Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: davidpt40 on April 18, 2020, 02:41:53 AM
-
I was really surprised to hear this. The USMC is undergoing a massive reduction in force over the next ten years. This includes:
Elimination of all M1 tank battalions
Elimination of all military police battalions
Elimination of 16 of 21 artillery batteries
Elimination of 3 infantry battalions (24 to 21)
Elimination of 2 amphibious vehicle companies (6 to 4)
Reduced aircraft squadron size from 16 to 10 aircraft
Deactivation of 3 tilt-rotor/helicopter squadrons
Deactivation of 2 fixed wing squadrons
The official reason is to make the USMC a more effective force in combatting China.
-
I was really surprised to hear this. The USMC is undergoing a massive reduction in force over the next ten years. This includes:
Elimination of all M1 tank battalions
Elimination of all military police battalions
Elimination of 16 of 21 artillery batteries
Elimination of 3 infantry battalions (24 to 21)
Elimination of 2 amphibious vehicle companies (6 to 4)
Reduced aircraft squadron size from 16 to 10 aircraft
Deactivation of 3 tilt-rotor/helicopter squadrons
Deactivation of 2 fixed wing squadrons
The official reason is to make the USMC a more effective force in combatting China.
i get the tanks for the island hoppin that will happen, but helicopter and fixed wing and amphibious squads?
-
Reminds me of the drawn-down just before Korea.
-
Diverting funds to the new " space force " lol
Don't worry we will continue to spend more on the military complex year after year
Eagler
-
IMO it is a really shortsighted choice they made. After all the support the infantry units got from tanks in the sandbox, including in urban environments they are leaving their troops hanging. The Army won't station tanks just to give support to the Marines if they need them. The so called justification for the shrinkage was that they were preparing for a confrontation with China. Someone should tell the idiots in the Marine side of the puzzle palace that the Chinese have a LOT of tanks. They may not be top of the line but they are going to be more than enough for unsupported infantry. Shrinking the arty on the Marine side also won't be much help facing armor.
-
Had to search for article supporting the OP's post.
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/why-the-us-marine-corps-plans-big-downsizing-including-some-f-35s-mv-22s-and-all-tanks/137513.article
Sounds to me like the direction is in autonomous or semi-autonomous weapons systems and stealth. That's fine, I like shiny new hardware too. :rolleyes:
-
I couldn't even come up with that article to support OP....
:noid :noid :noid
-
I couldn't even come up with that article to support OP....
:noid :noid :noid
All it takes is a 5 second Google search. The retired Marine tankers and artillerymen I work with told me bits and pieces. A little searching (less than 5 minutes worth) revealed it to be much larger than I thought.
-
I guess the U.S. has not LEARNED from Pearl Harbor... history repeats
-
https://warontherocks.com/2019/10/a-striking-new-vision-for-the-marines-and-a-wakeup-call-for-the-other-services/
-
I remember going through 'Options for Change' in the UK forces back in the early 90's. The world did not collapse and the UK was not invaded! The world changes and with it the composition of the military will also change. It is not short sighted, it is not being ignorant to history it is simply doing the thing that is right for the time. Is this right for the time? Well, only history can tell you that and with 20/20 rear view vision everyone can tell you if you were right or wrong. However, given the information and conditions of the time you make the decisions that are relevant for the time and let history judge you.
On an historical note, the Romans were quite unique in having a standing army. For the most part, before and since, the professional armed forces have always been supplemented by draftees in times of increased threat / need. Once that threat is dealt with the military contracts in size back to a small core of professionals.
-
The Marines always get screwed over like this. Nothing new here, especially in a world where Marines have to think twice before saying something like "Real men red meat, rare, drink Whiskey, and core potatoes with their cucumbers.
Just saying.
-
Remember, military decisions are not made by memembers of the military. They are made by politicians. As example, Robert Macnamara both screwed up the M-16 rifle and the TFX (later to be known as the F-111) jet. Sometimes these politicians listen to military advisors, sometimes they don't (example: Gen Mattis resigning).
-
snip! . . . Robert Macnamara both screwed up the M-16 rifle . . . snip!
Army procurement (the name escapes me) rather than McNamara directly.
-
The Marine Corps is challenging itself to return to its core mission of amphibious assault. Nothing wrong with a little introspection now and then.
-
Army procurement (the name escapes me) rather than McNamara directly.
It was my understanding that McNamera directly made the decision to not chrome plate the chamber and bore of the M16 for two reasons. One for cost saving and the misconception that the rifle did not need regular cleaning to function.
-
They also bought the wrong ammo to save money.
-
While we are on the subject of Macnamara, his most horrendous (and wasteful of human lives) decision was to draft mentally handicapped people into the army. Known as "Macnamara's 100,000", around 300,000 mentally handicapped individuals were drafted into the military. They suffered a casualty rate about 3x higher than normal troops.
-
It was my understanding that McNamera directly made the decision to not chrome plate the chamber and bore of the M16 for two reasons. One for cost saving and the misconception that the rifle did not need regular cleaning to function.
And don't forget... He was one of LBJs, quoted with no respect at all, "Whiz Kids"
-
Remember, military decisions are not made by memembers of the military. They are made by politicians. As example, Robert Macnamara both screwed up the M-16 rifle and the TFX (later to be known as the F-111) jet. Sometimes these politicians listen to military advisors, sometimes they don't (example: Gen Mattis resigning).
My uncle designed something for the m16 in Vietnam. Something to do with helping water drain out of the barrel etc idk.
-
It was my understanding that McNamera directly made the decision to not chrome plate the chamber and bore of the M16 for two reasons. One for cost saving and the misconception that the rifle did not need regular cleaning to function.
It wasn't McNamara. It's understandable that his name was on the lips of every soldier of the era, after the "McNamara's Morons" debacle, but it was the nameless Army Procurements Unit that created all of the problems. Also, these problems were not always at issue in Vietnam. What it comes down to is that Remington (who had worked with Stoner on creating the 5.56mm ammunition) were having difficulties supplying enough of the IMR powder used as propellant. The Army made the decision to switch back to their historical favorite ball powder. If you are familiar with reloading you know that ball powder can be measured more quickly because it flows smoother in the powder-flow turrets that munitions manufacturers use. One downside is that ball powders are notorious for sensitive to temperature shifts, and will fire much hotter if the round has been exposed to sun and heat for long periods. When the ball powders were tested the rifles were proofed at 70,000psi, and proved acceptable. However, the port pressures were much higher in actual use because of powder instability. I'm sure you're aware of ammunition "cook-offs" once a rifle is under combat conditions. I don't believe that even a chrome bolt carrier would have saved a rifle in that situation.
EDIT: Concerning the chrome chambers it would not have been the Secretary himself but the Army Ordnance Corps that would have approved non-chromed chambers to be sent to Vietnam. I understand that Colt itself did not do the chroming operations, and so it may be that the individual companies involved may not have been able to accomplish the task properly, or that barrels were rushed into assembly before the task was completed. There is a book out on the topic concerning the subcommittee to investigate the M-16 Rifle program, but I have not been able to locate a copy.
-
It wasn't McNamara. It's understandable that his name was on the lips of every soldier of the era, after the "McNamara's Morons" debacle, but it was the nameless Army Procurements Unit that created all of the problems. Also, these problems were not always at issue in Vietnam. What it comes down to is that Remington (who had worked with Stoner on creating the 5.56mm ammunition) were having difficulties supplying enough of the IMR powder used as propellant. The Army made the decision to switch back to their historical favorite ball powder. If you are familiar with reloading you know that ball powder can be measured more quickly because it flows smoother in the powder-flow turrets that munitions manufacturers use. One downside is that ball powders are notorious for sensitive to temperature shifts, and will fire much hotter if the round has been exposed to sun and heat for long periods. When the ball powders were tested the rifles were proofed at 70,000psi, and proved acceptable. However, the port pressures were much higher in actual use because of powder instability. I'm sure you're aware of ammunition "cook-offs" once a rifle is under combat conditions. I don't believe that even a chrome bolt carrier would have saved a rifle in that situation.
EDIT: Concerning the chrome chambers it would not have been the Secretary himself but the Army Ordnance Corps that would have approved non-chromed chambers to be sent to Vietnam. I understand that Colt itself did not do the chroming operations, and so it may be that the individual companies involved may not have been able to accomplish the task properly, or that barrels were rushed into assembly before the task was completed. There is a book out on the topic concerning the subcommittee to investigate the M-16 Rifle program, but I have not been able to locate a copy.
All true. Well said.
- oldman
-
It wasn't McNamara. It's understandable that his name was on the lips of every soldier of the era, after the "McNamara's Morons" debacle, but it was the nameless Army Procurements Unit that created all of the problems. Also, these problems were not always at issue in Vietnam. What it comes down to is that Remington (who had worked with Stoner on creating the 5.56mm ammunition) were having difficulties supplying enough of the IMR powder used as propellant. The Army made the decision to switch back to their historical favorite ball powder. If you are familiar with reloading you know that ball powder can be measured more quickly because it flows smoother in the powder-flow turrets that munitions manufacturers use. One downside is that ball powders are notorious for sensitive to temperature shifts, and will fire much hotter if the round has been exposed to sun and heat for long periods. When the ball powders were tested the rifles were proofed at 70,000psi, and proved acceptable. However, the port pressures were much higher in actual use because of powder instability. I'm sure you're aware of ammunition "cook-offs" once a rifle is under combat conditions. I don't believe that even a chrome bolt carrier would have saved a rifle in that situation.
EDIT: Concerning the chrome chambers it would not have been the Secretary himself but the Army Ordnance Corps that would have approved non-chromed chambers to be sent to Vietnam. I understand that Colt itself did not do the chroming operations, and so it may be that the individual companies involved may not have been able to accomplish the task properly, or that barrels were rushed into assembly before the task was completed. There is a book out on the topic concerning the subcommittee to investigate the M-16 Rifle program, but I have not been able to locate a copy.
It was a direct decision by Robert Mcnamara. He was the former head of Ford Motor Company, and he thought he knew about manufacturing. You need to cite some sources for your radical comments.
-
It was a direct decision by Robert Macnamara. He was the former head of Ford Motor Company, and he thought he knew about manufacturing. You need to cite some sources for your radical comments.
....um....so do you...?
- oldman
-
Have you considered with the US Space Force being realized that the next step would be the US Colonial Marines. USMC will be the USCM.
Drop ships to take the "Expressway to Hell!!!!!"
Progress in action. Semper Fi!!!!! :salute
-
It was a direct decision by Robert Mcnamara. He was the former head of Ford Motor Company, and he thought he knew about manufacturing. You need to cite some sources for your radical comments.
McNamara is the one that closed Rock Island Armory and ended the Ordnance Corps. It was probably the single greatest thing any politician did to save American lives in the 20th Century.
No further discussion can be had unless you have consumed to completion "The Black Rifle" by R. Blake Stevens and Edward C. Ezell. ISBN: 978-0889351158
READ:
EDIT: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-bureaucratic-horror-story/545153/