Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: NECC is NOT going to replace the Marines
leerw    11/16/2005 11:44:46 AM
There is a lot of misconception about what the NECC is going to do. First off the article posted today was mostly hogwash!! because a) there is no way that less than 1000 sailors are going to replace more than 2500 SOC trained Marines in combat (that is about how many Marines are being sent to SOCOM); b) the sailors are really an expansion of existing support roles, expecially the Seabees; c) with the exception of that the riverine units have been needed for some time. There are Marines and Army troops driving boats on Iraqi rivers, thats a sailors job! and d) they won't stand up unti 2007. e) current Combat Craft Crewmen are fighting and supporting SEALs and spec ops but are limited in numbers. The new riverine untis will get there way too late to be of help in this war, maybe the next? P.S. I was in the Brownwater Navy driving PBRs and know what the Navy is planning, the "river rats" will be way too late!
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Carl S    RE:NECC is NOT going to replace the Marines   11/16/2005 5:35:35 PM
Up through the 19th Century saliors comprised the bulk of the armed strength of landing and boarding party & no one thought they werre 'replacing' Marines. Neither are shore patrols, Master at Arms, Gunners Mates, ect... ever seen as Marine replacements. I suspose the NECC mission could be covered by expanding the old Marine Security Regiment, or other Marine units. But there is an enourmous pressure to get more small arms toters on the ground, soconverting sailors billets makes as much sense as anything.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:NECC is NOT going to replace the Marines   11/16/2005 5:47:26 PM
I don't really see why America still has the marine corps, it doesnt seem to have a niche of its own, but rather treads on the toes of the other services now it has grown such.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle    RE:NECC is NOT going to replace the Marines   11/16/2005 5:58:51 PM
>>RE:NECC is NOT going to replace the Marines 11/16/2005 5:47:27 PM I don't really see why America still has the marine corps, it doesnt seem to have a niche of its own, but rather treads on the toes of the other services now it has grown such.<< Yimmy, you've just opened a can of worms.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Yimmy. Why Marines?   11/17/2005 6:44:07 AM
Yawn. Not interested. Semper Fi
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Yimmy. Why Marines?   11/17/2005 9:54:46 AM
"Yimmy, you've just opened a can of worms." Yeah, that did occur to me. But from an outsider looking in, the Marine air units could be controlled by the USN, and much of their ground units by the army. I think marines along the lines of the Netherlands and the UK's fill the niche much more effectively.
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas    RE:Yimmy. Why Marines?   11/17/2005 2:47:35 PM
The same world War that turned the Royal Marines into commandoes turned the USMC into a corps-sized combined arms force. The USMC keeps its air and expeditionary roles because of the incongruity that you mentioned in your post. It actively seeks roles that other services turn down. It is cheaper than other services and yet it also brings the esprit de corps of an elite force to every task it accepts. No, it’s not logical, but neither is history.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle    RE:The future   11/17/2005 3:14:42 PM
>>The same world War that turned the Royal Marines into commandoes turned the USMC into a corps-sized combined arms force. The USMC keeps its air and expeditionary roles because of the incongruity that you mentioned in your post. It actively seeks roles that other services turn down. It is cheaper than other services and yet it also brings the esprit de corps of an elite force to every task it accepts. No, it’s not logical, but neither is history.<< Even if that is true, isn't riding an amphiboius tractor across a coral reef the least probable thing that the Marine Corps will have to do anytime soon?
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas    RE:The future   11/17/2005 9:12:29 PM
>>Even if that is true, isn't riding an amphiboius tractor across a coral reef the least probable thing that the Marine Corps will have to do anytime soon?<< What? NO more of our famous beach parties?
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn    RE:The future   11/17/2005 11:02:00 PM
"Even if that is true, isn't riding an amphiboius tractor across a coral reef the least probable thing that the Marine Corps will have to do anytime soon?" Why would you think that? I know, an armed beach assault hasn't happened since WWII, why do we need this capability anymore right? Well, we haven't fired a torpedo since WWII either, does that mean we don't need to maintain torpedos? Whether it is GWOT operations in the south pacifc, or a major conflict with Iran where the ASM threat is high along the coast of Iran, amphibious tractors are more likely to make an armed assault today than they would of been in the cold war. Example, In an Iran conflict they would be deployed against Iranian islands around the Strait of Hormuz from long range to prepare the islands for air assault. I have a hard time beliving the US would have ever risked Marine ships in high threat zones during a WWIII NATO vs WARSAW scenario. Most likely the ships would have been used to deliver troops to Europe and be glorified high speed cargo ships unless an assault on Iceland was needed. Yes I am aware of Norway scenarios, but the ships would likely never make it to Norway, the Russians simply had too many subs and would likely have defeated that plan.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle    RE:The future   11/17/2005 11:58:43 PM
>>Why would you think that?<< Well for one thing, in spite of the Marine Corps intrest in the AAV they seem to placing even more emphasis on the Osprey. Does that mean HQ USMC anticipates needing to become even more of a ship based air assault force and less of an over the beach force? >>I know, an armed beach assault hasn't happened since WWII, why do we need this capability anymore right? Well, we haven't fired a torpedo since WWII either, does that mean we don't need to maintain torpedos?<< No, not at all. But it MIGHT mean that we don't need to maintain quite so many torpedos. If you say that amphibous tractors would have a vital role in an Iranian conflict I won't dispute that. But here's the next question. Can the Marine Corps get an Expeditionary Brigade afloat? Can it get more than one Expeditionary Brigade afloat? I'm asking seriously, I really don't know the answer. If the answer is no, then even though we need a Marine Corps (and I truly believe we do) why does it need to be three divisions strong in order to maintain the option of an amphibious assault? I believe we need the United States Marine Corps. I do not believe we need three divisions.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics