Marines aim to avoid postwar identity crisis

[phrogdriver]

Obviously the Army has made big strides in becoming more mobile since Desert Shield/Storm. The asset the Navy/Marine Corps brings is the lack of a need for a friendly staging area. The Army needs a friendly airfield to land its forces. The Marine Corps can come in from the sea, without outside support. While it's become fashionable to state that we will never do another opposed amphibious assault, even that doesn't eliminate the need to operate independently from the sea. While we may never storm a beach like Iwo Jima, or even like Inchon, there are many places where we're no going to be allowed to set up camps and airfields ashore. This is where the Marine Corps should continue to be the force of choice.

 

[MasterBates]

And when we have to go to China, the Marines can cripple their infantry by stealing all their bicycles.

 

[pourts]

Expeditionary =/= Amphibious

"Words mean things, good to go!" -Every TBS instructor ever

 

[pourts]

And when we have to go to China, the Marines can cripple their infantry by stealing all their bicycles.

Funny you should mention that. Lots of articles in the Gazette about how to return the Corps back to true LIGHT infantry. One mentioned using bicycles to help with resupply for smaller units. I don't totally support it, but its an interesting thought.

 

[KBayDog]

Expeditionary =/= Amphibious

"Words mean things, good to go!" -Every TBS instructor ever

Words do mean things, but "orientate" doesn't mean anything... nor does "ooh rah," "yut," or any of the myriad of other kool-aid promoting words they either use incorrectly...or, more often than not, just plain make up.

Good to go?

(Man, I hate that place...)

 

[SWACQ]

Expeditionary =/= Amphibious

And your point is?

 

[pourts]

And your point is?

Some of the earlier comments were using the terms interchangeably. Lots of teeth were knashed in reference to the loss of the well-deck.

I was just pointing out that the Corps can still be expeditionary without being amphibious. More importantly, what truly makes us expeditionary is not just a few amtracs here and there, but doctrine, logistics, and other weapons and material that have nothing to do with splashing around on the beach.

Don't get me wrong, I think the amphibious capability is important. It is quite ignorant (cue South Park episode with Mr. Jefferson) when people say "We'll never do an amphibious landing again, technology has changed too much." Technology may change and shift the balance, but amphibious ops will always be a tool in the tool kit. The development of the machine gun in WWI didn't prevent armies from ever going on the offensive again. Quite the opposite, it led to invention of the tank, the development of Blitzkrieg tactics, and the reorientation of infantry into Stosstrupps or squads with a variety of weapons (rather than a whole division of infantry with the same exact rifle charging across no man's land).