Do We Need A Marine Corps?

[Oroka]

I am amazed that people think it takes them 5 days to get somewhere, I don't know about you but every country I have been in, they have been sitting right at the United States embassies.

Speaking of the cold war and people bringing up the Air Force, if crap hit the fan those Air Force assets would be long gone leaving the families to wait on those "specialized/ adaptive Forces" called the Marines to come get us the heck out of dodge.

Wow, whole Marine units at every US Embassy! Where do they park the LCACs? The forces at embassies are for protection of the embassy, not engaging a enemy force.

Crap hits the fan, are you going to wait 4-5 days for a USMC LPD or LHA to show up to save you (assuming there is coast, and you are close to that coast). Crap hits the fan, if you are still in country, you must have ignored the warnings about leaving the country because relations were broken off and hostilities were imminent, because that time the US Embassy would have been abandoned already.

[Fishwelding]

If a enemy airforce can not field a force with anti-shipping, they have probably had their bells rung, and hard. With no air support, ground forces are chopper fodder. The DoD will not send a LPD, a C-17, a CVN or anything with a lot of lives in it if there is credible threat to it. Big losses are not acceptable when you can bomb the crap out of something with jets from a CVN....

I am not as optimistic about tactical airpower as you seem to be. You cite staggering defense bills, but airpower is horrendously expensive. Should it be called upon to handle all the fighting, and leave to the troops only constabulary and occupational duties? Can air power do everything, or is it even the most efficient in doing everything? After all, in several recent wars (say, in the past thirty years), airpower was by itself not enough to win. This is less a criticism of airpower--it's tremendously potent stuff--but more a recognition that we're nowhere near finished with ground units. Combined arms, and specifically the ability of boots on the ground to assess the local situation, garner intelligence, and carry on sustained fighting seem to me to be worth having. Also, I've heard more than a few military aviators here over the past several years express sober respect for late-generation air-defense systems. It's not that we cannot overcome these, it's that recklessly assuming they pose no threat at all is to be avoided.

So, per my previous comments, it follows that there is still a role for rapid reaction troops that have a specialization in ship-to-shore warfare.

How do you get assets in? Not by LPD. Is it do able? Yes. Now, why not do that to a country that has some coastline?

Because you can do it better and quicker to a country that has a coastline. And frankly, most of the world's population lives near shores.

Speaking of the cold war and people bringing up the Air Force, if crap hit the fan those Air Force assets would be long gone leaving the families to wait on those "specialized/ adaptive Forces" called the Marines to come get us the heck out of dodge.

I'm not certain what you mean. But in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe in, say, 1988, I think USAFE units expected to die on their feet, along with the cavalry regiments and mechanized divisions. There's little point in fleeing with the ocean at your back. After the last A-10 fails to come back, the maintainers join the infantry. Welcome to Bataan. If the F-111 units in England had at least more time before the Soviets reached them--or if a nuclear exchange broke out--tearing their way deep into Warsaw Pact airspace to hit vital points didn't auger well for their life-expectancy either.

[11bee]

Come on man, you didn't just make that argument...

One word: standoff.

How is a C-17 just as vulnerable as an LPD sitting just over the horizon, out of missile range? You can't fly over a DZ at 500kts and 500 feet and not expect a lot of red splatter on the ground. C-17s have to come over a DZ and be slow enough for the paratroops to exit the airplane safely. That's considerably under 200kts. Perfect for a MANPAD or even a well placed RPG to make everyone have a really bad day very quickly.

Meanwhile that LPD sits several miles offshore, launches its LCACs (which can bring the heavy equipment to the fight quickly) and then stays on-station for further logistical support. Marine and Navy Air, plus anti-air systems are there to handle the missile threat. Now granted, it would seem that with the LPD-17 class, there are issues with such systems, but still, if they're being shot at by someone else's Navy or missiles are getting through to them, things have really gone down the crapper worse than ever thought possible. .

I'm somewhat on the fence on this issue, I think the Marines definitely have a role to play, just don't think we should be investing our soon to be much scarcer dollars for such a significant amphibious capability. Standoff just isn't the end-all solution. If they were truly going to land a larger force against a well armed enemy, those helo carriers and LPD's would first have to get past some modern, diesel electric or AIP subs, which from what has made it out to the press, seem to have had pretty good success penetrating the ASW screen of carriers and getting into firing position. Then factor in modern anti-ship missiles (including those that can be fired from hidden sites on land) and soon to be deployed ICBM mounted ship killers.

Modern land forces are well equipped with some very effective anti-tank guided missiles (ask the Israeli's that went after Hezbolla about how well they work). What would a few dug in fighting positions with ATGM's do to those LCAC's? They are faster than regular landing craft but not by much and the only armor on them would be the crew's kevlar helmets. We don't have any battleships left to prep the beach and keep the bad guys' heads down. Actually even when we did, they really didn't do that good of a job anyway.

As far as coming in from the air, if the C-17 is so vulnerable, how much safer would those CH-53's and Osprey's be to modern SAMs and AAA? 500 knots in a C-17 is still a heck of a lot faster than what those Marines would be doing.

You can talk about maneuvering the troops around the bad guys but again, if you are going up against a modern, well led force, can you really depend on being able to land a significant force in an area with no resistance? A modern opponent will have access to night vision gear, satellites, AWACs and all the other equipment that we take for granted. It may not be so easy to fool them as we would hope for.

I truly feel that amphibious warfare is a niche capability at best. Keep enough assets to land a smaller unit in an unopposed scenario but don't spend all those billions to make it your primary reason for existence. The vast, vast majority of Jarheads go into combat just like their army counterparts - flown in on AF or civilian charter transports.

While I am busy remodeling the corp, I would also look at reducing Marine aviation. A country just does not need three separate forces operating fast jets. There is just no overriding reason why the Marines just have to have all those squadrons of F-18's, Harriers and soon to be, F-35's. If the AF and Navy can't support the Marines, then things have already gone to shite. Draw down Marine aviation to just helos and a small number of support aircraft. Leave the fast jet CAS to the airforce and Navy. Aside from getting rid of the amphibious capability, that step would yield the most significant cost savings.

My humble suggestion is to revamp the USMC to a model similar to the British Royal Marines (BTW, I met a few of them and they are truly an elite force, much more akin to Army Rangers then any other conventional force). They have been kicking *** for years without their own airforce, armored force and vast amphibious navy.

Just my $0.02.

[Oroka]

I am not as optimistic about tactical airpower as you seem to be. You cite staggering defense bills, but airpower is horrendously expensive. Should it be called upon to handle all the fighting, and leave to the troops only constabulary and occupational duties? Can air power do everything, or is it even the most efficient in doing everything? After all, in several recent wars (say, in the past thirty years), airpower was by itself not enough to win. This is less a criticism of airpower--it's tremendously potent stuff--but more a recognition that we're nowhere near finished with ground units. Combined arms, and specifically the ability of boots on the ground to assess the local situation, garner intelligence, and carry on sustained fighting seem to me to be worth having. Also, I've heard more than a few military aviators here over the past several years express sober respect for late-generation air-defense systems. It's not that we cannot overcome these, it's that recklessly assuming they pose no threat at all is to be avoided.

Landing ground troops will always be risky, but the point of air assaults is to diminish an opposing force as much as possible. The cost of bombs are politically cheaper than a filled body bag. You cant surrender to a F-35, but you can to the first American troop you see come up the beach. Air power can decimate any serious challenge to a US ground force so you are only fighting skirmishes rather than full out fire fights. That is what all these expensive stealth jets are for, penetrating air defenses, defeat them, make it safe for bombers, erode the enemies ability to make war, then kick them in the nuts with a land force. Look at both Gulf wars... aerial bombardment first, kill anything that moves, then send in the troops. By the time the Army rolled in, they were finding more people wanting to surrender than wanting to fight.

Because you can do it better and quicker to a country that has a coastline. And frankly, most of the world's population lives near shores.

Ships are not that quick, and you have to assume you have them all over the planet waiting for a fight. And a LDP is not going to go into a hot zone as a lead in force. They are still going to have to wait for fast jets to kick the bad guys around for a while before approaching the beach. What happens is a CVN parks 100km off the coast, and sends in jets for a few weeks. In that time, the Army is mobilized, gear on boats, grunts on planes, and they all meet up in a friendly country in the area.

I'm not certain what you mean. But in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe in, say, 1988, I think USAFE units expected to die on their feet, along with the cavalry regiments and mechanized divisions. There's little point in fleeing with the ocean at your back. After the last A-10 fails to come back, the maintainers join the infantry. Welcome to Bataan. If the F-111 units in England had at least more time before the Soviets reached them--or if a nuclear exchange broke out--tearing their way deep into Warsaw Pact airspace to hit vital points didn't auger well for their life-expectancy either.

That is a good point I have been thinking about. The US military is structured to fight the Cold War. Big Army, Big Navy, Big Airforce, Marines, ready to take a dump on some enemy that is dug in with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, tanks, jets, submarines. They are using these massive assets to chase arabs with $50 AK-47s.

