OT - Aussie Marines!

[ArmySGT.]

Makes sense to me still to convert Paratroops into Marines.

Large Scale Airborne Operations in contested airspace is dead.

An Expeditionary unit with Land ships and Landing craft brings much more than an equivalent airborne unit can (tonnage of supply), and with the vehicles to move that logistical tail about.

[dragoon500ly]

You do realize that the Airborne Mafia now have you on their hit list now? WHAT!!! No more classic large-scale airborne operations????? Why it calls most of their existence into question.

Although I do agree with you, the era of the Large Airborne Operation is over.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

You do realize that the Airborne Mafia now have you on their hit list now? WHAT!!! No more classic large-scale airborne operations????? Why it calls most of their existence into question.

Although I do agree with you, the era of the Large Airborne Operation is over.

Yes, well everytime they hold up "Overlord" as a winning example (why?) I remind them of "Market Garden".

Current radar, satellite systems, and engagement with missiles from beyond visual range makes loading up heavy lifters with 200 paratroops an act of criminal stupidity.

[Webstral]

I agree that the era of large-scale airborne operations against well-equipped opposition has passed, but the airborne still have their role. It's important to be able to exploit opportunities. At the very least, airborne units travel by air. Perhaps as importantly, airborne units view themselves as an elite and tend to train that way. Whether the 82nd Airborne ever makes another assault drop, they are a highly motivated group that train hard and have excellent esprit de corps. They are one of the few formations in the Army that I would hold up against the Marines on a battalion-by-battalion basis. If the price we pay for maintaining such a formation is the illusion that we may someday execute a divisional combat drop, what's the harm?

[Legbreaker]

Money. It costs a lot of money to keep sufficient aircraft on hand to shift an entire division.
There's also the limits on size and weight able to be carried by air. An airborne force is never realistically ever going to be much more that light infantry.

[Sanjuro]

I agree that large scale beach landings against defended positions are unlikely; however, a trained amphibious brigade is the ideal way of getting a defensive force into position, with the heavy weapons, armour and logistical support if a threat becomes apparent.
It would be theoretically possible for an invader to land a force somewhere on a remote part of Australia's coast, with the plan of expanding the beachhead before defending forces can be brought to bear- but if Oz has a unit capable of landing on the next beach, ready to fight, that invasion becomes much less practical.
Ok, setting up an amphib brigade ready to invade yourself would be unusual, but it seems (to this ignorant foreigner, anyway) a novel and effective solution to some of Australia's unique defensive problems.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

It would be theoretically possible for an invader to land a force somewhere on a remote part of Australia's coast, with the plan of expanding the beachhead before defending forces can be brought to bear- but if Oz has a unit capable of landing on the next beach, ready to fight, that invasion becomes much less practical.
Ok, setting up an amphib brigade ready to invade yourself would be unusual, but it seems (to this ignorant foreigner, anyway) a novel and effective solution to some of Australia's unique defensive problems.

Well the theory in your statements is sound and you do seem to have an understanding of Australia's geographical challenges. The thing about seizing and holding a beachhead in a remote part of Australia is that it begs the question, to what end? What do you do with the piece of Australia you're holding? Getting from place to place over large parts of wilderness Australia you'd need to effectively re-embark and invade all over again. It's a strange place, Australia, especially northern Australia. Pockets of civilization surrounded by thousands of miles of nothing. The vast majority of the population and infrastructure along the east and south-east costs.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Money. It costs a lot of money to keep sufficient aircraft on hand to shift an entire division.
There's also the limits on size and weight able to be carried by air. An airborne force is never realistically ever going to be much more that light infantry.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the money/aircraft issue doesn't work the same for the US as for Australia. The aircraft already exist, although many of them might be doing other jobs until the airborne guys need moving. I agree completely that airborne forces are going to be light. One has to adjust expectations accordingly.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Targan

The thing about seizing and holding a beachhead in a remote part of Australia is that it begs the question, to what end?

I'd be more inclined to think land transportation via rail (not a huge amount going into remote areas, but should get you part way) and trucks would be generally safer for defending Australia - can't sink a truck like you can a ship. Admittedly you need more trucks and drivers than a ship, but Australia already has the necessary infrastructure, especially if you pull in civilian contractors to haul supplies.

Ships would still be needed, but I'm just not convinced you need an entire battalion of specialist marines. Just can't see them being required any time in the next few decades, at least not in a true amphibious role. Chances are those ships and the troops they carry will see more action doing disaster relief missions around the Pacific islands than anything close to combat.

Originally Posted by Webstral

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the money/aircraft issue doesn't work the same for the US as for Australia. The aircraft already exist, although many of them might be doing other jobs until the airborne guys need moving.

But are all those aircraft actually needed for the other duties all of the time? Cannot there be a reduction in aircraft if the Airborne forces are reduced or done away with entirely? Doesn't that save money on maintenance, fuel, training, and replacement aircraft?

True, a capability needs to be maintained to shift troops by air, but airborne troops trained specifically for parachute insertions and the aircraft needed for those drops seems rather out of place on the modern battlefield.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I agree that the era of large-scale airborne operations against well-equipped opposition has passed, but the airborne still have their role. It's important to be able to exploit opportunities. At the very least, airborne units travel by air. Perhaps as importantly, airborne units view themselves as an elite and tend to train that way. Whether the 82nd Airborne ever makes another assault drop, they are a highly motivated group that train hard and have excellent esprit de corps. They are one of the few formations in the Army that I would hold up against the Marines on a battalion-by-battalion basis. If the price we pay for maintaining such a formation is the illusion that we may someday execute a divisional combat drop, what's the harm?

Airborne units travel by air, that was also the argument used to justify the light divisions, remember all of the studies that showed how much easier it was to transport a LID by air rather than any other type of division (and that included airborne and Marine!!!)?

I don't dispute the need to maintain a airborne division, especially since current doctrine is that any future operation would be, at most, brigade sized; you would need a division in order to keep a ready brigade on the Green Ramp. But I doubt, that there would ever be another division or multi-division sized airborne operation.

While the paratroopers point to their success at Normandy and Market Garden, I also remember the slaughter of the airborne troopers in the Battle of the Bulge when they were committed as regular infantry in an emergency, remember the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion, the were committed on December 21st with 745 men and relieved on January 23rd, with 55 men remaining, or the 551st Parachute Infantry Battalion, committed on December 21st with 845 men and relieved on January 9th, with 98 men remaining.

Its the same story today as then, they are just too lightly equipped to go toe-to-toe with a armored division....