunts into super grunts but it's still in the testing phase. I bet they settle on a more realistic goal eventually. It sounds like they are trying to build the Marine Corps version of the WWII Rangers or 101st Airborne to facilitate forcible entry operations.



I know 2RAR Amphibious has worked with both the RM and USMC to get to where it is now as the Pre Landing Force for the Australian Army (allegedly to be replicated by a re raised 4RAR up in Darwin in the coming half decade or so), is that sort of where you guys are going?


----------



## Teufel (Nov 27, 2020)

digrar said:


> I know 2RAR Amphibious has worked with both the RM and USMC to get to where it is now as the Pre Landing Force for the Australian Army (allegedly to be replicated by a re raised 4RAR up in Darwin in the coming half decade or so), is that sort of where you guys are going?


I’m not 100% sure to be honest. They are still experimenting with the model. I think it’s focused on seizing small islands and creating expeditionary support bases for the joint force.


----------



## AWP (Nov 27, 2020)

Teufel said:


> I’m not 100% sure to be honest. They are still experimenting with the model. I think it’s focused on seizing small islands and creating expeditionary support bases for the joint force.



For us non-Marines, how does that differ from what the Corps already offers?


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 27, 2020)

AWP said:


> For us non-Marines, how does that differ from what the Corps already offers?



I am sure the Sir can offer a better, more Marinatorial explanation, but when I was in, it was still all about the global war and terror and 9/11. We were expeditionary yes, maneuverable yes, but put into very routine and army-like operations, aside from a MEU float. Even then most operations are about 96 hours in duration until support, and then we go back board ship.

The old island seizing, island hopping, that is the Marines' history, but it's new to today's generation.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 27, 2020)

AWP said:


> For us non-Marines, how does that differ from what the Corps already offers?


I think we are a fairly balanced force presently that can easily adapt to different missions. The current direction is to invest everything in this concept and divest of anything that does not directly support this mission. It's also a cultural shift. We go from "the nation's 9/11 force" to a service entirely dedicated to directly supporting the Navy in their quest for sea control. The Marine Corps has always had a island seizing mission. The Commandant is talking about building up little island fortresses similar to what the Chinese are doing and staying within the adversary's weapons engagement zone. We are dropping almost all conventional artillery in favor of multiple launch rocket systems and I assume eventually anti ship missiles. Each of the Marine Littoral Regiments will have anti-air capabilities that do not presently reside within the Marine infantry divisions (they are with the Air Wing). The commandant has even talked about getting into the anti-sub game Marines Will Help Fight Submarines. I think that these new Marine commandos may be using small boats and maybe even swimming ashore to infiltrate into the littorals. That said, I'm not in any of the experiment and war gaming groups so this is all my opinion and guess work.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 2, 2020)

Call it “Rah Rah” bravado if you wish but Ive never EVER seen the arrival of Marines _not _appreciated by other services.. except this guy apparently.

The Marine Corps will stay until someone else becomes stubborn enough to accomplish what we accomplish using what we are provided and for however long it takes to do so.

What we do is both inspiring & horrifying.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 2, 2020)

Besides our abilities in the battlespace, we have 245 years of "gung-ho'ness" history that has been instilled in our brain housing group that pushes us to be the way we are both in the world and in the zone. We will be here forever...at least the remainder of my lifetime....


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 2, 2020)

Grunt said:


> Besides our abilities in the battlespace, we have 245 years of "gung-ho'ness" history that has been instilled in our brain housing group that pushes us to be the way we are both in the world and in the zone. We will be here forever...at least the remainder of my lifetime....



But you will live forever:


----------



## pardus (Dec 2, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Totally true.  Although I had to move to Hawaii to get him to actually visit... for some reason he couldn't bring himself to come see us at West Point.  Maybe this time around...
> 
> For those who haven't met him yet, Teufel is one of the best storytellers I've ever met. My children would get so excited when I would tell them he was coming to town. My oldest insisted on riding with me to drop him off at his hotel so she could hear more stories about @pardus , who she also met many years ago at @Ex3 's summer home.
> 
> He's also an amazing cook.  10/10, would recommend having him come over to your house for dinner.  :)


Also when I visited you all at West Point with @Marine0311 and brought you some Scottish swill.



Teufel said:


> I think we are a fairly balanced force presently that can easily adapt to different missions. The current direction is to invest everything in this concept and divest of anything that does not directly support this mission. It's also a cultural shift. We go from "the nation's 9/11 force" to a service entirely dedicated to directly supporting the Navy in their quest for sea control. The Marine Corps has always had a island seizing mission. The Commandant is talking about building up little island fortresses similar to what the Chinese are doing and staying within the adversary's weapons engagement zone. We are dropping almost all conventional artillery in favor of multiple launch rocket systems and I assume eventually anti ship missiles. Each of the Marine Littoral Regiments will have anti-air capabilities that do not presently reside within the Marine infantry divisions (they are with the Air Wing). The commandant has even talked about getting into the anti-sub game Marines Will Help Fight Submarines. I think that these new Marine commandos may be using small boats and maybe even swimming ashore to infiltrate into the littorals. That said, I'm not in any of the experiment and war gaming groups so this is all my opinion and guess work.



Without any research, my first thought is that the Corps is setting itself up exactly as the Japs did in WWII, isolated, static, pre-targeted and almost irrelevant unless they occupy something particularly useful in which case they could be bombed and then overrun by a superior force in short fashion. 
I wonder if the next Commandant, and the one after that, will continue along this line?


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 2, 2020)

pardus said:


> Also when I visited you all at West Point with @Marine0311 and brought you some Scottish swill.


Dude, I completely forgot about that actually until you mentioned it.  Must have been the whiskey ;)

Well, I'm back so I guess it's time for another meetup with you two.


----------



## pardus (Dec 2, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Dude, I completely forgot about that actually until you mentioned it.  Must have been the whiskey ;)
> 
> Well, I'm back so I guess it's time for another meetup with you two.



Indeed, however I'm currently deployed somewhere sandy where the Kosher club have been stirring up trouble so it'll have to wait a few months yet.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 2, 2020)

pardus said:


> Indeed, however I'm currently deployed somewhere sandy where the Kosher club have been stirring up trouble so it'll have to wait a few months yet.


Bring me back something nice.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 2, 2020)

pardus said:


> I wonder if the next Commandant, and the one after that, will continue along this line?


I  want the next Commandant to bring back armor...just so I can create a "Tanks for Nuthin'" meme.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 3, 2020)

pardus said:


> Without any research, my first thought is that the Corps is setting itself up exactly as the Japs did in WWII, isolated, static, pre-targeted and almost irrelevant unless they occupy something particularly useful in which case they could be bombed and then overrun by a superior force in short fashion.
> I wonder if the next Commandant, and the one after that, will continue along this line



The Marine Corps is far from irrelevant. We’re a multibillion dollar warfighting organization with a plethora of hard fighting experience from you-name-it campaign, skirmish, etc.. scattered across the ranks and all we care about is making ourselves as lethal and ready as possible.

It is said that every 23 seconds a Commander is dragged into a conference room to sponsor a new initiative brought on by Major, MSgt, MGySgt, Gunner, Captain so and so, etc.. to either fuck up an enemy or demonstrate how we’re going to fuck up an enemy in a really shitty place... then we go prove it.

We’re not extremely scaleable as a force but we can dominate the ever living dog shit out of a large region or territory and everything will be smoldering by the time everyone else arrives. Our lack of size also means we can do a pretty quick turnaround from conceptualizing something to getting some legs to the idea and funding/supplying/implementing the gear and/or training.

Our combat support types are top notch in their understanding of the combat jobs they support. Im not talking Pfc whats-his-nuts, Im talking GySgt Coffee & Cigarettes who has been all over the Force at various commands who did time in the middle east. He plans motor t, comm, etc and does so at the advantage of knowing & understanding what the guys on the ground need because the Marine Corps is so small that even he took on a flak, kevlar, and crew served or hit some patrol work outside his firebase or vpb.

Even that little PFC could plop down on an M2, function it, and put rounds downrange (results may vary). A data geek is probably humping out a sustainment load to the prescribed Marine Combat Readiness standard for his assigned Infantry Company time now.

Marines are the fucking shit and anyone who doesnt know that already is just waiting to find out.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 3, 2020)

The Hate Ape said:


> The Marine Corps is far from irrelevant. We’re a multibillion dollar warfighting organization with a plethora of hard fighting experience from you-name-it campaign, skirmish, etc.. scattered across the ranks and all we care about is making ourselves as lethal and ready as possible.
> 
> It is said that every 23 seconds a Commander is dragged into a conference room to sponsor a new initiative brought on by Major, MSgt, MGySgt, Gunner, Captain so and so, etc.. to either fuck up an enemy or demonstrate how we’re going to fuck up an enemy in a really shitty place... then we go prove it.
> 
> ...



On day one of FMSS at Camp Pendleton we were told "you are not Marines but as close to being one without having stepped on yellow footprints; as a corpsman you will also be part infantry, part logistics, part clerk, part motor-T, part shrink, part chaplain.  You will have to talk with a general with as much ease as you talk with a private, and you need to understand military strategy, tactics, and history just as much as you understand medicine.  You may be in the Navy but you are no longer in the Navy.  You are part of the World's Finest Fighting Force."

That's in quotes because it was part of the welcome aboard package we got.  I know there's some ooh-rah and moto in that, but really, it's pretty true.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 3, 2020)

To be perfectly honest, Docs have always been my favorite Marines.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 3, 2020)

The Hate Ape said:


> To be perfectly honest, Docs have always been my favorite Marines.


We always treated them as one of the team. Always. If we did something...they did it with us whether it was work time or play time.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 3, 2020)

pardus said:


> Without any research, my first thought is that the Corps is setting itself up exactly as the Japs did in WWII, isolated, static, pre-targeted and almost irrelevant unless they occupy something particularly useful in which case they could be bombed and then overrun by a superior force in short fashion.
> I wonder if the next Commandant, and the one after that, will continue along this line?



I need to disagree here. While I do believe you are correct in some regards, especially that maybe the strategy is too narrow focused, the intent is to not stay on an island long enough to be targeted. The teams will be agile and light, capable of moving around. The intent here is that so they cant be targeted by bombing raids or shipboard missiles.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 4, 2020)

Here's some additional info on the new proof of concept test program: 

14-week training. Only one infantry MOS. The Marine Corps is considering these major changes to its enlisted infantry

Sounds interesting, and something that would benefit small teams should casualties mount.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 4, 2020)

Well...we did always refer to ourselves as "03 do-it-alls" back in the day....

Maybe we are now coming full-circle....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 4, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Here's some additional info on the new proof of concept test program:
> 
> 14-week training. Only one infantry MOS. The Marine Corps is considering these major changes to its enlisted infantry
> 
> Sounds interesting, and something that would benefit small teams should casualties mount.



The US Army consolidated standard enlisted infantry MOSs forever ago.  There are only two: 11B and 11C.  Rifleman and Mortarmen.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 4, 2020)

I think it was Robert Heinlein who said specialization is for insects and we (humans) attempt to achieve broad competency.  I think the Corps in general does this extremely well--it's always had to do more with less, and this is just a natural extension.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 4, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> I think it was Robert Heinlein who said specialization is for insects and we (humans) attempt to achieve broad competency.  I think the Corps in general does this extremely well--it's always had to do more with less, and this is just a natural extension.


To be honest, it really is that way to a great degree now. The only thing I didn't do a lot of was dealing with mortars. As to most everything else in the 03 field, I did it with competency but only received two of the MOS's.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 4, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> The US Army consolidated standard enlisted infantry MOSs forever ago.  There are only two: 11B and 11C.  Rifleman and Mortarmen.



I don't know a single 0311 in the fleet that cant already operate as an 0331 but that training doesn't happen at ITB.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 4, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> I don't know a single 0311 in the fleet that cant already operate as an 0331 but that training doesn't happen at ITB.





Grunt said:


> To be honest, it really is that way to a great degree now. The only thing I didn't do a lot of was dealing with mortars. As to most everything else in the 03 field, I did it with competency but only received two of the MOS's.



You know how the Navy is about warfare qualifications; to get the FMF qualification I had to be able to disassemble, reassemble, clean, fix minor problems with, and use every weapon in 'that' unit's TO&E.  In the FSSG unit, that was M9 and M4.  In the weaps platoon, that meant mortars.  In the infantry platoon, that meant the SAW.  The idea wasn't to become an expert but rather have enough knowledge to fill in if needed.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 4, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> I don't know a single 0311 in the fleet that cant already operate as an 0331 but that training doesn't happen at ITB.



Does it need to happen at ITB?


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 4, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Does it need to happen at ITB?



It would be more formalized training using real instructors. We had a Battalion Machine Gunner course that we would send people to but not all. Everyone else got hip pocket classes and trigger time as it became available on ranges.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 4, 2020)

I don’t know....maybe it is time to  pack it in....


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1334654395057782785


----------



## digrar (Dec 4, 2020)

We all start out as 343 Riflemen, then go and do heavy weapons/snipers/ recon/ Regimental sigs, Assault Pioneers/ Mortars a year or two down the line. I reckon the Kiwis and the Brits are the same.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 4, 2020)

It won't happen. This want sais before Iraq 2003 and the drive to Bagdad stopped that talk.


----------



## AWP (Dec 4, 2020)

Too many people think they are the next Clausewitz when instead they are Wile E. Coyote.


----------



## busyworks (Dec 5, 2020)

The Hate Ape said:


> Even that little PFC could plop down on an M2, function it, and put rounds downrange (results may vary). A data geek is probably humping out a sustainment load to the prescribed Marine Combat Readiness standard for his assigned Infantry Company time now.


Can confirm. Was that Data Geek.


----------



## Arf (Dec 5, 2020)

Teufel said:


> It’s a good point. The Marine Corps is actually designed to be mostly populated with first term enlistees. We force people out all the time. I think we are the only service who culls our company grade officers. We board all our officers between O2 and O3 and force out the bottom quarter to third depending on the year.



Could you provide some insight on why?


----------



## Teufel (Dec 5, 2020)

Arf said:


> Could you provide some insight on why?


It has to do with our structure. We are a small service and only have so much senior officer and staff NCO structure. It’s a numbers game. We need lots of Lance Corporals but far less Gunnys. Same for the officers. Lots of room for Lieutenants, not so much for Colonels. We board our young officers to make sure we are only retaining our best, or at a minimum dropping our worst. Same for our junior enlisted as they compete to promote into the Staff NCO ranks.


----------



## Hillclimb (Dec 6, 2020)

Teufel said:


> It has to do with our structure. We are a small service and only have so much senior officer and staff NCO structure. It’s a numbers game. We need lots of Lance Corporals but far less Gunnys. Same for the officers. Lots of room for Lieutenants, not so much for Colonels. We board our young officers to make sure we are only retaining our best, or at a minimum dropping our worst. Same for our junior enlisted as they compete to promote into the Staff NCO ranks.



We also promote slower than most(mos dependant). And with that new policy if you arent reenlisting you can go pound sand on getting promoted if you dont have 2+ years left on contract/or submit a letter of intent to reenlist to the promotion board.

We're crushing the retention game.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 6, 2020)

Hillclimb said:


> We also promote slower than most(mos dependant). And with that new policy if you arent reenlisting you can go pound sand on getting promoted if you dont have 2+ years left on contract/or submit a letter of intent to reenlist to the promotion board.
> 
> We're crushing the retention game.


Yep. It all comes down to money. Payroll is the biggest chunk of the Marine Corps budget. We save money by assigning Sergeants to be a squad leader instead of a Staff Sergeant like the Army does for example. Those two squad leaders may have different ranks, but probably have similar time in service.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 6, 2020)

And as been referenced on this site from time to time, it is sometimes shockingly amazing the amount of leadership responsibility put on the shoulders of a Lance Corporal. (E3)


----------



## Grunt (Dec 6, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> And as been referenced on this site from time to time, it is sometimes shockingly amazing the amount of leadership responsibility put on the shoulders of a Lance Corporal. (E3)


There is a lot of truth in that statement. I think that comes from being so small and having a lot to accomplish with those numbers. Much of it is based on necessity.


----------



## Arf (Dec 6, 2020)

We can graduate boot camp as an E-3 with certain conditions such as being an Eagle Scout, having a degree or doing well in boot camp. Is it true the Army will allow you to graduate as an E-4?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 6, 2020)

Arf said:


> Is it true the Army will allow you to graduate as an E-4?


Yeah I’ve asked about that here too.  The Army had weird (to me) rank structures.  An Army E4 Specialist is not considered and NCO, while and Army E4 Corporal is.

So my question to the Army guys, can a specialist be promoted to E5 Sgt before holding the title of Corporal?

And how does a specialist become a Corporal?


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 6, 2020)

Arf said:


> We can graduate boot camp as an E-3 with certain conditions such as being an Eagle Scout, having a degree or doing well in boot camp. Is it true the Army will allow you to graduate as an E-4?



I went in the Navy as an E4, was a college graduate already and actually had to sign a document saying that they didn't coerce me into enlisting as opposed to getting a commission.  

I was a real hit amongst the other HM3s, who had done it the right way and who had been in for 3 years or more.


----------



## Arf (Dec 6, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> I went in the Navy as an E4, was a college graduate already and actually had to sign a document saying that they didn't coarse me into enlisting as opposed to getting a commission.
> 
> I was a real hit amongst the other HM3s, who had done it the right way and who had been in for 3 years or more.


They don’t allow this anymore unfortunately, E-3 is as high as you can go initially.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 6, 2020)

Arf said:


> They don’t allow this anymore unfortunately, E-3 is as high as you can go initially.



Yeah, this was mid-90s.  As a recall, Eagle scout, and certain ranks in the sea cadets or civil air patrol could get you E3, college graduate in certain NECs would get you E4.

I signed up wanting a HM contract with field med school in the contract, at first they told me no. The army recruiter across the hall said that if I wanted medic guaranteed he would do it, and within the hour the Navy had it in the contract.  The Navy recruiter said he couldn't remember when anyone came in specifically asking for a contract to be assigned to the Marines lol.


----------



## Board and Seize (Dec 6, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> Yeah, this was mid-90s.  As a recall, Eagle scout, and certain ranks in the sea cadets or civil air patrol could get you E3, college graduate in certain NECs would get you E4.
> 
> I signed up wanting a HM contract with field med school in the contract, at first they told me no. The army recruiter across the hall said that if I wanted medic guaranteed he would do it, and within the hour the Navy had it in the contract.  The Navy recruiter said he couldn't remember when anyone came in specifically asking for a contract to be assigned to the Marines lol.


I was an Eagle Scout, CAP leadership, and had ~1.5 semesters worth of college when I enlisted.  I was supposed to graduate bootcamp as an E-3.

Spoiler warning, my recruiter fucked me.  I graduated as Private.


----------



## Cookie_ (Dec 6, 2020)

Arf said:


> We can graduate boot camp as an E-3 with certain conditions such as being an Eagle Scout, having a degree or doing well in boot camp. Is it true the Army will allow you to graduate as an E-4?


You can come in as an E4 with a college degree IIRC


Ooh-Rah said:


> Yeah I’ve asked about that here too.  The Army had weird (to me) rank structures.  An Army E4 Specialist is not considered and NCO, while and Army E4 Corporal is.
> 
> So my question to the Army guys, can a specialist be promoted to E5 Sgt before holding the title of Corporal?
> 
> And how does a specialist become a Corporal?


You can become a SGT without being a CPL.

CPL used to be much more common, but is basically non-existent outside of combat arms branches now.

Usually, two things have to happen for someone to become a CPL.

A SPC passes the promotion board but doesn't meet points to promote, and his/her unit is short an E5 SGT.

Congrats, you're now a NCO without the pay.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 6, 2020)

Board and Seize said:


> I was an Eagle Scout, CAP leadership, and had ~1.5 semesters worth of college when I enlisted.  I was supposed to graduate bootcamp as an E-3.
> 
> Spoiler warning, my recruiter fucked me.  I graduated as Private.



Fucked by a recruiter.  This is my shocked face.

I didn't have Eagle (Star), and I was a cadet captain in CAP.  My degree was the thing that did it.  They tried making me look into nuke (this was actually before I took the ASVAB...I was like, you know I had a tutor for geometry and algebra 2, right??) and intelligence (BA poli sci, natural choice).  But I wanted HM, and a contract for FMSS and the Corps.


----------



## Kaldak (Dec 6, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Yeah I’ve asked about that here too.  The Army had weird (to me) rank structures.  An Army E4 Specialist is not considered and NCO, while and Army E4 Corporal is.
> 
> So my question to the Army guys, can a specialist be promoted to E5 Sgt before holding the title of Corporal?
> 
> And how does a specialist become a Corporal?



@Cookie_ is correct. If you have a bachelor degree or higher, you enlist as a Specialist. From what I was told by guys at OCS who weren't prior service, E4s who assisted the DIs were made Cpl to automatically out rank everyone in boot camp. All OCS candidates were also promoted to Sgt while in OCS.

Otherwise, the only time I saw/head of Cpls was in the scenario @Cookie_ described.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 6, 2020)

Cookie_ said:


> You can come in as an E4 with a college degree IIRC
> 
> You can become a SGT without being a CPL.
> 
> ...



Great post! 

I was a CPL in the 90s...Quite possibly the best or worst rank, depending on the day.  Our Unit gave it to us as Team Leaders and it did help alot when dealing with other NCOs.

Pro -  You were put on the JumpMaster OML....
Con - You were on EVERY detail noone wanted...



As far as The OG post, getting rid of the MARINE CORPS is a bad idea.  I read it as a 2012 article and nothing more.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 6, 2020)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> As far as The OG post, getting rid of the MARINE CORPS is a bad idea.  I read it as a 2012 article and nothing more.



Every few years, or at least after every war, the topic comes up. The Royal Marines just went through a reinvention as well.  This will fade away until the next time.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 6, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Yeah I’ve asked about that here too.  The Army had weird (to me) rank structures.  An Army E4 Specialist is not considered and NCO, while and Army E4 Corporal is.
> 
> So my question to the Army guys, can a specialist be promoted to E5 Sgt before holding the title of Corporal?
> 
> And how does a specialist become a Corporal?



So in line units it tends to be a thing as @Cookie_ basically mentioned.  

When I was at Bliss the Cav Squadron I was in was super short of NCOs.  So we had a lot of guys who went to the promotion board and passed and were made corporals to fill team leader or squad leader slots. Now, like with everything in the Army when it comes to Corporals, some of them should have been privates.  I had one NCO who would never send a SPC we had to the board because the one time he did send him, his shit wasn't together.  The entire time I was in that platoon that SPC was the best Soldier I had.  That NCO moved on, a different NCO came in and took his slot as Senior Scout.  And boom, SPC Miller gets mentored and prepared for the board, passes the board, makes Corporal. He's a SSG now.


----------



## digrar (Dec 6, 2020)

Institutional leanness, don't own anything you're not prepared to tip off the end of an aircraft carrier at the end of the war. Cut away the dead wood at every rank level. No creating pointless jobs to keep a surplus of staff in a break glass in case of rapid expansion scenario. Brilliant way of staying lean.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 6, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Yeah I’ve asked about that here too.  The Army had weird (to me) rank structures.  An Army E4 Specialist is not considered and NCO, while and Army E4 Corporal is.
> 
> So my question to the Army guys, can a specialist be promoted to E5 Sgt before holding the title of Corporal?
> 
> And how does a specialist become a Corporal?



Specialist makes Corporal if there's a slot for a team leader unfilled, they fill it, and the command sees that there needs some extra spice in the mix to give said Specialist the collar power to exercise authority.

My 1SG and CO specifically saw no need for me to pin CPL for the months before PLDC and Sergeant orders date of rank. 

You've met me, do you think back when I was in fighting shape any sane E3 or below would disobey any of my instructions, or that an insane individual of the same rank wouldn't learn the err of their ways without the need of UCMJ power? 

I personally didn't require it (Corporal) to function as a Rifle Team Leader, and my uniform acouterments at that time (04-06 in a just-stood-up unit with a 1/3 at most combat experienced leadership corps, me fresh from my 3rd trip with 3/75) lent creedence to while I may be speaking politely in deference to one's rank, it might be a good idea to consider the options/tactics/techniques I presented.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 13, 2020)

https://www.radio.com/connectingvet...HLApvUhn3_ODv42xxH7xu_oHGjRNpjmx230-6K8RM2qto

Looks like all infantry Marines will go through the scout swimmer, coxswain, raid leader, assault climber, and mountain leader courses. Raising the GT score for infantry Marines to 105 is a big deal.


----------



## AWP (Dec 13, 2020)

Teufel said:


> https://www.radio.com/connectingvet...HLApvUhn3_ODv42xxH7xu_oHGjRNpjmx230-6K8RM2qto
> 
> Looks like all infantry Marines will go through the scout swimmer, coxswain, raid leader, assault climber, and mountain leader courses. Raising the GT score for infantry Marines to 105 is a big deal.


Crayola stock just tumbled.


----------



## GOTWA (Dec 13, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> So in line units it tends to be a thing as @Cookie_ basically mentioned.
> 
> When I was at Bliss the Cav Squadron I was in was super short of NCOs.  So we had a lot of guys who went to the promotion board and passed and were made corporals to fill team leader or squad leader slots. Now, like with everything in the Army when it comes to Corporals, some of them should have been privates.  I had one NCO who would never send a SPC we had to the board because the one time he did send him, his shit wasn't together.  The entire time I was in that platoon that SPC was the best Soldier I had.  That NCO moved on, a different NCO came in and took his slot as Senior Scout.  And boom, SPC Miller gets mentored and prepared for the board, passes the board, makes Corporal. He's a SSG now.


When anyone talks about the Cav, all I can think about is this:








AWP said:


> Crayola stock just tumbled.


Know what's more refined and sharper? Color pencils.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 13, 2020)

AWP said:


> Crayola stock just tumbled.


Should be soaring you mean?


----------



## AWP (Dec 14, 2020)

GOTWA said:


> Know what's more refined and sharper? Color pencils.



Go ahead and show yourself out.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 14, 2020)

.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 14, 2020)

Gunz said:


> How about flying helicopters underwater and farting Skittles. By the time they get through with all that their enlistments will be up and/or the war will be over. (Not to mention there ain’t a single 0311 smart enough to be an 0331.)



Well, the model is there. Now whether they should or should not is a different discussion, but it's not unheard of.

I did scout swimmer, that course was a ball buster. I am a good swimmer and it wore me out. I also did a couple courses in Bridgeport, and once I acclimated to the altitude it was fun as hell.  A lot of infantry Marines go through these courses right now anyway, they go to them as add-ons and not as a required part of their skill set.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 14, 2020)

.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 14, 2020)

Gunz said:


> Sounds like duffleblog to me. The only thing missing is jump school, so you might as well add that, then disband Recon and Raiders and absorb them into the one big homogeneous mass of Super Special Marines who can do anything—as my SDI used to say—but sew the crack of dawn shut and put wheels on a miscarriage.



I think it's a fair argument should vs should not.  I agree, add jump, dive and ARC (BRC now) and it's pretty much recon.  But since a lot of Marines go through a lot of those courses anyway, why not formalize the process?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 14, 2020)

Teufel said:


> Raising the GT score for infantry Marines to 105 is a big deal.


A jump from the current 90; I looked it up because i was curious.  

For perspective, 105 is the same GT you need to get a Ranger contract.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 14, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Yeah I’ve asked about that here too.  The Army had weird (to me) rank structures.  An Army E4 Specialist is not considered and NCO, while and Army E4 Corporal is.
> 
> *So my question to the Army guys, can a specialist be promoted to E5 Sgt before holding the title of Corporal?*
> 
> And how does a specialist become a Corporal?



yes, and in fact I think it's more common to go from Spec4 to SGT than Spec4-->CPL-->SGT.


----------



## Cookie_ (Dec 14, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> yes, and in fact I think it's more common to go from *Spec4* to SGT than Spec4-->CPL-->SGT.



Really showing your age using "Spec4" there, but it does make me wonder; when did that fall out of favor and get replaced with SPC?


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 14, 2020)

Cookie_ said:


> Really showing your age using "Spec4" there, but it does make me wonder; when did that fall out of favor and get replaced with SPC?


Mid-1980s, I think.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 14, 2020)

.


----------



## GOTWA (Dec 14, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> A jump from the current 90; I looked it up because i was curious.
> 
> For perspective, 105 is the same GT you need to get a Ranger contract.


Realistically, 5 more points and I believe the entire field of options opens up, at least in the Army. When I joined up in 2006 I had people with ASVAB waivers in OSUT with me. Think about that one. 

I think it's a great move and one the Army should think about too.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 14, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Mid-1980s, I think.



Yeah, Spec 4 was still being used in boot camp in 86...remember it still referred to that in the early 90's too.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 14, 2020)




----------



## Steve1839 (Dec 14, 2020)

GOTWA said:


> When I joined up in 2006 I had people with ASVAB waivers in OSUT with me. Think about that one.


My first squad leader in '72 was one of McNamara's 100,000...think about that...


----------



## Teufel (Dec 15, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> I think it's a fair argument should vs should not.  I agree, add jump, dive and ARC (BRC now) and it's pretty much recon.  But since a lot of Marines go through a lot of those courses anyway, why not formalize the process?


BRC equals recon. That course is almost 9 to 10 months long now by the way. Mountain troops have always been elite infantry soldiers historically.


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 15, 2020)

Teufel said:


> BRC equals recon. That course is almost 9 to 10 months long now by the way. Mountain troops have always been elite infantry soldiers historically.


9 months? What’s the course comprised of now?


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 15, 2020)

The way I'm interpreting 4 months of training is inclusive of ITB. That's a pretty short amount of time to train to all those capabilities. But I think if they can pull this off, those who wanted to be a Ranger but can't secure a contract may see them enlisting in the Marines instead. That GT score jump is huge.


----------



## Intel Nerd (Dec 15, 2020)

Teufel said:


> Mountain troops have always been elite infantry soldiers historically.



Does this mean my Mountain tab makes me elite?


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 15, 2020)

Intel Nerd said:


> Does this mean my Mountain tab makes me elite?



No....You being you makes you elite...


----------



## Teufel (Dec 15, 2020)

DasBoot said:


> 9 months? What’s the course comprised of now?


It was 3 or 4 months when I went through if you count the required prep course the recon battalions and force recon companies used to run.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 15, 2020)

Teufel said:


> It was 3 or 4 months when I went through if you count the required prep course the recon battalions and force recon companies used to run.


I don’t know when it changed. I think the current length includes jump, dive, SERE, and free fall.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 15, 2020)

Intel Nerd said:


> Does this mean my Mountain tab makes me elite?


Sure. I was thinking more along the lines of the WWII alpine troops Gebirgsjäger - Wikipedia


----------



## Teufel (Dec 15, 2020)

Marine Infantry Training Shifts From 'Automaton' to Thinkers, as School Adds Chess to the Curriculum - USNI News

Here is more information about the change. The commandant wants to build thinkers not automatons. This is similar to how our Infantry Officer Course is designed.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 15, 2020)

Chess?  Fuck me, I'm out.  I'm horrible at chess.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 4, 2021)

Marauder06 said:


> yes, and in fact I think it's more common to go from Spec4 to SGT than Spec4-->CPL-->SGT.



So, not really to do with the Corps. But more to do with CPLs going forward.  The Army has a draft policy out now. I swear they change this promotion stuff every 18 months because some Sergeants Major needs an DMSM.  Just like the temporary promotion for deployed soldiers or pregnant soldiers.  

Under the draft policy-The BLUF
Commander's discretion on lateral promotion has been removed. All Corporals whom are not BLC graduates will be laterally demoted to SPC. All Corporals whom are BLC Graduates and are not recommended by a promotion board for promotion to Sergeant will be laterally demoted to SPC. 

All SPCs who are BLC Graduates and have been recommended by a promotion board for promotion to Sergeant will receive automatic lateral promotion to Corporal. 

The idea going forward falls in line with some other stuff that aligned previous NCO Development.  The Idea generally is that you attend a Promotion Board, get recommended, then go to BLC or ALC, and then you wait to be promoted.   For Centralized promotion boards that is supposed to be the same.  Get Selected, Go To School, Wait for Sequence Number to be promoted.


----------



## GOTWA (Feb 4, 2021)

ThunderHorse said:


> So, not really to do with the Corps. But more to do with CPLs going forward.  The Army has a draft policy out now. I swear they change this promotion stuff every 18 months because some Sergeants Major needs an DMSM.  Just like the temporary promotion for deployed soldiers or pregnant soldiers.
> 
> Under the draft policy-The BLUF
> Commander's discretion on lateral promotion has been removed. All Corporals whom are not BLC graduates will be laterally demoted to SPC. All Corporals whom are BLC Graduates and are not recommended by a promotion board for promotion to Sergeant will be laterally demoted to SPC.
> ...


That's a bunch of E4's going fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 5, 2021)

Similar to when the Corps added the Lance Corporal rank as E3 and all the E4 Sergeants became Corporals. Yikes.


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 5, 2021)




----------



## digrar (Feb 5, 2021)

You guys could take half a dozen ranks out of your system without too many dramas, you've got twice as many as we do.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 5, 2022)

;)


----------



## Gunz (Mar 6, 2022)

Who needs tanks. We will use our bayonets.


----------



## Teufel (Mar 6, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> ;)
> 
> View attachment 39004


Honestly I am starting to wonder about the future of the tanker community across the DOD after seeing the Ukrainians decimate Russian armor with javelins.


----------



## Steve1839 (Mar 7, 2022)

Teufel said:


> Honestly I am starting to wonder about the future of the tanker community across the DOD after seeing the Ukrainians decimate Russian armor with javelins.


Tanks should be supported by infantry...I don't see a lot of that going on in Ukraine...from what I've seen, it appears they are moving buttoned up with no ground support...but I am not a tread head, so maybe they know what they are doing...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 7, 2022)

Sometimes I'm not a fan of Combined Arms Battalions...but holy moly I don't know what the Russian's are doing.  Nothing is being done IAW doctrine we studied over the past 50 years...

It's one thing to have a platoon of tanks in a PB together...it's another to be off on your own isolated thinking everything is jolly...


----------



## Teufel (Mar 8, 2022)

Steve1839 said:


> Tanks should be supported by infantry...I don't see a lot of that going on in Ukraine...from what I've seen, it appears they are moving buttoned up with no ground support...but I am not a tread head, so maybe they know what they are doing...


Combined arms in general seems to be a challenge for them. Also aviation. Also logistics. Gear accountability needs significant improvement. Some SNCO needs to start dummy cording soldiers to tanks pretty soon.


----------



## AWP (Mar 8, 2022)

Teufel said:


> Combined arms in general seems to be a challenge for them. Also aviation. Also logistics. Gear accountability needs significant improvement. Some SNCO needs to start dummy cording soldiers to tanks pretty soon.



So, other than those things it sounds like the Russians are doing a great job…


----------



## Xenophon (Apr 23, 2022)

AWP said:


> So, other than those things it sounds like the Russians are doing a great job…


They also excel in the employment of many different types of non-encrypted radios. And in turning off locations settings on PEDs.



Teufel said:


> https://www.radio.com/connectingvet...HLApvUhn3_ODv42xxH7xu_oHGjRNpjmx230-6K8RM2qto
> 
> Looks like all infantry Marines will go through the scout swimmer, coxswain, raid leader, assault climber, and mountain leader courses. Raising the GT score for infantry Marines to 105 is a big deal.


While we're at it, I'd advocate for a "Principles of Radio-Transmitters" course like the Incidental Radio Operator's Courses we kick at the company and battalion levels. Which is essentially just memorizing, and then working through, 10-15 steps for 2-4 different transmissions systems that are organic to infantry squads and platoons. Rinse and repeat, at night and half-awake. Company Commanders who go all-in on incidental comm training essentially multiply the number of confident Transmission Systems Operators (the new "ROs") by 3.0, and the number of Marines-who-can-operate-but-not-successfully-troubleshoot-a-RT by 4.5 or 5.0. 

Even if the schoolhouse only does 1 or 2 systems, the impact on a fireteam's ability to confidently maneuver would be immense. Those who can confidently communicate do well with decentralized command. Those who can't don't.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 23, 2022)

Xenophon said:


> They also excel in the employment of many different types of non-encrypted radios. And in turning off locations settings on PEDs.
> 
> 
> While we're at it, I'd advocate for a "Principles of Radio-Transmitters" course like the Incidental Radio Operator's Courses we kick at the company and battalion levels. Which is essentially just memorizing, and then working through, 10-15 steps for 2-4 different transmissions systems that are organic to infantry squads and platoons. Rinse and repeat, at night and half-awake. Company Commanders who go all-in on incidental comm training essentially multiply the number of confident Transmission Systems Operators (the new "ROs") by 3.0, and the number of Marines-who-can-operate-but-not-successfully-troubleshoot-a-RT by 4.5 or 5.0.
> ...



Absolutely. The first thing we handed FNG replacements was one of our two team PRC-25s. Didn't matter what 03 MOS they were. They had to know how to call in _anything. _So they humped the radio and rifle for their first month in the bush--if they survived it. And during downtime got instructed in calling CAS, medevac, arty support fires etc. In a 12-man team comm is your life-link. And if you're the last man standing, it's your only hope.

The comm training we had prior to deployment was rudimentary and virtually useless.

Obviously, the comm options are very sophisticated now, but every trigger-puller should know how to pull the chain.


----------



## Xenophon (Apr 23, 2022)

Gunz said:


> Absolutely. The first thing we handed FNG replacements was one of our two team PRC-25s. Didn't matter what 03 MOS they were. They had to know how to call in _anything. _*So they humped the radio and rifle for their first month in the bush--if they survived it*. And during downtime got instructed in calling CAS, medevac, arty support fires etc. In a 12-man team comm is your life-link. And if you're the last man standing, it's your only hope.
> 
> The comm training we had prior to deployment was rudimentary and virtually useless.
> 
> Obviously, *the comm options are very sophisticated now*, *but every trigger-puller should know how to pull the chain*.


My TSOs are competing for 5 rep max squat or deadlift. 

Someone (can't remember who) said something like "at the individual level, no matter how sophisticated technology gets, war feels the same." Backside communications pathways themselves are insanely complex now -- as of a couple years ago, it takes three 06XX and at least two 28XX MOSs to establish and maintain communications at the ground-side battalion level (which quickly turned into a personnel fielding/money quagmire) -- but a radio is a radio. Until we decide to let Mr. Musk run amok in the population with Neuralink, we will always "push to talk."


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 23, 2022)

Sidebar, at my first platoon I found the RTO, we decided to cross-train each other, if either of us went down it would be very bad for the platoon.  I spent puh-lenty of time humping and using the radios.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 24, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> Sidebar, at my first platoon I found the RTO, we decided to cross-train each other, if either of us went down it would be very bad for the platoon.  I spent puh-lenty of time humping and using the radios.



In my Combined Action Platoon we rotated weapons and responsibilities every few weeks. Thus, the machine gun, the two radios (unless one was being carried by a newbie in training) and the two M79s changed hands quite often. It was a good policy IMV and even though I was a machine-gunner, I think I carried either the radio or one of the 79s more often then the gun.


----------

