I find it interesting and forward thinking that water purification elements may be added. I am not sure if there is consideration of preventative medicine experts being attached as well, which would analyze and keep the force healthy in forward deployed and remote areas.
Taking lessons from their history might be prudent. Units in the pacific theater during WW2 had to worry about losses due to sickness as much as they did the enemy at times. Indeed, sustaining formations of troops in many places on earth is just as much fighting the environment as anything else.
That means our combat support and combat service support personnel are going to need more provisional rifleman training at all points of their career if they're going to survive modern combat.
Interesting, last time the Marines were talking about reorganization, it was the Squad, and they talked about their classic 13-Marine Squad potentially going to 12... and then seemingly settled on 15 Marines (3x Fire Teams of 4 plus SL, Assistant SL and drone operator)... but this graphic at the Team and Squad (where it's otherwise showing CPL->SGT, SGT->SSG) shows 6x Marine Fire Team and 14x Marine Squad (so... two FT, plus SL and Asst SL?)
I was in both the Army (7 years, E-7) and USMC (13 years, E-6). The quality of a USMC SSgt is much higher than the E-7s in the Army. SSgt as a squad leader is stupid. As a section leader (bigger than a squad) would make more sense, but should not be necessarily required. Regardless we are asking less Marines to do and carry more. Unfortunately, We still can’t fight a 2 front war, and Everything looks good on paper until rounds start going down range.
Would be cool if we had tanks and (enough) canon arty to complement these infantry battalions. Then again, the inf bns main job now under this forward thinking and genius operational approach is simply to provide local security for anti-ship and AA batteries so in that case it doesnt matter.
We should upgrade the M27 IAR with the HK416a5's modern features while we wait on the expensiveNGSW. Also, why aren't we looking into polymer cased telescoped ammunition? It's not about the caliber, the better benefit is the weight savings, lower temperature, reduced muzzle flash, etc. Even if we never figure out which 6.___mm caliber is the best, at least we took 40% of the weight off a standard load of 5.56. We've already figured out what rifle we want, we're waiting on the new caliber, now in the meantime, lets save some weight. Polymer ammo and polymer body armor would increase the lethality of our infantrymen due to massive amout of fatigue reduced from heavier ammo/ armor Secondly, we should replace our 155mm howitzers with a 105mm howitzer. Yes, it would have less range and less firepower, but it would be smaller, lighter, cheaper, require less crew, more airmobile, airdroppable, is quick to emplace & displace, reduces collateral damage, and can even be self-propelled (Hawkeye Howitzer). All the problems with the M777 are either reduced or eliminated, and the trade off is losing firepower and range. I'm sure a USMC version of the Army's Extended Range Artillery (ERA) program would not only work, but still be cheap and easy to carry via aircraft. HIMARS is accurate but large until we figure out how to mount it on a JLTV instead, and missiles are larger and harder to reload and transport than shells would be. That means only 6 rockets can't saturate a hardened target like 105mm or 155mm. Shells are cheaper, and the benefits of 105mm are greater despite it's risks than the 155 would be.
As someone who used both 105s and 155s in combat as an FO, I will say this, 105 pisses people off, 155 kills them. I’ll take the 155 over 105s any day. Also, the 777 doesn’t have hardly any problems. What you see today are guns that are worn out from firing 100,000s of thousands, if not tens of thousands of rounds per year for 2 decades during GWOT. These guns either need to be replaced or refurbished extensively.
@@Fng_1975 I hear you but m777s are too slow to displace in a modern environment with counter-battery fire and being spotted emplacing due to a large signature and prime mover. That's not even considering room occupied on ship, or airmobility either. I understand 105mm is weaker than 155mm, but the direction the Corps is going is transitioning away from traditional infantry tasks to a more mobile, low signature force. In that case, the 105mm Hawkeye is both better than having 100% rocket artillery or some 155 tubed and majority rocket artillery. We don't have room for big, huge, slow, heavy, hot things, at least, not in the face of the PLA or Russians. I really think the Hawkeye would be a suitable replacement for the 155's as the USMC winds down it's tubed artillery anyway.
What is the Scout Screener like? Have we solidified a Designafed Marksman's Course for the fleet regardless of whatever is happening with Snipers or the Scout/ Sniper Basic Course? What about attaching sections of LAAD to the infantry to provide an organic anti-air capability to the infantry battalion? I'd like to see Assaultmen and Snipers brought back along with all the other changes as i think it was a mistake to remove them, but I'll start small for now.
The screener evaluates Marine’s abilities to execute basic skills, learn and retain information, and improve scores over repetitious evaluations to identify Marines who will be successful in a scout platoon. If you attach a LAAD section to a unit the relationship is "attached" it is not organic. LAAD sections are routinely attached to units. Reach out to TECOM COMMSTRAT for questions regarding course information.
I am concerned why the military isn't focusing on civilian integrated cyberwarfare, as the first primary source of an offensive coordinated attack would be targeted against women and children as they are seen as the most vulnerable non-military targets of any cyber-offensive attack. Therefore, it would be inherently beneficial to establish or at least research a natural defensive posture against the ongoing capabilities of a Military-sponsored cyberattack on civilian targets and infrastructure. and learning how the systems and technologies you use can seamlessly integrate into the battlefield.
We couldn't even get a fully staffed platoon, and had 1 medic for squad, and some teams ran by Lance Corporals. You expect me to believe they have the time, money, and recruiting numbers to have Sergeants be nothing more than team leaders, the job of E-3's during war time?!
While you're doing all this spiffy shit, how about replacing the tripod for the 240. It was same one used for the M60 and the M1919 before that. Some of those tripods were used in WW2 and Korea.
Older doesn’t mean bad, I get what you mean by tripods being 50+ years old, but the design itself works. I definitely would say remanufacture the same style tripod. Do you think the M2 should be replaced just because it’s from WW-1 ?
I mean why have tube arty battalions sitting around training. When you could take Himars put them on flight decks and kill Russia from hundreds miles away not have to relocate via land. Reload stress.
Could we have done this with out deactivating so many infantry and arty bn's? You gutted the corps and made it more advanced at the coast of making it weaker.
the more people you have the more difficult it is to make organic changes especially when they involve such heavy amounts of technology. once you have it figured out its easier to scale up the size, dont worry the marines will never stop being the tip of the spear.
@@joemama.556 they just need to do the one thing they refuse to do. Get in front of congress and demand the funding. We can have the numbers and the tech if we have the funding. This role Berger envisioned for the Corps as being a bunch of POGs setting up anti ship missiles on island and not in the fight is BS. Marines are Americas shock troops, it’s 911 force, all the other shit that goes with being a force that is the most ready when the nation is the least ready.
The short answer is no. During his time as Commandant, General Berger acknowledged the risk in reducing the size of the Corps to improve, development, test and field new technologies and or equipment. This is due to budgetary constraints. While the Marine Corps may be smaller in regard to manpower it is more lethal and capable than what is was from even a few years ago.
@marines_cdi still, a mobile firepower vehicle could help the infantry when drones and aircraft are degraded or cannot be used. The ACV (which should be faster in water) carries troops, the ARV conduxts mobile ground reconnaissance, but what do we have for firepower? The JLTV is too heavy for the already inadequate armor it has, and hunter killer style CAATs have no armor whatsoever. The Super ACV has a cannon, but no armor and undoubtedly would not risk an infantry squad by engaging enemy armored/mechanized threats unless absolutely necessary. We have no assaultmen to use the superb gustav as a supplement to the 0352's expensive and heavy javelins, there is no guarantee the Army will have tanks for us and in a timely manner, and the APKWS Rocket is not even finished to mount on the ACV, ARV, or ULTV. Isn't there anyway you guys could into some kind of wheeled tank destroyer with amphibious, airmobile, and airdroppable capabilities? We really think upgunned but slow and underarmored ACV's are the solution to combat modern tanks? What about a lightweight, man portable version of the .50 Cal with dual feed capability to supplement the polymer ammo and Mk47 that is eventually coming?
Not really digging making Squad Leaders SSGTS and Team Leaders Sgts. No more Company Gunnery Sgts? Most grunts and leave after four years to go to school or go into LE or security that don't require college. Some stay in the reserves,but at least they ran a fire team or weapons team. If they stay in they want to go Recon or MARSOC or change their MOS. Some want to chill for a few years on Embassy Duty or Security Forces/FAST. So they are going to treat Cpls like some super Non Rate. E-4's in the other branches have absolutely no authority . BTW...less Marines = heavier packs, but Semper Fi anyway suckers.
I find it interesting and forward thinking that water purification elements may be added. I am not sure if there is consideration of preventative medicine experts being attached as well, which would analyze and keep the force healthy in forward deployed and remote areas.
Taking lessons from their history might be prudent. Units in the pacific theater during WW2 had to worry about losses due to sickness as much as they did the enemy at times. Indeed, sustaining formations of troops in many places on earth is just as much fighting the environment as anything else.
That means our combat support and combat service support personnel are going to need more provisional rifleman training at all points of their career if they're going to survive modern combat.
Interesting, last time the Marines were talking about reorganization, it was the Squad, and they talked about their classic 13-Marine Squad potentially going to 12... and then seemingly settled on 15 Marines (3x Fire Teams of 4 plus SL, Assistant SL and drone operator)... but this graphic at the Team and Squad (where it's otherwise showing CPL->SGT, SGT->SSG) shows 6x Marine Fire Team and 14x Marine Squad (so... two FT, plus SL and Asst SL?)
I also find it interesting that the Army had SSGTs as squad leaders and E-7S as platoon Sgts for a while and the MC is just introducing this concept.
@enderbjrhas any marine in the last 20 years felt the bliss of a full T/O unit? Fuck no. Not without attachments Atleast.
I was in both the Army (7 years, E-7) and USMC (13 years, E-6). The quality of a USMC SSgt is much higher than the E-7s in the Army. SSgt as a squad leader is stupid. As a section leader (bigger than a squad) would make more sense, but should not be necessarily required. Regardless we are asking less Marines to do and carry more. Unfortunately, We still can’t fight a 2 front war, and Everything looks good on paper until rounds start going down range.
Don't worry when we go to the army we find it really weird that you guys have like an entire E4 mafia thing
Would be cool if we had tanks and (enough) canon arty to complement these infantry battalions. Then again, the inf bns main job now under this forward thinking and genius operational approach is simply to provide local security for anti-ship and AA batteries so in that case it doesnt matter.
How do these changes affect the Corpsmen?
General gets a star. Now he's too good to weather an undershirt on youtube lmao.
A white t-shirt is not required per MCO p1020.34H, p. 1-31 - 1-32.
@@marines_combat_development wouldn't have ever guessed that by the way our Staff Sergeants treated us
We should upgrade the M27 IAR with the HK416a5's modern features while we wait on the expensiveNGSW. Also, why aren't we looking into polymer cased telescoped ammunition? It's not about the caliber, the better benefit is the weight savings, lower temperature, reduced muzzle flash, etc. Even if we never figure out which 6.___mm caliber is the best, at least we took 40% of the weight off a standard load of 5.56. We've already figured out what rifle we want, we're waiting on the new caliber, now in the meantime, lets save some weight. Polymer ammo and polymer body armor would increase the lethality of our infantrymen due to massive amout of fatigue reduced from heavier ammo/ armor
Secondly, we should replace our 155mm howitzers with a 105mm howitzer. Yes, it would have less range and less firepower, but it would be smaller, lighter, cheaper, require less crew, more airmobile, airdroppable, is quick to emplace & displace, reduces collateral damage, and can even be self-propelled (Hawkeye Howitzer). All the problems with the M777 are either reduced or eliminated, and the trade off is losing firepower and range. I'm sure a USMC version of the Army's Extended Range Artillery (ERA) program would not only work, but still be cheap and easy to carry via aircraft. HIMARS is accurate but large until we figure out how to mount it on a JLTV instead, and missiles are larger and harder to reload and transport than shells would be. That means only 6 rockets can't saturate a hardened target like 105mm or 155mm. Shells are cheaper, and the benefits of 105mm are greater despite it's risks than the 155 would be.
As someone who used both 105s and 155s in combat as an FO, I will say this, 105 pisses people off, 155 kills them. I’ll take the 155 over 105s any day. Also, the 777 doesn’t have hardly any problems. What you see today are guns that are worn out from firing 100,000s of thousands, if not tens of thousands of rounds per year for 2 decades during GWOT. These guns either need to be replaced or refurbished extensively.
The marines started developing polyimer cased ammo from heaviest to lightest. Last I heard was that the warthogs had policased ammo.
@@Fng_1975 I hear you but m777s are too slow to displace in a modern environment with counter-battery fire and being spotted emplacing due to a large signature and prime mover. That's not even considering room occupied on ship, or airmobility either. I understand 105mm is weaker than 155mm, but the direction the Corps is going is transitioning away from traditional infantry tasks to a more mobile, low signature force. In that case, the 105mm Hawkeye is both better than having 100% rocket artillery or some 155 tubed and majority rocket artillery. We don't have room for big, huge, slow, heavy, hot things, at least, not in the face of the PLA or Russians. I really think the Hawkeye would be a suitable replacement for the 155's as the USMC winds down it's tubed artillery anyway.
@@cm-pr2ys You can just do both. You don't have to only have one or the other.
What is the Scout Screener like?
Have we solidified a Designafed Marksman's Course for the fleet regardless of whatever is happening with Snipers or the Scout/ Sniper Basic Course?
What about attaching sections of LAAD to the infantry to provide an organic anti-air capability to the infantry battalion?
I'd like to see Assaultmen and Snipers brought back along with all the other changes as i think it was a mistake to remove them, but I'll start small for now.
The screener evaluates Marine’s abilities to execute basic skills, learn and retain information, and improve scores over repetitious evaluations to identify Marines who will be successful in a scout platoon. If you attach a LAAD section to a unit the relationship is "attached" it is not organic. LAAD sections are routinely attached to units.
Reach out to TECOM COMMSTRAT for questions regarding course information.
I am concerned why the military isn't focusing on civilian integrated cyberwarfare, as the first primary source of an offensive coordinated attack would be targeted against women and children as they are seen as the most vulnerable non-military targets of any cyber-offensive attack. Therefore, it would be inherently beneficial to establish or at least research a natural defensive posture against the ongoing capabilities of a Military-sponsored cyberattack on civilian targets and infrastructure. and learning how the systems and technologies you use can seamlessly integrate into the battlefield.
To think they aren't actively engaged in cybersubversive from domestic threats is naive.
No offense.
Know ya worth Kings. NEVER EVER COMMIT TO A SINGLE MOM
We couldn't even get a fully staffed platoon, and had 1 medic for squad, and some teams ran by Lance Corporals.
You expect me to believe they have the time, money, and recruiting numbers to have Sergeants be nothing more than team leaders, the job of E-3's during war time?!
Why are Marine junior enlisted using M4’s?🤦♂️
What's wrong with that? Many many Marines are issued the M-4.
They had to make room for all the trans and happy happy men!
While you're doing all this spiffy shit, how about replacing the tripod for the 240. It was same one used for the M60 and the M1919 before that. Some of those tripods were used in WW2 and Korea.
Older doesn’t mean bad, I get what you mean by tripods being 50+ years old, but the design itself works. I definitely would say remanufacture the same style tripod. Do you think the M2 should be replaced just because it’s from WW-1 ?
🇺🇸❤️
I mean why have tube arty battalions sitting around training. When you could take Himars put them on flight decks and kill Russia from hundreds miles away not have to relocate via land. Reload stress.
Could we have done this with out deactivating so many infantry and arty bn's? You gutted the corps and made it more advanced at the coast of making it weaker.
the more people you have the more difficult it is to make organic changes especially when they involve such heavy amounts of technology. once you have it figured out its easier to scale up the size, dont worry the marines will never stop being the tip of the spear.
@@joemama.556*Marines - "M", not "m".
@@joemama.556 they just need to do the one thing they refuse to do. Get in front of congress and demand the funding. We can have the numbers and the tech if we have the funding. This role Berger envisioned for the Corps as being a bunch of POGs setting up anti ship missiles on island and not in the fight is BS. Marines are Americas shock troops, it’s 911 force, all the other shit that goes with being a force that is the most ready when the nation is the least ready.
The short answer is no. During his time as Commandant, General Berger acknowledged the risk in reducing the size of the Corps to improve, development, test and field new technologies and or equipment. This is due to budgetary constraints.
While the Marine Corps may be smaller in regard to manpower it is more lethal and capable than what is was from even a few years ago.
@marines_cdi still, a mobile firepower vehicle could help the infantry when drones and aircraft are degraded or cannot be used. The ACV (which should be faster in water) carries troops, the ARV conduxts mobile ground reconnaissance, but what do we have for firepower? The JLTV is too heavy for the already inadequate armor it has, and hunter killer style CAATs have no armor whatsoever. The Super ACV has a cannon, but no armor and undoubtedly would not risk an infantry squad by engaging enemy armored/mechanized threats unless absolutely necessary. We have no assaultmen to use the superb gustav as a supplement to the 0352's expensive and heavy javelins, there is no guarantee the Army will have tanks for us and in a timely manner, and the APKWS Rocket is not even finished to mount on the ACV, ARV, or ULTV. Isn't there anyway you guys could into some kind of wheeled tank destroyer with amphibious, airmobile, and airdroppable capabilities? We really think upgunned but slow and underarmored ACV's are the solution to combat modern tanks? What about a lightweight, man portable version of the .50 Cal with dual feed capability to supplement the polymer ammo and Mk47 that is eventually coming?
Not really digging making Squad Leaders SSGTS and Team Leaders Sgts. No more Company Gunnery Sgts? Most grunts and leave after four years to go to school or go into LE or security that don't require college. Some stay in the reserves,but at least they ran a fire team or weapons team. If they stay in they want to go Recon or MARSOC or change their MOS. Some want to chill for a few years on Embassy Duty or Security Forces/FAST. So they are going to treat Cpls like some super Non Rate. E-4's in the other branches have absolutely no authority .
BTW...less Marines = heavier packs, but Semper Fi anyway suckers.