The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 15, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: End of the Marine Regiment?
oregon_x_marine    7/16/2003 4:33:45 PM
In reviewing the order of battle for Gulf War I & II, it has become quite obvious that the traditional Marine Regiment is "too regimented" for modern combined arms warfare. I fear that the legacy and history of Marine units will be seriously diluted or rendered meaningless if changes are not made.

The Ground Force Element(MarDiv)of the modern MEF fight as combined arms "task force(s)" composed of various combat arms battalions and support elements. Scalability and flexibility are essential organizing principles behind these large command units, thus the MarDiv should be organized around permanent "scalable" brigades. The various combat arms battalions (infantry, artillery and armor) should receive the offical designation of "Marines" and have a unique numberical identifier (e.g. 1/1 becomes the 1st Marines, 2/1 becomes the 21st Marines, etc.), and the re-named regiments (brigades) could be named after a famous battles it had participated in (e.g. 2nd Regiment becomes the Tarawa Brigade). In accordance with naval fleet organization (fleet, task force, task group,task unit, etc.), the MEB should be redesignated Marine Expdeitionary Group.

Such cosmetic changes might first appear to be superficial, but one has only to look at the corporatist structure of the modern Army division, which is organized around indescript brigades composed different battalions of non-operational regiments, to understand what could be lost.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
oregon_x_marine    RE:End of the Marine Regiment?   7/20/2003 11:34:06 PM
The Henoko dining facitily was pretty good and probably the smallest in the corps. We use to get a lot of medical squids from Schwab coming up to Henoko for lunch. Since every one loves (or one day needs) a corpsman, we let them in. I read an excellent account of a Marine Tank battalion in Gulf War 2 on globalsecurity.org. 24-36 hours before the official start of the ground war, intel thought some elements of the 51st Iraqi division was moving towardes the northern Kuwait border. In response a Marine tank battalion swung out of Kuwait and headed towards Basra for a possible intercept. They had to take extra fuel bladders and ammo because they would not be resupplied for a couple of days. The battalion ended up at the outskirts of Um Quasar (I think)several hours before the offical start of the war which prompted the battalion SGTMAJ to state they were "Alone and un-afraid." This became the new battalion nickname. In one of the books I read about Gulf War 1, Col. Sylvester, the CO of the Army's Tiger Brigade, swallowed hard when he was informed that his unit was going to fight the war with the Marines. Apparently, the Army hadn't gotten over Gen. "Howling Mad" Smith's dismissal of an Army division CG during the Saipan campaign during WW2!
 
Quote    Reply

oregon_x_marine    RE:End of the Marine Regiment?   7/20/2003 11:36:44 PM
The Henoko dining facitily was pretty good and probably the smallest in the corps. We use to get a lot of medical squids from Schwab coming up to Henoko for lunch. Since every one loves (or one day needs) a corpsman, we let them in. I read an excellent account of a Marine Tank battalion in Gulf War 2 on globalsecurity.org. 24-36 hours before the official start of the ground war, intel thought some elements of the 51st Iraqi division was moving towardes the northern Kuwait border. In response a Marine tank battalion swung out of Kuwait and headed towards Basra for a possible intercept. They had to take extra fuel bladders and ammo because they would not be resupplied for a couple of days. The battalion ended up at the outskirts of Um Quasar (I think)several hours before the offical start of the war which prompted the battalion SGTMAJ to state they were "Alone and un-afraid." This became the new battalion nickname. In one of the books I read about Gulf War 1, Col. Sylvester, the CO of the Army's Tiger Brigade, swallowed hard when he was informed that his unit was going to fight the war with the Marines. Apparently, the Army hadn't gotten over Gen. "Howling Mad" Smith's dismissal of an Army division CG during the Saipan campaign during WW2!
 
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:End of the Marine Regiment? ... Sam   7/21/2003 1:26:17 PM
>The most suprising move he made was have recon battalion serve as a maneuver infantry element.< While I think I know why you are saying this, its slightly off. The Recon Battalion (before the LAVs) were always the "eyes and ears" of the Marine Div. They are not Force Recon. Using them as a maneuver battalion, is no different than what they are suppossed to be used for. They have always been the equiv of Army "light" cav.
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:End of the Marine Regiment? ... Sam   7/21/2003 8:21:23 PM
Shaka, Understand the "eyes and ears" mission. This wasn't that. They were used like an 0311 rifle battalion.Div recon are suppose to be close in (supporting arms range) eyes, force is the deep recon for the MEF. I think that at the Div level no one knew how to use them. There has always (last 20yrs) been a combined Bn/force det that went on MEUs and recon had some play in RLT/MEB size training (CAX) but on DivEx had always been piecemealed out to the Inf Bns. LAVs are usually used as a screening/blocking force. Or do deep raids and route recon.
 
Quote    Reply

oregon_x_marine    RE:SAM...check this out   2/5/2004 12:20:56 PM
An interesting article from the Marine Corps Gazette. link Below is cut and pasted from the above article. Infantry regiments sourcing forward deployed units: 1st Marines (1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 1/4): Provide GCE for west coast MEUs Amphibious force for west coast 2d Marines (1/2, 2/2, 3/2, 1/8): Provide GCE for east coast MEUs Amphibious force for east coast 3d Marines (1/3, 2/3, 3/3): Provide GCE for 31st MEU(SOC) 4th Marines (2/4, 3/4): Assigned to 3d MarDiv on Okinawa?prep for MTW in Korea and contingencies in Asia Infantry regiments providing forces for MTW and major contingencies: 5th Marines (1/5, 2/5, 3/5): GCE for MPS?3 (Guam) 6th Marines (1/6, 2/6, 3/6): GCE for MPS?1 (Mediterranean) 7th Marines (1/7, 2/7, 3/7): GCE for MPS?2 (Diego Garcia) 8th Marines (2/8, 3/8): prepared for deployment via strategic lift Which theory does this article support: your brigade centric or my battalion centric Corps?
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:SAM...check this out   3/6/2004 8:41:50 AM
I would say mine since the sourcing is at the Regt level. Notice that 2d mar is tasked with GCE for east coast MEUs. So 1/2 will deploy as the BLT portion MEU but if Stuff gets bigger than a MEU can handle than 2d Mar will become the RLT. By the looks nothing has changed. 2d mar had the LF6F tasking when OEF came up, At that time they became a RLT, the ground element of the MEB (TF Tarawa). Sorry to take so lone. I havn't glanced at the Marine boards for a while
 
Quote    Reply

Oregon_4mer_Marine    RE:SAM...check this out   3/6/2004 10:14:33 PM
The Corps seems to be able to keep regimental integrity. I've corresponded with Albany Rifles about the Army's brigade reorganization and suggested that army combat arms BNs should be reclassified as Regiments. A little research on the net showed that US regiments were comprised of many companies until the late 1800's when BN's were introduced. Hope all is well with you.
 
Quote    Reply

stinger       4/20/2008 12:50:05 AM
hey do you think the 4th marines will recieve there own battalion and get rid of the UDP and become a full time REG
 
Quote    Reply

stinger       4/20/2008 1:49:46 AM
hey do you think the 4th marines will recieve there own battalion and get rid of the UDP and become a full time REG
 
Quote    Reply

ambush       4/21/2008 12:03:35 AM

In reviewing the order of battle for Gulf War I & II, it has become quite obvious that the traditional Marine Regiment is "too regimented" for modern combined arms warfare. I fear that the legacy and history of Marine units will be seriously diluted or rendered meaningless if changes are not made.

The Ground Force Element(MarDiv)of the modern MEF fight as combined arms "task force(s)" composed of various combat arms battalions and support elements. Scalability and flexibility are essential organizing principles behind these large command units, thus the MarDiv should be organized around permanent "scalable" brigades. The various combat arms battalions (infantry, artillery and armor) should receive the offical designation of "Marines" and have a unique numberical identifier (e.g. 1/1 becomes the 1st Marines, 2/1 becomes the 21st Marines, etc.), and the re-named regiments (brigades) could be named after a famous battles it had participated in (e.g. 2nd Regiment becomes the Tarawa Brigade). In accordance with naval fleet organization (fleet, task force, task group,task unit, etc.), the MEB should be redesignated Marine Expdeitionary Group.

Such cosmetic changes might first appear to be superficial, but one has only to look at the corporatist structure of the modern Army division, which is organized around indescript brigades composed different battalions of non-operational regiments, to understand what could be lost.

 

 You are recommending purely cosmetic changes to what is already a ?scalable? organization.  Sure the battalions may not always match up with the ?right? regiment but the scalability is still there. Being part 1st Battalion 4th Marines-1/4  has as much tradition and meaning  as the 4th Marine regiment as a whole.

 There is also the Marine Tradition of being frugal with tax payers? dollars. This cosmetic change of yours accomplishes nothing really but forcing the Corps to spend money on t new letterheads unit signs outside of building etc. Change for the sake of change.

 It reminds me of a story a Soldier friend of my told me about when he was assigned to instructor at a training detachment. In the course of two years, without ever leaving the detachments or base, went through two unit re-designations.    So in effect was in three different battalions and brigades. This then involved changing of letterheads new signs in form of the various HQs and barracks (at the costs of hundreds of dollars per sign) new unit crest fo the solider assigned etc. All without any real change in the mission or capabilities of the units involved.
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       4/21/2008 5:00:46 PM
The USMC has nothing on the Army in the numbers shuffle game.
 
The former Airborne Battalion Combat Team in Vicenza, Italy was, at different times, 1/509, 4/325, 3/325, and 1/508.  Then the 173d Airborne Brigade was re-activated and absorbed the 1/508, as well as having 2/503.  Then the 1/508 was re-flagged to the 1/503 to "regimentalize" the brigade, since all the manuever battalions of the 173d in Vietnam were part of the 503d.  That's just one example.
 
Two Army divisions, the 82d and 101st, have "regimentalized" brigades.  Most other Army brigades are a mismatched hodgepodge of manuever battalions sounding something like "First of the Second, Second of the First, Third of the Fourth, and Fourth of the Third."  Or something sort of like that - you get the general idea.  That might make sense to the British, who've always had a lot of single battalion regiments, but it never made sense to me. 
 
Sometimes I wonder if the Army's effort to same so many bits and pieces of once historic regiments has been worthwhile; in that, in the effort to save a little of everything maybe they've save not much of anything.
 
Quote    Reply

OXM_1962       4/22/2008 1:48:08 PM
This idea makes more sense for the Army, who have dozens and dozens of regiments in their history.  Their combat arms battalions could easily be "regimentalized."  Since the Army is now brigade-centric, they should name their brigades after famous divisions and re-designate Division HQ as Corps. 
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       5/16/2008 8:11:31 PM
My time at the upper levels, plus the Ampb Warfare School & Staff & Command course reading gave a slightly different prepsective on the function of the Regiment HQ in the USMC organization.  Dont let the traditional  unit identifications mislead you, the regiment HQ functions the same as a 'brigade' HQ in the US Army of the 1960s thru 1990s, or in the British Army.  Its purpose is to act as the command element of a multibattalion taskforce or Ground Combat Element.  In garrison in the US. Okinawa, or Hawaii the regimental HQ also act as a link between the divsion HQ and exercise oversight of the battalions for training.  If you study the composition of the tactical organizations during the Viet Nam war the nature of the regiments as multi battalion task force should be clear.  The same thing could be seen in large scale training exercises, where regimental task forces were made up of whatever battalions were available.

The maintiance of several USMC brigade HQ contributes to misunderstanding.  The Marine brigade is a entirely different animal from the US Army brigade.  It operates as a independant combat group.  Aside from the regimental combat team that makes up the brigades Ground Combat Element there is a Air Combat Element made up of a composite air group of several squadrons of heliocopter and fixed wing, and there is a Combat Service/Support Group that allows the brigade to operate independantly of a Marine Divsion or Expiditionary Force HQ.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy