M14 Forum banner

21 - 40 of 73 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,750 Posts
Most certainly, with the qualification that we have as much time to prepare as we did then. Having done it once before, we could do it again. Biggest drawback today is the physical and mental conditioning of citizens that have not had a reason to believe in a country that has allowed them the freedom to do nothing. If need be, even that could change in a hurry.

Viva America
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,890 Posts
In my opinion, considering the number of nation with nuclear capabilities, a WW conflict would soon escalate to a point where landing troops on any beach or airport would be the least of our problem.
One big factor is that you wouldn't have 2-3 years to build up troops and logistical support on England before the invasion. Your log base would be nuked quite promptly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Yes we can land troops and equipment on an unopposed beach. The question would be how many and are the sea lanes contested? We can't fight a two front war anymore, we gave up that capability. Much of our sealift assets are gone too. The ability to rapidly replace landing assets is gone too. How many shipyards remain in the U.S.? During WW2 LSTs were being built inland on rivers and motored to the open sea. I doubt the capability to do the modern equivalent of the LST in dispersed industrial sites with the ability to rapidly scale up production exists even if the country went on a total war footing. The country started to go on a war footing in 1940 and we invaded North Africa in 1942. Could we mount a North Africa type campaign now with a two year heads-u[p while fighting a holding action on the other side of the world? Mix in industrial sabotage via computer hacking that the U.S. didn't have to contend with in 1942 and things would be very, very interesting. I hope we never have to find out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,766 Posts
The last major amphibious landing in a major war was back in 1950. Operation Chromite.

....such large scale offensive landings including D-Day will likely never be repeated against a major military power in the 21st century. (Small-scale uncontested amphibious assault against Somalia or the Falkland Islands? Yes? Against the territory of China, North Korea or Russia? Not happening). Today’s aerial and satellite-based surveillance capabilities would preclude hundreds of ships from massing into formation for such an event, and hostilities would take place at sea way before troops could get close to land. Doesn’t make sense to ask about mid-20th century warfare in the context of 21st century military capabilities (GPS, drones & spy satellites = no element of surprise).

Russia and China have little interest in fighting a Kinetic war with the USA - they want to degrade or destroy us from within. Indeed, Asymmetrical and cyber warfare are the key issues. (Think cyber-based influence campaigns/social engineering attacks, cyber attacks against critical infrastructure: election events and energy-related production and distribution assets, etc). Don’t waste one’s time pontificating about the likelihood of past events such as a D-Day invasion, except to honor the old soldiers of that conflict. Focusing on the future nature of asymmetrical conflict and the need for resiliency is a better use of one’s time. My 2cts.
 

·
Civilian Non-Combatant
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Yeah . . .the question in the OP was intended to be limited in scope to whether or not the vehicles we have (new or old) are capable of landing troops ashore from a few miles away in the sea states existing at Normandy on June 6th, 1944.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
906 Posts
Let's not forget that the U.S. was THE manufacturing super power during WW2. We sent equipment to all of our allies. There were 102 nations fighting against Germany and even then, the success of D Day was in question. Today, virtually everything is outsourced, with much of it coming from China. Rich or very well to do people are given a lot of ways out of serving as well. The laziness of todays generation can not be underestimated. Pre WW2, people were standing in line to get a job, today, employers have a tough time finding people who actually want to work.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,722 Posts
The last major amphibious landing in a major war was back in 1950. Operation Chromite.

....such landings including D-Day will likely never be repeated against a major military power in the 21st century. (Uncontested Amphibious assault against Somalia or the Falkland Islands? Yes? Against China, North Korea or Russia? Not happening). Today’s aerial and surveillance capabilities would preclude hundreds of ships from massing into formation for such an event, and hostilities would take place at sea way before troops could got close to land. Doesn’t make sense to ask about mid-20th century warfare in the context of 21st century military capabilities.

Russia and China have little interest in fighting a Kinetic war with the USA - they want to degrade or destroy us from within. Indeed, Asymmetrical and cyber warfare are the key issues. (Think cyber-based influence campaigns/social engineering attacks, cyber attacks against critical infrastructure: election process and energy-related production and distribution assets). Don’t waste ones time pontificating about the likelihood of past events such as D-Day invasion, except to honor the old soldiers of that conflict. Focusing on the future nature of asymmetrical conflict and the need for resiliency is a better use of ones time. My 2cts.
This is spot on.

MORE THAN A HOBBY, A PASSION!

REN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,766 Posts
Thanks Ren. Re-reading the OP’s technical question about amphibious landing capability in rough seas, here’s the requirments of the newest USMC amphibious assault vehicle:


The ACV must be able to self-deploy from an amphibious assault ship at least 12 miles from shore with 17 Marines aboard. It has to be able to travel 8 knots or faster through seas with waves up to three feet. The vehicle was to be operational between 2020 and 2022, with 573 vehicles planned to be procured
...so anything greater than 3 foot waves would presumably cause the mission to be delayed until sea conditions improved. D-Day was of course delayed several times due to cloud cover, but today’s military aircraft don’t have that operating constraint. Rough seas are still an issue.

Again, I don’t expect any more large scale amphibious assaults against a major military force that controls the coast line, as the element of surprise simply doesn’t exist to allow for a successful mission given today’s space-based military surveillance capabilities - unlike 1944 or 1950...where the level of subterfuge to create the element of surprise was a key factor for success. My 2cts.

Pics from late 1992 USMC amphibious landing at Somalia, which was basically uncontested beach, and thus mostly a show of force, rather than an application of force:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,757 Posts
Regardless of the ability of the equipment to do the job, the tactics have changed so drastically that I doubt that large amphibious landing would ever be necessary. The preferred way to make any kind of ground assault is to take advantage of our air assets. Nowadays setting up a seaward boundary would be a waste of time without having total control of the air.

If a nation were to hold Europe like the Germans did in WWII then we'd just take possession of a good area via airborne troops and create a forward air base that would then get reinforced with ground troops and expanded as necessary. I imagine that if we had today's capability in 1944 we'd have just landed troops in a half dozen areas around France and started reinforcing them. An amphibious capability would only be used to enhance the movement of supplies and fresh troops after the forward sites took enough territory. Today's tactical techniques emphasize preparing the battlefield through air assets, control of communications, training and preparation of indigenous rebels, etc.. When we make an attack on a large force we don't move on a small scale, we involve so much area that the enemy is hard pressed to defend it all and then we use our air assets to take advantage of weak points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,356 Posts
During the first Gulf War, my dad was still active duty recruiter/retention. Many times after one of his units was activated he would tell me about all the soldiers that came to him and tried to get out of deployment. Many different reasons were given but the most common that I remember was that "they didn't join to go to war, but for free college". And this was 30 years ago. No way in my opinion would this generation step up.
This isn't a new phenomena, not the I didn't sign up to go to war, but not wanting to be sent into a war zone. This was quite common during the Vietnam years. In fact the Army use to say, if you don't excel in class we will get you orders for Vietnam. I had a drill instructor in basic training who was quite unhappy to get orders for Vietnam. A secretary in my section received a lot of attention when she reveled that she was able to get her fiancé, who was an officer, Vietnam orders revoked. When asked how she was able to do that, she replied, my daddy works in the Pentagon. No one knew.

Someone else said that draftees wouldn't serve. Again in the Vietnam era, many fled to Canada. I had a friend who did just that. Many found doctors who were willing to falsify their medical records. Many joined the Reserves or National Guard in hopes of avoiding Vietnam. Then there were those who were given the option to go to jail or go into the military. I knew a few of those guys. One was a friend. As a draftee myself I and many others stepped up to the plate and did our job. Half of the guys in my MOS were draftees. We worked hard.

I don't worry. When it comes time to play they'll put their game face on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,812 Posts
Keep the AC on in the drone control bunkers and they can get it done without breaking a sweat. Just depends on what you are willing to drop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
Went through the Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare School in Little Creek, VA back in 1989 I believe. Yes active duty Army Infantry units went through this Marine Corps school believe it or not.
My point is in doing the beach assaults from landing craft, which is what we were doing, besides staying aboard troop ships, boarding and unboarding utilizing wide net rope ladders. The average life expectancy was a mere seven seconds if you made it onto the beach! Talk about changing your outlook on beach assaults!
The respect I have for these men on D Day and the Marines across the Pacific is beyond words. Could we do an invasion such as this again, in my opinion no, but the art of warfare has changed since WWII drastically as already pointed out. Just my two cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,089 Posts
To the exact question: "Could the US, British and Canadian Armies perform Operation Neptune, as planned, today?"

No, the British and Canadian Armies don't have four mechanized divisions between the two of them.

To the more general question: "Could the US, Canadian and British Forces perform an amphibious landing against a potential enemy?"

Yes, but it wouldn't look anything like Operation Neptune.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,138 Posts
"Can't we park closer?"

"You mean I have to get my feet wet?"

"A beach? Do I need sunscreen?"

"Is there a Starbucks once we land?"

"How is the cell service?"

"Where are we going again?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
This is a great post by the OP and a fun topic. Enjoying reading all the responses. To all the posters taking a dump on millennials, gen x, gen y, etc., how about we place the blame where it really belongs, and that's the parents of these generations, starting with the so-called "greatest generation" that raised the Baby Boomers? Of course, it's the baby boomers that have done by far the most damage to our nation and our military. And it's the baby boomers that raised all the losers some of you guys are complaining about.

I respect the hell out of the generation that won WWII, but they raised a lot of lame kids. Younger generations are left to deal with all the garbage the Boomers created.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,766 Posts
I don't adhere to the kids now a days philosophy. These kids have been fighting a 20 year war. They did all right. Next gen will too.
I also don't see the point of the older generation denigrating the service of the younger generation. Yes there are more Vietnam vets due to the draft of the 1960s, but 3.3 million Americans have served since 9/11, and 2.7 million have been deployed, often on multiple tours to some rather awful places...

452050


...this thread was supposed to be about amphibious operations and capabilities, right?
 
21 - 40 of 73 Posts
Top