I'm unsure why general combat missions have
begun to require SMUs. Seems to me that the specific mission is simply one which requires a purpose designed TF drawn from ANY BLT/MAGTF. The training issue is not that difficult and current equipping standards make that pretty much a non-problem.
Training 30 men ( [1]I agree w/Wilf on that arbitrary figure; [2]what's the size of a standard TOE Rifle Platoon today?) for a specific mission doesn't seem smart, why not train all the Rifle companies so that multiple TFs of the appropriate size can be formed using as much unit integrity as possible instead of (apparently) having to cobble together multiple 30 man groups or portions thereof from various Companies...
Boarding at sea has been one of the Marines' historical roles
Boarding at sea, helping protect shipping, and fighting piracy were the reasons that Marines (in both England and America) were established as a branch separate from the Army.
The way I see it, this mission is a far better use for the Marine Corps, as compared to the current use of treating it like a faster, lighter version of the Army. The Marines have a specialization in inshore operations requiring both land and naval elements that's uniquely suited to combating piracy, and I'm encouraged to see them beginning to better develop this capability.
If the goal is to produce a capability and flexibility
to accomplish a mission that is not easy but also not exceedingly difficult and which, importantly may need a number of mission capable units with little or no warning, there's only one really good solution:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
COMMAR
...The pirates are a nuissance not a threat. The Hybrid Threat to the Fleet & their Inability to adequately address this threat is the Problem. ... 3) Or what I call the Go Hard option, make it similar to Combat Hunter or TRUEX for the MEU. Make it an X-week course thats part of the PTP for all Inf. Small Units in the SC MAGTF.
I'm unsure why you use the term go hard. If by hard you mean do it right and train the capability heavily for all, then I agree. It will not be that hard to do nor will it cost much. Training the troops is no problem, they can handle it.
The real problematic issue will be the boats -- our boats -- for the job; how many, where will they be, who will crew them...
Makes sense for the Navy to do it in our system.
Just hope they buy the right boat instead of trying to adapt some Congressionally favored manufacturers product to do the job. The Riverine boats, for example, won't do in blue water. Hopefully, HQMC will go with adding the task to the MEU mission set -- it should not be major problem.
While we are on the subject of pirates
and historical Marine Missions - has there been any discussion of putting Marines on American Flag Carriers to welcome the latest style of open boat pirates.
In the 1920's or 30's gangs began holding up trains and stealing the mail. The Marine Corps was tasked to stop it.
After several goons were blown away and others captured the stealing ceased forever.
Would it be worth it to plant a Marine Squad and a MG Section on a Merchant Ship and if it was attacked, let them do what they do best.
The Marsek Alabama held off the attackers for a couple of hours with water hoses. I would think that getting wiped out by 9 Rifles, 3 SAW's or AR's and two MG's would cause a halt to testing our flag carriers to see if they are safe enough to attack.
A squad shouldn't be on every carrier in the region, but could be in the mix and make attacking US Merchants something to give the pirates pause.
You could let one boat excape to tell the tale, or to follow it back to the mother ship and sink it too.
Just a thought!
I have a son who is a VP of Ops for a German Flag Carrier in the Pacific. I'll check if the Europeans are thinking along these lines. :rolleyes:
While we are on the subject of pirates
That is too often the problem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcustis
...Those types of missions need not be so difficult to train to, but the standards have...let's just say...developed inertia.
and frequently it's turf and reputation protection, not a true mission requirement. Still DA isn't easy, particularly if hostages are involved but if COMMAR is correct, the issue is bad guys, not HR. That take's more shooting than we normally do but it's bearable, cost and time wise.
He -- Van Riper -- was an advisor to
a Viet Namese Marine Battalion based in Vung Tau in 1966 when I was the enlisted advisor with the VN Airborne Battalion also stationed there. Didn't get a chance to talk to him too often because both Bns spent more time away from their bases than they did in them and he got wounded and evaced not long after I arrived. Didn't know his twin brother. Paul was an okay guy, definitely one of the good ones...
You're old... ;)
Mine was bigger than yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RJ
70 come May 6th -- Joined the Corps on May 22 Sixteeen days later and with prior service in the 71st Infantry, NYNG as a 60mm Mortar Gunner. :eek: Joined them at 15 years old. Big for my age and I had a charming Irish way about me.
Kentucky Guard at same age in a 105mm How battery...:D
Also big but rather a glowering Scotch Irish troublemaker. Only in later life did I get to be the jolly and witty icon I am today. ;)
(That last to provide my kids who read this board occasionally an excuse to snort coffee on their keyboards...)
Thanks BTW for your Son's take on the Somali pirates. Knotty prob; hard on shippers but not so much on others. Seems most shippers and the insurance folks -- as well as majority opinions -- are opposed to arming crews or shipping armed guards or military folks aboard; routing away from the area is expensive.
Those suggesting a land campaign there need to apply a little thought to that idea. I doubt most in the World are prepared to accept the huge number of Somali deaths that would occur. Not only are they relatively fearless and terribly vengeful but battling clans and factions will coalesce in seconds to fight any outsider. Add to that they have no compunctions about throwing women and kids in the way to absorb fire. Invader casualties aren't the deterrent...
Pressure of some sort needs to be applied to the elders; they can and will stop it if they deem it advisable but they aren't going to do that until the costs of the Piracy outweigh the benefits to the region as a whole.