"Prepare the Marine Corps for a Protracted War" Topic

…This vignette depicts a possible fate for Marine Corps forces in the next Pacific war. Wargames and forecasts of how this conflict could play out vary, but they generally agree on one thing: It will be destructive and the cost in lives of U.S. service members will be significant. For the Marine Corps, there is one reasonable conclusion in this case: The SIF will, eventually, succumb to the same attrition.1 In the context of a fight with China, based on the analysis of the forces that will be within the first island chain when the fighting starts, this could be the initial fate of III MEF…

Proceedings Magazine: link

I do believe they are going to realize real quickly when TSHTF that they are going to need "those tanks they did away with"…

Yes. The present light USMC seems to assume total air superiority. Against Iran yes, against China no.

Or, maybe not. No one really knows how combat ready China is in terms of training and equipment. We will assume they are a true challenge, cannot take them for granted.

But we have far more combat experience and battle tested equipment. And a relatively stable group of experienced upper level commanders. China may still be purging its politically appointed, corrupt general officers and this will take a while to shake out. They are still at the beginning of their naval aviation development. They cannot transport their huge army yet without a trained amphibious command and force with the right vessels and plenty of them. they have never conducted amphibious operations on a large scale in combat conditions or in peacetime.

The absence of tanks may or may not be relevant as warfare is evolving so rapidly. I don't know. But old school crewed tanks don't look like the future,IMO.
Even our sea mines are operated remotely now and laser weapons are coming. We could ask AI!

Murphy +1

doc +1

But we have far more combat experience and battle tested equipment. And a relatively stable group of experienced upper level commanders.

Yes and we have much more of those two critical assets.

Plus we see we have air supremacy in Iran. Which is always important. And in this case our ally the IDF is decisive in obtaining this.

We in almost all cases will have at least air superiority. With the questionable support from NATO. Not only don't they have the will. They lack assets not only in numbers but capabilities. High tech militaries cost …and many NATO nations have not maintained what had in their inventories. Are not pay even the 2% GDP let alone the requested 5%.

As I had posted :

The UK Army can fit in Wessly Stadium with the top tiers empty. And Canada's Army is about the size of the Alabama NG.

I again believe that the drone is as big a tech advancement like the MG, Aircraft and Armor during WWI. And anti-weapons system and improved tactics has yet to remove those from modern combined arm mobile maneuver warfare. With anti-drone being deployed more and more in some cases. Plus new tech is evolving constantly to counter this new deadly killer on, over and in waters of the new battlefield.

Plus AI makes most weapons systems that much more effective. As we see in Iran. High-Tech has significantly destroy Iran's military including C3 in an amazingly short amount of time. Regardless what is "reported" by most of the media…

The USMC, US Army, USAF, USN, etc. train to fight at tactical, operational and strategic levels. And under the new leadership in the WH, the Pentagon, his admin, etc. Has removed the obstacles, that were interfering with combat readiness, warfighting skills, more weapon's improved weapons, etc. systems …

When with the 101 as a 1LT our unit cross trained and graduated from USN/USMC Basic Amphib. Training i '83 at Norfolk, VA.

Interestingly one of our missions was assaulting and destroying an enemy missile launcher/radar site. Which we did successfully. We got a "GO". That was 1983. That same mission is still on the menu, yes even today in the War with Iran's islamists. But current tech has made that mission much more deadly and having much less casualties of friendly forces and many, many more of the enemy is KIA'd, WIA'd etc.

However, the US has the ability to execute that mission and many more even more complex. But if and when keeps islamists, etc. guessing. Again no matter what Iran's radical islamists are saying, and many in the US and Worldwide media.

Frankly I'd rather see targets like that totally obliterated so thoroughly by air and sea assets … The landing forces can just land and walk thru killing off any remaining resistance, taking EPWs if they will even surrender, gathering intel, etc. Islamist generally don't surrender they want to be martyred and go to "paradise" … The US and IDF have proven to be pretty good at filling paradise … And will continue this trend …

I agree Legion… I am no expert, but my opinion is this:

In the immediate future, I think China's oil-fueled navy puts them at a disadvantage in any Pacific war. Effective range is limited by oil consumption as in the 20th century. Endurance is nowhere near as long as US vessels. Even their newest carrier depends on shore based aircraft for logistical supply. They are still developing their first nuclear powered ship.

It would be possible for a relatively small US force to halt oil shipments to China somewhere in the Indian Ocean, mostly beyond their force projection capabilities, almost immediately if war began. Russia cannot transport enough oil to cover their operations.

Air and naval power would be critical factors in a Pacific ocean war. Nobody would invade China to fight their huge land army there, it could be neutralized by an oil blockade. So, FOR NOW, the US has advantages, making it the right time to reassess the evolution of the Marine Corps in the face of the the largest and most rapid tech revolution in human history.

The Chinese will likely run right by the US in solar and other non-fossil fuel energy sources soon enough. They appear to be passing us in satellite weaponry development. They may be catching up to us in laser weaponry. High capacity batteries for remote driven robotic fighting vehicles. A gazillion multifunction drones far less expensive that US weapons. On and on. The rules are changing, and quickly.

If they plan on having highly trained small infantry units when losses come are they going to be more than "here's your rifle" troops. We're seeing with Iran how fast munitions are being used up and an equal amount aren't coming off the lines. The metals used in them are going to be more critical when the enemy is China. The US still hasn't come up with a cheap and plentiful answer to drones, patriot is not cost effective and being without drone defense isn't an option. Hopefully the Corps is looking at the current fighting with a very critical eye.