Skip to comments.New Marine Corps Operating Concept Says Naval Infantry Must Shed Weight
Posted on 07/06/2010 11:09:32 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
working my way through the new Marine Corps Operating Concepts document and wanted to highlight some of the weapons and equipment implications. To get back to its naval infantry roots, the service must shed some of the weight its gained fighting as a second land army in Iraq and Afghanistan, it says.
The concept document says the imperative to significantly lighten all of the component parts of the Marines combined arms air ground task force (MAGTF) will have a significant impact on research and development, programmatic budgeting, acquisitions, doctrine development, and employment of future systems.
The amount of sealift provided the Marines is not likely to increase by much, it says, so radical changes are in order to get everything on the sips; business as usual wont do it.
The process of leveraging emerging technologies should begin with a bottom-up reevaluation of all systems from individual equipment through large principal end-items with a specific focus on making each system smaller, lighter, and more efficient whenever possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at defensetech.org ...
“But it seems to me that in the last few conflicts the Army and the Marines are pretty much doing the same things.”
The Marines and Army both landed on the beaches of Okinawa, and fought their way across the island.
The commander on land was Gen. Buckner, of the Army.
My Dad was an amphib tank commander (E3 or E4) for the landing, and never mentioned anything derogatory about the Army.
He did say the difference about the Marine Corps was that every Marine was first, an infantryman. And Marines are supposed to know how to swim, and to shoot straight.
I later served in the Army including Infantry AIT (11B) which was pretty intense.
It seems that each branch has their own boats, planes, land vehicles, and special forces etc.
This may explain the story (posted by you a few nights back) about the Marine Corps possibly trading in the SAW for the Heckler Koch neo-BAR.
You are correct. There may be a correlation between the two stories. I am very glad you picked it up and told me :)
The trend is to get away from strict amphibious assaults like in WWII. Too much blood was shed on the beaches, and the beaches were never the ultimate goal, just a waypoint to get to the ultimate goal. Today’s assault planning matrix involves over the horizon downloading of men and materiel which can attack simultaneously at different locations many miles apart, either by air or sea. The emphasis is on the element of surprise. Pounding the beaches for days by warships or bombing by planes only telegraphs our intentions. Letting the troops get ashore first and then pound away as needed further inshore seems like a more efficient use of ordnance.
The Marines are not the Army. They do things very differently. Their culture is different, their training is different. Their focus is different. This is not to denigrate the Army, the Army simply cannot do what the USMC does due to its large size and bureaucracy.
The Marines have always been in front when it comes to developing tactics and embracing change, because they must in order to survive as a service. Yes, part of this is due to interservice politics, and the USMC has learned to play that game in the halls of Congress. There have always been people who want to do away with the USMC because they don’t see a difference between the USMC and the Army. They simply see a wasteful duplication of resources for the same mission, and that could not be further from the truth.
For example, the Marines were the service that first embraced and used helicopters in combat in Korea.
And there is a reason that the V-22 Osprey was coveted so aggressively by the USMC, often against the advice of many who think the platform is a deathtrap...it is because they value mobility. Now, a lot of people have valid issues with the Osprey, but one cannot deny that the capabilities of the platform have the promise of changing the very nature and dynamic of vertical envelopment.
It is interesting to note the difference in the Osprey and the helicopter when it comes to the concept of vertical envelopment. A helicopter is very slow in comparison, particularly the CH-46 which the Osprey was intended to replace. As our enemies found in Vietnam, one can hear helicopters from far enough away that forces can be marshalled to meet it in force on landing due to the relatively slow speed. An Osprey traveling in airplane mode is apparently much, MUCH quieter, especially when it is coming directly at you or at close angles to your position. It has the capability to “sneak up” on areas in a way that a helicopter just cannot do, hence fewer hot LZ’s. That is the theory, at least. We will find out how it works in reality eventually.
I don’t want to hijack this thread with pro-anti Osprey opinion, but the point I make is that the USMC has staked its very existence on embracing this platform and the transformative change it offers. It does this in a way the Army can never do, because it is not their culture.
It seems that each branch has their own boats
Semper Fi !
I was going to say they should limit grunts’ time on the mess deck.
If is it not broken don’t fix it.
I had the opportunity to drydock an Army LSV in Hawaii a number of years ago. The skipper was a W-4, as was the
Engineer. Interesting vessel.
Point of order - If you look at the stacks of the Corpus Christi Bay, you will see stripes that are either Military Sealift Command, or MARAD. Can’t tell in the B/W photo. Either would indicate a crew of civilian mariners.
> “every Marine was first, an infantryman.” <
But more specifically, every Marine is a rifleman first.
A basic and fundamental difference, I would think.
Thanks for your service, FRiend.
Yes, the Corpus Christi Bay a leased civilian vessel with a civilian ships crew - but under Army control with Army repair crew.