Thursday, February 18, 2021

What is the USMC's specialty now?

 Quick question.

What is the USMC's specialty now?

Berger has dumped amphibious assault.  The US Army is the now confirmed leader in combined arms.  The US Navy is the master of combat at sea.  The USAF (along with it's dept sibling) is the master of aerial warfare.

So while the USMC assists the Navy in the sea fight, its not the master of that fight.  It's an enabler.  An asset.  An assistant at best.  Oh and all that depends on location.  Another battle of the Atlantic or its mirror fight in the Pacific and there is no room for the littoral fight.

Berger has claimed that his new concept will be useful in the Persian Gulf but do you really see how these Littoral Regiments would be of use in that confined waterway?  In Northern Europe?  How?  Why?  We bring nothing to the land fight and I doubt we'll have targets for our missiles to go after at sea.  The Russians will be parachuting specops all over the place to disrupt rear areas while they're rushing to capture...whatever!  We're clearly not gearing up to fight in the Arctic (thank God the US Army, Navy and Air Force have that covered) so we'll sit that out too.

Additionally the US Army is building the same capabilities.  You can bet that we'll soon see the 25th ID tasked with the same mission set and in the name of jointness will be climbing aboard amphibious ships.

So how does this concept guarantee the USMC's viability to the nation?

Forcible entry is gone.  HA/DR is probably off the table.  What better time to strike than when you have part of the force rendering aid...and make no mistake...with these penny packets of Marines you'll need to mass forces to provide suitable assistance or it'll only be a token force, one built for the media and not to render aid.

The only forces that are truly viable under this new plan is Missile artillery and Marine Aviation.  Not even sure rotary winged aviation...I'm talking about fast movers.

What use is infantry in a sea fight?  We don't fight from riggings anymore!

And the big question is why are we even maintaining a seat on the JCS? Why aren't we seeing a savage cut in the number of generals?  How can such a large force structure be justified if its just missile slingers and aviation?

By rights, with the one region/one foe concept we're seeing the USMC SHOULD BE CUT to about 125K at MOST!

Two recruit depots?  Why?  Two major bases stateside?  Why? A couple of Logistics bases?  Pure folly!

If you take forcible entry off the table, if you take land combat off the table, if you eviscerate the MAGTF then the USMC should be a shadow of its former self both in tasking and in numbers.

Tell me why I'm wrong!

No comments :

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.