Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Irish Naval Infantry/Marines?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    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.

    Comment


    • #92
      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.

      Comment


      • #93
        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; 18 October 2017, 12:49.

        Comment


        • #94
          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
          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

          Comment


          • #95
            MOD: Thread merges and moved posts

            Comment


            • #96
              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; 18 October 2017, 15:55.

              Comment


              • #97
                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.

                Comment


                • #98
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    And it’s not even about calling them “marines”. Just designate a unit to train and maintain that capability.

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TangoSierra View Post
                        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.
                        The USMC is far from a light force

                        Comment


                        • The USMC is larger and better equipped in every field than our army, air corps and naval service. Let’s not limit options to zero or the Powerball lottery.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                            And it’s not even about calling them “marines”. Just designate a unit to train and maintain that capability.
                            Naval Infantry.
                            You want a small force that is capable of operating from a floating HQ, simple as. After that they need to be relatively self sufficient, with their floating hq gone back over the horizon.
                            Don't get bogged down on USMC comparisons.
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • Seems like the Aussies are doing it.

                              With RAN’s new amphibious assault ship HMAS Canberra continuing a series of intensive training and assessment periods, and its sister ship HMAS Adelaide readying for commission next year, Australia’s amphibious warfare capability is fast becoming ...

                              "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                                Naval Infantry.
                                You want a small force that is capable of operating from a floating HQ, simple as. After that they need to be relatively self sufficient, with their floating hq gone back over the horizon.
                                Don't get bogged down on USMC comparisons.
                                that means all arms and a coy gp minimum

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X