Original T&P article: taskandpurpose.com/news/marine-littoral-regiment-squad-size-fire-teams/ Read more about the 2030 Experimental Infantry Battalion (IBX30) which these squad experiments are considered under: mca-marines.org/wp-content/uploads/FD2030-Infantry-Battalion-Experimentation.pdf And here is the USMC's tentative manual for expeditionary advanced base operations (EABO) as of time of posting: mca-marines.org/wp-content/uploads/TM-EABO-First-Edition-1.pdf Also a point I forgot to add with regard to span of control, rifle squads will often have weapons teams from the company/battalion-level attached directly under the Squad Leader's control. A 3-team squad could actually be more like 4 or 5 subelements when factoring in attached machine guns/javelins/etc, which could be part of why they want to add an Assistant Squad Leader to lighten the burden of the Squad Leader. But this is essentially trading improved span of control for the Squad Leader for larger/more difficult span of control for the Fire Team Leaders, while hedging that by making fire team leaders more experienced by having them templated out as Sergeants in a perfect world. One would assume that if a team has a Sergeant as leader, they'd also probably have one or multiple Corporals (the juniormost NCO in the Marine Corps) which could facilitate better control of the 6 Marines. There is of course the concern of this requiring a lot more E-5s and E-6s, but the USMC's personnel management theme now seems to be about retaining more Marines who are already in with less of a focus on turnover-based recruitment (which generates more E-2s/E-3s/E-4s than it does E-5s/E-6s). The Marines have met/exceeded their retention (re-enlistment) goals for the first time in a decade and they're not having as much trouble reaching their recruiting goals as the Army: news.usni.org/2022/07/20/marine-corps-exceed-retention-goals-early-hit-more-than-100-percent
People simply don't know very much about the USMC's history this seems like a return to normalcy if you take their engagements before 1940s into account. They were a known primarily as an exceptional raiding force. If they want to return to that I wouldn't mind if they added a bit more marine raider and force recon into every marine and his command structure, they need to regain their own individualism.
It does seem that in the past couple decades the Pentagon has treated the Marine Corps as a budget Army when that really isn't their purpose, and they have definitely suffered for it.
Since you mentioned them here, could you do a video on Finnish rifle squads? Maybe even about their evolution from independence or the winter war until today? Would be interesting to see how they compare to their Russian counterparts.
I haven't looked much into unit composition in the past cause it wasn't the bit that interested me but I can give some insight with the modern setup, from my own limited point of view tho, anything you wanna know?
@@tomvobbe9538 Small by population, not either Economy or Army size. They are also quite important as they have a long border and a history of conflict with - R*ssia. What is for u 'more relevant' ?
From a Marine infantry platoon perspective, we always sought to task organize ourselves into either assault, support, or security. This organization simplified responsibilities among the three squads in typical patrol based or offensive based operation. Security was tasked with isolation of an objective. Support would suppress an objective. And assault would either seize or destroy the objective once isolation and suppression was effective. This is one reason to why we like to have three squads.
The Army does it the same way, we just have a fourth squad to flex around the objective as needed, although in practice they’re often used a second assault squad as needed. Personally, I prefer it. It places more burden on the PL and PSG, but it adds flexibility and allows more effective battle management by platoon level leadership.
Also important to note that each fire team/squad can and does assume any three of those roles throughout the mission. I always like to explain it being like leap frog.
No mention of where the Corpsman falls into this setup. Perhaps still one per squad with one with the mortar section and an E-5 Corpsman with the Company HQ
@@LtActionCam peacetime TO is one. Combat TO should be 3 per line plt, 11 for a line Company but that rarely happens. Reality for current combat TO is 2 if you can pull some reservists
The rank changes for the individual man in this configuration looks like it provides more promotional opportunities in the infantry (which has been a major issue for decades in the Corps). We might be seeing more Marines staying in the infantry for longer periods of time because of this change, possibly making their careers. Good shit.
If anyone is interested, the think tank CSIS put out an hour long piece earlier this year on the USMC force design for 2030. There were some very lively discussions on whether or not it was the right move, talking about the removal of some maneuver capabilities and asked some intriguing questions about survivability in a major war. General Van Riper from the famous (or infamous) Millennium Challenge 2002 war game was there too. I think a lot of the concepts in the 2030 force design are needed but if you’d like to hear about some of the concerns and dissenting opinions on the matter I’d really recommend watching that video as they do bring up several thought provoking arguments. Edit: They actually have several videos on the topic on the CSIS RU-vid page if you’re looking for a deep dive on the 2030 force design.
One thing about military think tanks is usually no one in them was ever in the military and if there is it is usually some staff pogue that wouldn't know one end of a rifle from another.
Here’s the TLDR on FD2030. Nobody but Gen Berger and those trying to suck up to Gen Berger thinks it’s a good idea. Balance is always better. We’ve never correctly predicted the nature of the next war. The Corps today is a one trick pony. Unless the (very unlikely) war with China happens, we won’t be invited to the next big one.
@@LtActionCam same here. Everyone shows up for roll call because Noone is allowed taking leave, recalled from b billet training etc. Prior to shipping out to Iraq was the only time I pretty much seen my entire battalion there at once.
Thats what happens when the policies in place drive people out in droves and then limit how fast someone can pick up Sgt. Billet doesn't go away if theres not enough Marines of the correct grade to fill it, you just end up with Marines having to fulfill billets that they aren't given the rank authority and respect to fulfill.
Yep, and it took 5 - 7 years to get that third stripe. If you didn't have it in 8, they started giving you directions to the front gate. My senior made s/sgt in just over 8 and everyone thought that freaky fast.
Squads are almost always corporals (experience from 09/13), with usually a senior lance as a team lead. The USMC is very slow to promote to corporal and sergeants so they are almost always a rank off until they get to staff sergeant. Unlike the basically every other branch, Marines don’t allow quick promotions normally and don’t seem to put any emphasis on fast tracking competent leaders.
Im a retired 0311\0369. Fastttacking? Meritorious promotions? I have seen plenty. I knew seceral meritoriously promoted SSGTs. And many, many LCpl-Sgt that was meritoriously promoted. I was in the Army prior to the USMC. Promotion to E6 was slower in the USMC, bit the quality was infinitely better, unless comparing to ranger regiment or some of the better airborne units.
@@jmc0369 That just did not happen in my unit. I saw one meritorious promotion in three years. You get the one or two in boot camp and then the one or two in ITB, but I’m not counting those. Sgts we’re routinely 8 years +, and to say the intelligent Marines got promoted first just flatly isn’t true. I even know it’s true because the Commandant came out a few years ago criticizing that the promotion system isn’t working and the best Marines are routinely leaving because of culture problems in units that were poorly led. I served in a (let’s say unique infantry) unit and the SNCOs were not someone I would expect to be promoted to a higher rank let alone as high up as they did. They had just been in a long time and got the bump. That style of slow promotion and really no checks/balances plus the good old boy network has wrecked havoc on keeping quality Marines in the Corps. Some good ones stay, but you know it’s a pretty significant problem when even the Commandant admits things need to be changed.
The only reason why the Corps is doing this is to retain Marines within the infantry m.o.s, to make current Grunts see that there is a future in Marine Corps Infantry. A Staff sergeant as a squad leader, unheard of when I was a Devildogg. Now you can have that Staff Sergeant in the platoon for another three years, more time, more experience, more of a career Grunt.
It may have more to do with the fact that US forces are now being deployed to the first island chain in preparation for a Chinese military expansion. The real purpose of those marines will be the ability to hold out long enough to provide targeting information for incoming invasion forces.
Just a slight note about increasing ranks: Increasing a rank does not increase experience, it only increases chevrons. Rank aside, the billets will be filled by exactly the same individuals.
The other thing to consider is the respect and recognition of rank. There are staff NCOs and officere out there who will completely disrecpt Cpls and tell them to screw off but wont do it with a Sgt simply due to the number of chevrons on there collar and irregardless of individual capability and capacity. I concur that rank doesn't automatically mean experience and the same people will be filling the billet just at a different rank, but set the up for success by giving them the rank commiserate to the billet. Rank and billet should be congruent, not independent.
I love how our experimental units are getting the attention they need! One thing to add is that in addition to a LCT, LAAB, HQ etc, at least for 3D MLR there is an entire company dedicated to comms, from Radio Operators to networkers
In the video you talk about they are wanting to push Joint Fire Observer quals down to Assistant Squad leaders. Well, I was a 7212 Stinger/Redeye Gunner from 90-94. Made Cpl while active duty and Sgt after 30days Reserve. Before I had finished my first (1st) year active duty with 1st Low Altitude Air Defense (LAAD) Bn on Okinawa I was trained to call in Army and Marine Corps Artillery, Naval Gun fire, Fixed and Rotary Wing Close Air Support from Naval Aviation and from the Air Force. Basically I could call in any type of supporting fire that was available to ANY USMC unit. That as a Lance Corporal with less than one full year in service and forward observer was not my MOS, Air Defense was. I was also trained to fill any position in my chain of command up to the battalion commander's position to replace combat losses. We were trained to do any job in the battalion from assistant Stinger gunner to all the way up to battalion commander. That is, how to develop and implement an air defense plan employing up to the battalion level, not the administrative side of command. The idea of junior Marines being trained and qualified to calling supporting fires is nothing new. It is something that has been going on for decades and a lot of units with smart commanders have pushed this training.
5:20 3 fireteam squad also have ROC Military, Army and Marines regular Infantry basically 10 or 11 squad(depends on have Assistant squad leader or not), this type in Army don't have much now after most of Unit became Mechnized and armed with CM30 seris APC/IFV(since only can have 9 people in it), mostly present day only have Reservist Brigade or Island Garrison Battalion near Mainland China have this orgnaization.
Bro I’ve intensely tried to study Taiwan’s defence strategy but haven’t got they far. The writings by westerners on Taiwan’s defence plans are non existent. I’ve heard ideas of a “defence retreat” to “keeping the war limited to the beaches” to “retreat to the mountains.” I guess all the reservists will be in the cities and the army will be around in the mountains. I have also heard that while Taiwan’s mountain bases might keep their airforce safe I’ve never heard how they could take off and land. But one thing I do know is Taiwan’s missile capabilities are insanely good. Maybe 90 mobile launchers each firing 200+km range anti ship missiles. Taiwan should also get another 100 mobile launchers each with 4 harpoon 120km range missiles. That means close to 1000 anti ship missiles across 200 + launchers. Jesus.
@@josephahner3031 29 HIMARS and 84 ATACMS. the problem is Taiwan already has a 14 billion USD of a backlog of US arms sales, so If i was China id consider pulling a move around 2024+ when none of these weapon systems are there. US can spend 100 billion + on its annual budget towards the pacific theater yet stutters on actually arming the country it will be trying to defend. 4000+ Abram tanks sitting in storage that wont be able to be shipped anywhere during a conflict with China yet the US only sells 100 of them to Taiwan and only for top dollar.
I went to boot camp in 1985 when the Corps was transitioning from 6 man fire team to 4 man fire team. I had to learn the 6 man fire team that they said once we deployed to the fleet they would be a 4 man team. I think it depends on the tactics, training, weapons and combined arms to determine its success. Great Video!!!
I’m a former marine infantry rifleman/0311. I served from 2012-2017. Good times. The marines corps has been going through vast changes over the years. Some for better, some for worse. I personally believe this is a good change. It’s nice to see the M27’s being pushed out to units more. I carried the IAR as an automatic riflemen in my first unit. Only 1 man per fire team had them. Many of our fire teams, while effective, always seemed to be a 4th man shy of being fully staffed. So we had a lot of 3 man fireteams. Bumping up to 6 man teams in my opinion, makes sense. It only helps in a gunfight and when conducting hard tasks that need an extra hand. I don’t think they need to change the rank structure. They can make it work as is. It seems like they are focusing more on infantry reforms and giving the infantry more training and responsibility again. That’s nice to see. I personally believe that rifleman, 0311’s and machine gunners, 0331s should be combined into one MOS that does it all. I also believe that Mortar men (0341’s), and tow gunners (0352’s) should be combined into one big MOS that handles all those bigger weapon systems. Assault men, (0351), if they still exist even, (they were being phased out during my time), can have their duties split between both sides of the lighter and heavier infantry classes I described. I believe it would standardize the force better, and give the marines a more well rounded training and capability as proficient war fighters than they currently have. While we eat crayons by the carton, we are smart enough to learn a few extra weapon systems and how to be proficient with them. Thats my take. But I like this videos and I like seeing the changes the corps is going through. Other than the woke, SJW, PC BS. Stay frosty and lethal my homies. Semper Fi!!
Great video! The Marines as Cav Scouts is really a great comparison. This concept reminds me of the folks who lived on Pacific islands in WW2 who used radios to provide intelligence.
Now that 3rd MLR has activated and been through a readiness exercise, have you thought about introducing the new formation? Your work is amazing. Thanks!
This new organization of the Squads is awesome. I whole heartedly support this change. Better lethality, speed of movement, ability to carry addition equipment. Semper Fi my fellow Devil Dogs.
@@TheCoolCucumber I understand. But it only really works if the US Navy can maintain communication with such a distributed force. As we've seen of late, it is easy to overextend, become isolated and run out of supplies/ammo. And the enemy gets a vote, too. China has significant naval, air and amphibious capability now for counter strike. The question will be whether island strongpoints will be able to contribute enough to hold the PLA back, or will they be cut off and strangled on the vine?
I was part of 3/3 kilo company based out of Hawaii in 2005-2008. We had a whole bunch of mixed training, mainly focused on desert , urbanized operations in prep for upcoming operation Iraq freedoms ops. I am glad that they are focusing on a wide scaled of operations that is focused on molding to the new battlefield including maritime operations. Back to the roots! RAH!
I like how you said, and likely the marine corps on paper is planning to increase the billets to higher ranks. In reality, team leaders will continue to be whoever the most senior lance corporals are, and squad leaders will also likely continue to be senior lance corporals or maybe the platoon's 2-4 corporals. seeing an actual sergeant in a line platoon is incredibly rare; just because it generally takes a reenlistment to get sergeant, and most sergeants are off pursuing a duty for higher promotions.
One of the reasons for the 5 man fire teams of the 80s is the introduction of the SAW. This became organic all the way down to the squad(2 per ideally), and so it didn't always make it necessary to attach an M60 gunner from the weapons platoon.
It is a good thing that the leadership ranks are rolling up one pay grade in the USMC Infantry. Should greatly increase morale & retention of trained & experienced Infantry NCO’s. If you want “Lifers” you need to give them career opportunities. In the Army, the E-7 rank is called Platoon Sergeant, btw. A typical Light Infantry Company in the Army consists of 3 Rifle Platoons of 3 Squads each. The Squads are composed of two teams. No Assistant Squad Leader position. The Platoon Sergeant was the Platoon’s “First Sergeant” . In addition, there was a mortar platoon with 4 each 81mm tubes. If I recall, a rifle squad had 11 men. One E-6 Staff Sergeant slot for Sqd Leader. And two teams of 5 men with an E-5 slot for Team Leader. Two teams work very well for fire & maneuver at that level. This was the TO&E from 30 years ago. There are so many different types of Infantry units in the Army tho. Organization varies greatly. Mech Infantry, Stryker Infantry, Airborne, Air Assault, Ranger, Cav Scouts, and Light. The configuration in each of these vary quite a bit. I think that the new Infantry alignment in the Corps should work well. One always thinks of Light Infantry when you envision USMC operations. Sometimes, though, there is nothing like having a couple of tanks around.
I welcome the extra man. My idea of a perfect size and it makes sense to have that extra guy in a deployed usually understrength squad. The same way it was displayed here, in the 1980s, the size, experience among the squad, mission, terrain and intention should determine whether a squad leader is using 3 or 2 teams. Therefore both variations should be trained.
I know it's late, but the USAF Security Police/Forces also used a 13 man /3 fire-team squad setup in the 90's and early 2000's. I am not sure what they are using now, though I imagine they haven't changed it.
6-Man Recon Teams are meant for movement, duties in the hide site/surveillance site/Mission Support Site, and bare bones survivability in case of contact. Once in a hide, you break down into 3x 2-man teams. 2-man R&S who go out and conduct Recon from alternate surveillance positions, 2-man in the hide monitoring the Radio, and 2-Man resting/security. Any organization from a 6-Man Recon team should not be compared or extrapolated to the line Rifle Squads. Also, among a 6-Man Recon Team, there will often be 3-4 Radios that can communicate outside of the Team.
7:36 "marines can become sergeants in as few as 5 to 6 years." I mean... citizens and soldiers holding an enlisted rank in the army can achieve the rank of second lieutenant in approximately 12 weeks by attending Officer Candidate School (OCS).
Yes, and they have a SNCO hand holding them so they don't do anything stupid. Alternatively, there's the Russian system where all officers go through a 4 year academy because they effectively have no NCO Corps.
7:56 Nailed it. 2x5 squads increases task effectiveness (builds survivability into Company and Platoon combat plans where 2x4 is demonstrated to be the minimum for squad-level maneuvers such as assault, suppression, bounding, and crew-served equipment employment. Higher-then-usual effectiveness until losses are taken, still capable of performing adequately with 20% casualties.) 2x5 with higher-ranking NCOs increases team experience by keeping NCOs in lower-echelon leadership roles later into their career, E6 being a paygrade enlisted-men can and do retire at (double-edged sword being some senior Marines may be frustrated at their rank no longer inferring platoon leadership). 2x5 will likely encourage NCOs to spend more time cultivating and teaching successful squad-level attitudes and processes to subordinates (will increase squad readiness) Lastly, as author mentioned, 2x5 is pretty close to what the Army uses now, which is what most NATO allies mirror to aid in interoperability. This will allow the USMC Marine Littoral Regiment concept to become a template for distributed, self-supported Area Denial, Drone-based ISR, and node-based resupply. Distributed AD-ISR-R3P at the brigade-level?
I know this is going beyond the topic at hand, but I have to ask anyways, particularly to the Marines posting in the comments. Did the Marines go too far in getting rid of their armor? The history of the USMC since the Incheon landings has been that while they have trained extensively on conducting forced entry amphibious landings throughout the world, their actual combat experience has been everything but this. Therefore, given this disparity in assigned vs. actual missions, was it really wise for the Marines to give up their armor assets, which were very much needed in Hue and Fallujah, for example?
It is getting harder to recruit troops, combine that with low pay and losing the most experienced and best trained - !!! How do we keep the best NCO in the military for longer? Why should experienced and well trained stay in the military? Change the rank structure and manning to help reduce the problems of maintaining a modern military.
The squad breakdown makes sense. The TOE of the SSgt Sqd Leader and Sgt Tm Leaders is unrealistic if the cutting scores stay the way they are. In the reconnaissance community, we carried so much crap, you almost always needed 5-6 man teams, not to mention the extra firepower was often necessary for our jobs.
Very solid thinking behind these decisions. One important note is that they need a belt-fed machine gun. The M27 does not have the sustained suppression capability, but then again those scopes are pretty powerful. Anyone have any thoughts?
They have M249s. 6 at the platoon level distributed as needed to rifle squads. So, two per squad in a three-squad platoon should the mission call for it but in a Littoral Combat Team they usually won't need it so why burden your rifle squad with the extra weight of belt-fed and ammo when you don't need the firepower?
I think that each Rifle Squad should have one man portable Anti Drone weapon system & one offensive drone operator. Also given that Marines have a contract with Magpul for there magazines. It would make since for some rifleman to use the the ''D-60'' 60 round magazine so they don't loose sustained fire capability.
Retro is New Again. Seems like the Army and the Marines are having this return to WW2 Nostalgia thinking on many things. It maybe a good idea, it may not.
Right, I was also told in some units the M320 roll out was kind of slow so even if the rest of the squad had M27s Grenadiers still had to use the M4-M203 combo as well
@@BattleOrder The MEU's deployed to Afghanistan last year had M4A1s for squad and fireteam leaders, and for grenadiers. Since the USMC is not currently procuring more M27s, this squad configuration may be here for a while.
Ayo what? I thought the rifle squad were changing into 15 men, three 4 men-fireteams under 3 men-leading element? I can't find anything that indicates it will be 2 fire teams structure even though I [ctrl + F]ed the references you added. Could you put a link that explicitly says that it will be 2 fire teams structure if you don't mind?
It's linked in the description: taskandpurpose.com/news/marine-littoral-regiment-squad-size-fire-teams/ And as far as I can tell it's still experiments at this point because they're playing around with the infantry battalion structure. That 15-man squad idea was also basically them back tracking because they originally wanted to have 3-man fire teams but then there was backlash over that. So I think it's still an open ended question.
@@BattleOrder oh terribly sorry. I just finnished my short essay about Force Design 2030 and got really panicked that I skipped the first link in hurry to find that. BTW where did the Squad Systems Operator go?
@@locknload625 I don’t think we have a lot of clarity as to what each fire team will look like at this stage. The SSO could still be in a team rather than separate
@@locknload625 ASL, SSO and JFO seems to be a bit much to throw onto a Cpl or Sgt. I have a hunch that in practice there will be an SSO, or several, with the command element of the Plt. The area of influence is small enough for a plt lead to task out his own ISR and let the JFOs conduct call for fires. Just my two cents though. Im just a retarded sgt at the end of the day.
Marine Recon Teams can not be compared to Marine Infantry fire teams. Infantry fire teams work together with the squad and Plt to complete their mission. Marine Recon Teams which are 4 to 6 Recon Marines, The Recon Teams work alone, no other units. Only certain missions call for Recon to engage in Platoon size. Most missions are just that ONE Team of 4 to 6 m Behind enemy lines, operating alone. A Recon Platoon is much smaller than a Infantry platoon. Recon Platoon has has 4 Recon teams with a HQ team. Unless they have drastically changed things.
Agreed. When i was in, it was 4-5 guys led by a cpl or a lance. 3 teams per platoon, maybe 16 guys total in a platoon. Very few sgts. Your time was basically limited once you made E5. They'd send you to the grunts or DI school or whatever.
That's what my squad did when we were under strength, disband a team and have one team of 5 and one team of 4. I'm not too sure about the rank increase for billets with the current promotion system. My squad leader was a corporal as well as my team leader, even across my platoon or company the vast majority of Marines holding billets were corporal or lances. Kinda goes to show just because you have an extra chevron doesn't mean you're better at leading or become more competent in new weapon systems
Not happy with the lack of sustained fire weapons at the squad level. Need something belt fed with a quick-change barrel for the Automatic rifle men. Also a two team squad might be because of manpower issues not span of control
Your videos on the evolution of US and British infantry platoons are really interesting. Do you do them from the First World War onwards for France, Germany, Turkiye, the Austro-Hungarian forces too? I'm interested in First and Second World War evolutions. Do you have anything specifically on those eras (apart from the US one you have done)? Thanks
From the fact that you make videos of military structure, I would like to maken the request for you te make a video on The Dutch Armed Forces. Preferably the Marines, but the army is also fine. Maybe a possibility to cover different types of unites? I hope that you may consider.
My unit just go rebranded from 12th Marine Regiment to the 12th Marine Littoral Regiment (MLR) about a month or so ago, and honestly it's been weird. I feel like the concept behind the transition though is for a valid reason
So they recently changed their standard Squad to 15x Marines, but now there's this new 14x Marine Squad? Is this going to be the new Squad altogether, or just for these MLR units, while other IN Bn stay at the 15x Marine Squad with the 3x Fire Teams? In any case, this 14 Marine, 2 Team organization... beyond the SL, ALS, and TLs, who's who on the rest? Like the previous Squads had 3x M249 (ok so they all have M27 IAR now) and 3x M203/M320... Does this new Squad only get two 40mm? One Team have 2 and the other 1, for a total of 3? Plus up for 2 ea, 4 Grenade Launchers? I figure one Team will have the MAAWS, the other the DMR?
Can we skip the part about how crappy they are and just go with it. IF the LCS worked as planned what size LCT would fit on a Freedom and Independence class LCS? Also would a ACV fit in sea mission zone of a Freedom class LCS? Would the Independence boat crane be able to lift the ACV?
I would bet both testicals saying asst squad leaders wont get JTAC qual'd. We have trouble getting captains and staff sergeants through that course, and at 1 million bucks per JTAC, ain't no way there's budgeting for that, unless they figure out how to take down the prices by using similuations more, but that generally equates to a hit in quality as well, so hard to say that that's a good idea either.
The benefit of 3 man team is more dispersal of manpower and as such a large footprint however any losses to the teams even small loses could disintegrate the teams so you need to assure more manpower is available, if man power is a problem such as remote islands with extended time for more man power then I can see why 2 teams would be ideal to absorb losses and keep going. So you have a footprint of 3 teams vs durability/sustainability of 2 teams.
That would be the case when dealing in normal battle situations. The new format is to enable teams to operate in the pacific and first island chain. Their role will be to forward information so that targets can be acquired.
If history of 1941/42 is any guide the forces forward deployed should consider themseles expendable. Wake Island comes to mind. On the Japanese side forces did survive isolated for very long periods of time, even longer that the war itself, but they were inefective. Modern communications and logistics may mitigate that but maybe not. But I have heard several articles about development of new equipment and tactics to make foward deployment for long periods of time possible. (power generation, communication, surevillance and supply) Even some advocating seaplanes for supply and transport.
The main difference now is that US can gain naval and air supremacy in a support mission. The small number of marines will actually be capable of supply forward information for targeting which was not the case at the start of WW2.
Thanks for the time and effort in trying to explain this last, and final evolution of the USMC. Starting with WWII and through Vietnam+, the US Marines earned and were highly regarded as one of the best light infantry assault units on the planet. This new, highly controversial self-tasking, mission orientation and restructuring ensures the extinction that Marines have feared since the end of the Korean War. It took just two clueless commandants in a row to ensure mediocrity and eventual casing of the colors. Marine Air was over 70% of the marine corps budget 50 years ago and will continue to remain that way. What a shame, especially considering the type/profile of young men who enlisted in the marines to be elite assault troops. No other branch or units can attract the type of people the marines did for high tempo, high intensity and very high casualty ground combat. Another, amongst many, disaster for the American military.
See, that's how you get to be the best. Take the best bits from everyone else and infuse it with skill. Great vid man. Its nice to keep up with things. Them IARs as well. What a great piece of kit. I saw one on Forgotten Weapons. They look slick as...
This MIGHT end Terminal Lance's. With more SSgt's and Sgts and Cpls, there will be more slots for 'careerists' and more guys can stay in. The Marines lose a lot of Good Troops because they just can't promote.
The SgtMaj of the MC has been talking a lot about trying to retain more Marines into their second contract versus the norm of focusing on turnover recruitment
@@TheCoolCucumber lol. US military actively pushes E-4s who don't promote out of the military. The CAF doesn't, you can stay a corporal from your 20s to your 50s. You can even submit paperwork to stop being assesses for potentials and refuse promotions. The issue with retention in the CAF is the Corporals/LS (and NCOs too) VR because they don't want to work for the military anymore. There is nothing to learn about this because the CAF is already doing that. The situation is not the same at all
