Note: The work is worthy but I can't help but think that some of those Royal Marines will catch Ebola. From these pics it looks like an absolute certainty.
does the UMSC really need and AAV/ACV... why not just use a variety of small boats to conduct an amphibious landing? We are not going to be facing d-day style landings, they are a thing of the past. Seem to me that small boats can be used to secure a small beach head and then LCACs can bring in LAVs/MPC/Tanks/Trucks to continue the find inland. On another note have MEU brought back Boat Companies yet? if the USMC wants to get back to its amphibious routes then it needs to take back the Riverine mission from the navy... Never should have given that up
you do know that if you go with small boats or sometype of modernized LCP then you're gonna be completely foot mobile until the beach head is secured for the assault follow on force. the main reason for being (at least as far as i know) is that the ability to hit the beach and immediately move to the objective was the thinking behind the canceled EFV and the still baking ACV.
as far as the riverine mission you're spot on in my opinion. that was real short sighted to let it go...and i'm not sure about the Navy really being enthused about the mission. i don't know about boat companies. i'll dig and find out.
Marine raiders used small boats throughout WW2. The amtracs and Higgins boats main force Marnies weren't very well protected either. But where an AAV shines is follow up to the invasion. The worst battles the Marines had in the Pacific (arguably Iwo Jima and Okinawa) had nearly unopposed landings compared to earlier battles. it is when they found out the Japanese were dug in like ticks that the casualties began to mount. They would have dearly loved our 40 year old AAV's back then.
I'm sure they would have loved any armored vehicle that could swim a little. As for landing an then immediately advancing to the objective. I've seen AAV's land and secured a beach and LCACs arrive moments later to off load LAVs and tanks who then roll right on to the objective. While leaving track company to play in the sand and wait to get orders. (This being back in 2008 as part of a work up for the 22nd MEU SOC) Our current doctrine needs to evolve... what kind of opposition do you think we will face in the future when conducting amphibious landings/assaults? Given the advancement in bombing campaigns and ship to shore missiles.
CMC some time back decided the USMC does not need boat companies. NECC specifically the Coastal Riverine Force has taken over the riverine combat mission. While the Marines still operate small boats on rivers, the Navy boats with weapons are in the CRF force structure (RAS, RPB, CCB).
As for raiding from offshore, the MRF has 11 meter RHIBs. And there are plenty of Fast Landing Craft like the RN Mk5 LCVP which could be bought, if the USN and USMC could agree there was even a rqmt for those?!
does the UMSC really need and AAV/ACV... why not just use a variety of small boats to conduct an amphibious landing? We are not going to be facing d-day style landings, they are a thing of the past. Seem to me that small boats can be used to secure a small beach head and then LCACs can bring in LAVs/MPC/Tanks/Trucks to continue the find inland. On another note have MEU brought back Boat Companies yet? if the USMC wants to get back to its amphibious routes then it needs to take back the Riverine mission from the navy... Never should have given that up
ReplyDeleteyou do know that if you go with small boats or sometype of modernized LCP then you're gonna be completely foot mobile until the beach head is secured for the assault follow on force. the main reason for being (at least as far as i know) is that the ability to hit the beach and immediately move to the objective was the thinking behind the canceled EFV and the still baking ACV.
Deleteas far as the riverine mission you're spot on in my opinion. that was real short sighted to let it go...and i'm not sure about the Navy really being enthused about the mission. i don't know about boat companies. i'll dig and find out.
Marine raiders used small boats throughout WW2. The amtracs and Higgins boats main force Marnies weren't very well protected either. But where an AAV shines is follow up to the invasion. The worst battles the Marines had in the Pacific (arguably Iwo Jima and Okinawa) had nearly unopposed landings compared to earlier battles. it is when they found out the Japanese were dug in like ticks that the casualties began to mount. They would have dearly loved our 40 year old AAV's back then.
DeleteI'm sure they would have loved any armored vehicle that could swim a little. As for landing an then immediately advancing to the objective. I've seen AAV's land and secured a beach and LCACs arrive moments later to off load LAVs and tanks who then roll right on to the objective. While leaving track company to play in the sand and wait to get orders. (This being back in 2008 as part of a work up for the 22nd MEU SOC) Our current doctrine needs to evolve... what kind of opposition do you think we will face in the future when conducting amphibious landings/assaults? Given the advancement in bombing campaigns and ship to shore missiles.
DeleteCMC some time back decided the USMC does not need boat companies. NECC specifically the Coastal Riverine Force has taken over the riverine combat mission. While the Marines still operate small boats on rivers, the Navy boats with weapons are in the CRF force structure (RAS, RPB, CCB).
DeleteAs for raiding from offshore, the MRF has 11 meter RHIBs. And there are plenty of Fast Landing Craft like the RN Mk5 LCVP which could be bought, if the USN and USMC could agree there was even a rqmt for those?!
Yep.
ReplyDeleteLast I read the plan was 3000 men to enforce quarentene.
Unless they are shooting on sight, someone is going to get very dead.
Those Royal Marines are not armed?
ReplyDeleteWhy would they be armed?
Delete