OT - Aussie Marines!

[Legbreaker]

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/EastTimor.html

I'd say this site spells out quite nicely the limited role most countries played in comparison to Australia, and I think we managed to get ourselves there without relying on the fairly limited US resources allocated.

Oh yeah, the economy badly needs to be brought under control. I mean, it's probably the strongest developed economy in the world but let's not let that get in the way of party-political parochialism, eh

True, the Australian economy is strong in comparison to most other nations but that doesn't mean it's all that healthy either. These days I'm a commercial investment manager with a portfolio worth around $75 million, I deal on a daily basis with business both small and large and I can't remember a time when there's been so many businesses failing and defaulting on their financial obligations. Most of these businesses have virtually no reliance at all on factors outside Australia. They have however been heavily effected by decisions made by the current government.

Perhaps my view is clouded somewhat by the local state situation where the government is basically broke. They're pulling AU$100,000,000.00 (US$ is roughly equal) out of the local public hospital (which services a population of approximately 150,000 people) after attempting to close 15 public schools across the state (total population of about half a million) - they suffered a VERY nasty backlash. The state government, like the federal government is a hung parliment with the Greens (very minor party) holding the balance of power and so we have a lot of the same types of problems here that exists in Canberra.

My understanding is it's a different story in the West where you are Targan, what with the resources boom and all...

I believe in a multiparty system as I indicated in the Politics thread. Simplified greatly I see the Australian arrangement as basically Labor spending bucketloads of money on infrastructure projects, then the Liberals coming in and paying off all the debt. This time around Labor has basically ballsed it all up - take the roof insulation scandle, or the schools improvement - both schemes which were horribly abused to the tune of hundred of millions of dollars.

I don't see Labor themselves as the problem, just the current batch of them.

Back on topic, it does make some sense to do away with paratroops in the modern world, however I'm not convinced Australia needs a dedicated amphibious force. Capability yes, but not a force that does amphibious operations and only amphibious operations 24/7/365.

[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.]

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]

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.

[dragoon500ly]

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....

[Webstral]

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]

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.

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.

[Webstral]

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

Theres always a need for transportation aircraft. Some needs can be deferred while the airborne guys go where they need to go. This is true whether the parachutists execute a combat jump or whether they just run off the aircraft like they did in Operation Desert Shield. Jump or land on the aircraft, theres a need to move the troops. The airlift guys get paid to prioritize. The existence of the reserve air fleet makes it possible to respond to changes in the volume of air transport.

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.

I agree with this:

parachute insertions [of formations larger than a battalion] seem rather out of place on the modern battlefield.

The aircraft needed for parachute insertions are the same ones needed for airdrops for resupply. Cargo helicopters can take up some of the load, but the bulk freight movers are fixed-wing aircraft. Having enough to drop a brigade or more in a single go means having enough to drop lots of supplies. As we all know, warfare is a matter of logistics. WW2 may have validated and invalidated the airborne division at the same time, but it validated aerial resupply beyond all question. If keeping the airframes for airborne units to drop keeps more airframes for cargo airdrop serviceable, then the money is very well spent indeed.

As for airborne troops trained for large scale insertion, Ill go back to the esprit de corps. These guys think theyre special. This counts for something during the training, and I believe it counts for something on the battlefield. Given that we want to keep the cargo aircraft on-hand, and given that maintaining airborne status in the 82nd only requires one jump per quarter, the cost isnt really that high.

[Panther Al]

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.


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.

My only concern about depending on rail to allow for logistic flexibility is that rail is amazingly vulnerable to all sorts of issues. One person with 10, 15 kilo's of TNT - especially given how remote a lot of rail down that way must be - can easily put a stop to rail traffic. A decent set of tools can also sub for the TNT, and its hard to ban common tools. Devoting the manpower and resources to secure the entire length of the track is very counter-productive.

[Legbreaker]

My only concern about depending on rail to allow for logistic flexibility is that rail is amazingly vulnerable to all sorts of issues.

Very true and something I had in the back of my mind while I was writing that post. The good news is that rail lines (at least here in Australia) tend to be repaired very quickly. Even a major derailment and destruction of a kilometre or so of line tends to be little more than a 24 hour hiccup.
Obviously patrols of the lines would be required which may tie up manpower, but overall, even if the worst should happen and a train is on top of the explosive device, you're still not likely to loose the entire load of cargo as you would with a ship at sea being sunk.
Fortunately here in Australia, most destinations are not on the rail lines and so trucks are required. And some of our trucks are HUGE!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train

In fact, most places you may see combat occuring will be hundreds or kilometres from the nearest rail line.