Interesting looking beast.
Didn't James Bond come up against something like this in Dr No.
Regards S
World Wide Marine Corps & Amphibious Ops Discussion
- Thread starter aussienscale
- Start date
Interesting looking beast.
Didn't James Bond come up against something like this in Dr No.
Regards S
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Do you mean the Crab Key Dragon? Alas, the Dragon wheeled, and likely not waterborn. But it does bare a striking resemblance
Just re read most of this thread. A lot of different topics covered!
One I liked was Navel Infantry.
I have not had a huge experience with Marine type forces, but did an Ex in Hawaii in the 80,s.
5 of our blokes (3RAR) did the then US Ranger induction course. We got the 1st 4 places and #6 with a Gurkha getting position #5. US Army came in after that along with some other US allies.
The US Marines, on the other hand, were a different beast. I found them much like ourselves. Very well disciplined soldiers. Maybe a little less flexible, but whole lot better than the US Army soldiers of that time. No disrespect intended to US Army. They made do with what they had, much older kit than the Army, and relied on fitness,mental toughness, sound tactics and good leadership.
One I liked was Navel Infantry.
I have not had a huge experience with Marine type forces, but did an Ex in Hawaii in the 80,s.
5 of our blokes (3RAR) did the then US Ranger induction course. We got the 1st 4 places and #6 with a Gurkha getting position #5. US Army came in after that along with some other US allies.
The US Marines, on the other hand, were a different beast. I found them much like ourselves. Very well disciplined soldiers. Maybe a little less flexible, but whole lot better than the US Army soldiers of that time. No disrespect intended to US Army. They made do with what they had, much older kit than the Army, and relied on fitness,mental toughness, sound tactics and good leadership.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I believe the US army is much better today than in the 1980s. Lots of time to adjust to a volunteer force, much better kit, and after almost a generation long continuous combat mission, the skill set is likely second to none.
I've always admired the USMC for their professionalism and regard them as being the most professional of all the US forces.
I think the issue that Old F is referring to is more about how US Army tends to specialize people for very specific skill sets. Marines tend to be a bit more adaptable and multi-skilled, that whole every marine is theory, a rifleman. The US Army is so massive they can easily afford to have specialist people for very narrow roles. The US Army, infantry and some other areas of the US Army, are worlds apart, like they exist in different dimensions.
The Australian Army, like many smaller Armys tend to have broader skillsets and people cross trained and a more flexible approach.
It can be difficult for a small nation's military force to operate directly with an entity like the US Army in some cases, particularly broad missions. Again operational differences are just so great. With the US Marines, I think they tend to be more aligned as a smaller entity. The US Marines is what ~10 times the size of the Australian Army, while the US Army is more like 50 times? In things like Tanks, its even worse, Australia has effectively a rounding error number of tanks compared to the hundreds of thousands of US tanks. A Division is bigger than our whole Army.
If I recall correctly one of my sergeant's in chocks went to Hawaii when he was in 3RAR Pioneer Platoon in the 80s. He described how the US Army Light Infantry did clearance patrols by firing bursts into the surrounding undergrowth and how the USMC always seemed to use two sections / squads in fire support and assault with one. May be down to having more bullets to spare than us.
Part 1 of 3: Force Design 2030
2. In the dated 2019 US Marine Aviation Plan, the last iteration of this annual report that the service has publicly released, said that the goal at that time was to have a total of 145 Vipers and 116 Venoms in both active-duty and reserve component units by the end of Fiscal Year 2022. The good news is Israel has approved the purchase of the CH-53K in Feb 2021. The Ch-53K will reach IOC in FY2024. All in all, the CH-53K promises to overhaul the capabilities of the US Marine Heavy Helicopter community, but the modernization has been a long time in the works, and the costs involved are eye-watering.
3. GIVEN the Mar 2021 update, it seems the US Marines will now operate 118 Vipers and 90 Venoms or less in Force Design 2030. They are also giving up their MBTs but they are gaining the ability to deploy A2AD forces within the 1st island chain; where the US Marine Corps is still focused on four main areas: logistics and sustainment; long-range precision fires; alternate positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT); and command, control, communications, computers, cyber, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting (C5ISRT).
1. “As a result of Force Design 2030 squadron divestments, and pending final disposition, the US Marine Corps expects to induct 53 H-1s (27 AH-1Zs and 26 UH-1Ys) into long-term preservation and storage," US Marine Corps Captain Andrew Wood, a service spokesperson said in Mar 2021.
2. In the dated 2019 US Marine Aviation Plan, the last iteration of this annual report that the service has publicly released, said that the goal at that time was to have a total of 145 Vipers and 116 Venoms in both active-duty and reserve component units by the end of Fiscal Year 2022. The good news is Israel has approved the purchase of the CH-53K in Feb 2021. The Ch-53K will reach IOC in FY2024. All in all, the CH-53K promises to overhaul the capabilities of the US Marine Heavy Helicopter community, but the modernization has been a long time in the works, and the costs involved are eye-watering.
3. GIVEN the Mar 2021 update, it seems the US Marines will now operate 118 Vipers and 90 Venoms or less in Force Design 2030. They are also giving up their MBTs but they are gaining the ability to deploy A2AD forces within the 1st island chain; where the US Marine Corps is still focused on four main areas: logistics and sustainment; long-range precision fires; alternate positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT); and command, control, communications, computers, cyber, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting (C5ISRT).
Last edited:
Part 2 of 3: Force Design 2030
4. US Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger’s decided to implement the CONOPS on Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations. This operational concept employs expeditionary systems — emphasizing anti-ship cruise missile launchers — from austere, distributed land bases within adversary weapons engagement zones to contribute sea denial operations.
5. In addition for the U.S. Marines’ Ground Combat Element, as part of Force Design 2030, they have:
7. Brig. Gen. Benjamin Watson, the commanding general of the US Marine Corps Warfighting Lab and the vice chief of naval research, said that the US Marine Corps will be budget-constrained as the service tries to reshape itself with a flat top line, so leveraging existing systems in the joint force or collaborating with partners for developing new capabilities will be important.
4. US Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger’s decided to implement the CONOPS on Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations. This operational concept employs expeditionary systems — emphasizing anti-ship cruise missile launchers — from austere, distributed land bases within adversary weapons engagement zones to contribute sea denial operations.
5. In addition for the U.S. Marines’ Ground Combat Element, as part of Force Design 2030, they have:
- Continued planning for the establishment of three standing Marine Littoral Regiments (MLRs) in III MEF, consisting of an O-6 headquarters, a Littoral Combat Team (LCT), a tailored Combat Logistics Battalion, and a Littoral Anti-Air Battalion.
- Prepared for Infantry Battalion Experiment 2030, which will experiment with one battalion each from 1st, 2nd, and 3d Marine Divisions over the next two years.
- Validated the requirement for Organic Precision Fires – Infantry (OPF-I) to include loitering munitions within our reorganized infantry battalions and LCTs.
- Initiated an enhanced infantry training program to produce more proficient, resilient, and lethal Marine infantry.
- Prepared to divest of 3 AC and 2 RC infantry battalions.
- Completed the divestment of 2 AC and 1 RC tank battalions.
- Continued the planned transition of 14 towed cannon batteries into self-propelled rocket artillery and anti-ship missile batteries.
• Initiated the divestment of two Assault Amphibian (AA) companies. - Initiated fielding of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV).
- Identified the likely utility of multi-domain Mobile Reconnaissance units possessing OPF-I, light-weight vehicles, unmanned air and surface systems, boats, and other capabilities necessary to succeed in a contested information environment.
7. Brig. Gen. Benjamin Watson, the commanding general of the US Marine Corps Warfighting Lab and the vice chief of naval research, said that the US Marine Corps will be budget-constrained as the service tries to reshape itself with a flat top line, so leveraging existing systems in the joint force or collaborating with partners for developing new capabilities will be important.
Last edited: