Step Into the Unknown, or Future of American Marines


Infantrymen from the 22MEU (company A) land on a tiltrotor aboard the Kirsarge UDC. After the reform, the role of airmobile units in Marines will grow even stronger.


The United States Marine Corps (USMC), an organization that is called the United States Marine Corps in Russia and which is actually called the United States Marine Corps, is currently experiencing one of the most dramatic moments in its last thirty (at least) years stories. Having gone unnoticed by domestic observers, the Corpus launched a phenomenally deep reform, which, if successful, will turn it into a fundamentally new instrument of war for the Americans, and, most importantly, naval warfare, rather than land war.

Well, in the event of a failure, the United States may lose its legendary military structure almost completely. The ongoing Marines reform is worth talking about.

First is the background.

Second army


The American World War (allegedly against terrorism), launched after September 11, 2001, demanded extreme tension from the US Armed Forces. This even touched the Navy: the rotation of the sailors served as soldiers at ground bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Orion patrols were involved in reconnaissance missions over land, the Navy deck aircraft inflicted countless strikes on ground targets. This bowl did not pass, of course, and Marines. Being the expeditionary forces of the Navy, designed to conduct battles on the ground, the marines (we will call them that) were among the first to set foot on the land of Afghanistan and Iraq. During the Iraq war during the offensive on Baghdad, the entire American right flank consisted of them.


Iraq, 2003, Marines in the battle for the bridge

Subsequently, as a rebel movement flared up on the occupied lands, these troops, together with the US Army, became more and more involved in carrying out the occupation service. They received MRAP wheeled armored cars in order not to move on tracked AAV7 armored personnel carriers optimized for over-the-horizon landing, or on the LAV-25 BRM, which Corps instructions directly prohibit using on the battlefield as an armored personnel carrier due to thin armor (it is only slightly stronger than in our armored personnel carriers, which in the American Armed Forces would not be used because of low survivability). They sat at strongholds and checkpoints, went on night raids on Baghdad or Tikrit, and, in the apt expression of former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, turned into a second army. This is not to say that America needed a second ground force, and the issues that the American public had slowly but surely matched the status that the Corps came to as a result of the wars organized by the Republicans.


Marines in Afghanistan: Zero Differences with the Army

Why does America need another ground force? Why do these ground forces have their own Air Force (deck aviation The corps is stronger than many national air forces in the world. Stronger than most, at least if you look at the numbers). Where and against whom will the Corps demonstrate its landing capabilities? Against mainland China? Not funny. Against Russia? In general, it’s also not funny, and why? Why do we need endless “deployment” (deployment) of amphibious combat-ready groups (ARGs) in the sea? Is it possible to break even Syria with such a group? No. To carry out a special operation on its territory? Yes, it is possible, but the landing forces of the group are excessive for this, and the air forces are insufficient, at least if the Syrians try to interfere.

Questions ripened and in what condition the Corps was.

Overstrain caused by an endless war, in general, in principle, harmed the US Armed Forces. But Marines - especially. So, the flight of the Hornet pilot, assigned to the Corps, fell to a miserable 4-5 hours a month.


F / A-18 of one of the Corps squadrons

There are other problems that will take too long to list. One way or another, the Corps was slowly turning into a thing in itself. Marines’s actual seizure of military power in the United States did not change the situation - at some point, Marine Mattis was the Secretary of Defense, Marine Danford was the chairman of the NSC, and Marine General Kelly was the head of the White House apparatus. The Trinity even arranged photo sessions in uniform at the White House, but there was no sense for USMC: in fact, the only breakthrough was the introduction of the F-35B Corps aviation, which was a serious step forward compared to the AV-8B, on which the Corps pilots flew earlier. And that’s it.

The rapidly changing world, however, required changes in the American war machine. Trump's attempts to break out of the Middle East swamp and focus on strangling China required appropriate tools, and the Corps rivals demanded to give meaning to its existence (and expenses) or subjugate it to the army as army landing forces (an attempt, by the way, in the history of the USA was already under Truman in late forties).

Everything was complicated by the delicacy of the topic. Marines in the USA is just a legendary structure, surrounded by a lot more myths than the airborne forces in our country. The entire Second World War in the United States is largely associated precisely with the assaults by the marines of the Japanese fortified islands in the Pacific Ocean. The corps in America is simply adored, it’s enough to recall the famous “hoisting the flag over Iwo Jima” - one of the symbols of America as such. As one journalist said: "The United States does not need the Marine Corps, but the United States wants it to be." They even in computer games about the distant future in space Marines fight. The corps is part of the American identity, not the most important, but inalienable, it is not just troops. And it was so easy not to approach the issue of their reform.


Marines are not just troops, they are a symbol of America, as some Americans think, and it is a symbol that will survive America itself.

But in the end, the reform began, and began from within. On July 11, 2019, the post of commandant (commander) of the Corps was taken by General David Hilberry Berger, a combat general who is the author of the reform currently under way, her father. Good or not, but now the result of the transformations in the Corps will be connected with it.


General David Berger

Berger received military training at the university, on the local analogue of the military department, and from there he went into the army for life. He went through almost all command levels: platoon, company, battalion, regimental battle group, division, expeditionary unit with the division in its composition (Marine Expeditionary Force), all the forces of the Corps in the Pacific Ocean. He participated in the Gulf War in 1991, in operations in Haiti, in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He served in Kosovo and in the Pacific. He, in general, fought wherever he could. At the same time, he spent about half of his service at headquarters at various levels and in instructor positions. He has training in scuba diver, scout, paratrooper, studied at the army ranger school. The battalion he commanded was a reconnaissance battalion; Berger knows what it means to be behind the front line. Already an officer, he was trained at the Command and Staff College of the Corps and continuing education courses in the so-called School of advanced combat training, also Marine. Against this background, his master's degree in political science at a civilian institution of higher learning is no longer “looking”, but he also has it.

Apparently, such versatile preparation gave Berger the opportunity to generate his extremely radical plan for reforming such an important institution for America. The plan that the American public initially met with hostility.

Because Berger announced his plan with the need for radical reductions, and what!

Rejection of all tanks: quite numerous tank forces of the Corps are disbanded completely, there will be no tanks. Field artillery is being reduced: from 21 batteries of towed guns to five. The number of each squadron of F-35B is reduced from 16 to 10. The squadrons of convertiplanes, helicopter squadrons of shock "Cobra", transport squadrons, battalion control are cut. Many parts are cut completely, others partially. In total, the corps will lose 12000 people by 2030, or 7% of its current strength. It is to the named year that he should take a new look finally.

There were people who called Berger grave digger Corps. Veterans say they will not recommend young people to join his ranks - it is better to join the Army, Navy or Air Force. And this is an unprecedented level of criticism.

Behind the collapse, however, is something interesting.

Berger Plan


The reform planned by Berger is inextricably linked with how American strategists see the future non-nuclear (or limited nuclear) war against China.

And the first thing is where they see this war. And they see it on the so-called "First Island Chain" - a collection of archipelagos that cut off mainland China from the Pacific Ocean. At the same time, the specifics of the theater of war are that the chain is already under the allies of the Americans, and the task will not be so much to take these islands by storm, but to prevent the Chinese from doing this when they try to break the sea blockade, for example. A separate issue is the islands in the South China Sea. Often it’s just shallows, nothing more, but control over them allows you to control shipping in a wide area, and the capture of islands on which there are airfields makes it possible to quickly deploy troops within the archipelagos. This is a very specific environment.


Two island chains - two containment lines of China. The Americans want to block it on the first line and then go to the South China Sea. It is also planned to hold Taiwan and the waters around. Departure to the second chain of islands is extremely undesirable and in fact is regarded as a defeat

Berger does not hide, and he has repeatedly said this, that the task of the Corps will be to effectively fight in this specific environment, and not somewhere else. And, I must say, now the organizational and staffing structure of the Corps does not correspond to such tasks.

The main tenets of the Berger plan are:

1. The corps is an instrument of naval warfare; it ensures its success by operations on land. This is an openly revolutionary position. Before that, everything was the other way around: the victory achieved by the Navy at sea opened the possibility of using the marines on earth to achieve victory on earth. Berger simply flips this generally accepted logic.

This is not to say that before him no one had come up with this. In a series of articles "Building a fleet"in the article “We are building a fleet. Attacks of the weak, loss of the strong the author formulated one of the principles of naval warfare by the weakest side, which had previously been used more than once in history:

Thus, we formulate the third rule of the weak: it is necessary to destroy the enemy's naval forces by ground forces and aviation (not sea) in all cases when this is possible from the point of view of the predicted effect and risks. This will release the forces of the Navy for other operations and reduce the superiority of the enemy in forces.

The Americans, being the strongest side, plan to do the same to further widen the gap in power between themselves and China. How Berger is going to use troops against the enemy fleet, this is a separate conversation, and it is ahead, for now, we note the revolutionary nature of the new reform. By the way, one of the innovations voiced by Berger will be a much closer interaction of the Navy in the course of the fulfillment by the latter of their tasks to establish dominance at sea.

It is interesting, but in the same article it was predicted that the Americans would develop in this direction:

It is especially worth mentioning that such operations are the “hobby” of the Americans. We can believe in such opportunities or not, but they will do it in droves, and we should be prepared for this, on the one hand, and not be “embarrassed” by doing it ourselves, on the other.

And so it turns out in the end.

One of the important aspects of the first paragraph is that Berger withdraws the Corps from the position of the "second Army" - now the Army will do what it used to do, but the Marines will do completely different things, which are necessary in principle, but inaccessible to the Army. This closes the question of the usefulness of the Corps for the country, not only in the ideological field, but also in practice.

2. The corps must carry out its tasks in conditions of dominated by the adversary at sea and in the air (contested environment). This is also a revolutionary moment - and earlier, and now the conditions for conducting an amphibious landing operation are to achieve dominance at sea and in the air in the area of ​​its conduct and on the communications necessary for its conduct. Of course, history knows many examples when relatively successful landing operations took place without all this, at least the same German landing in Narvik, but these were always marginal examples - examples of how, generally speaking, it was not necessary to do it, but it was lucky. The Americans are going to create forces that will so regularly fight. This is something new in military affairs.

These two requirements lead to the fact that the Corps must change beyond recognition - and this is what is happening.

We ask the question: do you need a lot of tanks in conditions when the task of the Americans is to disrupt the enemy’s landing on "their" islands? Most likely, a complete rejection of them is a mistake, but in general they do not need a lot.

And the barrel artillery? Again, there may be a situation where it is really needed, here the Americans are taking risks with landslide reductions, but let's admit that it will not be needed as much as in a regular ground war. Yes, and do not completely eliminate it, just cut it.

Or we will consider the same questions in relation to the capture of the Chinese bulk islands: where are the tanks to disperse there? And isn’t it too difficult to deliver them there? And the numerous barrel artillery? Ammo to her? And can this artillery, based on one island, support fire troops on another, say, 30 kilometers? No.

Or such a question as the reduction of the staff of the battalion as a whole. This is currently being studied in the United States, but the question that the battalions are "losing weight" is a settled one, the question is only how much. It seems stupid, but the small and dispersed parts are much more stable when using nuclear on the battlefield weapons, and this cannot be ruled out in the war with China. And it seems that the Americans want to be prepared for this as well.

In general, the new states of the Corps promise to be very well adapted to nuclear war. Few people comment on the reform from this side, but it has this side, and it is impossible not to notice it.

In fact, if we consider Berger’s beginnings precisely through the prism of the US war with China and precisely on the first chain of islands and in the South China Sea, it turns out that he is not so wrong. It can be argued whether five artillery batteries would be enough or if there should have been at least some tanks left. But the fact that hundreds of tanks and 21 batteries of barrel artillery is not needed for such a war is undeniable.

And what you need? We need equipment and weapons, completely different than the Corps is using now. And this is also taken into account in Berger's plan.

New weapons policy


To conduct battles in such an environment and with declared goals, the Corps will need a new approach to weapons systems and military equipment. This is due to the following specifics.

Firstly, we need the ability to suppress the actions of enemy (Chinese) Navy from the ground. This requires anti-ship missiles. Secondly, it is necessary that the troops can support each other with fire at a great distance, when a supported unit on one island, supporting on another, for example, 50 kilometers. This requires long-range weapons, naturally missile.

For firing at such ranges, it is necessary to have powerful intelligence in order to have accurate information about the enemy, both at sea and on the islands.

And you also need to have a lot of ships that provide landing operations, while taking into account the need to act until sea supremacy is achieved, these should be cheaper, “consumed” ships, with a smaller landing party, smaller, but in larger numbers. At least in order not to lose thousands of people on every ship sunk by the enemy.

Actually, all this is laid down in a new vision of the future Corps and has already been voiced. To combat the enemy Navy, marines must receive ground-based anti-ship missile installations.


American PU RCC NSM. Future marines

In order to support each other’s fire on neighboring islands - missile launchers, so far as a first approximation they will be the HIMARS MLRS, capable of using not only unguided, but also small-sized cruise missiles, over a distance of hundreds of kilometers. Berger has already announced a threefold increase in the number of such systems in the Corps.

Step Into the Unknown, or Future of American Marines
Exercises on the use of MLRS HIMARS during the raid (!) Marines ashore

The next important program announced the creation of a powerful line of high-precision long-range munitions, including barrage missiles, capable of being in the air for some time until they receive target designation and command to strike. It is assumed that during the assault operations such ammunition will be literally “over the head” of the attacking forces and at the first request fall upon the enemy, which will give a few minutes between the request for a strike and the strike itself, and without any aviation, which is also a new trend for the US Armed Forces .

It is also planned a jump-like increase in the number of different UAVs and a simultaneous increase in their performance characteristics, this applies to strike drones and reconnaissance drones, which are supposed to obtain data for the marines about the enemy, which will then be destroyed by missiles.

And, of course, Berger has already announced aloud the need to have smaller amphibious ships than the current San Antonio, though it hasn’t come to specifics yet.

And of course, so specific troops need specific staffing and doctrine of combat use.

New troops for a new war


The reductions in Corps that Berger planned were not just reductions, but a reduction to new states — fundamentally new.

According to his plan, the main combat unit of the Corps should be the so-called Marine littoral regiment - Marine littioral regiment, MLR. This part of the three-battalion squad will become the basis for future MEF, Marine expeditionary force - an expeditionary force, usually consisting of a marine division and various reinforcement units (our home translators, usually without further ado, translate MEF as a “division”, although this is not so , MEF is more than a division).

Now, several MEFs will act as a “wave” of regiments, which promptly, anticipating the enemy and not waiting for the complete defeat of his Navy, will have to occupy the key for the need to provide maneuver with the troops of the island.

Further, the regiments will have to base what Berger’s doctrine calls the Expeditionary advanced base. This is a stronghold on which, due to rapidly deployable devices and systems, refueling points for helicopters and convertiplanes, rocket firing positions for attacks on other islands and surface ships, and air guidance posts will be based. The key content of such a base will be FARP equipment - Forward arming and refueling position - the offensive position (point) of ammunition and refueling, on which helicopters and airmobile units and units will rely when attacking other islands.

When the enemy attempts to dislodge the American landing force, regiment anti-ship missiles, which will not allow the enemy to approach the shore, will have to enter the case. If some enemy units can still gain a foothold on the coast, then a massive missile attack by all types of missiles should fall on them - from guided cruise missiles to the good old MLRS missiles, “pack” for “Packet”, and then mechanized infantry at an extremely fast pace Corps must destroy these enemy troops in a swift attack.

Relying on such an advanced base, other units, using primarily tiltrotors and helicopters, should capture the following islands during the American offensive, where a new littoral regiment or units of the already fighting regiment will then be pulled.

The result should be a sort of “frog jumping” scheme — storming the island or occupying it without a fight — landing of the main forces of the “littoral regiment” —creation by the forces of the regiment (including ground anti-ship missiles) and carrier-based aircraft of a zone for denying access around the island, creating a base for assault units, who must attack the next island - an attack on the next island, for example, by airborne airborne forces and everything from the beginning.


Something like this: small-sized landings with long-range weapons, an airborne assault operation against an island with an aerodrome (a landing on convertible planes, special forces from Marine Raiders on parachutes, but you shouldn’t understand it too literally), the F-35B attacks an enemy ship - dominating the sea not yet. Many small American ships around. So they see it

What will act as an assault element of the new forces? What forces will precisely attack the islands occupied by the enemy, relying on long-range missiles and the rear infrastructure of the "littoral regiment"? Firstly, the regiment can technically do this on its own - one of the three battalions may well go on the assault. You need to understand that the “base” that the regiment must establish is simply trenches, soft tanks with jet fuel (if not a tanker at all) and dumped ammunition boxes in the ground, at best, a mobile command and control tower for assistance in takeoffs and landings of their helicopters, nothing that would require a lot of people to service or a lot of time to deploy there is not planned. So, the regiment can devote part of its forces to the offensive.


Farp

But. in addition to the littoral regiments, Berger considers it necessary to leave in the ranks and expeditionary units - Marine expeditionary units. MEU is a battalion combat group consisting of a marine corps battalion, a rear battalion, many different reinforcement and command and control units and an air group, the composition of which often turns out to be unstable (for example, it may have vertical take-off and landing attack aircraft, but may not, but usually there is).

Berger has already announced that the expeditionary forces remain, but their staff can also change. That MEU and MLR will interact with each other has also been announced. So to storm the islands, relying on the support bases created by the "littoral regiments", there will also be someone.

It should be noted that this is likely to be a working scheme. And it is focused precisely on an extremely fast offensive operation in the archipelagos, so fast that the enemy still does not have time to dig in and transfer sufficient forces to the defended islands, does not even have time to occupy those islands that are not controlled by them at the start of hostilities. Anything that can slow down such an operation, “extra” armored vehicles, for example, Berger is about to quit. Tanks cannot conduct airborne assault operations from helicopters and convertiplanes.

It should also be noted that on the islands of the South China Sea, the Corps will most likely not meet either numerous defending troops (there is nowhere to place them and nowhere to get the right amount of drinking water), nor armored vehicles (the islands are small and often lack vegetation in which to mask themselves, especially bulk islands), but there will be a problem of continuous raids of the enemy’s fleet's light forces, and here the ground-based RCC of the Hull, and the deck F-35B, will have to say their word.

Oddly enough, the repeatedly criticized "littoral warships", LCS, can say their word in such a war. The presence on board each of them of a helicopter capable of both providing anti-aircraft defense and carrying guided missiles (RCC Penguin and ATGM Hellfire), the ability to place an attack or multi-purpose helicopter on them, and before the infantry platoon, will also be very useful. Naturally, after all these ships are equipped with NSM anti-ship missiles, the installation of which is currently underway.

And even a reduction in the number of F-35B squadrons in practice will not reduce their combat effectiveness, but rather increase them. Berger very vaguely comments on issues related to changes in the states of the carrier-based deck aviation, but here his comments are not particularly needed.

In 2017, as part of its usual pressure on China in the South China Sea, the United States sent not the aircraft carrier, but the Uosp UDC, which was supposed to act as a light aircraft carrier, for planned exercises with the Philippines.


In the South China Sea, 2017. The whole air group on deck

In preparation for the campaign, it turned out that it was impossible to operate with large air forces with the UDC - it was unsuccessful just like an aircraft carrier, it has a small hangar, there are no resources for repairing aircraft at the proper level, a cramped deck, despite 40000 tons of displacement. It turned out that the limiting number of the air group, which can use all its forces and carry out combat missions, is a group of ten F-35Bs, four Osprey tilt planes with a rescue squad that can be used to evacuate downed pilots from enemy territory (however, for delivery to the rear of the enemy is special forces groups), and a pair of search and rescue helicopters for lifting pilots from the water, catapulted over the sea.

And Berger’s plan to reduce the squadron to 10 cars just hints that the Corps is going to use the UDC not so much as landing ships, but as light aircraft carriers with fighters of short take-off and vertical landing. This will dramatically reduce the dependence of Marines on the Navy, which may have some of its other tasks. Of course, UDC is a very dubious aircraft carrier, their effectiveness in this capacity is extremely low, but there are some. On the plus side, they will carry some landing forces in this case too, which means that they will be useful precisely for the purposes of the Corps.

Reform progress and weaknesses in the Berger plan


Currently, Americans are solving practical issues. What should be the staff of the battalion? How should expeditionary units (MEUs) change? Should they all be the same or should the squad staff be different in each area of ​​responsibility? Now these and many other issues are being worked out during various military games. The tradition of war games in the USA is very strong. It cannot be denied that games really allow you to simulate some things that the real world did not yet have. Now they model the battles of parts of the Corps with different states and determine the optimal organizational and staff structures for the form of military operations that they plan to resort to in the future.

With the exception of these questions, which have not yet been clarified, Berger clearly has a clear vision of the future Corps, he does not hesitate to speak live on SIM and confidently answers sharp questions about what he is doing, and we must admit that the sharp critical attitude of American society his reforms are changing very quickly, literally not by the day, but by the hour.

There is also support for the Berger plan from the military-political leadership.

Something, however, raises questions.

So, practice shows that sometimes you can’t do without tanks. If not without tanks, then at least without another powerful armed cannon of a machine capable of direct fire. The absence of such a machine in the plans for the rearmament of the Corps looks like a weak point - at least one or two vehicles in the infantry company should be obliged even during such island operations. And if the enemy can land, then more.

The second question is whether the American industry can provide the right line of missile weapons for reasonable money. There is no doubt that she is capable of this, but she needs to still want to, otherwise it could turn out to be truly golden missiles that replenish corporate accounts with money, but which are not massive enough to fight with them - simply because of the price.

The critical dependence of the troops on communications is obvious. If the enemy "makes" a connection, then the use of all those long-range missile systems that can get one island from another will simply be impossible: there will be no connection between those who request fire at targets and those who must conduct it. The same will happen in the event of a nuclear war. Without communication, Americans will constantly be faced with the need to solve the problem only with the help of rifles and grenades with all the ensuing consequences. They should obviously worry about this.

And the main problem: the new Corps will be suitable for war on the islands. On the first chain of islands in the Pacific Ocean, on the Kuril Islands, on the Aleutians, in the South China Sea, in Oceania. He will be able to fight in sparsely populated areas with poor communications, for example, in Chukotka, or in some areas of Alaska. But it is unsuitable for something else. History shows that troops have to act in a variety of conditions. And if someday the Marines will be required to occupy the coastal fortified city, and they will say that they cannot (and this will be true, for example), then Berger will be remembered. Of course, the USA also has an army, and there is historical experience of landing operations, which were carried out only by the army without Marines (at least Normandy), but, nevertheless, Berger is at risk here. The demonstration of the uselessness of the Corps will be very painfully met by American society, and the narrow specialization in one theater and one enemy is fraught with just that. Although, maybe it will.

There are pros, and not only those listed above. In Russia, things like sea transfer to the threatened direction of coastal missile systems with anti-ship cruise missiles are practiced very widely. They are also used for coastal defense, including on the islands (Kuril Islands, Kotelny - in the latter case, it is clearly not where it is necessary, but it will not be fixed for long - only a few days). And since we succeed, why can't the Americans succeed?

One way or another, but the Rubicon is crossed. Either the United States will lose its expeditionary forces, or they will move to a new quality and give them opportunities that Americans do not have now. And one cannot but admit that the chances of a second outcome with a competent and balanced approach will be much higher than the first. So, we need to closely monitor what the Americans are doing and prepare to oppose their new methods.

Indeed, important for the country archipelagos are not only in China.


Presentation from CSBA. During the offensive on Kamchatka, the Kuril Islands are shown as US-friendly territory in which American air defense systems (or allied air defense systems) are deployed. And these are islands too
Author:
Photos used:
USNI, The National Interest, US Marine Corps, Lance Cpl. Joshua Sechser / USMC, Tawanya Norwood / USMC, Daniel Barker / US Navy, CSBA, Consorthium of Defense Analysts, AP / Kuni Takahashi, Assosiated Press, Simon Mortimer / jetphotos.com, TheDrive
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

93 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67 April 9 2020 05: 49 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    will turn it into a fundamentally new instrument of war for Americans, and, most importantly, naval warfare, and not land war.
    In short, in the course of the reform, from the great military force that the ILC previously represented, the one that the President of the United States could use without parliament’s permission for three days, waging “his” war, “for the good of the people of the United States,” he turns into one of the clans Navy ... And excellent.
  2. Ruslan April 9 2020 06: 04 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    and if you think so, then our criticized des. ships crawling ashore are no longer so bad in this scenario. in principle, we even have some elements of such a scheme: octopus, x-35 missiles, floating carnations.
    can we copy their concept for our marines? anyway, there are few of them, it’s easier for us to experiment :-)))
    1. fk7777777 April 9 2020 07: 02 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      Yeah, there is, on the site, but in reality nothing, just zero.
      1. Ruslan April 9 2020 07: 10 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Well, I agree. the amount is insufficient. but it’s not direct zero)) there is already an x-35 in the “ball”, carnations have not yet been written off, it is difficult with octopus. I can not imagine at least 10 pieces typed? )) even there is still a BDK, at least a little, old and it is not known when the replacement .. i.e. experimenting may be enough.
        1. Lopatov April 9 2020 08: 20 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: ruslan
          with octopus is difficult. I can not imagine at least 10 pieces typed? )))

          36 pieces.
    2. antivirus April 9 2020 09: 51 New
      • 0
      • 4
      -4
      that's who "banned" Shoigu to build a Leader - building a "trifle"
      How will Nato live in Europe? without the support of amers, only the Turks and Poles have a lot of land for the first time?
      we threw off the burden of opposition, to whom did we shift?
    3. timokhin-aa April 9 2020 14: 17 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Well, our tasks are still different, and the risks from the approach of the BDK to the shore will only grow over time.
  3. andrewkor April 9 2020 06: 14 New
    • 2
    • 7
    -5
    "Drawn on paper, but forgot about the ravines!" The old truth, only real fighting for the islands mentioned will show what's what, with not obvious results.
    The Russian marines, on the contrary, are saturated with heavy equipment. For example, coastal defense is intensifying in the Kuril Islands. For the rest, let China have a headache and Marines reforms will also not go unnoticed.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Lopatov April 9 2020 08: 24 New
        • 9
        • 3
        +6
        Quote: fk7777777
        Rassian

        Tin.
        And a rating of +4
        Apparently, earned on the usual for the recent Sabbath of "witnesses to leave"
      2. timokhin-aa April 9 2020 14: 17 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        one hemorrhagic with homosexuality in the army is worth what.

        Are you talking to yourself, apparently, yes?
  4. Free wind April 9 2020 06: 48 New
    • 4
    • 8
    -4
    The reduction is due primarily to the inability to recruit the required strength according to the staffing table. White is currently a minority in the United States. How to go to the army. for blacks, latinos easier to sit on allowance. In order to get various nishtyaks after the army, higher education is free at least, first you need to finish school in front of the army, and here the Negroes have big problems. About 10-25 million Chinese live in America, and they know very well how they will behave in the event of a conflict with China in America. When the Japanese raid on American bases, Yapis knew the location of airfields and ships, everything was known from the Japanese working on the islands .. Also, China is investing heavily in the American economy. There will be no conflict with the United States. Chukotka, Kamchatka capture, in my opinion they are not fools for a long time know that trading is more profitable than fighting. In terms of tactics, the Marines are, in principle, correct, in practice, where they will be sent. there they will fight. Moreover, additional training has not prevented anyone.
    1. fk7777777 April 9 2020 06: 57 New
      • 1
      • 7
      -6
      Well, China, and so we sell all the resources, so why does he need hemorrhoids? With such a population, any resources in case of war are very difficult to maintain at the proper level.
    2. Santa Fe April 9 2020 08: 37 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      White is currently a minority in the United States.

      Are you crazy?)

      US White Population Continuously Increases Due to High White Fertility

      There have always been relatively few blacks, around 12%. Their places of residence are known, and outside of those places (Washington, for example) in the United States, they are rare. In about 500 years, African Americans are predicted to disappear as a species (they will inevitably merge with the white population). If 50 years ago such marriages were considered impossible, then in the era of tolerance the process went very fast.
      1. Ruslan April 9 2020 11: 20 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        wow! You have opened America to me. I read at the beginning of 2000 that the proportion of the black population is approaching 50%. No longer particularly interested in the issue.
        and here it turns out only 12%, my world will never be the same again)))
        1. 2 Level Advisor April 9 2020 16: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          12 percent, and the noise by 70 .. however .. blacks, sir ...
      2. carstorm 11 April 10 2020 02: 33 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        In 2017, there were 197,8 million white people in the United States. The number of Hispanics was 58,9 million, an increase of 2,1 percent over the year. African Americans also increased by 1,2 percent (47,4 million), and immigrants from Asia - by 3,1 percent (22,2 million) compared with 2016. why does everyone think only of blacks? Asians and Latinos also, as it were, are not related to white.
        1. nikon7717 April 11 2020 12: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          In the proportion of white people in the United States there are a lot of Hispanics, these are mestizos. See how many of them. And look at the composition by age groups. Obviously, White is decreasing.
    3. KVIRTU April 12 2020 20: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      They received a Green Card, a residence permit, i.e., a contract of 3 years, and here you have citizenship. When Obama accepted, it was 5. At the expense of migrants replenish, this is not a problem. And they are reducing it, because PMCs are now solving a lot of tasks abroad, under contracts with the government. Receiving almost any weapon, as in the same Iraq, where their marines are behind 12 (!) Security perimeters.
  5. fk7777777 April 9 2020 06: 54 New
    • 0
    • 11
    -11
    And why do they say "space marines" always open their mouths like that ... do they want to suck up indecent enemies? ...
  6. fk7777777 April 9 2020 07: 26 New
    • 0
    • 11
    -11
    M, yes the aggressor, in its beauty. What can I say, to work proactively, to use drones, all types of airplanes, ships, underwater, and anti-aircraft as much as possible and simultaneously. And of course, the ideal option is to catch all this wunderwaffle at the penultimate point, that is, it will not let you land and leave, and actually it will not last long near the shore.
  7. Lopatov April 9 2020 08: 33 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    And if ever the Marines will be required to occupy the coastal fortified city

    Then they will succeed
    For the city, first of all, trained infantry is needed.
    Fire support can be provided by the ROCK from drones and HIMARS, operated by managed GMLRS. This scheme was tested in Iraq during the "fight against ISIS"
    Plus limited airmobile M777
    Plus a fully aeromobile Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS), a very adequate scheme "finished off" the French rifled mortar
    1. timokhin-aa April 9 2020 14: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Without heavy weapons it will be very difficult, remember the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad, if you know how it was there.
      1. Lopatov April 9 2020 17: 18 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Without heavy weapons it will be very difficult

        I agree.
        But not impossible
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        remember the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad, if you know how it was there.

        They did a “bug fix.” The same ROC I mentioned radically increases the combat capabilities of assault groups.
        1. timokhin-aa April 9 2020 17: 22 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          So the trick is that the 3rd front just fine and it was thanks to the tanks - in Baghdad.
          Tanks were the basis of their fire system at occupied strongholds. Particularly worked BC machine guns, 10000+ rounds of ammunition with which they fought off the Iraqis.
          But the attempt to rush into the attack without armor, after the capture of the presidential palace failed - the attack choked under fire.
          They have all the tactical schemes of urban combat revolve around tanks, as we have in Berlin.
          Therefore, I doubt it.
          1. Lopatov April 9 2020 19: 31 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            They have all the tactical schemes of urban combat revolve around tanks

            Not really. Discover their field manuals.
            The tank is used there exclusively as a means of support, most of the time being “at an angle” and traveling for firing on command


            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And here’s an attempt to rush to the attack without armor

            I'm afraid it was impossible. In 2003, the 3rd PD was actually mechanized, three mechanized brigades, infantry fighting vehicles and tanks
            1. timokhin-aa April 9 2020 19: 47 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              The tank is used there exclusively as a means of support, most of the time being “at an angle” and traveling for firing on command


              Look at this, for example
              https://dr-guillotin.livejournal.com/112982.html?thread=10761302
              Below in the comments, the quote from the old manual is just, but the post itself is much more interesting.
              1. Lopatov April 9 2020 21: 08 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Look at this, for example

                Horror. In the style of "storming Grozny." They were very lucky ...

                The coolest thing is to read after watching American field manuals. Where literally for the most stupid people chews how to do it right. We don’t even write such tactics in textbooks ...

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                In the comments below, the quote from the old manual is just

                In the "old manual" it is written about a completely different situation of a small or weakly protected settlement
                Moreover, even his provisions were not fulfilled.

                And by and large, all these tanks and infantry fighting vehicles were rescued by the usual "Humvee" with 12.7 machine guns, which broke through in the style of Mogadishu at the cost of losing five trucks.
                Otherwise, everything would be like with the combined battalion of the Maykop brigade

                In short, a vivid example of "how not to." And "what happens when politics rules tactics"


                The actions of the Americans and their subordinates in Iraq during the "fight against ISIS" were an order of magnitude more adequate.
                1. timokhin-aa April 10 2020 13: 00 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Well, the fact is that there was no one to defend Baghdad; Iraqi troops were killed in the desert before that.
                  Nevertheless, the dependence on armored vehicles is obvious.
                  Therefore, I have doubts that the complete abandonment of the tanks is justified. They don’t want tanks, even if they make at least an analogue of the “Stryker” with a 105-mm cannon, it can even be done on a crawler chassis, but without heavy weapons for direct fire they can, in some cases, get very badly.
  8. Cowbra April 9 2020 08: 48 New
    • 2
    • 10
    -8
    were among the first to set foot
    They know how to stupid laughing
    The Americans, being the strongest side, plan to do the same to further widen the gap in power between themselves and China.
    Hm and not vice versa? Continental aviation in China is obviously stronger than any aircraft carrier, the fleet of the near sea zone is even stronger in strength than China, and this is China’s coastal defense built in that area of ​​the island chain. The mattresses in that area for China now are just whipping boys, which is why they make the KAMIKADZE squads out of the marines - one missile launch, after which China bury them together with the launcher in the sand as they like - at least with aviation, at least with shelling.
    1. Octopus April 9 2020 11: 04 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Quote: Cowbra
      Continental Aviation China

      So far, very modest, if you look at the merits. The amount gives obvious scrap, and the main strength is not such numerous analogues of the F-16 and Su-27.
  9. Cowbra April 9 2020 09: 01 New
    • 1
    • 11
    -10
    Oddly enough, the repeatedly criticized "littoral warships", LCS, can say their word in such a war.

    And here is the mistake. They are according to the plan of the same Berger for writing off - already approved laughing Yes, yes, the very ones that 6 years from the day of the descent have not yet been scraped off in the waves. all these super-fancy, modular, and as usual "pyRid" ones - forward to the dump ALREADY
    1. timokhin-aa April 9 2020 14: 20 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      You from some alternative reality write, it seems.
      1. Cowbra April 10 2020 00: 45 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        The US Navy announced plans for the 21st year budget to begin to write off its “littoral” (coastal) ships - for starters, four pieces are equally divided between the Freedom and Independence types. Ships from 12 to ... 6 years old will be put on the wall! The fleet seems to have fed up with a dubious concept. Especially delivered at the time the story of the repair of one of them - "Fort Worth" in Singapore with a sharp body. And the idea of ​​using ships for “testing and training personnel” does not shine at all because of the high cost of their operation (yeah, what do you want from ships with such a powerful and uneconomical power plant, gee, gee, who would have thought!). As a small consolation, the fleet claims to be “invaluable experience” in the development of “anti-submarine, anti-mine, anti-ship capabilities”. Yeah. And most importantly, what the fleet hopes for is to get them to stop eating their money!
        1. timokhin-aa April 10 2020 13: 01 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          They continue to build if you are not in the know. The Navy ate some of these ships, but the fact is that they are there and they need to be used somewhere. For the combat services that the US Navy carries in the world, they are unsuitable, but it’s quite what kind of archipelago to fight for.
          1. Cowbra April 10 2020 13: 25 New
            • 0
            • 4
            -4
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            They continue to build if you are not in the know.

            Do not know. But in the know that they have a resource - sa-avsem not 6 years old, so that either finish building what has already been laid, or ... But there is no second option, since 6-year-old boats began to write off
  10. Scharnhorst April 9 2020 09: 15 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Only 5% of the coastline of the oceans is suitable for landing equipment on shore, even less than 70 tons of live weight like Abrams. Our tanks in the MP are used exclusively in the native theater, and not around the world, as was the case with the United States Commission. "Courland Berger" gets rid of them correctly. Although I would ask, maybe I would not refuse the likeness of our T-72s, but in a smaller quantity.
  11. AAK
    AAK April 9 2020 09: 18 New
    • 6
    • 6
    0
    Unfortunately, for some reason, it seems to me more realistic that not China and Russia will “divide the USA”, but when the USA (+ Japan) and China can “divide Russia” ... Now the Russian Federation is much more economically dependent on China ( and consumer goods and engineering products) than China from the Russian Federation. It is quite probable that China will cease to be an “sanction outlet” for the Russian Federation ... the United States, in order to attract China to its side, may well “trade” Taiwan for the start, but the situation “a la 90 "..." having excluded China from the "economic donation" for the Russian Federation, Russia is completely capable of crushing sanctions, the rich Buratins will strangle the "power" patriots, Russia is in economic and financial collapse, and in such a situation there will be no money, armed forces will begin to break apart and reduce, there will be no holes an all-out military presence neither in the Far East, nor in Siberia, nor in the North ... This is where the "light, mobile and well-armed USMC" comes in handy, at first the Kuril Islands, Kamchatka, Sakhalin are very easily taken under control Primorye ... well, and then along the Trans-Siberian and BAM - to the west ... Moreover, the Russian population will not even be squeezed out of there, so that our army does not begin to bullet at their own people, although this is not an absolute guarantee, but same ... China as a bonus - all of Central Asia with Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Indochina and part of the south of Siberia ... In general m thoughts rather alarming ...
    1. Lopatov April 9 2020 09: 23 New
      • 6
      • 8
      -2
      Quote: AAK
      US to attract China to its side to start

      Dear, China is not Ukraine; raking is not accustomed to.
      Once they already believed the United States, helped in the Cold War and in the collapse of the USSR. To become the next goal, in just a few years.

      How did you decide that the Chinese would believe the Americans for the second time?
      1. AAK
        AAK April 9 2020 09: 26 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        It’s just that the United States will not want to give China the opportunity to “dine with Russia” alone, so it’s necessary to share ...
        1. Lopatov April 9 2020 09: 40 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          Quote: AAK
          Just usa

          ... have chosen China as their next adversary. The term "Air-Sea Battle" was introduced in 1992 by Commander James Stavridis. And China has noticed it. Look at the pace of his rearmament, especially the fleet, which had previously received little attention

          In order to share, you must believe. But there is no traitor to faith
          1. Octopus April 9 2020 11: 05 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            China was chosen as the next adversary.

            And who else? What are they home now?
        2. Cowbra April 9 2020 10: 00 New
          • 5
          • 8
          -3
          Not to mention that by “having lunch” with Russia, the United States will simply have to bite China, which Russia will definitely be at least bloodless - just for that. to become the only hegemon again. To even look askance at Russia, China must be even worse than the non-brothers. Just the existence of Russia is a condition for the existence of China, as long as there is NATO in the world. And vice versa.
          So this scenario is laughter
          1. AAK
            AAK April 9 2020 11: 55 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            EMNIP, one of the classics of Marxism said, politics is a concentrated expression of the economy. According to the charts in various media, the US and China have roughly the same GDP, but China produces more than any other product in the United States. China’s trade with the United States is about 10 times more than with Russia, plus China’s quite decent trade with the EU and Japan (which is again several times more than with Russia), i.e. China, as the main trading partners, has mainly geopolitical opponents of Russia ... But China will definitely use a very significant economic dependence of Russia on China. So far, Russia for China is a nuclear umbrella and an argument in negotiations with the states, but the final choice of China is Russia as a source of various natural resources, territories and, until a certain time, military-space technologies. Yes, China has its own graters with the states and Japanese, but in the military sphere, even with the significant growth of the surface components of its fleet, China, the United States is not the enemy (especially in terms of strategic nuclear forces and the submarine fleet). In principle, the Japanese with the South Koreans are able to restrain the Chinese fleet, even with virtually no US assistance. China can only successfully defend its coast, but they simply will not be allowed into the open ocean. China’s land army is the largest in the world, but they still can’t even carry out a landing operation in Taiwan, not to mention Japan and especially the states, therefore China can expand (in the case of a hypothetical expansion) only to Central Asia, Mongolia and the south of Russia Siberia. All sorts of Kazakh-Uzbek-Kyrgyz economically and so basically under China, and even somewhere they are proud that it’s not under Russia ... In the Russian Far East, legal-illegal Chinese will soon be comparable to the local population, because of the crown part left, but it is not for long. And destroying China physically to the states makes no sense, everyone needs cheap labor and places for dirty production, just in the absence of Russia as a force, China will be easier to stall ... they will work as they did, only for less money ...
            1. Lopatov April 9 2020 21: 12 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              Quote: AAK
              EMNIP, one of the classics of Marxism said, politics is a concentrated expression of the economy.

              Exactly.
              And the main problem of the USA is not Russia but China.
              The main problem of China is the United States.

              Russia is not on the list.

              Quote: AAK
              In the Russian Far East, legal-illegal Chinese will soon be comparable to the local population

              And?
              In the United States, the Chinese are still orders of magnitude larger.
              These are already stamps gone.

              You know what the ficus picus is ... You are trying with all your might to convince us that China is our enemy. That is, to fulfill what the late Brzezinski offered the American authorities.
            2. psiho117 April 10 2020 00: 57 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: AAK
              Japanese with South Koreans are able to restrain the Chinese fleet, even with virtually no US assistance

              FAQ? !! South Koreans can’t even control the northerners alone, and you are talking about China.
              The Japanese are not warriors at all now, although they have a completely modern army and navy, their morale is unprecedentedly low. Remember what panic they had when Kim shocked his Hwasonons. They could not even bring down a rocket flying over Japan! A shame!
              Without America (if it gets bogged down with China), the Northerners will sweep away the Southerners, and throw the Japam loafs-batons, from which they either capitulate or slide into the Bronze Age.
              North Koreans are firmly convinced that Japan "should no longer exist" in the neighborhood of the DPRK. “The four islands of the [Japanese] archipelago need to be drowned in the sea with the Juche nuclear bomb,” Pyongyang announced, and “the US should be erased into ashes and darkness.”. And this is not an empty phrase, but a statement by the leader of a country that has an army of 1,2 million military personnel, and in case of war a mobilization reserve reaches ten million.
              1. timokhin-aa April 10 2020 13: 03 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                And this is not an empty phrase, but a statement by the leader of a country that has an army of 1,2 million military personnel, and in case of war a mobilization reserve reaches ten million.


                And what will these millions do? Gymnasts inflate with "bubbles"? will they cross to Japan and shovel it below the sea level?
                Oh yes, before that a couple of nuclear strikes will be delivered against it. Or the top three.
                This is where Japan ends, yeah.
                1. psiho117 April 10 2020 21: 57 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  And what will these millions do?

                  Capture South. Korea ...
                  And there are ships and shipyards. Do you remember that more than 50% of the orders of the global shipbuilding market are currently being built at Southerners shipyards?
                  Oh yes, before that a couple of nuclear strikes will be delivered against it. Or the top three.
                  This is where Japan ends, yeah

                  IMHO, Japam and one is enough - they capitulate corny.
                  You saw the social. research on japan? This country is now inhabited by old people and limp office hickeys, who not only cannot defend their country, they lack the strength of mind to say a banal “no” to their interlocutor in a conversation.
                  1. timokhin-aa April 10 2020 23: 45 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    South Korea is stronger than North. And Severnaya has a defensive doctrine in fact, aimed at first restraining the aggression of the United States and South Korea, and if it does not work out, then make the war as expensive for them as possible.

                    And with Japan, everything is far from being as simple as you think.
                    1. psiho117 April 11 2020 00: 42 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      Northern has a defensive doctrine in fact, aimed at first restraining the aggression of the United States and South Korea, and if it does not work out, then make war as expensive as possible for them.

                      Well, and where is the contradiction with my phrase
                      Without America (if it gets bogged down with China), the Northerners will sweep away the Southerners, and throw Japam
                      ?
                      I clearly expressed myself - without America.
                      At South. Koreans are also the doctrine of "Wait for Uncle Sam's help." And without America, their northerners crush them.
                      Understand that it is impossible to conduct effective military operations when the capital is 24 km from the border, and several thousands North Korean guns and MLRS aimed at Seoul.
                      In any case, there can be no talk of any effective work of the General Staff or institutions of power. Seoul will be erased even without nuclear weapons.
                      1. timokhin-aa April 11 2020 00: 49 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        1. The North is not going to attack under any circumstances - there is simply nothing.
                        2. Southerners are stronger than northerners without America.
                        3. Spit on Seoul. One city does not mean anything, military command and control bodies can be withdrawn from a dangerous area in advance, and artillery can be silenced in a week or thrown away with a powerful attack 20-30 kilometers to the north.
                        Nonsense is everything, no one is afraid of Kim, he is afraid of everyone.
    2. Doccor18 April 9 2020 23: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There is some truth.
      I do not like this fuss with kmp reforms. And Japan its
      e-type Hyuuga under F35 redo. Stirred up.
      The Kuril Islands need to be strengthened.
      To Kamchatka coastal anti-ship missiles, yes
      SAM S-400 more.
      1. timokhin-aa April 10 2020 13: 04 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Japan generally leads a lot of preparations, and it is to the landing operations
  12. exo
    exo April 9 2020 12: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The corps takes the form of "Anti-Chinese forces." That is, exclusively war on the islands. Well, "frog jumping" was practiced during WWII. Nothing new.
    1. timokhin-aa April 9 2020 14: 22 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      New participation in the struggle for supremacy at sea, i.e. work against the enemy fleet from the ground, moreover, systemic and conscious. This is very new, to be honest.
  13. dokusib April 9 2020 13: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Something the Chinese are preparing for war for the same territory are not shy about saturating parts of their marines with armored vehicles. But the rich do not understand. I wonder what resource in time of the military operation is laid in the calculations of Mr. Berger. Because they will not make missiles, the problem is logistics. What will be left when ammunition is wasted. In addition to UDC, a powerful transport fleet will be required. Question: it is not easier to replace transport for missiles with a ship capable of using these same missiles.
    1. Lopatov April 9 2020 13: 33 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: dokusib
      Something the Chinese are preparing for war for the same territory are not shy about saturating parts of their marines with armored vehicles.

      There is a focus on a large island. On which this armored vehicle can and should be used.
      In addition, the Chinese Marines are just two amphibious mechanized regiments and four battalions of the marine corps
  14. voyaka uh April 9 2020 13: 55 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    1) Marines will need a new "medium" tank: with a 105 mm gun and KAZ for
    landing support and bridgehead extensions.
    2) tactical ballistic missiles will not replace 155 mm artillery and 120 mm mortars.
    1. timokhin-aa April 9 2020 14: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Well, yes, yes, but the plans are slightly different. However, until 2030 there is time to change your mind.
    2. Alexey RA April 9 2020 19: 16 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      1) Marines will need a new "medium" tank: with a 105 mm gun and KAZ for
      landing support and bridgehead extensions.

      Which as a result of OCD will rekindle up to “Abrams”. If not in size, so for sure in price - EFV will not let you lie. smile
    3. Engineer April 9 2020 22: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Maybe they believe that the "difficult" tasks will be solved in cooperation with the army that will provide all this.
      In general, the tank often great limits the capabilities of the mobile parts, although it adds power. Where to go with a 70-ton fool. You won’t slip there, you won’t get around here. Plus a whole fleet of support- BREM, tankers, bridge spacers.
      I did not read very carefully and did not catch the aspect of interaction with the army. Will the ILC be responsible for maintaining bridgeheads and ensuring army deployment to give greater sustainability?
      The idea of ​​losing weight is tempting, but will the Americans fall into the trap of our airborne forces when the elite and expensive units do not drag out the combined arms battle and need reinforcements. And if you give them these means of amplification, they will cease to fulfill the main function.
      1. voyaka uh April 9 2020 23: 13 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        "In general, the tank often great limits the capabilities of the mobile parts" ///
        ----
        Limits. But without tanks, these mobile units turn into helpless
        infantry, a little detached from the landing site. Heroism begins, feats ...
        and destroy the paratroopers, although writing them in gold letters in history.
        But you need to win the operation.
        1. Engineer April 9 2020 23: 30 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So I write that the two-edged sword and the extremes are either light and mobile but relatively weak, or tightly packed but slow. Apparently the Americans were desperate to find a middle ground and decided we would be light and take the burden on their own.
      2. timokhin-aa April 11 2020 00: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Maybe they believe that the "difficult" tasks will be solved in cooperation with the army that will provide all this.


        In part, it is.
  15. Valtimchenko April 9 2020 14: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Santa Fe
    White is currently a minority in the United States.

    Are you crazy?)
    .
    US White Population Continuously Increases Due to High White Fertility

    No, did not go. We can just read.

    https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US#
    White A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.

    And yes, according to this methodology - already 76,5%
    1. Santa Fe April 9 2020 18: 49 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      It is strange why the Irish and Germans are considered separate from the caucasian

      Caucasian is not related to the Caucasus. In theirs, this is the official designation of the white race.
      1. Engineer April 9 2020 22: 18 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        because they have in various forms to fill the Caucasian, this is a collective name for the rest of the white ethnic groups not related to the Irish, Germans and Anglo-Saxons.
  16. Sfurei April 9 2020 15: 09 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Thanks to the author for the work done. Really interesting and informative article. I hope our MO analysts do not miss similar news from the USA either. and draw the appropriate conclusions.
  17. exo
    exo April 9 2020 17: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    New participation in the struggle for supremacy at sea, i.e. work against the enemy fleet from the ground, moreover, systemic and conscious. This is very new, to be honest.

    “Nothing new” is about jumping from island to island. And the concept: the marines from the coast, against the fleet, is really new.
    1. Alexey RA April 9 2020 19: 15 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: exo
      And the concept: the marines from the coast, against the fleet, is really new.

      Not really. Before the US entered the previous world war, the Marine Defense Battalions appeared in the marine corps. These units were intended to work on enemy ships and aircraft — coastal defense and air defense of advanced fleet bases and territories captured by marines. At first they were armed with 127/51 coastal guns, 76-mm anti-aircraft guns and a large number of products of John Mozesovich. During the war, they were re-equipped with 155-mm mobile coastal guns (based on an army gun), 90-mm anti-aircraft guns, 40-mm and 20-mm MPA. There was no infantry in the battalions - only batteries and machine-gun companies, a sort of coastal version of the OPAB. But all the MDB fighters took a marines training course, and in critical situations infantry units were formed from calculations. Together with the MDB, they also wanted to make purely infantry cover battalions of the Marine Infantry Battalions, but did not have time.
      PMSM, the reason for creating the MDB was that the fleet wanted to acquire its own coastal defense, the units of which would not have to be begged from the army. After all, the entire US Coast Defense was subordinate to the Army. smile
      1. timokhin-aa April 10 2020 23: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The nuance is that these were defensive forces, and their task did not include the struggle for supremacy at sea.
        And now everything will be the other way around.
  18. exo
    exo April 9 2020 20: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: exo
    And the concept: the marines from the coast, against the fleet, is really new.

    Not really. Before the US entered the previous world war, the Marine Defense Battalions appeared in the marine corps. These units were intended to work on enemy ships and aircraft — coastal defense and air defense of advanced fleet bases and territories captured by marines. At first they were armed with 127/51 coastal guns, 76-mm anti-aircraft guns and a large number of products of John Mozesovich. During the war, they were re-equipped with 155-mm mobile coastal guns (based on an army gun), 90-mm anti-aircraft guns, 40-mm and 20-mm MPA. There was no infantry in the battalions - only batteries and machine-gun companies, a sort of coastal version of the OPAB. But all the MDB fighters took a marines training course, and in critical situations infantry units were formed from calculations. Together with the MDB, they also wanted to make purely infantry cover battalions of the Marine Infantry Battalions, but did not have time.
    PMSM, the reason for creating the MDB was that the fleet wanted to acquire its own coastal defense, the units of which would not have to be begged from the army. After all, the entire US Coast Defense was subordinate to the Army. smile

    Thank you Alexey! Live and learn :)
  19. SVD68 April 10 2020 07: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Berger's strategy is simple. Using superiority in communications, management and logistics, create local superiority in strength and quickly capture the "first line" of the islands. Then, using these islands as an unsinkable base of anti-ship means, establish a sea blockade of China.

