Marines want to move troops to Afghanistan?

[phrogpilot73]

BUT: who has the better bag of Helo's for high altitude operations? Marines or Army?? I don't know -- I'm asking the experts herein ....

As much as it pains me to say it, I'd say that the Army has better helos for high altitude.

The CH-47 is obviously preferable, because it's got the god-awful power combined with a tandem rotor design (no concern about loss of tail rotor effectiveness). The CH-46 has the tandem rotor design going for it, but no power (you'd be able to lift a handful of dudes/cargo to that altitude). The CH-53E has no qualms going up that high, but they'd be more concerned about winds, etc...

Throw tilt rotors into the mix, and I'm not sure. I can't comment to the V-22's performance at altitude when in a hover. I'm assuming it's good - but I'll defer to phrogdriver on that one.

However, the best high-altitude helo has to be the Eurocopter AS-350.

 

[KBayDog]

However, the best high-altitude helo has to be the Eurocopter AS-350.

SICK.

 

[Brett327]

Two-wars policy justifies two "armies," no?

The "two wars" doctrine went out the window during the first months of Rumsfeld's tenure - unfortunately.

Brett

 

[invertedflyer]

IMO a complete theatre shift for the bulk of the Marines' forces would be a mistake. Iraq needs the expertise and capabilities provided by Marine Infantry and supporting units. I just don't believe it would be wise to fully commit the entire force to one theatre, when services are probably just as valauable (if not more) to Iraq. Al-Qaeda in Iraq must be at least an equal problem and threat.

With regard to Afghanistan, however, I believe the Marines capable of handling this type of mission. Naturally, this is also my opinion. A Marine unit is designed to be self-sustaining, with its own logistical train and air support. I'm not saying anything new here, just supporting my point. I do agree with phrogpilot's point that they would require NATO support, and add that they may also require Navy support for logistical purposes. I'm sure support from the Air Force (with regard to supply) would also be requisite to conducting combat operations. I'm not sure if the KC-130s could handle all of the air-supply operations, can anyone chime in on that?


Again, I think the Marines' skills are needed in both theatres, although I do agree that Operation Enduring Freedom is an operation with much more public support. I would also agree that there could be an increase of the Marine contingent in Afghanistan, as there are relatively few there now, their capabilities are needed. So I WOULD be for a partial movement of troops to Afghanistan, maybe 5,000 or so as in previous Afghanistan deployments.

/2c

 

[HH-60H]

IMO a complete theatre shift for the bulk of the Marines' forces would be a mistake. Iraq needs the expertise and capabilities provided by Marine Infantry and supporting units. I just don't believe it would be wise to fully commit the entire force to one theatre, when services are probably just as valauable (if not more) to Iraq. Al-Qaeda in Iraq must be at least an equal problem and threat

Without getting into a which service is better arguement.... What expertise and capabilities does a Marine Infantry Division have that an Army one does not? I would guess the amphibious capability, but beyond that I don't see what it could be.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Without getting into a which service is better arguement.... What expertise and capabilities does a Marine Infantry Division have that an Army one does not? I would guess the amphibious capability, but beyond that I don't see what it could be.

The Marine Corps expertise that surpasses the Army is in the conduct of a counter-insurgency campaign. The Marine Corps wrote a manual many years ago called "The Small Wars Manual", some of it is outdated (it talks about how to properly load out a pack mule) but most of it is still valid. The Marine Corps dusts it off every year or so to make sure that they're still validity in it. That combined with the fact that it's a smaller service, so they can more readily adapt new TTPs is their strength in these theatres.

 

[invertedflyer]

^^ To add on to what phrog is saying with the Small Wars Manual. The Marines is a more "unconventional" force if you will. They are smaller, more mobile, and use tactics and doctrine specifically geared towards small unit leadership, as well as fighting an insurgency. I'm not saying that the Army doesn't have such training, just that I know for a fact the Marine Corps. puts a huge emphasis on it. My unit has received a couple training syllabuses geared specifically towards SASO (Stability and Support Operations) that deal primarily with learning Iraqi customs and lanugage, as well as searching and dealing with the local populace (as well as patrolling techniques, IED classes, etc.). The week long exercise was set up to prepare all Reserve units for deployments to Iraq and was complete with Iraqi role players, a tribal council, Iraqi police, news crews, etc. etc. It basically tried to incorporate every element of the environment in Iraq. Since then they've shut down that place, but have opened a new facility in 29 palms that is much larger and more complex, giving Marines an even better training environment. Many Infantry Units/MEUs are also special operations capable, a distinction that would only be held by the Army's SF community, not their line Infantry Battalions.

I guess my basic stance is that Marine units seem to have more specialized training geared towards a specific kind of conflict (IE Anti-Insurgent operations). I saw a documentary that covered a similar Army training syllabus set up for their Guard units... it just didn't seem as specialized and multi-faceted as the things I've seen on the Marine side. Just my observations (which or limited)... I can't base a whole argument off of one Army documentary.

 

[gaijin6423]

I would argue that the proper way to pack a mule is not such an outdated skill. If I were going into terrain too rough for trucks, I think it would be a viable option to take more gear than I could carry on my back. Sure, after grazing lands run out, you have to have enough feed on hand for pack animals, but if one breaks down, you can always eat it.

In all reality, will I take a DASC-type loadout into the field on mules? Hell no. But would some spec-ops snake eater pack his stuff on a mule and go upcountry? Could be.

I agree, however, that the Marines have the potential to be much better at more conventional counter-insurgency operations, mainly due to our expeditionary mindset and previous [historical] experiences in this area.

edit: While MEUs are technically Special Operations Capable (SOC), that designation has changed slightly with the advent of the Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC). True, the MEU as a whole must still pass certification tests from SOTG, but the name officially changes to MEU(SOC) when the MARSOC Company assigned to it officially attaches.

 

[A4sForever]

I would argue that the proper way to pack a mule is not such an outdated skill.....

Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses ....

According to some of the boys from ODA *** (Nous Defions) that I hauled back and forth to a "country on the Pacific Rim" ... we have been using horses and pack mules "in country" for quite a few years. Not a lost art at all ....

 

[phrogpilot73]

edit: While MEUs are technically Special Operations Capable (SOC), that designation has changed slightly with the advent of the Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC). True, the MEU as a whole must still pass certification tests from SOTG, but the name officially changes to MEU(SOC) when the MARSOC Company assigned to it officially attaches.

So you mean to tell me that it's only the MARSOC Company that bring "Special Operations" to the fight? Good luck doing VBSS without the ACE, fucknuts. I hate Force. ESPECIALLY after my MEU, and I got a chance to be a FAC for them a couple of times.

 

[gaijin6423]

Wasn't implying that at all, just that there's a new administrative change to the status. The MEU as a whole could not complete any of it's big tasks without the help of all its components, and I think the powers that be probably only agreed to this change as part of the baggage that comes along with SOCOM. But that's way above my paygrade, so what do I know. And Force is (technically) gone , as they've been rolled into MARSOC.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Wasn't implying that at all, just that there's a new administrative change to the status. The MEU as a whole could not complete any of it's big tasks without the help of all its components, and I think the powers that be probably only agreed to this change as part of the baggage that comes along with SOCOM. But that's way above my paygrade, so what do I know. And Force is (technically) gone , as they've been rolled into MARSOC.

Yeah, I know that it's above your paygrade - and I hope I didn't come off that you were implying anything. I just think it's BS, especially since Force, now MARSOC already has big heads. Hey, let's give them BIGGER heads...

 

[gaijin6423]

No, didn't think you were implying anything. But I do understand what you mean about Force/MARSOC and their collective ego. And they really don't need to be inflated any more, although there are quite a few consumate professionals in the community.

 

[E5B]

As much as it pains me to say it, I'd say that the Army has better helos for high altitude.

The CH-47 is obviously preferable, because it's got the god-awful power combined with a tandem rotor design (no concern about loss of tail rotor effectiveness). The CH-46 has the tandem rotor design going for it, but no power (you'd be able to lift a handful of dudes/cargo to that altitude). The CH-53E has no qualms going up that high, but they'd be more concerned about winds, etc...

Being a shitter guy I'm going to have to jump in on this one. 53E vs 47 is an interesting discussion. CH-53E's max load (external or internal) is 32K while a CH-47's is around 20K. At sea level a shitter will out lift a chinook everyday but altitude is a different story. It has noting to do with winds or the tandem rotor design but more the case of engines. The chinooks engines maintain more of the power at altitude while the shitter looses more of it's power. It's debatable whether the chinook can outlift the shitter at altitude but what isn't debatable is the shitters power margin is greatly reduced at altitude. For the shitter guys who are in denial this brief came PMA-261. The reason it's a hot topic is because of the Kilo and finding an engine that will maintain 'more' of it's power at altitude. Both are great aircraft and have proven that there will always be a need for heavy lift.

Just as interesting is the Medium lift discussion: 60 vs 46

Back on the topic of altitude: talk about lack of power, the Huey has power problems as it is and I can't imagine the pain those guys go through at altitude.

 

[bobbybrock]

.

The 60 does a pretty good job up to certain altitudes. My guard unit has done some OGE hoist rescues as high as 12500. The problem with some of our sixties is there equipment load. The exra power is basically marginalized ( think 160th)
Externally the L model can handle 9000. The A model 8000. I'm not sure what a 46 can handle but I've heard 5000. The max gross on a 60 is 22,000 and take off weight is usaully in the area of 15500.