Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[McG]

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

You get me

 

[KevinB]

Note that the SOF Coy and the SOLE are under the CE and not the GCE. The distinction is important.

I’m curious what they are calling the SOF Coy.
MARSOC’s 3 Bn’s aren’t direct support for the MEF’s.

 

[markppcli]

I’m curious what they are calling the SOF Coy.
MARSOC’s 3 Bn’s aren’t direct support for the MEF’s.

They come out of the force reconnaissance companies with atts.

 

[KevinB]

They come out of the force reconnaissance companies with atts.

Pedantic point would be, like the MEU-SOC, being Special Operations Capable, not a SOF specific force.

With reality being a small c for capable, as MARSOC MSOB’s stole a lot of the humint, languages and other capabilities out of those.

 

[Kirkhill]

I’m curious what they are calling the SOF Coy.
MARSOC’s 3 Bn’s aren’t direct support for the MEF’s.

They come out of the force reconnaissance companies with atts.

Battle Order does define it as "Maritime Raid Force". That suggests to me something that is closer to the conventional end of the spectrum than the special -

And look what Google turned up (I'm trying to catch up....)

Marine Raider Regiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Marine Raider Regiment, formerly known as the Marine Special Operations Regiment (MSOR), is a special operations force of the United States Marine Corps, part of Marine Corps Special Operations Command (MARSOC). Renamed for its predecessor, the World War II Marine Raiders,[4][5] this unit is the principal combat component of MARSOC, which is the Marine Corps' contribution to the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM).

Types of missions[edit]​

• Direct action
• Special reconnaissance
• Counter-terrorism
• Foreign internal defense
• Unconventional warfare
• Security force assistance
• Preparation of the environment
• Counter-insurgency
• Maritime Interdiction Operations
• Special/Clandestine operations
• Counter-drug operations

 

[KevinB]

Battle Order does define it as "Maritime Raid Force". That suggests to me something that is closer to the conventional end of the spectrum than the special -

And look what Google turned up

Marine Raider Regiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Marine Special Operations Battalions trace their lineage to the Raiders. They evicted the Recon from the line when they stood up.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Marine Special Operations Battalions trace their lineage to the Raiders. They evicted the Recon from the line when they stood up.

Still working on my first cup of coffee.

Thanks. I guess that only puts me 7 years or so behind the times.

 

[Kirkhill]

Types of missions[edit]​

Excuses to be on the ground

• Foreign internal defense
• Security force assistance
• Counter-insurgency
• Counter-drug operations
• Counter-terrorism

Primary missions

• Preparation of the environment
• Unconventional warfare
• Special/Clandestine operations
• Special reconnaissance
• Maritime Interdiction Operations
• Direct action

Does that look like a recognizable breakdown?

 

[KevinB]

Admittedly I always liked the MEU formation, and thought it was a good model for Canada to emulate.

With USMC divesting tanks, I don’t think that will work anymore.

 

[Kirkhill]

Admittedly I always liked the MEU formation, and thought it was a good model for Canada to emulate.

With USMC divesting tanks, I don’t think that will work anymore.

We would need ships and helicopters....

 

[KevinB]

We would need ships and helicopters....

Yes.
Which frankly as an Expeditionary Army are major missing assets.

I’ve been tinkering with my Napkin Army - and parsed it down.
Pushing more PY to RCN and RCAF, and only 4 large Bde’s for the CA, 2 Light, 1 Heavy, and 1 Med.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We would need ships and helicopters....

More importantly you would need a doctrine - and trained leadership - supporting combined operations and, I believe, we are light years away from that.

 

[KevinB]

More importantly you would need a doctrine - and trained leadership - supporting combined operations and, I believe, we are light years away from that.

Oh I think the CAF had a Doctrine for that. Didn’t you see the PRes rendition of RimPac this summer

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Oh I think the CAF had a Doctrine for that. Didn’t you see the PRes rendition of RimPac this summer

Leading Change

As a country with a history of expeditionary adventures, longest coastline in the world (or 2nd longest) it's shocking we have no amphibious capability. I wish Harper had been able to snag those two Mistral's. It would have forced the 3 services to work together. The odd thing is that they are really useful for the soft power approach and humanitarian stuff. You think the governments would happily go for it. I don't expect us to do opposed landings, but being able to put forces almost anywhere coastal makes a big difference and would allow us to provide support to many international missions.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Oh I think the CAF had a Doctrine for that. Didn’t you see the PRes rendition of RimPac this summer

No battleships = buzz kill

Glass half full: at least they gave it a shot. With a longer term focus, and some dedicated cross functional leadership at the higher levels, you could build a nice little capability, I'm thinking.

Sadly, it's hard to maintain a long term focus on much these days it seems.

 

[KevinB]

Leading Change

As a country with a history of expeditionary adventures, longest coastline in the world (or 2nd longest) it's shocking we have no amphibious capability. I wish Harper had been able to snag those two Mistral's. It would have forced the 3 services to work together. The odd thing is that they are really useful for the soft power approach and humanitarian stuff. You think the governments would happily go for it. I don't expect us to do opposed landings, but being able to put forces almost anywhere coastal makes a big difference and would allow us to provide support to many international missions.

Yup, there needs to be something to push the Services together -- plus Amphibs as you mention work for C&C, and logistics support of Operations near water -- so Caribbean hurricane belt etc -- for the most part I think opposed Amphibious landing have gone the way of the Dodo, but that doesn't mean they cannot take troops from A to B, and disembark them.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No battleships = buzz kill

Glass half full: at least they gave it a shot. With a longer term focus, and some dedicated cross functional leadership at the higher levels, you could build a nice little capability, I'm thinking.

Sadly, it's hard to maintain a long term focus on much these days it seems.

You would think that Coastal based Reserve infantry units would get a secondary tasking of ship to shore ops as part of their mandate and interior ones perhaps Arctic warfare. Sigh I can remember Reserve infantry units with functioning AT platoons, mortar platoons and heavy weapon platoons, not to mention 6 gun batteries with two CP's.

 

[daftandbarmy]

You would think that Coastal based Reserve infantry units would get a secondary tasking of ship to shore ops as part of their mandate and interior ones perhaps Arctic warfare. Sigh I can remember Reserve infantry units with functioning AT platoons, mortar platoons and heavy weapon platoons, not to mention 6 gun batteries with two CP's.

You would think....

I believe the main issue is one of consistency.

There was a time when these capabilities were assigned and maintained over a long period. These things tend to come and go like the wind, like the latest 'fad', these days which doesn't bode well for the long term commitment to a single purpose or mission of some kind.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

With the advent of the AOP's the ability to move people ashore has increased by a factor of 2. They now can safely bring ATV's and similar ashore with their landing craft. Hire a CCG helicopter to sling equipment ashore as well. We are almost where the USMC was back in the 1920-30's.