    The reason for this strategy is that China became the first industrial power and the United States does not see the opportunity to decisively bypass the Chinese in the construction of the fleet.

    The disadvantages of such a strategy.
    Actually this is a kind of improved copy of Japan’s strategy in WWII. And their disadvantages are similar. First, it is assumed that the naval blockade will force the Chinese to surrender. What will the Americans do if the Chinese do not want to give up, but fight to the victory?
    Second, such a strategy gives the Chinese time to realize their industrial superiority.
  20. Connor MacLeod April 10 2020 11: 10 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Indeed, important for the country archipelagos are not only in China.

    That's right, in the Arctic, for example, tanks are not needed at all, just like tracked self-propelled guns.

    A sudden blow captures the Arctic archipelago of Russia. The first echelon of attack is Navy SEALs from nuclear submarines or by helicopters from Canada, they are fixed on the islands until the main forces approach, the garrison is neutralized, coastal missile systems and MLRS systems are deployed to repel a retaliatory strike from the Northern Fleet. After the supply base is created in the shortest possible time, a throw to the mainland of the Russian Federation follows. The main objective is hydrocarbon reserves in Western Siberia.

    It is possible in the Far East in the same way:

    1. Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, Kamchatka

    2. Primorye, Khabarovsk Territory

    3. oil and gas of Eastern Siberia

    In any case, they will come from the Arctic and the Far East, we must think how to defend these territories first of all, and not Crimea and Kaliningrad ...


    1. Cyril G ... April 11 2020 12: 53 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The circuit is gorgeous. From a political point of view, it allows free use of nuclear weapons. On this DrangNahZyuiden immediately ends.
  21. TermNachTer April 10 2020 11: 33 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The article is interesting, but outrageously stretched. As a conclusion, I can say that if as a result of such reforms this instrument of mattress aggression "breaks", I will be very happy.
    1. timokhin-aa April 10 2020 13: 07 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Stretched? Yes, she is small. How old are you?
      1. TermNachTer April 10 2020 13: 31 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Thank God, it’s already 50. If the author decided to seriously study the ILC, then this requires a book of a decent format.
        1. timokhin-aa April 10 2020 17: 11 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          So you can hardly master a short article, why do you need a book?
          1. TermNachTer April 11 2020 14: 12 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I mastered the article, and therefore I say that if this is a serious study on the subject of ILC, then it should be considered wider and deeper, starting in 1946 and, accordingly, the format should be different. If this is a general overview, then it could be made more compact.
  22. ydjin April 10 2020 15: 17 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The American dreamer, but the loaf is vigorous evens out. You can capture the island and here a strike by tactical nuclear weapons, the ILC on this piece of land in ruins. Are the Yankees ready to go to the next level ?! Then only SNF. And the whole world is in ruin. Most likely you want to live, that's the chess stalemate. Tactically, you can panic and get smart, strategically to all the Khan! Who is in Heaven who is in Hell, well, it has already been voiced
    1. timokhin-aa April 10 2020 17: 11 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      In China's military doctrine, the non-use of nuclear weapons is the first.
      Such a structure of troops ensures their survival.
      NW is not a child prodigy at all, the infantry inside the armored personnel carrier will remain operational several kilometers from the epicenter, even if it is hit by a shock wave and flash.
  23. Olddetractor April 10 2020 21: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    NW is not a child prodigy at all, the infantry inside the armored personnel carrier will remain operational several kilometers from the epicenter, even if it is hit by a shock wave and flash

    This fighting capacity is now difficult to assess. Perhaps it will be quickly tired, hard-moving people, unable to understand and execute most of the commands
    1. timokhin-aa April 10 2020 23: 47 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The Americans forced their soldiers to parachute into the epicenter of a nuclear explosion half an hour after detonation - without gas masks or any other protective equipment. They exposed 56000 people to nuclear explosions just to understand how it affects living people.

      They are well aware of the limits of capabilities of nuclear weapons, do not even hesitate.
  24. Cyril G ... April 11 2020 10: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Cool. The Americans finally decided to invent BRAV, by eliminating the possibility of maintaining a DB against normal mechanized parts from the tasks of the ILC.
    1. timokhin-aa April 11 2020 12: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Offensive BRAV with an airborne assault echelon.
      And this is quite logical for a war on the archipelagos.
      And, as I had in the previous article, it was when fighting a strongest enemy at sea.
      True, the Chinese are not the strongest, but the Americans are working ahead of the curve, squeezing the maximum.
      1. Cyril G ... April 11 2020 12: 45 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Offensive BRAVs do not exist. GRAV is a defense.
        1. Cyril G ... April 11 2020 12: 57 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Perhaps I’ll add, before they didn’t bother with such garbage. "Stationary legions?"
        2. timokhin-aa April 11 2020 13: 25 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Well, why ... They captured the island, immediately rushed in the anti-ship missiles, inflated the notorious A2 / AD bubble, deployed short-range missile launchers for fire support and a throw to the next island. And if the enemy tries to land his assault, then they will feed RCC on the water.

          In fact, the littoral regiment is a BRAV with an infantry battalion or two, and the expeditionary force is an air assault battalion with rear and reinforcements.

          So it’s a completely offensive tool. For the offensive and created.
          1. Cyril G ... April 11 2020 13: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            This is not close. Of course, maybe this is what the authorities and society represent. But that won't work like that. I have shown you the closest analogy. That is, in some ways, the role of the Navy in the United States is falling, in favor of the increased capabilities of the ILC in coastal defense issues. However!!!!
            1. timokhin-aa April 11 2020 14: 05 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Yes, it will work, adjusted for those weaknesses. which I have listed.
              What might not work there?
              1. Cyril G ... April 11 2020 15: 31 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Yes, everything can go wrong. Previously, these tasks were more than successfully solved by the fleet. What happened I understand that the volume of the article for this is small. Here, if this is not seriously done here, more than one brick will be released in A4 format. However, the main question is, what about the political status?
                Or maybe it’s all easier than a little pig, and is it better to divide it into three?
                1. timokhin-aa April 11 2020 19: 29 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Previously, these tasks were more than successfully solved by the fleet. What happened


                  The fleet will be represented here as well, but not by the main forces - China promises to be no less a problem than Japan in WWII, and there will be enough navies without islands. And then there are such helpers.
  25. Newone April 11 2020 21: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The article is interesting, but the conclusions made by the author on the use of the resulting forces are, in my opinion, controversial.
    Well, or the author did not mention the extremely important changes.
    1) How will the defense of the assaulted ILC islands be suppressed? Barrage ammunition is good of course, but who will launch them from which platforms?
    2) How is it supposed to organize the a2 / d2 zone by kmp forces without gaining dominance in the air, if their air defense is represented today by manual stinger missiles and on a humvee?
    3) How will the ILC solve the task of defending the occupied skeletons in the event that the enemy seizes air supremacy?
    There is no air defense, there is no attack on ships over the horizon (due to the lack of F-35), if the island is less than 10 km, then from artillery to destroy the enemy who landed, a 81 mm mortar
    4) Cross-country HIMARS. If you follow the author’s concept, then you don’t need to travel very far and quickly HIMARS, but there are no roads on the islands.