Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: Enhanced MAGTF Operations- USMC's Small Unit Future

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #15
    Council Member Xenophon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    MCB Quantico
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Love to bring up that early Korea thing, don't you?
    If the situation were reversed, the Army would never let us live it down. It's all in good fun. My 101st Airborne-veteran father makes fun of my Marine haircut every chance he gets.

    I trust that you intended to put an emoticon behind the clearance of fires comment. Or if deliberate, why would come to that conclusion?
    Absolutely not. Having been on both the infantry and the grunt side, the only argument that ever held water when it came to who should clear fires is that the infantry officer better understands maneuver and thus knows where all of the friendly units are located. Three problems with that 1) Maneuver is not some closely guarded secret that no one but a select few understand like infantry officers like to pretend. A good LCpl can track a battalion's movement. It's not rocket surgery. 2) The FO or LNO's main reason for living is to know where his supported units are so that he can do his job. The Co. CO or Bn CO is worried about a million and one things. The FO or LNO is worried about one thing. Who is more focused on getting clearance of fires right? 3) It's irrelevant. The challenge of clearing fires is not knowing where friendlies are, it's knowing what the round is going to do and what it can effect. The maneuver element and it's locations is just a tiny piece of the puzzle that needs to be understood to properly clear fires.

    Obviously the CO is HMFIC and nominally has final say. But it's doctrinally delegated to the Weapons Platoon Commander or the Weapons Company Commander. Both can compare with the 0802 when it comes to tactical fire direction (when, where, how many rounds) but both are rank amateurs when it comes to technical fire direction (the one that actually protects maneuver units). It's irresponsible and born of nothing more than a sharp difference of view. Infantry officers should be handed an SME for indirect fire and it's ludicrous to waste their capabilities like this.

    Now that being said: It's only about half the fault of the infantry community. The other half is caused by the artillery community sending undertrained and unwanted 0802's to the grunts. Some of us are trying to change that, but it would be easier to make the case that we need to send our best and brightest to the grunts if they weren't getting treated like second-class Marines when they get there.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 02-16-2010 at 08:11 PM. Reason: language led to an edit by Moderator.

Similar Threads

  1. Intro to the Tactics and Technique of Small Wars
    By SWJED in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-30-2006, 12:35 AM
  2. Disarming the Local Population
    By CSC2005 in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-08-2006, 01:10 PM
  3. Book Review: Airpower in Small Wars
    By SWJED in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2006, 06:14 PM
  4. Dealing With Uncertainty: The Future Requires Flexibility
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-29-2005, 12:28 AM
  5. Training for Small Wars
    By SWJED in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-02-2005, 06:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •