Time to give the Marines a overdue appendectomy

[Lonestar]

I would drop the 10 divisions to 5

with 2 heavy, 1 medium in korea

1 light in europe

1 medium in the US

I would keep the extra regiments/etc (so that is like another light division or two)

I would remove the stryker type and replace it with drones

JM

Strykers are battle taxis, drones aren't. It would't make sense to get rid of them.

If you rely too heavily on drones you're up the proverbial creek if you end up fighting someone who can fight back.

[Jon Miller]

That is why I wanted to keep the heavies

if strikers are generally better than heavies then make make them equal. I was just wanting t make things simpler.

The problems with the army are obvious in that drones are a minor thing for them but we can see how useful they are becoming. There really should be drone brigades (support).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Fighting a serious foe would require the reserves. Lots of reserves.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

No other service branch fulfills the strategic role of a rapid-response expeditionary force with combined arms capabilities.

Combined arms, with what, your four artillery pieces?

[Hauldren Collider]

Jonmiller

[Hauldren Collider]

An observation about forced entry onto a beach: Let's pretend for a moment that we are in fact invading a country that has a conveniently located beach that we want to perform a forced entry on. Under what plausible scenarios would a bunch of little boats carrying dudes fare better than a bunch of helicopters? If they have the ability to shoot down the helicopters, presumably they have the ability to sink boats.

[Lonestar]

Fighting a serious foe would require the reserves. Lots of reserves.

JM

It would require lots of capital-intensive assets.

Drones, however, are seriously vulnerable to jamming, spoofing, etc. Useful against insurgents in the mountains...but that's really it.

Strykers are battle taxis that move infantry around, which is why your "replace them with drones" statement is so strange.

[regexcellent]

Drones are aircraft with approximately the performance of a Cessna. They are toast when facing any serious air opposition.

That is why I wanted to keep the heavies

if strikers are generally better than heavies then make make them equal. I was just wanting t make things simpler.

The problems with the army are obvious in that drones are a minor thing for them but we can see how useful they are becoming. There really should be drone brigades (support).

JM

The air force has plenty of drone units and the kind of thing you're talking about is more within the AF's remit than the Army's. The Air Force is better at doing that sort of thing with drones anyway.

[kentonio]

An observation about forced entry onto a beach: Let's pretend for a moment that we are in fact invading a country that has a conveniently located beach that we want to perform a forced entry on. Under what plausible scenarios would a bunch of little boats carrying dudes fare better than a bunch of helicopters? If they have the ability to shoot down the helicopters, presumably they have the ability to sink boats.

If the air is still being contested then you really don't want to be sending large groups of men on helicopters. To move large numbers of soldiers via chopper you're going to need big helicopters. Big, slow helicopters that make wonderful targets for the enemy to send tumbling out of the sky. One man with a shoulder mounted launcher can make a chinook go bang.

[PLATO]

Keep the Marines. No real rationalization for that, but...Keep the Marines.

[dannubis]

An observation about forced entry onto a beach: Let's pretend for a moment that we are in fact invading a country that has a conveniently located beach that we want to perform a forced entry on. Under what plausible scenarios would a bunch of little boats carrying dudes fare better than a bunch of helicopters? If they have the ability to shoot down the helicopters, presumably they have the ability to sink boats.

As usual a combination of the two will work best...

[Al B. Sure!]

The Marines are the worst offenders for unnecessary capabilities, redundancy, and nostalgic notions of what their mission is. Talking about an opposed beach landing is pretty ****ing far down the rabbit hole and yet the Marines still get wet dreams about getting another go at Iwo Jima. They have gone on to organize their entire force structure around this absurd fantasy.

In Desert Storm, the threat of the Marines landing on the Kuwaiti coast fixed six Iraqi divisions, preventing them from engaging Marines advancing into southern Kuwait.

But the Marine Corps' role is larger than that. The Marine Corps has been America's tool in counterinsurgency operations going back to the Banana Wars. This role is especially relevant considering the changing landscape of conflict and the increase in asymmetrical warfare with the War on Terror.

As for Marine aviation, no other service branch emphasizes close air support to the extent that the Marine Corps does. In fact, the entire purpose of Marine aviation is solely to support ground forces. This emphasis proved useful in Afghanistan when Army and Air Force resources were not sufficient for the entire close air support requirements of NATO forces.

[giblets]

In Desert Storm, the threat of the Marines landing on the Kuwaiti coast fixed six Iraqi divisions, preventing them from engaging Marines advancing into southern Kuwait.

So how did this affect the outcome of the war?

[DinoDoc]

Less Iraqi casualties.

[regexcellent]

None of the things Alby posted justify having two armies. None of them excuse the huge amount of redundancy present in the USMC. At best, the marines should have enough people to man the gator freighters. The USMC does not need its own fixed wing jet fighters, or its own tankers. The only reason the F-35 is such a huge mess is because the Marines insist on having a STOVL aircraft, which is totally useless since any serious operation involving the LHDs/LHAs is going to have a carrier battle group in tow.