I don't think we have the capability to make a contested landing. If we needed to capture a port or something we would have to figure out how to do it on the fly, because we don't even train for it.

This is seriously fucked situation. We have no plan and no doctrine. This is supposed to be USMCs primary responsibility.

>>29902055
>This is supposed to be USMCs primary responsibility.

USMC is borderline useless for their intended purpose, this has been known for quite some time. They are little more than a specials mission strike team, more agile than the bloated general Army.

>>29902104
>They are little more than a specials mission strike team
Only if you want them to fuck it up
Currently they are just a second shitty army, guarrenteed to take twice as much casualties as the regular one, and take 3 times as long to do something.

>>29904264
Was it ever different? Whenever you look at WW2 battles, the marines end up taking twice the casualties.

>>29902055
Under what situation is anyone going to make a contested landing?

Look at the D day casualties, and add modern anti ship missiles into the mix.

>>29904290
There were quite a few in Korea

That would probably be the only modern instance of it happening in the future, putting down best korea

>>29904290
Everywhere on D-day went fine, it was only Omaha where the americans fucked up by not having fire support and not bringing tanks

Under what situation is there going to be a place worth landing that ISN'T DEFENDED?

Even if you araen't doing a contested landing, you still need get armored forces ashore asap, get their supplies ashore asap, to defend against the inevitable counter attack.

You can't land cargo ships on a beach, you can't land fuel on a beach(not easily anyways), you are going to need a harbor at the minimum, or more likely a port.

The reason people say "Who is going to do a contested landing?" Is because the marines are fundamentally incapable of it.

I think the marines official attitude on this is literally: MARK MY WORDS WE WILL TAKE THAT BEACH, every single marine I ask about this says the same thing with zero to back it up

>>29904314
Best korea has an assload of missiles, artillery and all kinds of guns. 60s-70s russian and chinese tech isn't going to stop CBG, air campaign or land invasion, but it could certainly make a mess out of anything getting within pissing distance of shore.

Do you think the modern day US public would stomach thousands of dead marines and sailors for the sake of putting down best korea?


>>29904335
Unless you're invading an island, why not just roll in from a neighbour who's friendly or bribable? A land crossing has less challenges than a fucking beach landing.

And I'm not saying D day didn't go fine, I'm saying the modern public wouldn't stand for the casualties. Especially if someone put a shitty missile into a troopship.

>>29904370

Falklands is the prime example.

Argentinians defended a stretch of coast.

So the British simply landed somewhere else.

Rolling up onto a beach against bunkers is as obselete as musket lines.

>>29904392
MORON!: Every beach will be defended in a real shooting war, falklands was an exception held by a marine expeditionary force itself!

>>29904407
In a 'real' shooting war, your invasion fleet will eat a fucking nuke before you get to shore. Failing that, you'll eat every anti ship missile your target has.

Do you think you could get an invasion fleet within fifty miles of china without losing every ship?

Are you perhaps invading australia, bongistan or iceland? Beaches are a shit place to start from.

Reduce the marine corps to a single battalion, for ceremonial duties. Let the army do the fighting, not the navy's army. Certainly not the navy's army's air force.

>>29904370
>Unless you're invading an island, why not just roll in from a neighbour who's friendly or bribable? A land crossing has less challenges than a fucking beach landing.
Wouldn't that lead to issues where the country you used to cross through then becomes the target for retaliation as a military ally?

>>29904537
>>29904370
If that neighbor or ally is stronger than the country you are invading, why aren't they doing the fighting in the first place?

If they are weaker, then your staging point is unsafe/vulnerable to attack.

Another point is amphibious landing allows envelopments/greater maneuvering, see: The inchon landing which cut the best koreans off and destroyed their army.

If we had a practical working marine force that could actually do amphibious operations, they would be used regularly.

>>29904462
no china is not willing to escalate to a nuclear exchange to protect their shoor

yes china cannot sink the fleet before it reaches their shore, they do not have nearly enough assets to LOCATE the fleet let alone get firing solutions for their meme ballistic missile s

you don't know what you are talking about

>>29904335
They brought tanks. Only one made it to shore, and it was soon knocked out.

The rest sank, because they were using DD Shermans with the canvass and frame flotation package, but the seas and the current were heavier than expected. They were aiming for a church steeple, and the current swept them so far past it that they wound up turned sideways into the waves, which rolled them enough to overtop the canvass.

If they'd had Amtracks and Amtanks, it might have been different, but those were all in the Pacific getting ready for the next landing.

>>29904674
You really don't need to locate the fleet per-se.
Just locate where the enemy landed and the fleet won't be far off. It's not the best first-strike weapon, but it doesn't need to be - silos are well protected enough that outside of a nuclear exchange, they can function in a reactionary capacity.

The land forces simply starve without a shipping lane.

>>29905313
Or if they had ask the brits for help & some of their tanks

>>29905368
I'd rather trust floating wrecks in the channel than british tanks.

>>29905367
LOL I like how it went from the fleet being blown up 50 miles away to trying to cut off the sealand AFTER they landed

baaaka bakka desu
by the time we've landed we will have air superiority and be rapidly hunting down any surface search radars and launchers

>>29904674
Yes, this is an excellent and time tested strategy for military success. Assume your enemies are incompetent retards who cannot into technology, logistics or common sense. This will work every times. America has nothing to worry about ever.

>>29905464
The soviet union could not locate carrier groups doing simulated strikes off their northern ports and you think CHINA can???

with what exactly??
I really am not convinced you know what you are talking about

>>29905462
How is the US going to achieve air superiority over china with maybe 3-4 carriers?

They need to buy cheap escort carriers to supplement their numbers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn5v7tEBYn4
Something like this except for fixed wing aircraft.

>>29905462
Let's be real locating a fleet 50 miles off the coastline isn't that hard. I highly doubt you can get within 50 miles to their coastline without having fucking bloggers posting about it on sina or some shit.

Also, I have a hard time understanding how you'll hunt anti-SHIP missiles with the wild weasel doctrine.

>>29905517
China cannot deny airspace with last generation fighters, there is a reason they run all of their field exercises with 'blufor' having air superiority.

>>29905530
anti ship missiles getting their firing solutions from what exactly?
surface search radars = hunted down and destroyed
search aircraft = shot down
satellite constellation = non existent and shot down

Carriers do not get within 50 miles off the shore, F-35c has 390 mile combat radius without tanks, that's over 150,000 square miles of ocean to search

>>29905563
>>29905530
sorry it's actually more like 500,000 square miles of ocean

>>29905484
I'll take "Chinese satellites, radar stations, shore observers, Clinton emails, and common fucking sense" for $500 Alex.

Get your head out of your ass. We're not dealing with the Ming dynasty anymore, you incompetent ignorant inbred shill retard.

>>29905690
>tfw I make more per hour than you and I don't even work

Go back behind your firewall

>>29905690
hahaha you are so fucking dumb
Satellites cannot provide firing solutions, and are all on 100% predictable orbits; you know exactly when they are flying over and they are very easy to fool. plus when they get a point detection via the (tiny) chinese satellite net you are a circle of are to search expanding at 30 knots.

oth radar cannot find a carrier group

and uhhh, clinton emails??
are you retarded
the fleet wont be breaking radio silence let alone emailing their GPS coordinates to Washington jackass

read this:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

>>29904335
The reason why Omaha fucked up wasn't because they brought tanks, virtually everything that could go wrong did. They didn't expect it to be as heavily guarded as it was and they were hardly able to navigate to shore because of rough, choppy seas. Thankfully Pointe du Hoc went well

>>29905368
They asked the Brits for some of their tanks and equipment, which they agreed to provide. It just wasn't ready in time and there wasn't enough of it to make a difference.

>>29905810
A fucking cold war-grade diesel boat embarrassed the hell out of a carrier group:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/04/politics/chinese-submarine-u-s-aircraft-carrier-japan/

The main job of the Chinese navy is to know what's going on in their coastal waters and direct appropriate response.

>>29904283
>US Army
>besides Normandy never had to assault heavily defended positions via Beach landing.
>fighting conscripts on the western front who surrender en masse.

>US Marines
>Had to fight fanatics who would ALWAYS fight to the last man.
>Battling an enemy who used asymmetrical warfare in conditions similar to Vietnam.
>had to make multiple Beach landings agaisnt heavily defended dug in positions.

gee I wonder why Marines sustained more casualties...

>>29905865
operations in peacetime are nothing like wartime

>>29905865
A sub vectored out to find us has to have some idea of where to look. If the CV has freedom to operate it can avoid contact by "random and dynamic" movement. Only if the CV locks itself to a set operational area and pattern (as in most structured exercises which lends itself to the prevailing myth of submarine superiority) does it become predictable and hence, vulnerable. If the CV moves it forces the sub to move to catch it, thereby making the sub more detectable. Of course, one could run over the sub by accident in which case it falls to CV group number two to take up the fight! Such is war.

>>29905940
Or it could use active sonar and actual ASW.
They don't do that shit in peacetime exercises, nor would they announce that they spotted the sub either.

>>29905972
this too

We're getting a little sidetracked here gentlemen.

The OP thesis was that the USMC can't do a contested amphibious assault right now because we don't train for it.

If we needed to capture a port we don't actually know how to do it. We don't have the training or doctrine or equipment.

Bold Alligator is the yearly "amphibious landing" song and dance exercise USMC does. They assume perfect communications, no landmines, no AA etc, basically it's a joke.

What say you about this situation /k/?

>>29902104
>>29904264
muhreens are pretty much the equivalent to the waffen ss

Brainwashed to fuck about muh corp
Muh "elite" training everyman a rifleman (I'm basically a ranger, etc)
Muh political arm of the US tasked with protecting the president
Take heavy losses in every engagement
Tons of media coverage in films (i.e. propaganda)
Outdated to fuck equipment because muh traditions (war on terror has sort of debunked this tho since all the old shit broke or got btfo in iraq so they have some pretty modern shit these days)

>>29905563
>satellite constellation = non existent and shot down
In a Taiwan war? Or a similar scenario? I doubt it.
Shooting down satellites would be a political decision. I doubt any President would risk that sort of escalation.

>>29906242
If china is mobilizing and invading Taiwan then that war is pretty fucking escalated

>>29906301
It would still be a stupid precedent for the US to set, considering how much more reliant they are on satellites and how China has already tested an anti-satellite weapon. A Kessler syndrome event would be almost as damaging as an EMP in terms of disrupting day-to-day life and military functionality.

>>29906242
probably not in a Taiwan war, but the chinese satellite net is smaller and less capable than what we faced with the soviets so its not really an issue

>>29906301
>If china is mobilizing and invading Taiwan then that war is pretty fucking escalated
Agreed. But that war would still be confined to a single theater against a country (Taiwan) that the US doesn't even officially recognize. It would be a big deal, but not WWIII.

Shooting down PRC satellites would expand the scope of the war from regional to global. It would open up our own satellites to retaliation. And it would force questions about the extent of the conflict.

Would forces outside of the Pacific be "fair game"? How about targets within each country's interior? Would neutrals be forced to choose a side?

Plus it would blind the Chinese early launch warning systems. That would be bad. By MAD logic, we want them to see that we're not about to start a nuclear war.

TL;DR
Anti-sat weapons are too politically risky during a limited war.

>>29906461
Depends if its a pussy democrat president or an alpha male Donald Trump president

>>29905882
I'm pretty sure this is bait but the US Army did most of the fighting and naval landings in the Pacific.

>>29906461
Shooting down satellites would only happen during a major war, would probably even drop nukes before we risk cluttering space with debris

Destroying a satellite causes to much junk which will cause damage to your own satellites basically friendly firing on yourself. anything in low earth orbit would eventually get shredded, high orbit system and gps probably wouldn't be affected tho (don't know which satellites systems are limited to low and high orbits)

But then again what do I know, I'm just a anon with a HS diploma who shit posts on the Internet and watched gravity a few times.

I think it's reasonable that if the US loses a carrier they will start dropping space assets, but before then it's all gravy

>>29905882
Tell that to the 20 some US Army Divisions that operated in the Pacific. They did most of the fighting and landings

>>29906618
America is never going to attack a nation armed with nothing more than ak47s and rusty 1970's slav hardware.

The last superpower America fought was against the crown in the revolutionary war, WWI was wasn't total commitment and WWII was already over when our boys got their feet wet in Normandy, we were just land grabbing to keep all of Europe from becoming the ussr

>>29906691
idiot

>>29906691
It was the US who promised & insisted on half of europe going to the USSR
They were not "Grabbing land", they were taking land given to them by that commie traitor FDR & his commie friends

>>29906834
wrong you're stupid and miss informed

>>29906861
Nope
FDR gave stalin everything he asked for/wanted at Yalta
Then he proceded to give much more, because he was a commie piece of shit

>>29900494
"Bold Alligator"

Lol, yeah it was a joke. Half the guys in my division went out on that. It was literally one big kegger for everyone involved, also there was some training, but mostly partying.

>>29906571
Tfw my uncle was a MUHREEN that convinced himself that all the MUHREENS propaganda was real
I told him this, he refused to believe it

>>29906908
nope nope nope
the deal was for independent but soviet aligned nations

>>29906935
FDR was well aware that Stalin was going to annex territory & install jewish puppet governments.
Well aware of Soviet atrocities, well aware that Stalins promises were lies.

They agreed to deport all soviet "citizens" back to the USSR, they ended up deporting far more, including many people who were slavs but had never lived in the USSR.

Most importantly in no part was there any talk about how to enforce these agreements, hence they are meaningless.

>>29906922
This is pretty embarrassing for the Corps desu senpai. USMC is trying to become a second air force except smaller and shittier. They should refocus on amphibious assaults and high end warfare not this COIN faggotry. What are they even doing in the fucking desert

Can't wait til they surplus those things. That would make an awesome moose hunting rig.