Posted on 01/25/2011 11:00:37 PM PST by pissant
Lotsa idiots were saying tanks were beyond their usefulness too. So damn wrong as to be hilarious.
I guess its a good thing all countries are landlocked. We can get rid of the Navy too.
I went to Airborne School in 1988. At the time, some folks were telling me the days of the mass tactical parachute drop were over. Within a year, members of the XVIII Airborne Corps, 82nd Aiborne Division and 75th Ranger Regiment were falling out of the sky over Panama.
Shortly thereafter some other people "in the know" were telling me that the days of the mass armor assault and main battle tank were over, that attack helicopters and ATGMs had made them obsolete. Not too long after that, divisions of Abrams and Challengers were rolling across the desert into Kuwait.
Anytime people state that a mode of waging battle is outdated or obsolete, I just figure they are trying to sound more visionary than they really are.
Panama could of been taken with a SF company, or even some old school Naval officers and cash. Everybody wanted in on the party to the point of clusterism.
The Marines have spent maybe hundreds of billions on amphib warfare. Meanwhile the biggest killer is what the Generals, Colonels, think tanks didn’t spend a dime on. Mines. IEDs.
I’m of the school of study what kills you and what kills them. The rest is romantic baggage.
In Afghanistan SF used horses and mules. I suppose we shouldn’t of gotten rid of horse calvary in the ‘30’s.
Gee, a river crossing. Well then, that settles it. No military has ever been able to cross, forge, bridge, fly over a river before.
How many? 2.6766%? 19%? Really, how many? I kind of doubt that.
Didn’t say the haven’t, didn’t say the couldn’t.
The poster said they had “no practical use”.
The Marines crossing that river in Baghdad, in order to maintain/gain the upper hand would beg to differ I wager.
Reads like the vast majority went 80%, maybe more went over on air, captured and built bridges. I didn’t read any strategic need to float cross, other then they could and it kept everything tidy.
So, that was the vaunted conformation of Marine amphib need.
Meh.
These two stalwart Marines had confirmed the only viable crossing site along miles of river line. This site would soon be exploited by RCT- 1 to open a second advance on Baghdad.
As the AAVs splashed across the river, they captured a prisoner who gave an indication why resistance had faltered, "when we saw the 'tanks 'floating across the river, we knew we could not win against the Americans." The amphibious capabilities of the Marines were breaking the enemy's will and winning battles almost 600 km from the sea.
Sounds like the Marines think a bit differently about "keeping everything tidy".
I'm not arguing whether there is a "need" or not, the argument was posited that there was no "practical use" for the amphibs. This river crossing demonstrated that there was a "practical use".
Thanks for the read btw, very interesting and compelling, I appreciate it.
The only thing Marines are scared of is being swallowed into the Army. So, they hang on to their amphib no matter what. Any use anywhere is going to be exploited by higher staff.
I don’t even know if we should believe what a supposed single poor scruffy Iraqi said. What, did he go on national TV and tell everyone? It sounds a little too good.
That article was just about the Marines entering Bahgdad, I don’t know how many other crossings by the Army there were, and total crossing across all of Iraq. The float crossing, albeit dramatic, wasn’t critical, either in Baghdad,or the invasion.
Yeah, that navy has been virtually useless for Afghanistan and Iraq. Buy a clue.
Don’t be an idiot.
You can’t even follow the conversation.
Try reading the headline of the post dummy.
Gee, hard to imagine a line of conversation could possibly shift focus from a thread title. This must be a first.
Ok, pictures of the beach landing in Kosovo will do.
During the Persian Gulf War, a large amphibious assault force, composed of USMC and naval support, was positioned off the coast of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This force was composed of 40 amphibious assault ships, the largest such force to be assembled since the Battle of Inchon. The objective was to fix the six Iraqi divisions deployed along the Kuwaiti coast. The purpose behind this amphibious maneuver (known as an amphibious demonstration) was to prevent 6 Iraqi divisions poised for the defense of the littorals from being able to actively engage in combat at the real front. The operation was extremely successful in keeping more than 41,000 Iraqi forces from repositioning to the main battlefield. As a result, the Marines maneuvered through the Iraq defense of southern Kuwait and outflanked the Iraqi coastal defense forces.
Yes, not used but a billion dollar feint. So some balloons and card board cut outs would have done the job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.