- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let's talk about military spending
Posted on 3/19/17 at 9:08 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Posted on 3/19/17 at 9:08 pm to WhiskeyPapa
0
Posted on 3/19/17 at 9:10 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Essentially you would like to see a defense force, not a strategic geopolitical strong arm.
Eliminate the Marines, they have zero value in a defense force since they are an expeditionary force.
Dump all F-16's, F-15's out of the Air Force and F-18's from the Navy. Replace the fleet with a carrier based F-22's and F-35's. The Navy is better suited for fighters anyway. The Air Force is reduced to Strategic Bombers, Logistics and Intel aviation assets. Create 3 more carrier groups which would bring the Navy to 500 ships and vessels.
Reallocate the A-10 and AC-130's to the Army and all littoral maritime assets as well. All rotary wing assets would belong to the Army. In the Army's current structure 70% of its aviation assets should be in the National Guard. 60% of support MOS should be in the guard and 40% of its combat arms assets should be in the guard.
Become an isolationist nation only responding with force outside of our own borders when American lives are at stake. Leave our allies to fend for themselves and remove ourselves from NATO.
Which would, IMO, remove ourselves from sitting on the geopolitical throne and weaken our overall stature as a country. But who knows you may be right.
Eliminate the Marines, they have zero value in a defense force since they are an expeditionary force.
Dump all F-16's, F-15's out of the Air Force and F-18's from the Navy. Replace the fleet with a carrier based F-22's and F-35's. The Navy is better suited for fighters anyway. The Air Force is reduced to Strategic Bombers, Logistics and Intel aviation assets. Create 3 more carrier groups which would bring the Navy to 500 ships and vessels.
Reallocate the A-10 and AC-130's to the Army and all littoral maritime assets as well. All rotary wing assets would belong to the Army. In the Army's current structure 70% of its aviation assets should be in the National Guard. 60% of support MOS should be in the guard and 40% of its combat arms assets should be in the guard.
Become an isolationist nation only responding with force outside of our own borders when American lives are at stake. Leave our allies to fend for themselves and remove ourselves from NATO.
Which would, IMO, remove ourselves from sitting on the geopolitical throne and weaken our overall stature as a country. But who knows you may be right.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 9:23 pm to chew4219
quote:
Eliminate the Marines, they have zero value in a defense force since they are an expeditionary force.
Edson's Ridge, the Japanese attack.
This post was edited on 3/19/17 at 9:36 pm
Posted on 3/19/17 at 9:24 pm to chew4219
quote:
Become an isolationist nation only responding with force outside of our own borders when American lives are at stake. Leave our allies to fend for themselves and remove ourselves from NATO.
That's a pipe dream because as soon as the UniParty and the Globalists can get rid of Trump the USA will be on the fast track of being the Police Department of the World and the cops on the beat will be the US military.
I predict that this trend will continue and at some future point it will be very difficult to determine whether the US military is fighting for USA interests or something else, such as the interests of the Globalists, Internationalists or something like that.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 9:25 pm to WhiskeyPapa
I've never seen that Edson's Ridge photo. That's amazing.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 9:46 pm to Champagne
quote:
I've never seen that Edson's Ridge photo. That's amazing.
Second night's action on the ridge
Expecting the Japanese to attack again that night, Edson directed his troops to improve their defenses on and around the ridge. After a failed attempt by two companies to retake the ground on the Marine right flank lost to Kokusho the night before, Edson repositioned his forces. He pulled his front back about 400 yd (370 m) to a line that stretched 1,800 yd (1,600 m), starting at the Lunga River and crossing the ridge about 150 yd (140 m) south of Hill 123. Around and behind Hill 123 he placed five companies. Any Japanese attackers surmounting Hill 80 would have to advance over 400 yd (370 m) of open terrain to close with the Marine positions at Hill 123. With only a few hours to prepare, the Marines were able to construct only rudimentary and shallow fortifications. They were low on ammunition, with one or two grenades for each Marine. Vandegrift ordered a reserve force consisting of the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment (2/5) to move into a position just to the rear of Edson's troops. In addition, a battery of four 105mm howitzers from the 11th Marine Regiment moved to a location from where it could provide direct fire onto the ridge, and a forward artillery observer was placed with Edson's front line units.[36]
Late in the afternoon, Edson stepped onto a grenade box and addressed his exhausted troops, saying,
You men have done a great job, and I have just one more thing to ask of you. Hold out just one more night. I know we've been without sleep a long time. But we expect another attack from them tonight and they may come through here. I have every reason to believe that we will have reliefs here for all of us in the morning.
As the sun set on 13 September, Kawaguchi faced Edson's 830 Marines with 3,000 troops of his brigade, plus an assortment of light artillery. The night was pitch black, with no moon. At 21:00, seven Japanese destroyers briefly bombarded the ridge. Kawaguchi's attack began just after nightfall, with Kokusho's battalion assaulting Raider Company B on the Marine right flank, just to the west of the ridge. The force of the assault caused Company B to fall back to Hill 123. Under Marine artillery fire, Kokusho reassembled his men and continued his attack. Without pausing to try to "roll-up" the other nearby Marine units, whose flanks were now unprotected, Kokusho's unit surged forward through the swampy lowlands between the ridge and the Lunga River, heading for the airfield. Kokusho's men came upon a pile of Marine supplies and rations. Not having eaten adequately for a couple of days, they paused to "gorge themselves" on the "C" and "K" rations. Kokusho ordered his men to continue the attack. At about 03:00, he led them against the Marine units around the northern portion of the ridge, just short of the airfield, as well as Hill 123. In the heavy fighting that followed, Kokusho and around 100 of his men were killed, ending that attack.[38]
Meanwhile, Kawaguchi's 2nd Battalion, under Major Masao Tamura, assembled for their planned assault against Hill 80 from the jungle south of the ridge. Marine observers spotted Tamura's preparations and called in artillery fire. At about 22:00, a barrage from twelve 105 mm (4.1 in) guns hit Tamura's position. In response, two companies of Tamura's troops—numbering about 320 men—charged up Hill 80 with fixed bayonets behind their own barrage of mortar fire and grenades. Tamura's attack hit Company B of the Marine Parachute battalion and also Raider Company B, pushing the Parachutists off the east side of the ridge into a draw below the ridgeline. To protect the exposed Raider Company B, Edson immediately ordered them to pull back onto Hill 123.[39]
At the same time, a Japanese company from Watanabe's battalion infiltrated through a gap between the east side of the ridge and Parachute Company C. Deciding that their positions were now untenable, Parachute Companies B and C climbed onto the ridge and retreated to a position behind Hill 123. In the darkness and confusion of the battle, the retreat quickly became confused and disorganized. A few Marines began yelling that the Japanese were attacking with poison gas, scaring other Marines who no longer possessed their gas masks. After arriving behind Hill 123, some of the Marines continued on towards the airfield, repeating the word "withdraw" to anyone within earshot. Other Marines began to follow them. Just at the moment that it appeared that the Marines on the hill were about to break and head for the rear in a rout, Edson, Major Kenneth D. Bailey from Edson's staff, and other Marine officers appeared and, with "vivid" language, herded the Marines back into defensive positions around Hill 123.[40]
Hill 123
As the Marines formed into a horseshoe-shaped line around Hill 123, Tamura's battalion began a series of frontal assaults on the hill, charging up the saddle from Hill 80 and up from below the east side of the ridge. Under the light of parachute flares dropped by at least one Japanese floatplane, the Marines repulsed the first two attacks by Tamura's men. Tamura's troops hoisted a 75 mm (2.95 in) "regimental" gun to the top of Hill 80 in an effort to fire it directly at the Marines. This gun, which "could have turned the tide in favor of the Japanese," however, was disabled by a faulty firing pin. At midnight, during a short lull in the fighting, Edson ordered Parachute Companies B and C to advance from behind Hill 123 to strengthen his left flank. With fixed bayonets, the Paramarines swept forward, killing Japanese soldiers who had overrun the Marine lines and were apparently preparing to roll up the Marine lines from the flank, and took position on the east side of the hill. Marines from other units, as well as members of Edson's command staff, including Major Bailey, took ammunition and grenades under fire to the Marines around Hill 123, who were running critically low. Said Marine participant Captain William J. McKennan, "The Japanese attack was almost constant, like a rain that subsides for a moment and then pours the harder ... When one wave was mowed down - and I mean mowed down - another followed it into death."[41]"
LINK
This post was edited on 3/19/17 at 10:02 pm
Posted on 3/19/17 at 9:49 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Bailey later moved with his unit to Guadalcanal. As commanding officer of Company C, 1st Marine Raider Battalion, he led his men in repulsing a Japanese attack, which had penetrated American lines during the Battle of Edson's Ridge, 12 to September 14, 1942. Despite a severe head wound, he directed his men for more than 10 hours of fierce hand-to-hand combat. "His great personal valor while exposed to constant and merciless enemy fire, and his indomitable fighting spirit inspired his troops to heights of heroic endeavor which enabled them to repulse the enemy and hold Henderson Field."
Major Bailey was killed in action on September 26, 1942 while heading his men in an attack on the Japanese at the Matanikau River on Guadalcanal (see Actions along the Matanikau). He was buried on Guadalcanal, but his remains were reinterred in Spring Hill Cemetery, Danville, Illinois, in June 1948.
Major Bailey was killed in action on September 26, 1942 while heading his men in an attack on the Japanese at the Matanikau River on Guadalcanal (see Actions along the Matanikau). He was buried on Guadalcanal, but his remains were reinterred in Spring Hill Cemetery, Danville, Illinois, in June 1948.
This post was edited on 3/19/17 at 9:50 pm
Posted on 3/19/17 at 9:56 pm to Champagne
You are 100% correct.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 10:30 pm to chew4219
quote:Yes and no. Under my model we would still have the worlds largest Navy and a small Marine Corps as part of that Navy that would still hold influence around the globe.
Essentially you would like to see a defense force, not a strategic geopolitical strong arm.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 10:34 pm to WhiskeyPapa
WP: You could start another thread if the others feel like this is too much of a thread hijack because I'd like to get back to Belleau Wood battle and ask you about the infantry tactics that the Marines used on the attack during that battle. The Army units used linear tactics, almost shoulder to shoulder, each company in two ranks advancing in dressed lines.
Tell us about the USMC assault tactics in 1918.
Tell us about the USMC assault tactics in 1918.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 10:36 pm to chew4219
quote:
You are 100% correct.
I forgot to add that the Globalists are going to have the US military involved in almost constant little wars. I don't see much peace in our future.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:16 am to Champagne
USMC tactics in WWI depended on very accurate rifle fire. Boot camp was only 8 weeks but 3 weeks were spent on the rifle range.
Excellent newish book on this is "Miracle at Belleau Wood" by Alan Axelrod.
The Marine Corps examined 243K applicants in 1971-18. They took 60K. Parris Island developed very early on the reputation for toughness it has now.
Excellent newish book on this is "Miracle at Belleau Wood" by Alan Axelrod.
The Marine Corps examined 243K applicants in 1971-18. They took 60K. Parris Island developed very early on the reputation for toughness it has now.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 3:27 am
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:19 am to WhiskeyPapa
This thread needs to be hijacked since the premise is moving the Army and Air Force into the reserves of which there is no possibility.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 7:55 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
This thread needs to be hijacked since the premise is moving the Army and Air Force into the reserves
This has already been established as a good idea.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:04 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
This has already been established as a good idea.
What he said. And I'm Army.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:25 am to Champagne
I would agree. WikiPaster is definitely good at this. Copying and pasting lengthy articles. Regurgitating other people's work ad naseum.
Original thought and analysis? Yeah, not so much.
Sure took a healthy dump in this thread. Spamming it and derailing the discussion with his bizarre, dissociative posts. Congrats.
Original thought and analysis? Yeah, not so much.
Sure took a healthy dump in this thread. Spamming it and derailing the discussion with his bizarre, dissociative posts. Congrats.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:37 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Original thought and analysis? Yeah, not so much. Sure took a healthy dump in this thread. Spamming it and derailing the discussion with his bizarre, dissociative posts. Congrats.
And to get back to the topic at hand, an interim step towards are rebalancing of the USA and USAF back to more weight in the reserves would be to rejoin the USAF into the Army as it existed during and prior to WWII.
Prof Robert Farley
Military Times Article about James Carroll op-ed in Boston Globe
Removing the Air Force and USMC from the joint chiefs and going back to the Army/Navy top level organization would be a nice step in the direction we discussed earlier.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 8:40 am
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:45 am to Foch
Excellent points. Would have to consider removing the Chief of the National Guard Bureau as well if we want to stay with a service centric model. NGB now has a four star as well.
Again, to re-emphasize the point to those copying and pasting at home, this is an effort to re-orient the active component Army and Air Force towards support to the reserve component. The intent is to "raise" an Army in time of war. To avoid entanglements that do not have a national interest at stake, to maintain a Navy for freedom of the seas, and to have a Marine Corps as a global response force.
Again, to re-emphasize the point to those copying and pasting at home, this is an effort to re-orient the active component Army and Air Force towards support to the reserve component. The intent is to "raise" an Army in time of war. To avoid entanglements that do not have a national interest at stake, to maintain a Navy for freedom of the seas, and to have a Marine Corps as a global response force.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:57 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
This thread needs to be hijacked since the premise is moving the Army and Air Force into the reserves
This has already been established as a good idea.
If so it is a good idea with no chance of ever being implemented.
I agree that the Navy/Marine Corps team should be able to handle our national security challenges, but the turf wars won't allow it. Its been said that Wal-Mart won't let us go to war with China.
Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and all that crew won't allow the Army and Air Force to be shunted into the Reserves.
I guess whatshisname upgraded the concept to keep a nucleus of the Army and the USAF around for planning the operations of their reserve units.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 9:05 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
derailing the discussion
I am opposed to thread hijacking on principle, so, I'll move my questions to a separate thread, if folks think it best to do so.
I'm not trying to de-rail the force structure conversation. WP opines that it isn't possible and will never happen. I haven't expressed an opinion, but, I did say that these complex topics involving force structure don't have easy answers or one solution. I think the rest of the opinions agree with the OP.
But, WP, getting back to USMC WWI infantry assault tactics. Can you elaborate? The emphasis on marksmanship in basic training makes perfect sense, given the recent Boer War experience. That war was fought in wide open spaces where the Rifle really came into its own. The British Army learned a good lesson about what entrenched enemy infantry with good rifles and good marksmanship can do. (As an aside, WW II may have caused this axiom to be updated because of the Soviet's positive experience of using the sub-machine gun as a prominent infantry weapon -- most infantry engagements in WW II were decided within sub-machine gun range but that's a topic for a different thread).
But, what were USMC infantry assault tactics in 1918? Did they mirror the Army's approach of fixing bayonets, putting each company in two ranks, almost shoulder to shoulder, with a 15 yard interval between ranks and advance with dressed lines?
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 9:13 am
Page 27 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News