What matters more - quality or quantity?

[braindrain]

The U.S. Marines have captured and held more airfields than any other military organization in history.

It's what they are trained for.

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.

 

[braindrain]

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.

SFs main mission is not doing any kind of commando raid. Also many times the US military will use SOF to take a target in advance of incoming conventional forces. My last trip we cleared the Taliban out of a village and than set up our site there and operated out of that village for the next 4 months. In some ways we can take and hold territory better than a infantry platoon or company. It is all mission dependent.

 

[APACHERAT]

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.

 

[braindrain]

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.

 

[APACHERAT]

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.

Braindrain, you ever heard the old saying ? "One riot, one Texas Ranger."

 

[MichaelW]

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.

German technology at the start of the war wasn't superior. It's tanks were under-armed and had little in the way of armour protection and it's only decent early war tanks were those it acquired from the Czechs. It had a fairly neglected navy whose surface vessels were really for show and most of its aircraft were equal to that of what the British or the French fielded. They themselves were only superior to that of the Poles, and they were using biplanes.

Ditto Japan, except that Japanese never really had more advanced technologies than the British or the Dutch throughout the war. They only succeeded early on because of surprise and superior tactics. Tactics is what also won Germany it's victories and what could still deal a blow to the Allies right up until 1945.

 

[Oozlefinch]

They lost because of an inability or an unwillingness to adapt to the changing environment on the battlefield.

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.

But both sides clearly showed that they could adapt to battlefield conditions, and change as rapidly if not more so.

For a clear example of this, look at the behavior of the Japanese.

At the start of the US Offensive in 1943, the tactic was to meet and fight the US with everything they had on the beach. Bloody Tarawa ended in the almost total destruction of Japanese forces (17 survivors out of almost 4,700 soldiers), and killing less then 1,700 Marines.

A year later, they had learned a lot and changed. The Battle of Iwo Jima lasted for over a month, and they primarily fought from hidden dug-in positions. Of over 22,000 defending on the island, just over 200 survived. And US forces were hit much harder, almost 7,000 killed and 20,000 wounded.

And Okinawa was even worse. If they had not learned and adapted most of the Pacific Campaign would have been a cakewalk. And in many ways, they and the Germans were ahead of the Allied forces. Just look at the Panzerfaust and the Type 89 Grenade Launcher (commonly called the "Knee Mortar").

In fact, I have long believed that the Japanese had the finest Hand Grenade system in the world, then or now.

 

[Oozlefinch]

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.

 

[braindrain]

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 think maybe you missed the point I was trying to make. As I said earlier I know that Marines can and do conduct airfield seizure though generally not the same type as Ranger BN. What I was talking about was the comment made that the job the SEALs did in Panama would next time go to a Marine rifle platoon. What ghe SEALs were doing there was generally beyond the scope of what a infantry platoon does. No I have no doubt that if you took a very strong Marine platoon and plused then up in the areas they were lacking they could get it down but at that point they are no longer just a regular infantry platoon.

My last teams warrant was in Kandahar when the Marines came in so I am well aware of that op.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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.

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.

 

[APACHERAT]

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.

The mission in Panama wasn't to capture the airfield but disabling Manuel Noriega's Learjet at Patilla Field to prevent him from escaping in it. That was the mission.

So a Marine rifle platoon could have accomplished the mission. But a Marine or Army Ranger company would seem the way to go. Today a spot team with a laser designator would only have to locate the hanger the Lear jet was in and a FA-18 above with a smart bomb would accomplish the mission.

But the U.S. Marines weren't part of operation "Just Cause." There was no door to be kicked in because the U.S. military (Army) was already in Panama. I have no ****ing idea why the Navy was even involved ?

US Preparations:

>" In the late 1989 US troops were based in following bases in Panama: Fort (Ft.) Knobbe, Howard AFB, and Rodman NAS, north of the Canal; Albrook AFB and Fort Clayton north of Panama City; and Quarry Heights in the city. There were additional bases, like Ft. Sherman, west of Panama City, and Ft. Randolph, Ft. Gulck, Ft. William F. Davis, and Colon, west of Panama City.

Already during the first round of increased tensions because of Noriega, in 1988, Pentagon prepared plans for an intervention in Panama, the Operation „Blue Spear“. However, this saw only the US troops being re-deployed to the most important points around the country. The Blue Spear was never realized; nevertheless, it already caused several additional US units to be deployed to Panama.

In spring of 1989 it was decided that the XVIII Airborne Corps would be the basis for the future intervention in Panama, and then the preparations for creating the „Joint Task Force Panama“ (JTFP) were initiated. During the summer of 1989 the 193rd Brigade based in the Canal Zone was reinforced to 10.300 troops; the 7th Infantry Division with 13.000 troops ..."<
Continue -> Panama, 1989; Operation "Just Cause"

 

[apdst]

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.

Except, taking western Europe was never on Hitler's agenda. Invading Russia was always his primary objective.

 

[apdst]

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.

It would be depend on MET-T: mission, enemy, time and terrain.

 

[APACHERAT]

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 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 ?

 

[US Conservative]

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.

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.

 

[Oozlefinch]

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 ?

And once again, what is the mission?

If it is to disable the airport so others could not use it, destroy fuel stores and the like, a platoon could likely handle that.

But to take it over and hold it intact so it can be used? That takes a lot more then a platoon.

As apdst said, MET-T. But I would say probably 2 battalions minimum to hold an airport if there were enemy forces anywhere even close by if they wanted to keep it intact. Otherwise a platoon could infiltrate and do damage and boogie out again.

And a UH-60 can carry 11 people, figure a squad plus one crew served weapon detachment.

 

[US Conservative]

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.

 

[grip]

I believe we need a 4 way military option. One of course is the still necessary ICBM, Destroyer and submarine nuke inventory, though it doesn't need to be so much, as to destroy the world several times over. The reasons for the proliferation previously were to ensure enough blitzing to avoid antimissile prevention. Enough conventional equipment to repel another sizable conventional force, an advanced cyber command, including drone tech and a fairly diverse SpecOps ready for rapid deployment.

Eventually, warfare is going to become more cyber, asymmetric, small intense special forces, specific missions and embargo/sanctions relying on economic tools.

 

[apdst]

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 don't think there's much to debate.

 

[iliveonramen]

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.

 

[apdst]

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.

 

[iliveonramen]

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.

 

[apdst]

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.

The Civil War, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada. You won't find an example where the occupation force outnumbered the forces used to win the war.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Except, taking western Europe was never on Hitler's agenda. Invading Russia was always his primary objective.

Quite true - that's what he declared in Mein Kampf. But the question wasn't what was his plan - the question was, what was his biggest mistake.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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.

I disagree that it 'made sense'...but then I've got the benefit of hindsight...and lebensraum was indeed one of Hitler's 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 didn't know that - thanks! That is pretty ironic...especially given that on the banks of the Volga is where the tide turned, in Stalingrad...though an argument could be made for the less well-known (but possibly bigger) battle just to the west of Moscow.

I think even without US or British intervention that Russia would have probably won the war, but it would have been longer and deadlier.

I quite agree. I've said the same on many occasions, and received quite a few arguments to the contrary, some more hostile than others. But while Lend-Lease and our strategic bombing certainly helped, it didn't make the crucial difference on the Eastern Front...and given that the Red Army had already pushed the Wehrmacht back inside Poland by the time we invaded Normandy, all our invasion really did was prevent the Soviets from walling the rest of Western Europe behind the Iron Curtain.

MAYBE-the US and the commonwealth nations could have beat Hitler, but it wouldnt have been easy, probably less likely than the Russians frankly.

Definitely maybe...but IMO only if we had the Bomb and the Nazis didn't. The Nazis had shot themselves in the foot by persecuting the Jews, which drove physicists such as Einstein and Leo Szilard into the arms of the West. BTW, I recommend "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. It's a great book - won the Pulitzer Prize...and includes many nuggets of history that I had not known about. For instance, there's the story of Chaim Weizmann, who - according to the book - essentially saved the Royal Navy in WWI by inventing a way to synthesize gunpowder. The German u-boat blockade had been starving the Brits of the raw materials needed to make the powder needed to operate the guns on their destroyers, and Weizmann's invention helped to turn that particular tide. The Crown acknowledge his efforts and offered him anything within its power to grant as a reward. He chose to ask for Palestine as a homeland for Jews. Guess who the first president of Israel was? Chaim Weizmann.