If we had to 1942-1944 all over again. Or something similar. 40 some odd years later, we planned a large scale amphibious landing but it was a ruse prior to the invasion in the first Gulf War.

Technology would change things quite a bit. But, watching “The Pacific” reminds me of how that war was fought on both sides by throwing bodies at the problem.

I dont believe we currently possess the naval assets that would make a WWII type amphibious landing successful. 3800 + landing craft and 310 landing ships were present at D-Day Europe.

They were, but the Corps is going in a more “Littoral” direction. They’re studying up on the old amphibious campaign in the Pacific, going back to taking over a beach, looking at anti-ship weapons that can hit stuff over the horizon.

As far as large scale, I don’t think they are looking at something the size of D-Day, but Island Hopping, yes.

I know that 3rd Reconnaissance is brushing up on their “hydrographic surveys” skillset and mapping out beach grades, coral reefs, and such.

The Corps is forward thinking in that they are preparing for CHI-na to get frisky and start grabbing islands in the South Pacific. Good in the philosophy of not fighting the last war.

I don’t think so. The reality is we can do a lot more with fewer troops than in those days. Conserving manpower and letting technology do more of the work is the order of the day. Yes in the end troops will storm the beach but it will be much smaller numbers after much of the combat power of the adversary has been neutralized

The US doesn't have the stomach for throwing bodies at an objective. If we had to put boots on the ground for a target like Normandy or Iwo Jima, we'd:

establish air superiority first

we'd soften the living hell out of it with both tonnage and precision. Tomahawks, MOABs, bunker busters, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
If we had to 1942-1944 all over again. Or something similar. 40 some odd years later, we planned a large scale amphibious landing but it was a ruse prior to the invasion in the first Gulf War.

Technology would change things quite a bit. But, watching “The Pacific” reminds me of how that war was fought on both sides by throwing bodies at the problem.

Coastal defense missile systems along with both tracking and targeting radar (you need both with those systems) makes it tough. Some countries are WAY more heavily defended so target would matter a lot.

Conventional artillery also advanced considerably. Again this depends on armament.

This could a consideration in some locations but also the advancement in air and drone tech, we would have more options for air drops or land advancements. There would have to be a situation where a water-locked piece of land was 100% controlled by the target. That doesn’t leave many locations, with or without the aforementioned defenses.

We also have, at our disposal, way more advanced subsurface and surface options to clear an area for advancement. Just a huge change from the way that war was fought and won.

By the US, it’s a thing of the past.

First, we lack sufficient shipyards to build a big enough fleet to pull it off. More importantly, because of the size vessels we choose to build today, our options for where to build new shipyards is far smaller than in WWII. We build unrep ships with 2-3 times the displacement of an Essex class CV. There are fewer places to do that. Plus, obtaining that land won’t be cheap or easy.

Second, compared to WWII troop delivery systems (e.g., AMTRACs, LVTs, LCIs, LSTs) we deliver roughly equal modern combat forces by air, which is faster, more flexible, and able to hit behind the enemy line while amphibious troops land. Save for a very few operations in the Pacific (e.g., Markham Valley PNG, recapture of Corregidor) this was a capability that didn’t exist, certainly on a scale like in the ETO.

Finally, unless we are choosing to join a battle of attrition (which is political suicide today) a la Guadalcanal when would we ever have the industrial, military, and societal power and need to do so? WWII was different circumstance, as the average American had watched newsreels of Japanese atrocities in China from 1931 on, and of German atrocities since 1937 and knew what the war was about - pure survival.

Now, as for other nations, notably the PRC… they have everything needed to pull off a major amphibious invasion, for example, of Taiwan. It would be costly, likely in the extreme (e.g., Downfall level casualties), but I don’t think the CCP would care.

There aren't that many beaches out there suitable for amphibious landings, and we don't have many ships that can do that any more. (I have a picture of LST 958 on the wall, one of over 1000 LSTs we built in WWII - my Dad's ship, which he took ashore at Okinawa).

So the modern problem is two fold: seizing a landing area and then putting lots of logisitics through it to build up a formidible beachhead and breakout force.

If beaches aren't an option without the right landing ships, boats, and vehicles, there are a lot more ports and docks now than ever. And there are lots of ships that could use them, including ferry boats built to move people and vehicles, automobile delivery RO/RO ships, even container vessels and converted tankers.

So maybe a port could be seized with a small assault force (amphibious, heliborne, airborne, glider-borne, infiltrated from land-side, etc.) since it would be hard to defend everywhere at the same time against such a force. Then the main force and all the logistics and supporting forces could be pushed through that port, protected by air defenses.

Ask the Chinese. They have done the planning for a large landing on Taiwan, although I think they are somewhat confounded by the potential of missiles with anti-shipping warheads engaging them long before they get to the port (or beach).

The proliferation of force multiplying weapons renders the entire operation almost impossible.

Just anti-ship missiles alone are a massive issue, because no one is throwing 1000 ships at a target (except for China) and there are plenty of countries with LOTS of anti-ship missiles around China.

Then, even if landing craft actually get close… have you seen what drones can do to moving armored vehicles? Imagine trying to land something against an enemy that can literally put up 20,000 drones without blinking, each capable of taking out your craft. I don’t care how good of a CIWS/Minigun whatever you have, short of God-level EW you won’t be able to make it.

Okinawa was a hellhole—not just on the island, but deaths among those on ships from Kamikaze attacks were also extremely high. There was no real defense against them. The balance of power between offense and defense is very dependent on technology.
I think lasers are going to eliminate the drone swarm threat within a short period of time.
I’ve read that a PRC invasion Taiwan—the most likely target of an amphibious invasion—would be very hard. I don’t recall the details though.

Agreeing with most, short answer is no.

Precision has gone from about 4% to 98%. Significant concentrations of personnel would be the very definition of target rich environment.

Yeah, I don’t see it happening.
By the time a sub from 100 miles away launches a shitload of cruise missiles that target air defenses and any shore batteries, there will have been specops teams doing what those teams do. Recon, raiding and targeting.
If they are then followed up with stealth precision strikes, the whole seaborne beach landing is in the rear view mirror. The proliferation of drones (by both sides) is also game changing.
By the time troops hit the beach, it will already be a subdued piece of land.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:

I think lasers are going to eliminate the drone swarm threat within a short period of time.
I’ve read that a PRC invasion Taiwan—the most likely target of an amphibious invasion—would be very hard. I don’t recall the details though.

Lasers require time on target to cause a mission kill, and energy. Both are not infinite, and even in a super optimistic scenario where only 100 milliseconds are needed per drone, you somehow need to have enough lasers close to landing craft to down every single possible drone in a 10k swarm. Assuming 5 seconds of lead time, each laser can take down up to 50 drones, I need well over 300 lasers and power nearby… and that’s much more expensive than another 10k drones that can be launched to overwhelm.

Quantity has an incredible quality. We struggle to comprehend what China can output, but in PEACETIME they are making several million drones per year.

For a high value target like a ship or landing craft full of American soldiers, they will pump out as many of those as needed.

The doctrine of PERMA - Planning Embarkation Rehearsal Movement Assault has been replaced by STOM - Ship to Objective Maneuver. In WWII and Korea, we did not have the aviation assets that we do today. And, planners and strategists realized that sending a large landing force on to a beach would be tantamount to suicide.

I agree with them. We will still conduct amphibious operations, but how we do them will be very different.

Missile and drone technology makes grouping that kind of military might in one spot a completely suicidal exercise.

In general yes, any future amphibious landings will be conducted largely unopposed, the initial assault will be landed via aircraft either through parachute forced entry or, air assault via helicopters and tilt-rotors.

Given the amount of standoff weaponry that is available, particularly within the hands of the individual infantryman, what we saw in WWII and Korea is a thing of the past. The advances in aircraft, principally the V-22 and the next generation of tilt-rotor aircraft, makes it much easier to land troops via those methods at a faster speed and further inland beyond the shoreline.

In the age of guided missiles, drones, radar and cruise missiles, the amphibious landing craft of yesteryear would simply be expensive, slow-moving targets.

If the hostile shore was that denuded of defenses, that those anachronisms could safely approach, you would already have won the war before needing to put troops ashore.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
I think lasers are going to eliminate the drone swarm threat within a short period of time.

I would think an EMP weapon of some sort would be a better option...unless the drones are hardened against it.

A lot of assumption gets made about the war in Ukraine. “Bullpup rifles are favored” “researchers say if you leave a TQ on more than 2 hours the limb is lost”. A lot of this is bunk at best. Those two statements in particular. However, the war in Ukraine (and Israel v Hamas) has taught us quite a bit about drone usage, and drone defense. Right now, drone warfare lessons out of both conflicts are being studied extensively.

A large scale assault (if it was utilized) would have significant drone defense coverage. This is probably the only thing the Biden DoD got correct.

I don't think we have seen anywhere near the sophistication of drone technology coming down the pipeline.

Years ago someone made a video of slaughterbots

Not much bigger than a small bird.

Thousands being dropped by one cargo plane that could find people and blow them up.

They could even swarm to get through defenses and get to the target.

It is coming.