USMC and Special Ops?

USA Today ^ | June 5, 2002 | Moniz

[johnny7]

I believe the Marine Raider concept was good in 1942 and would be good now.

Evans Carlson, “Red Mike” Edson and Lew Walt were great examples.

Marines are given the best training in our 4 branches of service.

But it takes a special individual to use a knife to kill his enemy... quietly.

The old Raider battalions had a lot of southern boys who knew how to shoot before they were weened.

They could sneak up on you from behind without stepping on a twig.

It was a good concept then... it's a good concept now.

[taxcontrol]

I agree, my Uncle was a scout sniper in Nam. He is the one who got me interested in the Military though I chose the Army. I also trained as a sniper though there were lots of guys way better than me. I can still hold a 6" circle at 600 yards.

But I can't tell you how many times my Uncle would complain that the "heavy" officers (as he called them) would not know how to properly deploy or utilize him or the Recon teams. I feel that it takes a different view point and understanding of combat at the command level to effectively utilize unconventional troops.

An example of this would be the failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran. My sister was working the White House Communciation staff at the time so I'm privy to some of the details. The force was thrown together, the intel was poor, the training was uncoordinated, the force was composed of troops that had not worked together, etc, etc, etc. The list of "Murphy's Laws" goes on.

This is one of the main reasons that I feel unconventional forces need to be organized as units that work together with their own command structure.

[johnny7]

I believe Carlos Hathcock was one of the best.

He would go out and lay in ambush with another guy.

A special sniper rifle, .50 caliber w/scope and silencer.

At long range the big round would tumble and make a mess of its target.

I gave his book away to a friend so I'm doing this from memory.

Correct me if I'm wrong gunnys.

[taxcontrol]

All true, but those skills are no longer present in the current recruits. As someone who was a trainer in close order combat (hand to hand, knife fighting, stalking, pistols, and MOUNT, I can tell you that most recruits make so much noise walking through woods that they can be heard up to 100 yards away.

This has a lot to do with the junk that loads them down. Most conventional officers work from the mind set of better carry it just in case you might need it. I've seen officers order their troops to carry 60 lbs rucksacks loaded down with cold weather gear (it was summer), tents, sleeping bags, etc. for an assault on a hill that would take at most 2 hours of movement and 1 hour of assualt and fortification. This, dispite having trucks available to carry their duffle bags for excess gear.

Few if any conventional officers see the need to train their troops for stealth or close combat. Stand back and let the artillery and Air Force pound the enemy to pieces and then we will pick through what is left is the motto of most officers today. While that works in a hot and heavy war, it often does not work with unconventional forces. Just my .02

[gunnyg]

Funny you should mention Carlson--one of my favorite topics! Here's a buncha info on Carlson that I recently posted to another board--if you are interested you can click back to numerous webpages I have written on the subject. CLICK-HERE!!!!!

Dick Gaines, GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72

[taxcontrol]

One minor correction. Please use the term suppressor not silencer. It is not possible to silence a rifle shot as the bullet itself is traveling faster than the speed of sound. As such, it creates a micro sonic boom that sounds more like a crack. The term silencer is used in the profession only on subsonic ammunition - normally pistols and normally .45 ACP rounds. That being said, the suppressor can reduce the bang heard from the escaping gasses considerably.

[gunnyg]

Looks like there's another thread going on this same subject over at....

CLICK-HERE!!!!!

[NerdDad]

Few if any conventional officers see the need to train their troops for stealth or close combat. Stand back and let the artillery and Air Force pound the enemy to pieces and then we will pick through what is left is the motto of most officers today.

You said a mouthful. First: It is unfortunate that the command structure does not contain more officers with unconventional backgrounds. You can't train/plan/do what you don't have a background for. Second, there is such fear of the viet-PR backlash of losing men that the commanders recoil at the suggestion of using troops where bombs will do. I suspect that more covert stuff than we need to know about is going on in the new theater but I also believe that there should be more. I think we could have accomplished more with well trained SO forces (including RECON) than has been accomplished with billions of $ in bombs. Especially when it comes to getting hands/blades on particularly slippery turbans.

[91whisky]

"The straight-laced marine officers despised special forces soldiers."

"On the other hand, SF considered the marines to be "a bunch of dumbasses that blunder around in the jungles and mountains like a herd of wild elephants and shoot each other in the ass more often than they shoot Sir Charles.”

Those quotes are from the book that I've read.