Why?  Well the pentagon asked the Army how long it would take them to get ready to move out and establish a base in Afghanistan.  They told them "weeks".  They asked the Marine Corps and they told them "48 hrs."  You figure it out.  The MEUs rotate to be able to be deployed in that limited amount of time.  It makes sense to me.  That is their cup o' tea.  That rhymes.

I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter that the MEUs were instantly deployable and long-term sustainable while the Army units weren't. Some Army types can't stand the thought of anyone else getting a piece of a mission that they jealously guard as their own, and call the very existence of the Marine Corps into question when threatened.

This thread has really opened my eyes.

If you'd like to take a look at the beam in your own "Army of one" eye before digging in with a fixed bayonet for the speck of dust in mine, maybe there are a few things the Army could do:

1. Segregate basic training for men and women.
2. Don't focus on silly French hats to make soldiers feel good about themselves, but build pride into the individual.
3. Raise standards so that everyone knows they [b]earned[/b] their place.
4. Keep the Rapid Deployment Force rapidly deployable.

Instead of going through all that major transformation, we could just disband the Army and roll the people and gear right into the Marine Corps. Sure, there'll be some attrition (!), but just think of how much more rapidly our armed forces will be able to respond when they don't have to spend so much time figuring out what hat they're supposed to be wearing on a given day.

"Marine Air a waste?"

There is no more effective Air-Ground combat team on the planet, than The Marines.

No one employs close air support better than The Marines.

The reason for this IS that it's ALL Marine.  Not to say that the Marine pilots are better (even though they are), but when the pilot, the Forward Air Controller and the Grunts are all in the same unit, have all TRAINED and deployed together, and KNOW EACH OTHER PERSONALLY, it works better.  Period.

Bringing the conversation back around...

It occurs to me that if the Marines had gone with the FAL instead of the M14, they'd probably still be using them today, M16 notwithstanding.  

$32K for an M14?  I don't care how breathed on it is, someone would be ripping someone else off...especially in quantity.

I've only read bits of this thread so pardon me if someone has already pointed this out but. What is the going price for a transferable U.S.G.I. select fire M-14? Somewhere around the $10,000 to $15,000 dollar mark, if you can find one? Add up the cost for the modification parts and the cost of a gunsmith not to mention the sale and tax stamp of the suppressor and it still might be less than $32K but probably not much.

We are just not naval infantry, but a combined arms force that comes from the sea.  The reason the Marines have air is as many have pointed out the Marine Corps fights as a MAGTF.  Where as the army "talks" combined arms, the Marine Corps is combined arms.  It is not unusual to push air down to the platoons in the Marine Corps, outside of the SF in the army, trying to do that would cause a screaming halt in all but the most desperate situations.  Another big plus is that all the Marine pilots know their mission is to support the Marine on the ground.  This is indoctrinated into every Marine pilot to be as he is a student at TBS.  They know they exist as a fire support platform for the men on the ground.  This also creates a special relationship between the FAC or in extremis terminal controllers.

The army's on the other hand must go to the Air Force to get its ETACs and ALOs.  The ETACs are pretty good at their job, but one of the two big flaw is that the ALOs that do the planning and coordination are normally the shit canned pilots or navigators, so they often aren't the brightest bulbs in the tree.  The second even larger flaw (that even leads to the poor quality of the average ALO) is the Air Force doesn't want the mission, it is not sexy and in a way too risky since ground fire is one of those things that  all the wiz bang gadgets they have cannot suppress.  

It never really made sense to me the way the Army operated in regard to air, they view their 64s as maneuver elements to fight the deep battle.  And will get CAS from Air Force fast movers, it would almost seem that it would be better to keep the RCAS in close, send a few birds deep to do JAAT.

Honestly, if calling an air strike, the only birds in the AF arsenal I would want to drop are A10s, the other fast movers see CAS as a secondary, non-preferred mission.  The Warthog drivers outlook on their mission is much closer to the Marine aviators than they do with the average Air Force pilot.

Pearls before swine, STLRN.

(I have edited ever so slightly in the post above to remove possibly inflammatory and possibly extraneous words.)

The above is both true and accurate.
I do not believe a good argument on the merits is probable.

I had been looking for a good long time.
Every where I looked I found only bulllschitt.
Finally, I looked just to my right and there it stood.
The truth.

[img]http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/10c848b16fd37e4c85256b4200445d6d/$FILE/020108-M-8643P-501.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/c0679b063de5fa9f85256b4200454664/$FILE/020108-M-8634P-502.jpg[/img]

What kind of scope mount is that?

I pretty sure they are a version of the AN/PVS-10

It's been my experience, that when someone designs a weapon system, they have a tendency to overlook its defects.  None other than LtCol Norman A Chandler, USMC(Ret), arguably the Guru of all things relating to Marine Corps sniping, has spoken out against the use of the M-14 for this role.

In an article in the October 2000 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette he states "We had hoped that the Corps had finally allowed the old war horse to die, but the known distance shooters keep dragging it back into the fray.  The M14 requires more gunsmithing to keep operable than any rifle the Corps ever had.  It cannot be modified into a hardy, tough, and accurate sniper rifle, observer's weapon, or designated markman's gun.  The U.S. Army tried for more than 20 years to modify the M14 into a decent sniper weapon system.  They failed.  The Corps has done no better.  In 1998, GySgt Jim Owens tested the Corps' latest attempt to harden the M14, and the rifle flatout failed.  For marksmanship, given enough loving care and at astonishing expense, the M14 can shoot well.  Take it to the field, and it all goes quickly to hell."

HTH

Seems to be a decent gathering of Marines here.

On Sunday night (8:00PM Eastern) the subject for "War Stories" with Oliver North is the "The Frozen Chosin."

(FOX News)

This former army artilleryman and soon-to-be NHARNG artilleryman agrees with you 100%, Jarhead! While I do believe that none of the services should be redundant in their missions, I also believe that accomplishing the mission is more important than [b]who[/b] accomplishes it. At the time, the army just couldn't accomplish a mission type that would have traditionally gone to the army. Whether this is due to "peacekeeping" duty wearing the army out, lack of funds or training for combat missions, or simply readiness or morale problems, the fact was the army wasn't ready to perform the mission. The Marines were, even though it's not the kind they're typically used for, and they've done an outstanding job. In the same way, the D-day invasion was an example of the army doing a mission typically reserved for the Marines, and they did a great job at it.

Good point, there were USMC in Somalia, but they were withdrawn prior to BHD........ Just like if Pearl Harbor had F-14's on Dec. 7th 1941 the Japanese couldn't have succesfully attacked.

Or if the Army had been allowed to deploy tanks and BFV's it wouldn't have happened like it did, or if the Air Force had A-10's deployed there............

Hindsight is always 20/20, militaries are often called to react to and operate in political climates that they can't control.

I'm also sure that the USMC force deployed to Somalia was deployed because it was easier to deploy and sustain than an US Army division with USAF support. Rangers and Delta were easier to deploy and sutain than the USMC, and probalby had better abiliity to fight non-conventional conflicts. Of course the Rangers and Delta have less firepower than the USMC force they replaced, and the USMC has less heavy firepower than a US Army division of equal size......

The is no difference in weapons bay size between the STOVL and CTOL versions of the F35. Each version was specified the same internal weapons load. The CTOL versions will have longer range on internal fuel because the lift fan is replaced with an additional fuel tank.

Regards,

Talyn

The reason the marine corps is 500 to 1000 miles inland is simple.. and the dod made it that way.
The army should have had the mission but were not equiped to do it. The army can go max heavy ... in a couple of weeks, or go light fast right now.
If you need a force that can go very soon and be fairly heavy only the marine corps can do it now. This has been brought on by many things , some pol., and some mil. but it is the basic fact.
The reason the corps has an air force of its own is also simple. The mission is different.
Kind of like when the army guys got squished when they called for close air support and got a 2000 lb warhead from a b-52. or you call the navy and you get told the only thing in the area is a p-3 orion.
The marines have a spefic need not like the other services so they spend some of their money on their own needs.

Somehow this whole thing has turned into an Army vs Marine Corps thing. Both services have their strengths and weaknesses, and both have had a large amount of untrue crap thrown about on their behalf.

The Army is generally not rapidly deployable, with the exception of some special units, and those units can't deploy rapidly and have any sustainable firepower.

The Army is not dependent on the Air Force for logistics. The Army is dependent on the Navy and the US Ready Reserve Fleet (through the Merchant Marine)for logistics. Were talking a different scale here.

The Marine Corps can deploy a BN-sized combined-arms Task Force to just about anywhere in the world close to coast. The main reason they are pushing for the V-22 Osprey is to expand their reach (and justify their existence).

That Marine TF is very short on firepower by Army standards (although better armed than an equivalent Army Light/Airborne/Ranger Unit). That Marine Task Force is appropriate for lower-end conflicts of the sort that we have been facing for the last decade. It is not, by itself, appropriate or survivable for a larger conflict.

The Army does do Combined-Arms, and does it exceedingly well. But, the Army does not place as much focus on fixed-wing air, because it is largely beyond its control. The Army also does not push air asset control down to the platoon level. While a Marine Rifle Platoon may do an excellent job of controlling airstrikes, it violates general Army doctrine and the principle of mass. Army combined arms focuses on Infantry/Armor/Artillery/Aviation (fixed-wing). Army units, in artillery throw weight (especially accuracy and with automated fire direction and control), have more firepower than anyone else, anywhere.

(continued)

While this Army capability is devestating, it takes a while (a long while) to get it where it needs to be. The Marines can, in many cases get there alot faster, although alot less better armed.

The Army would love to have fixed wing air assets. The helicopter has proved very useful and very deadly, and is even better for some fire support, but fixed wing air is still better. The Army had achance to get fixed wing air (A-10s)in 91, but declined, becuase they would have had to absorb maintenance and training costs from their current budgets, and would have had to surrender any furture claims on space activity, ceding it to the Air Force.

The Marine Corps does a much better job of instilling a warrior spirit in its individual troops and units. The Army generally does not get that, although it does exist in many individuals, and some units. The Army recognized this decades ago, and made a concious decision not to pursue it. The reasons were that the time and expense of reproducing that kind of warrior ethic could not be justified for the majority of the Army, when most of the folks in the Army perform support roles where such attitudes are not necessary to get trucks fixed and ammo hauled. The Army has since decided that their previous decision was a mistake, and the current internal campaign within the Army is intended to change that. Personally, I don't think they are doing a very good job, but give it some time.

This "Army of One" stuff is a bunch of crap. That being said, I still have the occasion to work with soldiers. These kids (God that makes me feel old) are just as capable and motivated as the ones when I was in, despite a decade's worth of Clinton Administration social tinkering. They'll do the job, the same as all of the other soldiers have for the last 226 years.

Oh, and one more thing. The Marines wouldn't have done any better (or worse) in Somalia at the mission the inspired "Blackhawk Down." The Marines would not have had their armor, or their fixed wing air, or their gunships, because all of those things were forbidden from that theater. The Army had the better part of a Light Infantry Brigade in Mogadishu the day that incident occurred, and they did not have the organic or task-organized assets (like tube artillery or close air support) that they would have had during almost any other combat operation because of "political" considerations.

The whole thing would have come down to rifles and MGs, regardless of whether it was Army troops or Marines involved, and frakly, speculating that the Marines would have done a better job is insulting to the 18 who didn't make it back.

You are dead wrong here!  The Marines deployed to Somalia with a platoon of M1A1 tanks and all their supporting helo's.  I don't think the early part of the mission would have gone any differently for the Marines, in fact perhaps worse.  Once the shtf though those M1A1's would have pulverized anything in their path to get to their fellow Marines.

I think you missed my point.  Natez stated that the Marines would have been forbidden armor and gunships, in this he is clearly wrong.  Marine M1A1's in particular were put to considerable use.

I have nothing but the highest admiration for Rangers (75th types), SF'ers, and Delta troopers.

Natez, I use to instruct both army and Marine Officer combined arms operations.  Trust me the army talks combines, and when they talk it is a BDE or TF level fight, not at the trigger pullers level. The current doctrine for both services for combined arms ops is a top down one, however anyone who has worked with Marines know our actions don't follow the doctrine.   The Marines do combine arms at a much lower level and with a lot more flair than their army brethren.  

Marines went, as always go as a MAGTF, the equipment is always there.  The Marine Corps did do some combined arms raids, prior to TF Ranger relieving them.  In fact if you read BHD, the attacks that occurred prior to TF Ranger arriving was done by the Marines.  But when the Corps did its attack they used all the assets of the MAGTF, the had AH-1s and M1s shooting TOWs and 120mm into areas of resistance.

