|
For all the wased cash you gve to the military you should at least get good gladiatorial matches. Thousand marines vs one AEGIS cruiser.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Disband the Marines, give guns to everyone in the Navy. Disband the Navy, give ships to everyone in the Army
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:For all the wased cash you gve to the military you should at least get good gladiatorial matches. Thousand marines vs one AEGIS cruiser. That isn't even a competition, have you ever seen what a ship looks like if you don't keep the Marines busy? When they're not breaking the ship they're breaking each other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
I think the result would vary if you picked the place by coin flip - either a ship stranded on land, or a bunch of marines in inflatable armabands trying to assault a ship in the middle of an ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
fill death valley and have naval combats there actually the Salton Sea is basically a filled death valley water nerd poo poo: it's already one of the poorest, sickest parts of the country, and it's going to get walloped by the dust off the emerging lakebed getting spiky-rear end microscopic particles in their lungs and poo poo, and it's recently become so salty it kills the most salt tolerant fish they can try to stock it with, and the water that would end up in the Salton Sea as disgusting ag runoff is just heading to San Diego these days which is the opposite of a solution, and so on and so forth but they had a resort economy bigger than Tahoe's in the 50s so they probably would be down for bringing some of that back and watching environmentally destructive war games the trouble is that even as salty as it is this loving lake helps migratory waterfowl, which get more sympathy than the human beings down there in imperial county who grow 80% of the green things eaten by Americans during the winter, so nero-style ww2 reenactments are sadly still not likely
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Aren't all of the various Infantry and Stryker units also intended to be highly deployable and integrated with Army Aviation and USAF support? Re. deployability: the only army unit that has a similar deployment timeline to an MEU is whatever the 82nd's current GRF brigade is, and then one or two ranger battalions. IBCTs are...more deployable than heavies, but they're still on a really long timeline compared to the ready MEUs. SBCTs are measured more in weeks. Re. the other stuff: I can go into exhausting and largely uninteresting details on all of this but for the sake of our sanity, I'll keep this as short and hopefully readable as I can. A MAGTF is designed very specifically to achieve one very specialized mission: you can tell it to win in a given volume of land/sea/air, and it has all of the stuff it needs to do so. The way the MAGTF does this -- better than any other formation of its size in the world -- is to integrate different capabilities from different domains (ie, land/sea/air) and employ them very quickly and effectively, with minimal deep logistical support and relatively minimal joint support. It does not have a bunch of other important capabilities (sustainment, deep fires, operational-level intelligence, etc etc) that are needed to win a more sustained ground combat mission...that is the Army's mission. The biggest organizational advantage the MAGTF has over any other formation is the fact that it is organized as just that....an air/ground task force. The Army and Air Force cannot do this...they don't own one another's stuff. This takes a unique method of organization and has tons of back-room manning/training/organizing demands that are the real bread-and-butter of the USMC. The simplest example of how this works in practice is airspace management: the MAGTF is equipped to manage its own airspace, and produce its own air tasking orders. This is necessary in order to get the level of responsiveness you need in amphibious operations. The USMC can participate in a joint/combined ATO, but they love to do their own whenever they can. This is a capability that the Army does not have, and would need to grow organically, and painfully, over many years. It isn't a sexy or even interesting capability, but it is one of the most important things in a modern campaign of just about any type. All that said, there still isn't any reason other that lots of time/money that you couldn't repaint all of the USMCs stuff with Army vehicle numbers, and make them change their name tags to US Army. There just isn't a whole lot of reason to actually do this. I should also add that a LOT of the new conceptual stuff (multi-domain battle and the like) is making use of old Marine concepts to inform the way the new joint force wants to fight. So, instead of getting rid of the marine corps, now everyone will be marines. Kind of. Phanatic posted:They don't keep inserting unnecessary and counterproductive requirements into major procurement efforts. As far as I know this hasn't ever happened. feedmegin posted:Sooooo, why do the Marines need a separate procurement process? They use the same process as everyone else. Argas posted:Didn't the army tell the marines to get hosed when they wanted to get apaches, thus leading to them having to upgrade the gently caress out of their existing attack helicopters? No, congress did, twice. The USMC desperately wanted a navalized Apache but the cost of a new model was astronomical (like, it needed new rotors, and new metals, and all sorts of crap to make it survive on ships), and this was during the drawdowns of the 90s so there wasn't a ton of money lying around. They wound up with a pretty effective substitute that does well in a marine environment, but since it looks similar to an Apache people erroneously conclude they have the same capability set. edit - it appears I spent so long writing this stupid post that the tone of the discussion has changed somewhat 50 Abramses vs an Iowa battleship, at a distance of 2 miles. bewbies fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jan 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:That isn't even a competition, have you ever seen what a ship looks like if you don't keep the Marines busy? When they're not breaking the ship they're breaking each other. To be fair, if you don't keep sailors busy they also tend to break each other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I think the result would vary if you picked the place by coin flip - either a ship stranded on land, or a bunch of marines in inflatable armabands trying to assault a ship in the middle of an ocean. Flooded colosseum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
Just have all the branches fight it out amongst themselves and have the survivors be the sole military force
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
bewbies posted:No, congress did, twice. The USMC desperately wanted a navalized Apache but the cost of a new model was astronomical (like, it needed new rotors, and new metals, and all sorts of crap to make it survive on ships), and this was during the drawdowns of the 90s so there wasn't a ton of money lying around. They wound up with a pretty effective substitute that does well in a marine environment, but since it looks similar to an Apache people erroneously conclude they have the same capability set. Ah. I wasn't aware of the exact reason, only that they had a different attack helo for ~reasons~. Makes more sense than just spite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Of course the Amphibious Brigade would have its own requirements for specialist kit, chiefly vehicles. The Infantry Brigades need helicopters and aircraft, the Stryker Brigades need Strykers, the Heavy Brigades need Bradleys and the Amphibious Brigade need Amtracs. Preferably not ones that Cessna remembers. Yes, they really need a new connector; they've known this since the 80's. I know they've got that wheeled thing coming, but I'm not impressed. Call me a throwback, but I like tracked suspensions. You're losing a lot of capability going to wheels. And - excellent post, Bewbies, about how MAGTFs work. That's a unique capability that is often underappreciated. For those not familiar with this, the USMC has (tl,dr) two organizations. One is the typical Company/Battalion/Regiment style organization that every other army has. The other is a sort of plug-in organization of task forces that lets commands put together units like legos. It's possible for other armies to do this, sure, but the USMC does it constantly, and is drat good at it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
Sounds like a Kampfgruppe to me....... Herr Sturmbannführer Also, it’s really boring milhist, but in cleaning out my parents’ old place I’ve found either my grandfather or great-uncle’s german dictionary that I assume is for alsatian malgré-nous. Orange cover, “Französich-Deutsch/Deutsch-Französich für Wehrmacht und Wehrtechnik” It’s what it says, a dictionary of mostly military terms. What I find charming is that 1. There’s pencil corrections in this thing- most notably, because I immediately checked the most wehrmachty words- my ancestor made sure to correct “groupe de combat” from “gefechtsgruppe” to “kampfgruppe,” for some reason, and 2. there is an extremely obvious wine bottle stain on the front. Like someone opened a bottle clumsily and set it down on top of the book, so there’s a reddish circle from where wine was dribbling down. My phone camera is broken atm but if y’all are interested I can post some best-of pictures or specific entries with a real camera this weekend Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jan 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:19
|
|
|
Either The Algorithm really likes this thread or my city is very proud of having the only surviving A7V. Which they incorrectly describe on Facebook as being the last remaining WW1 tank, hope someone got fired for that blunder etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
The dude who salvaged that tank was the principal of my highschool. http://www.collections.qm.qld.gov.au/search.do?view=detail&page=1&id=2295520&db=object
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Of course the Amphibious Brigade would have its own requirements for specialist kit, chiefly vehicles. The Infantry Brigades need helicopters and aircraft, the Stryker Brigades need Strykers, the Heavy Brigades need Bradleys and the Amphibious Brigade need Amtracs. Preferably not ones that Cessna remembers. I’m not specifically saying the Cobra is smaller than the apache, just making an example. The sea stallion actual provides another good example of why the services have differences in aircraft: different requirements. Not sure those change if we combine branches. So far as comm goes, not an extravagant example. If we are going to agree that our amphibious brigade needs different vehicles, that means the very systems it uses will be different. That includes radios. I’ll also want to talk to my troops ashore from the ship, which may necessitate different requirements. Generally the services are all interchangeable with radios but there are differences. Personal kit- does my poo poo fit exactly into the Stryker as it does into my army aav? Does my army marine accomplish his mission and fight and sustain himself the same as a paratrooper so that they can use the same gear? So we are back to asking what the advantages of combining are. We’ve agreed that there are different vehicle requirements and I argue there are different other equipment requirements. Presumably we save money by getting rid of the “weird marine procurement system” but in my biased opinion the marines are known for being efficient with their budget comparative to other services (see posts from Nov where we discussed army vs marine uniform procurement) bewbies posted:The USMC can participate in a joint/combined ATO, but they love to do their own whenever they can. Yup marines are able to plan their own sorties but they are also required to give sorties to the joint ATO
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Aren't there already navalized Apaches? Like, didn't the Brits used to fly them off their babby carriers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
Cessna posted:
A lot of this applied for the air and tank battles of North Korea, Experience and training played a huge factor (although the Soviets did send their pilots to assist North Korea), Commujist forces were no where near as experienced as the UN force
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Aren't there already navalized Apaches? Like, didn't the Brits used to fly them off their babby carriers? US Apaches can land on ships just fine. Have had them do touch and go’s before as some interoperability practice
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
Disband the standing Army keep the Navy and Marines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 05:31
|
|
|
China needs marine aviation so they could have the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s Army’s Air Force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:US Apaches can land on ships just fine. Have had them do touch and go’s before as some interoperability practice Is it the difference between being able to operate from a ship versus being able to be stationed on said ship? I.E. the salt spray will cause it to disintegrate over a longer period of time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 05:46
|
|
|
I don’t know about salt water survivability of an Apache vs a cobra. Someone else mentioned the marines stuck with cobras due to budget. I guess that was just a bad example, a more apt one probably would have been aav or lav vs Stryker or Bradley.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
I worked a lot with ANGLICO and TACP and of the two the USMC most definitely has its poo poo together when it comes to CAS operations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 06:16
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:China needs marine aviation so they could have the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s Army’s Air Force. Actually the proper translation for Marine Aviation would be 解放軍海軍陸戰隊空軍, or People's Liberation Army Navy Ground Attack Force Air Force (give or take)  
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 09:55
|
|
|
I am still of the opinion that doing fixed-wing ops off babby carriers and pretending that it actually has value in an contested environment is foolish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 12:05
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Actually the proper translation for Marine Aviation would be 解放軍海軍陸戰隊空軍, or People's Liberation Army Navy Ground Attack Force Air Force (give or take) Man I kinda wanna learn Chinese now bc the brainfeel of seeing that weirdass lattice resolve into meaning has got to be delicious. Learning Cyrillic was already cool in that regard, this has got to be nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 12:14
|
|
|
Soo crosspost time:quote:hey thread. I'm doing some speculative fiction for a nerdgame, and since you guys are extremely knowledgable about combat systems and procurement, I'd like to ask for links or opinions on the following: Cessna posted:Whoa, whoa - politics? In the ARVN? What are you implying, good sir? Morale issues too. I forget if it was Lam Son or another operation, but advisors say in memoirs that by '71, they had to force ARVN troops off choppers and vehicles at gunpoint to make them fight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 13:18
|
|
|
A 'pan-european army' is fiction anyway and 50 years is off the time horizon for technology so feel free to go wild on sci-fi. But we're talking autonomous drones with (by current standards) advanced AI, fast moving light forces, light human footprint. Force composition and doctrine will be a c/p from NATO because that's what the EU is doing now and also everyone earmarks the same forces for NATO and EU potential missions. Your most likely scenarios are either warfighting at scale somewhere in Eastern Europe or a stability and counter-terror mission in North Africa.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
Is this real? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAuwpUfObcI Don't go to the comments. Good advice in general but doubly so here
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
Tias posted:Morale issues too. I forget if it was Lam Son or another operation, but advisors say in memoirs that by '71, they had to force ARVN troops off choppers and vehicles at gunpoint to make them fight. Being an ARVN soldier could be pretty lovely. South Vietnam had one of the largest armies in Asia, but being a soldier was one of the worst and lowest paying jobs in the entire country, I believe that even held true for some of the junior officer ranks. Some commanding officers were conscientous and meant well, others were there just to enrich themselves. It's kind of amazing that there were actually a couple of occasions when ARVN actually put up a good showing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 14:11
|
|
|
Argas posted:Didn't the army tell the marines to get hosed when they wanted to get apaches, thus leading to them having to upgrade the gently caress out of their existing attack helicopters? On a related note, is it true that the army took up gunship concept only because they wanted organic CAS but were denied fixed wing aircraft because the independent air force jealously guarded its monopoly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:A 'pan-european army' is fiction anyway and 50 years is off the time horizon for technology so feel free to go wild on sci-fi. But we're talking autonomous drones with (by current standards) advanced AI, fast moving light forces, light human footprint. Force composition and doctrine will be a c/p from NATO because that's what the EU is doing now and also everyone earmarks the same forces for NATO and EU potential missions. I'm well aware, that's why it's for a tongue-in-cheek alternate timeline RPG that satirizes present day Europe. I already ponder having the location be Africa or the Middle East, because why tinker with the classics! What's a 'fast moving light force' in concrete terms?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:I’m not specifically saying the Cobra is smaller than the apache, just making an example. The sea stallion actual provides another good example of why the services have differences in aircraft: different requirements. Not sure those change if we combine branches.  British Chinooks, with folding rotors, do a fine job of lifting British ship-shore connector AFVs. And lifting everything else. quote:So far as comm goes, not an extravagant example. If we are going to agree that our amphibious brigade needs different vehicles, that means the very systems it uses will be different. That includes radios. I’ll also want to talk to my troops ashore from the ship, which may necessitate different requirements. Generally the services are all interchangeable with radios but there are differences. Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Aren't there already navalized Apaches? Like, didn't the Brits used to fly them off their babby carriers? Kemper Boyd posted:I am still of the opinion that doing fixed-wing ops off babby carriers and pretending that it actually has value in an contested environment is foolish. Also the F-35B's stealth and information sharing mean that six of them are going to be hellish to deal with for any non-cutting-edge military.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Being an ARVN soldier could be pretty lovely. South Vietnam had one of the largest armies in Asia, but being a soldier was one of the worst and lowest paying jobs in the entire country, I believe that even held true for some of the junior officer ranks. Some commanding officers were conscientous and meant well, others were there just to enrich themselves. IIRC they had the same problem as a lot of militias throughout history - ARVN troops would be willing to fight and defend their homes (their best showings were in major VC/NVA offensives like Tet in '68 or the Easter Offensive in '72) but were much less willing to go out and confront the VC, especially if that meant leaving Vietnam entirely (i'm reminded of American militias stopping on the US/Canadian border in the War of 1812 because their terms of service were that they would only fight on US soil).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
The army developed the marpat pattern but discarded. Marines then picked it up. Just because they print it with EGAs on it doesn’t mean no one else could use it without those. Again on the radios I am not specific to ship to shore. There is no radio that we only use during ship to shore ops. Everyone goes about business differently, resulting in different requirements. As I said, there are many radio models used across the branches but there are some differences. If light infantry is light infantry then why wouldn’t the marines the army and even other countries all be using the same to/e, same training, etc. Can our light infantry do parachuting as effective as they can amphibious ops without losing capability by taking on more responsibility? Your argument that everything should be generic and interchangeable would lead me to argue, why not combine all the branches into one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 14:55
|
|
|
There’s an older ex-canadian army guy I went to college with whose chosen insane hill to die on (on facebook) is folding the air force back into the army and navy. I assume this would be even dumber than the USMC thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
I mean, I believe that the US govt and the DoD would do whatever necessary to maintain superpower status. If rolling one or more branches into one was a way to be more effective at that then it would absolutely be done. I cannot see any financial or military advantages to doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
Militaries are also institutions. The self preservation of the institution is a significant impetus, and has historically across many countries eclipsed the interests of the state itself. It seems really naive to suppose that something like merging branches can be easily done, independent of whether it would be a good idea to do so. I mean they only just created a new military branch so the Commander in Chief can have a boner. The US government is not as smart and coherent as you suppose. Fangz fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Jan 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Is this real? Looks real, and it's a standard "teaching cadets not to be assholes" type of video.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:I worked a lot with ANGLICO and TACP and of the two the USMC most definitely has its poo poo together when it comes to CAS operations. ANGLICO is a unit that does not get the recognition it deserves. They're professionals. Nenonen posted:On a related note, is it true that the army took up gunship concept only because they wanted organic CAS but were denied fixed wing aircraft because the independent air force jealously guarded its monopoly? Sort of. The initial role the Army wanted to fill in the late 1950s was that of a light transport (and support, observation, etc) aircraft, something smaller than a C-130. They looked at and tested OV-1 Mohawks and AC-1/CV-2 Caribous in this role. By 1962 they got the idea to put guns on them, which made the USAF VERY jealous. At around the same time the first practical turbine-engined helos became available. The upshot of this was that the Army said "okay, fine" and dropped the Mohawks/Caribous and bought helos instead, and carried the development of their own organic light air transport and armed transport (which evolved into gunships) forward from there. FrangibleCover posted:Yes. Light infantry is light infantry and if the Marine way of doing it is better than the Army way of doing it then they should join the Army and teach everyone else how to do it. Or maybe the Army could learn from how the USMC does things. But no, they're too busy polishing their West Point class rings and thinking they're the only ones who understand warfare. FrangibleCover posted:The same for procurement, the whole UCP/Multicam debacle wouldn't have happened if MARPAT wasn't held by the Marines as an exclusive thing that nobody else is allowed to use. The USMC took a camouflage pattern that the Canadian Army developed (CADPAT) and slapped their own logo on it. The US Army took CADPAT/MARPAT, changed the colors and pattern, and tried to make their own spin on it. Blaming the USMC for this is off. The fact that the Army threw money at a bad camouflage uniform in order to "one up" the USMC isn't the USMC's fault. I'll also point out that the Army didn't NEED new digital camouflage uniforms. Woodlands and 3-color camouflage worked fine, arguably better than the Army's UCP/DIGICAM. It was only the Army looking at the USMC and saying "we want our own digital camouflage too!" that led to what you call a debacle. Cessna fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jan 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 17:15
|
|