The Kevlar Legions: An Alternate Post-Cold War Organizational History of the US Army/Marine Corps

[Matt]

Yup. When the Marines stumbled upon the Norway mission there were great concerns for their ability to resist Soviet armor formations, and the A10 could make a major impact against them in this era.

The limitation of using land based air power isn't as much of an impact as it looks from first sight. The assumption of the era is the Marines would either link up via air bridge with prepositioned equipment, or the Navy would drop them off and then run off outside the range of short range aviation. The air combat element would be operating from ashore anyway.

 

[Workable Goblin]

So, I don't really know anything about how the Marine Corps organized itself IOTL. I take that IOTL the Marines took the first option of getting ready to fight the Soviets head-on? I recall the Marines having Abrams tanks, which are obviously not amphibious, the Marines certainly didn't absorb the 82nd Airborne, so they must not have taken the "we'll handle the rapid reaction" route, and presumably you're not starting an AH by describing how nothing differed from OTL, so...

 

[Knightmare]

Yup. When the Marines stumbled upon the Norway mission there were great concerns for their ability to resist Soviet armor formations, and the A10 could make a major impact against them in this era.

Can the A10 be made to fly off a carrier?

 

[Usili]

Can the A10 be made to fly off a carrier?

From what I've read on it, it cannot unless you basically redesign the thing so much, it likely would be cheaper to make a new aircraft.

 

[Matt]

So, I don't really know anything about how the Marine Corps organized itself IOTL. I take that IOTL the Marines took the first option of getting ready to fight the Soviets head-on? I recall the Marines having Abrams tanks, which are obviously not amphibious, the Marines certainly didn't absorb the 82nd Airborne, so they must not have taken the "we'll handle the rapid reaction" route, and presumably you're not starting an AH by describing how nothing differed from OTL, so...

There's no significant changes til the very end of the chapter.

If anything, I underplayed just how hopeless the Marine Corps was from 1972 to 1979. It was widely considered that amphibious warfare was obsolete against a modern enemy, and the other portion of the NSA of 1947 that gave the Marine Corps its mission was "and execute other duties as may be directed by the President." But this ability was severely curtailed by the War Powers Act after Vietnam. Besides, no one thought we would be fighting any wars besides World War 3. Small scale interventionism was effectively dead after Vietnam.

They kind of stumbled upon the mission defending Norway (later Jutland and Iceland as well, which is why they're there in Red Storm Rising) by accident. Even though the Army was at 16 divisions by then they just didn't have the forces to do anything up there in the event of war. They were going to go all out in Germany, and so were the rest of NATO. So the Marine Corps was basic jumped up and shouted "Yippee! A Mission!"

What I didn't get into were the changes under the Carter Doctrine. After the Oil Crisis and the Iranian Revolution it was clear that the Persian Gulf was an area of vital national interest to the United States, and we would intervene militarily if needed. He created the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force with a Marine General Commanding it, and the Army allocated light forces. It fit what both the light forces and Marine were looking for, a way to fight on the periphery and still have a major impact.

So it wasn't so much that the Marines were to fight the Soviets head-on. The Army would be doing that in the Fulda Gap, but that the Sovs may look to make inroads in strategically vital areas outside the main theater of operations. That's where the Marines expected to fight.

But all of those crazy ideas I alluded to were considered at one point- Marine Armor Divisions, Airborne Divisions, etc. They would have converted half of the Marine Corps to that format. It was ultimately rejected because it would create two separate tribes in an already small service. I believe those proposals also considered eliminating Marine Corps tactical air, which had been a key component to the Marines' identity since the World War.

 

[Knightmare]

From what I've read on it, it cannot unless you basically redesign the thing so much, it likely would be cheaper to make a new aircraft.

Yeah, that's kinda what I find curious.

 

[Matt]

Can the A10 be made to fly off a carrier?

No, I don't believe so and more importantly I don't think the Navy would want to give up deck space to them anyways. The Marine Corps replaced some of their A-6 Intruders in order to field the A-10s, so the Navy would have to put an anti-tank aircraft on deck in lieu of a potent anti-ship and interdiction aircraft, as well as one of their primary means of delivering tactical nuclear weapons.

 

[Knightmare]

No, I don't believe so and more importantly I don't think the Navy would want to give up deck space to them anyways. The Marine Corps replaced some of their A-6 Intruders in order to field the A-10s, so the Navy would have to put an anti-tank aircraft on deck in lieu of a potent anti-ship and interdiction aircraft, as well as one of their primary means of delivering tactical nuclear weapons.

Well, A-10s are damn tough, so you could arguably use them for anti shipping duties...

 

[Workable Goblin]

There's no significant changes til the very end of the chapter.

Ah, so the actual difference is the focus on brigades as the building block of the Corps? How does that exactly differ with OTL? Like I said, I'm not familiar, and while I find this subject very interesting, I'm going to be stuck asking dumb questions until I understand how all the moving parts fit together, so to speak...

 

[Matt]

Let me clarify on the role of Marine Corps aviation in the 1970s and the 1980s vs Marine aviation today IOTL.

Today you'll find Marine Corps fighter-attack squadron integrated into every Carrier Air Wing. Typically each CAW will deploy with one Marine Corps squadron. Marine Corps F-4 and A-4 squadrons were deployed on carriers of the era, but not as often today.

When a Marine Corps squadron of either era deploys on an aircraft carrier they temporarily stop functioning as a Marine Corps assets and work for the Navy. That means all their tasking comes from the CAG, and are expected to take on any mission that a Navy squadron would carry out.

