USMC organisation as a model for a future British Army/RN?

Desertbootz

Swinger
Oddly enough enough I've been relieved by both a US and Royal Marine... not many outside of Plymouth can say that.

Both the fantastically equipped Americans and superbly trained British were mostly respectful toward those sporting the maroon beret (unlike a small section of the RAF Regt who had the nerve to refer to themselves as 2 Para, even got t-shirts made, until debriefed by the real thing in Cyprus) and I have every respect for anyone who has to make their journey to battle in a boat listening to a bunch of whiny matelots dripping all the way.

Not sure of the point of replicating the USMC. Can't see the UK deploying a force large enough to warrant all the arseing about in order to change without it being an allied force and seeing as our allies already have a USMC why not use theirs and spend the defense budget on single accomodation for soldiers and compensation payouts.
 

dogfondler

War Hero
chocolate_frog said:
goodson8193 said:
Wise words indeed..and all headed up by an RAF Regiment SAC..perfect..
Don't the RAF Regt have LCPls now?
I think that the point being attempted to be made was that it wouldn't need someone as advanced as a RAF Regt LCpl to be in charge, merely an SAC.

Anyway, off topic, and let's not have another Rock-ape slating thread, please. :roll:
 

Tiddle

War Hero
goodson8193 said:
The RAF reg may refer to themselves as II para...II sqn is the para trained arm of the RAF reg..
I could refer to myself as "Lord Tiddle of the Moon", doesn't make it true.


Mong.
 

dogfondler

War Hero
Tiddle said:
goodson8193 said:
The RAF reg may refer to themselves as II para...II sqn is the para trained arm of the RAF reg..
I could refer to myself as "Lord Tiddle of the Moon", doesn't make it true.


Mong.
If it's to be correct, it should be II (para) Sqn RAF Regt.
 

goodson8193

Old-Salt
I thought you didn't want another RAF reg slagging thread..you pongo's just can't help yourselves..having managed to ensure a second page I'm off...
 
goodson8193 said:
I thought you didn't want another RAF reg slagging thread..you pongo's just can't help yourselves..having managed to ensure a second page I'm off...
Perhaps if there was not quite so much scope we would not keep tripping over ourselves..... :wink:
 
Virgil said:
Bravo_Zulu said:
The USMC has a strength somewhere in the region of 180,000 men; nearly twice the size of our entire army. It has more dedicated helos etc than all three of our services put together. Their role is similar to the Royal Marines; expeditionary warfare predominantly by sea; they are not line infantry by design.
Just my opinion, from what I saw except for the amphibious slant they are a pretty conventional bunch with very good infantry companies.

The best description of them--and never tell them this--is that they are like a very good U.S. Army infantry division akin to the 82nd ABN or 10th MTN more anything else. And again--for God sakes--never, ever, tell them this.
Well I suppose I had better weigh in since I do not see any other USMC comments. I am not sure what was intended in the original post in terms of modeling the British Army on the USMC but will make a few observations.

1. Other than some common weapon systems and equipment and language, we are NOT like the US Army. Trust me in this--I do not have the time or space to explain that further. :D

2. We are one of 2 separate armed forces within the Department of the Navy with our own general as a full member of our Joint Chiefs of Staff.

3. Our strategic mission statement is oriented toward amphibious operations but under the broader rubric of expeditionary operations. We prefer short assault-type missions but obviously are capable of sustained land operations far removed from the sea (there is on-going debate as to whether the USMC should do more to avoid such prolonged deployments but given op-tempo since 2001 such discussion is more academic than realistic).

4. While we rely on our Navy for heavy blue water lift, the vast majority of our actual amphibious assault transport is organic to the USMC--the days of the LCVP etc. are long past. Except for some larger Navy landing craft (including hovercraft) for transporting our tanks and heavier logistics tail, we carry ourselves. Vertical lift is also largely organic.

5. Perhaps more to the point of the original post are several well-developed strengths for which we are generally well regarded.

First is the task organization mindset that determines the structure of combat forces that is extremely flexible (a big difference from our Army cousins) in putting together a force (notionally up to a 3 division Corps in size-, although more realistically up to a reinforced Div ) that is best suited to the threat and environment.

Second, is the extremely close coordination of our air support (rotary and fast fliers) and ground elements for CAS. It is this strength that has enabled us to successfully fend off various"reform" and cost-cutting efforts in the past to keep our own aviation. All USMC officers (including judge advocates and pilots) attend a basic infantry platoon leaders course of 6 months duration before they go to further specialized training. This ensures a common ethos and perspective among our officers that is clearly focused on infantry operations.

Third, with some notable exceptions, the USMC has proven to be very adaptable as a service to changing security demands. Our smaller size (relative to the Army), structures and philosophy are conducive to relatively rapid shifts when needed to respond to short-fused operational demands or longer-term policy changes such as the re-orienting of the force when the USSR (and the cold war) ended.

6. While I cannot speak to the specific context of Kabulronin's assessment that we are not up to speed on COIN operations, in our defense I would point out that the first large scale success in the Iraq counterinsurgency was in Al Anbar Province where the USMC successfully co-opted local tribal leaders to support their security efforts. This was done through distributed operations that got platoon-size units spread out across the province that lived among the people and gained their confidence. This was a concept previously innovated by the USMC in the northernmost province of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War (known as the Combined Action Program) that used a similar embedding approach that put even squad-size units in villages to work with indigenous irregular security forces. This program showed remarkable promise in spite of it being "too little, too late" and considerable pressure against it from the conventional warfare mindset of Gen. Westmoreland. In addition, the USMC was an innovator in establishing a cultural studies center to better prepare Marines for COIN operations and such awareness and training is being ramped up throughout our training and education. I do not deny, however, that the average junior enlisted Marine is very much oriented to closing with and destroying the enemy.
 
crazedfish said:
Why would someone join the RAF Regiment?

Nice postings to Cyprus anyone?
 
The USMC have Modern servicable equipment, helicopters, surface vessels, the correct staffing numbers in the right areas and a budget that can cover the fore mentioned.

We're better off modelling ourselves on 3 PLATOON, A COMPANY, 1st Bn The Royal Papua New Guinea Guards (V).
 
Closet_Jibber said:
The USMC have Modern servicable equipment, helicopters, surface vessels, the correct staffing numbers in the right areas and a budget that can cover the fore mentioned.

We're better off modelling ourselves on 3 PLATOON, A COMPANY, 1st Bn The Royal Papua New Guinea Guards (V).
Comments like this are why I like ARRSE!
 

goodson8193

Old-Salt
Alsacien said:
goodson8193 said:
I thought you didn't want another RAF reg slagging thread..you pongo's just can't help yourselves..having managed to ensure a second page I'm off...
Perhaps if there was not quite so much scope we would not keep tripping over ourselves..... :wink:

With so many roles now performed by the RAF reg it is obvious that scope for even more feeble psis takes has increased...besides it gives you all something to think about in between drill nights and or the next ACF get together...
 
Although I'm slightly taking the piss, I think there is merit in us becoming the UKMC (United Kingdom Military Corps) of the US military, based on a USMC model - barking?
Well, they want the Uk military to be part of a wider European Army, integrated and all that with a common European foreign policy, C3 etc. Why not formally put ourselves in within the US, instead of the bunch of European tossers and losers. We're losing any real influence in the world anyway, we 've got little independance, so why not be told what to do by the US rather than EU? - we might get some proper funding 8O :wink:
 
askar-perisikan said:
Although I'm slightly taking the piss, I think there is merit in us becoming the UKMC (United Kingdom Military Corps) of the US military, based on a USMC model - barking?
Well, they want the Uk military to be part of a wider European Army, integrated and all that with a common European foreign policy, C3 etc. Why not formally put ourselves in within the US, instead of the bunch of European tossers and losers. We're losing any real influence in the world anyway, we 've got little independance, so why not be told what to do by the US rather than EU? - we might get some proper funding 8O :wink:
"Do you want the red kool-aid or the blue kool-aid?" :roll:
 