[richter111]

Wars are fought over assets.

We need to look at which country will be after our assets, and plan accordingly,

and keep a force available for terrorism

[TaiidanTomcat]

So just so I get the Narrative correct this is what we have so far Oraka and 11B:

C-17s are safer than than Marine landing ships surrounded by a battle group of warships, even when they are over the horizon and mobile.

Amphib landing are obsolete relics of WWII but Paratroop operations over contested skies are the preferred and viable modern options

CVNs are the king of the sea, LHD are giant bullseyes. never mind that they are protected by the same surface combatants

C-17s and C-130s are capable of carrying more cargo than a transport ship, and can get it there faster after a few thousand sorties or so.

The USAF and USN are far more capable of providing CAS for the Marines than the Marines themselves... Even though they are stuck in the big war mindset from decades ago.

Tanks have been made obsolete by modern anti tank weapons LCACs have as well for the same reason.

Helicopters and fast moving Ospreys are SAM bait and thus obsolete. C-17s at 500 knots are perfectly safe, and they can land on unpreped fields and drop paras at that speed with no problems.

The enemy, in all his infinite wisdom, will hang out and give you time to establish giant air logistics bases with nary a fight nearby.

The Army is far lighter and faster than the US Marines, and the USAF need only be called to begin the massive coordinated airlift between the two services once the army takes the whole 5 days or so to get ready.

Logistics for a combat unit, which is normally measured in the thousands of tons is easily brought in by air completely.

The Marines are still fighting the cold war. Although if you ask any Marine he will tell you they were never a big war/cold war force. They fight small wars. but unable to break the habits they never formed in the first place, are somehow stuck in the 1980s

Airpower wins wars. slam them with air and wait for all of them to give up. (don't look at al nasiraya, fullaja or afghanistan- they dont count)

[Cobrahistorian]

Will someone tell me exactly when Hell froze over???

I mean seriously... I'm AGREEING with the MARINES?!!!

[SBARC]

Will someone tell me exactly when Hell froze over???

Hell froze over? I guess that means global warming doesn't exist. :D

[Skyraider Maniac]

:D

[Guest Hoban Washburne]

That is what all these expensive stealth jets are for, penetrating air defenses, defeat them, make it safe for bombers, erode the enemies ability to make war, then kick them in the nuts with a land force. Look at both Gulf wars... aerial bombardment first, kill anything that moves, then send in the troops. By the time the Army rolled in, they were finding more people wanting to surrender than wanting to fight.

OOOOOOORRRRRR...an alternative view might say the Army rolled in and found an insurgent hiding behind every piece of rubble, and was faced with the distinctly more difficult challenge of deciphering who is an enemy combatant and who is an innocent non-combatant civilian and who is an innocent non-combatant because he just dropped his AK two blocks over after shooting up a convoy...

Landing ground troops will always be risky, but the point of air assaults is to diminish an opposing force as much as possible. The cost of bombs are politically cheaper than a filled body bag.

Arguably, if you use insurgent math, the cost of a bomb becomes politically much higher: 10-2=30. Insurgent Math. See also, David Kilcullen.

That is a good point I have been thinking about. The US military is structured to fight the Cold War. Big Army, Big Navy, Big Airforce, Marines, ready to take a dump on some enemy that is dug in with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, tanks, jets, submarines. They are using these massive assets to chase arabs with $50 AK-47s.

Arguably true for the other services, but not the US Marines. Doctrinally, they are the force best suited to fight in the current climate...after all, it was the Marine's CAC/CAP program that was showing the greatest success in counter-insurgency efforts in SE Asia during the US' Vietnam conflict, and it was solely written in USMC doctrine. Unfortunately, it came too late and too little to make much difference. But as has already been pointed out here, the Marines have always led the US service doctrine on small wars/counter-insurgency. Their ability to perform "forced entry" operations and clear the way for follow on forces is just another role they undertake....perhaps the more widely known of their roles, admittedly.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Yes, the US Army can take over the quick response roles of the Marines, and yes it will cost money. $33B in a year should cover that. The whole US Army could use some Marine skills. If there is ever a war with a real capable force (China+Russia), the US will be massively outnumbered, and they will not be waiting on a beach for a couple thousand marines to shoot at them. You want a highly skilled army, some marine ohh ra would do the trick.

Wait, you just destroyed your whole argument

How does taking the Marines $33 Billion and giving it to the Army save money exactly?

How would abolishing the Marines help the Army get "Marine skills"?

