Guns On Trucks: Threats and Rivalries in Military Adaptation (What about the guns? Part 2)...James Hasik has another MUST READ!

 via JamesHasik Blog

The third observation is that we might think about whether any of this kit would be useful to the US Marine Corps as well. Because not just Russians, but Chinese too. The marines recently decided to start shedding most of their towed M777s for truck-borne M142 HIMARS missile launchers,*** which can throw an ATACMS missile 300 kilometers, and soon enough, anti-ship missiles as well. That combination is considered rather more relevant in a big war in the Pacific, and may also be useful on NATO's northern flank. That all seems in line with this new great power strategy stuff.

 However, some of my marine artillery friends are not thrilled about the change (yes, colonel, you know who you are). I suspect that not every target out of 81 mm mortar range merits a HIMARS rocket, and that those rockets can run winchester rather quickly. And heavens, while our marines might call the army for tanks occasionally (that's the plan), let's not have them call just for howitzers. Really—are we British? In contrast, if the discomfiture of some US Marines can be exploited by either Patria or AM General, to create a weapon with a quick time to battery, direct fire capability (to make up for the tanks foregone too), and perhaps even shoot-on-the-move capability, well, someone could score another sale. So, put down the coffee, Finns and Hoosiers. Pick up the gun.

Here 

Is that the plan?  To call the Army for both tanks and howitzers?  How long before we have to call them for infantry?

Ya know if we carry this plan to the max then the Littoral Regiments will be composed of just ant-air & missile artillery afloat.  To be blunt there really isn't a need for Marine Infantry.  If a raid needs to be conducted then SOCOM can pick a unit to carry it out.

Is that where we're really headed?  Missiles, Anti-Air, and drone operators making up the ground component?