If it had been Marines that needed the support, the MEU Commander would have sent in his gunships and, if they were ashore, his tanks.

Regardless of the political situation, there are some things more important to a Marine Corps Officer than his next promotion.  This would include the lives and respect of his fellow Marines.

The Marine Corps is the uhh OG when it comes to CAS.  They were the ones throwing (yeah, throwing) out bombs and using the planes to directly support troops on the ground.  It was developed during the times of the banana wars I'm pretty sure.

My .02
The Marines need to keep their own CAS because the AF does not have enough time to train CAS as a core competency for it's pilots.  The AF has to focus on air supiority because we would all get our ass kicked without it.  That may take days or weeks.  Part of the reason the Marines are so mobile is because they use CAS in place of heavy artillary.  Without heavy artillary or CAS they could not be dominant.  Current joint doctrine is going a long ways towards educating service leadership on the core abilities of each service.  By the way, in the AF we "borrowed" the AEF concept from the NAVY.. The carrier battle group thing.  I also don't think fixed wing could have provided very good CAS in Mog.  Go Marines, we love you guys when your not wrecking our Oclubs!

Would the MEU Commander have disobeyed the orders of his superior ??

What seems to be cast here is Army against Marine, Marine against Coast Guard, Coast Guard against Air Force..........Oh yea Navy against them all.

I guess as usual I reside in a time-warp but I believe this was "MILITARY" ( noun and collective) against unbelievable stupidity from the civilian chain-of-command.  Political appearance was what was important to these civilians.  Certainly not a few military personnel.

[smoke]

Certainly! This DMR M-14 concept escapes me. As a previous owner of a NM M-14,  and current happy owner of an Armalite AR10A4, I have to wonder.

What the Marine Corps would think if they got ahold of an Ar10?!! A 7.62mm rifle whose out-of-the-box accuracy is exceptional?

By now I should have clearly demonstrated I have little knowledge of (*)MEU's, FAC's, Combined Arms, etc.

I don't even have a clue as to how the real(?) Navy works - task forces, fleets, carrier groups, etc., are all pretty foreign to me.

Now I do have at least a clue as to how "indpendent" operations work.

So if you guys need a couple of Alpha's, a Mike or a Juliett killed let me know .  (Alpha's, etc., are NATO designators for Soviet, now Russian, submarines.)

There's a right rotten little sub currently produced and exported by the Russians - the "Kilo" -  Diesel-electic but very modern and deadly.

Any way you guys get bored one Saturday night grab a MEU, no more than three FAC's, maybe one Fleet - we'll go get us an old Los Angeles Fast-Attack Class Sub and I'll show you how to kill us an Alpha.

While we're out might as well 'do' a Kilo just to show potential purchasers that little dude can neither run, hide nor survive - for long.

(*) Was surprised, pleasantly surprised to find MEU's have about 18 months training.
------------------------------------------------
Stupid un-caring Civilians plus intra-service rivalry have killed too many of us.

And who among us is 'certain' they have not gotten ahold of some few said rifles ?

It is not a matter of disobeying orders, it is a matter of having the gear on hand when it is needed.  If the MEU (SOC) is sent somewhere it brings the assets with them.  Gen Garrison specifically asked for armor, that request was refused for political reasons. When they needed it they had to go the Pakistanis to get it, since they were dealing with a foreign nation and its troops, they had to get the gear on the Pakistanis' time.  So if the TF Ranger had armor attached to them, who knows what would have happen.

Short answer is yes. Some Marines actually prefer the M-14 over the M-16, I did. The 30cal bullets have a place in battle when extra heft is needed. Granted the 223s are lighter to carry but again I'm talking about exceptions, not the norm.

Maybe I've got it.  Remove Rangers - insert MEU.  Now is everything alright ?

No one could predict what ifs.  

TF Rangers was just a small force that had a lot of good light infantrymen.  They did a really good job with the resources on hand, but the job they could have done if they had the fire power and equipement that a MEU (SOC) brings to battle.

No question but that you're correct here.
I guess I have to add - "and had been allowed to use the equipment."

Is it just me or is anyone else tired of the TFR analogies.