Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


World Wide Marine Corps & Amphibious Ops Discussion

This is a discussion on World Wide Marine Corps & Amphibious Ops Discussion within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Kirkzzy Yes a unit of marines that is part of the army... and not the navy which ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old January 17th, 2011   #76
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,045
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkzzy View Post
Yes a unit of marines that is part of the army... and not the navy which it will be operating with the most.
I think you'll find any 'marine' brigade would spend >90% of its time ashore training for fighting on the ground. Amphibious ops is just another way to get to the fight, once the ramp goes down any 'marine' unit would fight exactly the same as anyone else. Paratroopers aren't part of the Air Force after all, they just use planes to get to the battle. We already have an organisation designed to win the land battle, it is called the army.

Any of the current brigades could perform the marine role with just a bit of extra training and resources, there is no need to raise a 'marine' brigade (even assuming there was money for it). As it currently stands 3 Bde will take on the role full time in 2014.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011   #77
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Kirkzzy's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 284
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
I think you'll find any 'marine' brigade would spend >90% of its time ashore training for fighting on the ground. Amphibious ops is just another way to get to the fight, once the ramp goes down any 'marine' unit would fight exactly the same as anyone else. Paratroopers aren't part of the Air Force after all, they just use planes to get to the battle. We already have an organisation designed to win the land battle, it is called the army.

Any of the current brigades could perform the marine role with just a bit of extra training and resources, there is no need to raise a 'marine' brigade (even assuming there was money for it). As it currently stands 3 Bde will take on the role full time in 2014.
UK Royal Marines operate under the Naval Service.

United States Marines operate under the Department of Navy.

Spanish Navy Marines is a corps within the Spanish Navy...

The list goes on.

I am not saying raise a marine brigade, I am just saying in the future if we were to, that a 3 battalion regiment would be the best option operating under the navy. With one battalion ready to go, one readying and another deployed within the navy operating as boarding teams for ships replacing the Clearance Divers.
Kirkzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011   #78
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,045
Threads:
The Royal Marines and USMC are part of the Navy due to a couple of hundred years of tradition, not because it is a smart way to run things. Neither organisation was formed for amphibious operations as we know them today, but simply absorbed that role as time went on. Both the Royal Marines and USMC are constantly having to justify their existence, as their role can easily be performed by their respective armies. The only thing that saves them is tradition and the fact that they are excellent fighting organisations. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of US amphibious operations in WWII were carried out by the Army not the USMC, ditto for the Brits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkzzy View Post
I am not saying raise a marine brigade, I am just saying in the future if we were to, that a 3 battalion regiment would be the best option operating under the navy.
And you're wrong.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011   #79
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,765
Threads:
The ADF is too small to break it up any more. The US can do it, because, frankly the USMC is proberly the 2nd biggest Navy and right up there in terms of most capable army. The RNM have a long tradition, is still sizeable by itself and they can afford to specialise.

ADF can't. Our 2 LHD when used together as planned will deploy over 2,000 troops and equipment to sustain that, we need our whole Army marine capable or atleast familiar with it. And if the poo hits the fan (as it did in WWII) they will have to get used to marine deployments anyway. We won't be so lucky as to be able to deploy off a painted ferry.

Whats the term GF uses? Purple?. RAAF, RAN and RAA all working together. I think thats going to be one of the strengths of the ADF is that because we are smaller, we will have to work harder together to achieve what we need. While we don't need to abolish names like Canada did, we should see ourselves as a completely intergrated force with out specific geographic territories as each branch brings something to the table for each location.

RAA should become very familiar with the LHD, as its going to be a pretty much every major deployment of the RAA.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011   #80
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkzzy View Post
With one battalion ready to go, one readying and another deployed within the navy operating as boarding teams for ships replacing the Clearance Divers.
The Navy does NOT use Clearance Divers as boarding teams on their ships. The sailors that make up said teams and shore parties are normal sailors, usually the Quartermaster Gunner rating. Clearance Divers are only posted to mine hunters where they do… clearance diving…

The Navy and Army are all part of the Australian Defence Force with a single operational command and bureaucracy system. The Army has had soldiers permanently assigned to Navy ships for some 30 years without significant problem. The Ship’s Army Detachments (SAD) of soldiers on the amphibs control all vehicle movements. The LHDs will add to this with Air Force personnel permanently attached for air traffic control (ATC). There is no need for these personnel plus the large number of Army/Air Force medics assigned to ships and the Army personnel assigned to patrol boats for security of boat people in border control missions to all be wearing Naval uniforms.

