- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Marines to Shut Down All Tank Units, Cut Infantry Battalions in Major Overhaul
Posted on 3/24/20 at 7:30 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Posted on 3/24/20 at 7:30 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
The navy isnt really built for shore bombardments anymore, is it? I know they pack lots of missiles these days but isnt this the whole reason for a battleship?
It might not be “built” for that role, but in littoral operations the 5-inch is very powerful. Also the DDG class has an anti-surface missile capability.
1
Posted on 3/24/20 at 7:32 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
The navy isnt really built for shore bombardments anymore, is it? I know they pack lots of missiles these days but isnt this the whole reason for a battleship?
yes and no. One reason it took so long to finally retire retire the Iowa's was Congress was making the Navy keep them around for this very thing. The Burke's have a 5" gun on them and while it's no where near the power of a 16" gun with all the new fancy gun control systems we have would still be effective.
Let's put it this way, if we're in a situation where we need guns on ships for a sustained shore bombardment, we have bigger problems
Posted on 3/24/20 at 7:32 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
The navy isnt really built for shore bombardments anymore, is it? I know they pack lots of missiles these days but isnt this the whole reason for a battleship?
I’m not going to pretend to know how naval shore bombardment would work in the 21st Century.
There are still ANGLICO units in the Marine Corps so they do still have that capability I would assume.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 7:32 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
They need the AH-64. Their aircraft is like flattening the curve on corona. It’s just make believe. I’m sure the pilots are great and they would be 1000x more lethal in a 64.
I always assumed it was a size/weight thing. Imagine my surprise to find out that the AH-1Z is taller, heavier, with a smaller range than the AH-64.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 7:34 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
Man if the grunts have to rely on those littoral combat ships to be your boomers that's gonna suck.
I never understood why the navy did away with big guns. Battleships I get, but seems like a pair of 14's on the bow of cruisers would be a good move. You can bust a shoreline up for a long time and cheaply with them and with modern fire controls you could do it very accurately.
I never understood why the navy did away with big guns. Battleships I get, but seems like a pair of 14's on the bow of cruisers would be a good move. You can bust a shoreline up for a long time and cheaply with them and with modern fire controls you could do it very accurately.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 7:35 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
the 5" guns on destroyers saved our arse on Omaha beach because they could get close in. Selfishly I'd love for the USN to have a few battleships left but their time has come and gone (large CVNs are approaching this as well but that's a convo for another day)
Posted on 3/24/20 at 7:36 am to lostinbr
quote:
I always assumed it was a size/weight thing. Imagine my surprise to find out that the AH-1Z is taller, heavier, with a smaller range than the AH-64.
Very inferior. An AH-64 can hold 16 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, the Cobra can on paper only. A paper tiger.
The USMC needs AH-64’s. Like I said previously they should scoop up the D models the Army is currently divesting.
This post was edited on 3/24/20 at 7:39 am
Posted on 3/24/20 at 7:42 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
i'm really curious to see how the force structure shakes out for every body. I've never particularly been a fan of the modular combat brigades for the US Army because it seems like they are undermanned and armed. But this is a strictly from the outside view, maybe they're exactly what they should be doing for all i know.
This post was edited on 3/24/20 at 7:43 am
Posted on 3/24/20 at 7:48 am to Lima Whiskey
quote:
Drones won’t work in contested airspace. They’ll get shot down very quickly.
Don’t think we’re going to expect much resistance in the air, for long, anyway. And we have some killer SEAD capabilities with the 35. It would suck to go up against the US with the airpower we’ll be bringing in the next 5 years.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 7:49 am to rmnldr
quote:
Don’t think we’re going to expect much resistance in the air, for long, anyway. And we have some killer SEAD capabilities with the 35. It would suck to go up against the US with the airpower we’ll be bringing in the next 5 years.
I won’t get too far into it for classification reasons, but our enemies IADS are very powerful and bountiful.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 7:53 am to salty1
quote:
Here are the numbers. Make of them what you will. The PTO was clearly the bloodiest theater not on the eastern front.
LINK
Total casualty tally by division: US
First Europe & The Med...
Casualties Division Theater
25,977 3rd Infantry Division Mediterranean & European
23,277 9th Infantry Division Mediterranean & European
22,660 4th Infantry Division European
20,993 45th Infantry Division Mediterranean & European
20,659 1st Infantry Division Mediterranean & European
20,620 29th Infantry Division European
19,466 36th Infantry Division Mediterranean & European
19,200 90th Infantry Division European
18,446 30th Infantry Division European
17,087 80th Infantry Division European
Now the Pacific
19,284 1st MarDiv
11,482 2nd MarDiv
8,676 3rd MarDiv
17,722 4th MarDiv
8,563 5th MarDiv
9,212 7th Infantry Division
8,812 96th Infantry
8,226 6th MarDiv
7,461 77th Infantry Division
7,268 32nd Infantry Division
7,012 24th Infantry Division
Sources
Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in World War II, Final Report, 1 December 1941 - 31 December 1946.
LINK
Gordon Rottmann, "US Marine Corps World War II Order of Battle"
LINK
It’s all a matter of messaging. Everyone has heard of the famous battles of the 1st Marine Division in the Pacific. Battles like Guadalcanal, Peleu, and Okinawa. But if you look at the numbers, units like the 30th and 90th Infantry Divisions suffered more casualties in Europe than the 1st Marines. No one other than history buffs such as us even know these division existed.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 7:58 am to Darth_Vader
i hate when this comparison comes up because it's really not fair to compare europe to the pacific/CBI because both had their own unique set of circumstances. The bulk of the US Armed Forces were in Europe so you had more divisions doing more of the fighting. In the Pacific sure you had the Marines and the bulk of the Navy with some Army divisions thrown in but it's basically the same divisions doing the same landings over and over again.
Also, the disease/climate side of the Pacific/CBI makes it worse in my eyes than Europe. Logistics were a nightmare in the Pacific as well.
Also, the disease/climate side of the Pacific/CBI makes it worse in my eyes than Europe. Logistics were a nightmare in the Pacific as well.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:00 am to geauxtigers87
quote:
Those are all terrible ideas
let us know your thoughts on the war games.
just saying "no way man" is not convincing.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:01 am to Darth_Vader
Sounds like aviation will all be drones.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:04 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
For sure.
Wouldn’t be a cakewalk but we’re more than capable of castrating their IADS if not completely destroying their capabilities long-term rather quickly I’d imagine.
Wouldn’t be a cakewalk but we’re more than capable of castrating their IADS if not completely destroying their capabilities long-term rather quickly I’d imagine.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:07 am to geauxtigers87
quote:
i'm really curious to see how the force structure shakes out for every body. I've never particularly been a fan of the modular combat brigades for the US Army because it seems like they are undermanned and armed. But this is a strictly from the outside view, maybe they're exactly what they should be doing for all i know.
I agree and disagree in some senses.
I disagree that combined arms battalions are not needed.
I agree that we need to move the deployable force back to the Division level as opposed to the current BDE level we have dropped down to due to COIN.
I think the Army should get rid of the Strykers 100%. I was an OC/T at the National Training Center for 2 years and saw 10 rotations a year come through for BDE on BDE battles. Stryker BDE’s are absolutely worthless against an armored opponent. The Army needs light and heavy infantry only. All current Strykers should be transitioned into Brads ASAP.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:09 am to rmnldr
quote:
For sure.
Wouldn’t be a cakewalk but we’re more than capable of castrating their IADS if not completely destroying their capabilities long-term rather quickly I’d imagine
My last two years in the Army were spent at China Lake working these problems. No one is comfortable with the current capes.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:10 am to geauxtigers87
The nature of the fighting was far different in the two theaters. The Pacific war was fought against a determined enemy fighting essentially for the most part a WWI style static defense war in short sharp battles involving usually no more than 1-3 divisions at at time. In Europe it was different. The enemy relied far more on maneuver and armor in sustained massive campaigns involving entire army groups.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:12 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
China Lake
man, i'd love to sit down with you and talk about that place
as to your previous post, i wholeheartedly agree we need full divisions. The thing that concerns me, say something does cook off in Europe or wherever and we deploy these brigades. They seem like they would be little more than speed-bumps for a rampaging enemy
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:14 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The nature of the fighting was far different in the two theaters.
i said this.
quote:
The Pacific war was fought against a determined enemy fighting essentially for the most part a WWI style static defense war in short sharp battles involving usually no more than 1-3 divisions at at time.
maybe at the beginning, by the time we get to the Marianas and after you have many more divisions taking part off multiple islands
quote:
In Europe it was different. The enemy relied far more on maneuver and armor in sustained massive campaigns involving entire army groups.
i don't agree with this either necessarily. Germans fight a WWI style defense in Normandy and it continues once we hit the Siegfried Line and Hurtgen Forest
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News