Thanks Thanks:  24
Likes Likes:  83
Dislikes Dislikes:  6
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 126
  1. #76
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,785
    Post Thanks / Like
    So we have gone from frigates, to LPDs, to a Marine Corps!

  2. Thanks apod thanked for this post
  3. #77
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,937
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    So we have gone from frigates, to LPDs, to a Marine Corps!
    Don't forget the NS air wing.

  4. Likes DeV, apod liked this post
  5. #78
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    705
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    So we have gone from frigates, to LPDs, to a Marine Corps!
    It's a topic of a few military forces

    http://www.navy.mil.nz/nap/news/2012...task-force.htm

    http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/news...-capabilities/

    http://www.marina.difesa.it/EN/Conos...1014_ermo.aspx

  6. Likes Tempest liked this post
  7. #79
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,738
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The DF is too small to justify it
    Not really, it's not difficult stuff - unless you're a loon who's thinking about a fourth arm of service, uniforms, regulations, chain of command etc...

    You just take, for example, A Coy 2nd Bn and you tell that from now on they are maritime focused - they would spend time as small groups on NS vessels, they would operate the secondary weapons during gunnery exercises, they would do lots of daughter craft and landing exercises and they would focus on both operating within the NS on deployment and acting as the enabling capability for larger Army formations to operate alongside the NS.

    A reasonable template might be the Mountain Leader branch of the RM - though you wouldn't need to make the set up so formal - you could have a mix of people serving in it, people who really fancy it and who stay for perhaps a decade, and people who do it on a 3 year tour. You could do the same thing for Mountain/Arctic warfare, desert, jungle - or even things like Anti-tank, or Reece - you know, like you already do...

  8. Likes sofa liked this post
  9. #80
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,785
    Post Thanks / Like
    Let's equip them with hover robot tanks with lasers

  10. Likes apod, hptmurphy liked this post
  11. #81
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    509
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's no more ridiculous or unjustifiable than having a whole corps for transport or having an air defence regiment.
    It's a particular skill set and having a company or even a battalion who specialise in marine type action doesn't mean that they need special uniforms or even, necessarily, special equipment. Maybe an extra rhib or three. Also doesn't mean they can't still be infantry and other units can't learn to get out of an rhib.

    Where it all breaks down is relevance when no DF units deploy overseas as units... So what would be the point?

  12. Likes ropebag liked this post
  13. #82
    Lt General Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    4,868
    Post Thanks / Like
    I suppose it is about as relevant as having artillery units. We don't deploy those overseas either.

    The tasking of a particular unit to the role is not a fantasy. We have done it before, just look at the predecessor to 1 Mech.

  14. Likes ropebag liked this post
  15. #83
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,785
    Post Thanks / Like
    Big difference technically between crewing, maintaining and tactically employing an APC based force (up to Bn minus) and an amphibious light inf coy level force with nothing bigger than RHIBs.

  16. #84
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,738
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Big difference technically between crewing, maintaining and tactically employing an APC based force (up to Bn minus) and an amphibious light inf coy level force with nothing bigger than RHIBs.
    yeah, its much more expensive, time consuming and logistically demanding to equip, train and deploy the former than the latter.

  17. Likes TangoSierra liked this post
  18. #85
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Then don't do it. Rather it should be a remit of a specialist unit such as the ARW, who are tasked with offshore rig Defence.

  19. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  20. #86
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ignoring humour, somebody somewhere is putting Army elements on board ship to facilitate a shore action. With an MRV it would be possible and also include some light AV's and other supports to fit the task.

  21. #87
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,937
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Ignoring humour, somebody somewhere is putting Army elements on board ship to facilitate a shore action. With an MRV it would be possible and also include some light AV's and other supports to fit the task.
    Aside from the ARW, I think given the possible roles of the vessel - disaster relief, setting up initial base infrastructure etc. - there's a pretty good argument for the engineer corps being the nearest thing to "marines", with support from NS engineers, smaller numbers of CIS personnel etc.

  22. Likes TangoSierra liked this post
  23. #88
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,348
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think, if the DF can decide, as it did some years ago, to designate one army company "mechanised infantry" then is would be just as easy to designate a similar sized unit "marine infantry".
    It isn't such a giant step.
    It isn't as if 1 Mech spend all their days tootling around the glen under armour.
    Big difference technically between crewing, maintaining and tactically employing an APC based force (up to Bn minus) and an amphibious light inf coy level force with nothing bigger than RHIBs.
    There is no difference whatsoever. Just different vehicles and tactics.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  24. Likes ropebag, ODIN liked this post
    Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  25. #89
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,785
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is a huge difference.

    Course to become a competent RHIB Cox'n versus an APC Crewman (plus the required driving courses which are prerequisites), there are approaching months in the difference.

    One has completely different TTPs, RHIBs being unarmoured and more vulnerable aren't going to anywhere near a potentially opposed landing.

    RHIBs are much less complex to maintain. One has all weather capability, one can operate up to Bn minus level, the other is likely Pln + / Coy -

    One capability is used every single day overseas and probably has been since at least 1979.

    I'm not against the capability it would be useful, but the designation of a specific unit.... NS cox'n, trained troops (same as now)....

    Oh and you realise that probably like most DF coys, the number of free privates for things like exercises is probably section plus
    Last edited by DeV; 18th October 2017 at 08:30.

  26. #90
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Historically Marines were part of the disciplinary cadre aboard ships in the day of press gangs. They boarded and seized enemy ships in battle. Nowadays they carry out military tasks in the Littoral Zone within support range of their ships. They can be as big as an Army like the US Marine Corps and wage theater battle independently. The ability to land from sea or air , is a component of military strategy and can be done on water, by helicopter, by parachute. Anything else for an island nation is cowboys and Indians.

  27. #91
    Major General ODIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,812
    Post Thanks / Like
    Wasn't there a suggestion before the last re org that DF Bns would be in specialised roles? I remember hearing that the 4th BN before it was stood down would be tasked as a marine infantry unit, and the 5th would move to Baldonnell and be tasked with helicopter deployment.

    Anyway, I think you're off the mark here DeV, as has been stated 1 Mech is not operating out of APCs all the time, and do other light infantry duties, however, it gives the DF Infantry Corps an organic APC component. Having a Marine/Naval Infantry Coy could give the DF another string to it's bow without needing to have a full on Marine unit. The ability to operate on rivers, in inlets and deploy from ships would, in my mind at least, be a valuable organic asset.
    What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

  28. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag, apod liked this post
  29. #92
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,785
    Post Thanks / Like
    There was suggestions about training battalions etc thankfully IMHO they came to nothing.

    1Mech exists to be part of the DF Reserve, to conduct crewmans & commanders courses (most of these are for career courses & overseas), hold the Mowags when they are at home (apart from those with the Cab), conduct duties/ATCP/ATCA etc in the DFTC AOR.

    Why set up a separate unit?
    We at most are talking LCVPs (but most likely RHIBs), if to be used for MRV guess where those craft are going to be - on the MRV. The NS are the experts let them crew them we are probably talking 10-20 personnel (who are then also available for other duties aboard).

    Put 2 suitably trained army officers on board as ops/trg/liaison officers - job done.

    Any unit can then be tasked after a short period of training.

    Both the RM Commando and RM All Arms Commando Cses spend less than 2 weeks on amphibious warfare including exercises.

  30. #93
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    509
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why is it that any suggested innovation beyond what already exists and has always been done is "hovertanks"?
    The Defence forces should be able to deploy coherent units that are trained, as units, in a variety of roles.
    The reason we have an artillery corps, rather than a few bods in each battalion who have gone on an arty course and drag around the Bn Support Company's 105 is that artillery is no use unless operating en masse. The failure to purchase enough of said 105s does not invalidate the existence of the corps or prevent future equipment increases.
    Also, it seems that if the artillery corps did not exist nobody would ever allow it to be created.

    After all, soldiers go off and get parachute wings. But having individual parachute trained soldiers is useless so unless they join the ARW it is a waste of time - for the Defence Forces. It's a hobby for the soldier. Having a whole unit who are so trained - the wing - gives a capability.
    I see no reason why the DF cannot establish, in principle, units of company strength at least who specialise in marine and airborne operations. Just as we retain an artillery corps.
    While it would be nice, thereafter, to have marine landing craft, amphibious vehicles and C130s their absence at the start or in the medium term would not invalidate the use of developing and maintaining such skills at whatever level equipment permits or using those skills in an international mission where other nations' equipment is made available.

    That the creation of such units would require soldiers to go through training for particular skills and to use particular equipment...well, best we never purchase any new type of equipment ever again. Somebody might have to learn to use it.
    Last edited by expat01; 18th October 2017 at 12:49.

  31. Likes ropebag, Tempest, Herald, ODIN, TangoSierra, apod, sofa liked this post
  32. #94
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Then don't do it. Rather it should be a remit of a specialist unit such as the ARW, who are tasked with offshore rig Defence.
    Problem being the ARW are about company sized with multiple tasks which take skills not normally available to the regular infantry men and deploying them in a bog standard infantry role as a whole unit would be wasteful
    Just visiting

  33. #95
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,785
    Post Thanks / Like
    MOD: Thread merges and moved posts

  34. Thanks expat01 thanked for this post
  35. #96
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    509
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fair enough and good call.

    I submit that some kind of naval infantry unit within the army and formally linked to the NS is:
    A cost-effective way of increasing the DF skill set by providing a “centre of excellence” for amphibious warfare training - which the DF repeatedly uses in training scenarios.
    Leverages our existing capacity as an island nation with a small naval capability that operates with the army on a regular basis in training.
    Provides a niche capabilty that could slot in to multinational operations, such a future East Timor scenario, without having to scour the DF for suitable personnel or default to the ARW.
    Revives a tradition of indigenously developed military operations formulated in the Civil War under less than ideal circumstances which indicate a capacity for innovation beyond the apparent limitations of experience, training and budget.
    Last edited by expat01; 18th October 2017 at 15:55.

  36. Likes ropebag, ODIN, Tempest liked this post
  37. #97
    Lt General Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    4,868
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is an argument that the concept of a separate marine force in any military is outdated since they stopped doing ship to ship boarding. The modern USMC is really just another land based army with a nice history.

  38. Likes DeV liked this post
  39. #98
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    509
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo20 View Post
    There is an argument that the concept of a separate marine force in any military is outdated since they stopped doing ship to ship boarding. The modern USMC is really just another land based army with a nice history.
    The ship-to-ship boarding role has definitely been outdated for over a century.
    Som marines have morphed into light infantry capable of worldwide deployment worldwide, a sort of US Army rangers.
    However the amphibious warfare role, developed par excellence in the last century, remains. It is not a role that you can throw soldiers into at seven days notice. I argue that it is a role that Ireland is well placed to train a limited number of troops to perform as a speciality, and one which is in keeping with our geography, history and doctrine.

  40. #99
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    509
    Post Thanks / Like
    And it’s not even about calling them “marines”. Just designate a unit to train and maintain that capability.

  41. #100
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    705
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo20 View Post
    There is an argument that the concept of a separate marine force in any military is outdated since they stopped doing ship to ship boarding. The modern USMC is really just another land based army with a nice history.
    The USMC got tied into Iraq and Afghanistan for over ten years but have now "pivoted" to the pacific region. MEUs out of Australia, Guam, Korea and Japan are doing 6-9 month show of force and amphibious warfare rotations every 18months.

    The USMC MAGTF organisational structure is one of the most innovative military force structures in the world. An entire Bn + has been designated a full time experimental unit in order to incorporate the latest in technology and learn new tactics with it. It is a self contained littoral waters military that can impose itself on any shore in the world in less than 16days. Something the US army, Airforce or Navy cannot do by itself.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •