USMC Doctrine Changes

Didn't he already kick the tanks out? Getting increasing blow-back is he now? I'd say he has set himself up for an almighty fall, at best.
 
He wants to start cutting the number of helicopters in USMC service too? How are these island garrisons of his supposed to be resupplied and supported without those?
 
www.defensenews.com

What’s preventing Taiwan from preparing for potential war?

Taiwan’s military is not yet “optimally manned, trained, equipped and motivated to defend against an attack” by China on the self-ruled island, and efforts at defense reform face obstacles from institutional opposition from senior officers and a lack of time.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
^Were those supposed to go into the SCS thread?

Colonial-Marine said:
He wants to start cutting the number of helicopters in USMC service too? How are these island garrisons of his supposed to be resupplied and supported without those?
Click to expand...
Drones? Who knows.
 
The US Marines can be seen as an expensive way of providing extra Army units. I remember seeing their lumbering LVTPs trundling through Iraq on TV and wondering when they had actually been used in their designed role. Then I remembered their assault on the mighty nation of Grenada. (and of course the Argentine ones on the prom at Port Stanley).
Like Paratroopers, Marines are expensive assets.. They should not be used just to bulk out the Army.
 
I can see cutting the tanks way before I can see losing attack choppers. The USMC is desperately trying to be relevant in the WestPac and soon is just going to be completely irrelevant anywhere as a result.
 
www.marinecorpstimes.com

Goodbye, tanks: How the Marine Corps will change, and what it will lose, by ditching its armor

Commandant Gen. David H. Berger has said that should armor be needed by Marines, he would look to the Army to provide that capability.
www.marinecorpstimes.com www.marinecorpstimes.com

A few serious errors in the article though. For example, Commandant Barrow refused to be bounced into buying the original M1 tank because of its serious flaws and shortcomings, not because he was against tanks. (The M1A1 wasn't available until 1985.)
 
Last edited:
The first question I have with all of this (and the UK's latest Nonsense Paper) is who are we defending?
Taiwan? Ever since Nixon went to China the West has recognised "One China". Bit late to change our minds now?
Vietnam? The Vietnamese have beaten both the US and China in defending their homeland. Not sure what difference we could make.
South Korea? MadJong Un can do this one all on his own with a continuous artiller barrage on Seoul for openers.
Japan? Now we begin to get closer to reality. But surely if we are defending Japan, its back to W Germany in the 80s with a couple of Army Corps and loads of nukes forward based. Not sure the Japanese public would go for this one.
Sorry about the politics but without it you just have a lot of fancy videos and computer games.
 
uk 75 said:
The first question I have with all of this (and the UK's latest Nonsense Paper) is who are we defending?
Taiwan? Ever since Nixon went to China the West has recognised "One China". Bit late to change our minds now?
Vietnam? The Vietnamese have beaten both the US and China in defending their homeland. Not sure what difference we could make.
South Korea? MadJong Un can do this one all on his own with a continuous artiller barrage on Seoul for openers.
Japan? Now we begin to get closer to reality. But surely if we are defending Japan, its back to W Germany in the 80s with a couple of Army Corps and loads of nukes forward based. Not sure the Japanese public would go for this one.
Sorry about the politics but without it you just have a lot of fancy videos and computer games.
Click to expand...
Times change, as do politics. China's assertive behavior is exponentially increasing and has been especially so since the affliction of COVID-19. As they continue on their path forward, their aggressive behavior will prompt neighboring countries to seek stronger defense ties with the United States, which may bring the forward basing of tactical & strategic assets to deter Chinese encroachment.
 
uk 75 said:
The first question I have with all of this (and the UK's latest Nonsense Paper) is who are we defending?
Taiwan? Ever since Nixon went to China the West has recognised "One China". Bit late to change our minds now?
Vietnam? The Vietnamese have beaten both the US and China in defending their homeland. Not sure what difference we could make.
South Korea? MadJong Un can do this one all on his own with a continuous artiller barrage on Seoul for openers.
Japan? Now we begin to get closer to reality. But surely if we are defending Japan, its back to W Germany in the 80s with a couple of Army Corps and loads of nukes forward based. Not sure the Japanese public would go for this one.
Sorry about the politics but without it you just have a lot of fancy videos and computer games.
Click to expand...

The US policy towards Taiwan has always been unambiguous. It is obviously a weird policy, but the US has always underwritten Taiwan's security.

Any warfare in the Western Pacific will be largely a naval fight, along with copious amounts of aircraft and missiles. Outside of Taiwan I can't really see major landing operations by anyone in theater, and even that seems rather far fetched - the PRC can probably achieve its aims with a blockade or bombardment, assuming the US doesn't get involved or is defeated.

Bestest Korea likely wouldn't let the Chinese operate in the DPRK. Its possible the PLAN and PLAAF would want to participate, but IMO not especially likely. Phat Kim could certainly make a mess out of Seoul all on his own, but the Nork's ability to sustain that in the face of US air strikes would probably be pretty thin.

I don't see China having any ability to land in Japan unless the entire USN and JMSDF is on the bottom of the Sea of Japan, so I don't think additional US troops need to be based there under any circumstances.

And I'm all for giving Vietnam whatever maritime support they would like; when I was there got the impression they had a deep rooted cultural hate for the Chinese that far exceeded anything they felt about the US and French.
 
I can see that naval confrontation in various forms between the US and China is possible and probable.
My quarrel is with the idea that (except for South Korea) reinforcement of regional powers by US Army or Marine ground forces will be requested.
Taiwan has large ground forces and may well seek (and get) equipment from the US.
Any US ground presence would be less for war fighting than to act as a tripwire for nuclear escalation.
The flaw in the Taiwan invasion scenario is that Xi is not Putin. He knows that destroying or even damaging Taiwan is contrary to China's interests. Political and economic measures will be his weapon of choice. But the military action rhetoric is essential to keep the PLA/AF/AN on Xi's side.
The build up of military forces is a prestige project rather than a serious warfighting tool.
The modest carrier programme is proof of this. The ships are not a credible threat to any country with numbers of submarines or effective strike aircraft at its disposal. But they are ideal for peacetime shows of China's new presence on the world stage.
China has yet to produce an Admiral Gorshkov.
 
Josh_TN said:
but the US has always underwritten Taiwan's security.
Click to expand...
That must reassure the South Vietnamese a fat lot.
Or the Kurds...

The sad reality is that a commitment from the USA has a credibility not much longer than the next change of administration. Repeatedly and shamelessly so.
 
That’s why the PacFleet should be able to impose such a massive conventional cost for any Chinese aggression that it becomes untenable for them to attack anyone.

The US Navy should have a strike capability that basically says “we will sink your entire Navy if you attack any country”
 
It arguably does. It seems likely that an SSGN is within range of one of the three major PLAN bases most of the time. Despite the old design of the Tomahawk, I suspect ~150 missiles all at once would still be a rather Pearl Harbor-ish moment; only 10% would have to hit major combatants for it to be a very decisive strike. If one were willing, such an attack could be expanded to include the dry docks in Dalian. A strike with a more low observerable missile like AGM-158 would probably have a lot more success. The US would still have to deal with targets at sea as well, though there are an increasing number of capabilities to use in that regard.
 
Josh_TN said:
It arguably does. It seems likely that an SSGN is within range of one of the three major PLAN bases most of the time. Despite the old design of the Tomahawk, I suspect ~150 missiles all at once would still be a rather Pearl Harbor-ish moment; only 10% would have to hit major combatants for it to be a very decisive strike. If one were willing, such an attack could be expanded to include the dry docks in Dalian. A strike with a more low observerable missile like AGM-158 would probably have a lot more success. The US would still have to deal with targets at sea as well, though there are an increasing number of capabilities to use in that regard.
Click to expand...
When the US started expanding and repositioning forces to the pacific there was a paper, it might have been Rand although I can’t find it now, that contemplated a 4000 aim points/a day strike for the first week of full scale operations.
 
bobbymike said:
Josh_TN said:
It arguably does. It seems likely that an SSGN is within range of one of the three major PLAN bases most of the time. Despite the old design of the Tomahawk, I suspect ~150 missiles all at once would still be a rather Pearl Harbor-ish moment; only 10% would have to hit major combatants for it to be a very decisive strike. If one were willing, such an attack could be expanded to include the dry docks in Dalian. A strike with a more low observerable missile like AGM-158 would probably have a lot more success. The US would still have to deal with targets at sea as well, though there are an increasing number of capabilities to use in that regard.
Click to expand...
When the US started expanding and repositioning forces to the pacific there was a paper, it might have been Rand although I can’t find it now, that contemplated a 4000 aim points/a day strike for the first week of full scale operations.
Click to expand...

Do you have that article? That would represent the entire intended AGM-158 inventory in the first day and on the order of four hundred bomber sorties. That doesn't seem to be a remotely realistic, or even necessary, goal.
 
Josh_TN said:
bobbymike said:
Josh_TN said:
It arguably does. It seems likely that an SSGN is within range of one of the three major PLAN bases most of the time. Despite the old design of the Tomahawk, I suspect ~150 missiles all at once would still be a rather Pearl Harbor-ish moment; only 10% would have to hit major combatants for it to be a very decisive strike. If one were willing, such an attack could be expanded to include the dry docks in Dalian. A strike with a more low observerable missile like AGM-158 would probably have a lot more success. The US would still have to deal with targets at sea as well, though there are an increasing number of capabilities to use in that regard.
Click to expand...
When the US started expanding and repositioning forces to the pacific there was a paper, it might have been Rand although I can’t find it now, that contemplated a 4000 aim points/a day strike for the first week of full scale operations.
Click to expand...

Do you have that article? That would represent the entire intended AGM-158 inventory in the first day and on the order of four hundred bomber sorties. That doesn't seem to be a remotely realistic, or even necessary, goal.
Click to expand...
As I said can’t locate it now but will look through my archives
 
Last edited:

Successful test firing last November clears way for USMC to advance development of Chinese ship-killing vehicle​

The Marine Corps last November notched a successful demonstration of the planned Navy and Marine Corps Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System, firing a Naval Strike Missile from a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle in an event that validated the basic design concept and supports continued development of the Remote Operated Ground Unit Expeditionary -- or ROGUE -- vehicle, according to service officials.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom