Lieutenant General Len “Loni” Anderson IV has served in top-tier Marine Corps units and key leadership positions throughout his career. He is the current Commander, Marine Forces Reserve (MARFORRES) and Marine Corps Forces South, as of March 21, 2024.
Anderson joined the Corps in 1993 and was designated a naval aviator in 1995. As an F/A-18 Hornet pilot he worked with a number of different operational units, including the Blue Angels. He then transferred to the Reserve in 2006, joining the 4th Marine Air Wing as the assistant wing commander and deploying in joint service in support of Operation Inherent Resolve. In his civilian career, he has been a pilot for FedEx and an actor. He was inspired by the original “Top Gun” to become a fighter pilot and has acted in movies such as “Captain Phillips” and “13 Hours.”
In a recent interview with Leatherneck magazine, LtGen Anderson covered the upcoming 110th anniversary of the Marine Corps Reserve and the current status of the Reserve.
What is the significance of the USMCR celebrating its 110th anniversary this year?
I was in the Reserve for the 90th, I was in for the 100th [and] I’m still here for the 110th. Just to imagine that … over a century’s worth of Marine Reserve service to our Corps, and where it’s come from that time until today, all the cycles that we’ve gone through. I would say we are at a time now in the Reserve that not only do we have the most opportunity but [it’s] the most exciting and dynamic time to be a Marine reservist. There [are] multiple domains that have changed for … your average Marine, whether active or reserve … from the time we started, [a Marine] has to think in many more domains … today than we did back then.
Can you discuss the importance of Marine Forces Reserve, what you’re doing presently and its future relevance?
We are fortunate at a time right now, under Commandant General Smith, who is focused on maximizing the potential of the Reserve. … We are no longer just a ‘break glass in case of emergency’ type of formation. We’re part of a Total Force that’s planned in; we have planned rotations [and] rotate on schedule. Some of this is not only due to efficient Marine Corps planning, but it’s also what I was trying to drive home, to get to reservists being able to plan their life, have predictable, repeatable deployments, and then for the Marine Corps’ side, have them budgeted. It’s not a surprise bill that happens in the middle of a budget cycle. It’s something that we’ve looked at for years on end. Reservists can see the horizon when they join a unit, and it keeps us much more efficient that way in a much more ready Marine Corps when we are deploying. It’s not a state of emergency; it is normal ops. …
I could foresee a Marine Corps Reserve that is even more in demand, as our active component continues to modernize, as we continue to move ahead with Force Design [and] through our learning experiences of what we need in combat. Our Reserve formations fall right in there. … My goal is to modernize and equip concurrently with the active component for those units that are heading forward, whether it’s in the first island chain or in another combatant commander’s AO [area of operation]. That might be cyber, that might be space as well. … My goal as a leader for the years going forward is to set the Marine Forces Reserve up to be part of that equation. …
Over the last five years or so, as we’ve really grown the force on the tech side with a Marine Innovation Unit, or as we stand up VMU-4 [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron 4] again. We’re going to get back into the unmanned business, we’re [going to] get back into the low-altitude air defense business. There is a lot coming toward MARFORRES in the next five years as we grow the force. … We finished a little bit over 1% over our goal last year. We’re on tap to do the same this year. It’s a whole team effort. …
We have been given millions of dollars, over $20 million last year alone in bonuses and incentives to keep enlisted Marines reenlisting, having them choose where they would want to serve in the Reserve. We’re providing them [with] that option. And I think that whole team of effort across the service is really what’s got us to the health that we are today. There’s no magic number to it. … I’d be remiss if I didn’t include the Marine Corps Recruiting Command. They have not only grown in size but understand our challenges recruiting in the Reserve, as they are out with recruiting stations and finding those new, young Marine reservists that need to come into our formations. And they’ve done an excellent job, organized across the nation, you know, growing our forces that are getting ready to deploy. …
Next year, we’ll be approaching 10% of our reserve force that will be forward deployed, and that’s the most significant amount that we’ve had forward deployed since 2013. And the demands will still continue to grow. … When I talk present, my focus as a commander is saying yes to whatever I can take off of the active component’s plate, or assist the Commandant in balancing out where we’re going to conduct our missions. Some of those might be the southern border. Some of that might be down in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and all these things are great opportunities for the Reserve. Whether or not it’s engineers, logisticians or our Marine Wing Support Squadron Marines, it’s a great opportunity for us to become a better force. …
The Marine Corps Reserve aims to cultivate and retain top-tier talent as it marks its 110th anniversary.( Photo by LCpl Edward Spears, USMC)Marines conduct riot control training during Exercise Balikatan 2026, illustrating the high-tempo, real-world missions that now define the modern Marine Corps Reserve. (Photo by Sgt Iyer Ramakrishna, USMC) Marines with the Marine Innovation Unit and the Marine Corps Software Factory debug code in Austin, Texas, in April, integrating technical expertise into the Corps’ modernization efforts.(Photo by Cpl Orion St. Pierre, USMC)
We are conducting all those missions and will be here for the foreseeable future. … As we look to the future and … some of these bespoke critical capabilities that we have, whether or not it’s our personnel recovery platoons or it’s our advisor companies that are across the globe with our partners and allies right now, today [we’re] learning how to defeat the adversary. As an example, maybe a couple of months ago, we had cyber Marines, and there was an intrusion on the network and we had [to respond] within 72 hours. Ten of our Reserve cyber operators [were] on orders on the keyboard defending networks. [It’s] something that [we] can respond to, assist and beat back the adversary. Again, in whatever domain, it’s really a great thing to see. And Marines reservists want to do this. They step forward, leave whatever tech jobs they’re in, to come on in and fight for the Marine Corps. It’s a great thing to see, and I see more of that happening in the future. … There’s a good group of these types of individuals working in and amongst our formations, and I really do believe in that model, short work for our exquisite skills, whether it’s space, cyber, even intel Marines. …
What I’m really excited about nowadays is the team that we have in New Orleans. We’ve got an AI task force that’s working on these things to try to predict what our reserve modernization and what reserve readiness looks like. … So, it’s, again, an exciting time to kind of be able to take a look at the future. … The introduction of AI and its use is certainly an exciting time for us in the headquarters, as well.
I think when you look at current operations today, I think CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] has done a really good job in the information environment to just post truth … and they’ll put a big post just as truth, and then, you know, beat back … this false narrative that’s being driven, and we really have to learn again … how to maneuver in that space as well. I’m fascinated by the information environment. I think there’s definitely more we can do. I’m excited that we are standing up a MIG [Marine Expeditionary Force Information Group], and get[ting] that up and running … and get[ting] Marines thinking about operations in the IE. … I’ve seen a lot of great work with II MIG out of [Camp] Lejeune here recently, wearing my other hat as Marine Forces South [Commander] … conducting our operations in South America. II MEF has really led to the information problem set, and it’s a great thing to see.
LtGen Leonard F. Anderson IV, commander of Marine Forces Reserve, speaks to Marines with 1st Battalion, 23rd Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division, during Integrated Training Exercise 3-25 at Twentynine Palms, Calif., June 14, 2025.(Photo by SSgt Scott Jenkins, USMC)
We have a USMCR Connect app; … we invested in it [and] we update it. There are opportunities that are listed right there for either individual augmentees or job postings for SMCR [Selected Marine Corps Reserve]. It can all be done on your phone. There are certainly a ton of other resources that are on there, too. Whether or not it’s medical, dental [or] psychiatric health, you name it. It’s kind of a one-stop shop for USMCR Connect. We’re doing the best we can to find a way to connect with our reserve force that is so dispersed. …
If there’s something that I’ve tried to share with my active component general compadres, it’s that a reservist deployment starts at mobilization or at activation. … That’s when the workup starts. They leave their home from the middle of the United States, they go out to Twentynine Palms, they’re training for two to three months and then they deploy forward. And then they don’t come back for another month until after the deployments end. So, it’s a really long time to be away from home, and we’re trying to keep that family connection going and make sure that family readiness is at the top of our priority as well. I want Marine reservists to know that we understand their life. I think that’s one of the benefits of having a reservist, even though on active duty now, as the commander of Marine Forces Reserve.
I’ve lived that life for over 20 years, and I understand what it means when you deploy away from your family, and they’re out on an island somewhere. They’re not in base housing with a big community. There might not be another Marine on their block or in their city. It’s a really kind of lonely time to be a family member when a reservist is deployed, and the importance of family, even with all the digital opportunities to connect with them. If you don’t know where your loved one is, it’s always going to weigh on your mind.
Can you describe your responsibilities as the commander of Marine Forces Reserve?
It’s a continuous education across the force on the capabilities and capacity of our Reserve. To make sure that the Reserve is in the conversation, i.e., JLTV [joint light tactical vehicle] purchases, with the next generation of plate carrier or high-cut helmets. You wouldn’t believe some of the things that we have to make, where it’s, ‘Oh yeah, it’s not just buying it for … these battalions on the West Coast. We’ve got all these reserve units that we need to mix into and modernize their formations, as well.’ So, it’s not that we’re forgotten, it’s just, as we have such limited resources in the Marine Corps, we’re using every dime we can to modernize as fast as we can while maintaining the readiness. …
LtGen Anderson addresses council members in New Orleans, La., during Military Appreciation Day. Strengthening ties with local communities remains a key priority for Marine Forces Reserve leadership, which is headquartered in New Orleans.(Photo by LCpl Claire Cheney, USMC)
How do we make it better for reservists to get to drill? That includes things just like we’ve seen with the increased travel budget, you know, up to $750 for travel for those who are living outside the 150 [mile radius of their unit]. … I do congressional visits … office calls on Capitol Hill, whether it’s staff members or actual congressional members, to let them know not only what our Marine Forces Reserve is doing, but what support they can provide. … Most everybody in Washington, D.C., wants to know how they can help. That’s what’s been a refreshing thing for me to see. It’s always good to see Congressman [Jack] Bergman [retired Marine lieutenant general and former Commander, Marine Forces Reserve] in there. We’ve got some other actual Marine reservists. As you know, Senator [Dan] Sullivan [a retired USMCR colonel] just retired from the Marine Corps Reserve not too long ago, but there’s a lot of Navy and Marine Corps synergy in the building, and I think we’re very fortunate to have that.
Marines with 4th Law Enforcement Battalion pose for a group photo during Exercise Cold Response 26 in Norway. The deployment showcased the USMCR’s role in global collective defense, training next to NATO allies to ensure rapid readiness in extreme environments. (Photo by Sgt Emily De La Torre, USMC)
The Marine Corps is first to fight, and we’ve shown that over the last year and a half. Certainly, whatever taskings have come our way, the Marine Corps has been there first. I’m going to make sure that we’re still able to support that as a Marine Corps Reserve, but alongside that, certainly from our appropriators and from our civilian oversight, the fact that we are on our third consecutive clean audit … has certainly gained us some favor in and across Congress. We know where our money’s going. We know where our stuff is. You give us a dollar, we know exactly where it’s going.
The one last thing I’d say, and it is posted on the MARFORRES website, it’s easy to access from the USMCR Connect app. My campaign plan is written there (https://www.marforres.marines.mil/About/#guidance-documents). I just ask Marines to take a look at the priorities, what we are looking to do in MARFORRES and the comprehensive resources. It’s the whole Marine. It’s the family. How are we going to be ready to go? Forecasting what that might look like, what our nation looks like in the event of a mass mobilization and being ready to have those thoughts. We need to start thinking through these procedures again to make sure that we’re ready to go.
Featured Photo (Top): LtGen Anderson and SgtMaj Edwin A. Mota meet with then-Undersecretary of the Navy Hung Cao during an Individual Ready Reserve muster in Arlington, Va., in March. These events are vital to the Reserve’s mission of maintaining a ready force capable of reinforcing the active component when needed.(Photo by Cpl Orion St. Pierre, USMC)
About the Author
LtCol Joel Searls, USMCR, is a journalist, writer and creative who serves in intelligence for the Marine Corps Reserve. He has completed the Writers Guild Foundation Veterans Writing Project, is a produced playwright, a commissioned screenwriter and an entertainment consultant. His most recent feature film-producing project is “Running with the Devil,” and his most recent TV series-producing project is “Top Combat Pilot.” He is a graduate of The Ohio State University.
Enjoy this article?
Check out these similar Leatherneck and Scuttlebutt features:
Homefront Heroes: Marines Recall Lifesaving Actions During Hurricane Katrina
The future of Marine Corps warfighting was out on display in the nation’s capital earlier this year. Held April 28-30 at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C., the annual Modern Day Marine expo was where some of the latest equipment in the Corps’ arsenal—and some still in development—saw the light of day.
Attendees explored acres of floor space filled with armored vehicles, loitering munitions and radio systems, and asked questions of the people who helped design them. Several briefing stages hosted senior leaders reporting the progress of their continuous efforts to improve the way the Corps operates. There was so much to do and see that, even arriving the moment the doors opened and staying until the lights shut off, no one person could have experienced everything the expo had to offer.
With the Marine Corps Association co-hosting the event, Leatherneck compiled a list of just a few of the highlights from this year’s show. 3D printers? Virtual reality? Attack drones? All of those, and much more, were found at Modern Day Marine.
Forterra/Oshkosh Defense
In last August’s “Modern Day Marine: The Future of Fighting Is Now,” Leatherneck covered Forterra’s AutoDrive system integrated into a small unmanned ground vehicle. This year, larger vehicles were on display, demonstrating AutoDrive’s compatibility with chassis originally designed for human occupants. Forterra and Oshkosh Defense have been in the news recently as recipients of a Marine Corps contract for Block 2 production of Remotely Operated Ground Unit for Expeditionary Fires (ROGUE-Fires).
As its name implies, ROGUE-Fires is an unmanned, highly mobile long-range missile carrier. It offers some of the capability of the existing M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) in a much smaller package, making for easier air transportation; whereas HIMARS must be carried by a C-130 or larger, ROGUE-Fires can be sling-loaded under a CH-53. Its visual similarity to the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV) isn’t coincidental—the vehicles share a common chassis and drivetrain, alleviating potential concerns over logistics and maintenance. The launcher can also be configured for missiles compatible with the Marine Corps’ HIMARS, the Army’s M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System and allied militaries’ comparable systems.
Freeing up enough space and mass to integrate a full-size rocket artillery system on the comparatively small JLTV chassis required removing the cab entirely, which in turn mandated replacing the crew with remote operators who control ROGUE-Fires through the AutoDrive module. In addition to its intuitive remote-controlled interface, AutoDrive gives ROGUE-Fires limited autonomy, allowing it to follow a convoy or relocate between firing positions with minimal human intervention and therefore minimal human risk from counter-battery fire. Its comparatively small size and good cross-country capability granted by the JLTV chassis make it somewhat stealthy and give it tremendous freedom of movement around the battlefield. By the time one of its missiles impacts, the vehicle will have moved elsewhere, making it difficult to target, and even if it does come under attack, enemy forces will have little way of determining its human operators’ locations. All these factors combine to make ROGUE-Fires a valuable asset to the Marine Corps and a formidable threat to its adversaries.
Although the high-tech hardware is certainly exciting, Modern Day Marine isn’t just a trade show. Throughout the three-day expo, senior Marine Corps leaders including the Commandant, Gen Eric M. Smith, deliver briefings on the state of the Corps. (Photo by Amanda Higgs)
With more than 400 exhibitors and four briefing stages, there’s more to see at Modern Day Marine than there is time to see it. (Photo by Amanda Higgs)
Small arms training systems are always a big draw at Modern Day Marine. InVeris (see “Modern Day Marine: The Future of Fighting is Now” in the August 2025 issue of Leatherneck for more details), a perennial favorite among attendees, supplies the Marine Corps’ Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer. (Photo by Amanda Higgs)
Polaris ULTV
Ever since the first automobiles went to war, ground troops have relied on small, lightweight vehicles at the tactical level. Though lacking the glamor and excitement of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, the humble World War II-era jeep and its long line of successors have been versatile and trusted platforms. In plain language: There’s a lot you can do with a light vehicle. The JLTV is highly capable and protected from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and small-arms fire, but tipping the scales at nearly 14,000 pounds, its “light” designation is a relative term. That weight can make the vehicle somewhat difficult to transport and cumbersome to use in certain environments. For situations requiring a much lighter general-purpose vehicle, infantry and reconnaissance units instead use the Polaris ultra-light tactical vehicle (ULTV), the successor to and descendant of the similar utility task vehicle.
Derived from Polaris’ similar civilian-market vehicles, the ULTV, referred to outside the Marine Corps as the MRZR Alpha, is essentially a military-grade, four-wheel-drive ATV. Its 1.5-liter turbocharged diesel engine produces up to 118 horsepower and 199 foot-pounds of torque, delivering twice the performance of the WW II jeep in a four-seat vehicle weighing just over 3,000 pounds empty. The ULTV is small and light enough to be carried inside a V-22 Osprey but offers enough performance to carry a 1-ton payload up to 300 miles on just 10 gallons of standard JP8 fuel. Its high ground clearance, low center of gravity and high power-to-weight ratio give it the agility to negotiate difficult terrain and up to 2 feet of water without endangering the four Marines inside.
The ULTV’s exportable power capability and parts commonality with other vehicles makes it a highly versatile platform. This variant features an extended wheelbase and replaces its two rear seats with a short-range missile system. (Photo by Amanda Higgs)
Though the ULTV is a simple way to deliver people and supplies from point A to point B, much of its value for Marines in the field lies in its versatility. The vehicle comes standard with a 3-ton winch and a robust electrical system that allows it to act as a mobile generator. With three electrical sockets and 5 kilowatt of power on tap, both stationary and on the move, the ULTV can power demanding external loads such as radar arrays, a necessary capability in its role in low-altitude air defense battalions. The Marines inside the vehicle have access to electrical power for charging their own devices through three 12-volt auxiliary sockets and a pair of USB ports.
MADIS Virtual Trainer
Small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have changed the character of warfare as dramatically in the 2020s as machine guns and airplanes did in the 1910s. Although larger unmanned aircraft have been valuable reconnaissance and strike assets in the U.S. arsenal since at least the 1990s, the wide commercial availability of small UAS allows any threat actor to deploy what amounts to a flying IED for very little expense. It follows, then, that LAAD Marines will have their work cut out for them in the next ground war, but setting up a range to train with Marine Air Defense Integrated Systems (MADIS) can be complicated and expensive.
To ensure LAAD Marines are competent with their equipment, PEO Land Systems has developed two training systems: the MADIS Desktop Trainer and Virtual Trainer (MVT). The former, in development since 2019, is a piece of software that works very much like a computer game: Using a laptop computer and a joystick, a Marine can practice the procedures necessary to track and shoot down a variety of airborne threats, ranging from small attack drones to large tanker aircraft. The MVT is much more sophisticated, running similar software on a full-scale simulator that mimics the interior of a JLTV. Sitting in the back of the dummy vehicle, crewmembers manipulate controls identical to the real ones, working together to destroy virtual aircraft just as they would in real life. Joysticks, switches, display screens, headsets—every part of the real system is replicated on a one-to-one basis inside the MVT. The system even has speakers built in to provide realistic auditory feedback. The whooshing of missiles and thunderous report of the autocannon certainly go a long way toward enhancing immersion for the LAAD Marines who use it for training.
“They’re impressed by it,” said Major Timothy Harpe of Portfolio Acquisition Executive Marine Corps, who provided a hands-on demonstration of the MVT. A former air defense control officer, Harpe identified and tracked a virtual airplane, passed targeting data to the other console, then fired a simulated Stinger surface-to-air missile, the 30mm autocannon and bursts from the coaxial M240 machine gun as needed. In short order, I, a mild-mannered author who has no experience whatsoever operating ground-based air defense systems, was shooting down enemy aircraft.
The MADIS Virtual Trainer replicates the interior of a real MADIS vehicle, down to the buttons and switches. The system is making its way out to the fleet now, giving LAAD battalions the most realistic training tool modern technology allows. (USMC)
“Cool” scarcely begins to describe the MVT (the Marines at PEO Land Systems apparently prefer “badass”). Both training systems were developed iteratively using feedback from Marines in the fleet to improve realism and ease of use, ensuring the Corps is providing its Marines with the best training products possible. The desktop trainer is already available in the fleet, and the LAAD battalions are just beginning to receive their full-scale MVTs. Their only complaint about the systems so far, according to Harpe, is that they can’t get them quickly enough.
During the expo, SgtMaj Carlos A. Ruiz, the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, center, stopped to talk to Marines from Sergeants School, Class 4-26, Senior NCO Academy at MCB Quantico. (Photo by Amanda Higgs)
This year’s Commandant’s Cup went to MAJ James O’Keefe and CPT Gregory Fitzpatrick of the U.S. Army’s 2d Cavalry Regiment. The wargaming tournament also included international teams from Canada and Poland, the latter of which placed second. (Photo by Amanda Higgs)
The MCA recorded episodes of the “Scuttlebutt” podcast at Modern Day Marine. Guests included Carlos A. Ruiz, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, left; SgtMaj Jacob Reif, Command Sergeant Major for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, second from left. Episodes of Scuttlebutt recorded at Modern Day Marine can be seen on the MCA YouTube channel, youtube.com/MarineCorpsAssoc. (Photo by Amanda Higgs)
Several groups of living history presenters attended Modern Day Marine, including Mel Bloom, left, of the 3-5-0 Girls and Rick Tucker of Baker Co 1/21 Reenacted. Also in attendance with a display of historic uniforms was MSgt Jeanine Franz, USMC (Ret), of We Are Marines Collection. (Photo by Amanda Higgs)
MCCS
Part of what makes Modern Day Marine so valuable is the diversity of its exhibitors. Amid acres of drones, missiles and radios, Marine Corps Community Services (MCCS) had a booth set up to show off the important work they do for servicemembers.
Marines might recognize MCCS as the entity that runs the Marine Corps Exchange, but they also operate dining halls, lodging, gyms and morale, welfare and recreation facilities—“anything [on base] with a cash register,” according to one representative. Profits from those enterprises are reinvested in programs to benefit Marines and their families, ranging from permanent change of station assistance to mental health services and everything in between. To raise morale among Marines deployed abroad, MCCS has the ability to provide them with a field unit—a CONEX box filled with all the amenities of a stateside convenience store, such as soda, beer and snacks.
MCCS also runs programs to support Marine spouses, such as employment workshops, career training and a financial grant system to help spouses obtain business licenses. Numerous Marine family members also work directly at MCCS operations; the next time you visit the movie theater or bowling alley at your duty station, there’s a decent chance the clerk behind the counter is a husband, wife, son or daughter of a fellow Marine.
GDLS Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle
Though visually similar to the ACV, the ARV weighs barely half as much and fills a different role in the force. It is a dedicated Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR) platform rather than as a general infantry carrier. (Photo by Sam Lichtman)
Since the 1980s, the Marine Corps’ light armored reconnaissance battalions have fielded the light armored vehicle (LAV) 25 and its derivatives as their vehicles of choice. Although the LAV-25 has proven its worth over the past four decades, the platform’s age limits its ability to be upgraded with modern sensing and electronic warfare equipment. Its replacement, the advanced reconnaissance vehicle (ARV), combines familiar characteristics with extensive improvements and a modular, extensible vehicle architecture.
At first glance, the ARV strongly resembles its predecessor—an eight-wheeled amphibious vehicle with a V-shaped hull for protection against land mines. Indeed, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), the ARV’s designer and manufacturer, is the same company behind the LAV family and has applied numerous lessons learned to the new vehicle. The integration of new features and technology directly into the design, rather than adding them through upgrade packages for a legacy platform, helps keep the vehicle’s loaded mass under 37,000 pounds, ensuring a landing craft, air cushion, can still carry four Marines.
As a reconnaissance platform, the ARV needs to be as stealthy and agile as an 18 1/2 ton armored vehicle with a 30mm autocannon can be. Its sensor suite is augmented by several cameras mounted around the hull; the same technology that helps you parallel park your car on a narrow city street gives the ARV’s crew excellent situational awareness without requiring them to leave the safety of their vehicle. On water, the ARV’s maneuverability is enhanced by steerable propulsion units, allowing its driver to navigate tight waterways with ease. It is a surprisingly quiet vehicle, even compared to some civilian trucks, helping it to remain undetected while its Marines gather intelligence or patrol a dangerous area.
The General Dynamics ARV prototype underwent open-water testing at Camp Pendleton, Calif., in February. The company’s extensive experience in armored vehicle design showed through, as the Marine Corps selected it to replace the LAV in LAR battalions. (Photo by Helena Yared)
For security reasons, guests ordinarily aren’t allowed inside the combat vehicles on display at Modern Day Marine. An exception was made for Gen Smith when he visited the expo. (Photo by Cpl Juaquin Greaves, USMC)
Useful though these features are, by far the most impressive part of the ARV is its onboard computer system, connected to every one of the vehicle’s systems. Not only does the vehicle help its own crew to keep it running by diagnosing faults, but it can connect to an external computer running GDLS’ Digital Twin Sustainment Suite (DTSS) software to aid in training. DTSS is a powerful interactive application providing Marines with a three-dimensional virtual environment in which they can view every part of an ARV’s anatomy, down to the literal nuts and bolts.
“All of the products they need are in one software,” said GDLS engineer Dino Pelekanos, allowing ARV crewmen to learn everything they need to know about their vehicles before ever climbing inside. They can either practice maintenance and repair procedures on their own or participate in guided lessons when connected to an instructor’s computer, which itself can control the actual vehicle for demonstration purposes. On the MDM show floor, Pelekanos remotely started the ARV’s engine and rotated its turret to prove the point.
Printed Solid
Advertising agencies love to throw around the word “revolutionary” to describe the latest smartphone or newest model year of luxury car. Consumer-grade 3D printers, while not as visually appealing, actually warrant that descriptor. The Marine Corps continues to investigate 3D printing as a way to reduce logistical burdens and enable Marines in the fleet to create their own solutions for the unexpected problems they encounter. 3D printers from Czech company Prusa Research are highly desirable for defense-related applications due to their excellent build quality, ease of maintenance and optional security features; indeed, Prusa machines are already in use in the Marine Corps.
Delaware-based Printed Solid, Prusa Research’s U.S. affiliate, builds Prusa printers Stateside to ensure regulatory compliance for government and military use. They also supply replacement parts, guaranteeing a reliable supply for Marine Corps installations in the continental United States that can’t afford to wait weeks or months for components to be shipped from Europe.
3D printing allows Marines to turn spools of plastic filament into useful parts and tools at the press of a button. Printed Solid demonstrated the capabilities of the Prusa machines they distribute and service by manufacturing drone parts directly on the show floor. (Photo by Sam Lichtman)
At this year’s expo, Printed Solid showed off a menagerie of printers: the high-speed, grandfather-clock-sized Pro HT90, the hobbyist-oriented MK4S, the popular CORE One+ and the famous toolhead-switching XL. The company expects to soon offer the INDX multiple nozzle system, an upgrade for the CORE One line, allowing the printer to switch between up to eight nozzles, and therefore up to eight different materials, in seconds. This capability enables more complex parts to be manufactured—a rifle stock, for example, could be printed in sturdy ASA or PETG with an integrated buttpad made of rubbery TPU.
BAE Amphibious Combat Vehicle
Every year, BAE Systems brings out a different variant of the amphibious combat vehicle (ACV) to show off the platform’s adaptability; this year’s model was the ACV-Electronic Warfare (EW) demonstrator. BAE is developing the ACV-EW on its own initiative in the hopes of soliciting interest from the Marine Corps in new variants other than the four that have already been ordered. The goal is to “show … what’s within the realm of the possible to meet Marine Corps operational requirements,” according to BAE representative Chip Hall, a retired colonel and prior amtracker.
Similar to the ACV-C, the ACV-EW replaces the infantry compartment’s seats with special equipment and an array of workstations. Externally, the vehicle strongly resembles the baseline ACV-P, but with additional radio antennae and radar arrays to detect and track air and ground targets and interfere with enemy communications. With the same Integrated Combat System as the other variants, the ACW-EW variant can pass targeting data to other vehicles to create a more complete picture of the battlefield.
Although this vehicle’s intended role should keep it out of the line of fire, it retains a Kongsberg remote weapons station (RWS) for defense against infantry, UAS and light ground vehicles. The example at the show also mounted a dummy launcher to show the RWS’ ability to integrate antiarmor and antiaircraft missile systems.
With this electronic warfare variant, BAE Systems hopes to demonstrate that it can adapt the ACV platform to the needs of the Marine Corps. Apart from its specialized electronics package and counter-UAS hardware, this variant is still essentially the same vehicle and therefore shares broad parts compatibility. (Courtesy of Oshkosh Defense)
Objective 1 Wargaming
Modern Day Marine was the site of the semifinals and finals for the Commandant’s Cup Wargaming Tournament, an international competition pitting two-person teams from across the Marine Corps and other services against each other in a test of strategic thinking and mental stamina. Over the course of four days, participants competed on simulated battlefields across a variety of both digital and physical map boards under the watchful gaze of facilitators from Marine Corps University. Wargaming for professional military education has a long tradition dating back to the 1700s but has often been sidelined due to shifting strategic priorities. Now, wargaming is experiencing a resurgence in interest from senior military planners interested in learning tomorrow’s lessons today, and the Marine Corps has played a leading role.
In the span of three years, the Commandant’s Cup has evolved from a somewhat casual contest to win a bottle of whiskey to a battle of wits among serious professionals who spend months training for the occasion in addition to their regular duties. Teams are welcome from any military command and can include either officers or enlisted servicemembers. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Eric M. Smith, presented this year’s Cup to a team from the U.S. Army’s 2d Cavalry Regiment, who was followed in second place by a pair of cadets from the Polish Military Academy of Land Forces. Major Christopher Lowe of Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa earned first place in the Flashpoint Campaigns Pro individual event and came out as this year’s highest-scoring Marine.
Wargaming for professional military education is experiencing a dramatic resurgence in popularity, and the Marine Corps is leading the charge. The annual Commandant’s Cup Wargaming Tournament is the most prestigious of its kind in the Western world. (Photo by Amanda Higgs)
OPTIA Ammo Can Computers
250 years ago, military intelligence consisted mainly of written notes and verbal reports on enemy troop movements. In 2026, military intelligence personnel rely on data from myriad sources: radio messages, UAS camera feeds, satellite reconnaissance images and more. To collate and process all that data, 02-series Marines need portable computers built to withstand rough handling and extreme environments and still perform reliably. To fill that need, United Computer Products offers the OPTIA line of ruggedized “ammo can computers.” Marines and their logistics infrastructure are already well accustomed to moving ammo cans around, the thinking goes, so why not pack a computer into a sturdy steel chassis with a similar form factor?
The familiar size and shape is a neat trick, to be sure, but it’s by no means the OPTIA line’s only design feature suiting these machines well for field use. These computers are designed from the ground up to work well sitting on bare dirt under a folding table in a tent instead of nestled comfortably in an air-conditioned data center. To prevent fans from sucking dust into the cases, all air intakes are protected by thick filter pads, which can be removed without tools for cleaning. The rear of each case has a door to cover the exhaust holes, expansion slots and motherboard’s input/output shield (the latter two recessed for further protection) during transit.
Internally, an OPTIA system has all the features and performance of a typical high-performance server or workstation, using commodity Intel Xeon CPUs connected to Nvidia RTX PRO graphics cards via PCIe or MXM interfaces. Most configurations are available with hot-swappable solid-state storage (protected, again, by doors containing aggressive dust filters), and the higher-end models can mount dual CPUs. The use of standard components ensures that any Marine with access to parts and a modicum of technical knowledge can easily maintain these systems long into the future.
Featured Photo (Top): XR Training (see “Modern Day Marine: The Future of Fighting is Now” in the August 2025 issue of Leatherneck for more details)supplies training systems combining physical controls with virtual reality headsets, allowing the user to feel as though he or she is behind the controls of a real vehicle. (Photo by Amanda Higgs)
About the Author
Sam Lichtman is a freelance writer and editor who specializes in small arms technology and military history. He has a weekly segment on Gun Owners Radio. He is a licensed pilot who lives in Virginia.
Enjoy this article?
Check out these similar Leatherneck and Scuttlebutt features:
SECOND PLACE WINNER: Leatherneck Magazine Writing Contest
Executive Editor’s note: The following article received second place in the 2026 Leatherneck Magazine Writing Contest. The award is provided through an endowment by the Colonel Charles E. Michaels Foundation and is being given in memory of Colonel William E. Barber, USMC, who fought on Iwo Jima during World War II and was the recipient of the Medal of Honor for his actions at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War. Upcoming issues of Leatherneck will feature the third-place winner and honorable mentions.
Under a moonless sky on Oct. 14, 1781, 400 Continental Marines and soldiers crouched silently on the coastal plains near Yorktown, Va. Before them loomed the British stronghold known as Redoubt 10. Each man understood that the coming moments could determine the fate of a fledgling nation. General George Washington’s orders were explicit: absolute silence to preserve surprise while encircling this modest yet vital position. Not a single shot could be fired until they reached the enemy.
Sappers wielding axes hacked relentlessly to clear a path through the abatis and fraises. A British sentry heard a sharp crack of wood and issued a challenge. No response came. A musket fired. The night erupted into chaos.
The Marines and soldiers formed human ladders, enabling their comrades to climb atop their shoulders and vault over the earthworks. The clash began sooner than the Americans intended, yet their discipline rivaled their British foes. By this late stage of the war, the patriots were well trained, well equipped and recently had been paid their long-overdue wages. Sites where British soldiers had slept or dined moments earlier turned into battlegrounds—and graves. With the redoubt captured, Washington secured the vantage point needed to unleash a third artillery front, dooming the main British lines.
But Morris didn’t take up battlefield command; instead he excelled in audacious financial stewardship that bolstered the American war machine.
That triumph stemmed not only from valorous combat and masterful strategy but also from leadership distant from the front lines—leaders who secured weapons, supplies and pay to enable victory. A pivotal figure in this realm was Robert Morris.
Born in Liverpool, England, Morris immigrated to the colonies as a child. He amassed wealth through success in shipping and the tobacco trade—though some of his profits derived from the abhorrent slave trade. By the Revolution’s outset, he ranked among the colonies’ richest men. He backed the patriot cause partly because he was outraged over Britain’s unjust taxes, including the notorious Stamp Act. But Morris didn’t take up battlefield command; instead he excelled in audacious financial stewardship that bolstered the American war machine.
Beyond the wartime demands of the 1781 Yorktown campaign and the Revolution writ large lay a critical, complex financial dimension. The nascent country lacked a robust economy and grappled to finance the war. Even the most devoted soldiers endured the privations of unpaid wages, fostering despair. Indeed, mere months before Yorktown—even as victory’s tide turned favorably for the American side—nearly 2,500 Pennsylvanian troops stationed in New Jersey mutinied, marching perilously close to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Pa., to demand back pay. A resolution averted catastrophe before the furious ranks reached the defenseless assembly. No war effort, past or present, endures without sound financial pillars. This account illuminates the “financier of the Revolution,” Robert Morris—a Founding Father embodying Marine Corps leadership traits like judgment, initiative, unselfishness and courage, while aiding the Corps’ formation.
The Birth of Old Glory,” by Percy Moran showing Robert Morris observing the first American flag. Morris’ later work as the “Financier of the Revolution” proved critical to the new nation’s survival.(Courtesy of Library of Congress)
Morris’ Financial Acumen
As a Continental Congress member, Morris chaired vital finance committees that acquired arms and provisions for the Army, Navy and Marines. Beyond procurement, he steadied finances, brokered essential loans and established the Bank of Pennsylvania to sustain supplies amid public credit’s near-collapse. His efforts forged foundations for today’s federal financial architecture. From the shadows, Morris’ altruistic labor—often tapping his personal fortune—transformed the Revolution from idle founders’ discourse into a global triumph.
In this political satire, Robert Morris is at the helm of a ship bringing the seat of government to Philadelphia, highlighting both the support and controversy surrounding his powerful position in the early Republic.(Courtesy of Library of Congress)
Discord and deadlock plagued the fledgling Congress, especially on fiscal matters. When stalemates threatened paralysis, Morris forged paths forward with resolute courage, at times acting unilaterally to overhaul institutions. He shouldered immense personal risk, pledging his own wealth to catalyze change. A stark example arose in 1781, as federal finances verged on bankruptcy. Rather than dither, Morris displayed judgment and decisiveness by issuing “Morris notes,” or currency underwritten by his personal credit, which bankrolled the Continental Army. In this endeavor, he raised more than $1.4 million—an audacious act for any citizen, then or now—securing vital supplies for Yorktown. Some of the bayonets and axes wielded so effectively by soldiers and Marines at Redoubt 10 that October night were purchased with these notes. Moreover, this funding forestalled further mutinies over unpaid dues.
A 1781 “Morris note” for $20. When the U.S. government verged on bankruptcy, Robert Morris issued these drafts backed by his own personal credit.(Courtesy of Eric P. Newman Numismatic Education Society)
Congress also appointed Morris Superintendent of Finance in 1781, formalizing his role as a visionary steward. He shrewdly insisted the position wield flexibility, insulating the role from political gridlock to ensure swift decisions. This prescience spared his office from devolving into another futile committee. Concurrently, Morris co-founded the Bank of North America—a private entity under public oversight, crafted to extend credit to Congress. It generated reliable cash flow and pioneered the institutional scaffolding of America’s federal financial system, endowing the young republic with fiscal sophistication rivaling elder powers.
No war effort, past or present, endures without sound financial pillars. This account illuminates the “financier of the Revolution,” Robert Morris—a Founding Father embodying Marine Corps leadership traits like judgment, initiative, unselfishness and courage, while aiding the Corps’ formation.
Morris grasped that vanquishing a global empire demanded equal financial might. His judgment transmuted Congress’s sluggish committee processes into a streamlined engine of resources. Though not the sole affluent patriot, Morris towered among them as a preeminent leader. Instead of choosing comfort and hiding as the war raged around him, he stood up for what he believed in. Other lenders trusted the infant nation’s bonds precisely because Morris guaranteed repayment. At peaks, his sterling reputation eclipsed Congress’ own.
Morris’ Impact on the Marine Corps
Robert Morris also led the Marine Corps’ inception. From 1781 to 1784, he led the Continental Navy as the unpaid “Agent of Marine,” overseeing all naval affairs. He swayed John Adams and Joseph Hewes to establish the Continental Navy, and, as a Congress delegate, he sat on the Marine Committee, directing Continental Marines. He further championed Captain Samuel Nicholas—now hailed as the Corps’ first Commandant—for a clandestine mission ferrying a massive French loan from Boston, Mass., to Philadelphia through British-held terrain.
Morris provided three vessels from his merchant fleet to the Continental Navy: Black Prince (renamed Alfred), Sally (renamed Columbus) and Molly (renamed Reprisal). These ships aug-mented naval strength and powered America’s pioneering amphibious assaults. Refitted as a 24-gun frigate, USS Alfred spearheaded the Battle of Nassau, the Corps’ first amphibious raid. USS Columbus, likewise a 24-gun frigate, also joined the fray. USS Reprisal, an 18-gun brig, notched victories en route to Martinique and conveyed Benjamin Franklin—newly tapped as envoy to France—across the Atlantic, marking the first Continental ship in European waters.
Depicted in this painting by W. Nowland Van Powell, USS Alfred was a pivotal asset in Robert Morris’ private fleet. Serving as the flagship of the Continental Navy, she led the first amphibious raid in Marine Corps history during the Battle of Nassau. (Illustration courtesy of Naval History and Heritage Command)
Morris the Man
Morris stands with Roger Sherman as the only two figures to sign the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and Constitution. After the war, he continued to make an impact by advancing federal fiscal reforms.
Morris epitomized action: a beacon of dedication worthy of emulation. Amid civilians, he exceeded bounds as the exemplar of unselfishness and dependability among Revolution-backing elites. He seized the moment, recognizing that even flawless strategy crumbles without prompt funding. On top of helping to create the Corps, he embodied attributes that would become pillars of the famous Marine leadership traits.
The Corps prizes teamwork in combat, understanding that war transcends tactics and involves a plethora of actors. Like myriad warriors, Morris toiled offstage, his fiscal savvy amplifying British pressure and turning the dream of the Revolution into a reality. While certainly not the most famous founding father, Robert Morris should be appreciated for his incredible commitment to the establishment of this nation.
Lessons for Readers and the Corps
There is a lot to be learned from Morris by our modern Corps and warfighters.
• Seize ownership of your role and amplify others’ roles. Morris exceeded every mandate, aiding procurement and beyond. He didn’t just do the bare minimum; he took great care to go above and beyond every role.
• Act decisively amid turmoil—reject hesitation and deliver solutions. Don’t get caught up in paralysis. Though debate and argumentation will lead to better results by bringing out the best ideas, there does come a point when deadlines will be missed because of deadlock.
• Master your craft. Morris built upon his personal financial knowledge to shape the federal financial system.
These principles will sharpen the Corps against emerging threats, sustaining lethal prowess. May this inspire all ranks to weave Morris’ traits into their command, fostering adaptability and ingenuity.
Featured Photo (Top): Portrait of Robert Morris (Courtesy of Library of Congress)
About the Author
Corporal Alistair Watson is a Chinese Mandarin linguist assigned to 1st Radio Battalion in Camp Pendleton, Calif. With no prior experience with the language, Cpl Watson graduated from the Defense Language Institute with the class’ highest award: the Commandant’s award.
Enjoy this article?
Check out these similar Leatherneck and Scuttlebutt features:
Father Of The Navy, Godfather Of The Marines: John Adams’ Legacy Of Expeditionary Courage
Leatherneck July 2026 By: MSgt Christopher A. Mendez
Marines are well known for our near-religious commitment to understanding our Corps’ history and for personifying our commitment to our roots. We wear that heritage on our uniforms, but more importantly, we feel it in our hearts. We bear that solemn lineage in our spirits. We live by the mantra, “Once a Marine, always a Marine.” When we step into any store, bar or social gathering anywhere across the country and see a patron wearing a cap, T-shirt or hoodie adorned with the Eagle, Globe and Anchor, there is an instant bond, bridging generations in a way that only those who have endured the crucible of Marine Corps entry-level training truly understand.
This year, we celebrate our nation’s 250th birthday. What began as the “American Experiment” was a revolutionary idea first tested in 1776: that ordinary citizens could govern themselves under a written Constitution that placed limits on government power, protected personal freedoms and derived all authority from “We the People.” The idea was dubbed an experiment because no large nation in history had ever attempted such a novel idea before, and there were doubts that the young republic would succeed.
For a quarter millennium, we have successfully navigated the American experiment and will pay homage to those who have protected our way of life. Through 12 major wars and countless smaller conflicts, Marines have paid the ultimate price. Best estimates from Congressional records reveal that more than 46,000 Marines have laid down their lives.
Celebrations across the country this July will honor the survival of our constitutional republic. Through parades, ceremonies and special events in and around the nation’s capital, this is expected to be the largest celebration of its kind in American history. Continuing a proud tradition from past national celebrations, Marines will once again be called upon to represent generations of predecessors by supporting ceremonies and events for America’s semiquincentennial on July 4, 2026. Those stationed in “every clime and place” at embassies, at sea or on forward operating bases the world over will pause, take a knee, herringbone outward and reflect upon our nation’s beginnings. They will be reminded of the heavy cost their ancestral brothers and sisters paid to preserve this beloved experiment—exactly what they’re actively risking today. Today, we stand in gratitude for their service and for the monumental sacrifices of those who walked this path before them.
We endeavor to never sully the reputation or the legacy of those who have gone before. Because of that, Marines truly are a special breed.
As the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force 250 mobilizes for events, we look back 100 years ago, when the Marines supporting the 1926 sesquicentennial faced a struggling exposition with challenges beyond their control. They adapted to overcome every obstacle and even earned official awards for their efforts—but more importantly, they set a powerful, resilient example that will guide the Corps for generations to come.
A replica of the Tun Tavern was hosted by the 43rd Company, 5th Marines during the 1926 Sesquicentennial. The replica featured colonial furniture and historical paintings and served as the heart of Camp Samuel Nicholas. (Photo courtesy of National Archives)
Marines stand in front of an oversized Eagle, Globe and Anchor at Camp Samuel Nicholas during the 1926 Sesquicentennial in Philadelphia, Pa.(USMC)
Royal Marines visit the Liberty Bell at Camp Samuel Nicholas during the sesquicentennial. (Courtesy of National Archives)
The Sesquicentennial Exposition
In 1926, Marines were heavily engaged in the Banana Wars in Haiti and Nicaragua while others protected American interests in China during the Northern Expedition. Despite no declared war, the Corps was stretched thin across the globe.
Faced with these demands, Marine Corps leaders intensified recruitment efforts. To replenish the ranks, they seized every opportunity to showcase their prowess to the American public. In November 1925, they had already generated strong support for new enlistments by hosting some of the first formal Marine Corps Birthday celebrations in Philadelphia, Pa. The Marines were once again called upon to proudly represent the nation, alongside the Army, Navy and other federal departments, at the Sesquicentennial International Exposition.
The idea for the exposition began in 1916 with merchant John Wanamaker, who envisioned Philadelphia again hosting an international gathering like it had for the 1876 Centennial Exposition. Delayed by World War I, planning resumed in 1921. On March 19, 1925, President Calvin Coolidge declared the sesqui “for the purpose of exhibiting the progress of the United States and other nations in art, science and industry, and trade and commerce, and the developments of products of the air, the soil, the mine, the forest and the seas.” He then formally invited international participation to promote peace and international unity after the Great War.
America had grown weary of war and had emerged from WW I as the preeminent Industrial Age power. Under what we now know as the “New World Order,” the League of Nations had been established to cultivate that peace and unity. So, in February 1926, Congress gave formal approval and appropriated funds to “demonstrate the nature of our institutions and their adaptation to the wants of the people and the progress of our people in the advancement of peace, arts, and industries,” according to the Congressional Committee on Industrial Arts and Expositions. The fair opened on June 1, 1926, on a 450-acre site at League Island Park along the Delaware River. Promotional materials proudly declared “America Welcomes the World.”
Visitors at the 1926 sesquicentennial stroll past the 13 columns representing the 13 signers of the Declaration of Independence, a nod to the original colonies. (Photo courtesy of Library of Congress)
The sesqui’s general plan featured a world’s fair layout, complete with Industrial Age novelties, international cultural attractions, a semicircular arena and encampments for military displays. Two trolley terminals and a parking lot sat outside the northern, main entrance, and a third terminal provided easy access to the southern end. At the main entrance, visitors were greeted by the expo’s most recognizable feature: an enormous 80-foot-tall Liberty Bell adorned with thousands of lights. This illuminated replica became the sesqui’s logo and appeared on posters, souvenirs and invitations circulated internationally.
This amazing site formed a dramatic main gateway to the grounds, supported by two colossal towers that rose up from either side of Broad Street like majestic sentinels. Each tower was built around a heavy steel framework and sheathed in sheet metal for strength and speed of construction. A smooth, bronze-colored plaster, known as staff, covered the exterior, giving the structures a rich metallic sheen. The effect
This 1926 “Handy Guide Map” provided visitors with a bird’s-eye view of the 450-acre Sesquicentennial International Exposition in Philadelphia. (Courtesy of National Archives)
projected the grandeur of permanent monuments while remaining lightweight, temporary and removable. The illuminated surface sparkled at night and transformed the entrance into a glowing beacon visible for miles.
After passing through the Liberty Bell and entering the park along Broad Street and Packer Avenue, guests received a 95-page program containing all the events for the entire six months, right down to the hours within each day that they would occur. They also received a trifold “Handy Guide Map” with a bird’s-eye view of the complex, complete with numbered and named attractions on the back. They were free to proceed via the walkway to the Forum of the Founders, which featured 13 Columns of the Signers. These Doric-style columns were capped with laurel-wreathed “skaphia”—a basin used in Ancient Greece to concentrate sun rays to ignite a flame, in the same fashion used in the Olympics today. Just above eye level were mounted bronze tablets, with each column naming a state’s signers of the Declaration of Independence. The number 13 was repeated in art and architecture throughout the exhibition, representing the 13 original colonies.
As visitors walked down Broad Street, they encountered the Tower of Light, which featured one of the largest search-lights in the country, according to E.L. Austin and Odell Hauser’s book on the event. Nearby, there were livestock and agricultural exhibits, an auditorium with six rides, two lagoons, a bandstand, a seaplane exhibit and Rumanian (spelled that way then) and Chinese villages. A dance hall was still under construction when the park opened. Down the main thoroughfare and to the left stood the Great Concrete Stadium with a 100,000-person seating capacity. This massive, horseshoe-shaped, concrete, stone and brick structure, constructed in the classic Greek amphitheater model, had an oval-shaped track reminiscent of hippodromes. To the right were the Hollywood exhibits and the High Street of 1776, featuring period displays. Other exhibits included international fares from over 30 different countries, and finally, situated along the southwestern most portion of the complex, the military encampments—at a location now bisected by Philadelphia’s I-95 corridor.
MajGen John A. Lejeune, 13th Commandant of the Marine Corps, walks through Camp Samuel Nicholas in Philadelphia during a formal inspection in 1926. Behind him is the replica of Tun Tavern. (Photo courtesy of National Archives)
Military Presence
The U.S. Army’s Camp Anthony Wayne, named after the Revolutionary War hero, was nestled south of Edgewater Lake. The camp housed over 1,000 soldiers in a tent city. To the east of the camp, in a large field that is today a set of baseball diamonds, the soldiers demonstrated cavalry charges, performed drills and conducted cannon and other weapon demonstrations. South of the field, the Marine camp sat across a meandering walkway and also contained a tent city, complete with a replica of Tun Tavern. There, the Marines were within easy sprinting distance of the Navy Yard. A 10-minute walk down Broad Street and visitors could enter Building 29 for the Navy Historical Exhibit and could tour docked ships, including USS Constellation.
The Marines had robust support from the top to construct their encampment. Major General John A. Lejeune, then the Commandant of the Marine Corps, was ever cognizant of the delicate relationships between Philadelphia and Congress. He had retained Brigadier General Smedley Butler, following his two years’ serving as the city’s director of public safety, as the Commanding General of Marine Barracks in San Diego, Calif. Butler remained tethered for guidance and support.
Marines performed naval gunnery and combat drills to entertain and educate the public during the exhibition. (Courtesy of National Archives)
Gene Tunney, left, squares off with his former boxing instructor, Maj Anthony J. Drexel Biddle Sr., at Camp Samuel Nicholas, Sept. 2, 1926, Philadelphia. (Courtesy of City of Philadelphia, Dept. of Records)
In a letter dated May 11, 1926, the Commandant thanked Butler for his recommendation to detail a composite battalion of Marines for ceremonial purposes. In a follow-up letter, Butler mentioned his father, Congressman Thomas S. Butler, who remained a powerful ally to usher in support when necessary. The older Butler served as the Chair of the Committee on Naval Affairs and ensured the Marines had ample resources to develop their camp. His support, coupled with the Marines’ proximity to the Navy Yard and the USMC Depot of Supplies along Broad and Washington Streets, would come in handy for materiel procurement in the months that followed.
The official 1926 program (left) details the dedication of the Tun Tavern replica (right) and Camp Samuel Nicholas, in Philadelphia. (Courtesy of National Archives)
Marine senior leaders selected three companies to serve as a living model of Marine Corps life and history to the American public. The Scranton Tribune, dated July 6, 1926, reported that these included the 16th and the 20th Companies, quartered in the Navy Yard, and the 43rd in the tent city at the sesqui. According to muster rolls, the 43rd, the main effort, consisted of 121 men, led by WW I veterans Captain Louis E. Fagan and First Sergeant Thomas G. Bruce with the platoons commanded by Lieutenants Bayard Livingston Bell and Franklin William Ross Brown. The unit itself had a storied and decorated history from service in the war.
Originally formed from the Marine Guard of the USS Kansas (BB-21) battleship with the Atlantic fleet, the 43rd embarked for Vera Cruz in 1914, according to the “Marine Day Programme.” They had expeditionary duty in Mexico and Cuba, then returned from the West Indies and strengthened their ranks with volunteers from Philadelphia. Replenished and refitted, they then sailed to France with 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines. They were among the first American infantry troops to serve in the 2nd Division, American Expeditionary Forces, and would later participate in the occupation of Germany.
During the war, their participation exacted a heavy cost. They lost 41 killed in action and suffered 261 additional casualties. Eighteen of these later died from wounds. Their uncommon valor earned them an astonishing 209 awards for extraordinary heroism, including 21 Distinguished Service Crosses and 15 Navy Crosses, according to the program. By 1926, to support the sesqui, the company consisted of the original WW I veterans as well as those from Haiti, Nicaragua and China. Their ranks included the first Marines authorized to wear the coveted French fourragère awarded to the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments, alongside those who had not yet seen combat themselves.
GySgt Thomas Bruce (USMC)
To support all three companies assigned to the sesqui, Commandant Lejeune entrusted Colonel Cyrus Sugg Radford, the officer in charge of the Depot of Supplies. Col Radford had proven himself a worthy logistics leader, running manufacturing, sustainment and materiel shipping that supported Marines both in garrison and in WW I. Throughout sesqui’s buildup and during the venue’s entire six-month event, Radford kept both BGen Butler and the Commandant well apprised of the camp’s status and all its materiel needs. This is confirmed in a letter Butler wrote to Radford on Aug. 14, 1926. These and past efforts would later secure the colonel a promotion to brigadier general, and his assignment as the Quartermaster General of the Marine Corps.
Marines of 43rd Company, 5th Marines, construct Camp Samuel Nicholas during the 1926 Sesquicentennial, transforming the grounds into a professional encampment modeled after tropical expeditionary layouts. (Photo courtesy of National Archives)
Philadelphia Mayor W. Freeland Kendrick and Gene Tunney with Marines at Camp Samuel Nicholas, as Tunney prepares for the heavyweight boxing championship. (Courtesy of National Archives)
As a team, the leathernecks quickly built their tent city. The tentage, gravel walkways, a chow hall, cleansing units and a command tent with an oversized Eagle, Globe and Anchor all went up in short order. They modeled the camp after tropical layouts used on expeditions; the gravel walkways would come in handy during Pennsylvania’s rainy summer months. Appropriately enough, they named the camp after the first Marine Corps officer, Capt Samuel Nicholas. There, Marines would conduct combat demonstrations, march in formations, display uniform regalia and perform naval gunnery. They would also wear period uniforms in pageantry, complete with materiel examples used throughout Marine Corps history.
Col Cyrus Sugg Radford (USMC)
To the camp’s east, the Marines constructed their feature attraction, the Tun Tavern, the first of its kind since the original burned down in 1781, 145 years prior. The “Marine Day Programme” described the building as “a faithful replica of the original structure,” with the interior “designed to contain paintings that depict incidents of Marine Corps history,” referring to a series of 13 paint-ings contributed by Philadelphia’s own John Joseph Capolino. In part because of these efforts, Capolino would later secure a Reserve commission as a Marine Corps officer and serve as an official combat artist.
According to an Aug. 27, 1926, article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Capolino’s artwork at the exposition depicted combat scenes throughout American history, from the Revolutionary War to WW I. His pieces included the first amphibious landing in Nassau led by Nicholas, the fight against the Seminole Indians, the Spanish-American War and Marines who fought in France under the U.S. Army’s 2nd Division. After reviewing the paintings, guests would be able to talk to live Marines who were part of the same unit depicted on the final panels. Other items displayed in the tavern included colonial period furniture and a reproduction of journal entries containing the original muster rolls of the first Marines recruited. Outside the tavern’s second level, Marines mounted Colonial, modern American and other flags.
Secretary of the Navy Curtis D. Wilbur, second from left, visits Camp Samuel Nicholas alongside Capt Louis E. Fagan, left, commander of the 43rd Company. SECNAV Wilbur was reportedly highly impressed with the soldierly virtue and professional appearance of the camp. (Photo courtesy of National Archives)
As the sesqui approached the May 31st opening, unresolved construction delays and political friction arose. In addition, the weather didn’t cooperate; rain poured relentlessly. In a private letter written to Butler, the sesqui was dubbed “The Rainy Exposition.” Expenses were higher than anticipated, and as the exposition began, the expected 200,000 guests per day slumped at 10% turnout. Having lost over $20 million in revenue, more colorful pet names for the event emerged in print: “Kendrick’s Carnival,” after the mayor of Philadelphia, and “Sucker, Simple, Sickly-Centennial.” Variety magazine later declared the sesqui “America’s Greatest Flop.”
The Marines, however, were impervious to these challenges. They opened Camp Samuel Nicholas to the world at 4 p.m. on June 29, 1926, to a spellbound crowd. Principal guests included Mayor W. Freeland Kendrick and Major General Eli Kelly Cole, USMC. A direct lineal descendant of Captain Samuel Nicholas christened the camp. On what they termed “Dedication Day” and “Marine Day,” 10 sequenced events entertained visitors. These included the 43rd’s march-on, invocation, dignitary speeches, the unveiling of bronze tablets dedicated to the Thomas Roberts Reath American Legion Post and the Sojourners Club, unfurling Colonial flags, the ceremonial relief of Continental Marines by contemporary Marines, unfurling the American flag, the formal occupation of Camp Samuel Nicholas, christening and benediction and a general inspection, followed by a reception at Tun Tavern.
Cursive notes written in the program’s margin reveal that the band played “Flourishes” during the Colonial flags’ unfurling, “Four Ruffles and Flourishes” followed by “The Star-Spangled Banner” for the national flag unfurling and “The Marines’ Hymn.” During the camp occupation, they played a second rendition of “Four Ruffles and Flourishes” and blew trumpets for “Sound Assembly” to announce the general inspection. John Philip Sousa, the “March King” himself, composed the “Sesquicentennial Exposition March” for the celebrations, capturing a patriotic pride that honored this living historical exhibit.
The Marines knew that the eyes of the world were upon them and rose to meet public expectations at every engagement. Besides manning the camp, periodic parades and demonstrations, they supported other areas around the sesqui campus. They manned an exhibit depicting life in the tropics for the Haitian Expedition, stood guard at the original Liberty Bell, kept watch over display tables in the Navy exhibit and provided personal protection for visiting dignitaries, including the Queen of Rumania and President Calvin Coolidge.
President Coolidge visited the sesqui the day after Independence Day, as July 4 had fallen on a Sunday. Coolidge, devoutly religious and sensitive to American families, chose not to conduct the visit on the Sabbath. Admission was free to the grounds for his visit and his speech, conducted at the Great Concrete Stadium across the street from the military encampments. With the 50-cent entrance fee waived, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, attendance soared to over 35,000 visitors. Having Marines present that day, and on other days when dignitaries visited, proved invaluable, as a built-in personal protective capability stood ready.
Marines perform a ceremonial relief of leathernecks dressed as Continental Marines in front of the Tun Tavern replica. (Courtesy of National Archives)
Besides their practical utility in security matters, the evidence—found in letters, photos and 35mm film newsreels from Fox Film Corporation—shows that the Marine Corps had one of the best attractions. The Marines were well set up, led and appear to have been sharp and disciplined in both period and contemporary uniform dress. Their drill reflected precise cover and alignment, their uniforms were pressed and polished, and their encampment was clean, organized and well maintained. Both officers and enlisted men clearly had solid control of their allocated space. They truly reflected the best in soldierly virtue with the discipline and attention to detail Marines are known for.
Then, on Sept. 1, 1926, they welcomed one of their own, boxing champion Gene Tunney, to the camp. Tunney, known as the “Fighting Marine,” stopped in before his participation in the heavyweight championship. He was to challenge the reigning heavyweight world champion, Jack Dempsey, at the stadium on Sept. 23. Tunney was a WW I veteran whose service had taken him to France with the 11th Marine Regiment, and later to Germany during the 1919 Rhineland occupation. Although he did not see combat himself, he spent most of the war developing his skills on the Marine Corps boxing team and ascended to become the U.S. Expeditionary Forces champion.
Tunney’s challenge match with Dempsey was expected to draw visitors far and wide. Photographs showed Tunney and then-Maj Anthony J. Drexel Biddle, considered the father of the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program, squared off at the parry with Model 1903 Springfield rifles and M1905 bayonets affixed. Maj Biddle trained Tunney in boxing during the war. For the sesqui, he’d volunteered to be mobilized from the Reserve to train boxers participating in the interservice championship bouts also conducted there. According to an article in the July 1926 issue of Leatherneck, his specialty was bayonet fighting, as he had spent a good portion of the war preparing Marines for close combat en route to the front lines. Together, he and Tunney embodied the courageous fighting spirit that all Marines sought to emulate.
By fight night on Sept. 23, there was little doubt that Tunney came with the backing of a home team advantage among his fellow Marines. Despite the friction created by heavy rains, Tunney defeated Dempsey in front of more than 120,000 spectators. Newspapers reported that Tunney landed so many left and right hooks that by the 10th round, Dempsey’s left eye was swollen shut. Dempsey’s loss was considered an upset, but a year later, he would challenge Tunney to reclaim his title only to lose a second time. Tunney would remain the heavyweight champion of the world until his retirement in 1928.
Public Reception
The fight, however, did little to tip the scales on the sesqui’s balance sheet. As the exposition approached its final months in operation, costs incurred to construct, staff and maintain the venue well exceeded the revenue coming in from ticket sales. Total admissions averaged approximately $1 million per month. Newspaper reports were brutal. The Asbury Park Press stated that the sesqui was widely discussed as “one of the greatest exposition failures this country, or the world has ever known.” The article claimed that America had “nothing to see” that “hasn’t been seen either through the medium of the movies or on auto tours over the country.” The paper further asserted Americans could tour every corner of the Earth through news and educational films or simply tune in to the radio from their own parlors to hear inaugural speeches, football games, the World Series or championship prize fights. Their feelings were commonplace.
Capt Anthony J. Drexel Biddle (Courtesy of National Archives)
In a 2025 column titled “ ‘America’s Greatest Flop’: Why the Sesquicentennial of 1926 Fell Flat,” the author cites several possible reasons for the sesqui’s failures: financial ruin, poor management and politics, unfinished construction, bad weather, location issues (considering that south Philadelphia was underdeveloped at the time and the inadequate transportation infrastructure made the venue difficult for attendees to reach), cultural misalignment where a focus on traditional displays didn’t compete well with rapid rise of movies and automobiles, and poor word-of-mouth advertising.
When the sesqui finally closed on Dec. 1, it had lost millions, and the nickname “America’s Greatest Flop” stuck. Much of the material that constituted sesqui was sold off at auction to recoup losses, according to The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia. The Tun Tavern replica remained on site into January 1927 while dismantling authority was secured; Marines handled final salvaging under Depot Quartermaster direction. Yet the Marine contingent succeeded brilliantly. The International Jury of Awards of the Sesqui-Centennial awarded the leathernecks a gold medal in recognition of their professionalism and spirit. That same spirit guides us 100 years later. General Eric M. Smith, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, stated in an interview earlier this year that individual Marines would continue to lay down their lives to do miraculous things under arduous conditions. This has been the case for the last 250 years and will continue to be the case. Sergeant Major Carlos A. Ruiz, the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps agreed, saying that the discipline standards of the Corps would guarantee their service to the American people—some-thing we’ve done consistently for the last quarter millennium. As we celebrate America’s birthday, we hear the echoes of those Marines who, in highly disciplined and remarkable ways, turned a troubled fair into an enduring standard. They remind us that our greatest weapon remains the human mind, not only sharpened by modern wargaming but also honed by history, rooted in Tun Tavern spirit. Those leathernecks of 1926 live on in every Marine on watch today and will continue to shape the Corps for centuries to come.
On Sept. 23, before a record-breaking crowd of more than 120,000 spectators (below), Tunney claimed the world heavyweight title over Jack Dempsey. (Courtesy of National Archives)
Marine and heavyweight contender Gene Tunney made history during the 1926 Sesquicentennial at Philadelphia’s Municipal Stadium. (USMC)
Featured Photo (Top): A Marine Corps float passes beneath the sesquicentennial’s most iconic landmark, an 80-foot-tall replica Liberty Bell that served as the gateway into the 1926 exposition. (Courtesy of National Archives)
About the Authors
LtCol Brad Anderson, USMC (Ret), is a freelance writer and researcher for Leatherneck. Katie Cashwell is a veteran Marine and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington with a degree in historic preservation. She has spent decades providing research supporting recoveries of America’s Missing in Action and was instrumental helping to find the lost graves of Tarawa.
Enjoy this article?
Check out these similar Leatherneck and Scuttlebutt features:
Uncovering the Origins of Marine Corps Birthday Celebrations
Leatherneck November 2025 By: LtCol Brad Anderson, USMC (Ret), and Katie Cashwell
The first time I interviewed Marines of “The Commandant’s Own” United States Marine Drum & Bugle Corps, they carried neither drum nor bugle, but a tape measure.
Walking onto the hallowed parade deck of Marine Barracks Washington, D.C., this past spring, I discovered Marines scrutinizing the sidewalk leading to the flagpole at the center of the parade deck. They wore pristine service uniforms paired with the M65 woodland field jackets unique to “8th & I” staff. Had a monstrous spider caught their eye and interrupted the rehearsal? Perhaps a crack formed overnight in the immaculate pathway? Nope to both. The Marines crouched above the concrete, ignoring the blinding glint of mid-morning rays reflecting off their mirrored Corfams, calculating the width of the walkway down to the inch. Actually, down to the half inch.
“We call it ‘eight to five,’ ” one of them explained as I approached and asked what they were up to. “Eight 22.5-inch steps equals five yards. We’re just verifying the distance from that line there in the middle of the sidewalk to the grass. Everything we do is based on the 22.5-inch step. It’s easy to march on like a football field that’s marked every five yards, but there’s nothing like that out here on the parade deck.”
“22.5 inches, huh? So how many 23-inch steps does it take to screw everything up?”
The Marines around me snickered and smiled as one of them answered my question without hesitation.
“One.”
The men and women of the Drum & Bugle Corps (D&B) are truly THE proud professionals of their craft. Serving as the U.S. Armed Forces’ only active-duty drum and bugle corps, they dissect each performance and sharpen their skills on the parade deck every day. Catch any one of them on his or her way to the chow hall, the parking garage, exiting the head, or even sleepwalking through the barracks halls, I’d bet you a solid platinum three-valve Kanstul G series they’re gliding along at 22.5 inches per step.
Before joining this renowned organization, all D&B members first ship out to basic training to earn their Eagle, Globe and Anchor. Most are in their mid-20s through boot camp and Marine combat training, learning the mantra of “every Marine a rifleman” alongside their teenage counterparts. Their age is just one factor separating them from the herd and marking them for scrutiny. They endure boot camp as the quintessential “band nerds,” and likely the only recruits in their entire company or even battalion to know exactly where they are headed and what they will be doing after basic training. They arrive at 8th & I as privates first class and progress through rank just like their peers in any military occupational specialty (MOS).
Cpl Alejandro Gutierrez conducts a musical sequence during a parade for the Norwegian Military Tattoo at the Oslo Spektrum in Oslo, Norway on April 26, 2024.(LCpl Chloe N. McAfee, USMC)
Cpl Gage P. Kroljic, a marimba player, performs during the Drum Corps International World Championship in Indianapolis, Ind., on Aug. 9, 2025. (Photo by Cpl Brynn L. Bouchard, USMC)
“As Marine musicians, sometimes it can feel like both of those inherent parts of our identity are at odds with each other,” said Staff Sergeant Alex Liddell, a tuba player and seven-year member of the D&B. “It takes an intentional approach to buy into it and doesn’t come naturally to everyone.”
Earning the title of “Marine” most often proves just as transformative and defining for musicians as any other individual who wears the uniform. The foundation they receive through basic training enables each to excel in their craft and embrace the history and vital importance of their ceremonial mission.
The unit’s lineage traces back to 1798 when an act of Congress formally established “The President’s Own” United States Marine Band. The bill also ordered the enlistment of drum and fife majors along with 32 musicians. These early “field musics” enabled commanders to signal and coordinate dispersed forces above the din of battle. Their involvement on the front lines or aboard a warship was not ceremonial. Their music was not a performance. Their presence meant command and control.
By the early 1900s, modern communications replaced the need for standardized musical signaling. The D&B at Marine Barracks Washington formed officially in 1934 to augment the U.S. Marine Band performing ceremonial duties around the nation’s capital. For a time, separate D&B’s existed at locations around the Corps, similar to the 10 Marine Corps fleet bands in operation today. By 1956, General Randolph M. Pate, the 21st Commandant of the Marine Corps, designated the 8th & I unit as the official U.S. Marine D&B. It was not until 2006 that Gen Michael W. Hagee, the 33rd CMC, gave the D&B its moniker, “The Commandant’s Own.”
Cpl Michael R. Rosie, a bugler with“The Commandant’s Own,” plays “Taps” during a Friday evening parade at Marine Barracks Washington, D.C., on Aug. 4, 2023. (Photo by Lance Cpl. Chloe N. McAfee)
Snare drummers with “The Commandant’s Own” perform during an evening parade at Marine Barracks Washington, D.C., on May 1.(Photo by Cpl Christopher Prelle, USMC)
Capt Courtney Lawrence, executive officer of “The Commandant’s Own,” marches on center walk of the parade deck at Marine Barracks Washington, D.C., on March 27. (Photo by Cpl. Brynn L. Bouchard)
In 1967, Truman W. Crawford joined the D&B as chief musical arranger. His passion for music and unique ability to instruct did not simply raise the bar. He redrew the standard entirely. He was promoted to the role of commanding officer and eventually eliminated the disaggregated D&Bs around the Corps, consolidating them into the single unit existing today. Crawford served as the D&B CO from 1973 until his retirement in 1998. He left the Corps as a colonel, and at the time, was the oldest Marine on active duty. His singular, enduring impact on the organization is rightfully likened to John Philip Sousa’s contribution to the Marine Band. The headquarters building of the D&B at Marine Barracks Washington is named in his honor.
Crawford forged the D&B from a small group of Marines who were handed instruments and ordered to play into an institution of ceremonial excellence. Today, more than 85 Marines compose the D&B. The operational tempo they maintain rivals many Fleet Marine Force units. They perform nearly 500 events every year, traveling more than 50,000 miles to represent the Marine Corps and the nation. As “The Commandant’s Own,” the D&B primarily supports the ceremonial mission at 8th & I or around Washington, D.C., but is held in reserve to deploy wherever the Commandant orders them to perform.
D&B performances range from formal ceremonies to presidential honors to local parades to backyard barbecues. Every day at 8th & I, Marines perform live bugle calls, from morning colors, to chow call, to taps at 2200. For each event type, the D&B tailors the ensemble size and music selection, carrying every piece from memory. A constant stream of information batters each Marine, vying for attention while they move and play. Each must flawlessly perform his or her part of the music while tracking and adjusting to the movements of other Marines crisscrossing in every direction. Operating as a cohesive whole, any mis-step or off-tune note is easily picked out.
“The Commandant’s Own” performs for more than 22,000 guests at the Drum Corps International World Championships in Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis on Aug. 12, 2023.(Photo by LCpl Iyer Ramakrishna, USMC)
Though seemingly similar to “The President’s Own,” and with a common historical origin, the D&B operates as a distinct musical entity in every way. While the band performs more like a traditional orchestra, D&B focuses on precision marching while playing. Many D&B members have extensive education and experience post-college before competing for an open spot and shipping out to basic training. Similarly credentialed musicians join the Marine Band without attending boot camp and enter at the rank of staff sergeant. The Marine Band’s dedicated musical position is signified by a lyre beneath the chevrons of their rank insignia rather than the Corps’ standard crossed rifles.
The uniform adopted by D&B offers a further clear distinction from the Marine Band, not to mention the rest of the Marine Corps. While both Marine Band and D&B Marines wear scarlet blouses with no rank insignia, band members wear decorated black piping across the chest, rows of brass buttons, white braided epaulettes on each shoulder and other ornamental features. D&B Marines likwise wear the iconic scarlet blouse, in the tradition of their “field music” predecessors, but in a more simple and unadorned fashion. The earliest battlefield signalers wore uniforms largely the reverse color scheme of their infantry counterparts—a stark visual flag to allies and enemies alike that these men were noncombatants. The D&B uniform remains true to that history, nearly an exact reversal of the enlisted Marine dress blue coat. The glaring lack of rank insignia endures as another nod to history. Many of the earliest drum and fife players were young boys or old men—too young or too old to enlist. They wore no rank because they had no rank. In keeping with that tradition, D&B officers and drum majors are the only Marines wear-ing rank in parade uniform.
Though they can be seen all around the world, the D&B is primarily recognized for their iconic performances during the summer parade season in D.C. Every Friday night, they wow the packed stands at 8th & I during evening parades. Every Tuesday night, they bring Marine Corps history to life beneath the towering Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington, Va., during sunset parades. Each performance shares a story and reveals a glimpse of the Marine Corps to onlookers. The responsibility they bear is certainly not lost on any D&B Marine—they represent not just “The Commandant’s Own,” but all Marines, past and present.
Capt Courtney Lawrence, executive officer of the D&B, conducts the band during the Drum Corps International World Championships in Indianapolis on Aug. 9, 2025. (Photo by Cpl Brynn L. Bouchard, USMC)
MGySgt Joshua Dannemiller, drum major of “The Commandant’s Own,” conducts the band during NightBEAT at Truist Stadium, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., on July 30, 2023.(Sgt Brandon Salas, USMC)
Earning a spot with the only paid, professional military drum and bugle corps naturally requires a daunting audition process and competition at the highest skill level. A dedicated D&B recruiter projects, advertises and fills vacancies within the unit every year. Most prospective applicants come from participating bands within Drum Corps International, an organization governing civilian drum and bugle corps. D&B puts on an exhibition performance at the Drum Corps International World Championships in Indianapolis, Ind., every summer. This single event sparks a significant portion of the interest and applications needed to fill vacancies.
Those who succeed through the audition process are expected to complete basic training and arrive in Washington, D.C., ready to step onto the parade deck with instrument in hand. The D&B joins other 8th & I Marines in Yuma, Ariz., for several weeks of “spring training” at the beginning of every year where they perfect the performance they will repeat throughout the summer parade season. The goal of D&B recruiting efforts is to identify openings, collect applicants, conduct auditions, finalize selections and get new enlistees through basic training, all throughout the year prior so new joins can attend the Yuma training.
Any number of things can go wrong with this process. D&B recruits sometimes suffer injuries in boot camp that delay their starting date, or worse, permanently affect their ability to play and march at the professional level required and ruin their prospective career. For various reasons, new musicians frequently arrive in D.C. after spring training is already over. Even so, they are expected to rapidly absorb the routine and join in the performance. I witnessed this firsthand during my spring visit to the barracks. As I stood on the parade deck observing rehearsal, a brand new private first class who had just arrived, having missed Yuma by only a few weeks, played his snare drum alongside staff sergeants and master sergeants who’d been performing for decades. For D&B, there is no bench or second string. Each member marches and contributes, regardless of rank or tenure.
Their job as a 5512, Member U.S. Marine Drum and Bugle Corps, in many ways is similar to any MOS within the Corps. Despite their demanding ceremonial duties and travel schedule, every Marine assigned to the D&B is a Marine first. They are expected to maintain proficient rifle qualifications, exemplary scores on the annual physical and combat fitness tests and embody our core values. They must pass leadership and career courses required to progress in rank. Drums and bugles replace rifles in daily life, but each remains a piece of serialized equipment placed in the care of an individual Marine to love, master and befriend. The creed may not formally exist, but the Marine mindset is the same.
“This is my contrabass bugle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.”
Even in times of war, members of the D&B have not been exempted from combat. While the unit as a whole remains non-deployable, individuals have shipped overseas throughout its history.
SSgt Patrick McCreary, from “The Commandant’s Own,” competes in the Marine Corps Marksmanship Competition at MCB Quantico, Va., on Nov. 4, 2021.(Photo by Lance Cpl. D’Angelo Yanez)
(Photo by PFC James Bourgeois, USMC)
(Photo by Cpl Christopher Prelle, USMC)
At the beginning of every year, “The Commandant’s Own” joins other units from Marine Barracks Washington, D.C., including the Silent Drill Platoon and the Marine Corps Color Guard, in Yuma, Ariz., for annual training in preparation for the summer parade season.
Cpl Michael R. Rosie, a bugler with “The Commandant’s Own,” flips a tire during a field meet at Marine Barracks Washington, D.C., on June 12, 2024.(Photo by Lance Cpl. Chloe N. McAfee)
During Vietnam, members of the D&B wore Combat Action Ribbons and Purple Hearts on their blouses. A few had the opportunity to deploy most recently in support of the Iraq War.
Major Nathan D. Morris is a 19-year member of the D&B, currently serving as the unit’s commanding officer. Like all officers within the unit, Morris started as a PFC and was promoted from within. As a young corporal in 2008, he and one other D&B Marine volunteered to join a provisional rifle company formed in the National Capital Region (NCR). He deployed to Iraq and spent his time in country patrolling as a squad leader, returning home to a promotion to sergeant. Another provisional rifle company deployed from the NCR the following year, including two more D&B Marines.
The opportunity of a professional musician’s paycheck might represent the initial pull toward D&B, but it is the dual identity as a Marine that keeps members reenlisting.
“All are top-tier musicians, but the ones who buy into the Marine Corps culture are the most successful,” Morris explained. “Just like any MOS, we have Marines who do four years and get out, but overall, we have good retention. At some point, the Marine Corps gets a hold of you, and it becomes about being a Marine. If you don’t have that spirit and mindset in this organization, you are not going to do well. We are still like any other Marine Corps unit, operating off of Marine Corps doctrine like ‘MCDP-1.’ ” Warfighting doctrine dictates why they do what they do and the way they do it. The Corps’ values drive them to be the best of the best, and perhaps are the reason they have endured as the only active-duty D&B. While representing the Corps on the most visible of stages, D&B Marines possess the rare opportunity to connect with Marine Corps history firsthand. Not just by embodying its visual representation, but physically experiencing it, more fully illuminating for them the importance of who they are.
Master Gunnery Sergeant Joshua Dannemiller has felt these moments, deeply connected to Marines who have gone before, at numerous points throughout his long career. Now the D&B Drum Major, Dannemiller enlisted in 2003. In 2010, he joined the D&B on an “island hopping” tour around the Pacific. During one stop, they helped commemorate the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima, performing at a ceremony attended by survivors from both sides of the conflict. During the visit, the Marines ran along the beaches where their predecessors landed under fire, the same black sand beneath their feet, the waves lapping against the same shoreline where so many lost their lives. Dannemiller was promoted to staff sergeant standing on top of Mount Suribachi. The scenes remain vividly etched in his memory now, more than 15 years later. Additionally, he has joined the D&B on tour for joint performances with the French at Belleau Wood.
SSgt Alex Liddell, left, and Sgt Colton Garrett, tubists with “The Commandant’s Own” United States Marine Drum & Bugle Corps, play music during a dress rehearsal for performances in Australia and New Zealand at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz., on Feb. 1. During the tour, the D&B traveled to Brisbane, Australia and Auckland, New Zealand in support of the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo. (Photo by Cpl. Christopher Prelle)
From left to right, MGySgt Joshua Dannemiller, drum major with “The Commandant’s Own”; Andrew Powell, Minister for the Environment and Tourism for Queensland; and Maj Nathan Morris, the commanding officer of “The Commandant’s Own,” at Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, Australia, on Feb. 11.(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Christopher Prelle)
“Seeing these battlefields and what the Marines actually overcame is a very humbling experience,” he reflected. “Part of our mission is storytelling, and that history is part of our story. It’s important for us today to see where we came from and what was learned from their sacrifice.”
From the Pacific islands to Atlantic Europe, Norway to New Zealand, or Indianapolis to Washington D.C., wherever “The Commandant’s Own” performs, their message is clear: Marines are the proud professionals of their craft, steeped in tradition, inspired by their history. They endure as one of the oldest continuous expressions of what it means to serve in the Corps.
“The Commandant’s Own” performs on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 28 as part of a state arrival ceremony for Their Majesties of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, King Charles III and Queen Camilla.(Photo by Cpl Brynn L. Bouchard, USMC)
Featured Photo (Top): The “Commandant’s Own” performs during a sunset parade at the Marine Corps War Memorial, Arlington, Va., on July 25, 2017.(Photo by Cpl Cristian L. Bestul, USMC)
About the Author
Kyle Watts is the staff writer for Leatherneck. He served on active duty in the Marine Corps as a communications officer from 2009-13. He is the 2019 winner of the Colonel Robert Debs Heinl Jr. Award for Marine Corps History. He lives in Richmond, Va., with his wife and three children.
Enjoy this article?
Check out these similar Leatherneck and Scuttlebutt features:
Celebrating America’s Music: The 225th Anniversary of “The President’s Own”
FIRST PLACE WINNER: Leatherneck Magazine Writing Contest
Executive Editor’s note: The following article received 1st place in the 2026 Leatherneck Magazine Writing Contest. The award is provided through an endowment by the Colonel Charles E. Michaels Foundation and is being given in memory of Colonel William E. Barber, USMC, who fought on Iwo Jima during World War II, and was the recipient of the Medal of Honor for his actions at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War. Upcoming issues of Leatherneck will feature the second- and third-place winners and honorable mentions.
The Revolutionary War required leaders who could think beyond traditional paradigms of conflict. Arriving at the Continental Congress in 1774, John Adams quickly emerged as one of the most influential voices on matters of defense. The skirmishes at Lexington and Concord in the spring of 1775 galvanized the colonies, but they also exposed critical vulnerabilities. The British navy controlled vital waterways, threatening supply lines and isolating resistance. Adams, drawing from his New England heritage, understood the peril facing coastal communities and anticipated that a purely land-based military response would be insufficient.
His insight was rooted in personal experience and shrewd analysis. In his autobiography, Adams recognized the seas as a vital but dangerous highway, an observation that encapsulated his appreciation of maritime strategy. He argued forcefully for the establishment of a fleet that could challenge British naval supremacy and disrupt enemy logistics. This argument was not merely theoretical;
Courtesy of Library of Congress
Adams grounded his advocacy in the practical needs of defense, emphasizing the importance of rapid response, shipboard security and the ability to strike at enemy positions from multiple directions.
Adams joined the Naval Committee in 1775, working alongside critical committee allies such as Silas Deane and John Langdon. Here, his influence was decisive. While others debated the feasibility of building a Navy from scratch, Adams pressed the urgency of the moment and the necessity of bold action. He articulated a vision for a hybrid force—a corps of “soldiers of the sea” capable of operating on ships and executing amphibious raids. Major General Jason Q. Bohm, USMC, (Ret), in his work “Washington’s Marines: The Origins of the Corps and the American Revolution, 1775-1777,” underscores Adams’ under-standing that military success required a blend of land and naval capabilities, and that the new nation needed a force prepared for operations not only on the open sea but also on rivers and coastal waters, and through rapid amphibious landings.
Founding the Continental Marines: Adams’ Defining Moment
Adams’ advocacy reached its most crucial moment on Nov. 10, 1775. Despite resistance from delegates concerned about the costs and risks of naval initiatives, Adams remained steadfast, marshaling support through his eloquent correspondence, committee work and personal appeals. The resolution passed by the Continental Congress that day, recorded in the Journals of the Continental Congress and shaped by Adams’ leader-ship, was explicit: “Resolved, That two Battalions of Marines be raised, consist-ing of one Colonel, two Lieutenant Colonels, two Majors, and other officers as usual in other regiments; and that they consist of an equal number of privates with other battalions; that particular care be taken, that no persons be appointed to office, or enlisted into said Battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted with maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea when required.” This directive did more than authorize a new branch of service; it established the unique amphibious identity that still defines the Marine Corps today. Adams’ insistence on recruiting men “acquainted with maritime affairs” reflected his belief in adaptability and versatility—qualities essential for expeditionary operations. Documentation from the Marine Corps History Division at Marine Corps University confirms Adams’ central role in shaping both the structure and spirit of the Corps. His active and principled involvement set a precedent for the Marine Corps’ core values: honor, courage and commitment.
Adams pressed the urgency of the moment and the necessity of bold action. He articulated a vision for a hybrid force—a corps of “soldiers of the sea” capable of operating on ships and executing amphibious raids.
Guided by John Adams’ directive to recruit men “acquainted with maritime affairs,” Capt Samuel Nicholas began assembling the first prospective leathernecks. (Illustration by Colonel Charles H. Waterhouse Estate, Art Collection of the National Museum of the Marine Corps)
From Tun Tavern to Nassau: The Marines’ First Actions
The impact of Adams’ vision became tangible almost immediately through his influence on personnel and doctrine. Recruitment began at Philadelphia, Pa.’s historic Tun Tavern under the supervision of Samuel Nicholas. As Nicholas was a proven leader with maritime experience, this choice further demonstrated Adams’ commitment to building a force specif-ically tailored for the complexities of the era. By securing “good seamen” in leader-ship positions, Adams ensured the new branch would be not merely an extension of the Army but a specialized tool for maritime power.
As depicted in “New Providence Raid,” an oil painting by V. Zveg, during the landing on New Providence, Bahamas, on March 3, 1776, Samuel Nicholas leads the successful seizure of Fort Montagu, proving that Adams’ “soldiers of the sea” were a necessity for the new nation’s defense. (Courtesy of Naval History and Heritage Command)
Within months, the Continental Marines validated this institutional design. In March 1776, a Marine detachment led the first major American amphibious assault on Nassau in the Bahamas. The mission, aimed at seizing gunpowder and supplies for George Washington’s army, was a resounding success. The Marines’ ability to move swiftly from ship to shore to capture strategic objectives proved that Adams’ “soldiers of the sea” were a practical necessity, not just a theoretical concept. As MajGen Bohm notes, these early actions were foundational moments that enhanced America’s operational capacity and set the standard for future expeditionary missions.
His approach anticipated the needs of future generations, ensuring that the Marine Corps would remain relevant and effective as the nation evolved.would remain relevant nation evolved.
Adams’ support for the Marines was not limited to policy and organization. In 1778, during his diplomatic voyage to France aboard USS Boston, Adams faced direct threats from British warships. Rather than retreat to safety, he famously chose to remain on deck during a naval engagement and exchange gunfire, exemplifying resolve and bravery. This personal example reinforced the values he championed—courage under fire and a dedication to duty, even risking his life alongside those who served.
Leadership Qualities: Foresight, Decisiveness and Innovation
Adams’ leadership was characterized by several defining traits. His foresight allowed him to recognize the necessity of an integrated military force long before others embraced the concept. He saw that success depended on the ability to adapt to shifting circumstances, by deploying forces rapidly and exploiting opportunities wherever they arose.
His decisiveness was evident in the face of adversity. The debates within Congress were often contentious, with many delegates wary of the expense and logistical challenges of building a Navy and Marine Corps. Adams, however, pressed forward, using his rhetorical skills, personal relationships and deep-seated conviction to overcome opposition. His determination ensured that the resolution of Nov. 10, 1775, was not just passed but implemented with urgency.
Innovation was also central to Adams’ approach. He understood that the demands of the Revolutionary War were unprecedented, requiring new methods of warfare and organization. By advocating for the recruitment of men with maritime experience and emphasizing expeditionary capabilities, Adams laid the groundwork for a force that could meet the complexities of modern conflict. His approach anticipated the needs of future generations, ensuring that the Marine Corps would remain relevant and effective as the nation evolved.
Enduring Legacy: Adams and the Modern Marine Corps
The influence of John Adams endures within the Marine Corps and the broader American military tradition. The expeditionary ethos he helped instill is evident in the Corps’ performance across two and a half centuries, from the iconic flag raising at Iwo Jima to rapid deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq and humanitarian missions worldwide.
Marines today are trained to operate in diverse environments—on land, at sea and in the air—fully realizing the flexibility and readiness that Adams originally envisioned. The principles of loyalty (commitment), adaptability under fire (courage) and selfless service (honor) remain at the heart of Marine Corps culture. Each Nov. 10, Marines celebrate the Corps’ birthday by recalling the exploits of legendary figures like “Chesty” Puller and Smedley Butler—and the often-overlooked foundational leadership of John Adams, whose vision made their service possible.
Adams’ legacy is further reflected in the institutional resilience of the Marine Corps. Despite periods of uncertainty and reorganization, including its temporary disbandment after the American Revolution, the Marine Corps was re-established as a permanent force on July 11, 1798, during Adams’ presidency. His signature on the act that restored the Corps solidified that the values and capabilities he had championed would continue to serve the nation in peace and war.
U.S. Semiquincentennial: Adams’ Enduring Charge
The approaching 250th anniversary of American independence provides an occasion to reflect on the qualities that have sustained the nation through adversity. Adams’ example is instructive: He combined intellectual rigor with practical action, and visionary thinking with operational effectiveness. His ability to navigate the political complexities of Congress, persuade colleagues and drive institutional change speaks to the importance of leadership in times of crisis.
The legacy of the Continental Marines—and their modern descendants—is a testament to the enduring power of determination and innovation. Adams did not merely respond to the challenges of his era; he anticipated the needs of generations to come. His contributions remind us that institutions built on principle and adaptability are best equipped to meet the uncertainties of the future. The story of John Adams and the founding of the Marine Corps offers lessons in courage, foresight and the relentless pursuit of excellence. Adams’ willingness to challenge conventional wisdom and lead by example shaped the course of history. Today’s Marines, whether serving in distant lands or safeguarding the homeland, honor his legacy through their commitment to expeditionary readiness and the institutional values he helped establish.
This reflection underscores the enduring relevance of Adams’ leadership. The challenges facing the nation may have evolved, but the spirit of innovation and resolve that Adams embodied remains vital. As the Marine Corps celebrated its own 250th anniversary in 2025, and the United States stands on the threshold of its 250th year, the example of John Adams stands as a beacon for all who seek to build institutions capable of withstanding the tests of time.
Featured Photo (Top): As a leading voice in the Continental Congress, John Adams’ tireless advocacy for a maritime force led to the establishment of the Continental Marines on Nov. 10, 1775.(Courtesy of Library of Congress)
About the Author
MSgt Christopher A. Mendez is a senior enlisted advisor as-signed to Intelligence Support Battalion in Aurora, Colo. MSgt Mendez’s personal awards include the Meritorious Service Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (with a gold star in lieu of a second award) and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal (with a gold star in lieu of a second award). He is married to Shana Metzger of Allentown, Pa., and they have three children.
Enjoy this article?
Check out these similar Leatherneck and Scuttlebutt features:
Giants of the Corps: Archibald Henderson
Leatherneck January 2025 By: Karl Schuon and Tom Bartlett
Piloting Life: One Man’s Reflections on Life and the Lessons He Learned.
By Carey Hobbs with Melinda Seibert.
Published by CJ Books. 440 pages.
“Piloting Life: One Man’s Reflections on Life and the Lessons He Learned” are the reminiscences of Carey Hobbs, a former Marine aviator who leveraged the lessons he learned from flying jets into a very successful business career.
Hobbs entered the Naval Aviation Cadet program in 1958. Graduating in the top 10 percent of his preflight class, Hobbs was “given the option to choose either the Navy or the Marine Corps”—and chose the Marine Corps. “I opted for the Marines, believing my chances of flying jets were better there since they had fewer helicopters and helicopter pilots compared to the Navy at that time.”
He flew the A-4 Skyhawk, a single-engine Navy and Marine Corps light attack aircraft. To me, the most interesting part of Hobbs’ book is how dangerous it was to fly military jets in peacetime during the early 1960s. Twice, Hobbs was on the verge of ejecting. The first time, he was flying toward San Francisco when his engine lost power. Right before ejecting, his engine suddenly spun up, and he made it back safely. The other time, he was practicing low-altitude ground support in Yuma, Ariz. His cockpit heated up so much that he could feel heat when he touched the left console. Though worried the “ejection seat might cook off at any minute, and [he’d] be launched out,” he safely made it back to Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, Calif. A hose had come loose, and “700-degree bleed air from the engine was seeping into the cockpit.”
Additionally, one morning, two of Hobbs’ squadron mates were killed when they collided with a 700-foot mountain at the end of the El Toro runway, resulting in both planes exploding. In another incident, Hobbs was “the designated leader” for a flight returning from “air-to-air gunnery training” when he glanced over his left wing and “saw a massive ball of black smoke rising into the sky.” The pilot “had attempted a roll, which led to the fatal accident.” Keep in mind these were all peacetime accidents in the United States during routine training.
What made Hobbs a successful jet pilot also made him a successful businessman. He wrote that being a successful Naval aviator “demands risk, resilience, and the willingness to make course correc-tions along the way,” and he utilized these attributes to build his business career. For over 50 years, he was successful in a variety of industries, including air filters, “producing insulation for outer-wear,” manufacturing acoustic and thermal insulation for vehicles,” producing “quilt batting” (the internal material in a quilt) and trucking. He was not 100 percent successful—one time a trusted employee turned him into OSHA and other times suppliers and/or buyers reneged on promises and contracts. But by focusing on quality and building personal relationships rather than profits, Hobbs’ company was able to adapt and reinvent. “When one market failed,” he wrote, “we moved on to the next opportunity.”
“Piloting Life: One Man’s Reflections on Life and the Lessons He Learned” is worth reading for anyone interested in Marine attack aviation in the early 1960s or those who want to read about how one Marine leveraged his military experience into a successful civilian career.
Maj Skip Crawley, USMCR (Ret)
Reviewer’s bio: Maj Skip Crawley was an infantry officer assigned to 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. He is currently the Marine for Life Central Region Network Coordinator based in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area.
USMC Tank Markings in the Pacific.
By Romain Cansiere.
Casemate Publishers. 160 pages.
Deciphering Marine Corps vehicle markings has been a challenge for many historians, hobbyists and enthusiasts pretty much since the end of World War II. Romain Cansiere’s “USMC Tank Markings in the Pacific” is the first comprehensive look at Marine tank markings ever compiled, and Mr. Cansiere has hit a home run with it.
With each unit having its own chapter, he addresses all the Marine tank units that saw combat in WW II, not just the six numbered tank battalions. From the elephant-marked M4A2 Shermans of Company C, I Marine Amphibious Corps’ medium tank battalion that landed on Tarawa to the Tank Company, 4th Marines, Cansiere leaves no stone unturned.
The book is well illustrated with many never before published images of Marine tanks. Most photos are in black and white, but there are color photos interspersed throughout to give a bit of original color where possible. In addition to the photos, each chapter has artist renderings of the unit’s tanks in accurate colors and markings.
The book also gives a concise oper-ational history of each unit. It covers their major operations, their transitions between tank types and the improved capabilities that came with those new tanks. Although only appearing in a few chapters, one of the best features in the book is the inclusion of tables that outline tactical numbers, names and where the tanks were assigned within the unit. The 4th Tank Battalion information is absolutely outstanding.
The appendices cover Marine tank unit organization for light and medium tank companies and battalions, as well as aerial recognition markings used by Marine tanks in combat. Overall, this book is a phenomenal resource that fills in the blanks not only on Marine tank markings but the organization and structure of Marine armored units from WW II. I cannot recommend this book highly enough for Marine tank enthu-siasts, modelers and WW II buffs.
Jonathan Bernstein
Reviewer’s bio: Jonathan Bernstein is the arms and armor curator at the National Museum of the Marine Corps. He is the 2023 winner of the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation Robert D. Heinl Jr. Award for Marine Corps History. In addition to a 35-year museum career, he also served as an aviation officer in the 1st Battalion, 104th Aviation Regiment, as an AH-64 pilot from 2006-2012 and focuses his research on the evolution of close air support and combined arms warfare. He lives in Virginia with his wife and two sons.
@SemperRead Recommends…
“Armies Afloat: How the Development of Amphibious Operations in Europe Helped Win World War II.”
By John M. Curatola. Published by University Press of Kansas. 376 pages. Military History/World War II.
Most people think of D-Day and picture the landing itself. Curatola focuses on what had to happen before that moment was even possible. “Armies Afloat” is less about one famous beach and more about the long, hard process of teaching the U.S. Army, Navy and Army Air Forces how to work together in amphibious war. He shows us that Normandy was not just courage under fire. It was the product of years of trial, failure, adaptation and coordination.
Curatola tracks the war from North Africa to Sicily, Salerno, Anzio, Normandy, and southern France, showing how each operation exposed weaknesses in command relationships, ship-to-shore movements, naval gunfire, air support, beach organization, logistics and communication. The Army may not get the same attention as the Marines in conversations about amphibious warfare, but this book makes clear just how much of that burden it carried in Europe.
Landing craft, naval fires, air cover, engineers, beach parties and follow-on logistics all had to come together under pressure. Curatola does a solid job of showing how rough some of the early efforts were and how quickly the American forces adjusted.
“Armies Afloat” reads as both history and a study in adaptation. It reminds you that success on the beaches was earned by a willingness to persevere—long before the ramps dropped.
“D-Day in the Pacific: The Battle of Saipan.”
By Harold J. Goldberg. Published by Indiana University Press. 276 pages. Military History/World War II.
Harold J. Goldberg’s “D-Day in the Pacific” shifts the spotlight away from Normandy and places it where it equally belongs: Saipan. While the world watched Europe in June 1944, Marines and soldiers in the Pacific were fighting a battle that would quietly decide the fate of the war against Japan.
Goldberg does a solid job of showing why Saipan mattered. It was part of Japan’s inner defense line, and its loss forced Japanese leadership to confront something they had avoided for years: Defeat was no longer a distant possibility. For the United States, capturing Saipan and nearby Tinian opened the door for B-29 bombers to reach the Japanese homeland. From that point forward, the war was no longer contained to distant islands.
This book captures the brutal nature of amphibious warfare; the coordination between sea, air and ground forces; and the relentless resistance from Japanese defenders who understood exactly what was at stake.
This account is a reminder that while one D-Day dominates public memory, another was unfolding across the Pacific, one that brought the war to Japan’s doorstep and changed its outcome for good.
2ndLt Steven Ramirez is the Marine behind the Instagram account @SemperRead. The self-described “unofficial librarian” for the Marine Corps, Ramirez is sharing reviews of some of his favorites with Leatherneck readers in his new regular department, @SemperRead Recommends. This month’s recommendations highlight the invasion of Normandy and the Battle of Saipan, both of which were fought 82 years ago this month.
Double Knot.
By Mac Caltrider.
Published by Dead Reckoning Collective.175 pages.
Throughout the global war on terror the publishing world experienced a deluge of veteran memoirs and biographies as publishers and bookstores frenzied to monetize there-I-was storytelling from the loose wallets of insatiable combat voyeurs. There are books written by those who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Afghanistan again and in Iraq again-again during the fight against ISIS. There are so many, a ChatGPT search may not give you a definitive number. Some are good, a few are great, but most … not so much. Of these in the majority category, the primary theme being examined is the desire to advertise how badass they or their unit were. A very small number dare to explore themes that go beyond combat and the establishment of a post-military career as a podcast host. “Double Knot” by Mac Caltrider is one of them.
First and foremost, “Double Knot” is beautifully written. Caltrider sets it apart from other memoirs because of its interiority and willingness to be introspective. Not in a performative way, but in a way that shows the complexity of life. In a way that does not confine itself to a good-versus-evil narrative by showing us dy-nam-ic characters thriving and strug-gling in chaos. It also shows us how war con-tinues to be omnipresent in someone’s life once it is introduced.
It is clear Caltrider is trying to move beyond simply retelling his experiences into a space that explores the totality of the human experience of combat: what it does to someone before, during, and after, and to ask the question, What does the axiom “combat changes you” actually mean? In the last chapter, “Going Cigaretting,” Caltrider recalls an evening with one of his favorite authors. “Most military memoirs, he points out, are really just combat books. They tell stories of men under fire, the hardships they endure and the sacrifices they make. But combat is just a fraction of the machine. A real war book must include more. It can’t ignore the destroyed families and the wasted youth swept up in war’s category five winds.”
“Double Knot” breaks the war memoir paradigm at every turn, including the form. Most tend to have a single, chronological narrative that follows the development of the protagonist as a young, testosterone-filled rapscallion who just needs to feel part of a team into the consummate team player who is able to achieve individual glory while still hav-ing the humility to acknowledge they owe everything to their buddies (but they’re keeping the medals). Caltrider presents his story as seven essays that interweave his pre-Marine Corps life with his time on active duty with his life after serving. Each essay can stand alone, but they are also in conversation with one another. For example, his friend Cavalier appears in multiple essays, and although it is not necessary to have read the previous essays to understand the context, the full impact of Cavalier in Caltrider’s life is much more significant when following him through each one.
“Double Knot” offers something to active-duty servicemembers and veterans alike. Caltrider skillfully overlays the mundane onto the chaotic in his depictions of combat while tracing its continued influence in his life as a Baltimore police officer on the beat, journalist cov-ering a USO tour and backpacker attempting to summit Mount Rainier. He takes readers on a journey where they will find themselves laughing, gasping and crying—often on the same page. Ultimately, “Double Knot” may not resolve the tensions it presents, but it does not need to; its value lies in forcing the reader to sit with them.
Maj Vic Ruble, USMC (Ret)
Reviewer’s bio: Maj Vic Ruble, USMC (Ret), is the deputy editor of Marine Corps Gazette and the host of the MCA’s Scuttlebutt podcast.
U.S. Marine Participation in the Normandy Campaign
The World War II Allied landing in Normandy, France, known as Operation Overlord, is undoubtedly the most famous amphibious landing in American history, and soldiers seldom let Marines forget it was conducted by the United States Army rather than by America’s premier amphibious force: the Marine Corps. However, leathernecks did support Operation Overlord; Marines served aboard U.S. Navy cruisers and battleships as members of each ship’s complement, as observers with various Allied forces, and on the naval staffs which helped plan the invasion. Marines also served in the covert Allied teams put together by the British Special Operations Executive (SOE), the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the Free French Bureau Central de Renseignements et d’Action (the intelligence service) that sought to sow confusion and chaos be-hind German lines during the campaign. However, the largest contribution of the Marine Corps to the Normandy campaign was the American amphibious doctrine and training which enabled the campaign in the first place.
Amphibious Doctrine and Training
In the opening decades of the 20th century, the Marine Corps chose for its raison d’être the seizure and defense of advanced naval bases in support of fleet operations. Then the First World War illustrated, especially through the Dardanelles campaign of 1915, the great difficulties inherent in making an amphibious assault upon strongly held and fortified beaches. Nonetheless, after the war, the Corps persisted in examining how to best succeed at taking such beaches. In the immediate post-Great War period, Major Earl H. “Pete” Ellis, supported by Major General Commandant John A. Lejeune, produced a systemic approach to the problem of getting forces ashore against resistance for the Pacific with “Operation Plan 712, Advanced Base Operations in Micronesia.” The document looked at what would be required operationally for the Marine Corps to properly support War Plan Orange, the plan for a war against Japan should it be necessary.
Ellis’ operations plan was a step forward, but it was short on detail. What was needed was a doctrine that would convert the strategic and operational visions into a tactical plan for achieving a landing and sustainable bridgehead on a hostile, defended shore. In 1933, the Marine Corps turned seriously to confront this problem. Marine Corps schools’ classes were canceled, and the students and staff worked instead to produce the “Tentative Landing Operations Manual” published in 1935, which became the Navy’s “Fleet Training Publication 167” and which the Army copied for its own amphibious warfare training document, “FM #31-5, Landing Operations on a Hostile Shore”(June 2, 1941).
In a 1966 letter sent to Thomas Parsons, Major General Robert Bare, one of the Marines involved in planning Operation Overlord, remarked on the limited interest that the Army had expressed in amphibious operations prior to World War II: “At the beginning of World War II, the only two nations in the world with an amphibious doctrine were the United States and Japan. … [When] I was a student at the Army Command & General Staff School at Leavenworth in 1938-1939, the course in Amphib operations was about six hours, taught by a Coast Artillery lieutenant colonel who one day in exasperation at trying to explain landing schedules and boat diagrams, said, ‘If you really want to learn something about this get ahold of a good Marine Corps sergeant and have him explain it.’”
In addition to developing doctrine and manuals, the Corps’ extensive study of previous amphibious landings indicated that for a modern force, new assault craft were needed. Modern, mechanized military forces needed to deploy swiftly from ships during an amphibious assault in order to survive in the face of modern firepower. The 19th-century style boats that the world’s navies had previously used for ship to shore assaults were ill-suited for speedy debarkation. The Marine Corps pushed the Navy to begin testing new small craft for
Beach defenses on Normandy, May 6, 1944. (Photo courtesy of USMC History Division)
landing operations in 1935, and this process led eventually to Andrew Higgins’ “Eureka” boat in 1940, though this boat was still awkward to disembark. Then, in April 1941, Marine Major Ernest E. Linsert shared with Higgins a series of photo-graphs taken by then-First Lieutenant Victor H. Krulak during a Japanese amphibious assault in Shanghai during 1937.
The pictures clearly illustrated Japanese landing boats with a bow ramp, a concept that Higgins was able to marry successfully to his Eureka boat design. The improvement resulted in the famous “Higgins Boat” Landing Craft Vehicle, Personnel (LCVP) that would become ubiquitous in all amphibious landings conducted by the Western allies during World War II. Similarly, Higgins produced the landing craft, mechanized (LCM), allowing for the rapid debarkation of heavy equipment on the beach as well.
Along with doctrine and equipment, troops had to train for amphibious assaults. In 1941, the First Joint Training Force was established under the Atlantic Fleet to train Army, Navy and Marine Corps units that would conduct amphibious assaults during World War II. Marine Major General Holland M. Smith commanded the force. The Army’s 1st Infantry Division, which would eventually land on Omaha Beach at Normandy, received its initial amphibious warfare training here.
The Army did take issue with certain aspects of Marine amphibious training, some of which stemmed from the differing purposes of amphibious landings. The Army saw an amphibious assault as merely the initial phase of a much longer, more extensive land campaign, whereas the Marine Corps was focused on seizing bases for continuing naval campaigns. Army doctrine therefore rejected the Navy and Marine Corps’ suggestions that the Army form lighter divisions devoted solely to amphibious warfare, choosing instead to provide amphibious training to regular troops. Beginning in 1942, the Army developed its own amphibious training centers that operated throughout the rest of the war.
Planning for Overlord
Colonel Robert O. Bare arrived in London in June 1943 and joined the Navy section of the staff of British Lieutenant General Sir Frederick E. Morgan. Morgan had recently, in the wake of the Casablanca Conference, been appointed Chief of Staff to the Supreme Allied Commander (COSSAC), although there was yet no Supreme Allied Commander appointed. Morgan’s appointment was intended, at least partially, as a sop to the Americans after the Casablanca Conference postponed the European landing until 1944. However, the COSSAC staff did much of the preliminary planning that was required for the actual Normandy campaign.
Along with Bare, the American portion of the staff included Navy Captain Gordon Huchins and five other Sailors. Bare was appointed staff officer, plans, whose duties included selecting training areas for the landing and naval gunfire exercises. Bare said in an interview, “It was fascinating work, since I was in on all the most secret dope, and had an opportunity to travel in seeking out training areas, and visiting various military commands and installations in working out the intricate combined plans.”
In October 1943 Bare participated in a COSSAC test run for the cross-channel invasion, “a fake invasion of the Pas da Calais” that involved “a lot of fighter aircraft up in the air and trying to draw those Germans out into a big air battle. So they set up a lot of dummy craft and a lot of real craft, and a naval officer and I were allowed to go down and board a British destroyer and we headed right straight for the Pas da Calais with this outfit that looked like a little good-sized invasion. And we went over within 10 miles of the coast, and we didn’t draw a single round of fire, there was no air action, and they found out through intelligence that the Germans had really thought this was something, but they flew two reconnaissance flights, one to the north and one to the South—they couldn’t see anything else so they went back home.”
Col Robert O. Bare, was the strategist for Operation Overlord’s naval gunfire and training.
Several other Marines were involved in the planning for D-Day. Col Richard H. Jeschke had already seen a great deal of the war when he arrived in Britain to rejoin the staff of the Western Naval Task Force as assistant planning officer and joint operations officer. He previously commanded the 8th Marines defending Samoa and through the Battle of Guadalcanal, then transferred to the Mediterranean where he participated in the invasion of Sicily as a Force Marine operations and training officer. Colonel James E. Kerr served as the training officer, Landing Craft and Bases, 11th Amphibious Force, Europe, supervising the training of the personnel for landing craft and ships for the invasion through the planning and preparation for the landing. Col William T. Clement arrived in late 1942 and set up the intelligence section of Naval Forces, Europe, com-manded by Admiral Harold R. Stark. Major Louis H. King served as the assistant plans and operations officer for Commander Group 3, 8th Amphibious Force, according to Marine Corps History Division documents.
A Marine aboard USS Texas assists in processing prisoners of war off Pointe du Hoc, near Omaha Beach, 1944.(Courtesy of National Archives)
Serving as the Joint Operations Officer, Col Richard H. Jeschke, second from right, went ashore at Normandy with Army LTG Omar Bradley, left, and MajGen J. Lawton Collins to coordinate the push inland.(Courtesy of USMC History Division)
Preparing the Battlefield
Other Marines prepared the battlefield more directly for the Normandy campaign. They were members of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a young wartime organization that drew its members from civilian society as well as the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. It was intended as an intelligence and covert operations organization. The OSS began its European operations in 1942 with Operation Torch and had been cooperating with the various British agencies ever since, preparing for the cross-channel invasion.
In the months immediately preceding the invasion, the American OSS, the British Special Operations Executive and the Free French Bureau Central de Renseignements et d’Action put together teams to enter France and contact various groups of La Résistance, which comprised factions of disparate political views and motivations, not all of which were friendly to General Charles de Gaulle’s organization. The British and the French had been working withLa Résistance since 1940; now multinational teams went into France to prepare these groups for the shift from conducting sabotage and saving Allied pilots to enacting armed uprisings intended to hinder German movement and draw enemy forces away from the main fields of action. Several of these missions included Marines.
The first mission in support of the Normandy campaign that included Ma-rines was an inter-Allied mission des-ignated ‘Union’ and organized under the auspices of the special operations execu-tive RF section (the section responsible for activities in France). The team was led by Pierre Fourcaud, a French operative who had already been in and out of France multiple times, and contained an experienced British SOE agent, H. H. A. Thackwaite and an experienced French wireless operator, ‘Monnier.’ The team’s fourth member was Captain Peter J. Ortiz, a Marine who had been fighting the war since 1940. A full recounting of Ortiz’ remarkable career in World War II is beyond the scope of this article, but he had been a member of the Foreign Legion, captured by the Germans, escaped, and enlisted in the Corps in 1942. He was assigned to the OSS and deployed to North Africa during Operation Torch before coming to Britain to prepare for Operation Overlord.
The Union mission was tasked with infiltrating the Haute Savoie region of south-eastern France and evaluating the resistance there, impressing upon its leaders that “organization for guerrilla warfare activity, especially after D-Day, is now their more important duty.” The team parachuted into the region on Jan. 6, 1944, and began their mission. Unlike previous missions of this type, they brought along their uniforms to emphasize the military nature of the mission. SOE historian M.R.D. Foot later wrote that, “Ortiz, who knew not fear, did not hesitate to wear his U.S. Marine Captain’s uniform in town and country alike; this cheered the French but alerted the Germans, and the mission was constantly on the move.”
One, possibly apocryphal, story from this mission described how Ortiz “strolled into a cafe dressed in a long cape. Several Germans were drinking and cursing the maquis. One mentioned the fate which would befall the ‘filthy American swine’ when he was caught. This proved a great mistake. Captain Ortiz threw back the cape revealing his Marine uniform. In each hand he held a .45 automatic [pistol]. When the shooting stopped, there were fewer Nazis to plan his capture and Ortiz was gone into the night.”
Maj Ortiz operated behind enemy lines to arm French resistance against German occupiers. (USMC)
The members of the Union mission were very successful at organizing French guerrillas, especially on the Vercours plateau, which the Germans attempted to seal off with three battalions in February. Despite the German efforts, the Union members continued to organize the resistance fighters until May 1944, when they were withdrawn from the country. Ortiz received the first of his two Navy Crosses for this mission, the citation reading in part, “By his tact, resourcefulness and leadership, he was largely instrumental in affecting the acceptance of the mission by local resistance leaders, and also in organizing parachute operations for the delivery of arms, ammunition and equipment for use by the Maquis in his region. Although his identity had become known to the Gestapo with the resultant increase in personal hazard, he voluntarily conducted to the Spanish border four Royal Air Force officers who had been shot down in his region and later returned to resume his duties. Repeatedly leading successful raids during the period of this assignment, Major Ortiz inflicted heavy casualties on enemy forces greatly superior in number, with small losses to his own forces.”
Standing with the members of the French Maquis, Maj Peter Ortiz, center, wore his Marine uniform in occupied France to boost French morale, 1944.(USMC)
Marines on and off the Beaches
On D-Day, hundreds of Marines were off the beaches, most of them serving aboard the Navy battleships and cruisers of the bombardment forces. The demands of the Fleet Marine Force, especially in the Pacific, had heavily reduced the size of the Marine ship detachments by this date. However, substantial numbers of Marines still served in the oldest role of the Marine Corps.
Marine Ship Detachments, Operation Overlord
Marines in ship detachments filled a variety of roles aboard ship; they performed a ceremonial function, especially on flagships, and acted as orderlies, guards and sentries. Additionally, particularly important for the Normandy invasion, they acted as gunners for the 5-inch, 40 mm and 20 mm ship’s guns. By 1944, there was a tendency to assign Marines to antiaircraft batteries (especially the 20 mm batteries), but on many ships Marines still manned the 5-inch secondary batteries. At Normandy, according to one uncorroborated source, “Marines in their capacity as expert riflemen, played a vital role reminiscent of the days of the sailing Navy when Marines in the ‘fighting top’ were a significant part of the ship’s offensive firepower. Stationed in the superstructures of the invasion fleet, Marine sharpshooters exploded floating mines in the ship’s paths.”
USS Arkansas (BB-33) supported the D-Day landings on Omaha beach alongside USS Texas (BB-35), suffering some return fire and air attacks over the next few days but endured no hits. On June 25, 1944, she shifted off of Cherbourg where she supported the Allied assault on the port. Shore battery fire straddled her several times off Cherbourg, but she was not hit. Captain Robert V. Allen commanded her Marine detachment and also served as commander of the Arkansas’ 20 mm antiaircraft battery, manned by the Marine detachment.
The USS Texas shelled Omaha Beach on D-Day, acting especially in support of the U.S. Army Rangers assaulting Pointe du Hoc. The USS Texas supported the landings for two more days, then retired to Plymouth to replenish ammunition before returning to support the Allied forces fighting their way out of the beachhead. On June 25, 1944, she joined USS Arkansas in the naval bombardment of Cherbourg; she was less fortunate than Arkansas, however, as a German shore battery struck her twice with 9.2-inch shells. One was a dud; it failed to explode and was later removed safely from the ship. However, the other struck the conning tower, severely damaging the bridge where it killed the helmsman and wounded 11 other Sailors. Capt Allen A. Bernard commanded Texas’ Marine detachment, which also manned some of her gun batteries. First Lieutenant Weldon B. James from public relations, Marine Detachment, U.S. Naval Forces in Europe, observed the landings from USS Texas.
An artillery shell falls between USS Texas, in the background, and USS Arkansas during thebombardment of Cherbourg, France, June 25, 1944. (Courtesy of National Archives)
USS Nevada (BB-36) provided naval gunfire support to the forces landing at Normandy. Sunk by the Japanese during the Pearl Harbor attack, the ship was later salvaged, modernized, and returned to service. On June 8, she fired 70 shells from her main battery upon an estimated 110 German vehicles and tanks concentrated at a range of 23,500 yards and reportedly damaged or destroyed all of them. Like the other American battleships, she participated in the naval bombardment of Cherbourg on June 25. German shore battery fire came close to the vessel 20 times, but she was never hit. Her Marine detachment was commanded by Captain Alexander W. Chilton. The officers and Marines of the detachment operated the 20 mm antiaircraft batteries.
The heavy cruiser USS Augusta (CA-31) served as the flagship of Rear Admiral Alan G. Kirk, USN, Commander Western Naval Task Force, during the Normandy invasion and carried Lieutenant General Omar N. Bradley, Commanding General, U.S. First Army, to the invasion. Bradley and his staff went ashore on June 10 to establish their headquarters in Normandy. Captain Francis P. Schlesinger commanded Augusta’s Marine detachment, who manned the cruiser’s antiaircraft battery.
USS Quincy (CA-71) was a new ship, and Operation Overlord was her first combat operation. She provided gunfire support to the troops on Utah beach, firing hundreds of shells over several days against German troop concentrations and shore batteries. The vessel then participated in the naval bombardment of Cherbourg, where she endured close misses from Battery Hamburg’s 11-inch guns. Capt Wesley R. Christie commanded her Marine detachment.
Like the other cruisers and battleships at Normandy, USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37) supported the landing forces at Normandy and participated in the bombardment of Cherbourg. She was known as a lucky ship that escaped fierce battles unharmed, despite sailing through war zones from 1939 onward. Capt Kenneth C. Greenough commanded her Marine detachment, which serviced her AA battery as well as some of her 5-inch guns. According to Marine Corps History Division’s records, the single Marine casualty of D-Day was aboard Tuscaloosa: Private First Class Norman O. Violette, a 5-inch gun striker, whose gun fired so many rounds on D-Day that he suffered deafness and a concussion.
In addition to the Marine detachments fighting from Navy ships, several Marine observers were present during the invasion. Prior to the Normandy landings, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Lieutenant General Alexander A. Vandegrift, ordered two of the Marines on the planning staffs—Colonels Bare and Kerr—to accompany the invasion and observe operations and note lessons that could be incorporated into Marine operations. In addition, combat correspondent Capt Herbert C. Merillat reported on the landings with the Royal Marines and Col Jeshke, the Joint Operations officer of Task Force 122 and the 1st U.S. Army, took a small staff ashore as he performed his duties.
At Utah beach, Colonel Kerr observed the landings and served on the staff of Rear Admiral Don P. Moon, commander of “U” Force. Late in the morning of June 6 there was a delay in landing forces on Utah and RADM Moon ordered Col Kerr towards shore in a patrol craft (PC-484)
Landing craft protected by destroyers heading to beach off the coast of France on D-Day. (Courtesy of National Archives)
Forward guns of USS Nevada (BB-36) fire on positions ashore during the landings on Utah Beach, June 6, 1944. (Courtesy of National Archives)
to investigate the delay and take control of the landing craft traffic. Kerr soon reported that, “Landings can be made anywhere on Red Beach … obstacles no longer obstacles.” As a result of his intelligence gathering, landing craft waiting to go to Green Beach were diverted and the landing delays decreased.
Kerr gave a bit more description in his diary concerning conditions on Utah beach over the next few days as he continued to aid in the landing of troops. On D-Day he remarked, “Shelling on Red Beach was intermittent all day long, reaching a climax around 1700.” He added that “German artillery was without observation, maybe as many as 90% of their shells fell between the craft and the sea wall.” And “men on beaches hugged seawall so shells did not harm them … work was carried on between bursts and lulls.” On D+1, Kerr reported that he “landed on beach. So no beached LCVTs as all had gotten off with tide.” Kerr continued sorting out the chaos off the beach, getting men and equipment ashore and the wounded evacuated. Remarkably, on D+2, at 2100, he recounted that an officer from the beach reported more than 1,000 prisoners taken, including two Japanese. On D+4, he took a break from shuttling around the waters off the beach and took a jeep from Utah beach to St. Mere Eglise, evaluating the roads for traffic from the beaches. Kerr continued to work at unscrambling the Utah beach unloading area through D+6, according to Kerr’s war diary.
As is well known, Omaha beach was a difficult fight and for a few hours, the outcome was in doubt. On this beach, Colonel Jeshke led a small team of Marines on the staff of Task Force 122 and the 1st U.S. Army, where he served as the Joint Operations officer. Alongside Jeshke were Staff Sergeant Edward F. McKnew, Jr., Corporals John B. Flowers and Louis R. Grall, and Privates First Class Robert C. Hunter, William C. Parsons and Benjamin J. Williams. Marine Corps History Division records show that from June 6 through June 30, these Marines acted as orderlies, battle phone recorders and situation map updaters, making numerous trips ashore during the amphibious assault.
Jeshke made “15 trips ashore to ascertain actual position of army front lines.” Afterwards, he told reporters that “shell and mortar fire on D-Day at Normandy was little short of terrific,” but that his own “moments of greatest anxiety came during the [Japanese] naval gun shelling of Marine positions on Guadalcanal.” He added that fighting in Europe was more comfortable than in the Pacific, as Europe had “fine roads, big buildings and civilization.” He admitted that roads were not “the healthiest places to travel along, particularly with mines and lines of fire” but insisted that “any kind of road is preferable to pathless jungle.” According to a press release issued on Oct. 26, 1944, Col Jeshke was awarded the Legion of Merit for his efforts in the Normandy campaign, and the French government presented him with the Croix de Guerre.
Two Marine officers observed the landings on the British beaches. Capt Herbert C. Merillat, a combat correspondent who had previously served on Guadalcanal was accompanied by two other Marine journalists, Technical Sergeant Richard T. Wright and combat photographer Staff Sergeant James R. Kilpatrick. They went to Normandy with the Royal Marines in a landing craft, guns, large (LCG), a tank landing craft converted into floating artillery platforms in order to engage German pillboxes and bunkers. They were crewed by Sailors and the guns manned by Royal Marines, and the Marine correspondents were off Juno beach, where the Canadian forces were landing. Comparing Normandy with Guadalcanal, Merillat was impressed with the number and variety of craft employed in the much more massive Normandy operation. German return fire in the early morning damaged some of the LCGs, TSgt Wright pitched in, firing “twin Oerlikon guns” at beach targets. Merillat’s closest call came that night, as the LCGs stood sentry against possible German schnellboote attacks when a Junkers Ju 88 attacked the flotilla and was shot down. Merillat’s vessel was forced to drive through the wreckage. Reflecting 50 years later, Merillat stated that, “We could not claim to have contributed much if anything to the victory, but we were pleased that we had been able to witness at close quarters one of the greatest battles in history.”
Col Bare was the other Marine officer observing the British landings, on board the Llangibby Castle, a veteran British troop ship. Bare landed with the 3rd Canadian Division and spent 10 days in Normandy observing British operations. He recalled in an interview that the trip over was uneventful, “I can remember seeing a mine go floating by the side of our vessel—it looked about the size of the Lincoln Memorial. It was terribly rough—rougher than they liked—and I think that was one of the reasons that the Germans were somewhat surprised. They were basically a land animal, and they couldn’t see a big invasion taking off in weather like that.” But General Bernard Montgomery’s hostility to observers following the troops forced Col Bare to remain within about a mile of the beach. After 10 days, Bare departed Normandy and returned to the United States via Great Britain, where he reported to the Commandant on the landings before heading to the Pacific.
Remote controlled German Doodle Bug tanks, filled with explosives, served as a beach defense. (Courtesy of USMC History Division)
German blockhouse, Bernier Sur Mer, France, June 1944. (Courtesy of USMC History Division)
Supporting the Campaign
The landings at Normandy were only the start of the campaign, however. Operations behind the lines elsewhere in France now began in earnest as La Résistance forces increased their work of sabotage and guerilla warfare against German forces throughout France. The Allies that supported these efforts were the famous Jedburgh Teams, or combined allied military teams of American, British and French officers, who were sent to aid local forces. One of these was Jedburgh Team Buggati, commanded by Marine Maj Horace W. Fuller. His fellow ‘Jeds’ were French Army Captain Guy de la Roche, British Major Hiram Crosby and French Lieutenant Marcel Guillemont. On June 28, this team parachuted into the Hautes-Pyrenees region of occupied France and began organizing and leading local groups in sabotage, terrorist and guerilla actions against a wide variety of enemy targets throughout the region. Before their mission formally ended on Sept. 15, Fuller’s force liberated several towns, captured hundreds of German prisoners and rendered an oil refinery useless without destroying its equipment by cutting off its water supply, according to the book “Herringbone Cloak: GI Dagger Marines of the OSS.” Fuller himself was awarded the Silver Star for the mission.
The other mission was less successful, though no less dramatic. Despite only leaving France in May, Capt Ortiz was eager to return to the Haute Savoie region and aid the guerillas he had left behind there. He was placed in command of another inter-allied mission, Union II, which included Army Air Corps Captain John Coolidge and five more Marines: Gunnery Sergeant Robert La Salle, and Sergeants Charles Perry, John Bodnar, Fred Brunner and Jack Risler. Also along was a Free French officer, Joseph Arcelin.
Unlike the previous Union mission, Union II was intended as a heavily armed Operational Group and dropped with over 800 supply containers which the local resistance battalion gathered up during the landing. Unfortunately, luck was against the mission from the start when they jumped in the country on Aug. 1, 1944. Sergeant Perry’s parachute failed and he died in the landing zone. Gunnery Sergeant Robert La Salle wrenched his back on landing and was barely mobile. After a week spent training the local forces, Ortiz ordered patrols to find more local forces, but they began encountering strong German security forces. On Aug. 16, at the town of Centron, a German battalion attacked Ortiz, Arecelin, Risler and Bodnar, surrounding the town. After a fierce firefight, Ortiz and his men surrendered to spare the town. The Germans were astounded to discover there had only been four men. Ortiz and his men went into captivity and were eventually sent on to a prisoner of war camp in Germany.
Conclusion
The Marine Corps’ participation in Operation Overlord and its associated campaigns was small in terms of manpower. Fewer than 500 Marines participated, but the development of amphibious warfare doctrine and techniques during the interwar period and the creation of the initial training programs for amphibious landings were major contributions to the eventual Allied victory. Undoubtedly, many of the Marines present during the landings felt frustratingly like war tourists, but they took lessons from the landings with them to the Pacific. And the Marines serving aboard the Navy’s battlewagons fulfilled the Corps’ oldest function as soldiers of the sea, sharing as much as any Sailor in the success of the amphibious campaign.
Featured Photo (Top): Soldiers land in LCVPs using Marine-developed amphibious doctrine. Offshore, leatherneck gun crews aboard the USS Texas (BB-35) and USS Arkansas (BB-33)provide cover fire for the troops arriving on Omaha beach. (Photo courtesy of National Archives)
About the Author
Paul Westermeyer is a historian with the histories branch of the Marine Corps History Division.
Enjoy this article?
Check out these similar Leatherneck and Scuttlebutt features:
A Proven Trac Record: AAV Retired After 50 Years Of Service
The world of shooting sports has celebrated the accomplishments of “Mr. Pistol,” William W. McMillan Jr. for more than 75 years. Even in the quarter century since his death in 2000, premier organizations such as USA Shooting and the Civilian Marksmanship Program annually award trophies named in his honor. The list of accolades McMillan accumulated throughout his life is impressive and remains unrivaled in numerous areas. Often overshadowed, however, is his 27-year Marine Corps career that served as the foundation of his international success. A mustang officer, visionary educator and decorated veteran of two wars, McMillan’s distinguished service equipped him with the tools and experience needed to succeed in competition and leave an enduring legacy on Marines today.
Given his modern reputation as one of the preeminent pistol marksmen in history, much of McMillan’s origin story as a Marine is peak irony. He enlisted in the spring of 1946 at the age of 17. “Westinghouse was the major employer in Dad’s hometown at that time, so everybody trained to be a machinist in high school,” said Matt McMillan, the elder McMillan’s youngest son. “When it came to getting a job, he hated working indoors, so Dad and a few of his friends decided to join the military. They originally wanted to go to the U.S. Army Air Corps, but they were closed on Sunday. Well, guess what, the Marine Corps was open.”
The timing of world events undermined McMillan’s ambitions. Too young and too late for World War II, he ended up an aviation machinist at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, N.C.
“He really wanted to be a ball turret gunner, but the war was over,” Matt said. “He still wanted to be involved in aviation. With the machinist skills he had, the Corps put him there at Cherry Point, and he just hated it. So, he asked for a discharge.”
McMillan left the Marines as a private first class with an honorable discharge in May 1947, less than a year after enlisting. He returned home to Turtle Creek, Pa., near Pittsburgh. Boredom overwhelmed the teen, however, and he reenlisted a year later. This time, McMillan enlisted as an 0311 rifleman.
Nothing about McMillan’s background or childhood suggested he would become a renowned pistol marksman who dominated the international stage for decades. He enlisted with little more knowledge of firearms than what the Corps taught him at boot camp. He’d never fired a pistol. He joined the Marine barracks stationed at Brooklyn Navy Yard as a security guard. The officers responsible for assigning sentry duties were dismayed to learn that their newest PFC arrived with nothing more than a basic rifle qualification. He glaringly lacked qualification with the M1911 service pistol required for Marines on guard duty. The shortcoming left him as the lone Marine at the barracks who couldn’t fire the pistol and relegated him to a single post on one of the piers where the sentry was required to carry a rifle.
By 1949, McMillan qualified with both weapons and entered his first shooting competition. Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., hosted the Eastern Division matches that year. The Marine barracks in Brooklyn formed a team for the rifle match, including McMillan. His inaugural performance proved lackluster at best. The team performed well overall, finishing second place behind the Quantico Marines. For the individual rifle competition, though, McMillan placed an abysmal 95th. The rifle matches concluded and the second half of the day kicked off the pistol shooting events. Even after his poor performance that morning, McMillan entered the individual pistol competition. His motivation stemmed not from a desire to test his abilities or reclaim some part of his reputation on the team, but to skillfully evade a working party the rest of his fellow junior Marines were stuck with.
The officers responsible for assigning sentry duties were dismayed to learn that their newest PFC arrived with nothing more than a basic rifle qualification.
“It was either fire the pistol in the afternoon or pick up brass,” McMillan told a Leatherneck reporter in October 1957.
Despite bringing nothing to the table but two basic pistol quals, the 20-year-old handily surpassed many more senior and experienced Marines, ending the competition in an impressive seventh place. The performance netted him the first of three required legs towards recognition as a Distinguished Shooter and cemented his name in the world of competition pistol shooting. Just one year and two competition matches later, McMillan earned the Distinguished Pistol Shot badge.
His meteoric rise and marked natural ability did not go underappreciated. The Corps transferred McMillan to Quantico’s Marksmanship Training Unit (MTU) to work as an instructor. From there, he moved into a similar role working out of Camp Pendleton, Calif., training recruits in San Diego and Marines deploying to the conflict brewing in Korea. Meanwhile, McMillan’s fame grew outside the military.
Though most recognized for his pistol shooting, McMillan mastered the art and science of rifle marksmanship early in his career. He was a two-time winner of the McDougal Trophy, presented annually to the top Marine rifle shooter, and earned the coveted badge of Distinguished Marksman in 1954.
William McMillan, center foreground, instructing Marines at Camp Matthews near La Jolla, Calif. In 1956, McMillan transferred to Camp Matthews to help establish a new West Coast Marksmanship Training Unit.
In 1959, McMillan, far left, became the first Marine in history to receive all three Marine Corps marksmanship trophies in the same annual competition: the McDougal Trophy, the Marine Corps Pistol Trophy (now called the Walsh Trophy), and the Lauchheimer Trophy. This incredible feat would not be repeated until 2025.
He made his international debut in June 1952. By then already a staff sergeant, only five years into his career and barely three years after holding a pistol for the first time, McMillan joined the team of American pistol shooters competing in the 35th World Shooting Championships, hosted by the International Shooting Union in Oslo, Norway. The team estab-lished a new world record score in the center-fire pistol match to take home the victor’s trophy. Individually, McMillan placed fourth.
While most members of the World Championships team flew home, McMillan and two others boarded a plane bound for Helsinki, Finland, where an even greater challenge awaited. The three men won the right to represent the United States Olympic Shooting Team in the 1952 Summer Olympics. Alongside McMillan stood civilian sport-shooting legend Harry Reeves and the world-renowned U.S. Army Master Sergeant Huelet “Joe” Benner. Benner set the stage early in the first event, firing 60 near-perfect shots to take home the gold medal in the 50 Meter Free Pistol event. McMillan’s turn followed, competing alongside Benner in the second event, the 25 Meter Rapid-Fire.
The two-day match started off bitter-sweet for the Americans. Uncharacteristically, Benner completely missed the silhouette target with one shot, virtually eliminating him from the remainder of the competition. All eyes and pressure now lay on the first-time Olympian Marine, who closed out the first day of competition in first place. Despite a strong performance again on day two, McMillan lagged behind. The level of performance was unlike anything McMillan had pre-viously experienced. One legendary Hungarian shooter named Karoly Takacs vaulted to the top. Takacs had impressed the world with his right-handed shooting ability until 1938 when a grenade explosion during army training blew off most of his right hand. Undeterred, Takacs taught himself to shoot left-handed and went on to win gold in the 1948 Olympic Games in London. He repeated the feat in 1952, winning gold over McMillan. At the end of the competition, McMillan placed seventh.
When not deployed to combat or competing against other marksmen around the world, McMillan dedicated his time to teaching Marines. Between time spent in Quantico, Va., MCRD Parris Island, S.C., MCRD San Diego, Calif., Camp Matthews, Calif., and Camp Hansen, Okinawa, Japan, thousands of Marines directly benefited from McMillan’s personal experience over his 27-year.
He returned home from Europe and immediately began preparations for a deployment of a completely different sort. He shipped out to Korea in January 1953 as an infantry unit leader with 1st Battalion, 7th Marines. Assigned to Weapons Company, McMillan served as a section leader of the antitank assault platoon hauling 75 mm recoilless rifles around the battlefield. Few specifics of his experience in Korea are known, other than that his battalion defended the hills surrounding the city of Panmunjom, where officials from both sides negotiated the terms of the armistice. Situated immediately south of the 38th parallel in the area eventually established as the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), the battalion encountered heavy fighting from its trenches and defensive positions, and more than its fair share of Chinese soldiers and artillery.
For unclear reasons, the Marine Corps brought McMillan back from combat after just three months, only another four months before the armistice ended the war as a whole. What is known is that McMillan immediately received a commission as a second lieutenant upon his return to the States and enrolled in The Basic School in Quantico by that April. McMillan’s combat experience with demonstrated leadership on the front lines combined perfectly with his authority on firearms to position him as a mustang officer.
William W. McMillan Sr., the famed shooter’s father, stands at McMillan’s childhood home in Turtle Creek, Pa., in 1960 with a collection of his son’s competition shooting medals and trophies. The photograph displays only a portion of the awards McMillan, already world renowned, had accumulated up to that point and only a small fraction of what he would earn through the remainder of his life.
McMillan entered the next phase of his career following basic officer training—nearly a decade defined by marksmanship instruction and competition shooting. He began with Weapons Training Battalion at Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) Parris Island, S.C. He then transitioned to the MTU at Camp Matthews, near La Jolla, Calif., to once again work with recruits coming out of MCRD San Diego. McMillan was hand-selected for this assignment to help establish this new West Coast MTU, modeled after the existing organization in Quantico. As he progressed through rank, McMillan adopted an increasing responsibility in administering the training programs, while simultaneously presenting one of the finest examples of Marine shooting ability the recruits had ever seen.
During this time, he competed in numerous U.S.-based shooting contests and international competitions. His rifle scores improved rapidly and exponentially over his early years in Brooklyn, achiev-ing the badge of a Distinguished Marks-man in 1954. The next year, McMillan topped the list of Marine Corps rifle marks-men to bring home the coveted McDougal Trophy at the All Marine Corps Rifle and Pistol matches. Though he finished second in the pistol competi-tion, his aggregate scores also netted him the Lauchheimer Trophy. He would not be outdone for long, however. In 1959, McMillan accomplished one of his most jaw-dropping feats, winning the rifle, pistol, and aggregate Lauchheimer awards. He was the first Marine in history to sweep all three major awards. His performance would not be repeated until 2025, when Staff Sergeant Payton Garcia brought home all three.
1960 proved to be one of the most pivotal years in McMillan’s career, both as a Marine and as a competition shooter. He once again earned a spot in the Olympics, traveling to Rome that September to represent the nation as a pistol shooter in the same rapid-fire pistol event he fired in 1952. Karoly Takacs no longer competed, but a reputable team of Russians was expected to dominate the competition.
William McMillan stands on top of the pedestal as a 1960 Olympic gold medalist in Rome, Italy. He eventually represented the United States in six Olympic Games.
McMillan remained a staple of the competition shooting community. He competed in a total of six Olympic Games, one of a very small handful to ever represent the U.S. that many times.
Dominate they did, winning two gold, two silver, and three bronze medals across six shooting events. McMillan was undeterred. He finished the competition in a three-way tie for first place, forcing the match into a shoot-off between him, a Russian and a Finnish shooter. In the end, McMillan triumphed, earning the sole gold medal for the American team. The feat endured, perhaps, as his greatest competition shooting achievement.
Prior to winning his gold medal, McMillan spent the first six months of that year back at Quantico to attend schooling required to classify him as an ordnance officer. Now responsible for the maintenance, storage and deployment of weaponry, ammo, and explosives, McMillan officially dedicated his career to administering Marine Corps ranges and working with weapons training battalions. He initially returned to the MTU at Camp Matthews in California before taking assignments again in Quantico and Okinawa. In July 1965, McMillan briefly deployed to South Vietnam to work with the community of Marine Corps snipers in country. By 1968, he assumed the rank of lieutenant colonel and assignment as the assistant force ordnance officer for III Marine Amphibious Force, headquartered in Da Nang, Republic of Vietnam. He deployed forward that November to assume his duties in the second war of his career.
LtCol William McMillan training snipers while in Vietnam in 1969. During his time in country, McMillan worked with U.S. Army and Marine Corps snipers and helped institute a preventative maintenance program for sniper rifles and scopes.
On April 27, 1969, virtually all the ordnance stored at Ammo Supply Point 1 outside of Da Nang Air Base accidentally blew up. One of the explosions pictured here demonstrates the awesome destructive power of the disaster. As the Assistant Force Ordnance Officer for III MAF, McMillan played a key role in the salvage and cleanup operation.
On April 27, 1969, a strong gust of wind pushed debris from a burning trash pile into a grassy field outside the primary ammo supply point near Da Nang Air Base. The vegetation lit off and the wind pushed the fire inside the wire. Before Marines could react, ordnance of every sort imaginable began cooking off. Grenades, mortar rounds, artillery rounds, napalm and 100-pound bombs all combined in a raucous display demolishing the supply point and shattering windows in downtown Da Nang nearly 3 miles away. One eyewitness
In 1968, McMillan deployed to Vietnam as the assistant force ordnance officer for III MAF. He would earn the Combat Action Ribbon and a Bronze Star with “V” during his time in country.
described two blasts in particular, resembling “small nuclear explosions, complete with shock waves which could be seen moving out in a circular pattern through the smoke and haze.” Marine truck drivers and military police encountered an apocalyptic scene, driving and running through a fiery hail of burning debris beneath a blackened sky, as they rushed to evacuate military personnel and civilians from the immediate area. One American and one Vietnamese were killed, and 65 wounded. Some 1,500 civilians in a nearby village were left homeless in the wake of fire and explosions. Approximately 38,000 tons of ground and air ordnance went up in the catastrophe, roughly 40 percent of Marine ammo on hand throughout all of I Corps.
Simmering munitions spewed fire into the sky for more than 15 hours after the initial blast. Even as the supply point continued burning, McMillan coordinated a wide effort to bring the disaster under control. He led all explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel from the Marine Corps, Army and Air Force, and the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. With munitions of every sort sprinkled throughout the area, with varying degrees of damage or exposure to fire, blowing anything in place was not an option lest the conflagration be ignited once again. McMillan remained on-site coordinating the operation and supervising the efforts as EOD cleaned up every bit by explosive bit until the supply point returned to full operational status.
McMillan returned home from Vietnam in November 1969. For his outstanding work throughout the I Corps area, and most notably during the ammo supply point incident that April, McMillan received a Bronze Star with “V.” He assumed command of the MTU at Quantico and resumed his role as an educator and competition shooter. In 1973 he transferred back to California for his final year in uniform. He retired in 1974.
Through the remainder of his career and into his retirement, McMillan remained a staple of the competition shooting community. He competed in a total of six Olympic Games, one of a very small handful to ever represent the United States that many times. His final shot at gold came in Montreal in 1976. At age 47, McMillan was the oldest American competitor in any sport. He was unable to ever repeat his Olympic medal performance from 1960. The list of medals, trophies and awards he accumulated in competitions around the nation and world is mind-boggling to place in time with his Marine Corps career. For Marine-specific shooting accolades, McMillan was a five-time winner of the Lauchheimer Trophy, two-time winner of the Marine Corps Pistol Trophy and two-time winner of the McDougal Trophy. Taken altogether, as stated in his Legion of Merit award recommendation at the end of his career, McMillan can truly be regarded as “the most proficient marksman in Marine Corps history.”
In the same year he retired, McMillan joined the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office as range master and weapons training coordinator. For six years, he taught handgun combat training to sheriff’s deputies and SWAT organizations. He developed counter-sniper tactics and designed the county’s tactical training facility. Tragically, his second career and competition shooting career both came to an abrupt and accidental end in May 1980.
As sheriff’s deputies conducted a live-fire, “shoot, no shoot” drill, McMillan stood behind them outside the front door of the target building. He worked a switchboard controlling the moveable targets that appeared along each deputy’s path as they advanced through the structure. When one trainee exited the back of the building, he spotted a “shoot” target on the wall behind him. Regrettably, the target had malfunctioned while the deputy moved through the building, failing to flip around to face inside the building through a window and present him with a “shoot” target earlier in the drill. The deputy fired two shots from his .357 magnum revolver. Both bullets tore through the target, the back and front walls of the structure, a window in McMillan’s control booth and into McMillan’s chest.
McMillan endured more than four hours of surgery. He survived, despite substantial blood loss. The wounds, however, deeply affected the right side of his torso and right arm. Already feeling the deficit of aging eyesight, with the permanent impact of his new injuries, McMillan’s shooting career was over.
McMillan remained in California for the remaining 20 years of his life. He died in June 2000 at the age of 71. His impact on the world of competition shooting remains hard to rival. He was inducted into the U.S. International Shooting Hall of Fame in 1994 and the Marine Corps Sports Hall of Fame in 2011.
LtCol William McMillan Jr. photographed in his final official portrait before his retirement. He wears the badges of a “Triple Distinguished” shooter beneath rows of ribbons showcasing his service, most especially his combat service in Korea and Vietnam. Notably absent is the Legion of Merit he received upon his retirement. McMillan retired in July 1974.
His impact on the status and caliber of Marine Corps marksmanship remains even more relevant to Marines today—an impact defined by his natural shooting ability and his experience across his 27-year career. His technical expertise led to the development of improved ordnance equipment and training of thousands of Marines. He helped rewrite the publications on marksmanship and revise the techniques and courses of fire for evaluating Marines’ shooting proficiency.
“LtCol McMillan’s far-sighted and imaginative improvements to marksmanship training are just being felt within the Marine Corps,” stated Brigadier General Maurice C. Ashley, the director of the Training and Education Division at the time of McMillan’s retirement. “The full impact of his contributions to enhancing combat marksmanship proficiency is difficult to measure tangibly but will be present for so long as Marines carry individual small arms into combat.”
Featured Photo (Top):Capt William W. McMillan Jr. demonstrates his classic shooting stance in 1961. By then an internationally recognized marksman, McMillan used his natural abilities to train thousands of Marines on the firing line.
Note: The Photos within this article are courtesy of Matthew McMillan.
About the Author
Kyle Watts is the staff writer for Leatherneck. He served on active duty in the Marine Corps as a communications officer from 2009-13. He is the 2019 winner of the Colonel Robert Debs Heinl Jr. Award for Marine Corps History. He lives in Richmond, Va., with his wife and three children.
Enjoy this article?
Precision Weapons Section: Keeping the Marine Corps Competitive on the Range and on the Battlefield
Though wearing the gold wings of naval aviators, Marine pilots only occasionally flew from aircraft carriers before World War II. Two understrength scouting squadrons operated from USS Lexington (CV-2) and Saratoga (CV-3) in the early 1930s, and another was briefly assigned to Langley (CV-1). In 1935, leatherneck fighting, bombing and scouting units began cycling through carrier qualification (CQ) periods, but more as a contingency than as part of a particular Navy air group.
Hand in glove with Marine carrier squadrons were landing signal officers (LSOs). Few LSOs were trained before the war, but two, Robert E. Galer and Kenneth A. Walsh, qualified as “paddles” and later were recipients of the Medal of Honor for combat missions they flew in the Solomons.
In 1943, Naval Air Forces Pacific noted that Marines comprised one-third of the aviators qualifying as carrier pilots. As far as using the flattops went, though, the Marines made only one brief cruise in May 1943, supporting Army troops recapturing Attu in the Aleutians. USS Nassau (CVE-16) embarked 26 F4F-4s and three Marine F4F-3Ps with six pilots and nine enlisted men, ultimately losing one Wildcat and one pilot. Otherwise, no Marine squadrons were using the carriers, and the CQ requirement was dropped.
A year and a half later, a crisis hit. In October 1944, the first kamikaze missions shocked the Pacific Fleet into a chilling realization: More fighter squadrons were needed in the Western Pacific. The purge from CQ was abruptly reversed, but months were required to make up the deficit. An immediate increase in fighters was instituted for Essex class carriers, but until more Navy fighter pilots were trained, Marines would fill the gap.
USS Essex (CV-9) departing San Francisco on April 15, 1944. (USMC photo)
The Fast Carrier Task Forces
Two F4U squadrons were available in Hawaii for early embarkation: Marine Fighting Squadrons (VMF) 124 and 213, which reached the Ulithi Atoll on Dec. 28. Embarked on USS Essex (CV-9) with Air Group 4, the Marines sailed with Task Force 38, the Fast Carrier Task Force, on Dec. 30. Despite briefings and practice with the LSOs, two pilots and three F4Us were lost in the first two days. Worse was yet to come.
Senior among the 54 pilots was Lieutenant Colonel William A. Millington, commanding officer of VMF-124.
On Jan. 3, 1945, on Okinawa, Millington claimed the first kill by carrier-based Marines, but one pilot succumbed to navigation error. Another disappeared the next day in heavy weather. After nine days of fleet operations, the Essex leathernecks had lost seven pilots and 13 Corsairs. None of the Navy’s Fighting Squadron (VF) 4 Hellcats were lost to weather or operational causes at the time, highlighting the need for increased instrument training among Marine pilots.
On Jan. 12, the fast carriers struck Japanese naval and air bases in French Indochina. The Corsairs shot up a dozen planes on the ground, losing one in the process (though the pilot returned to Allied control). The day’s most tragic loss was a B-24 Liberator that inexplicably failed to heed radio and visual challenges from the Corsair combat air patrol (CAP). When the Marines were fired upon, they attacked the unmarked bomber, which seemed to be Japanese flown. They destroyed the Liberator, which, in fact, belonged to the 14th Air Force.
Upon exiting the South China Sea, within range of Formosa, the task force was attacked on Jan. 20 and 21. Essex F4Us claimed eight victories, but another carrier, USS Ticonderoga (CV-14), suf-fered heavy damage.
When the fast carriers sortied again in February, three more ships embarked Marine squadrons. VMF-112 and 123 sailed on USS Bennington (CV-20), 216 and 217 joined USS Wasp (CV-18), and USS Bunker Hill (CV-17) became the first ship to embark three Corsair squadrons: VF-84, VMF-221 and VMF-451.
Together, the squadrons totaled 133 F4Us and 216 pilots—one-sixth of the fast carriers’ fighter strength. The new units had received intensive carrier and instrument refreshers and would be spared the operational losses that plagued Millington’s men. However, Commander Otto Klinsmann, the Essex air group commander, had been lost off Formosa, so Millington “fleeted up.” He was the first Marine to command a Navy air group.
He later recalled the Marines’ introduction to fast carrier warfare: “We were warned about the kamikazes—indeed, the Essex had been hit by one just before our cruise. We would have to shoot them down before reaching the fleet, for it was their tactics that were doing the most damage. As a result, we abandoned defensive tactics when we went after the kamikazes. The Navy really feared them, more than the Marines [did]. They used destroyers as pickets, and we flew CAP over them. The kamikazes would go after the pickets, these being the first ships they came across. By the time of the Okinawa operation, they were no longer trying to establish air superiority, merely trying to destroy ships with kamikaze tactics.”
The February strikes were among the most ambitious to date. The task force struck the enemy’s home islands, launching missions over Tokyo itself. The weather precluded a full-scale application of airpower, however, and strikes were canceled on the 17th, the second day of the operation. Still, the Marines claimed 21 aerial victories and 60 grounded planes, losing nine F4Us and six pilots. Especially hard hit was Bennington’s VMF-123, as antiaircraft fire knocked down three Corsairs, though two pilots were rescued. The skipper of VMF-217, Major Jack Amende, fell to a Zeke (A6M Zero), and three other Wasp Corsairs were lost—one on launch.
Recalling the Tokyo strikes, Millington explained, “Our offensive fighter sweeps against enemy airfields were conducted without external ordnance—we just used our guns. When attacking airfields, we would go in en masse to dilute the anti-aircraft fire. Sometimes we would do a second sweep, depending on the defenses, dividing the airfield up and each flight taking a different segment. Later, we conducted ground attack missions using rockets and bombs.”
LtCol William A. Millington, center, briefs the pilots of VMF-124 and VMF-213 aboard USS Essex on Jan. 1, 1945. (USMC)
A pilot from VMF-511 prepares for a night mission aboard USS Block Island (CVE-106),providing essential air support during the Okinawa campaign and conducting strikes against targets in the Sakishima Gunto.(USMC)
The first carrier strikes against Japan were significant in that naval aviation had taken the war to the enemy homeland. But more important to Marine aviation was the tactical support given assault troops at Iwo Jima. Millington had helped prepare the close air support plan and led the D-day mission on Feb. 19. The Essex group commander took 24 F4Us and 24 F6Fs down on the beaches in a well-timed operation coordinated with naval gunfire. Napalm, rockets and liberal strafing helped suppress Japanese defenses as the aviators fired barely 200 yards ahead of the infantry. Ground commanders gratefully noted that full enemy resistance did not arise until after the Marines were ashore.
The fast carriers continued supporting the bloody struggle ashore until D+3. It was back to Japan on Feb. 25, where the weather again blocked effective air operations. Of the nine carrier planes lost, two were Bennington Marines, including Major Everett Alward of VMF-123.
Upon return to Ulithi in early March, Essex and Wasp lost their leathernecks as Air Groups 4 and 81 rotated out. However, 75 Marine mechanics volunteered to remain in the two carriers, lending their knowledge of Corsair maintenance.
Joining the task force were two more Marine units, VMF-214 and 452 on USS Franklin (CV-13) with Air Group 5. Operations began off Kyushu on March 18; primary targets were enemy airfields, as Task Force 58 fliers claimed more than 100 shootdowns. The Marines bagged 14 and lost only three.
On the 19th, the fast carriers were hit by conventional and suicide attacks while sailing within 60 miles of Shikoku. With 31 planes on deck, Franklin was hit by a pair of 550-pound bombs. “Big Ben” went dead in the water for almost four hours and finally was towed out of range. Sixty-five Marines were among the 800 dead, as VMF-214 and 452 were knocked out of the war on their second day of carrier combat.
Bennington and Bunker Hill Marines pressed on. Twenty-four-year-old Major Herman Hansen of VMF-112 led four divisions into 20 Zekes near Kanoya, claiming nine kills without loss. VMF-123 had a running fight against stiff odds, losing three and claiming nine. Three more F4Us were jettisoned with extensive battle damage. Captain William Cantrel, a Solomons veteran who, though badly wounded in one foot, stayed in the fight, downed two assailants and organized cover for the withdrawal. Back aboard, he collapsed from blood loss and received a well-deserved Navy Cross.
Carriers off Okinawa
With the invasion of Okinawa on April 1, the fast carriers met a succession of determined Japanese air attacks. The big kamikaze raids of the 6th and 12th brought dramatic opportunities to engage enemy aircraft. Major Hansen celebrated his 25th birthday with a triple kill, becoming an ace and earning a Navy Cross. A full day’s work for a former photo pilot.
Major Archie Donahue of 451 accounted for five of Air Group 84’s 25 shootdowns, becoming the Marines’ only carrier-based ace in a day. However, with good hunting came high risk. On May 11, Bunker Hill was ravaged by two bombs and two suiciders. She was engulfed in gasoline fires, and 28 enlisted Marines and one pilot died on board. Airborne leathernecks watched the conflagration, awed by the spectacle.
One onlooker was Captain James Swett, who caught an attacker before recovering aboard USS Enterprise (CV-6). The Solomons Medal of Honor recipient ran his record to 15.5 victories. In three months of combat, VMF-221 and 451 had lost 13 pilots and claimed 84 Japanese planes.
A VMF-124 Corsair launches from USS Essex. In December 1944, these were the first Marine fighter pilots to join the Fast Carrier Task Forces. (USMC)
This F4U Corsair from VMF-512 crashed during landing on USS Gilbert Islands (CVE-107) in early spring of 1945.(Courtesy of Barrett Tillman)
Bennington remained on the line until June 8, spending nearly four months in almost continuous operations. VMF-112 and 123 recorded 82 shootdowns plus 149 planes claimed on the ground, but losses were high. Eighteen pilots were killed in action, one in three. Forty-eight F4Us were lost (31 in combat), and another 41 were transferred out with damage.
While the Corsair squadrons formed the bulk of Marine aviation’s contribution to carrier aviation in the war, a smaller group also logged flattop service. At least 13 Marines flew with Navy squadrons, including eight with Air Group 10 on USS Intrepid (CV-11). Their appearance was accidental—a personnel office thought that “Evil I” needed replacement Marines when in fact none were aboard. But Carrier Air Group 10 Commander John Hyland had no prejudice—perhaps he was looking for “a few good men.” In their brief time aboard, the eight Marines shot down 10 bandits and helped sink the 64,000-ton battleship Yamato on April 7. One pilot was killed before the detachment left Intrepid.
Five other wandering leathernecks flew with Air Group 85 on USS Shangri-La (CV-38) for about two weeks, mainly flying against kamikaze bases. Originally assigned as escort carrier pilots, they rejoined their friends in VMF-512 on USS Gilbert Islands (CVE-107) at Leyte in June.
A Grumman F6F-5N Hellcat night fighter in flight. (USMC)
Baby Flattops
The final chapter of the Marine carrier experience in World War II was the escort carrier (CVE) program under Colonel Albert D. Cooley. When the first F4U squadrons joined the fast carriers, the project was already underway, as noted in the Chief of Naval Operations’ dispatch to Pacific Fleet Commander Chester Nimitz. It said in part, “You are further authorized to proceed with training Marine fighter squadrons for deployment in assault CVEs to relieve Navy pilots and personnel required for fast carrier groups. Keep me informed of number of Marine squadrons to be assigned fast carriers and make recommendations for substituting Marine squadrons in combat CVEs.”
On Oct. 21, 1944, Marine Carrier Groups, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific, was established at MCAS Santa Barbara, Calif. The command was comprised of two groups at Santa Barbara and Mojave. Two weeks later, they were designated Marine Air Support Groups 48 and 51. Each group was to be composed of four carrier air groups (MCVGs), each with an 18-plane fighter squadron and a 12-plane torpedo bomber squadron. The units were to be deployed in four escort carriers with an additional two CVEs of Navy squadrons to form an escort carrier division. The all-Navy ships’ task was antisubmarine and CAPs, while the Marine units provided air support for amphibious forces. All ground crews were organized into carrier aircraft service detachments as part of each MCVG.
The goal of the Marine CVE program was to provide 16 air groups simultaneously, plus spares. A full complement would be 540 fighters and 360 TBM Avengers for the deploying and backup or spare Marine air groups.
By early 1945, the first “all Marine” carrier was ready: USS Block Island (CVE-106), embarking VMF-511 and Marine Torpedo Bombing Squadron 233 in MCVG-1. The other three MCVGs were assigned at one-month intervals: MCVG-2 on Gilbert Islands, MCVG-3 on USS Vella Gulf (CVE-111) and MCVG-4 on USS Cape Gloucester (CVE-109). They merged with the Navy units aboard Kula Gulf (CVE-108) and Siboney (CVE-112) in May 1945.
As always, maintenance loomed large. Some of the “downstream” fighter squadrons were slated to receive F6F Hellcats or even F8F Bearcats. Experience had shown that sustained operations taxed F4U squadrons because of the Corsair’s complex oil and hydraulic systems. Deferred maintenance often was not possible, resulting in fewer sorties per aircraft compared to F6Fs. The operational CVE air groups deployed with F4U fighter-bombers plus F6F photo aircraft and night fighters.
Among the pilots in MCVG-1 was Major R. Bruce Porter, the commanding officer of VMF-511, which was expected to conduct night-fighter missions from Block Island. After a Solomons tour, the 24-year-old Californian anticipated his greatest challenge yet—flying fighters from small-deck carriers at night.
The squadron began night “car quals” in Hawaii early in 1945, and Porter recalled the evolution beginning with his F6F-5N hitched to USS Tripoli’s(CVE-64) hydraulic catapult:
Maj Bruce Porter in the cockpit of his F6F-5N Hellcat night fighter. He mastered the high-stakes night carrier operations that would intercept kamikazes and strike targets in total darkness during the final months of the Pacific War. (USMC)
“I looked to my left and saluted. Ready! In response, a dimly perceived deck hand standing over the catapult crew’s catwalk whirled a flashlight. Go! I turned my eyes front, loosened my grip on the stick, set my jaw and leaned back into my seat.
“WHAM!
“My conscious mind was eons behind my senses. … I had a very busy couple of seconds as I kicked the right rudder pedal and yanked the stick into the pit of my stomach. I had no time to dwell on how dark it was out there.
“All my training and experience saw me through a climb to 3,000 feet. While my mind reeled off a thousand facts about my flying, my voice talked to the ship in calm tones, reporting on routine matters. … I was neither here nor there.
“After assuring myself that I was flying on a heading opposite of that of the ship, I flew down the carrier’s port side and approached the plane guard destroyer, keeping it just off my port wing. I could not help ruminating about how useless a night search for a bilged aviator must be.
“Next, I flicked on my radio altimeter, a brand-new instrument that had been installed just before we left San Diego. I set it for 150 feet. If I flew above that altitude, I’d get a white signal light. If I flew below, I’d get a red—danger! If I was flying right at 150, I’d get a comforting green light. It was green when I turned the altimeter on.
“I flew upwind the length of the tiny destroyer and sighted her deck lights. This was the only concession to a pilot’s natural aptitude for becoming disoriented across even the briefest interval of night space.
“At what I judged to be the best moment, I turned 90 degrees port, dropped wheels and flaps, enriched the fuel mixture, partly opened the cowl flaps, put the prop in low pitch and turned another 90 degrees to arrive downwind dead astern of the carrier.
“Then I was committed to the approach; all my attention was aimed at visually acquiring the LSO’s luminous paddles.
“I momentarily panicked and said, ‘Where the hell are you?’
“First, I sensed the colored paddles, then I knew I saw them. The LSO’s arms were both out straight. Roger! My ragged confidence was restored, though I remained a good deal less than cocky. I checked my airspeed, down to the required 90 knots. Before I knew it, I saw the ‘cut’ signal. Then, WHAM! The tailhook caught a wire and I was stopped on a dime.
“I taxied past the barrier, came to rest beside the island and cut the engine. As had been the case after my first live combat mission, my flight suit was reeking of sweat.”
By the time the Marine CVEs became operational, the war was winding down. Despite initial intent, Block Island and Gilbert Islands, which arrived off Okinawa in May with Marine squadrons and a primary mission of close air support, logged more sorties striking targets in Sakishima Gunto than working with infantry ashore.
The Marines of VMF-124 and VMF-213 served as pioneers of Marine carrier aviation. Their transition from land bases to USS Essex proved the versatility of Marine air power.(USMC)
Rear Admiral Calvin C. Durgin, commanding the escort carrier force at Okinawa, noted that Navy CVE squadrons were well trained in close air support. He added, “The advent of Marine Air Groups in CVEs should not be permitted to complicate the support carrier picture any more than is necessary. … Marine air groups should be and probably are as flexible as navy squadrons and groups, and should remain so, and should expect no preferential treatment. To assign all Marine squadrons to direct support work would probably work to the detriment of morale of the Navy groups … and this command sees … no reason for such assignments and has no intention of allowing it to occur.”
“Jeep carriers” also supported the Balikpapan, Borneo, occupation. In July and August, Cape Gloucester aircrews contributed to an operation off the China coast. VMF-351 downed five aircraft, two of which fell to Lieutenant Colonel Don Yost, who on Aug. 5 became the last Marine ace of the war, having started his career with VMF-121 at Guadalcanal. Meanwhile, Vella Gulf arrived at Okinawa as the war ended. Block Island and Gilbert Islands supported the Allied occupation of Formosa and the evacuation of former POWs.
Ultimately, 14 of the planned 16 MCVGs were established or directed to form. In the rapid demobilization following the war, however, the Marine CVE program was drastically reduced, providing only three air groups for the Pacific Fleet and two for the Atlantic.
Featured Photo (Top): Marines of VMF-124 and VMF-213 aboard USS Essex, led by LtCol William A. Millington, the first Marine to command a Navy air group. (USMC)
About the Author
Barrett Tillman is a professional author with more than 40 non-fiction volumes and novels plus more than 800 articles published worldwide. He is best known as an award-winning historian for his histories of naval aircraft and carrier operations. He learned to fly as a teenager and has flown hundreds of hours in historic aircraft. A competitive marksman, he has led a national championship shooting team.
Enjoy this article?
Check out these similar Leatherneck and Scuttlebutt features:
The National Naval Aviation Museum: A Flight Through History
Behind the scenes of every piece of equipment fielded by the Marine Corps lies a complex acquisition system. The intricate process ensures the right product ends up in the hands of the warfighter. Evolved through a methodical, layered structure of requirements and testing, anything a Marine might carry, wear, shoot, drive or fly begins with the most generic form of a requirement.
(Photo from USN)
If Marines across the Corps were thirsty every time they went to the field, the basic need for a water bottle might bubble up to the top. From the highest level, the Corps tasks an acquisition officer in charge of the appropriate program office with the fundamental requirement: We need a way for Marines to carry water in the field. Along with the requirement comes specifications. The vessel must be small enough for an individual to carry, but large enough to keep a Marine hydrated for six hours. It must close and be leakproof. The drinking orifice must fit the average size mouth. It must withstand being run over by a 7-ton truck, or maybe a direct hit from a 500-pound bomb. Etc.
Marines and civilians within the program office get to work. Some partner closely with civilian industry looking for companies to enter competing bids with prototypes that meet the specifications. Others generate the lifecycle documentation required for sustaining the project. They estimate the cost per unit, research and development and timetable required. They request funding for engineering, development, initial manufacturing and fielding, testing, revision and mass adoption of the finalized product. With funding approved, the program office is now responsible for keeping the cost, schedule and performance of each product to the original spec and delivering it to Marines in the fleet.
Getting the product into Marines’ hands, a monumental effort in itself, is only step one. Perhaps the lid designed for the water bottle breaks too easily or unscrews itself under certain conditions that only occur in the field. The program office drafts engineering change proposals to correct the problem, implements the changes into manufacturing, then delivers the newly designed lid to each bottle coming off the production line and to every bottle already in the field. Meanwhile, data shows that fully two-thirds of fleet Marines are losing or otherwise demolishing their new water bottles at the rate of one every six months. Now, the program office must create a sustainment plan for the dictated life cycle of the water bottle; for the next 20 years, we have to order how many hundred thousand water bottles, at what cost, coming from what pot of money, in order to keep the fleet supplied?
It’s easy for even the most ignorant of us outside the acquisition field to imagine the intensive workload, mental pressure and herculean effort required of these Marines. They operate within an unsung and largely thankless subsection of the Marine Corps, working more often with government civilians and contractors to create and deliver products than with their fellow Marines who use them. The simplest, smallest piece of equipment endures the same fundamental acquisition process as the most complex.
Marine aviation employs some of the most technologically advanced and expensive equipment the Corps has to offer. While the fundamental acquisition process is the same, every lever, door and wire within an aircraft endures the same testing, fielding and revising as the water bottle. Acquiring and sustaining these technologies requires not only an array of dedicated program offices, but also a host of fleet-experienced subject matter experts and certified Marine test pilots to fly each aircraft and safely trial every upgrade or new technology. Like the Marine Corps as a whole, all of these Marines and program offices fall within a larger U.S. Navy command.
Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) is headquartered at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. Dominating the southern mouth of the Patuxent at the Chesapeake Bay, the base is home to numerous test flight squadrons, program offices, engineering offices and civilian contractor spaces. In the heart of the air station, occupying an old firehouse directly on the flight line, lies the Marine Aviation Detachment (MAD). The MAD holds administrative responsibility over all Marines assigned to program offices and test flight squadrons within NAVAIR, providing the crucial talent management needed to keep the right Marines in the right seats at all times to move aviation acquisitions forward.
A V-22 Osprey conducts a test flight over the HX-21 squadron area at NAS Patuxent River, Md. (Courtesy of HX-21)
Army Green Berets with the 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne) walk to a Marine Corps V-22 Osprey on Fort Carson, Colo., Oct. 21, 2025. Green Berets with the 10th SFG(A) conducted multiple high-altitude free-fall jumps from a V-22 Osprey, honing precision and proficiency.(Sgt Rhianna Ballenger, USA)
At 185 Marines strong, only a few call the former fire station home. Most are spread from coast to coast working on aviation projects as varied as the Marines assigned to them.
“We are a very top-heavy organization with an incredibly wide range of expertise,” said Lieutenant Colonel Michael Shull, the MAD executive officer (XO). “The Marines are all operationally dispersed. You may have a lone Marine in a program office. You may have another with six to eight Marines, depending on the size of the portfolio or the attention it’s getting from Headquarters Marine Corps. It’s important for us to keep a bead on those upper-level documents that trickle down to how we manage manpower to ensure the right people are in the right spot. They’re all hand-selected billets with people out of the fleet selected for their expertise.”
Despite the “behind the scenes” nature of their work, the results these Marines produce reach the highest levels of visibility. There are roughly 60 Marine officers qualified as 8059 acquisition officers specializing in aviation. These men and women work in close conjunction with civilian industry partners operating with a staggering budget to bring ideas to life. In the three-year period from April 2022 to April 2025, Marines within the MAD executed the funding of $65 billion across research, development, testing and evaluation. The funding derived from Marine Corps projects as well as Navy and joint program offices, meaning not all were specifically Marine Corps dollars, but Marines were still responsible for managing those dollars. At a time when the annual service budget for the entire Marine Corps totals roughly $50 billion, the responsibility these Marines shoulder proves no trivial task.
Marines with CLB-24, CLR-2, 2nd MLG, hook an F-35C Lightning II to a CH-53K King Stallion for helicopter support team operations at NAS Patuxent River, Md., on Dec. 13, 2022. CLB-24 conducted external lift operations with a helicopter support team to develop the proper tactics, techniques and procedures when flying a CH-53K King Stallion.(Cpl Meshaq Hylton, USMC)
Additional pilots and enlisted Marines fill out the MAD as subject matter experts supporting each program office. They help design engineers understand all the ways their product will be used by Marines around the world and the creative ways Marines will find to break it. They make suggestions for design changes that will ultimately result in the most user-friendly version winding up in the hands of warfighters. Some senior enlisted work as fleet liaisons, remaining close to operational squadrons around the world. Once a new widget of any kind trickles down to the end user, fleet liaisons travel from unit to unit introducing Marines to the new equipment, gathering their feedback, and relaying information and suggestions back to the program office.
Program Manager Air (PMA) offices cover every facet of Marine aviation and supporting systems. The life-cycle stages of each office range from new acquisition to sustainment of current technologies.
“Every year we receive an aviation plan from the deputy commandant for aviation based on force design, projections, budget and other factors from the three-star level,” said Colonel James Reynolds, the MAD commanding officer. “That determines the needs and requirements for the future. Acquisition officers take requirements and money, merge the two and deliver a product. It’s an important mindset to frame your thoughts around—the idea that when you purchase a drill, you’re not buying a drill, you’re buying holes. There are many ways you can get those holes, you can’t just fixate on needing a drill. If the Marine Corps needs a ship-to-shore connector, that could be an AAV, a helicopter, a flat bottom ship; there are so many ways to crack that problem. If you fixate on a helicopter, then that’s how everything becomes a helicopter.”
The cargo/special operations team at Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, NAS Patuxent River, Md., obtained this CH-53K King Stallion shell in 2020 for use by the NAVAIR Heavy Lift Helicopter Program Office, PMA-261. The aircraft was used for certification and qualification of cargo and to provide the program office and the Marine Corps with opportunities for time and cost savings. (Photo by Victoria Falcon, NAS Patuxent River)
PMA-275 operates one of the largest program offices across the force. This joint office between the Marine Corps, Navy and U.S. Air Force is responsible for the procurement, development, support, fielding and disposal of the U.S. military’s tiltrotor program: the V-22 Osprey. MAD Marines work alongside roughly 350 other servicemembers and civilians in the program office at Pax River, including Marine Col Robert Hurst, the program manager for the entire V-22 Joint Program.
“The work we do here is critical,” Col Hurst said. “For my office, it’s critical to the lance corporal, the Sailor and the airman. They count on us to get things done. The criticality of having a Marine voice inside the acquisitions system cannot be overstated, having our focus on the warfighter, problem solving and leadership. Being an acquisition officer is as much about leadership as it is about knowing acquisition.”
An additional 300 PMA-275 personnel work out of Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, N.C., as the program’s Fleet Support Team. These civilians and servicemembers deploy all over the world, wherever American V-22s are in use, to provide subject matter expert support. A program more than 20 years in the making, as of this year, PMA-275 decommissioned its active production line for Marine Corps Ospreys, transitioning from new production to sustainment of the current fleet.
PMA-261, responsible for the CH-53 heavy lift helicopter, underwent the reverse transition over the last several years. For more than four decades the CH-53E model served as the Marine Corps’ workhorse. By the mid-2010s, the Pax River-based PMA determined sustainment was no longer pragmatic.
Marines with CLB-24, CLR-2, 2nd MLG, hook an F-35C Lightning II to a CH-53K King Stallion for helicopter support team operations at NAS Patuxent River, Md., on Dec. 13, 2022. CLB-24 conducted external lift operations with a helicopter support team to develop the proper tactics, techniques and procedures when flying a CH-53K King Stallion.(Cpl Meshaq Hylton, USMC)
A UX-24 MQ-9A is suspended in a specialized chamber for absorbing sound and electromagnetic waves at the Advanced Systems Integration Laboratory, Patuxent River, Md., on Feb 27, 2025. PMA-266 is NAVAIR’s program office for multi-mission tactical unmanned aircraft systems.(Theresa Thomas, DAiTA and Missions Systems Group)
Air traffic control technicians with VMM-263 (Rein), 22nd MEU, calibrate communications systems with CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters in preparation for a simulated night raid as part of Realistic Urban Training Exercise at Fort Barfoot, Va., on March 14, 2025. (Photo by Cpl Emily Hazelbaker, USMC)
LCpl Wyatt Hahn, left, and LCpl Harrison Vallery, both air traffic control radar technicians with MACS-4, MACG-18, 1st MAW, check the panels on an air traffic navigation, integration and coordination system (ATNAVICS) at MCAS Iwakuni, Japan, on Feb. 6, 2025. ATNAVICS is a mobile radar system used to provide air traffic control to pilots within a wide range of weather conditions. (Cpl Samantha Rodriguez, USMC)
“For a long time, the goal in that office was to keep the helicopter flying and relevant,” said LtCol Shull. Prior to his service as the MAD XO, Shull piloted CH-53s in the fleet and served as an acquisition officer assigned to PMA-261. “The acquisition mindset was improvements and upgrades, maybe a new weapons system, new instrumentation or safety measures. At some point, it becomes more expensive to sustain than to replace. Either the threat has surpassed it or just the lifespan of the aircraft can no longer be extended, like an old car that eventually needs to be replaced. So, the office began the standard ‘new capability’ acquisition process, identifying the best product to meet the heavy-lift requirements. Eventually, it transitioned into the development and fielding of the CH-53K.”
Beyond the development and acquisition phases, testing each new product requires a special breed of Marine aviators. Roughly one third of the Marines selected and placed by the MAD are pilots assigned to one of the Air Test and Evaluation squadrons covering every type, model and series of aircraft. Unlike any other squadrons in the fleet, pilots joining a developmental test squadron must undergo the U.S. Navy’s Test Pilot School (TPS). Here, Marine aviators develop a unique skill set. Students endure a rigorous academic and flight schedule over the course of 11 months, including the ability to graduate with a Master of Science in aviation and aerospace management from Purdue University.
“TPS, most plainly stated, teaches two things: how to evaluate systems and how to manage risk,” said Major Nicholas Mantz, a UH-1 pilot assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (HX) 21 at Pax River. “The real difference is that, as a test pilot, you’re doing things that no one has ever done before.”
School-trained test pilots assigned to HX-21 are responsible for operational testing of every type, model and series of rotary-wing and tiltrotor aircraft utilized by the Marine Corps. (Photo courtesy of HX-21)
“It gives you the ability to combine an aviator’s opinion with an engineering mindset,” added LtCol Aaron Okun, the commanding officer of HX-21. “We are the bridge between the fleet and the engineers. Fundamentally what we do is we test something, we evaluate it and we communicate back to the engineers what that evaluation was.”
HX-21 employs Marine test pilots to fly and evaluate all rotary wing and tiltrotor aircraft employed by the USMC. Just like the acquisition process, the test process covers every single component within each airframe.
“When we talk about acquisitions, we think about aircraft from the cradle to the grave; from the inception of the idea all the way until we sunset it,” Okun said. “We also have to do that with every product that gets implemented into the aircraft. A new engine, a new display, any new widget, whatever it is, somebody had to design that, somebody had to install it and test it and vet all the procedures. The whole process gets boiled down for the smallest little thing.”
Okun, like all test squadron commanders, is a TPS graduate and an 8059 acquisition officer. A chief test pilot and chief engineer join the CO as the most senior and experienced veterans. Every test pilot in the squadron possesses at least four years of flying experience in the fleet, and a hearty recommendation from their previous commands, prior to enrollment at TPS and commencing a three-year stint with the test squadron. Though the squadron employs hundreds of people to test, evaluate and maintain the aircraft, only about 75 are active servicemembers. For test pilots, managing projects with civilian maintainers and engineers requires leadership skills and an approach not necessarily taught at The Basic School.
For every new or upgraded product, the PMA submits a request for testing to the squadron. A test pilot is assigned as the project officer, along with a project engineer, to spearhead the task together. The project team scales up or down depending on the complexity of each task and the level of risk associated with it.
“The team designs a set of test procedures to answer all the requirements of the aircraft or product,” Mantz explained. “Once we have that shell of what the test needs to look like, we will start going through the risk management process, identifying the hazards and precautionary measures we can take to mitigate the risks.”
Marines with 1st Bn, 7th Marines, 1stMarDiv, board a CH-53K King Stallion helicopter during Marine Air-Ground Task Force Distributed Maneuver Exercise 1-25 at Camp Wilson, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, Calif., on Feb. 11, 2025. (SSgt Armando Elizalde, USMC)
The specialized training test pilots receive enable them to venture into unknown territory as safely as possible. A host of sensors and monitoring devices specific to the test squadron accompany them on each journey.
“If you go out to one of our aircraft, you’ll see a ton of orange wires and devices everywhere,” said Gunnery Sergeant Jonothon Stutesman, a CH-53 crew chief assigned to HX-21. “They are all kinds of things—sensors measuring temperature, strain, pressure, you name it. This kind of telemetry is something you’re not going to find on a fleet aircraft. I don’t think a lot of people realize how much capability we have with that here. We can have a team of engineers in another room watching a live feed of all that data and advising if the flight is starting to progress in a way that may not be safe.”
The acquisition process calls for two types of testing: developmental testing (DT) and operational testing (OT).
“The easiest way to say it is that DT answers whether or not we built the thing right, OT answers whether or not we built the right thing for the mission it was intended,” Okun explained.
Developmental testers, such as HX-21 pilots, verify each specific function of the aircraft or system. If, for example, requirements call for a helicopter to lift a 10,000-pound load and carry it 300 miles, an HX-21 pilot will verify it can perform this task at a required speed and altitude. The goal of DT is to ensure the aircraft is safe, functional and technically capable of meeting every requirement. For an entirely new aircraft, like the CH-53K, dozens of test plans will be open simultaneously. The “Kilo” model remained in DT for nearly a decade.
Operational testers with Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron (VMX) 1 out of Yuma, Ariz., place the new airframe or system in real-world situations, testing metrics such as reliability, maintainability and availability. These aviators come from the fleet and do not attend TPS prior to assignment with the squadron. Though not administratively managed by the MAD, the Marines at VMX-1 play a vital role in the testing process, providing data to PMAs and working in conjunction with DT squadrons.
After each test event is completed, the test squadrons return their evaluations to the PMAs, who retain ultimate responsibility for the decision to field a new product or go back to the design board. The process for even the simplest items might take at least a year from inception to fielding. As a result, often the Marines who spend a period of several years at a PMA working to bring an idea to life will not be present to witness their work come to fruition. For them, the satisfaction comes much later, seeing the aircraft or system they worked on flying across social media or in the news as Marines around the world put it to use.
The unique work Marines do in pro-gram offices around the nation delivers each capability the Corps brings to the fight. Just as any big-box store employs a dedicated team to engage suppliers and sellers to fill their shelves, Marine Corps PMAs fill the gap with civilian industry.
“The interaction we have with our commercial business partners is certainly something that makes us quite a bit different than a lot of the Marine Corps,” Shull reflected. “We interface daily with stakeholders out of uniform, the key military industrial base. This is the corporate, business side of the Marine Corps.”
PMAs remain constantly future-oriented, sustaining the equipment in use today and procuring the “state of the possible” for tomorrow. The MAD at Patuxent River operates equally future-focused, making sure all the right players are in place to acquire, test and field new technology. The critical work they perform is the first step in bringing about the vision for Marine Corps aviation to life.
Featured Photo (Top): Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (HX) 21 executes a squadron-wide formation flight on March 25, 2022, highlighting the variety of rotary-wing and tiltrotor aircraft flown and tested by HX-21 test pilots and flight test engineers. (Photo by LT Ben Putbrese, USN)
About the Author
Kyle Watts is the staff writer for Leatherneck. He served on active duty in the Marine Corps as a communications officer from 2009-13. He is the 2019 winner of the Colonel Robert Debs Heinl Jr. Award for Marine Corps History. He lives in Richmond, Va., with his wife and three children.
Enjoy this article?
Force Multiplier in the Sky: KC130J Harvest HAWK is Here to Stay
