Which is more outdated? Army Airborne or Marine Amphibious Assaults?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:15:04 -0400

So, I was talking to my buddy who used to be a Marine and is now in the Army about this the other day. My opinion as a former Paratrooper is obviously biased, so I ask you, the vast network of RP, which is more outdated on a grand scale? Army Airborne assaults or Marine Amphibious landings? We're not talking about Special operations either, I'm asking from a large scale invasion perspective. Which is more outdated?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 13 at 2015 6:30 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:30:07 -0400

"Amphibious Assaults" is sort of a misnomer in the modern world.

It's a capability, but it's not exactly the same thing most people envision. we're not talking about the WWII style "Assault" of yesteryear.

Heck, the Marine Corps doesn't "naturally" even function at a level were that can occur. Our largest normal sized standing MAGTF is a MEU with a BLT (Battalion Landing Team), so we're talking a Boat Company, and a couple of LCAC.

That doesn't mean we can't unload a full BLT quickly. We can. But it isn't strictly "Amphibious." We use a combination of Amphib, Air Assault, and follow on operations to make it all happen. The shift from Amphibious to Expeditionary to Littoral operations as warfare has evolved.

So, asking which of the two is more outdated, sort of starts from an odd premise in that we've already evolved past one of them, and the other is used extremely rarely.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Sep 13 at 2015 6:53 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:53:51 -0400

The vast network of RallyPoint is predominantly army.

True operational forcible entry at large scale hasn't been necessary due to extensive diplomatic engagements and alliances. The best airdrop or amphibious landing? The one that's unopposed. Carried to operational conclusion this means using an allies airports and lining up on its border to run through (Iraq) is the most efficient method. Our other major war employed a mix, a vertical envelopment ( a heliborne amphibious assault- one of the varitieis) and a (smallish) airdrop in Afghanistan.

In general my arguments about airborne vs heliborne have been made here: https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/is-the-airborne-concept-outdated

So in sum, has either been used the way they were in WWII? Nope. Will they be again? Lets hope not. Should we keep both capabilities around just in case? Probably.

Is the airborne concept outdated? | RallyPoint

Is the airborne concept outdated? In almost 14 years of war has there been any parachute deployments of troops into a combat zone?

Response by MSgt Erik Copp made Sep 13 at 2015 6:54 PM

MSgt Erik Copp — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:54:53 -0400

Neither

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2015 7:03 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:03:09 -0400

I would lean toward the side of Airborne assaults. They're like a rotary phone....functional, just not used any longer!

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Sep 13 at 2015 7:12 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:12:29 -0400

Neither The Army Airborne Training is ongoing and the Marines have just bought a new Amphibious Vehicle.for their training.....But the unknown is what the effect of budget cuts will have on both of these combat assaults??

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 13 at 2015 7:13 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:13:17 -0400

I think it depends on the enemy terrain. We can get the paratroopers in faster and they will be lightly armed, but a Marine Division which will react slower might be able to get a division in.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Sep 13 at 2015 7:50 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:50:42 -0400

We have lots of MEU's in Navy battle groups around the world that are there to be deployed both by amphibious and air assault. They work in tandem with each other depending on the threat, location of the threat etc. A MEU can bring a serious punch if needed overnight (in hours). I don't think that capability will go out of style any time soon.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2015 8:08 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:08:08 -0400

Both will continue to be used for small-scale operations-- landing a handful of people to seize a limited objective. We'll never see large-scale Normandy type stuff again. Trouble with other nations always builds up over time, and we always have an ally of some sort nearby willing to let us stage on their territory before we get to the point where we're considering either.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Sep 13 at 2015 8:34 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:34:14 -0400

neither, they are used in different applications.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Sep 13 at 2015 10:29 PM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:29:44 -0400

So I was thinking about this Airborne and Amphibious question and I was thinking .. well WTF, why not Airborne Amphibious Assaults .. now how crazy is that?
And you know what?
We actually did one....

Response by SFC Nikhil Kumra made Sep 13 at 2015 10:34 PM

SFC Nikhil Kumra — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:34:32 -0400

Have you ever kept anything that you haven't used for 70 years just in case? They're neat. They're novel..... but probably a huge waste of money to maintain....

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2015 12:10 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:10:36 -0400

I say Neither. Both bring their own distinct capability to the Battlefield Commander.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Sep 14 at 2015 1:21 AM

Capt Mark Strobl — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 01:21:21 -0400

As recent as the Gulf War 1990-1991, Iraq committed Division-sized forces at the beaches of Kuwait in anticipation of an amphibious assault. It never came. Marines from the 4th MEB and 13th MEU (if memory serves) played spades, PT'd, and got caught up on weapons/equipment maintenance. However, the mere threat on such an operation tied up one enemy Division! In recent military history, that was one hell of a use of an amphibious assault --that wasn't!

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Sep 14 at 2015 1:33 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 01:33:37 -0400

Airborne assaults were used in Afghanistan.

Response by Cpl James O'Rawe made Sep 14 at 2015 9:20 PM

Cpl James O'Rawe — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:20:01 -0400

They both still have there place. That is hard to say. Being a vet of both it is hard for me to say.

Response by TSgt Marco McDowell made Sep 15 at 2015 9:48 AM

TSgt Marco McDowell — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:48:05 -0400

Nothing beats calling Earl in the back of an AMTRAC!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2015 9:53 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:53:01 -0400

Marine Amphibious Assaults

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 15 at 2015 9:58 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:58:16 -0400

Great question! The answer lies with the competition between top Generals/Admirals and their drive to expand their area of influence, at our cost.

Response by Cpl Rc Layne made Sep 17 at 2015 10:03 PM

Cpl Rc Layne — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 22:03:41 -0400

I do not believe that either id outdated. I think that if they are used as a combined force, such as the Normandy Landing, they compliment each other. It will all be about the needs at the time. Both had their naysayers prior to WWII, and both served us well.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 22 at 2015 5:31 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:31:10 -0400

Do people say either are outdated because they haven't been used recently? WE haven't been in a War lately where they're needed. I can think of a lot of situations where they could be used in different parts of the world should something major break out.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Oct 2 at 2016 4:32 PM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Sun, 02 Oct 2016 16:32:44 -0400

neither, though by definition Amphibious Assault gives you more range & flexibility.

Response by SFC George Smith made Oct 2 at 2016 9:49 PM

SFC George Smith — Sun, 02 Oct 2016 21:49:26 -0400

neither ... they have their Specific missions...

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 22 at 2019 8:46 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 08:46:55 -0400

If you think we will never need an opposed amphib landing, then go for it. Lots of islands under dispute with China. Same applies to airborne in Europe.