Momentous Changes in the U.S. Marine Corps’ Force Organization Deserve Debate.

[*zap*]

Among other decisions, Gen. Berger’s “Force Structure 2030” plan includes these provisions:


• Elimination of three infantry battalions from the current 24, a 14% reduction in frontline combat strength.

• Reduction of each remaining battalion by 200 Marines, taking an additional 4,200 infantry Marines from the frontline combat capabilities.

• Elimination of two reserve-component infantry battalions of the present eight, a 25% reduction of combat strength.

• Elimination of 16 cannon artillery battalions, a 76% reduction, to be replaced by 14 rocket artillery battalions, for use in “successful naval campaigns.”

• Elimination of all the tanks in the Marine Corps, even from the reserves.

to see more check link....

Opinion | Momentous Changes in the U.S. Marine Corps’ Force Organization Deserve Debate

Retired generals raise telling questions about the current commandant’s radical new ideas.

www.wsj.com

 

[Forestryguy]

2030 is a long ways off in the area of force reduction and restructuring. Right now Washington is probably going to take a wait and see approach. World dynamics are changing by the hour.

 

[isItFallYet]

Part of the plan

 

[Wrench]

This toxic masculinity bs won't stop until there's bad guys on our soil and not enough testicle carrying men to neutralize the threat.

People are afraid of chit that is hard.....but have no idea of it's ramifications.

 

[2531usmc]

I don’t know, or pretend to understand, the details of Berger’s plan.

But his first significant change was to retire the Abrams tank from the Marine Corps. Enormous criticism followed that decision, but he felt that tanks were little more than death traps on a modern battlefield full of smart atgm and top attack drones. What we‘re seeing in ukraian is that he was right about that.

 

[2531usmc]

It also could be true that the days of conventional artillery is coming to an end. Rocket propelled artillery can provide strategic stand off distances.

 

[Titan_Bow]

I think what we are seeing in Ukraine is a microcosm of what wars might look like in the future. Large conventional forces are susceptible to drones, small man-portable guided missiles, and we probably will never see large conventional forces go up against each other in the way they did in previous conflicts.
I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the decision, but 70 ton tanks with 4man crews are likely going the way of the battleship, to be replaced by autonomous vehicles, smart drones like the switchblade, and other methods we’ve probably not even seen yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Crowmangler]

Maybe they should look at getting rid of the Osprey while they're at it

 

[BeastOfTheTrees]

They always talked about it in the Army. Word for years was we were getting sent to Stryker units and taken out of our tanks eventually.

 

[AKDoc]

A prefacing disclaimer...I'm not going to do an armchair rebuttal of the actions of the Commandant of the Marine Corps...once a Marine always a Marine.

As others have said, 2030 is a long way off and modifications to the projected plan may happen...and I'd bet they do to some degree. The effective methodology of warfare has always been changing...ever since the beginning of time. We need to keep abreast of those changes so that our forces can respond effectively and decisively when ordered...with minimal casualties.

I read all media articles with a critical eye, especially these days...got to...as if I'm critically reading a professional journal article. The linked reference is an OPED article in the WSJ. That doesn't immediately dismiss the article whatsoever, but I do read OPED's with a bit different perspective... bottom line, it's the opinion of a person, and in this case a very experienced person of earned respect...and former Marine from the Viet Nam war. I also spent a year in the Viet Nam war as part of a Marine Expeditionary Unit...but that was a very long time ago. I hope and trust that our effective methodology in response to forceful aggression will always continue to change/evolve over time or we're screwed...especially those on the line.

Edit: BTW, in response to the thread title, I do agree that major changes deserve careful review, continuous discussion and debate within the Fleet Marine Force.

 

[Wellsdw]

I have a friend that just recently retired from the USMC. He was out of camp lejune in a planning division at the end of his career. I remember him saying a couple years ago that the marines were moving towards a less mechanized system with emphasis on a fast deployment short duration system. And that the army was going to move more towards a occupying force. So I’m not surprised by this.

 

[Hoodie]

I'm for it.

Also good to see a former Recon officer as CMC. The projected changes I've heard are coming to the infantry (and the changes to infantry training) are sensible. The emphasis on retention is sensible, particularly in combat arms MOSs which have traditionally had high turnover in the USMC.

The evolution he wants to see will cost, and with the limited budget funds have to come from somewhere. Better night vision, drones at the squad level, etc. are worthwhile investments for the 03s. The Army can do tanks.

The USMC has to justify its existence to an extent. Mimicking Army capabilities too closely is how you get labelled redundant. I think General Berger's plan does a good job of selling a unique role for the Marine Corps.

 

[307]

I have a friend that just recently retired from the USMC. He was out of camp lejune in a planning division at the end of his career. I remember him saying a couple years ago that the marines were moving towards a less mechanized system with emphasis on a fast deployment short duration system. And that the army was going to move more towards a occupying force. So I’m not surprised by this.

Do these shifts happen often? It seems like it would be necessary to advance the infrastructure and manpower of a military force as technology demands that warfare itself change.

I'd imagine it usually draws fire from the "old timers" who are somewhat stuck in the techniques of their particular era.

War, and military technology is a fascinating topic.

 

[USMC-40]

Tanks are a weapon of previous wars, as are cannons. Frankly, infantry has and will continue to see a backseat to SOF/UAV campaigns. MaRSOC (dating myself) will continue to grow and be relevant if they can grab a niche within the SOF pillars. It doesnt mention in in Berger's plan, but it is implied with the littoral regiment that infantry Marines will be supporting artillery Marines and their anti-ship missiles. The grunts are just security. Warfare as we know it has changed and will continue to change.

Tanks were great in Fallujah/Ramadi, and at times in Afghanistan, but that was against dirt farmers. MLRS (or similiar) are more mobile, have greater ranges, get fire-capped quicker, and require less manpower than cannons, oh, and they displace almost instantly and have more firepower.

 

[307]

Tanks are a weapon of previous wars, as are cannons. Frankly, infantry has and will continue to see a backseat to SOF/UAV campaigns. MaRSOC (dating myself) will continue to grow and be relevant if they can grab a niche within the SOF pillars. It doesnt mention in in Berger's plan, but it is implied with the littoral regiment that infantry Marines will be supporting artillery Marines and their anti-ship missiles. The grunts are just security. Warfare as we know it has changed and will continue to change.

Tanks were great in Fallujah/Ramadi, and at times in Afghanistan, but that was against dirt farmers. MLRS (or similiar) are more mobile, have greater ranges, get fire-capped quicker, and require less manpower than cannons, oh, and they displace almost instantly and have more firepower.

I understood a solid some of that.

 

[Wellsdw]

Do these shifts happen often? It seems like it would be necessary to advance the infrastructure and manpower of a military force as technology demands that warfare itself change.

I'd imagine it usually draws fire from the "old timers" who are somewhat stuck in the techniques of their particular era.

War, and military technology is a fascinating topic.

That I’m not sure as far as frequency, I just know he mentioned they were changing direction. He also was assigned with mar-soc, and worked with them closely and mentioned they were bringing in a bunch of folks from the west coast in to Snead’s ferry where he lived. As part of the restructuring

 

[JjamesIII]

Among other decisions, Gen. Berger’s “Force Structure 2030” plan includes these provisions:


• Elimination of three infantry battalions from the current 24, a 14% reduction in frontline combat strength.

• Reduction of each remaining battalion by 200 Marines, taking an additional 4,200 infantry Marines from the frontline combat capabilities.

• Elimination of two reserve-component infantry battalions of the present eight, a 25% reduction of combat strength.

• Elimination of 16 cannon artillery battalions, a 76% reduction, to be replaced by 14 rocket artillery battalions, for use in “successful naval campaigns.”

• Elimination of all the tanks in the Marine Corps, even from the reserves.

to see more check link....

Opinion | Momentous Changes in the U.S. Marine Corps’ Force Organization Deserve Debate

Retired generals raise telling questions about the current commandant’s radical new ideas.

www.wsj.com

The only part I can agree with is the phasing out of the artillery. A former cannon crew member, it’s becoming obsolete. Mlrs systems have been kicking conventional artillery’s ass for decades. Costly, yes. But so very effective.

 

[sneaky]

Among other decisions, Gen. Berger’s “Force Structure 2030” plan includes these provisions:


• Elimination of three infantry battalions from the current 24, a 14% reduction in frontline combat strength.

• Reduction of each remaining battalion by 200 Marines, taking an additional 4,200 infantry Marines from the frontline combat capabilities.

• Elimination of two reserve-component infantry battalions of the present eight, a 25% reduction of combat strength.

• Elimination of 16 cannon artillery battalions, a 76% reduction, to be replaced by 14 rocket artillery battalions, for use in “successful naval campaigns.”

• Elimination of all the tanks in the Marine Corps, even from the reserves.

to see more check link....

Opinion | Momentous Changes in the U.S. Marine Corps’ Force Organization Deserve Debate

Retired generals raise telling questions about the current commandant’s radical new ideas.

www.wsj.com

The tanks have been gone for a couple of years now. The Marine Corps is trimming the fat. They were never supposed to be an occupying force like the Army. They are going back to being a rapidly deployable maritime force with new technology making them more effective. This writing has been on the wall for a looooong time

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Yep, spent 12 years in Marine Corps artillery. MLRS is the future, no matter what we may want to hold on to. 100km stand off range and putting a thousand pound warhead in a window is the future of warfighting. Warheads on foreheads but from a greater distance and with less people. This is the way.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Just think of all the ragheads who got smoked by drone operators piloting UAVs from right outside Las Vegas in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had no clue some 20 year old was about to obliterate them. New age grunts are going to have some serious technology to play with.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk