USMC Doctrine Changes

You can get 2 M923, 2 M198 Howitzers, and room to spare for a HUMMV or two or other cargo. I'm not sure space is the issue. Shouldn't be weight either, because we can safely load 60+ tons.

I don't see why you couldn't get the ECS and HMMT pulling the radar on board one. EPP and AMG on another. 2 HMMT pulling MELS on a LCAC sortie should not pose a difficulty. Five sorties gets you a patriot battery with 6 MELs.
 
Five sorties is a lot of lift, if you're going deliver anything else that *isn't* the patriot battery.
 
Interesting capability that might be relevant to this. It they can literally build a hardened shelter in a couple of days, that would go some way toward making expeditionary bases more survivable.

www.popularmechanics.com

The Marines 3D-Printed a Rocket Launcher Shelter in 36 Hours

Meet the newest tool in their arsenal: a 3,800-pound beast named the Vulcan.
www.popularmechanics.com www.popularmechanics.com
 
Josh_TN said:
Five sorties is a lot of lift, if you're going deliver anything else that *isn't* the patriot battery.
Click to expand...
It is. Really depends on what turnaround time looks like.

My guess is the preference for a JLTV Rogue Fires concept with NSM and later Tomahawk indicates they would really, really like to be able to sling load it ashore. Can't do that with HIMARS (or Patriot -- though you could probably bring the MELs ashore that way).
 
www.marinecorpstimes.com

New Marine Littoral Regiment, designed to fight in contested maritime environment, coming to Hawaii

The new littoral regiment will consist of a combat team, an anti-air battalion and a logistics battalion. The combat team will be organized around an infantry battalion and an long-range anti-ship battery.
www.marinecorpstimes.com www.marinecorpstimes.com

"robbed of flexibility"

warontherocks.com

No Sure Victory: The Marines New Force Design Plan and the Politics of Implementation - War on the Rocks

Last year, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger outlined a transformative vision for the service. The move stunned national security experts. As a
warontherocks.com
 
“We have to lighten the load,” said Lt. Gen. Charles Chiarotti, deputy commandant for Installations and Logistics. Competitors’ long-range missiles and sensors have eliminated “the luxury” of taking days to deliver an iron mountain of supplies in a war zone. In fact, installations and infrastructures, once merely places where forces were trained and equipped, in the future will be “warfighting platforms from which we deploy from, but from which we need to maneuver,” Chiarotti said.

“We’re not organized to meet the future capabilities that we need for tomorrow,” he said, adding that inexpensive, expendable – or at least, risk-worthy – unmanned platforms could be one solution for long-haul supply in a large, contested environment. Other problems are more complicated, however. In a GPS- and communications-denied environment, “We have to be able to reduce the signature that the logistics force brings to the battlefield,” Chiarotti said.

seapowermagazine.org

Reinventing Logistics and Mobility are Key Elements to Force Design, Generals say - Seapower

ARLINGTON, Va. — To meet the pacing threat of a near peer competitor like China by 2030 will require changes in Marine Corps platforms, equipment and, above all, changes in thinking about logistics and mobility, according to a panel of three-star...
seapowermagazine.org seapowermagazine.org
 
bobbymike said:
www.usni.org

Modern Sea Monsters

Wing-in-ground-effect aircraft are ideal for the Navy and Marine Corps’ vision of how they would fight a Pacific war.
www.usni.org www.usni.org
Click to expand...
Two brief remarks regarding that WiG need of project:

- the only company that successfully put WiG on the market is the one that understood that the target flyer is a seafarer and not an aviation pilot.
- Since seafaring is weather related and span is the most important thing to consider in term of structure, operationnally meaningfull WiG will be limited by their payload (in other terms, there will be a barrier regarding cost efficiency earlier than aircraft manufacturing usage would dictate).

Hence, looking at WiG to search for better transportation capacity is inherently flawed...

Sorry.
 
The new logistics they are talking about have more than a wiff of the so-called 'McNamara Folly' about them.
 
TomcatViP said:
bobbymike said:
www.usni.org

Modern Sea Monsters

Wing-in-ground-effect aircraft are ideal for the Navy and Marine Corps’ vision of how they would fight a Pacific war.
www.usni.org www.usni.org
Click to expand...
Two brief remarks regarding that WiG need of project:

- the only company that successfully put WiG on the market is the one that understood that the target flyer is a seafarer and not an aviation pilot.
- Since seafaring is weather related and span is the most important thing to consider in term of structure, operationnally meaningfull WiG will be limited by their payload (in other terms, there will be a barrier regarding cost efficiency earlier than aircraft manufacturing usage would dictate).

Hence, looking at WiG to search for better transportation capacity is inherently flawed...

Sorry.
Click to expand...
others disagree, if you are big enough even 80ft swells matter little. There should be a vigous discussion of just what the transport and other goals of a WIG program would be,
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

Marine Corps' Builds New Littoral Regiment, Eye On Fake Chinese Islands - Breaking Defense

The Corps is looking for a unit that is "very low signature and that give us the firepower that we need to be a relevant force that provides consequences, should we get past the deterrence phase," Maj. Gen. Kevin Iiams, assistant deputy commandant of Combat Development, said.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Some historians have noted M's bloody bloody island hopping campaign in the Pacific in WWII could absolutely have been avoided by direct threats on capital. Ultimately, the Pacific war ended as a result of an indirect threat on capital. The USMC seems to be bent on the same pointless hopping from useless island to useless island when they will always to outnumbered. One must threaten real Centers of Gravity not island distractions.
 
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

Marine Corps' Builds New Littoral Regiment, Eye On Fake Chinese Islands - Breaking Defense

The Corps is looking for a unit that is "very low signature and that give us the firepower that we need to be a relevant force that provides consequences, should we get past the deterrence phase," Maj. Gen. Kevin Iiams, assistant deputy commandant of Combat Development, said.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Some historians have noted M's bloody bloody island hopping campaign in the Pacific in WWII could absolutely have been avoided by direct threats on capital. Ultimately, the Pacific war ended as a result of an indirect threat on capital. The USMC seems to be bent on the same pointless hopping from useless island to useless island when they will always to outnumbered. One must threaten real Centers of Gravity not island distractions.
Click to expand...
By 'capital' do you mean money or Tokyo?
 
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

Marine Corps' Builds New Littoral Regiment, Eye On Fake Chinese Islands - Breaking Defense

The Corps is looking for a unit that is "very low signature and that give us the firepower that we need to be a relevant force that provides consequences, should we get past the deterrence phase," Maj. Gen. Kevin Iiams, assistant deputy commandant of Combat Development, said.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Some historians have noted M's bloody bloody island hopping campaign in the Pacific in WWII could absolutely have been avoided by direct threats on capital. Ultimately, the Pacific war ended as a result of an indirect threat on capital. The USMC seems to be bent on the same pointless hopping from useless island to useless island when they will always to outnumbered. One must threaten real Centers of Gravity not island distractions.
Click to expand...
By 'capital' do you mean money or Tokyo?
Click to expand...
capital city tokyo

The Global Bond market and for that matter global trade would be topsy turvy even at the slightess real skirmesh ever occured which is another reason one has to wonder what we be gained by invading Taiwan,, nothing. all loss for PRC....
 
jsport said:
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

Marine Corps' Builds New Littoral Regiment, Eye On Fake Chinese Islands - Breaking Defense

The Corps is looking for a unit that is "very low signature and that give us the firepower that we need to be a relevant force that provides consequences, should we get past the deterrence phase," Maj. Gen. Kevin Iiams, assistant deputy commandant of Combat Development, said.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Some historians have noted M's bloody bloody island hopping campaign in the Pacific in WWII could absolutely have been avoided by direct threats on capital. Ultimately, the Pacific war ended as a result of an indirect threat on capital. The USMC seems to be bent on the same pointless hopping from useless island to useless island when they will always to outnumbered. One must threaten real Centers of Gravity not island distractions.
Click to expand...
By 'capital' do you mean money or Tokyo?
Click to expand...
capital city tokyo
Click to expand...
Wild. Do you have some sources?

I do vaguely remember reading about what I would crudely call the "Kanto Plain Tank Spam" where the US
just lands as much armor as possible in that area and relies on the fact that the even Sherman with applique
could resist most of the Japanese AT guns.
 
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

Marine Corps' Builds New Littoral Regiment, Eye On Fake Chinese Islands - Breaking Defense

The Corps is looking for a unit that is "very low signature and that give us the firepower that we need to be a relevant force that provides consequences, should we get past the deterrence phase," Maj. Gen. Kevin Iiams, assistant deputy commandant of Combat Development, said.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Some historians have noted M's bloody bloody island hopping campaign in the Pacific in WWII could absolutely have been avoided by direct threats on capital. Ultimately, the Pacific war ended as a result of an indirect threat on capital. The USMC seems to be bent on the same pointless hopping from useless island to useless island when they will always to outnumbered. One must threaten real Centers of Gravity not island distractions.
Click to expand...
By 'capital' do you mean money or Tokyo?
Click to expand...
capital city tokyo
Click to expand...
Wild. Do you have some sources?

I do vaguely remember reading about what I would crudely call the "Kanto Plain Tank Spam" where the US
just lands as much armor as possible in that area and relies on the fact that the even Sherman with applique
could resist most of the Japanese AT guns.
Click to expand...
..never said invade.. The implicatioin was to bomb Tokyo w/ a nuke, as opposed to the other two targets (indirect influence). The bombing of the two cities strategy worked as it turned out, but in the end the island invasions seemingly did not contribute to surrender...sorry for any confusion.
 
You could not have invaded Japan with a hundred of barges and a dozen thousand of Marines. The island hoping campaign was to bring US military infrastructure closer while depriving Japan of ressources. Including the nuclear bomber squadrons.
 
Invading Japan was always a bad idea but a strategic occupation of an airfield would have been a better means to drop a nuclear weapon or for that matter increased daily bombing of Tokyo . That course was not chosen. All those Phillipines related invasions absolutely did not need to occur. Many other island invasions also did not need to occur.

Stalin was an ally at the time was he ever asked to afford a single airfield? The US could have told Stalin were taking an island dont touch that island.
 
Last edited:
jsport said:
Invading Japan was always a bad idea but a strategic occupation of an airfield would have been a better means to drop a nuclear weapon or for that matter increased daily bombing of Tokyo . That course was not chosen. All those Phillipines related invasions absolutely did not need to occur. Many other island invasions also did not need to occur.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you could secure airfields without island hoping; that was typically the major goal.

The campaign in the Phillipines wasn't very costly compared to say Okinawa.

jsport said:
Stalin was an ally at the time was he ever asked to afford a single airfield? The US could have told Stalin were taking an island dont touch that island.
Click to expand...

The Russians had that pesky non-aggression pact with the Japanese that they weren't able to get out of until April 1945.
 
marauder2048 said:
The Russians had that pesky non-aggression pact with the Japanese that they weren't able to get out of until April 1945.
Click to expand...

The Neutrality Pact hardly would have stopped the Soviets if they had been in a position to benefit from an earlier declaration of war. The timing worked out for them, but they would have abrogated it in a heartbeat if it had been in their interest to end the pact in 1944, for example.
 
TomS said:
marauder2048 said:
The Russians had that pesky non-aggression pact with the Japanese that they weren't able to get out of until April 1945.
Click to expand...

The Neutrality Pact hardly would have stopped the Soviets if they had been in a position to benefit from an earlier declaration of war. The timing worked out for them, but they would have abrogated it in a heartbeat if it had been in their interest to end the pact in 1944, for example.
Click to expand...

Yeah...but they were still claiming sympathy for the German violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
 
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
Invading Japan was always a bad idea but a strategic occupation of an airfield would have been a better means to drop a nuclear weapon or for that matter increased daily bombing of Tokyo . That course was not chosen. All those Phillipines related invasions absolutely did not need to occur. Many other island invasions also did not need to occur.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you could secure airfields without island hoping; that was typically the major goal.

The campaign in the Phillipines wasn't very costly compared to say Okinawa.

jsport said:
Stalin was an ally at the time was he ever asked to afford a single airfield? The US could have told Stalin were taking an island dont touch that island.
Click to expand...

The Russians had that pesky non-aggression pact with the Japanese that they weren't able to get out of until April 1945.
Click to expand...
M's ego cost alot of lives. Truman learned of M's arrogant wrongheadness almost too late in Korea. When M ran for Prez it was discovered how mad he really was. There were plenty alternatives even to Okinawa and by the time Ok was taken most Japanese cities were already in rubble. An earliest and focused push on the Marinas for instance .

en.wikipedia.org

Air raids on Japan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
.

Stalin was, in the end. quite hostile to the Japanese and always would have went w. the best deal. It has been speculated that Hirito surrendered mostly because the Russians were going to enter the war against Japan, as Germany had been defeated. The Emperor's staff wanted to continue as they knew the US was reluctant to invade even after the bomb. The Russians would be not be so reluctant and might completely destroy the Japanese culture, epecially as many Asian troops, potentially even a small number from China might be included..
 
Last edited:
The island hopping campaign in general was needed for forward bases, or minimally to deny japan forward bases. That said, most of MacArthur’s campaign seems superfluous and there were definitely islands that could have been bypassed with little detriment to the campaign. Peleliu comes to mind.

In the modern context, island hopping seems especially pointless and the USMC seems to be on a campaign to find relevance, not engage the PRC.
 
Josh_TN said:
In the modern context, island hopping seems especially pointless and the USMC seems to be on a campaign to find relevance, not engage the PRC.
Click to expand...

100% agree. IMHO, their current commandant would be doing less damage if he personally
scuttled LHA-6 along with its entire embarked air wing.

