The U.S. Marines have captured and held more airfields than any other military organization in history.
It's what they are trained for.
That's what I have been trying to tell Braindrain.
Most of the worlds "special forces" including the Green Berets, Delta, SEAL's are nothing more than commandos. They can conduct raids then they have to retreat.
Kinda of off topic but I liked how the Army was able to use it's air cav during the Vietnam War as a blocking force when an infantry sweep was being conducted. They were good at it especially the 1st Air Cav.
Got anything to back that up with.
When has a Marine rifle platoon ever taken over an Airfield. Hell for that matter when was the last time any Marine unit took down a airfield. There is a reason that pretty much every single airfield that the US military has taken over since WW2 has been done by Ranger BN.
The only reason the Marines landed on Guadalcanal was to capture the Japanese airfeld (Henderson Field) and hold it. One of the bloodiest battles during WW ll was on Iwo Jima. The only purpose for invading Iwo Jima was to capture the three airfields on the island for the U.S. Army Air Forces.
Wherever the Japanese had an airfield in the Pacific, usually it was the Marines who went in and captured the airfield. If there was no Japanese airfield on an island or atoll, they were usually passed up and left to rot.
In 1965 LBJ ordered the 9th Marines to land on the DaNang beaches to protect the DaNang Air Base. That was the beginning of American combat forces in Vietnam.
BTW: The DaNang Air Base was a former Japanese air base during WW ll. To be more historically accurate the Marines took control of the DaNang airfield during the Kennedy administration. Probably a Marine rifle platoon. :lol:
Do you want me to list each airfield the Marines have captured from the enemy ?
Marine grunts over the decades have conducted numerous training exercises capturing the Marine airfield at Camp Pendleton. I've done it twice.
What was the Marines first mission after 9-11 in Afghanistan ? They went in and took control of an airfield in Afghanistan so the Army and Air Force could be flown in.
I never said that they did not takeover airfields I asked if you had any proof that they took over more than anyone else in the world. Not that it really matters. Besides you said a Marine platoon. Which platoon was that.
Look I am not saying that the Marines can't do a good job of taking over an airfield. We all know they can but to pretend that a Marine platoon would have done better than the SEALs is just silly.
And by the way Army and Air Force folks were already on the ground for quite some time before the Marines took over Dolangi. That was not even the first airfield taken over in Afghanistan.
Unquestionably Germany had superior technology and I think it accurate Japan did too at the start of WWII. What they came to face was massively greater - but inferior - quantities.
They lost because of an inability or an unwillingness to adapt to the changing environment on the battlefield.
There is almost no chance that mission would go to a Marine rifle platoon. They are not trained, equipped or organized for that type of mission. There were a fair number of things that went wrong on that op but the majority were out of the SEALs hands and if you think that a unit trained to a much lower standard would have done better I don't know what to tell you. One thing for sure though that should have been a Ranger Regiment job. No one doors airfield seizure better.
Actually, the problem there is that such a mission would go to a Marine Rifle Platoon in the first place.
Yes, actually the Marines are trained and equipped for such a mission. In fact, the Marines of the 15th MEU were the ones that took the airport at Kandahar.
However, I do have to laugh at the comparison of a Marine Platoon being roughly equal to a Ranger Company.
In reality, such a mission would likely go to the closest Infantry Battalions which were not already tasked and had the means to get there. Ranger, Marine, or Army, largely does not matter. Taking an airport is more likely the job of a Regimental sized force.
Personally, I think in each case it was more of an example of "biting off more then they could chew".
Now Germany's single biggest mistake was declaring war against the US, and right behind that was declaring war against the Soviet Union. They had sound tactics, good equipment and superbly trained soldiers. But against the 2 largest industrialized nations in the world at once, they never had a chance.
For Japan, it was relying to much on their superiority in all things, and over-reaching their goals. First they harassed the US for a decade prior to the war, then started an unneeded war with a sneak attack against the largest industrialized nation on the planet.
There is almost no chance that mission would go to a Marine rifle platoon. They are not trained, equipped or organized for that type of mission. There were a fair number of things that went wrong on that op but the majority were out of the SEALs hands and if you think that a unit trained to a much lower standard would have done better I don't know what to tell you. One thing for sure though that should have been a Ranger Regiment job. No one doors airfield seizure better.
I agree with pretty much all your post...but I think you got Germany's biggest mistake just backwards - Barbarossa was Germany's biggest mistake. If Germany had never launched its war against the USSR but continued to play nice with Stalin as they had since Hitler first took power, they could have taken the rest of the European continent, sat on it, and there's absolutely nothing that America and the rest of the allies (without the USSR) could have done about it...at least before we developed the Bomb.
Actually, the problem there is that such a mission would go to a Marine Rifle Platoon in the first place.
Yes, actually the Marines are trained and equipped for such a mission. In fact, the Marines of the 15th MEU were the ones that took the airport at Kandahar.
However, I do have to laugh at the comparison of a Marine Platoon being roughly equal to a Ranger Company.
In reality, such a mission would likely go to the closest Infantry Battalions which were not already tasked and had the means to get there. Ranger, Marine, or Army, largely does not matter. Taking an airport is more likely the job of a Regimental sized force.
Actually, the problem there is that such a mission would go to a Marine Rifle Platoon in the first place.
Yes, actually the Marines are trained and equipped for such a mission. In fact, the Marines of the 15th MEU were the ones that took the airport at Kandahar.
However, I do have to laugh at the comparison of a Marine Platoon being roughly equal to a Ranger Company.
In reality, such a mission would likely go to the closest Infantry Battalions which were not already tasked and had the means to get there. Ranger, Marine, or Army, largely does not matter. Taking an airport is more likely the job of a Regimental sized force.
I agree with pretty much all your post...but I think you got Germany's biggest mistake just backwards - Barbarossa was Germany's biggest mistake. If Germany had never launched its war against the USSR but continued to play nice with Stalin as they had since Hitler first took power, they could have taken the rest of the European continent, sat on it, and there's absolutely nothing that America and the rest of the allies (without the USSR) could have done about it...at least before we developed the Bomb.
Actually it was an Army grunt unit that was sent in to save Navy SEAL's Team 4 and it wasn't a battalion, probably not even a company. How many grunts can "several" UH-60's carry ? That was the size of the Army grunt unit. What are we looking at, a platoon ?
Except, taking western Europe was never on Hitler's agenda. Invading Russia was always his primary objective.
Indeed. And Hitler even stated he had an affinity for the British. There is some debate that he allowed the Brits to be rescued at dunkirk.
I think the answer between quality and quantity is...."it depends".
We saw the answer in Iraq. We eviscerated the Iraqi military but didn't have enough boots on the ground to occupy and restore order.
It depends on what the role of the military is. If it's defense then quality is the way to go. If it's occupation and nation building you need numbers.
A post war occupation doesn't necessarily require more troops. History tells the opposite story.
Examples?
If you're talking about WWII that's an outlier. Those wars weren't won just against the military force but against the whole population. That was total war where everything a country had was used for the war effort and fair game for targeting. When the Japanese and Germans were beaten it wasn't just their military force it was the whole populace.
We haven't fought that type of war for decades.
Except, taking western Europe was never on Hitler's agenda. Invading Russia was always his primary objective.
Barbarossa made sense at the time-Germany had taken most of western europe, expelled the Brits, and held much of the mediterranean. There was no fighting going on at the time and taking Russia for "living space" had long been one of Hitlers goals.
Its particularly ironic in that the actual Barbarossa died by drowning in his armor when he got tired of waiting to cross a river.
I think even without US or British intervention that Russia would have probably won the war, but it would have been longer and deadlier.
MAYBE-the US and the commonwealth nations could have beat Hitler, but it wouldnt have been easy, probably less likely than the Russians frankly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?