You actually say that the Army is the inferior force in skill and determination above, and yet you think it would be wise to spend the same $33 billion to get the inferior product?

finally, the $33 billion pays for four Marine Divisions and four Marine Air wings. If the Army is now getting 33 billion for only half the Marine Corps (its ground divisions) how would the USAF or USN pay for the other half (Its air wings)? wouldn't that now require more money for the USN or USAF?

:huh:

That got me! :lol:

From this Website:

http://www.msc.navy.mil/pm3/

Maritime Prepositioning Force Ships:

Sixteen prepositioning ships strategically position supplies for the U.S. Marine Corps at sea. The ships are laden with a variety of Marine Corps equipment and supplies, including tanks, ammunition, food, water, cargo, hospital equipment, petroleum products and spare parts - ready for rapid delivery ashore when needed.

Eight of these ships - called Maritime Prepositioning Ships, or MPS - were specially configured for the Marine Corps in the early 1980s. Three ship squadrons each contain four to six Maritime Prepositioning Force ships, as well as other prepositioning ships that are dedicated to other military services. Each MPS squadron carries sufficient equipment and supplies to sustain more than 16,000 Marine Expeditionary Brigade and Navy personnel for up to 30 days.

Note how the Hospital gear is nearby so The long flight from Zambia to Germany or Italy could be negated. If I was wounded I would want the close hospital but thats me. Some people are willing to bleed longer than others.

Now I know what you are thinking "TT thats the USMC. That is silly and outdated, And just because a single ammunition ship transport can carry more than 217 C-130s doesn't mean a thing. its all about airlift..."

Well here is info about the EIGHT Cargo ships that the US Army operates (despite the C-17):

MSC's 8 Army Prepositioned Stocks-3 ships strategically place U.S. Army combat equipment at sea to supply and sustain deployed U.S. troops during national crises. Six of the APS-3 ships are mammoth, government-owned cargo ships, called large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off ships, or LMSRs. Each ship has a cargo-carrying capacity of more than 300,000 square feet.

LMSRs are ideal for rapid loading and off-loading of Army wheeled and tracked vehicles, as well as other outsized Army equipment. A series of internal and external ramps makes this possible, and huge shipboard cranes allow cargo to be lifted without relying on local port infrastructure. In addition to LMSRs, APS-3 ships include two container ships that store ammunition at sea for the Army.

Each ship is capable of carrying 50,000 long tons. A long ton is 2240 lbs. or 1118.18 KG.

a C-130(H) is capable of carrying a "useful load" of 33000KG a C-17 can carry 77,519 KG.

So lets do some math NOTE THAT THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE TWO ADDITIONAL AMMO SHIPS WITH THE LMSRS (that would add sorties to aircraft):

It would take 1695 C-130 sorties to lift 50,000 long tons of one LMSR

or

721 C-17 sorties

(Remember the C-5 doesn't count since it requires big concrete runways so I have excluded it from this)

lets check the numbers for all eight

13,560 Herky bird sories

or

5,768 C-17 sorties.

In order for the US Army to retire all eight of its LMSRs (which it would need to since securing a beach or capturing a port are no longer viable options due to the fact that the mission is obsolete) the USAF would have to be capable of this sortie rate... in your scenario under fire. The ability of a C-17 to maneuver under fire with a full load must be something to behold. Either the USAF is capable of this, including the Air Tankers and the incredible amount of other logistics to support all of them, or cargo ships are still vital to any offensive operation. Not to mention the 1.6 billion dollars in FY 2007 that was requested to fight "combat fatigue" in the C-17 fleet... Already? how old are they about 15 years max? I am willing to bet the wings come off all your transport planes before one of those ships sinks under the same loads.

did I Mention these ships are prepostioned and can bring all this cargo in a matter of days?

But lets examine the unprepared airfield scenario for a second. In order to deliver the load of one LRMS, every C-17 the USAf possesses (205 at the moment but it could be 225 someday soon) would have to fly four sorties (using the 225 number). Not counting an extra sortie for the paratroops that had to be dropped. Remember this is an unprepared airfield, for our scenario lets say the paras managed to secure three usable airfields. They are now trying to hold the line with light anti tank rockets and 60mm mortars (and you wouldn't believe the damage a few tanks can do to a light force BTW). Each airfield would have to be capable of servicing (unloading supplies, reloading the wounded) 75 C-17s each per sortie for a total 300 landings and takeoffs per unpreped field.

Using the whole C-17 fleet and assuming they are able to get one sortie per day thats four days to offload the same amount of cargo of ONE LRMS. Assuming no operations cease. A plane would take off every 6 and a half minutes for four days straight.

This is of course assuming the C-17s dont break. that none of them crash land on any runway, That no one gets lost or has to divert. that the 225 planes you start with go the entire war with no loss, That the weather holds, that your crews dont go insane. That your mechs don't need sleep and that spare parts are infinite and that the Navy and USAF can pulverize enough ground to keep whoever is still alive on the ground going.

In reality with every C-17 you had it would still take weeks.

If it was me I would secure the Port and use the LRMS Ship.

In Europe in WWII, (that was the Armys war) It seemed imperative to take the deep water port of Cherbourg... for some reason there was no vital interest in some captured airfields. I wonder why? didnt they know the value of airlift?

Why the Army made it so it could roll cargo right off makes no sense to me, seeing as they will never get close to the shore ever, since the Marines will (of course) fail to take the beach.

"Ok TT but how dumb are you dude? sure the Army might rely on massive logistics support from the sea, but the USAF with all its cargo planes doesn't need any of that garbage."

Navy, Defense Logistics Agency And Air Force Ships:

The most diverse subset of MSC's prepositioning ships is called Navy, Defense Logistics Agency and Air Force ships, or NDAF. These eight ships operate around the world in support of the Department of Defense services and agencies contained in the name, as well as the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army.

NDAF ships provide support for:

* The Navy; One activated Ready Reserve Force breakbulk ship prepositions noncontainerized ammunition. One high-speed vessel provides a platform for a variety of missions worldwide.

* The Air Force; Two long-term chartered container ships preposition munitions.

* The Defense Logistics Agency; A chartered offshore petroleum distribution system ship, capable of transferring fuel from ship to shore, keeps deployed U.S. warfighters supplied with fuel.

* The Marine Corps; Two aviation logistics support ships can be activated from the Ready Reserve Force to maintain and repair forward-deployed, rotary-wing aircraft at sea. One high-speed vessel supports the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force transporting cargo and military personnel between Okinawa, Japan, and other ports in the Far East. A chartered offshore petroleum distribution system ship delivers fuel from offshore to support Marines ashore.

* The Army; the same OPDS ship that supports Marines ashore also supports Army ground forces.

Those are the same munitions that are used to pulverize the enemy before they get their white flags ready of course. unfortunately the bombs can not be offloaded due to the fact that there are no secure beaches or ports. So the USAF would have to sling load them in? I don't know how many sorties or helos that would take, but I am willing to bet its a helluva lot

I must also ask how it "saves money" to take airplanes that used to say "Marines" on them and write "Navy" or "USAF" instead. I guess Marines just use more expensive paint.

If the USMC Gave up its air wing to the USN, wouldn't the navy have to construct about eight more CVNs as well to keep them nearby? where as the light carriers are already built and the F-35B can operate off them already?

If the Gator Navy's ten light carriers are going to be counted against the Marines, I must wonder why C-130s and C-17s can't be held against the Army? Surely the USAF could use those transports for better things than transporting the Army's soldiers right? why doesn't that count? Why does the C-17 have to have a paratroop capability? Couldnt the Army save money by just buying their own air transports? Or putting Aerial refueling probes on their helicopters to increase their range? why can't the Paratroops become a part of the USAF? oh you don't do that sort of thing? Ok what if the Army got your transport planes then? Oh? No on that too. Maybe we should just abolish Paratroops. this aint WWII.

Edited November 9, 2010 by TaiidanTomcat

[Tank]

Will someone tell me exactly when Hell froze over???

I mean seriously... I'm AGREEING with the MARINES?!!!

Jon,

I don't what to tell ya. I am just shaking my head with lots of these responses from folks that don't seem to understand the individual services and their roles and want to make the same mistakes we made in the past.

[Fishwelding]

Ships are not that quick, and you have to assume you have them all over the planet waiting for a fight. And a LDP is not going to go into a hot zone as a lead in force. They are still going to have to wait for fast jets to kick the bad guys around for a while before approaching the beach. What happens is a CVN parks 100km off the coast, and sends in jets for a few weeks. In that time, the Army is mobilized, gear on boats, grunts on planes, and they all meet up in a friendly country in the area.

Friendly country? It's not simply that there might not be a friendly country in the area (such as the British encountered with the admittedly-remote Falkland Islands campaign), it's that there might not be the infrastructure in the region that we can easily appropriate to fight war. Large runways and heavy piers are very costly things to have and operate, and worse, civilians have the temerity to suggest that we not interrupt their commerce in order to carry out military action. And once you publically renounce your ability to build beachheads without the need for large airports and shipping ports in friendly countries (because you've declared amphibious warfare a useless thing, and downsized accordingly) a potential enemy will consider his options accordingly.

Bombs are cheaper than people, but delivering them continually costs much more in both money and more importantly, people, than having ground-based combat power defeat an enemy in decisive battle, after airpower has done much to disrupt, dislocate, and damage enemy forces.

When you speak of fast, for their volume, yes, ships are fast. Because in order to match an equivalent volume of men, and equipment (including all the mundane necessities such as rations, toothpaste, and so forth) airlift will run itself ragged trying to keep up, likely take just as long with multiple sorties, and worst of all, you'll strip airlift assets from more the more valuable missions. Recall that C-17s and C-130s are not in unlimited numbers, and their costs are not just initial price tag, but also all the maintenance hours required. Dollar for dollar, pound for pound, there's a reason the world has not abandoned shipping containers afloat for air cargo altogether. In war, we might be faced with the need to get combat power ashore quickly and efficiently without relying on other peoples' infrastructure in the region.

Think logistically. Think total needs of a force. Why not have diversity of effort to minimize problematic aspects with one method of moving troops, tanks, and toothpaste? Why limit oneself with a set of assumptions about the enemy and the region?

That is a good point I have been thinking about. The US military is structured to fight the Cold War. Big Army, Big Navy, Big Airforce, Marines, ready to take a dump on some enemy that is dug in with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, tanks, jets, submarines. They are using these massive assets to chase arabs with $50 AK-47s.

Really? I rather think we've gone too far the other way, in many cases. Where are all the big armored divisions of the Cold War? Why am I supposed to believe the "stryker" (the low-cal near-beer of APCs, methinks!) and all this TOE reconstruction to fight "low-intensity warfare" is safe in the long run? How much longer is it before political and economic shifts cause the present wars to blow themselves out? Who's to say there won't be a big brawl between organized militaries again?

Will someone tell me exactly when Hell froze over???

I mean seriously... I'm AGREEING with the MARINES?!!!

An army helicopter pilot and a "liberal arts academic," both historians, are the ones defending the Marines here. Never let the jarheads complain that they have no friends ashore, I say.

With regard to the dangers raised against amphibious warfare, it's worth noting that war is dangerous. Lots are paid in wartime and peacetime to counter technology and tactics of potential enemies. The Navy and Marines have their work cut out for them in evaluating threats to amphibious warfare, and coming up with solutions against those threats. But so does every other service in every other context of warfare.

In general, I'm very skeptical of ruling out methods of warfare historically. People tend to cite "horse cavalry" as their pet obsolescence model, but it's worth recognizing that this is a technology set. The mission of cavalry is still very much alive: screen, skirmish, patrol, provide shock through speed instead of mass, etc.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Fishwelding

[Icehound]

LMAO!!! Now that was great

[Cobrahistorian]

I do want to add a little gasoline to the fire here in defense of the Army. One of the things we actually DO do well is logistics. The Army actually owns those Roll on/Roll Off ships and has quite an organic sealift capability. We don't, however, conduct amphibious landings anymore. The idea nowadays is let the Marines kick in the door and secure the beachhead and then roll the Army's divisions in to exploit that foothold.

We're getting better. Brigade Combat Teams are a lot more flexible than massive divisions and a lot easier to transport rapidly. But like I said, DoD in general needs a serious re-evaluation of roles and missions yet again....

[Fishwelding]

We're getting better. Brigade Combat Teams are a lot more flexible than massive divisions and a lot easier to transport rapidly. But like I said, DoD in general needs a serious re-evaluation of roles and missions yet again....

[stubborn, conservative growl]Harrumph! Hang your Stryker Brigades, I say! Mighty tank divisions with 300+ 60-ton war-beasts, infantry tracked, mailed, and mechanized, and 8-inch self-propelled howitzers will pound your ballet-dancing dandies to pieces! No amount of text-messaging, mojito-drinking "Generation Why-Bother" philosophizing will be able to dance around that kind of concentrated violence!

...and while you're at it, throw in some battlefield ballistic missiles and atomic artillery shells.

...and take off those silly new "digital" pajamas, and get some traditional green-drab on. Get rid of all that plastic body armor and get back to flak jackets! Honestly, you all look like some weird organic mango-and-three-bean salad![/stubborn, conservative growl].

[Mark S.]

A reminder the Marine Corps. Birthday is November 10.

Mark S.

[Tank]

A reminder the Marine Corps. Birthday is November 10.

Mark S.

You are correct sir, 235 years. We just had a local birthday ball this past weekend.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Tank

[Cobrahistorian]

A reminder the Marine Corps. Birthday is November 10.

Mark S.

Younguns.....

December 13th is the National Guard birthay. 374 years since the first full Regiment was legislated in the 13 colonies. They exist today as Massachusetts' 101st Engineers.

[Oroka]

Wait, you just destroyed your whole argument

Your kidding right? First, it wouldn't cost $33B, second it is sarcasm, a dig at $33B a year to have a capability that is not needed. Even if I was serious about giving the Army that $33B, it would still be 1 year worth. Do the math, 5 years from now it will be $165B, 10 years $330B, 20 years $660B, 30 years $990B. Wow, that is most of the US national debt, in 30 years. If I say throw $33B at something, it is to show the completely ridiculous amount of money being spend on a independent fighting force that is not needed.

How would abolishing the Marines help the Army get "Marine skills"?

You actually say that the Army is the inferior force in skill and determination above, and yet you think it would be wise to spend the same $33 billion to get the inferior product?

I say the Army does not have the skills that the Marines specialize in. Take a few jar heads, train a Army division, you have a quick response force (you know, that is what the Marines were created for, right?). Just because the Army does not have that skill right now (Im sure they could do it anyways) does not mean they will never have that skill.

From this Website:

http://www.msc.navy.mil/pm3/

Maritime Prepositioning Force Ships:

I though the Marines were now quick response forces, not cargo haulers. That is alot of expensive floating around in case a giant war breaks out in the next 20 mins. Lets look at the Gulf war. Spend 6 months shipping gear over, before anything even happened. Didn't need quick response was not needed there. Gulf War 2, same thing. Quick response was not needed, cargo ships performed the job the Maritime Prepositioning Force Ships were meant to do.

Just because the Army and Navy does not have certain capabilities right now, does not mean they can not be acquired. I never ever said ship everything in on jet, just the initial force to maintain a safe zone that the rest of the gear can be shipped in safely.

If you want to have gear close, throw them in shipping containers, and store them at ports around the world. When war is imminent, throw the shipping cans on a few ships, send them to the area. They can wait until it is safe to unload at that port that had to be taken for the LRMS ships anyways.

The 'Maritime Prepositioning Force Ships' are good for if you don't see a conflict coming, and you wait until the last second to start moving things. That is bad planning. And even if you do that, you still have to wait for the bulk of the gear to show up by ship anyways.

In Europe in WWII, (that was the Armys war) It seemed imperative to take the deep water port of Cherbourg... for some reason there was no vital interest in some captured airfields. I wonder why? didnt they know the value of airlift?

1. Is the USMC planning on fighting WWIII?

2. Airlift capacity in WWII was significantly less than it is now. Different era, different technology level, different battle plans.

3. You still need ships, just not hovering around the planet in case WWIII breaks out tomorrow, completely unforeseen.

Those are the same munitions that are used to pulverize the enemy before they get their white flags ready of course. unfortunately the bombs can not be offloaded due to the fact that there are no secure beaches or ports. So the USAF would have to sling load them in? I don't know how many sorties or helos that would take, but I am willing to bet its a helluva lot

I must also ask how it "saves money" to take airplanes that used to say "Marines" on them and write "Navy" or "USAF" instead. I guess Marines just use more expensive paint.

If the USMC Gave up its air wing to the USN, wouldn't the navy have to construct about eight more CVNs as well to keep them nearby? where as the light carriers are already built and the F-35B can operate off them already?

CVN. Full of bombs, missiles, bullets, fuel, jets, and helos. I never said give the Marine gear to the Navy, that would just create redundancy with Navy written on it. I propose to save money by eliminating those assets. The USMC doesn't need $44B in stealth fighter jets! If the Marines dont have jets, they dont need LHAs. If the Marines dont need LHAs, that frees the Navy to use those personnel and funds elsewhere. They Navy gains from the USMC being dissolved.

If the Gator Navy's ten light carriers are going to be counted against the Marines, I must wonder why C-130s and C-17s can't be held against the Army? Surely the USAF could use those transports for better things than transporting the Army's soldiers right? why doesn't that count? Why does the C-17 have to have a paratroop capability? Couldnt the Army save money by just buying their own air transports? Or putting Aerial refueling probes on their helicopters to increase their range? why can't the Paratroops become a part of the USAF? oh you don't do that sort of thing? Ok what if the Army got your transport planes then? Oh? No on that too. Maybe we should just abolish Paratroops. this aint WWII.

It is called co-operation. USAF provides assets to the Army when the army needs a ride, or needs something bombed. Airforce has a problem with a few hostile ships, the Navy deals with it. Marines need something bombed, well they have their own ships, and their own fighter jets, screw the USAF and USN, they are going to do it on their own. Redundant redundant redundant. Does the Army have its own C-17s for paratroopers? Do they have LHAs filled with fighter jets lurking around just in case?

In WWII, the army did have its own air force, but that became the USAF because the army does not need to be operating fighter jets. Grunts that jump out of a plane are only paratroopers while in the air, on the ground, they are still grunts, why would the USAF have grunts? Cause it would be redundant.

Co-operation. The USMC wants to do it all by itself, that is expensive.

[Oroka]

Honestly, you all look like some weird organic mango-and-three-bean salad!

Best quote of the week!

[Cobrahistorian]

In WWII, the army did have its own air force, but that became the USAF because the army does not need to be operating fighter jets.

The built-in forum censor won't let me post my real reaction to this, so I'll just say bull-doodie.

The Army ABSOLUTELY needs to be operating tactical jets.

[gonzalo]

The Marines will never disappear period. Now I am ex Air Force, and to even suggest that the USAF can handle the logistics that it takes to keep an Army moving is dreaming. Even with the CRAF system in place it would be impossible. Airlift was not designed for massive prolonged logistical support of a large Army. C-17's and C-130's are tactical airlift. You need it in a hurry that's what they are for. Emergency resupply, wounded Evac, airborne ops, and tactical reinforcement. Look at it like this a C-17 can move one M-1. A C-5 two. How long would it take to move a Brigade using all of the aircraft. Okay, now that you delivered the tanks what about the bullets fuel water troops parts etc? That would take a long time. You do not have to look to WWII or Korea for that matter. In Desert Storm just the threat of an amphibious landing held a division of iraqi's at bay, just the threat! What about somolia? Albiet a small operation the Marines came ashore! Not airlifted not airborne assault amphibious landing, at first anyway. Now someone I am sure will say that in Desert Shield the first troops were the 82nd Airborne airlifted in. True they were but they were meant as a speed bump until the stronger follow on forces culd arrive supported by maritime resources. By the way let's not forget Marines also protect embassies and provide ship board security on Navy ships. By the way the C-5 is known as the King of Cargo. It's more like the king of crap. Most of our airlift fleet would break down on a prolonged high tempo operation as suggested on other postings.

Gonzalo

[Oroka]

The Marines will never disappear period. Now I am ex Air Force, and to even suggest that the USAF can handle the logistics that it takes to keep an Army moving is dreaming. Even with the CRAF system in place it would be impossible. Airlift was not designed for massive prolonged logistical support of a large Army. C-17's and C-130's are tactical airlift. You need it in a hurry that's what they are for. Emergency resupply, wounded Evac, airborne ops, and tactical reinforcement. Look at it like this a C-17 can move one M-1. A C-5 two. How long would it take to move a Brigade using all of the aircraft. Okay, now that you delivered the tanks what about the bullets fuel water troops parts etc? That would take a long time. You do not have to look to WWII or Korea for that matter. In Desert Storm just the threat of an amphibious landing held a division of iraqi's at bay, just the threat! What about somolia? Albiet a small operation the Marines came ashore! Not airlifted not airborne assault amphibious landing, at first anyway. Now someone I am sure will say that in Desert Shield the first troops were the 82nd Airborne airlifted in. True they were but they were meant as a speed bump until the stronger follow on forces culd arrive supported by maritime resources. By the way let's not forget Marines also protect embassies and provide ship board security on Navy ships. By the way the C-5 is known as the King of Cargo. It's more like the king of crap. Most of our airlift fleet would break down on a prolonged high tempo operation as suggested on other postings.

Gonzalo

Okay, I am going to post this in bold so people understand.

YOU DO NOT BRING IN EVERYTHING BY JET, JUST THE LEAD IN FORCE. NOT WHOLE BRIGADES, JUST ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH A BEACH HEAD FOR THE MAIN FORCE TO LAND SAFELY.

At no point did I say bring everything in by jet, as stated by many many people, it is unrealistic and unsustainable. As gonzalo stated, the C-130 and C-17 are tacticial airlifters. Not sunny weather air force, but fly into potentially dangerous airspace (not suicidal airspace) and do their jobs.

(FYI the C-5M is doing quite well)

Edited November 9, 2010 by Oroka

[Fishwelding]

Incidentally, the latest issue of USNI's Proceedings just came in the mail, and is (not surprisingly) all about the Marines and their prospects. Might be worth tracking it down if you're interested in this discussion.