The low point of U.S. military after Vietnam

well, the argument/question is 'would using solely Marines have made everything run smoother instead of a hodgepodge of SF units'... luckily, since the opposition was a relative handful of Grenadan troops and Cuban helpers, all of our shortcomings weren't fatal to the operation. The one book I have on the operation (written by a British officer, oddly enough) was all in favor of carrying out the operation (the Grenadans were truly suffering under their leadership) but extremely critical in how it was carried out...

Like I wrote earlier the bulk of the problems had to do with the haste. Reducing components changes the time it takes to stand up the assault force, which can help planning. Would be nice to have some in depth research & comparison with beating up Norriegas government in Panama. That had the benefit of contingency plans and a bit more lead time.
 
...We (USCG) always have assets in that area, and we wanted in but were shut out due to the ships having women on them, and it was against policy at that time to allow them into combat operations, or at least that's what we were told.

That was the policy.

Last year I talked with a Ranger trained combat engineer who was with the Rangers in Panama. He told me six women with the HQ element went in with the group. Post op the HQ Company First Sgt was ordered to ensure their participation was NOT recorded in their record books. My accquaintance said the other company NCOs protested, to no avail.
 
Like I wrote earlier the bulk of the problems had to do with the haste. Reducing components changes the time it takes to stand up the assault force, which can help planning. Would be nice to have some in depth research & comparison with beating up Norriegas government in Panama. That had the benefit of contingency plans and a bit more lead time.
I do have one in-depth book on the Panama operation too. Have to look at it...
so... obviously, with hindsight, we know that the US could have taken more time with the Grenada operation; the leaders of that nation were doing next to nothing, weren't even thinking of a US attack, and had no plans to take the US students hostage. So, an interesting WI would be 'what if they had gambled on taking more time and made it solely a Marine operation, perhaps with a handful of SF mixed in'... you can't help but think it would have run smoother...
 
I do have one in-depth book on the Panama operation too. Have to look at it...
so... obviously, with hindsight, we know that the US could have taken more time with the Grenada operation; the leaders of that nation were doing next to nothing, weren't even thinking of a US attack, and had no plans to take the US students hostage. So, an interesting WI would be 'what if they had gambled on taking more time and made it solely a Marine operation, perhaps with a handful of SF mixed in'... you can't help but think it would have run smoother...

Probably would have talked themselves out of it given a couple more weeks. How swiftly the Marines could do it depends on where the Navy had the amphib that month. Probably have to go through a name by name study to see exactly what ships were where & their ready status.
 
Probably would have talked themselves out of it given a couple more weeks. How swiftly the Marines could do it depends on where the Navy had the amphib that month. Probably have to go through a name by name study to see exactly what ships were where & their ready status.
wouldn't they have to gather the amphibs no matter who was going? And I dunno about cancelling the operation... Reagan seemed pretty determined to give the USSR a black eye somewhere, and Grenada was the best choice... lord knows he ranted about the place long before the operation...
 
wouldn't they have to gather the amphibs no matter who was going?...

Depends on the overall plan. The Navy is distributed by a complex schedule of operating deployments, training, and refit. Disrupting that is expensive and has knock on effects extending years. The same applies to USAF squadrons.
 

Edward IX

Banned
The Marine Corps has also, to a certain extent, refocused on fighting a peer v peer conflict
Can I ask you, why do you think that is? I would think that with the Corps Post 2004 experience in Iraq (especially in the Al Anbar province read Fallujah) and Afghanistan (Helmand) they would concentrate on anti-insurgent operations. Is this not the case?

I joined in 1989 and served with men who still had Vietnam Service Ribbons, admittedly the Sgt. Maj. and Colonel didn't take me in their confidence. I do wonder what they thought of the thing as we went through Desert Storm however.
 

Edward IX

Banned
On Urgent Fury: the movie Heart Break Ridge made it look easy! All though it pissed Margaret Thatcher off.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
From what I read there was a lot of Army wide loss of major skills, which would have been otherwise been considered basic, as they were not relevant to COIN. Not to mention being able to coordinate large formations in battle. Over and above the loss of assets like Arty and organic air defences. And the sequester put a kibosh on attempts to fix all this..

Yes, a good example is the US Army 82nd went the better part of a decade without doing a Brigade size jump exercise. Or practicing the 'take an airfield' operation.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Can I ask you, why do you think that is? I would think that with the Corps Post 2004 experience in Iraq (especially in the Al Anbar province read Fallujah) and Afghanistan (Helmand) they would concentrate on anti-insurgent operations. Is this not the case?

I joined in 1989 and served with men who still had Vietnam Service Ribbons, admittedly the Sgt. Maj. and Colonel didn't take me in their confidence. I do wonder what they thought of the thing as we went through Desert Storm however.
Once we were pulled out of Iraq, there was a refocusing on fighting a peer opponent. Until then, you're right. The focus was on anti insurgent operations. And we learned a lot. Personally, I fought in Fallujah with 2nd Recon and a buddy of mine fought in Helmand with 3/5. But since the end of large scale combat operations in Afghanistan, there has been a huge shift to fighting a peer opponent. This shift really started around 2008/2009 from what some of my buddies told me.
 
What would have been the lowest point for the Navy in the 1970s? What about its massive build-up in the 1980s? Much of it has been attributed to John Lehman, Reagan's Secretary of the Navy in the 80s. He had been a navy aviator at one point early in his career and so he knew his way around and how to get things done. Many consider him to be the best navy secretary ever. Sadly, he has been underused by subsequent Republican administrations as he certainly could have been a potential SecDef or DCI based on his prior experience.
 
Top