In a war with the Soviets, or even today if we had to make a landing against say... Iran, the carriers will not be sticking around. They are too vulnerable in the littoral waters to anti-ship missiles, mines, and aircraft. They'll escort a amphibious group to the hostile shore, make sure the assault element gets ashore, and then leave. Marine Corps aviation (minus the aircraft flying off a carrier deck) is then expected to fly from forward land bases.

In this era the Marines are primarily expected to fight in Norway, and the ground combat element is being flown in too. The plans then were for Marine Air to operate from land bases after the grunt link up with their equipment. So a rugged aircraft like the A-10 is well suited for operating from those forward bases.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Well, A-10s are damn tough, so you could arguably use them for anti shipping duties...

I don't think so. The A-10s are a slow, high-load aircraft like the A-6s, true, but I'm pretty sure they lack a lot of the equipment that would be needed for effective attacks against any shipping other than lone coastal vessels, like anything to see ships that aren't visible to the naked eye, or integration with the Harpoon or other anti-ship missiles. They might be used to bag Soviet landing craft trying to make a run at Iceland or Norway, but not much more than that.

 

[Matt]

Ah, so the actual difference is the focus on brigades as the building block of the Corps? How does that exactly differ with OTL? Like I said, I'm not familiar, and while I find this subject very interesting, I'm going to be stuck asking dumb questions until I understand how all the moving parts fit together, so to speak...

At this point, yup that's it. Even today the Marine Corps technically uses the Divisions as their primary building block, but rarely deploys the whole thing.

To understand how the Marine Corps fights you must understand the Marine Corps' Marine Air-Ground Task Force. Basically the Marines prefer to deploy in teams built of a ground combat element, an air combat element, a service support element, and a command element. There are three promiment types of MATGFs: The Marine Expeditionary Force is built around a Marine Division and Marine Air Wing. The Marine Expeditionary Brigade is built around a Regimental Landing Team and a Marine Air Group, and a Marine Expeditionary Force is built around a Battalion Landing Team.

Unlike the Army, the Marine Corps still maintains regiments as a function unit. So each Marine division is (ideally) built around 3 regiments. Now each MAGTF has its own command element with a permanent staff, but no permanently assigned forces. So if you're building a MEB the MEB commander would request a regiment from the division. The regimental commander would then become the ground combat commander, and need battalions to fill out his regiment. Technically he owns 3 of them, but they may be farmed out on other duties (like being the GCE in a MEU) so we may then have battalions assigned to him that would normally not belong to him.

For example the 8th Marine Regiment in the Gulf War did work for its normal division, the 1st Marine Division, but only had one of its actual battalions assigned to it. The others came from the 4th Marine Regiment and the 24th Marine Regiment.

You wind up having disruptive command relationships throughout the Marine Corps at all levels above the battalion. Units may deploy in an emergency with a commander they are strangers to.

The changes are aimed at primarily ending this ad-hocery. So the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines will be permanently assigned to the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit instead of "belonging" to the 8th Marines HQ and being detached to the 22nd MEU. The 8th Marines would likewise know that if it needs to deploy that all of its battalions are going with it.

 

[Knightmare]

I don't think so. The A-10s are a slow, high-load aircraft like the A-6s, true, but I'm pretty sure they lack a lot of the equipment that would be needed for effective attacks against any shipping other than lone coastal vessels, like anything to see ships that aren't visible to the naked eye, or integration with the Harpoon or other anti-ship missiles. They might be used to bag Soviet landing craft trying to make a run at Iceland or Norway, but not much more than that.

A pity.

Hmm.... U2s might be called in for the Marines, they can def be launched off carriers, provide recon, and do ASW.

 

[Coiler]

A pity.

Hmm.... U2s might be called in for the Marines, they can def be launched off carriers, provide recon, and do ASW.

I'd be skeptical-they're a very niche aircraft, the carrier versions were only used operationally once in the 1960s, and I can see the USAF fighting tooth-and-nail to keep them as strategic assets.

 

[Knightmare]

I'd be skeptical-they're a very niche aircraft, the carrier versions were only used operationally once in the 1960s, and I can see the USAF fighting tooth-and-nail to keep them as strategic assets.

Yeah, but at this point, nobody would be using them, they offer a chance to snub the Chair Force, and they're already made.

 

[Workable Goblin]

I'd be skeptical-they're a very niche aircraft, the carrier versions were only used operationally once in the 1960s, and I can see the USAF fighting tooth-and-nail to keep them as strategic assets.

Not to mention that there are perfectly good land bases in Britain, if they are needed for reconnaissance (I'm pretty sure the U-2 was totally unsuited for ASW).

 

[Knightmare]

(I'm pretty sure the U-2 was totally unsuited for ASW).

Good loiter time, long range...

 

[Matt]

Good loiter time, long range...

Cancelled out by high operating altitude, negligible payload, and shutting down an entire deck while they're in operation.

 

[Knightmare]

Cancelled out by high operating altitude, negligible payload, and shutting down an entire deck while they're in operation.

High altitude is a PLUS.

Lot harder to be nailed that high up.

Payload's a fair bit though. Guess it'd be recon only.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Good loiter time, long range...

Yeah, but those are only part of the job. The U-2 didn't have the sensors (sonobuoys, MAD...) needed to detect submarines underwater, and it flew way too high for them to be effective, anyway. Unlike U-boats Soviet submarines don't have to surface, so merely flying around, even with a radar, isn't going to do much.