Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: I think the growth of the Marines should now be halted
stratego    1/9/2005 1:22:13 PM
I think the Marines are great, but they are supposed to be an elite force. While it is apparent to me that the US needs more infantry, I do not advocate increasing the size of the Marines. Back in WWII, when the modern version of the "Special Forces" idea was being advocated, some argued against it. The core of their argument was this: Wars are primarily won by the main battle force of the country, which is to say, the Regular Army. If you look at the battles of history, small groups of courageous men have often played a crucial role. Since battles tend to be obscure, some may argue that this probably happens much more than we realize it ("unsung heroes".) The creation of Special Forces tries to identify who these special men might be and then separate them from the Regular Army for special tasks. In doing so, it removes them from their most vital task (as this argument goes) swaying the main battle at the critical time and place (so often unforseen by the officers directing the battle). (I understand that the Marines were created way before WWII and this argument was not applied to them. I am merely using it because it was a time fo debate over the Special Forces concept, because it was considered a new idea (and in fact, was applied in "new" ways or ways that seemed new to the Allies.) I'm not buying into this argument 100 percent, but I am buying into it partially and would apply it to the growth of the Marines. At a certain point, promotion of the Marines becomes counterproductive to US national interest. At a certain point, it becomes a downgrade for the Army. I believe this point has been, or soon will be, reached. The Marines are great. Leave them alone as they are, definately. But let us now perhaps refocus a little onto the Regular Army. Possible slogan: Join the Main Battle Force. In addition, I think the Army brass needs to be "upended" via the leapfrogging of some relatively junior officers who understand the "manouver warfare" concept which has now (correctly) become the Marine doctrine. In addition, it is possible some of the understanding of manouver warfare could be transferred from the Marines to the Army, though the mechanism of that is beyond me (not having served personally, just an armchair strategist.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
ambush    RE:I think the growth of the Marines should now be halted   1/9/2005 3:11:44 PM
Agree and disagree. I think the Marines need more grunts. I am in favor of the reactivation of the 9th Marines. At the same time I think all Marine fixed wing non-V/STOL assets need to be transfered to the the US Navy withe the exception of its KC-130s. With the exception of the KC-130 if an avaition assets canot operated from an Amphibious assault ship it does not need to be in the Corps. If I remember correctly the Corps has about 12 F/A-18 Squadrons (Active and Reserve.) About half of these are already committed to Navy Carrier Air Wings Along the some EA-6 units. Lets say the Navy only takes six of these. That leaves 2 to be deactivated 2 to be coverted to AV-8/F-35 and two to be coverted to Helicopter Units to support the operations of the reactivated 9th Marines. Also Marine Artillery is undergoing a desparately needed upgrade and reorganization. The Marines have gotten involved with SOCOM because they have to. All services want a finger in the SOCOM pie to help justify their existence. At the same time I think the Corps does not need a dedicated SOCM unit. It has numerous individuals and units such as Sniper and Force Recon that could be made available to SOCOM as needed. Let us be honest; SOCOM Units including Delta, SEALS, SF and Rangers all have overlapping capabilities (such has snipers and deep recon) though they claim different missions to justify their separate existence (some justified some not). The Corps brings nothing new or unique to table except probably the best snipers and dedicated deep recon units and it has already operated joint Special Forces schools withe the Army-the SF water infiltration course.
 
Quote    Reply

Eagle601    RE:I think the growth of the Marines should now be halted   1/10/2005 5:10:35 PM
Bringing back the 9th Marines would be good. Add them and a new tank battalion to bring the 3rd Division up to the same size as the other divisions.
 
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:I think the growth of the Marines should now be halted   1/13/2005 6:18:15 PM
I do not think all divisions need to be the same size . Divisions now are nothhing more than adminsitrative holding units not really combat elements. The combat units for MEU and higher are taylored from the assets of the administrative units: Divisions, Wings and FSSGs. I do not think the Corps needs more armor as much has it needs more grunts and to fix its arty and helicopter problems. For that I would be willing to sacrifice the F/A-18 and EA-6 units to the the Navy in exchange for the 9th Marines and two more Harrier/F-35 Squadrons along with a couple of more helicopter squadorns and some new arty.
 
Quote    Reply

JCT    RE:I think the growth of the Marines should now be halted   3/3/2005 3:37:37 PM
More grunts are always good - you can never have enough. I believe the long range aviation plan is to neck down the F/A-18 and AV-8 to the F35 when it is finally fielded. I've also heard that the USMC will be disbanding the SOCOM unit - although I cannot confirm that. All three divisions have the same T/O - 3rd MARDIV is short a regiment and tank battalion that were disbanded due to budget cuts. In almost all other respects they are identical. I MEF has two LAR battalions, but that is due to geography. Okinawa sucks as a mech manuever area so 3rd LAR Bn is at 29 Palms.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics