Editor’s Note: This article is a response to Capt Karl Flynn’s call for more deliberate MAAWS and demolitions training in, Divesting HE Proficiency: The 0351 Gap and Why the Infantry Assault Course Must Return.
BLUF: More demolition and MAAWS gunnery formal training is needed, with MAAWS gunnery as the overwhelming priority.
I agree with Capt Flynn that more training is required to fill the gap left by the 0351s. I am not sure that MAAWS gunnery and demolitions should be combined in the same Marine again, however. Our MAAWS are the most potent asset in the rifle company and need dedicated gunners to get the most out of the weapon system. I want them ready to be thrown at a problem that needs an HE solution, not trying to set a charge with a MAAWS slung at their side or a pack of rockets on their back. I also do not want to lose a Marine for 4 weeks, when I already have so many competing priorities for training time. While I would take the 4-week IAC over nothing, I want a 10-14-day (but no more than 2 calendar weeks) MAAWS Gunnery class at Division Schools or AITB. I am less sure what exactly a good solution for demolition improvement would be, but it could be either increased focus at AIMC/ISULC or another 2-week Division Schools package, perhaps like the old Urban Leaders Course. Below are some observations and thoughts based on the last few months of our PTP.
A MAAWS Gunnery Training Plan
Our battalion commander recognized that the MAAWS is the most potent weapon in the rifle company and directed this emphasis. Subsequently, V37 executed a deliberate campaign to produce MAAWS gunners.
We held a weeklong non-live-fire ‘MAAWS Clinic’ for all gunners, led by the battalion gunner, that covered a thorough familiarization with the weapon, its capabilities, various ammo types, and employment. Every gunner executed rocket battle drills in the simulator and numerous dry rehearsals.
We have also done weekly ‘MAAWS Clinics’ on Wednesday mornings on a first-come, first-served basis on the simulator.
For live-fire, we executed a battalion MAAWS gunnery range where every gunner fired at least one live rocket day and night, and we have incorporated MAAWS shots into every LFAM from squad on up.
Even with this campaign plan, however, we have still struggled with high stress MAAWS employment on R410A and R400.
Performance during the PTP
At R410A Day/Night we had a barely 50% hit rate. (90% with the AT4!) This was unexpected due to the emphasis we have placed on the MAAWs. We executed R410A with most of our squad leaders and platoon sergeants at AITB, which disrupted our T/O as we had to ‘next man up’ across the battalion. While our junior Marines stepped up superbly, a good chunk of the gunners and A gunners had missed the MAAWS Clinic as they were temporarily on the system or checked in after we ran it. The biggest problems we saw on the range were Marines getting lost in the “buttonering” of the FCS, selecting the wrong round type on the FCS, or shooting from a poorly supported position.
For R400 Day/Night we had some of our leaders back and were able to get more MAAWS clinic-trained gunners on the system. We had a hit rate of over 60%, and it was higher with the one company that had executed an additional MAAWs gunnery range in the two weeks between 400 and 410A. All companies had multiple hits at or about 500m (and an AT4 hit at nearly 500m!). We still had issues with the FCS and individual actions with the rocket battle drill. On both ranges, the gunners took longer than we would like to acquire and engage their targets in the hot position, increasing their risk of incapacitation and need for a high volume of suppressive fire.
Coming out of R400 and heading into SLTE we decided to stand up MAAWs sections in each company to get the most out of this weapon system. Dedicated gunners who drilled on the weapon system employed it better and like most battalions, we will not deploy at 100% T/O. We also saw the human factors induced on the MAAWS teams by fighting over a lengthy range as part of the assaulting element, and the impact those factors had on their accuracy and speed.
Demolitions
We have been fortunate to receive great support from our comrades at 1st CEB and CLB-7 for engineering support, and we have had engineers (and EOD) on hand for all our demolition training. This is mostly confined to obstacle breaching in support of maneuver on 410A and 400, but we also executed a battalion demolition range where we trained nearly 150 Marines on the legacy 0351 demo T&Rs, mostly due to the drive and vision of one of our company commanders and our Gunner.
I feel less confident addressing demolitions, but offer this endstate:
- I want all 0311s carrying charges for urban assaults, with the ability to prime at the squad level and construct charges at the platoon level.
- I want platoons to be able to conduct expeditionary explosive breaching of obstacles R400/R410A style.
Probably not helpful, but that’s my immediate observation. I feel like this is close to what we have now; we just don’t use demolitions as much in training as we should.
(Author aside) This was a great debate when I was on exchange: the Royal Marines have an ‘Assault Engineer’ or AE PMOS that does almost everything with explosives. They also have a ‘Platoon Weapons’ or PW PMOS that does all organic weapons, including CQB. There was a lively discussion between the AE PMOS Occfield Sponsor and the PW Occfield Sponsor on how demolitions and breaching should be handled. This is an oversimplification, but the PWs wanted to both conduct and RSO CQB training with explosive breaching on their own without AE support. The AEs wanted to be on hand to ensure all the charges were built and employed correctly. It was unresolved when I left, but there are a lot of things getting blown up on their social media, so they must have figured something out!
What is to be done
The IAC article identifies two problems: MAAWS gunnery and demolitions. Regardless of what we do with demolitions, we need better MAAWs training, and we need it now. We would benefit from a 2-week MAAWS gunner course at either Division Schools or AITB. Division Schools would be easier to implement quickly, but going under the TECOM banner has its own benefits in terms of ammo, standardization, a consistent instructor cadre, etc. The first week would be like our MAAWS clinic and cover all the classes and practical application of the system. The second week would be live fire employment of the system. Regardless of who owns the course, they need to do MTTs up to 29 Palms!
Conclusion
The gap left by the 0351 is real, and the planned mitigation efforts, including the arms room concept and the introduction of the MAAWS, have not panned out exactly as envisioned. Undoubtedly, the community would benefit from standardized demolitions and MAAWS gunnery training, with MAAWS gunnery as the priority.
Major Eric Todorski is currently the Executive Officer for 3d Battalion, 7th Marines. He can be reached at eric.a.todorski.mil@usmc.mil.
Why not just bring back Assaultmen then?
Having engineers in every Battalion is great, and I would not get rid of them even if Assaultmen were brought back. With that being said, it seems like all the issues brought up in this article could be solved in one fell swoop by simply bringing back assaultmen.
A platoon of 51s with the attached engineer platoon and one MAAWS/ MAAWS trained team per rifle squad would be a lot of firepower in the infantry battalion, in addition to the 0352s and CAAT.
Also, 29 Palms needs a Division Schools detachment.