USMC Doctrine Changes

In its current form, yes. IMO it should be a source of MEUs and little else; the US never is going to stage a large scale opposed landing.
 
dan_inbox said:
Josh_TN said:
the US never is going to stage a large scale opposed landing.
Click to expand...
Not even to repossess Hawaii or other outlying areas?
Click to expand...

I wasn’t aware the US lost Hawai.

On a more serious note, no I wouldn’t expect a major amphibious operation to liberate an outlying island-I’d expect it to be blockaded and opfor bombed out of existence long before the kind of total air supremacy necessary for a large scale amphibious operation could be achieved.

I do think the MEUs could do raids and/or more prompt quick reaction amphibious operations but I just don’t see it ever being practical to deploy a MEB or MEF. It takes too long to organize and the force is too vulnerable to ISR and modern anti shipping weapons. I think the USMC should be reorganized into a smaller force solely tasked with composing MEUs. This of course will never happen.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Sort of. This LAW concept is similar in size to the original LST(1) design, but factoring in the size growth of modern ships and equipment, it's more like an LSM. Which also fits the lack of covered cargo space, separate landing craft, and significant troop berthing.
Click to expand...

In light of this recent Navy News report , I feel the need to pat myself on the back. And maybe ask N9 for a consulting fee...


There are 25 LAWs inside the shipbuilding plan…and really it’s the LAW program. Landing Ship Medium [LSM] is probably what we’re going to call the [LAW] ships​

Click to expand...
 
news.usni.org

Marines Clear ACVs to Return to Open Water with Restrictions - USNI News

The Marines cleared the Amphibious Combat Vehicle to return to sea for training after a two-month pause following an incident that disabled two ACVs in California, the service announced on Thursday afternoon. The service took the ACVs out of the water days after heavy surf tipped over two of the...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
MadRat said:
It's the mission not the vehicle. This is why USMC shifted.
Click to expand...
But what was it that caused the USMC to shift? I've read it was, among other things, the increasing cost of upgrading the M1 as a fighting platform, when viable alternatives existed, this the pivot away from tanks. As a tank fan, I favour the MBT in the inventory.
 
Newtonk said:
MadRat said:
It's the mission not the vehicle. This is why USMC shifted.
Click to expand...
But what was it that caused the USMC to shift? I've read it was, among other things, the increasing cost of upgrading the M1 as a fighting platform, when viable alternatives existed, this the pivot away from tanks. As a tank fan, I favour the MBT in the inventory.
Click to expand...
An MEU may not for good reasons.
 
MadRat said:
An MEU may not for good reasons.
Click to expand...

It is sort of hard to see what use a battalion is going to get out of four tanks. They can almost certainly use the vehicle stowage for other things.

Whether a Marine brigade fighting ashore needs a company of tanks is a different question. For a different thread, likely.
 
Newtonk said:
But what was it that caused the USMC to shift? I've read it was, among other things, the increasing cost of upgrading the M1 as a fighting platform, when viable alternatives existed, this the pivot away from tanks. As a tank fan, I favour the MBT in the inventory.
Click to expand...
It was a desire to re-focus/re-align the mission focus not a cost cutting measure. Basically the US Army has the tanks and the role of the USMC was not to be just a maritime version of the Army. See the following for some of the thinking:

www.marinecorpstimes.com

Goodbye, tanks: How the Marine Corps will change, and what it will lose, by ditching its armor

Commandant Gen. David H. Berger has said that should armor be needed by Marines, he would look to the Army to provide that capability.
www.marinecorpstimes.com www.marinecorpstimes.com
 
As an ex tanker, the US Marines ditching the M1 makes sense. When you are talking of maximising assets in a landing or using tanks in an island hopping or island defence campaign they are just too bulky and heavy. Using Marines as a regular Army unit is just wasteful of assets. How could you use the extra space on MEU or whatever they are called now, transport/landing ships? A LOT more efficiently.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Just adding armour is hardly the point, we have (Supposedly) active countermeasures systems that should be added to the equation. These are not exactly new but are frequently ignored/missed from the future vehicle/tank debate.
Click to expand...
The thing with the armor is that we're still using less advanced matrixes and not applying modern metallurgy and whatnot. That shaves quite a bit of tonnage right then and there.

Then there is the data-wiring upgrade which, from my understanding, shaves something on the order of five tons of weight. Alone.

The biggest problem has been... funding, and Congress hasn't been free with that funding.
 
I get all that but, in the type of engagement envisaged in the Pacific, where the US Marines are mostly tasked the tank would be reduced to infantry support. They (The M1) are always going to be too big, too heavy and far too expensive.

The opportunity for the manoeuvre engagement tanks are suited to is so unlikely as to be not only left field but left in the box.

The newer type support vehicles will be more relevant and efficient/cheaper.

It's not about the M1, it's about the mission.
 
GTX said:
Newtonk said:
But what was it that caused the USMC to shift? I've read it was, among other things, the increasing cost of upgrading the M1 as a fighting platform, when viable alternatives existed, this the pivot away from tanks. As a tank fan, I favour the MBT in the inventory.
Click to expand...
It was a desire to re-focus/re-align the mission focus not a cost cutting measure. Basically the US Army has the tanks and the role of the USMC was not to be just a maritime version of the Army. See the following for some of the thinking:

www.marinecorpstimes.com

Goodbye, tanks: How the Marine Corps will change, and what it will lose, by ditching its armor

Commandant Gen. David H. Berger has said that should armor be needed by Marines, he would look to the Army to provide that capability.
www.marinecorpstimes.com www.marinecorpstimes.com
Click to expand...

Except the US Army also has three divisions of paratroopers who have better rapid response times than than the Marines?

Berger's transformation of the Corps is shifting it from a ground fighting force to glorified coastal artillery. It looks like mirror imaging in a sense, except Naval Strike Missile and PrSM are a bit less than the Army is offering in the "A2/AD" role, on top of not being very good at fighting in traditional Marine forcible entry operations since future Marines are lacking a third to a half of their airlift and JSFs.

The "maritime Army" of a mechanized Corps would actually provide COCOMs with some measure of meaningful heavy armor in the first two weeks of combat, which is something the Marines have proven to provide faster than the Army in Desert Shield and Urgent Fury by beating the Army to the punch of tanks on the ground by a solid four or five days with on-station MAGTFs and MPF ships.

It really does seem to be a rather slash and burn budget cutting measure rather than any force-oriented objective.

There's no real mission set that requires the Marines to sit on shoals manning short range rocket batteries though. At least not that doesn't have Congress questioning why we even have the Marines, if the paratroopers can do that job cheaper and faster with HIMARS and MMRM.

I think Berger's just playing the long game and hoping LRPF is done competently enough the Army will get to pay for new M1s, which the Marines will happily buy once, only they've eaten the massive bitter budget pill that is JSF and H-53K, and those ships' unit costs go down. Seems to be between ACV, JSF, H-53K, and whatever Cottonmouth is going to be, as well as the weird shipborne UAS the Marines waffle on to replace the old Broncos, well the M1s can get sidelined for now, along with a third of the aviation fleet, and all that can probably come back in 15 years or however long it will take to regenerate.

Maybe they'll buy MPF though if that doesn't get killed.
 
Last edited:
Kat Tsun said:
I think Berger's just playing the long game and hoping LRPF is done competently enough the Army will get to pay for new M1s, which the Marines will happily buy once, only they've eaten the massive bitter budget pill that is JSF and H-53K, and those ships' unit costs go down. Seems to be between ACV, JSF, H-53K, and whatever Cottonmouth is going to be, as well as the weird shipborne UAS the Marines waffle on to replace the old Broncos, well the M1s can get sidelined for now, along with a third of the aviation fleet, and all that can probably come back in 15 years or however long it will take to regenerate.

Maybe they'll buy MPF though if that doesn't get killed.
Click to expand...
I fear that you may be giving Commandant Berger way too much credit for sense there.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Except the US Army also has three divisions of paratroopers who have better rapid response times than than the Marines?
Click to expand...
Fun fact.

Paratroopers are useless in taking island role.

Which is what we are looking at.

Every single airdropped of troops onto an island thats not the size of Ireland or Guam have ended with a solid third or so in the water.

Where they drown due to both the weight of gear, and the parachutes lines tieing them up.

Toss in that you cannot air drop a missile truck or howitzer?

Like really, we try to drop a MLRS bout once a decade, always end in once less MLRS cause those are fragile and the landing shock breaks everything.

Well suddenly the Marines restructuring makes alot of sense.

Cause we are expecting to need to take islands and the Marines restructuring allows them to do that.

Especially since they kept training to do so since WW2, unlike the Army that stopped after Korea.

And experience all but says that non amphibious tanks suck in island hopping campaigns.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom