- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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 8:17 am to geauxtigers87
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:17 am to geauxtigers87
quote:
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
I suggest you go back and study the divisional histories of units such as 1st & 2nd SS and 116th Panzer. They were on the defensive for the most part, but it was far from static.
1
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:18 am to Darth_Vader
i never said it was static defense
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:22 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
How are they going to use ATACMS? Naval gun fire support would fill those gaps. ATACMS is not a core competency.
This is a good question. We can only speculate. The Navy's big ships could be equipped with something like the ATACMS system and provide that kind of indirect fire support, maybe? What do you think?
As for land forces with no naval gunfire support, the ATACMS is a wonderful weapons system for indirect fires employed beyond the Tactical level of operations. ATACMS's range allows employment up to the Operational level. That is impressive because it replaces a function that not too many years ago could only be accomplished by air power.
Surely, some US Navy Destroyer-class or something one class above that could serve as a sea-going platform for this weapon. If so, the USMC on-the-ground indirect fire, fire direction personnel would be in charge of calling in the fires.
If any further fires are needed, the Joint Task Force will have a plan to provide that.
This post was edited on 3/24/20 at 8:24 am
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:24 am to Champagne
they are developing this LINK
quote:
folks over at BAE Systems have come up with a fairly novel way to give any ship with some deck space Mark 41 vertical launch system (VLS)-like capability without having to make huge alterations to the guts of the ship, which in many cases wouldn't even be possible. Dubbed aptly the Adaptive Deck Launcher (ADL), the system provides four cells positioned at an angle that can accommodate the same all-up missile canisters used by standard Mark 41 vertical launch systems like those found on the U.S. Navy's cruisers and destroyers, as well as many allied surface combatants. The system comes in tactical length, used for quad-packed RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles, anti-submarine rockets, and shorter-ranged anti-ship and land-attack missiles, as well as strike-length that can accommodate anything a full-spec Mark 41 VLS can, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and the latest SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6 surface-to-air and ballistic missile defense missiles.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:25 am to geauxtigers87
quote:
never said it was static defense
You said this...
quote:
Germans fight a WWI style defense in Normandy and it continues once we hit the Siegfried Line and Hurtgen Forest
WWI style defense was definition of static defense.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:27 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Germans fight a WWI style d
a style not the style
this is why i don't get involved with history threads with you because you are the Montgomery of the history geeks on this board
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:29 am to geauxtigers87
See? I just knew that the Dept of the Navy had a plan to make ATACMS-like indirect fires available to the USMC ground components of any Joint Task Force.
The USMC doesn't need ATACMS, unless they begin operating out of naval fire support range, which, if they return all focus on amphib and littoral operations, they won't be doing.
The USMC doesn't need ATACMS, unless they begin operating out of naval fire support range, which, if they return all focus on amphib and littoral operations, they won't be doing.
This post was edited on 3/24/20 at 8:30 am
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:34 am to fishfighter
quote:
No, it's not. Marines has always been a fighting unit that is to be deploy super fast. First in, last out.
It will leave the Marines too light to support themselves in combat. They’ll end up relying on the Army and Navy to fill those gaps.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:34 am to Champagne
I love this thread. I’m surprised that there are so many of us on this site. Hell, we could muster a unit just from TD and do some damage with just a little supply and ammo. I’m an infantry tactics expert. I spent 12 consecutive years either in an infantry battalion or instructing at AIT (advanced infantry training). I also spent time as an instructor at SOTG (assault climbers, HRST, CQB, Boats, and TRAP). We here at TD that aren’t too old or broken could probably overrun a small country with enough ammo...LOL. It appears as if we’d do a damn fine job of it too. We’d need a few troops, but could probably recruit them from the site as well. It would be hell getting them whipped into fighting shape though!
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:37 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
My last two years in the Army were spent at China Lake working these problems. No one is comfortable with the current capes.
Well now I’m dying to know
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:38 am to salty1
I just came for the excessive incomprehensible acronyms featured in every military thread. I’ve not been disappointed.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:46 am to geauxtigers87
quote:
style not the style
this is why i don't get involved with history threads with you because you are the Montgomery of the history geeks on this board
I’m sorry. I thought we were having a friendly history debate. I mistakenly thought you could participate in a debate without getting upset or bothered.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:47 am to Darth_Vader
if you would stop putting words in my mouth we'd have no problem
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:48 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
burn rate
reminds me of the troop train in movie "johnny got his gun".
a carload of prosthetic arms and legs brought along to the front.
burn rate.
Do officers really use that term?
This post was edited on 3/24/20 at 8:49 am
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:51 am to geauxtigers87
quote:
if you would stop putting words in my mouth we'd have no problem
My apologies.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:54 am to Lima Whiskey
quote:
It will leave the Marines too light to support themselves in combat. They’ll end up relying on the Army and Navy to fill those gaps.
That’s not unheard of. And probably closer to what the USMC should be doing to begin with.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 8:57 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
That’s not unheard of. And probably closer to what the USMC should be doing to begin with.
this reminds me of when the Marines "got out the jungle" so to speak after Vietnam where they reinvented themselves
Posted on 3/24/20 at 9:00 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
It will leave the Marines too light to support themselves in combat. They’ll end up relying on the Army and Navy to fill those gaps.
That’s not unheard of. And probably closer to what the USMC should be doing to begin with.
For this to work there is going to have to be a lot of Army/Marine joint training. Coordinating a infantry/armor combined arms battlefield isn’t simple. It requires training together as a team so armor forces learn their infantry counterpart and how to work with them and vice versa.
This post was edited on 3/24/20 at 9:01 am
Posted on 3/24/20 at 9:01 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
That’s not unheard of. And probably closer to what the USMC should be doing to begin with.
It goes back to WW2, the Marines often depended on the other branches for support, and that support wasn’t always available.
The attitude after the war was never again. And I think that lesson still holds.
The other risk, if you can’t operate without the Army, then you lose your reason for existing.
This post was edited on 3/24/20 at 9:09 am
Posted on 3/24/20 at 9:03 am to Lima Whiskey
here's something random: the marines had shermans that ran on diesel in the Pacific
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News