USMC Information Thread

jb · Post by jb » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:01 am

red3scout wrote: though we had a cackling mad man from the mountains of Colorado who knew everything there was to know about making shaped charges and such and we were thoroughly trained in close assaulting armor with them.

I betcha he had Russian blood in him

voltigeur · Post by **voltigeur** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:54 am

I was always skeptical of "stats" Such as AAVs carrying 25 "combat" troops. If they did they were all south Vietnamese. I always figured we would get a squad plus in there-and that still seems to get crowded.

In the early 80's we were put in "boat teams" the interesting thing about this was each team was 25 men or very close to it. As stated earlier squad & weapons section/engineer team/part of command group. If you look at the LTVP7 would carry 25, you could fit 25 in a truck or 25 in a CH46 Seaknight. No matter how we were transported the boat team was the load out. So you never changed the company organisation.

jb · Post by jb » Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:22 pm

voltigeur wrote:
I was always skeptical of "stats" Such as AAVs carrying 25 "combat" troops. If they did they were all south Vietnamese. I always figured we would get a squad plus in there-and that still seems to get crowded.
In the early 80's we were put in "boat teams" the interesting thing about this was each team was 25 men or very close to it. As stated earlier squad & weapons section/engineer team/part of command group. If you look at the LTVP7 would carry 25, you could fit 25 in a truck or 25 in a CH46 Seaknight. No matter how we were transported the boat team was the load out. So you never changed the company organisation.

I remember spending many,many times in the backs of deuce and a halfs and five tons. I swear at times we got 40 guys in the back,but this was just going back and forth from ranges or some other admin move. On these trips we never carried combat equipment. Now when we were working as assault teams,M60s,M3 greaseguns,flak jackets,ammo,etc. we could not get more than half of the above stated troops in the same vehicles. So, on your boat teams was this with carrying everything needed for an assault?

pmaidhof · Post by **pmaidhof** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:00 am

As stated, I recall 23 Marines, weapons, packs, crew serves, etc on a one-way trip was tighter than a knat's rear end. Absolutely no way to go into a fight.

In the active duty USMC infantry back in late 80's early 90's I remember being organized into sticks of 15 for just about all modes of transport. This was the artificial limit on the number of packs for both CH-46 and CH-53's at that time. Can't say what it actually went to for those of the MEB which flew ashore during DS/DS as I was in HMMWV-mounted TOW's at the time. Worked just as good for Helo-Trucks as well.

Devildog · Post by **Devildog** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:30 pm

Trying to keep the thread alive...

Ok, I am working on a Reinforced Marine Rifle Company at 1-to-1 scale for ops in Afghanistan/Iraq - now, my experience in the Marines was in the mid-90's in a Reserve unit that never actually deployed, but we were never close to being at TO strength (I was with the Comm Platoon in H&S Co. 4th CEB.) For those of you out there who deployed in the 80's, 90's, 2001-2005 - here is a question - what was the actual strength of rifle squads? TO is obviously 13, but in reality once you account for rotation of Marines in and out of units, broked***ks unable to deploy, working parties etc.?

paul · Post by **paul** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:42 pm

Having driven the AAV I can tell you that 23 can be put in the back. It requires the middle bench to be installed and that load would only be carried for a beach assualt. During the 1st Gulf War the tracks carried about 8 grunts, supplies and plenty of ammo. Even with the greatly reduced numbers the track was still very tight.

voltigeur · Post by **voltigeur** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:05 am

Sorry for missing some post I didn't think this thread had been updated.

So, on your boat teams was this with carrying everything needed for an assault?

As stated, I recall 23 Marines, weapons, packs, crew serves, etc on a one-way trip was tighter than a knat's rear end.

Yes and Yes! I think Marine Doctrine in the 80's was put breathing Social Security Numbers on the beach faster than they could be made non breathing Social Security Numbers. Also except for actual overseas operations we rarely had attachments so there was some extra room. I have noticed in the news reels the LTVP load out is much smaller. I was in a unit that trained for jungle and heavy woods so we never used the tracks except to get on the beach.

For those of you out there who deployed in the 80's, 90's, 2001-2005 - here is a question - what was the actual strength of rifle squads? TO is obviously 13, but in reality once you account for rotation of Marines in and out of units, broked***ks unable to deploy, working parties etc.?

In my unit (2nd Bn 1st Marines) we never messed with the line platoons. 3 squads of 13. As a Company we were either on contingency, training, or Admin. Contingency meant ready for immediate deployment (with in 12 to 24 hours) Training self explanatory usually in the field. Admin meant playing Micky Mouse games with the officers and providing work details.

The biggest thing was the weapons platoon. Wartime and paper strength was 6 M60 teams, 6 Anti-Tank/Bunker Buster teams, 1 Mortar 60mm section 3 tubes. In peace time that was always 3 M60 teams 3 assault teams with 3 tubes of Mortars. The assault teams in a fluid operation would be used to fill casualties to keep the line units at full strength.

So the short answer to your question is all adjustments were made to the weapons platoon.

Devildog · Post by **Devildog** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:56 pm

Allright, sounds like going with full strength squads/platoons initially.

Onto a second question - how to model M-153 SMAWs which have played a major role in urban combat - especially in Iraq using thermobaric rounds to breech walls and clear fortified houses. I am leaning towards some type of kit bashing on the Stinger as they look similar enough - what do you think?

jb · Post by jb » Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:20 am

I will post a picture of my USMC assault teams with the SMAW tommorrow. I flocked them tonight. Thomas has got some that I did for him a couple of years back,maybe he will post a picture of them,What say you Thomas?

jb · Post by jb » Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:57 am

Here are some pics of my Marine assault sections of a line platoon. I also have a Mk19 AGL made from the LMG teams.

jb · Post by jb » Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:52 am

Thanks Thomas,nah these are made for me-I am going to use them to kick MEC butt

Ill try to get more pics up when I get more of the company done,OK?

redleg · Post by **redleg** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:03 am

I know that there is pre-positioned equipment painted desert tan, but I was wondering if any of the equipment Marines take from home station is tan, or if it is all camo. Would I find a tan tank or LAV on the amphibious assault ships? Thanks.

-Mike

Quirk · Post by **Quirk** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:39 am

I was the Nav/Deck PO on LCU-1633 when we were selected/volunteered to do the first ops with a LAV-25 at camp Pendelton. The vehicle was driven down to Coronado with a CHP escort, the driver claimed they did 70 for most of the trip-spd limit was still 55 at the time. we loded them up and went north. They were not a problem securing for sea and were easily controlled for positioning on the craft we could easily accomodate six with room left over for a few jeeps and sundry. When we arrived off Pendelton they had us do several drops and pickups at the reviewing stands for the VIPs. The surf was running between six and eight feet breaking hard on the sand. We launched the LAV off the ramp about 50 yards out so they could swim ashore. Had some safety issues concerning the screws as they were not shrouded. A couple of the Marine officers kept getting to close to them when we were moving the vehicle fwd for launch. The Craftmaster, BMC Deroucher, finally had to order them out of the well deck as they were not listening to me when I told them to stand clear, I was a newly minted QM 1. They tried to swim it back out to us to reload just outside the surf, but that was not an option that day, a little to rough, but it was a possability.

redleg · Post by **redleg** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:05 am

Has anyone seen the LAV-AT in real life? I am wondering about the turret - on the model it looks identical to the FIST-V targeting head or the ITV turret, which is stowed to the rear of the commander's cupola when traveling, and is in front of it when raised. The GHQ website shows the cupola in front of the turret and the head to the rear. Which direction should it be facing when the head is raised?

USMC Information Thread

AAV

Playing with the LAV in 85.