"The U.S. Marines Just Gave Us A Preview Of How They Would" Topic
16 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
Tango01 | 17 Apr 2021 10:03 p.m. PST |
…Fight China "In contrast to the long grinding mountain and desert land campaigns of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Marine's new EABO concept would see Marines return to their maritime heritage. Distributed throughout the Pacific, small groups of highly trained and autonomous Marines would conduct a variety of missions, including reconnaissance of enemy-held areas and surveillance of enemy shipping, as well as amphibious and airborne assault. The new force design hearkens back to the Corps' World War II-era island-hopping campaigns, which saw Marines seize and hold far-flung and austere specks of land throughout the Pacific…" Main page link Armand |
Zephyr1 | 18 Apr 2021 8:32 p.m. PST |
"The new force design hearkens back to the Corps' World War II-era island-hopping campaigns, which saw Marines seize and hold far-flung and austere specks of land throughout the Pacific…" Except that they had tanks back then, as well as air and naval bombardment support… |
arealdeadone | 18 Apr 2021 9:06 p.m. PST |
Zephyr1. The big difference now is that the islands are meant to be unoccupied. General Berger has stated that USMC is no longer in the business of contested landings due to AD/A2 defensive layers. So the whole assumption is Chicoms just let the USMC land on some island and blow their ships and subs apart. |
Striker | 19 Apr 2021 1:20 a.m. PST |
I'm only on page 18 of this so maybe there's more juicy bits coming. Aren't the Royal Marines going to a "leaner, meaner, big band of sof" type of organization? |
Tgerritsen | 19 Apr 2021 2:54 a.m. PST |
I love how the General feels that the Marines need to ‘get back to the business of being seaborne soldiers.' His premise seems to be not that they are trying something new and experimental, but that they are getting back to some mythical, and more successful, age of Marine capability. You know, because the US Marines were so unsuccessful as a fighting force in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada and the Gulf Wars (regardless of who won those wars). Thank god we're getting away from the tradition of an all elite fighting force that can take on all comers when called upon. /sarcasm |
Irish Marine | 19 Apr 2021 8:13 a.m. PST |
As a US Marine that joined back in 86, when the Corps had lots of what we called "B" billets or barracks duty which were garrisoned by infantry Marines. Whom were desperately needed in the fleet, and not counting Sea Duty Marines. It wasn't till the mid 90's when the Corps stopped using Marines for these types of duties. The Corps ended these duties because every infantry battalion in the Marine Corps needed infantrymen. I remember every deployment back in the 80's we would have two full strength squads of three under strength squads. I really don't understand the current Commandant's vision, you always need grunts. In Somalia they used the arty battery as grunts and formed a 4th rifle company, same thing in Iraq they cannibalized support units to form more rifle companies, so how is less rifle battalions in the future a good thing. If and when we fight the Chicoms we will take causalities and they will need to be replaced. I wish I understood this dude but I don't. |
Legion 4 | 19 Apr 2021 9:02 a.m. PST |
Hopefully this new concept will never have to be tested in actual combat. And yes … you will always need well trained "Grunts" no matter what … no longer in the business of contested landings due to AD/A2 defensive Forced Entry ops have been going out of "style" since after Vietnam. Much too costly in both blood & treasure. And we have better ways to do things today. Based on tech and passed experiences, etc. Losing 1000s a day as in WWII or even near a 100 or so as in Vietnam at times. Is not the way we fight wars today. IMO the biggest threat to troops on the ground is the fear of CD. Which should always be a consideration, but not at the cost of the troops on the ground. |
Thresher01 | 20 Apr 2021 6:34 a.m. PST |
They need to develop a cadre of "Space Marines" to be deployed by the X-37B, and other orbital, and sub-orbital space trucks. |
Legion 4 | 20 Apr 2021 7:38 a.m. PST |
|
Tango01 | 20 Apr 2021 1:09 p.m. PST |
Ha!… good one Thresher01…. Armand |
arealdeadone | 20 Apr 2021 4:24 p.m. PST |
we will take causalities and they will need to be replaced Note each infantry battalion will also be 200 smaller by about 200 men. That will make any attrition even more impactful as there won't be extra staff in units to take role of casualties. Forced Entry ops have been going out of "style" since after Vietnam. Much too costly in both blood & treasure. And we have better ways to do things today. Based on tech and passed experiences, etc. Losing 1000s a day as in WWII or even near a 100 or so as in Vietnam at times. Is not the way we fight wars today. Are you so sure about that? The wars you've fought in since Vietnam have largely been against third rate (Iraq, Serbia) or negligible opponents (Afghanistan in 2001, Libya) and have mainly been low intensity/colonial policing actions (including Grenada and Panama, Somalia but also Iraq, Afghanistan). And note in all of them you had complete air superiority, no disruption to C3 and enemy conventional capabilities were primitive. Now add contested airspace, enemy electronic jamming and disruption to C3, and an enemy with well developed artillery. air defences and what's your casualty ratio going to be like?
Taliban launching random inaccurate 107mm bases is a totally different proposition to being hit by thermobaric warheads accurately guided by a drone whilst your own air defences/comms are being hammered by electronic warfare units. Even if the Russian and Chinese militaries are only 10% of what some experts think they are, they will still cause a lot of hurt to US/allied forces.
The recent high intensity conflict in Nagorno Karabakh highlighted this. The Armenian force was completely outmatched in the air but their forces still managed to inflict reasonable casualties to the Azerbaijanis.
And the equipment lost rates were at such a rate that most NATO or American Asian countries would struggle to last 3 days let alone the 6 weeks that Armenia did. The Azeris lost the equivalent of a brigade's worth of equipment and men, despite air superiority. Armenian losses were that of a reinforced division (armour and artillery losses were equivalent of 2 divisions). So now extrapolate to China/Russia v US. And finally do you believe Berger's assumption that the Chinese will simply allow the Marines to land on strategically important islands and lob missiles at Chinese warships? IMO the biggest threat to troops on the ground is the fear of CD. Which should always be a consideration, but not at the cost of the troops on the ground. Again obsession with CD (collateral damage) is the result of being mainly engaged in colonial policing actions. Will westerners obsess with CD in an existential conflict versus a peer competitor? If they do, they are done for. The Chinese and Russians won't hesitate. Indeed Russian and Chinese emphasis on massed artillery (King of the Battlefield) including massed short range ballistic missile means they really don't care about CD. ----
I think the modern A2/AD strategy employed by Russians/Chinese is basically the same strategy used by Soviets in Kursk: extremely layered defences deployed in depth. The west's problem is that it intends to breach this is using militaries equipped for policing actions (ie small professional forces kitted out as light infantry for most part, lacking in conventional firepower and reliant on permissive aerial and EW environments). Sure they talk about a return to peer level conflict, but the actions speak against it. You don't replace armoured SPGs and heavily armed tracked IFVs with unarmoured wheeled SPGs and large barely armoured wheeled APCs if you're going back to peer level warfare. You don't shrink unit sizes and continue disbanding units if you are going back to peer level warfare. And you certainly don't replace equipment on a 1 new for every 2-3 old level if you're going back to peer level warfare. |
Legion 4 | 20 Apr 2021 4:51 p.m. PST |
Are you so sure about that? Yes, I'm pretty sure we will not see forced entry ops like in WWII & Korea – no more beach or parachute assaults e.g. Normandy Plus even in Vietnam – no more Hot LZs. We learned from all those wars. We have very accurate firepower and know how to use it. And note in all of them you had complete air superiority, no disruption to C3 and enemy conventional capabilities were primitive. Yes we are well aware of that. And know how to deal with such problems … But yes it still could happen. And finally do you believe Berger's assumption that the Chinese will simply allow the Marines to land on strategically important islands and lob missiles at Chinese warships? IMO … that would be a very, very bad assumption. He may know somethings we don't ? Again obsession with CD (collateral damage) is the result of being mainly engaged in colonial policing actions. Will westerners obsess with CD in an existential conflict versus a peer competitor? As I have said, I tend to agree with you. As I said, "the fear of CD. Which should always be a consideration, but not at the cost of the troops on the ground." … If they do, they are done for. The Chinese and Russians won't hesitate.Indeed Russian and Chinese emphasis on massed artillery (King of the Battlefield) including massed short range ballistic missile means they really don't care about CD. BINGO !!!! 👍👍 The US/the West are concerned about not being looked upon as the "bad guys", as bad as those they are fighting, etc. Hearts & minds barely/rarely worked in SE Asia. But today at the same time much of our firepower needs to be used a bit more "surgically" so to speak. But at the same time, if a unit on the ground asks for fire support, it should NOT be denied for fear of CD. As a former Infantry Officer, I want to accomplish the mission and bring all my soldiers home. If that means CD may have to occur … so be it … Try to avoid it but in an insurgency we can't let the enemy use our massive fear of CD against us. And they did, in places like A'stan, Iraq, etc. You don't shrink unit sizes and continue disbanding units if you are going back to peer level warfare. Agree … And yet again the US is looking at about a 10% cutback in the military budget. Those making decisions like that will most likely have none of friends & family that will go in harm's way … |
arealdeadone | 20 Apr 2021 5:06 p.m. PST |
Yes we are well aware of that. And know how to deal with such problems … Well not so well… US and UK is having major issues with Russian jamming over Syria. And note this isn't a major war where the Russians (or Chinese) are going in unrestrained. link link link Operating over permissive environments for 40 years has made the US and friends rather complacent. Indeed USAF has been busy gutting electronic warfare capabilities since 1991 – retirement of EF-111, cutbacks to EC-130 Compass Call fleet (and no replacement), and replacement of F-4G Wild Weasel with less capable F-16CJs and not much investment since then. USMC retired the EA-6B without replacement. That leaves the Navies E/A-18Gs and declining fleet of ageing USAF EC-130Hs. F-35 is meant to have an EW component but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere quickly.
We have very accurate firepower and know how to use it. It's accurate because the US hasn't faced someone who can actually hinder accuracy. Look at one of the above articles where it discusses jamming of GPS (used for weapons guidance). Once the enemy is running their own massed electronic warfare program. And inserting spec ops for laser guidance gets difficult in a high intensity conflict. And yet again the US is looking at about a 10% cutback in the military budget. Those making decisions like that will most likely have none of friends & family that will go in harm's way … To be honest if US improved its military procurement processes, they could probably incur a 10% cut whilst still improving overall capability and maintaining numbers. Spending billions on planes and ships that don't work in insane. USAF called new KC-46 aerial refueler a lemon but they're still being acquired in the dozens. The LCS and Zummwalt are worthless failures yet still money is spent on building them. The Gerald Ford's technologies also still don't work but the USN has spent 10s of billions buying new ones. Or spending billions in maintaining inefficient small bases to save jobs and thus politician's careers. BRAC has gone the way of the dodo but there are an awful lot of small US military installations that simply duplicate costs. E.g. three small airbases each servicing a single squadron require triple the infrastructure (from kitchen to firefighting to air traffic control) compared to 1 large airbase with 3 squadrons (usual size of a wing). ---- I read an article many years ago that discussed how Russia and particularly China were looking at leap frogging over US technological and numerical advantages.
They focused on areas the US didn't or areas the US was ignoring. They looked at how the US fought and focused on solutions that neutralised the key US force multipliers and enablers (eg tankers, awacs, logistics, communications) instead of areas where US is far more capable (ie actual warfighters – a US F-22 or Marine battalion or M1 Abrams is on its own far more capable than equivalent Chinese/Russian units). The US in the meantime languished in its own victory, assumed the only threat were terrorists with AKs, RPGs, Toyotas and IEDs and focused on insanely expensive high tech solutions that looked great in a movie but came at an expense of many other less sexy capabilities.
|
GrazingFire | 20 Apr 2021 5:23 p.m. PST |
arealdealdone just braceted the target….fire for effect! He nailed it. |
Legion 4 | 21 Apr 2021 6:45 a.m. PST |
Well not so well… US and UK is having major issues with Russian jamming over Syria. And note this isn't a major war where the Russians (or Chinese) are going in unrestrained. It is a constant game of Measure – Counter Measure – Counter Counter Measure … repeat … I'm sure the US, UK, etc. are working on systems or have them and have not released them for low intensity actions like Syria. To be honest if US improved its military procurement processes, they could probably incur a 10% cut whilst still improving overall capability and maintaining numbers. That may be true … but IMO the US Military losing any money for current other than military projects, which it appears there are many, is a major mistake. With the PRC/CCP building up their military. As it look like they are preparing for a war. Of course part of this may be sabre rattling, posturing, etc. But it is clear they are growing their military capabilities at a prodigious rate … regardless … The US in the meantime languished in its own victory, assumed the only threat were terrorists with AKs, RPGs, Toyotas and IEDs It seems to me and others, that the big threat to the US is from within … 'nuff said. |
Legion 4 | 21 Apr 2021 3:54 p.m. PST |
Just when I thought it could not get any worse. Part of the US Military cut backs proposed from DC is to get rid of the 3d leg of our Nuke Triad. I.e. All the Ground based ICBMs/silos. The military seems to want to upgrade those ground based systems. Not do away with them. But I appears that is not what the non-military leadership wants. I'm guessing they want to use the $ for the many non-defense projects they'd rather fund? The Adm., I just saw on the news. If I heard him correctly. Said the US may have to confront any number of Nuke capable adversaries. Not just one or two, as in the past. Seems the Nuke birds warned about in the past have come back to roost so to speak. So let's see … Russia, PRC/CCP, North Korea, and probably Iran. Did I miss anyone ? The $ taken from the US military for non-defense projects won't be of much use if someone and their allies start tossing WMDs, i.e. nukes around. If those nukes' targets have places in the USA as ground zero. Just say'n … |
|