Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USMC Stranded Offshore
SYSOP    5/27/2014 5:30:55 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Blacktail    It's not just the speed requirement   5/29/2014 2:55:10 AM
There's much more wrong with the EFV than just it's high water speed requirement;
 
 
Quote    Reply

Tamerlane       5/29/2014 11:23:55 PM
Amen on that.
 
Quote    Reply

Sty0pa       5/30/2014 8:10:35 AM
Ha ha ha ha.
The whole idea that the Marines would get anything "new" is hilarious. 
 
Quote    Reply

HR    Blacktail   5/30/2014 3:27:44 PM
Very interesting you tube videos; spawned a few hours of reading on my part.
 
The problem of moving from a ship over 50 miles from shore very quickly with these floating pill boxes that keep getting bigger is really something that strains credulity and I wonder if the concept should not be abandoned in favor of lighter equipment that can be moved by helicopter. But amazingly to me instead of emphasizing mobility and lightness we see these behemoths.
 
My idea is that they need to think of themselves a helicopter transportable to at least secure a landing zone for the larger landing vessels to bring equipment.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       5/31/2014 6:30:24 AM
My idea is that they need to think of themselves a helicopter transportable to at least secure a landing zone for the larger landing vessels to bring equipment.
Helicopter transport for the troops to seize control the beachhead is the way to go, hopefully a location that is undefended.  However, once on the ground infantry is pretty immobile (<3 mph / 5 kph).  You need to get more troops and a lot of vehicle transport ashore fast to expand the beachhead and breakout before the enemy can respond.  LCACs can only bring in so much in the time available, that is why amphibious vehicles that can deliver themselves are still necessary.
 
Quote    Reply

Blacktail    HR   5/31/2014 9:36:30 PM
You do have to move troops and supplies from ship to shore very quickly, but distances pose too many problems --- you have to get close. This is where the lunacy begins, as the US Navy and/or USMC try their hardest to ignore the issue.
 
The following is a hypothetical example, but one that nonetheless gives you an idea of the fallacies at work.
 
Me: "Why can't you just move closer to shore?"
Navy:  "Because shore-based AShMs are too dangerous! They have ranges as far as 40 nautical miles!"
Me: "So you have to launch the assault from 50 miles away to avoid being hit by these missiles."
Navy: "Yes."
Me: "What about all the AShMs with ranges beyond 100 nautical miles, such as the C-802, the RBS-15, the SS-N-25 Switchblade, or the P-800 Oniks?"
Navy: "I... er..."
Me: "Let's change the subject. Why are you worried about your ships getting hit?"
Navy: "Those missiles will punch right through the hull and explode inside, causing major damage, and possibly sinking the ship."
Me: "Won't the defenses on the ships and Carrier-based Fighters shoot-down the missiles?"
Navy: "Yes."
Me: "Then what's the big deal?"
Navy: "It's almost certain that if a lot of AShMs are launched, some will get through."
Me: "Won't the armor on the ship resist whatever breaks-through the outer defenses?"
Navy: "They don't have armor..."
Me: "What?! When did we stop building ships with armor?!"
Navy: "The 1940s."
Me: "Why?"
Navy: "Because armor won't stop an AShM!"
Me: "Have will a thin-skinned Aluminum tube with a fragmentation warhead penetrate armor?"
Navy: "Um... they might have nuclear warheads!"
Me: "Who would do that, in light of the threat of massive nuclear retaliation?"
Navy: "Insane fanatics, like Iran!"
Me: "Iran has nuclear-tipped AShMs?"
Navy: "Not now, but they might in the future."
Me: "Do they have AShMs with conventional warheads?"
Navy: "Yes."
Me: "So why do our ships have no armor, in light of the fact that nuclear-tipped AShMs have never proliferated beyond Russia or China?"
Navy: "Because other defenses will defeat them!"
Me: "We've already established that they aren't likely to defeat all of the offending missiles, so why can't we have both these defenses AND armored warships?"
Navy: "Because... uh..."
Me: "Why haven't we commissioned an armored warship since the 1940s, despite knowing these facts all along?"
Navy: "Oh, look at the time! Gotta run!"
 
I could go on further, but you get the idea.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd    Blacktail   6/1/2014 1:21:49 AM
The problem with armor is that it displaces the other mission equipment you can carry on a ton-per-ton basis.  Traditionally armor was also restricted to vital areas only to save weight, you seem to be arguing for a completely armored hull.  Warhead designs vary, but you are generally dealing with a semi-armor piercing blast/fragmentation/incendiary design with a thick casing to penetrate into the ship before detonating, you will probably need over 2 inches of armor plate to keep them out. 
 
I doubt that a fully armored LHA, etc. is practical.
 
Quote    Reply

HR    Blacktail   6/2/2014 1:07:20 PM
Armor will not defend a ship from modern missiles that can hit them from the top or protect its antennas, etc. of which these ships weapons and defenses depend on.
 
In amphibs you strike the weak, not the strong. On any ship-to-shore movement the target will be selected for lightness of defense including shore batteries.  BUT there are also mines and submarines as well as fast missile boats, etc. And the real danger is that a defense commander might reacts so quickly to your landing that he might be able to intercept the follow up echelons while they are in the air or at sea isolating the beach head for a counter strike and of course they can the attackers can run out of ammunition, food and even water... it has happened, it happened to the Chinese in a frustrated invasion of an Island near Taiwan. 
 
It is so important to understand the need to move from ship to shore not just the men but some equipment for mobility as well as follow up supplies and long weapons to deal with resistance. With man-portable weapons the helicopters might be limited to a role as artillery from a distance, etc. And with things getting heavier and heavier it is a huge problem to get enough to shore that the men can even establish some sort of realistic beach head..
 
 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD    Mission Creep   9/21/2014 6:16:35 PM
So are the Marines Light Infantry or Mechanized Infantry?  Or an amphibious assault force?  Or an air-assault force?  Or are they an Urban Assault force?  Are they a self-contained Expeditionary unit, or are they another line unit to be used in conjunction with regular Army combat brigades during 'nation-building' occupation missions?
 
It all comes down to politics.  The Marines have never met a mission they didn't want (or at least their career-building command hasn't), so how can they possibly agree on a realistic set of requirements for their AAV replacement?  

 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       9/21/2014 7:33:09 PM
So why do our ships have no armor, in light of the fact that nuclear-tipped AShMs have never proliferated beyond Russia or China?"
 
Glad you asked that.
 
Once upon a time, there was a navy that built an experimental light cruiser to test out a theory...
 
 
The Juneaus formed the basis for US postwar cruiser design, especially the modern missile cruisers can trace their hulls back to USS Atlanta and her sister ships. They were much harder to kill than the Hei was.  
 
Can you imagine surviving a pair of Long Lances?
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics