Copy of Marine Corps Gazette July 1971

Printable View

03-24-2012
gute

Copy of Marine Corps Gazette July 1971

Does anyone here has a copy of an article written by BGen F. P. Henderson titled "The FMF: An Alternative Future and How to Get There" Marine Corps Gazette July 1971.

I found the article here, but I can not read the diagrahms/figures - for some reason the figures do not load. The figures layout platoon, compnay and battalion missions and tasks as well as the TO&E for each.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/f...-how-get-there

It is very interesting article about reorganizing the Marine infantry battalion into companies with Search & Attack platoons with an emphasis on STA capabilities; a search and attack squadron; a separate STA company; and an arty battery with guns and missiles. All result in an integrated tri-dimensional search & attack system.

If someone has access to this article and is willing to share it I would be your BFF or if someone knows how I can get the figures to load that wold be great. Thanks.

gute
03-26-2012
marinecorpsgazette

Here is the link to the PDF sir

Good morning,

Here is the link to download the original PDF. Just copy and paste this into your browser window.

http://www.mca-marines.org/files/The...et%20there.pdf

I have also attached the PDF to the web article link you refer to above.

Please contact me if you need anything else.

Semper Fi!

Margot Cornelius
Web Content Editor,
Marine Corps Gazette
03-26-2012
gute

Quote:

Originally Posted by marinecorpsgazette

Good morning,

Here is the link to download the original PDF. Just copy and paste this into your browser window.

http://www.mca-marines.org/files/The...et%20there.pdf

I have also attached the PDF to the web article link you refer to above.

Please contact me if you need anything else.

Semper Fi!

Margot Cornelius
Web Content Editor,
Marine Corps Gazette

Margot,

Thank you so much.
03-26-2012
Ken White

Many thanks, Margot.

Much appreciated...
03-26-2012
slapout9

Quote:

Originally Posted by marinecorpsgazette

Good morning,

Here is the link to download the original PDF. Just copy and paste this into your browser window.

http://www.mca-marines.org/files/The...et%20there.pdf

I have also attached the PDF to the web article link you refer to above.

Please contact me if you need anything else.

Semper Fi!

Margot Cornelius
Web Content Editor,
Marine Corps Gazette

Thank you very much Margot.

gute and everybody else, this is an absolutely outstanding article. This guy sounds like me:D Think he is still alive??? He gets it.....all of it.... he even understand the difference between Systems Theory and Systems Engineering.
I used to have one of the flechets(kant spel stuff:D) he is talking about for the SIPW weapon.

gute....you done real good!!!!!!
03-26-2012
Ken White

Read it early on.

However, just had time to skim it and get initial impressions. After a thorough read and perusal of the diagrams, my initial assessment I think was not far off. I said it would work but would suffer from not being easily replicable -- in other words, the first few designed, equipped and trained would fo quite well but their effectiveness would drop as they took casualties and replacements flowed in. That also implies, correctly, I think, that subsequent iterations would not be as successful as the original batch of units.

That does not bode well for organizations planned to rotate on 6-12 month intervals...

After reading, I'd add a few points:

The Pentomic organization the Army adopted in the mid '50s suffered from two flaws that killed the effort. The TOE provided equipment that was in development and did not appear due to protracted R&D and procurement cycles. BG Henderson's model in 1971 suggested some items of 'infyonics' that were still not perfected by 2011, forty years later...

The second Pentomic problem was that the Colonels who were Battle Group Commander were too old (physically AND mentally) to keep up with the light, fast and flexible design intent. They also saw it as a scaling down of their powers and authority (from a 3500 man Regt to 1400 man Battle Group). So they conspired to kill it. Did, too...

The design is intended for Worldwide service -- correctly -- but Ground Surveillance Radar and three km laser ranging are handy in the desert, worthless in the jungle. Point is that no matter what design one has it will still have to be modified for service in a specific operation. METT-TC.

Same bit on the EW. What if you meet an enemy who's a bit smarter -- or more up to date -- than you are. It's pretty much a given that most of our enemies will be much more flexible than we unless there is a massive change in the way we select, train and operate.

He was apparently a SPIW fan. Those ideas do not work. They're all attempts to substitute technology for training and while that can be and is done, it is never as effective as proper training.

The equipment issues are self explanatory, the relationship of Pentomic Colonels and Henderson Battalions is that the Personnel system better be prepared to cope with such a shift. I doubt that it now is.

That's because people are the system -- organizations, equipment and doctrine are of minor consequence.

General Henderson questions the worth of the Company (but he kept it...); the Pentomic model eliminated the Battalion (but it's baaaaaccck...). Point there is, again, that effective TOE designs have to be predicated on the personnel system OR the personnel system has to be changed to new realities. I'd vote for that.
03-27-2012
gute

gute and everybody else, this is an absolutely outstanding article. This guy sounds like me:D Think he is still alive??? He gets it.....all of it.... he even understand the difference between Systems Theory and Systems Engineering.
I used to have one of the flechets(kant spel stuff:D) he is talking about for the SIPW weapon.

From Slap:

Quote:

gute....you done real good!!!!!!

I told Ken that the article's emphasis on System Theory and System Engineering was really pushing the abilities of my Oregon public school education. Thank God for the figures!

Seriously, I think it is a good article because the author was thinking outside the box. I don't know if it would be a good idea to change rifle platoons and companies, but adding STA assets to the platoons and compaines is doable. So is scout troop, FA battery, etc. IMO the last 10 years if not the last 60 years have thown us that more infantry is always needed. But now we have infantry "geeks" - a generation of dudes raised with Xbox, cell phones, computers, iPads, etc. This might be a form of combined arms.
03-27-2012
slapout9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken White

After reading, I'd add a few points:

1-Ken,as usual your points are valid and well taken...the SPIW came in at around 30 pounds:eek:and that was going to be the basic infantry weapon,not so good. But it did lead to the M-203 which turned out to be a winner and some of his other ideals did bear fruit.

2-Somewhere through the years we have lost the Systems Analysis process of analyzing if we should automate(I guess they call it digitizing today) the process/weapon/equipment/etc. in the first place or just leave it alone.

3-He did not go deep enough into his System Analysis, but I think he would have or maybe he did and I just haven't read it yet. The concept of Platoon,Company,etc. are all obsolete, his idea of concentrating on FUNCTION is dead on. Instead of a platoon we should have a 50 man Search and Attack system and 150 man, 250, etc. it becomes modular but more descriptive of the battlefield function, easier to understand what you are building or organizing based upon the Mission.
03-27-2012
slapout9

Quote:

Originally Posted by gute

I told Ken that the article's emphasis on System Theory and System Engineering was really pushing the abilities of my Oregon public school education. Thank God for the figures!

You may not have been hear when I told this but I was first introduced to the idea of the General Systems Theory around the 4th,5th,6th grade. Public schools used to be excellant....being scientific, systems oriented was kind of a National duty back then. Then the Beatles came:D Anyway the whole point of Systems thinking is to make things easier and simpler to understand. If you don't understand it then it is not really systems thinking. It is going to make a big comeback but I think they will call it "Cross Domain Thinking".

Also our Enemies both Militarily and Economically understand it completely which is why we are in the state we are in as a country. They came here and learned it or stole it and are know using it against us. But you gotta have Faith. Speaking of that time for some tunes. George Michael "Faith" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0

It was still a great article find, ya dun gud!
03-27-2012
gute

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapout9

1-Ken,as usual your points are valid and well taken...the SPIW came in at around 30 pounds:eek:and that was going to be the basic infantry weapon,not so good. But it did lead to the M-203 which turned out to be a winner and some of his other ideals did bear fruit.

2-Somewhere through the years we have lost the Systems Analysis process of analyzing if we should automate(I guess they call it digitizing today) the process/weapon/equipment/etc. in the first place or just leave it alone.

3-He did not go deep enough into his System Analysis, but I think he would have or maybe he did and I just haven't read it yet. The concept of Platoon,Company,etc. are all obsolete, his idea of concentrating on FUNCTION is dead on. Instead of a platoon we should have a 50 man Search and Attack system and 150 man, 250, etc. it becomes modular but more descriptive of the battlefield function, easier to understand what you are building or organizing based upon the Mission.

I like your concept of function and systems, but can you expand on what your battalion would look like?
03-27-2012
gute

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapout9

You may not have been hear when I told this but I was first introduced to the idea of the General Systems Theory around the 4th,5th,6th grade. Public schools used to be excellant....being scientific, systems oriented was kind of a National duty back then. Then the Beatles came:D Anyway the whole point of Systems thinking is to make things easier and simpler to understand. If you don't understand it then it is not really systems thinking. It is going to make a big comeback but I think they will call it "Cross Domain Thinking".

Also our Enemies both Militarily and Economically understand it completely which is why we are in the state we are in as a country. They came here and learned it or stole it and are know using it against us. But you gotta have Faith. Speaking of that time for some tunes. George Michael "Faith" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0

It was still a great article find, ya dun gud!

I'm probably selling myself a little short when it comes to my public education, but I sure do not remember being taught Systems Theory.

I'm glad I found something that interests you guys because I learn a lot when you guys post.

I wonder what Wilf thinks of the article?
03-27-2012
slapout9

Quote:

Originally Posted by gute

but I sure do not remember being taught Systems Theory.

You probably weren't taught Systems Theory unless your are a great deal older than I think. Around 1970 it kinda morphed into what we now pretty much call Ecology or Eco-Systems,same basic thing and elementry kids usualy do pretty good at it but Systems Engineering (popular during the Space Race) has pretty much bit the dust in public schools.
03-28-2012
slapout9

Quote:

Originally Posted by gute

I like your concept of function and systems, but can you expand on what your battalion would look like?

Sure, the Marine Corps is the only force that has a Commandant for the highest ranking officer in charge. I always thought that was strange title so being the Airborne Investigator that I am, I had to find out where did that name come from and "what's up with that name."

As near as I can tell during the Boer War the basic fighting unit was a COMMANDO(none of that platoon or company stuff) and it was lead by a COMMANDANT. They write it as Kommandant. Also a Commando could expand and contract based upon the need and or the enemy...perfect Systems Thinking....adaption to the enemy system based on the environmental system you are operating in. So instead of platoons and companies and battalions you need Commandos sized to the mission need. Dosen't get any better than that.

So who is running the Marines now? Send this to him so he can get this stuff squared away.With all the budget cuts coming the Marines are going to need a big MoJo rebuild.

I am re-reading the article for the third time there are a few other jewels in there that I want to talk about.
03-28-2012
Kiwigrunt

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapout9

Sure, the Marine Corps is the only force that has a Commandant for the highest ranking officer in charge. I always thought that was strange title so being the Airborne Investigator that I am, I had to find out where did that name come from and "what's up with that name."

As near as I can tell during the Boer War the basic fighting unit was a COMMANDO(none of that platoon or company stuff) and it was lead by a COMMANDANT. They write it as Kommandant. Also a Commando could expand and contract based upon the need and or the enemy...perfect Systems Thinking....adaption to the enemy system based on the environmental system you are operating in. So instead of platoons and companies and battalions you need Commandos sized to the mission need. Dosen't get any better than that.

I think it may originally be a French word. In Dutch, ‘commandant’ translates as commander. I believe that in the South African army the rank of major does not exist. A company commander is a commandant. JMA may confirm or correct me on this. For the UK marines a commando is the equivalent of a battalion.

The USMC may well have (just guessing here) picked the word up from the Dutch or Spanish Marine Corps, which are among the oldest in the world.
03-28-2012
gute

IMO the IBCT and SBCT cav squadrons are a good starting place. The IBCT cav squadron has the mix of scouts and infantry, and the SBCT has the sensor troop assigned to the squadron (I think). Mix the two together, add an aviation troop, FSC and area fires and IMO you have an organization along the lines of what the author described. The assault formation could be an attached rifle company or an infantry battalion.

Reversing the ratio of cav squadrons to infantry battalions in some of the BCTs might be an option.
03-28-2012
gute

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapout9

Sure, the Marine Corps is the only force that has a Commandant for the highest ranking officer in charge. I always thought that was strange title so being the Airborne Investigator that I am, I had to find out where did that name come from and "what's up with that name."

As near as I can tell during the Boer War the basic fighting unit was a COMMANDO(none of that platoon or company stuff) and it was lead by a COMMANDANT. They write it as Kommandant. Also a Commando could expand and contract based upon the need and or the enemy...perfect Systems Thinking....adaption to the enemy system based on the environmental system you are operating in. So instead of platoons and companies and battalions you need Commandos sized to the mission need. Dosen't get any better than that.

So who is running the Marines now? Send this to him so he can get this stuff squared away.With all the budget cuts coming the Marines are going to need a big MoJo rebuild.

I am re-reading the article for the third time there are a few other jewels in there that I want to talk about.

,

You might be right about the origins for our use, but it may been chosen based on British tradition of a commandant being an administrative rank. According to Wikipedia, Colonel Commandants would oversee British military academies. The Marine Commandant is an administrative position, but one that requires prestige. I'm glad my Corps (yes, it is mine) refers to the commandant as just commandant and not "General Commandant" - that would be dorky.
03-28-2012
JMA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt

I believe that in the South African army the rank of major does not exist. A company commander is a commandant. JMA may confirm or correct me on this.

In the SANDF (as it was in the old SADF) the rank of commandant is used in lieu of Lt Col.
03-28-2012
gute

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapout9

You probably weren't taught Systems Theory unless your are a great deal older than I think. Around 1970 it kinda morphed into what we now pretty much call Ecology or Eco-Systems,same basic thing and elementry kids usualy do pretty good at it but Systems Engineering (popular during the Space Race) has pretty much bit the dust in public schools.

That makes sense because I was born in 1969.
03-28-2012
slapout9

Quote:

Originally Posted by gute

IMO the IBCT and SBCT cav squadrons are a good starting place. The IBCT cav squadron has the mix of scouts and infantry, and the SBCT has the sensor troop assigned to the squadron (I think). Mix the two together, add an aviation troop, FSC and area fires and IMO you have an organization along the lines of what the author described. The assault formation could be an attached rifle company or an infantry battalion.

Reversing the ratio of cav squadrons to infantry battalions in some of the BCTs might be an option.

Can not stay long to day. That is a great idea gute..... Commando units in the Boer War were pretty much what we would call Cavalry units in the USA but what makes that method of organization useful IMO was that there was no set size of the unit, the size was based on the operating environment. The units could be rather small or they could be rather large. Gotta go for now.
03-29-2012
gute

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapout9

Can not stay long to day. That is a great idea gute..... Commando units in the Boer War were pretty much what we would call Cavalry units in the USA but what makes that method of organization useful IMO was that there was no set size of the unit, the size was based on the operating environment. The units could be rather small or they could be rather large. Gotta go for now.

I just heard Ken say "METT-TC".
03-29-2012
slapout9

Quote:

Originally Posted by gute

I just heard Ken say "METT-TC".

Yep!

The author also talks about a sense-evaluate-decide-act process.....which sounds like OODA before OODA?
03-29-2012
Ken White

Indeed

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapout9

Yep!

he did...

Quote:

The author also talks about a sense-evaluate-decide-act process.....which sounds like OODA before OODA?

A lot of people were doing OODA long before OODA -- before Boyd was born, in fact... :D

The really good fighters who did that combined 'sense' and 'evaluate' almost seamlessly and acted before their opponents. It's a trait, can't be taught. Boyd did that, with OODA, he just tried to tell people how he thought he did it... :wry:
03-29-2012
gute

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapout9

Can not stay long to day. That is a great idea gute..... Commando units in the Boer War were pretty much what we would call Cavalry units in the USA but what makes that method of organization useful IMO was that there was no set size of the unit, the size was based on the operating environment. The units could be rather small or they could be rather large. Gotta go for now.

Call the organization a troop - it has a Hqs element, infantry platoon, scout platoon and heavy weapons platoon (based on the units of the IBCT). This troop can opertate as a two-platoon company or a four section search and attack troop. The organization can operate mounted and dismounted, arms room concept for support weapons M240, M320, M224, M2, MK19, Javelin, TOW, etc. The battalion or "battle group" would have 3-5 of these troops plus the STA company, FA battery, aviation company and support company. The troops would be capable of C2 over 1-2 more platoons/sections depending on METT-TC.
03-29-2012
gute

If one goes back and takes a look at Colonel Odom's article about small units, you will some some similarities to this ""Search & Attack" battalion.