In addition if the Navy was ever to form a dedicated unit of sea soldiers they should NEVER be called “marines”. There have never been Australian marines but there has been an Australian sea soldier unit. It was called the Royal Australian Naval Brigade and with its colonial antecedents was involved in land fighting in the Boxer Rebellion, invasion of German New Guinea, and WWI campaigns in France and the Middle East.

Finally if you know so little about the ADF – as demonstrated above – I would respectively suggest that you shouldn’t be advising significant restructures in its organisation.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011   #81
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
RAA should become very familiar with the LHD, as its going to be a pretty much every major deployment of the RAA.
RAA? The Royal Australian Artillery stopped using this name a while ago and now uses Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery (RRAA).

It amazes me that Australians can mistake the name of our Army. It is the plan simple “The Australian Army” and before that was called “The Australian Military Force” but never, ever the “The Royal Australian Army”. Because an army in the British tradition is not a service it is a collection of regiments. The regiments can earn “Royal” titles but not the force.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011   #82
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,765
Threads:
Quote:
It amazes me that Australians can mistake the name of our Army. It is the plan simple “The Australian Army” and before that was called “The Australian Military Force” but never, ever the “The Royal Australian Army”. Because an army in the British tradition is not a service it is a collection of regiments. The regiments can earn “Royal” titles but not the force
So is the navy a force? like the RAAF. The airforce is a Force but has Royal?! Ok, now Im confusing myself.

If I write AA then people think Im refering to AntiAircraft. Its an incorrect abbreivation but one many can understand in the context of (RAN, RAAF and RAA). AMF would only be familiar with WWI ish era. I think I will just type army as its only 1 more letter anyway)..
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011   #83
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
So is the navy a force? like the RAAF. The airforce is a Force but has Royal?! Ok, now Im confusing myself.
The difference is the Navy and the Air Force are/were services. That is you joined the Navy or you joined the Air Force. No one actually joins the Army. They join a regiment. Now the Australian Army is not exactly like the British Army anymore in that you join the Army but after basic training are assigned to a corps (like a regiment). But the function and tradition are still there. The Army is not a service but an amalgam of corps and regiments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
If I write AA then people think Im refering to AntiAircraft. Its an incorrect abbreivation but one many can understand in the context of (RAN, RAAF and RAA). AMF would only be familiar with WWI ish era. I think I will just type army as its only 1 more letter anyway)..
There is no such thing as the Royal Australian Army. You might as well refer to it as the Queen’s Land Force of Anzacs. People will get that you mean the Army but you’re still typing nonsense. AMF was the official name up until the early 90s but using that would be inappropriate. Also in the order of precedence it goes: RAN, Army, RAAF.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2011   #84
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,045
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
Also in the order of precedence it goes: RAN, Army, RAAF.
Ah, tradition. Even though the RAN didn't exist until ten years after the Army, somehow it's still the senior service.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2011   #85
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
Ah, tradition. Even though the RAN didn't exist until ten years after the Army, somehow it's still the senior service.
Actually the RAN is older than 1911. The Navy, like the Army, was formed on 1 March 1901 as the "Australian Commonwealth Naval Forces" which were renamed "Royal Australian Navy" in 1911. The ACNF was formed by amalgamating the various colonial naval forces.

As to seniority the Navy comes first because of inherited tradition from Great Britain and because the 1901 formation order had naval forces followed by military forces. All it takes is being first on a piece of paper to be more senior...
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2011   #86
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,045
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
Actually the RAN is older than 1911. The Navy, like the Army, was formed on 1 March 1901 as the "Australian Commonwealth Naval Forces" which were renamed "Royal Australian Navy" in 1911. The ACNF was formed by amalgamating the various colonial naval forces.

As to seniority the Navy comes first because of inherited tradition from Great Britain and because the 1901 formation order had naval forces followed by military forces. All it takes is being first on a piece of paper to be more senior...
I understand the reason. It's the same as I like to point out the RAAC is the senior corps in the Army (you're gunner mates always assume it is them).
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2011   #87
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
I understand the reason. It's the same as I like to point out the RAAC is the senior corps in the Army (you're gunner mates always assume it is them).
My personal favourite is RAAF officers having ceremonial swords, I just can’t see how that can be justified by tradition….unless of course you stretch to Keith Smith having been a Light Horseman before becoming an AFC pilot at a time swords were being reissued to the Mounted Corps in Palestine in WWI.

Interesting point on the Naval Infantry Abe, I wonder if the RAN could make good use of such a force these days.

Base security, watch keeping on ships in port, boarding parties and damage control parties on deployment, brown water and counter piracy operations in fast interceptor craft and combat vessels, SF support (insertion and extraction etc), operation of landing craft, establishment and defence of beach heads. Above all they could form the core of an amphibious and brown water capability, run and staff a specialist amphibious school and be an enabling force to assist the Army in operating in the maritime environment.

The personnel would undertake their initial training with the RAN before officers would be posted to Duntroon and sailors to Kapooka or Singleton. They would be sailors first but fully trained soldiers as well, perfect to serve as a force multiplier helping the Army get the most out of the RAN’s amphibious assets.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2011   #88
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,685
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
The Royal Marines and USMC are part of the Navy due to a couple of hundred years of tradition, not because it is a smart way to run things. Neither organisation was formed for amphibious operations as we know them today, but simply absorbed that role as time went on. Both the Royal Marines and USMC are constantly having to justify their existence, as their role can easily be performed by their respective armies. The only thing that saves them is tradition and the fact that they are excellent fighting organisations. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of US amphibious operations in WWII were carried out by the Army not the USMC, ditto for the Brits.
Absolutely right.

The RM & USMC both started out as soldiers on ships for fighting in naval battles, which were then conducted at ranges, & in a manner, in which men with muskets & bayonets could be useful. Both also had secondary roles as on-board security, & for raiding ashore. When the nature of naval warfare changed, marines in many countries ended up being divided into base guards (little more than police) & raiders, & greatly reduced in numbers. Some managed to find new roles, e.g. the USMC became a colonial army, delivered by the navy to whatever small country the USA wanted to occupy.

Amphibious assault was never exclusively or even primarily a marine task. If you're in a war which necessitates sea-borne invasions, you need to use your army, not just the marines, as WW2 proved. The USMC reinvented itself as the amphibious assault force of the USA post-WW2 to keep its manpower & budget. It's not an ancient tradition.

The RM, USMC, & every other 'marine' force larger than a small raiding unit consists of ground troops, & whenever their nations are in a war they fight on land. How many US marines are there in (landlocked, not even a navigable river) Afghanistan?
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2011   #89
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Kirkzzy's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 284
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Absolutely right.

The RM & USMC both started out as soldiers on ships for fighting in naval battles, which were then conducted at ranges, & in a manner, in which men with muskets & bayonets could be useful. Both also had secondary roles as on-board security, & for raiding ashore. When the nature of naval warfare changed, marines in many countries ended up being divided into base guards (little more than police) & raiders, & greatly reduced in numbers. Some managed to find new roles, e.g. the USMC became a colonial army, delivered by the navy to whatever small country the USA wanted to occupy.

Amphibious assault was never exclusively or even primarily a marine task. If you're in a war which necessitates sea-borne invasions, you need to use your army, not just the marines, as WW2 proved. The USMC reinvented itself as the amphibious assault force of the USA post-WW2 to keep its manpower & budget. It's not an ancient tradition.

The RM, USMC, & every other 'marine' force larger than a small raiding unit consists of ground troops, & whenever their nations are in a war they fight on land. How many US marines are there in (landlocked, not even a navigable river) Afghanistan?
I actually admit I have hardly any knowledge but I am still very curious. So what if Australia was to do what the UK do and use the 2nd commando regiment and just change the name to 2nd marine commando regiment? Use them as ship security/boarding parties that are capable of amphibious assault operations and commando mission that they currently do in Iraq. Much like the Royal Marines, or am I missing something?
Kirkzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2011   #90
Banned Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,452
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkzzy View Post
I actually admit I have hardly any knowledge but I am still very curious. So what if Australia was to do what the UK do and use the 2nd commando regiment and just change the name to 2nd marine commando regiment? Use them as ship security/boarding parties that are capable of amphibious assault operations and commando mission that they currently do in Iraq. Much like the Royal Marines, or am I missing something?
The RM operational structure is different to the army regimental system. A commando is larger, training is longer and you have all the maritime add-on badged assets, which are unique. During the cold war 3 commando had a specific role defending the northern flank, today they represent the RN's spearhead rapid reaction corps, the same way 16 air assault is the army's.

The UK has 30 odd infantry battalions to play with, Aus doesn't have the same sort or critical mass to allow for the farming off of commandos to the Navy budget with all the associated separate training establishments for officers, NCO's and OR's. Keep the Aus units as pure army commando's using existing facilities under the army orbit.

Last edited by riksavage; January 18th, 2011 at 09:53 PM.
riksavage is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:58 AM.