Just how far in Advancement and Capability is the U.S. Military?

Technically the function of the Marine Corps are for amphibious operations used by landing forces; that's codified in law. They do pretty much what the Army infantry does now however.

 

The Marine Corps is suppose to get back to it's roots. They got side tracked back during the Vietnam War and during the 1990's through today. It's the CATCH-22 that's with in the National Security Act of 1947 that caused the Corps being side tracked. >"Perform such other duties as the President may direct."<

 

For decades the 3rd Marine Division has only been a "Paperwork Division", only consisting of the Headquarters element, and having operational control of any Battalions deployed into their area of operation. When I was in 2/2 and deployed to Okinawa we were moved from the 2nd to 3rd Division, then back to 2nd when we returned to the States. But it does not actually possess any units. The 3rd, 4th and 9th Marine regiments are actually assigned to the other 2 Divisions (only the 12th Marines (Artillery) and 3rd Force Recon are actually on Okinawa.

That means in reality, out of the 3 "Active Divisions", only 2 are real Divisions. To activate the 3rd, they would have to strip the battalions away from the 1st and 2nd, leaving them horrible under strength.

3/9 was for operational purposes attached to the 2nd Marine Regiment, giving them 4 Battalions (unofficially it was often called "4/2"), and it's disbandment means the Regiment is back to 3 Battalions.

And if nobody is aware of this, each of the Battalions has been understrength for decades as well. Each Marine Battalion by TO&E should have 4 Rifle Companies and a Weapons Company. In 2/2 it should be E, F, G, and H. But the 4th companies are gone, leaving 1/2 with A, B and C, and 2/2 with E. F and H. So when you look at it on paper things look normal (3 Divisions + 1 Reserve Division), but in reality the entire structure is horribly undermanned. Entire Company, Battalion, Regimental, and Division elements have huge holes in them because of the disbandment of their elements.

It took 5 years to bring the 9th Marine Regiment up to full strength, and only 2 to gut and disband it again.

 

No, that is not the function of the Marine Corps.

Notice it says nothing about "amphibious operations used by landing forces", that is a far to common misconception. The Marine Infantry units spend far more time training top oeprate from Helicopters then from landing craft (but they do maintain those skills as well). Amphibious means operating from aboard Navy ships, be it landing in Mike Boats, Osprey or Helicopters, or the boat simply pulling up to a warf and them marching off. It is all the same thing, all are "Amphibious Operations".

And that is not what the Army does. Trust me, I have served in both, and they are very different.

The Army is a massive organization, which operated by bringing it's entire logistical train with it. It's units are almost universally air or ground vehicle mobile, with their own internal organic support. Need a Combat Brigade to operate from the Army? Better bring about a Brigade worth of support troops to keep it operational.

The Marines by definition is "Light Infantry". No organic vehicles (other then HMMWV crew served weapons carriers), no organic helicopters, not even an organic hospital (just Battalion Aid Stations). Go and tell an Army Infantry Battalion that they are going to march on foot 50 miles over 2 days to their objective, or land on a beach with no massive logistical chain following them and they are simply not going to do it. They can't, they are not set up to work that way.

That is why the Battle of Okinawa (or Guadalcanal, or Tarawa, or Iwo Jima) is so massively different then the Battle of Normandy or the Invasion of Italy. The former were all Marine Operations (with Army brought in after beachheads were secure to hold taken ground), while the latter were all Army Operations (with the huge force having to almost immediately strike deep inland - with the massive logistical train which was required to follow).

No matter how often you say it, the Army and the Marines are very different. Might as well say we already have an Air Force, so there is no need for Navy or Marine Aviation.

 

I'm defining the Marine Corps function as codified in law. Apacherat mentioned some of the amendments broadening the mission, however it's original function was as an amphibious show of force in the littoral zone. From Afghanistan, what they did in practice was no different than what the Army was doing. Establishing forward operating bases, combat outposts, and going out on patrols with the indigenous populations. You could not distinguish the mission other than by the digital camo pattern.

 

I remember the 9th Marines when I was in-country. My first five or so months in-country before going to ANGLICO my home unit was the NGF Plt. HQ Battery, 1/13 but I was usually TAD to either 1/26 or 2/26. I use to hear stories about the 9th Marines, by then they already earned the reputation of the "Walking Dead." A rifle platoon would go out on patrol and would always run into a NVA company or battalion. A 9th Reg. rifle company would go out in the bush and would run into a NVA battalion or regiment.

I'm glad I wasn't assigned to the 12th Marines, I probably would have found myself being TAD to the 9th Marines. If I survied, I wonder how many Purple Hearts I would have ?

It's pretty hard to find a Marine who served with the 9th Marines in Vietnam who doesn't have at least one Purple Heart.

 

No, it's original function was to sieze and secure Naval bases and ports, and to take enemy vessels on the high seas. Those are their original functions.

I am not sure what you are really talking about, it has little to nothing to do with their function.

And yes, they did the missions very differently, and were based in different areas based largely upon the demands of that area. A Marine Infantry Battalion is not an Army Combat Brigade. Composition, make-up, and mission are completely different.

Just like an LHA is not a CVN. Sure, there are many similarities and can often look the same and missions can overlap. But they are not the same, no matter how much you try to imply that they are.

 

One of Obama's Assistant Secretary of the Navy was visiting the San Diego Naval Base and she saw either a LHA or LHD and asked if that was the CVN USS Ronald Reagan.

Kinda like when Obama's current Secretary of the Air Force was going through Senate confirmation hearings and when the A-10 Warthog was brought up, she seemed clueless what an A-10 or a Warthog was.

No wonder our military is in trouble today.

 

Don't take my word for it, take fomer SECDEF Gates' word on it back in 2010.

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=60423

The U.S. Army has rapid deployment units in the 82nd Airborne and 75th Rangers...these are RDF forces that can be wheels up in less than 24 hours of notification. This leaves the USMC as a forward deployed RDF organization based on Navy ships...

They need to go back to their origins and return to ship based functions in forward deployed areas off the coast of troubled areas. I would still argue what mission they have done in the past 15 year is largely duplicative to that of the Army. You can argue the details, but basically, it's a fire team on the ground patrolling a designated area for bad guys operating from a forward combat outpost. They belong at sea...and that is not to insult them...that's an important mission. 50% of the Earth's population lives within 100 miles of a coastline. Logic would dictate these are going to be hotspots where the Marine Corps is required to rapidly deploy as an MEU from sea based assets.

 

And also at least 2 Marine Regiments that can rapid deploy at any time that are ashore in the US and not aboard Navy ships. Trust me, i ahve been on "Air Alert" more times then I can count when I was in Camp Lejeune. Once even saw me sitting on the runway at Pope Air Force Base with a full combat load, waiting for President Reagan to give the word yo go to Haiti.

Another difference, is that the President can order at any time for those Marine Forces aboard ships to land and conduct combat or peacekeeping operations at any time, without the "advise and consent" of Congress. Another major difference between the Army and Marines. It takes Congressional Approval (or at least Congressional Advisement) to put the Army anywhere, not so with the Marines. That is why the majority of the time the US participated in a peacekeeping mission around the world (Lebanon, Haiti, Lebanon, Haiti, Haiti yet again, Somalia, etc, etc, etc), he "Sends in the Marines". They can be on the ground within hours or days ready to operate. Long before the Army can "get off the dime" and start to move anywhere.

Also, those Navy ships have everything the Marine units need to operate for 90 days in a hostile environment, from tanks and artillery to CAS. The Army would not have that luxury, and would have to have a fragile logistics chain operating until the Navy can actually bring them their heavy equipment.

 

We've been fighting land locked wars for a long time. It makes sense to utilize a fighting force like the Marine Corps, and they've done that...however their mission in Afghanistan can be duplicated by Army and special forces. Therefore this leaves them as an organization without a mission which is why many have suggested for them to return to their Naval roots....

 

You want to take a single conflict, and use it as an example?

Why do I keep repeating "The most sure way to loose the next conflict is to plan it by refighting the last conflict" over and over again?

 

Did you watch the movie JARHEAD???

It's just a movie staring Jake Gyllenhaal but there is a poignant moment in the movie where the man who plays Jakes who is a Sniper...Spotter....Peter Sarsgaard who after listening to other Marine's talk about getting in the fight yells at them and say's....."WHO ARE YOU KIDDING!!??"

In WWI....it might take a month to move a trench line 100 feet.

In WWII....500 yards to a mile a day.

Vietnam.....5 Miles.

Here.....those Air Force Pilots and Navy Aviators and Army Choppers are moving in destroying targets thousands of miles away!!!

WAKE UP!!!

The only Iraqi's we are gonna see will be dead or surrendered!!!

This is the current issue with the Marines.

The Marines must RE-ADAPT.

Landing Craft.....even Ocean Skimmers.....are outmoded.

AboeAlpha

 

Marines, and to a degree other combat MOS personnel believe validation of their service arrives in the form of combat...killing. Otherwise it's like a slingshot pulled back and ready to go.... a lot of potential energy. In my opinion, the further entrenched you get in that mindset the more difficult it is to dig your way out. Wars end eventually, and we all spend the vast majority of our lives in rather boring peacetime pursuits in comparison.

Having said that, although I'm not a Marine, I thought the move Jarhead was by and large an inaccurate portrayal of military life...as an example the scene where they are celebrating the ceasefire...dancing half naked around a bonfire shooting their rifles into the air would never be tolerated in any disciplined unit, and Marines are disciplined. It was contrived, the movie felt contrived. I suppose the fact the main character felt portrayed in that the slingshot was never released as kinetic energy...he never got his chance to be baptised under fire and to kill. I suppose from the Marines perspective this is accurate. A Marine spending a career in peacetime, or never seeing combat does not feel validated as a true Marine.

 

95% of all U.S. military equipment, munitions, weapons and supplies are transported by ships.

That means you have to have a harbor to unload those ships.

That usually involves landing on a beach and moving towards that port and securing the port.

The reason the war in Afghanistan has been so expensive is because the logistical headache, more accurately a nightmare.

excerpt:

 

I never saw the movie Jarhead, I never intend on seeing the movie Jarhead. In fact, I very rarely ever watch "war movies", and those few I do watch are realistic and grounded in history.

Saving Private Ryan, We Were Soldiers, Band of Brothers, movies that go more for the reality then simply making big explosions and killing lots of people. Most "mainstream" war movies I ignore.

Not sure where you get that idea. I guess you have a pretty pathetic opinion of Marines and those in the "Combat Arms". Sorry, but I am proud of my service, and certainly feel in no way cheated or unvalid at not having seen combat.

Do you project the same ideas into a cop who serves 20 years in the force and never has to use his gun?

We have been lucky in our last major conflicts, in that we have had allied ports that we were allowed to use to load and offload equipment. And most of our equipment still travels by ship.

When we deployed to the ME in 2009, our equipment left 3-4 weeks before we did, by truck, then train, then on a ship to get to where we would meet it. ANd the same thing happened when we went home, our equipment left first, by ship.

And when one of our RADAR units was completely FUBAR and we needed a replacement, it was sent to us by ship.

The life blood of military logistics is by ship, not air. You simply can't provide enough airlift capacity to keep an army active in the field, we have seen that over and over again. You need secure port facilities to land the massive logistical train. And you get those by either getting permission of an ally to use theirs (Gulf War), you take the port away from an enemy and use their port (Korean War), or you take a chunk of land and create your own port (Normandy).

And anybody who says otherwise is really fooling themselves. I am starting to ignore those who make such blanket statements, and obviously have no idea of what they are talking about.

 

I would have to look at a map but didn't the Inchon landings actually took place inside the Inchon Harbor ?

 

I'm not projecting anything.

Andrew Exum, in his memoir This Man&#8217;s Army, wrote:
"I began to believe that war might be the only answer to all my doubts. That war might validate my existence as a soldier and a man."


Earning honor under fire changes who you are validates their self worth.

A police officer is a poor analogy...a police officer's job is to enforce the law..their job is not primarily to kill and break people's stuff...the PRIMARY job in the combat arms is precisely to KILL and BREAK THINGS.

Training for combat for the eventuality to be in combat.

To spend a career in the combat arms and never seeing combat...it would be the equivalent to spending a career in aviation and never leaving the traffic pattern of your local airport. Who can blame them for feeling frustrated and unvalidated as a soldier or Marine.

Those who have expericenced the crucible of combat view themselves differently than those who have not...particularly among their peers.

Now you can deny that all you want...and rant on about your "experience" as such...and deny this. Be my guest.

Combat arms achieves validation by being in combat. I would even take it further, that if someone is in this profession is hesitant to ever use their training and specific skillset...they don't belong in that field, in combat arms. I would hope they are eager to be tested, eager to separate themselves from those who fear combat, who fear their reaction to it.

You seem to think I'm insulting them or thinking less of them...that's their job, that is what they train to do and prepare themselves for...the crucible of combat. Their job is not as a deterrent, their job is to use it...or lose it. I would want them to be a snarling pack of wolves at the end of a leash, eager to release hell once released..that's indeed why they exist. They do not exist as paper tigers secretly hoping they spend their military careers as no more than menacng statues. A Marine or someone equivalent in the combat arms is validated by combat.

 

For the Peanut Gallery, some history re Inchon. Off-topic, really, but what the hey ...

https://www.navyhistory.org/marine-amphibious-landing-in-korea-1871/

Marine Amphibious Landing in Korea, 1871

A Naval Historical Foundation Publication, 1 January 1966

Foreword

The assault of Marines and sailors on Kangwha Island in 1871 successfully preceded by some 79 years the landing of the 1st Marine Division on Inchon, Korea, just 12 miles to the north. As a tactical operation, the earlier assault was an overwhelming success, despite initial landing difficulties similar to those encountered time and again by Marines in future amphibious operations. The letters of Captain McLane Tilton, USMC, who commanded the Marine detachment, are presented here as a personalized account or the expedition. The Marine Corps appreciates the opportunity to make these letters available though the historical pamphlets of the Foundation.

WALLACE M. GREENE, JR.
GENERAL, U.S. MARINE CORPS
COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS

 

Over 70% of the entire Iranian Population is under the age of 30 years old.

You really think the Iranian Navy or Air Force Leadership is going to go toe to toe with us??? LOL!!!

They will stand down and so will the Iranian Regular Army.

This is no longer 1979!!!

AboveAlpha

 

I agree that much of the movie is pure fiction....but not the part about how Marine Ground Forces are being outmoded.

The Future is in Robotics.....GOD help us all!!!

AboveAlpha

 

And all that equipment is to supply MANNED GROUND FORCES!!!

The days of TAKE THAT HILL!!! are over.

No more NATION BUILDING!!!

From now on if we are messed with.....we concentrate on KILLING THE ENEMY.

Ground Forces are the most expensive and least capable of doing this.

WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE OR HOLD GROUND!!!

All we need to do is KILL THOSE WHO MUST BE KILLED!!

This is the next step in Military Planning.

AboveAlpha

 

If you think that complex problems can be solved from standoff range, you're making a big mistake. You can't win without troops on the ground. The military should have: the capacity for one prompt, large scale combat operation, with two midsize and more protracted multilateral stabilization missions; it's called a 1 + 2 paradigm. The mistake the U.S. continually makes is downsizing after wars. This allows readiness and standards of excellence to begin declining at a steady rate. An excellent example of this was the hollow military in the post-Vietnam war era; it resulted with rampant drug use, poor morale and an overall condition that no one wants to relive. Some demobilization is necessary but usually the U.S. goes too far.

The only thing I have suggested is for the Marine Corps to get to back to it's amphibious roots, which seems to be generating some flak for having that opinion. 71% of the Earth is covered in water, doesn't it make sense to base elements of combat infantry on the seas? This is where the Marine Corps and it's close relations with the Navy make them ideal for that role. We've gotten away from that with these extended conflicts in Afghanistan and then Iraq.

 

How has the high tech drone war worked out against Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the radical Islamist fascist ? Did you drink the Obama "kool-aide" that Al Qaeda was being decimated and was on the run ?

The Russians / Putin and the chi-coms have a doctrine of infantry occupying ground and holding it with the support of artillery, armor, air support and defending the ground that they shed blood to take.

 

The U.S. Military is changing the way we fight wars.

For the better or worse we will see.....as I recall the MORON'S who did not build a GUN into the F-4 as they though Close in Gun Battles were a thing of te past.

But I have been told that we are beginning to look at fighting wars in a completely different way.

You don't need HUMAN'S at a location to kill the enemy.

In the past mistakes were made by Drones that a Human Pilot would never make.

But things are changing.

It is all about ROBOTICS NOW......and NANITE TECH.

AboveAlpha