About the only thing that distinguishes the USMC from the Army is fast jets and big ships.

Take those away, along with the heavy armor and the USMC is placed directly in SOCOM's crosshairs.

And SOCOM doesn't have to share its budget with another service under the DoN umbrella.
 
“For example, all of the armor, the heavy armor, the M1s, our tank Battalions that we are divesting of, they’re going into the Army. …The Army is pursuing longer-range, but much larger, heavier, bulkier systems than we are. But they’re not either or; we’re going to need both [Army and USMC]. We have to be light and Expeditionary. We need a big heavy, big lethal Army as well. It has driven us to conversations were our capabilities have to be complementary,”

General David H. Berger, Commandant of the U.S.M.C.

www.navalnews.com

“The U.S. Marine Corps has divested in their tanks” Well, what does that mean? - Naval News

General David H. Berger, Commandant of the U.S.M.C. explains where the Corps’ M1A1 tanks will go at Modern Day Marine 2020
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
aonestudio said:
“For example, all of the armor, the heavy armor, the M1s, our tank Battalions that we are divesting of, they’re going into the Army.
Click to expand...

Divesting yourself of valuable assets before you have anything to replace them is just silly.
Just programmatically it's shortsighted.
 
marauder2048 said:
aonestudio said:
“For example, all of the armor, the heavy armor, the M1s, our tank Battalions that we are divesting of, they’re going into the Army.
Click to expand...

Divesting yourself of valuable assets before you have anything to replace them is just silly.
Just programmatically it's shortsighted.
Click to expand...
I think the problem here is that as long as the USMC has those tanks, congress will not let them look at something new. After all, they have tanks.
 
marauder2048 said:
aonestudio said:
“For example, all of the armor, the heavy armor, the M1s, our tank Battalions that we are divesting of, they’re going into the Army.
Click to expand...

Divesting yourself of valuable assets before you have anything to replace them is just silly.
Just programmatically it's shortsighted.
Click to expand...
Its more like they're in a hurry.

Its expensive to operationalize a new system while the system that replaces it still weighs down on your topline due to effect of its maintenance.
 
MihoshiK said:
marauder2048 said:
aonestudio said:
“For example, all of the armor, the heavy armor, the M1s, our tank Battalions that we are divesting of, they’re going into the Army.
Click to expand...

Divesting yourself of valuable assets before you have anything to replace them is just silly.
Just programmatically it's shortsighted.
Click to expand...
I think the problem here is that as long as the USMC has those tanks, congress will not let them look at something new. After all, they have tanks.
Click to expand...

No service has more Congressional support than the USMC. The Corps works like you wouldn't believe to cultivate that relationship.
 
Bhurki said:
Its expensive to operationalize a new system while the system that replaces it still weighs down on your topline due to effect of its maintenance.
Click to expand...
I can't find anything in the O&M budget documents to suggest it was much of a burden.
 
marauder2048 said:
MihoshiK said:
marauder2048 said:
aonestudio said:
“For example, all of the armor, the heavy armor, the M1s, our tank Battalions that we are divesting of, they’re going into the Army.
Click to expand...

Divesting yourself of valuable assets before you have anything to replace them is just silly.
Just programmatically it's shortsighted.
Click to expand...
I think the problem here is that as long as the USMC has those tanks, congress will not let them look at something new. After all, they have tanks.
Click to expand...

No service has more Congressional support than the USMC. The Corps works like you wouldn't believe to cultivate that relationship.
Click to expand...
And yet somehow their budget doesn't really reflect that. Let's be honest here. It's easyer to take a number plate of an existing chopper and weld it to a completely new one and claim there was an upgrade than to actually claim you want to buy new choppers, because WTF are you doing, you've already got choppers.

Congresss can be remarkably obtuse when it comes to military matters.
 
MihoshiK said:
And yet somehow their budget doesn't really reflect that.
Click to expand...
G/ATOR, V-22, F-35B, CH-53K, ACV, San Antonio class, America class, Ship-to-Shore connector etc all tell a very different story.

Off the top of my head, I think EFV is about the only thing they haven't gotten.
 
jsport said:
www.forbes.com

The U.S. Army Should Plan To Send Four Divisions To Taiwan: Expert

If China invades Taiwan and the United States opts to get involved, the U.S. Army should be prepared to deploy tens of thousands of soldiers and thousands of heavy vehicles to the island country.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...

That's a big commitment, but the total commitment would require much more since the offensive would be coming from China directly.

If the US plans to go all in to help Taiwan (with its proximity to China), they might as well plan to invade China and remove the Communist Party from power. Couldn't imagine the regional conflicts around the world that would break out to take advantage of the US being wrapped up in such a large conflict.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom