Marines Remove AAVs From Deployment, Water Ops

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Yet nobody even plans for a multi-division Market Garden landing. Hell, there hasn't been an airborne drop into a contested drop zone with more than a reinforced battalion since the Suez Crisis.

Why would the Marines ever charge headlong into a contested beachhead when they have helicopters and VTOLs now? If the enemy has fortified the beach, just go around them.

There's no telling what the future holds. None of us have a crystal ball. Its better to have those capabilities and assets and not need them, than to need them and not have them.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

If we have to take one of those manmade islands, it won't be a contested beach anymore by the time the JDAMs and Tomahawks are done falling. Those islands are made out of dredged sand and coral. They can't build bomb proof fortifications on them.

That's what they said in the Pacific Theater

 

[Questerr]

There's no telling what the future holds. None of us have a crystal ball. Its better to have those capabilities and assets and not need them, than to need them and not have them.

Yeah, I guess Marine officers could start drinking lead paint and holding their heads in the microwave on a daily basis, but I think they are smarter than that.

 

[Questerr]

That's what they said in the Pacific Theater

No they didn't. None of the Japanese islands were made from dredged sand.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

No they didn't.

Yeah, they did say that. They said it on the Western Front during WW1, too.

 

[Questerr]

Yeah, they did say that. They said it on the Western Front during WW1, too.

Source for your claim that commanders in the Pacific War said it would be impossible to build bomb proof fortifications on Japanese islands?

Because they knew for a fact that Japanese island holdings were hardened volcanic rock.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Why would the Marines ever charge headlong into a contested beachhead when they have helicopters and VTOLs now? If the enemy has fortified the beach, just go around them.

Why? Rather simple, really.

Let's take your scenario. Go around them, hop over the beachhead and set up a base a mile inland.

But see, now you need to bring in things like artillery, fuel, food and water, and all of your logistics to operate. And you can't even bring in your "heavy equipment", because you just can't bring things like tanks and the combat bulldozers in with a helicopter. Especially if they are having to go around and over what may be a source of hostile fire.

Even in cases where Marines do make an assault inland, unless it is to secure something like an airfield they then make plans to link their new base of operations with the shore for their main logistics route. Because they can bring a hell of a lot more supplies and personnel in via LCAC and Mike boats than they ever can via helicopter. And yes, actually done that as part of training. In a Battalion sized operation, normally one or two companies are involved in the helicopter portion of the assault inland, while the other company is the amphibious element coming from the sea.

And it is also damned good for keeping the enemy off balance. The Gulf War once again was a perfect example. The Marines were constantly doing mock beach assaults at Kuwait City, in addition to do a couple of real ones on smaller beaches. Saddam was so obsessed that the Marines were going to land that most of his forces were along the shore and facing east.

As the actual main force itself jumped form the south and west and screwed him royally up the butt. Without that capability and using it as a mind game the rest of that operation would never have gone off as smoothly.

 

[Oozlefinch]

If we have to take one of those manmade islands, it won't be a contested beach anymore by the time the JDAMs and Tomahawks are done falling. Those islands are made out of dredged sand and coral. They can't build bomb proof fortifications on them.

At both Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the defenders began firing on the Marines while they were still on the beach. They may have had their bunkers slightly further in land, but you tell the guys who got massacred on the beach by artillery and mortars that beach wasn't contested.

Let me throw something right back at you.

Source for your claim that commanders in the Pacific War said it would be impossible to build bomb proof fortifications on Japanese islands?

Because they knew for a fact that Japanese island holdings were hardened volcanic rock.

And no, not really. In fact, at both locations the Marines were quite spooked as it was almost the opposite of their other experiences like Tarawa and Saipan.

The order was specifically given at both islands to not engage as soon as they landed, but to let them bunch up on the beaches and wait for them to start moving inland. This would maximize the casualties when they did open up, and that was what the Japanese did.

 

[Oozlefinch]

No they didn't. None of the Japanese islands were made from dredged sand.

Which means what, exactly? What does it being dredged instead of natural sand deposited by waves even matter?

 

[Questerr]

Which means what, exactly? What does it being dredged instead of natural sand deposited by waves even matter?

It means the water table is too near the surface to dig deep bunkers and/or that the soil is too unstable to place heavy fortifications on.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

It means the water table is too near the surface to dig deep bunkers and/or that the soil is too unstable to place heavy fortifications on.

Tarawa is 10 feet above sea level, at its highest point. The Japanese had plenty of fortifications on that damn thing.

 

[Oozlefinch]

It means the water table is too near the surface to dig deep bunkers and/or that the soil is too unstable to place heavy fortifications on.

Uh-huh.

And let me throw something right back at you. The Battle of Tarawa. One of the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. With plenty of large bunkers that survived extensive shelling and bombing before and during the battle.

Where the highest altitude is three meters above sea level.

The Japanese were able to build massive bunkers on that island, which still stand to this day. Yet you think the Chinese could not?

What was it before that you said about some not believing what the Japanese were capable of?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Tarawa is 10 feet above sea level, at its highest point. The Japanese had plenty of fortifications on that damn thing.

A lot of the battles fought in the Pacific were over literal spots of land that were barely above sea level. And both sides, both Japanese and American were able to build bunkers and other defensive positions without effort. ANd most times required "boots on the ground" in order to take the islands.

Wake, where the highest altitude was 6 meters.

Midway, the highest altitude is 13 meters.

Makin Island, the highest altitude is 3 meters.

This was repeated over and over all across the Pacific.

 

[Questerr]

Tarawa is 10 feet above sea level, at its highest point. The Japanese had plenty of fortifications on that damn thing.

Tarawa is also not made out of dredged sand. It’s the top of a seamount.

 

[Questerr]

Uh-huh.

And let me throw something right back at you. The Battle of Tarawa. One of the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. With plenty of large bunkers that survived extensive shelling and bombing before and during the battle.

Where the highest altitude is three meters above sea level.

The Japanese were able to build massive bunkers on that island, which still stand to this day. Yet you think the Chinese could not?

What was it before that you said about some not believing what the Japanese were capable of?

When did the Japanese construct the island out of dredged sand?

 

[Luce]

...is there a replacement in the works? The Marines have been trying to replace that bitch forever.

Have they tried boats?

 

[StillBallin75]

Have they tried boats?

Boats aren't amphibious.

 

[Luce]

Boats aren't amphibious.

Yes, but they float.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Tarawa is also not made out of dredged sand. It’s the top of a seamount.

And has a 13,000 foot mountain on it. Once again, what does that have to do with an island made of dredged sand?

 

[Oozlefinch]

When did the Japanese construct the island out of dredged sand?

What difference does it make?

The answer is none, so I have absolutely no idea why you think it does.

 

[Questerr]

And has a 13,000 foot mountain on it. Once again, what does that have to do with an island made of dredged sand?

The water table on a seamount isn’t immediately under the surface.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The water table on a seamount isn’t immediately under the surface.

You mean like Tarawa, and Wake, and the other islands that the Japanese managed to build bunkers on.

Because we all know you can't build bunkers on the surface. Nope, impossible, bunker's can't go on the surface, they must be sunk into the ground.

Who was it earlier that was stating that the US was not imaginative to figure the Japanese would not tunnel all through their islands?

 

[Questerr]

You mean like Tarawa, and Wake, and the other islands that the Japanese managed to build bunkers on.

Because we all know you can't build bunkers on the surface. Nope, impossible, bunker's can't go on the surface, they must be sunk into the ground.

Who was it earlier that was stating that the US was not imaginative to figure the Japanese would not tunnel all through their islands?

All of those islands were the tops of seamounts. They weren’t just sand. They had stone “foundations”.

 

[Fledermaus]

Do not understand this .

US Marines have never won a thing since WW2 .

They still lose -- Somalia , Libya and Afghanistan ----- a perfect zero score .

I have no idea what the excuse is but I doubt any future success , whatever amazing strengths these boats have .

Korea - South Korea still standing.

Somalia wasn't lost by the Marines. We left once the UN took over. I know. I was there.

Libya was a Marine operation? Since when?

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Oozlefinch]

All of those islands were the tops of seamounts. They weren’t just sand. They had stone “foundations”.

Which once again, means what exactly?

Huge parts of Boston, San Francisco, and New York are no different. So I still fail to see your point.

You keep saying the same thing over and over, and never explain what it is you are actually trying to say.

As if, fill or reclaimed land somehow can not support a bunker. With no explanation as to why.