If they’re not considered SF they must be pretty close from what I’ve read about their training.
Do they still have the longest basic training course in the world?
@stewart Stewart, thanks for sharing article. Very interesting!
Technology can definitely be a game changer. If the Sun articles aren’t hyperbole then a large Marine force so equipped would definitely be better than a large Marine force not so equipped.
Numbers have a quality all their own and they do matter despite what the futurists thinkers have been saying for ages. At the very least the necessity being able to make proactive responses to ~dozen hot spots at the same time shows show why number are critical.
1 Like
Well, the USMC, is not an army, per se, but a Corps, three divisions plus support and aviation elements, that specializes in forced entry from the sea. Considering the size of US treaty commitments to various other countries defense (NATO, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc.), plus US “national interests” around the globe, the US certainly needs the capability. The US Army has had that capability in the past, but only creates and employs it as needed during wartime, then usually does away with it after the war or need is over.
The politics alone of separating the Marine Corps from the Navy, which it is part of, and absorbing it and its capabilities into the Army virtually guarantee that such an event will not happen.
1 Like
Richard - a quick dip into their own website indicates 32 weeks of basic training.
That longer than it takes to get into a Ranger Battalion. Sounds like a LOT more than “basic” training.
Stewart,
BTW - If these numbers are remotely accurate then there’s really no coherent argument the US, NATO or any memeber of the free world should reduce the size of their military forces at this time.
1 Like
Wow ok that’s long lol. Thanks for the info !
Yes I was thinking the same thing Carlos lol
just found this on youtube, the chieftan being an ex US tanker has some thoughts when asked in one of his regular Q&As
forward to 49mins 45 seconds
The war games are not designed for who can defeat who. It is to give everyone practice at their combat skills on a large scale. It is practicing moving units in coordination. Coordination between branches and nationalities.
Having served in the Army infantry, I’m well aware of that yes.
I hate to ponder what constitutes “active military personnel”, especially here in the US.
1 Like
Yeah… during NTC rotations when executing various defense scenarios, it was a given that the visiting unit would be overrun and killed by the OPFOR. The scenarios were set up that way. You would get beaten, but by how much and what toll you took on the OPFOR depended upon how well you performed your tasks.
@Stikpusher the more they kill your TOC the better. If the OC’s and OPFOR don’t hit your talk and kill your 3 shop every now and then than that’s a sign that your unit is struggling. We had a reparation a year ago right as covid hit and the OCs commented on how good our systems were because the TOC would go down and we’d still function. NTC is a love hate affair depending on the unit
I read the Marine Times article about this subject a second time along with several other articles and I have to say they do make some fair points about the vulnerability of armored vehicles in general with respect to the increased threats like UAVs etc, but I still don’t think it’s a good idea at all.
What did they say will be the replacement for the tank on the battlefield. The Marine Times will shed a positive light on the situation.
The more I read the Marine Times the more confused I become. There are several articles in it that mention eliminating tanks, reducing ground artillery and trying to get rid of the infantry to better fight the 2 million man Chinese Army. The goal is to get down to 174.000 Marines by 2030. They want to better operate in the zone of the enemy’s precision weapons. So they think only tanks will attract antitank weapons? Will those big amphibious combat vehicles and LAV’s suddenly be immune from those same antitank weapons? Maybe they will take less damage? Maybe that 30 mm or 40 mm will do a better job than a 120 mm?
Are fewer boots on the ground an advantage that I am overlooking? Are we going back to the late 50’s where the Air Force thought rockets would be the way aircraft would fight and not need guns?
2 Likes
On soapbox…
Will power, good leadership, boots on the ground backed up with lots of air power is decisive. Takes all four still at this point in time.
The US Army Air Force/US Air Force’s track record of being able to win a war from the air or control ground from the air has looked great on paper many times in the past. However that pie in the sky theory has failed every time it was actually tested since like 1942…unless one wants to go nuclear.
WW2 - Europe decided on the ground when the USSR broke the back of German war machine in 1942/1943.
WW2 - Pacific decided by aircraft carriers, US unrestricted submarine warfare & nuclear bombs.
Korea - a draw but the US had air superiority eventually
Vietnam - a defeat and the US had air superiority
Gulf War - victory through combined arms
Afghanistan & Iraq - we’ve had air superiority the whole time. Yet at various points both have nearly imploded. It’s required a surge of more boots on the ground to stabilize on occasion. Not more air power.
Win the next war with Air Power & few casualties is basically the sort of ignorant (as in uninformed) nonsense politicians take at face value.
This theory is embraced in the USA because no one wants to accept the dreadful responsibility that goes with the possibility of high casualties rates that accompany ground warfare.
Eventually the Air Power advocates that claim war can be won from the air will be correct…in the same way a broken 12 hour face analog clock is right…two times a day in 24 hours.
Air power is fantastic, is very important, highly beneficial but it is NOT decisive by itself at this stage. Air power can help pave the way to decisive victory.
Will power, good leadership, boots on the ground backed up with lots of air power is decisive. Takes all four still at this point in time.
Seems to me, the over promise and under delivery of Air Power in regard to winning wars decisively alone should be blinding obvious to all students of military history.
Off soapbox
2 Likes
The only way it would make sense involves nukes.
Vietnam was a study on how to use rules of engagement to avoid victory.
3 Likes