The Royal Marines - Too Light?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

RM-Nod RE:The Royal Marines - Too Light? 3/5/2004 9:19:13 PM

Not really. The Royal Marine are light infantry commandos when it comes down to it. There true purpose is to be a strike force against light targets (ie not tanks). If they need armour it can be carried on existing landing craft so the RM can have that ability if really needed but it usually isn't. Commando training is longer and hence more costly than regular infantry training and anyone wanting to serve in anyway with the RM must go through the AAC (all arms commando) course even the artillery lads so the need for drivers to be trained could be a particular annoyance to the top brass since they would have to go through either infantry training with the army or commando training with the marine and go through a drivers course with the army. If they come from the army (most likely) they will also have to go through the AAC. Overall it would be costly and not really neccessary. Though I would like to see more armour come into service along with more attack helos with 16 air assault brigade.

Quote Reply

raymond RE:The Royal Marines - Too Light? 3/7/2004 5:37:19 PM

Can't really see the value. RM is essentially a commando force, whic is to say raids and siezures. The heavy impedimentia is most useful for sustained operations, which RM is otherwise unsuited to engage in. Making them suited for such would entail numerous changes in structure, doctrine, training, and equipment beyond buying a few LAV's.

Quote Reply

clarkey188 RE:The Royal Marines - Too Light? 3/10/2004 9:29:13 AM

If the marines needed armour they would have a Troop/Squadron or regiment attatched to them, when on ops. They don't need there own.

Quote Reply

ambush RE:The Royal Marines - Too Light? 3/11/2004 7:44:00 PM

"If the marines needed armour they would have a Troop/Squadron or regiment attatched to them, when on ops. They don't need there own" True enough, this is what happened in the Falkland Islands War. There, however, are advantages to having an armored force well trained in working in close support with Infantry. I do not think that the Royal Marines need to have more heavy weapons and vehicles as part of the organization when it would better serve their purposes to train with Heavy Units so that they can work together when necessary. A Marine Commando unit is very lean to begin with. Making LAVs or other armor elements organic to the unit is not simple a matter of just adding a troop of light tanks. With the heavy units come their maintenance and logistics burdens. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to attaching these heavy assets to the Royal Marines is the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy has extremely limited amphibious shipping. If you add LAVs or Scorpions and their logistics burden to what must be squeezed on board what do take off to make room? Any talk of up making the Royal Marines Heavier must include talk of increasing the size of the Royal Navy. "Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can? They're the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, United States Army 12 February 1918 "We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of this island, and three Army regiments pinned down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on?" General John W. Vessey Jr., United States Army; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff During the assault on Grenada; 1983.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:The Royal Marines - Too Light? 8/31/2004 11:03:41 AM

I'd like to see amphibeous tanks with an over the horizon means of deployment made available to the marines (able to fire from the water). Fitting Air Tracks on the new medium tank could even allow air-dropping tanks into water. The problems of training are about expecting tankers to be marines too. In truth they need to be marine tankers and a new training programme would need to be developed for them. I don't think the current RM size justifies such a unit. Maybe if the RM ever gets enlarged to a divisional outfit this maybe called for (with amphib mobile artillary getting a similar course).

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:The Royal Marines - Commando 21 8/31/2004 12:13:14 PM

RM Commandos have always had a higher establishment than an army infantry battalion (800 vs 650) because they need to be more independent and, fighting isolated, need to "carry their first line casualties" in Brit parlance. Typically they were tasked for mintain and arctic - taking on the Russian Reydoviki in northern Norway. Gurkha battalions have a similar over-scale personnel allotment for their equally remote operations, but para battalions are very light at 575. The Commando 21 reorganization gives the RM an unique organization - 2 Close Action Companies, 2 Stand-Off Companies, a Command Company and a Logistics Company. Not just go anywhere, but stay there. Cdo 21 gives an RM Commando 2x the support fire of an army infantry battalion (including a para battalion) and a huge logistics stack well-forward. To carry all this they are getting the Viking, an armored, amphibious variant of their traditional BV202 Snow Mobiles. The Viking lets them swim ashore, cross beach, marsh, sand and snow and run inland at 30 m.p.h. with full protection against 7.62mm. This is a serious increase in firepower, armor and maneuverability.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:The Royal Marines - The Commando Light Horse 8/31/2004 12:20:19 PM

Last year a squadron of a Brit Force Recon Regt with the Scimitar high speed tracked light tank were put under command 3 Cdo Brigade and led the way to Basra. I don't recall the regiment (it wasn't the Blues who were in the Falklands in 1982 and busy last year leading the paras, but possibly the Light Dragoons). They did so well for the RM that they were individually awarded the Commando Dagger Flash by the RM Brigade commander and were thinking of calling their squadron the "Commando Light Horse". Of course, the original Boer kommandos were light horse!

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:The Royal Marines - The Commando Light Horse 9/5/2004 9:50:44 AM

This is more an example of as and when attatchment of light armour to the RM rather than the intrinsic amphibious armour that Viking represents. Could Viking be seen as comparable to the Scimitar as a fighting vehicle once on land? Are Vikings APCs more than light tanks? I am doubtful that Vickings will do any more than increase mobility and resupply. This will allow the use of more infantry heavy equipment, but is hardly armoured support.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:The Royal Marines - 155mm equiped? 9/5/2004 10:27:01 AM

XM777 ultralight howitzers offer helo mobile heavy fire support on the move. 3,745 kg splits into 2,414 kg and 1,331 kg of L39 155mm howitzer. Easily towed by a Viking without splitting it up. If the RM ever needed to go heavy the option is there.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:The Royal Marines - 155mm equiped? 9/5/2004 12:10:35 PM

The Vikings are really just glorified amphibious taxis in their APC role; their not taking a weapon larger than .50 cal. However they have been put to use as 105mm light gun tractors in training, and I would dare say that their second module would be easily converted to hold an 81mm mortar or octaple manpad.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:The Royal Marines - Commando 21 9/6/2004 8:48:29 PM

The original thread said "too light". Cdo 21 in doubling their fire support makes them quite "heavy" for light infantry; and increases ground speed to 30mph. Don't think I or anyone was suggesting a Viking is a tank - I said it was a light armored, swimming snow-trac/mobile based on Volvo 202. "M777" What people ALWAYS forget is the ammunition and rate of fire. 3Cdo brigade WITHOUT its vehicles or Vikings has a war load - mostly arty ammo - of 5,000 tons. It needs 150-200 gun rounds on site per gun for a 6 gun battery to support a commando deliberate attack. A Sea King will lift 94 rounds, a Chinook 196, which is why the latter is preferred because it can also lift the light gun AND 1 ton truck in a single lift. (Gun+truck+150/200 rounds = 2 Chinook or 4 Sea King. Much better use of air crew.) M777 needs double the helo support: 1 for M777, 1 for prime mover and 2 for 155mm x 150/200 rounds. And no, having fewer 155mm is not a substitute for more 105mm - neuralizing fire support for infantry is weight x duration and using fewer, but bigger rounds means the duration/coverage is less AND the following infantry cannot get as close to the barrage. With 105mm, infantry can get as close as 50 yds from the barrage which means they are in snap shot and grenade range; with 155mm they can get about 80yds from the barrage, which puts you a lot further from the enemy when it passes them. So why is 155mm used for medium/heavy forces? Because they can ride up to the enemy in protected vehicles - infantry on foot cannot. M777 is "available" although UK military is not buying ANY at present. Indeed, even 19 Brigade in its new "light" format is converting from AS90 to 105mm light gun.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:The Royal Marines - Commando 21 too light? 9/15/2004 11:50:58 AM

'Cdo 21 in doubling their fire support makes them quite "heavy" for light infantry; and increases ground speed to 30mph' 'So why is 155mm used for medium/heavy forces? Because they can ride up to the enemy in protected vehicles - infantry on foot cannot' I can see given the role, support and force make-up of Commando-21 that you would prefer 105mm guns to move. If RM ever got serious about advancing at pace they might want a gun that could keep up. I took the topic to mean 'How can we make the RM a medium/heavy force?'. I would also concider fast amphib armour (air tracked), attack helos and a few F-35s as a combined arms force. I don't seriously expect the RM to go this route. They lack the logistic support (fuel and ammo weight as you pointed out) and a larger RM (division size) would be needed to justify that level of embeded combined arms and logistic lift. Such a heavy RM division could still detatch a RM regiment for a light role. Is there a call for heavier marines? The US seem to think so. Could the UK justify it? Only at the expense of army formations. Personally, given the historical requirement and geographical situation of the UK, I think that it would be a more useful force than the existing RM with army/RAF support.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:The Royal Marines - Commando 21 too light? 9/16/2004 3:08:03 PM

"more useful than the existing RM with army/RAF support" Define useful. 3 Cdo Brigade are the most experienced UK formation. These guys fought in Burma from 1941, took the Jap surrender in Hong Kong in 1945, Malayan Emergency (1948-53), led the Suez assault (1956 - first use by anyone of helicopter assault), Malaya/Indo Confrontazi (1962-66) and only returned to the UK in 1976 where they re-roled for mountain/arctic in Norway; they did Falklands 1982, northern Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001/2 and were the first allied troops into Iraq 2003 capturing the Darfur Peninsular oil port, pipeline and tanks - hence none of the eco damage everyone was worried about. The UK military have always had RM and Army commandos. Since 1945 the RM provide the infantry, signals, logistics plus some engineers; the Army provide artillery and a few logisticians while the navy provide medical (just as in the US). This is a marine organization with expert support from army units trained to RM commando standard. What is wrong with using the best available? Tri-service organization at its best. "light organization" No. Individual commando companies and commando units may be able to operate on light scales but they are issued with heavy scales; and the brigade has a huge War Reserve. Adding 105mm artillery increases the weight PER MAN from 150lbs to 1 ton. This brigade is designed as a "come as you are" formation - to take by assault and hold/advance in isolated areas on its own, specifically in difficult mountain terrain. "could have 155mm" Yes. But then the weight increases or the firepower reduces. Yes, the shells are bigger, but the volume of fire matters. AND, infantry on foot cannot get as close to enemy positions when following a 155mm barrage as they can when following 105mm. And the 105mm are firing faster. An added advantage, the brigade uses the same ammunition as the Royal Navy 105mm guns on all their warships. One Vickers Mark 8 automatic 105mm has the same rate of fire as a 6 gun 105mm battery; and all their warships (except 4) have this gun. Not only is ammo in ready supply, but their NGFOs (Naval Gunfire Observers) are trained to control land, naval, and air strike. 3 Cdo is already heavy for a light-weight force because it has to be "independent"; it is doubling unit organic firepower and adding more land mobility. If it gets any heavier it will have problems executing its dual missions or amphibious and "anywhere but temperate" mountain warfare.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:The Royal Marines - Commando 21 too light? 9/17/2004 11:00:25 AM

Worcester, while I agree with the vast majority of that last post, where did you get the idea that the 105mm artillery used by the RM is common to the ship artillery in the RN? The standard ship gun you refer to is, in fact, 114mm (4.5").

Quote Reply

ambush RE:The Royal Marines - 155mm equiped? 9/18/2004 1:38:58 AM

For all th ealleged advatage of th elight 155mm. One thing has not been made lighter and that is its ammuniton and that still has to be facotred in as an increased burden on the logistics forces. The 155 still requires more deck space than a 105 also.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

	News As History - December 4, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us