"Do you want the red kool-aid or the blue kool-aid?" :roll:[/quote]

That'll be the red white and blue kool-aid, surely :D
 
goodson8193 said:
Alsacien said:
goodson8193 said:
I thought you didn't want another RAF reg slagging thread..you pongo's just can't help yourselves..having managed to ensure a second page I'm off...
Perhaps if there was not quite so much scope we would not keep tripping over ourselves..... :wink:

With so many roles now performed by the RAF reg it is obvious that scope for even more feeble psis takes has increased...besides it gives you all something to think about in between drill nights and or the next ACF get together...

Thought you said you were off :D
 
The whole of the British armed forces are so relatively small anyway that the question of organising it along the lines of the USMC would be totally moot if only we'd just put things back where they belong. Ipso Facto (RM not withstanding) the British Army kind of IS a marine expeditionary force by dint of coming from an Island. The RAF should stop chauffeuring the Army around when the Army is perfectly capable of driving itself and turn over frontline battlefield rotary assets to the Army. The Navy should regain its former FAA strike capabilities for expeditionary force projection and the RAF should rightly remain the guardian and receptacle of higher air mastery and expertise but should concentrate on Air Superiority, heavy air transport and all those clever acronym laden aircraft. Remember the RAF's domain is THE AIR and there is some stuff that flies that is clearly in ground or sea operational orbit. The Army doesn't insist on driving the RAF's lorries and landrovers does it (RAF Rgt notwithstanding but that would have gotten in the way of my point) Seems like we're suffering resource hemorrhage due to RAF mission creep. Balance must be restored and then maybe we'd stop feeling out of sorts.


Edited to add: If our resources were in the right places then we would in effect be lsimilar to the USMC in the way that the OP meant.
 

goodson8193

Old-Salt
le_crabe_tambour said:
goodson8193 said:
Alsacien said:
goodson8193 said:
I thought you didn't want another RAF reg slagging thread..you pongo's just can't help yourselves..having managed to ensure a second page I'm off...
Perhaps if there was not quite so much scope we would not keep tripping over ourselves..... :wink:

With so many roles now performed by the RAF reg it is obvious that scope for even more feeble psis takes has increased...besides it gives you all something to think about in between drill nights and or the next ACF get together...

Thought you said you were off :D

haha yeah I was but I bit didn't I.. :D
 
askar-perisikan said:
Although I'm slightly taking the piss, I think there is merit in us becoming the UKMC (United Kingdom Military Corps) of the US military, based on a USMC model - barking?
Well, they want the Uk military to be part of a wider European Army, integrated and all that with a common European foreign policy, C3 etc. Why not formally put ourselves in within the US, instead of the bunch of European tossers and losers. We're losing any real influence in the world anyway, we 've got little independance, so why not be told what to do by the US rather than EU? - we might get some proper funding 8O :wink:
You may want to re-think this. If the US continues its headlong rush into fascism and profligate spending such that our deficit is already approaching 2 TRILLION USD, coupled with the obvious disdain our current government has for the military, we may well be coming to the UK to join you. :D
 
goodson8193 said:
Alsacien said:
goodson8193 said:
I thought you didn't want another RAF reg slagging thread..you pongo's just can't help yourselves..having managed to ensure a second page I'm off...
Perhaps if there was not quite so much scope we would not keep tripping over ourselves..... :wink:

With so many roles now performed by the RAF reg it is obvious that scope for even more feeble psis takes has increased...besides it gives you all something to think about in between drill nights and or the next ACF get together...
Well, more theatres = more barriers & more fences to patrol.

And a whole different load of DP kit to pose in :D

 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
arfah US 3
R Weapons, Equipment & Rations 49
Drlligaf US 6

Latest Threads

Top