English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

11 answers

Amphibious operations are part of the Marine Corps warfighting doctrine, just that its done differently now. The landings you see in the movie Saving Private Ryan is relevant to WW2 generally, due to the available technology available at that time.

This kind of operation is still feasible today, just that its not usually employed all the time, since you need to find a suitable coastline in the first place.

A modern day amphibious operations generally concentrate a lot of support and firepower for the landing forces, in the form of naval gunfire, long range missile strikes against defensive fortifications (bunkers, trenches, stationary platforms etc).

Generally all these would be preceeded by numerous air strikes at least 4 hours before the actual landing itself, and sometimes as far in advance as 12 hours.

An hour before the actual landing, SEALs, Marine Force Recon, or any combination of special operations assets might be deployed to firstly, serve as a final confirmation that the landing site is suitable for landing, and secondly to secure it and act as a tripwire and defense/reconnanissance line.

The actual landing would then take place, accompanied by numerous air support assets in the form of Marine Hornets, Harriers, and Cobra gunships.

Concurrent to the actual landing, usually a diversionary attack would be launch in the same geographical area of operation to prevent the enemy from massing all its defensive assets against the landing force. This helps by spreading and limiting the enemy's ability to concentrate its force on the landing party itself, keeping them tactically off-balance and also make it easier for the Marines to capture and secure a beachhead for follow-on forces.

2006-09-20 00:38:36 · answer #1 · answered by CuriousE 3 · 0 0

The feasibility has been reduced by the fact that the equipment to move large numbers of men has changed. The old scenario was that most of the troops were transported in large troop ships and ferried in smaller landing craft to the beach. The troop ships and landing craft were replaced with the helicopter and the troop transporting air craft. Even though we had airborne troops in WW2 they were much smaller numbers than the waves of troops who came ashore in Normandy. Now we have heavy lift helicopters and hover craft that can move tanks and other heavy equipment much faster and with more ease than the old landing craft. The new army concept is of a rapid deployment force with a lot of firepower and air support that overwhelms the enemy and secures landing zones for the troop carrying aircraft and helicopters.

2006-09-18 10:14:22 · answer #2 · answered by yes_its_me 7 · 3 0

defenitely feasible but not practical. more likely what would happen is either a rain of bombs would pummel the beach or the navy would simply launch rocket after rocket until the beachhead was destroyed or they would send SEALs in to demo the beachhead as much as possible, detonate, then send in the navy. that WWII beach head assault is the cheapest form of attack while the modern day approach is the most practical but also the most expensive.

2006-09-18 10:07:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

No, The intelligence technology and the use of smart bombs would eliminate the beachheads. That was the folly of Normandy, we pounded it with artillery and relied on overhead photography for intelligence. That gave us a false sence of what was actually there. With bunker busters and spy sattelites and planes we would not have to face a force like that again.

2006-09-18 10:03:42 · answer #4 · answered by rswdew 5 · 0 0

yeah it is, but it'd require a hell of a lot more support against the beach to cover the assaulting infantry. That same type of assault, regardless of whether it wil ever be needed again or not, would be a hell of a thing to see if executed properly with today's weaponry.

2006-09-18 10:01:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Sure... it's feasible. But very stupid...exposing that many soldiers to enemy fire would result in massive casualties. (Just like D-Day) There are many more long range weapons that could be used. They now have such a high degree of accuracy, it would prevent putting soldiers in range of enemy fire.

2006-09-18 10:11:34 · answer #6 · answered by dathinman8 5 · 0 0

We have laser guided missles and helecopters. Things they didnt have in WWII. That kind of assault is old school.

2006-09-18 10:04:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

um, why would you want that kind of thing anymore? WWII is over. Turn OFF the PC, and slowly back away! LOL

2006-09-18 10:01:36 · answer #8 · answered by gokart121 6 · 1 0

Here's what's REALLY going on with Iraq!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm

2006-09-18 11:48:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

the short answer is NO

2006-09-18 10:00:31 · answer #10 · answered by david.cawood@btinternet.com 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers