RoarkJr.
Well-Known Member

Why the Corpsâ future may sideline its ground-pounders
Is it the twilight of Marine infantry?

Thoughts?
![]()
Why the Corpsâ future may sideline its ground-pounders
Is it the twilight of Marine infantry?www.marinecorpstimes.com
Thoughts?
Do you have an opinion on the article or are you just waiting to see what others say.
i am personally sick and tired of hearing O-6 + saying things along the lines of “you guys need to figure this problem out and pass it up the chain
So we can implement your good ideas.”
The good ideas that are passed up are “unacceptable” because that isn’t how we do business. These old boners cere only about promotion and retirement not a lot increasing the lethality of the force. Also the Marine Times is garbage.
I think he thinks you are an O6+I’m not sure I understand
So, probably more of an H-1 specific rant there motivated by some beverages. In the working groups I’ve attended and in restructuring WTI we’ve been trying to really figure out what EABO / distributed ops will look like for the MAGTF. Typically what happens is we get guidance from a GO and then we go to work. At the end of the working group or when it’s time to make a decision the O-6 running the group will table any decisions or changes and report up that the working group was inconclusive.I’m not sure I understand, it seems like what is presented in the article is a few officers actually entertaining a radical idea about changing the philosophy of Marine employment, but you’re saying it’s the opposite. Doesn’t force resign 2030 prove that senior leaders are willing to change despite whether it’s how we’ve done business in the past or not, and despite the controversy? Sorry If I misunderstood your point if that isn’t accurate.
Yes, the Times isn’t an ideal source but the question is interesting. My thoughts are that I don’t think I know enough about EABO and long range precision fires to have a great opinion. The points raised in the article are reasonable, though. If I had to answer I’d say that we benefit from entertaining radical ideas so that we aren’t blinded by pride at expense of accomplishing the mission.
The problem here is that you’ve got leaders who come from these communities and have always been the main effort and being placed in a supporting role doesn’t sit well with many of them.
Sounds like pie-in-the-sky nonsense that will change as soon as the next commandant and SECNAV are appointed.
TBH, we've got our hands full validating the basic concepts of DCA and Strike Warfare in this kind of fight.Not to throw stones, but I don’t think our surface brethren at the task force level and higher are as engaged as they need to be to validate these concepts.
So, probably more of an H-1 specific rant there motivated by some beverages. In the working groups I’ve attended and in restructuring WTI we’ve been trying to really figure out what EABO / distributed ops will look like for the MAGTF. Typically what happens is we get guidance from a GO and then we go to work. At the end of the working group or when it’s time to make a decision the O-6 running the group will table any decisions or changes and report up that the working group was inconclusive.
As far as what 03XX communities will be doing, many believe it’ll be the defense of Naval bases and other supporting roles. The problem here is that you’ve got leaders who come from these communities and have always been the main effort and being placed in a supporting role doesn’t sit well with many of them.
TBH, we've got our hands full validating the basic concepts of DCA and Strike Warfare in this kind of fight.
I don't disagree, but it's not the closest alligator to the boat for the NAE from a tactical & operational perspective.I would argue that these are inclusive and complimentary to each other in the next fight. JFARPs, shore based radars, networked kill chains and other nerd stuff. They don’t need to be practiced in a vacuum. It’s not a bunch of Marines sitting around next to a rocket battery lobbing missiles into the ether.
I don't disagree, but it's not the closest alligator to the boat for the NAE from a tactical & operational perspective.
Tough to get into specifics here, for obvious reasons, but the F2T2 problem at extreme standoff ranges is a tough nut to crack. So, while we do the work on that (and other) issues, integrating EABO hasn't been a priority. That's not to say work isn't being done, but it's not the main line of effort for our WDCs.If you could elaborate a little - It could provide some context for everyone.