There is the United States Marine Corps, which can hardly be called a Marine Corps. But first things first…
The creation of a domestic analogue of Marine Corps would require a series of important organizational measures, the purpose of which is to unite under a single command all units of the Marine Corps and Airborne Forces, giving them the Kantemirovskaya Tank Division, missile and artillery brigades, as well as engineering units and the Coastal Forces of the Navy. In the process, it will be necessary to withdraw from the Aerospace Forces and transfer several aviation divisions to the new command.
Place the command of the military structure in a separate building in the building of the Ministry of Defense on the Frunzenskaya embankment. At the entrance, emboss the inscription: “The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. On a smaller scale."
Whether such a decision is necessary or unnecessary is another matter.
I think the satirical example gives a pretty good idea of what the United States Marine Corps (USMC) is.
The practice of creating smaller "clones" of the armed forces in our time is not uncommon. Suffice it to see what the domestic National Guard Troops (Rosgvardia), numbering 340 thousand people, are. Which, in terms of their equipment, in quantitative and qualitative aspects, often surpass the Armed Forces of Russia! The latest examples of small arms, armored vehicles and military transport aircraft are presented there. There are even helicopter gunships!
Of course, the American USMC and the National Guard have a different look and purpose. But the very fact of the existence in the country of "one more armed forces" in parallel with the main armed forces is not something exceptional in the modern world.
This is again to the question of how correct it is to use the generally accepted term "Marine" in relation to Marine Corps.
Marines originated in the 17th century and referred to light infantry fighting for the interests of the British Empire
The meaning of the name was not that the soldiers jumped into the water, and, barely reaching the shore, immediately entered the battle.
Everything was much simpler. In order to get into any war, the Marines soldiers first had to cross the sea.
Fascinating sea cruises and conditions of service on distant shores, of course, left their mark on the appearance and equipment of these units.
By now, the Royal Marines have evolved into what we used to call the Marine Corps. Elite airborne units and special forces of the Navy with a total strength of about 7,500.
Americans borrowed the word, but their understanding of Marines is drastically different from what we see in other parts of the world. In this sense, the concept, purpose and objectives of the United States Marine Corps are much closer to the concepts of the 17th century.
If you express the true meaning of USMC in Russian, then its most accurate translation would be: "Overseas Corpus"
An expeditionary army that combines all types of troops and is designed to operate exclusively on foreign territories. In the desert, in the jungle, in the mountains, on the coast - these are already particular conditions of the war that is being unleashed in the offices of the Pentagon.
Other tasks of the Corps are the protection of naval bases (here the tasks of the USMC are consonant with the tasks of the domestic Coastal Forces of the Navy) and the security of American embassies. An honorable ceremonial function.
Why is "marines" quoted everywhere? The personnel of the US Marine Corps are 10 to 20 times larger than the Marine Corps in other countries of the world!
12 thousand "black jackets" are in service on the maritime borders of Russia.
China has two brigades of marines of approximately 12,000 troops.
Turkey has only one Amfibi Komando brigade.
The personnel of the United States Marine Corps today totals 180 thousand people, not counting the 35 thousand reserve!
The Few. The Proud. The Marines. One of the popular mottos of the Marine Corps sounds exactly like the famous "We are few, but we are in vests!"
The presence of units with "Abrams" in the USMC is not a big surprise. Participation in modern conflicts is impossible without the support of heavy armored vehicles. The scale of those conflicts is fairly obvious. 180 thousand people are kept in combat service not to participate in "pinpoint" operations.
Tanks are inevitable. But how often have you seen "Marines" armed with 4th and 5th generation multirole fighters?
300 combat aircraft and fifty air tankers. Behind which on the way - an armada of 800 helicopters and convertiplanes. The USMC aircraft outnumber the air forces of most countries in the world.
This is the "infantry".
The main difference between the USMC and other types of aircraft is its increased mobility
In its purpose, the Overseas Corps is no different from what is called the US Army. Like the Marines, the Army has absolutely nothing to do on the American continent. The meaning of all Pentagon units is reduced to wars on foreign shores.
Nevertheless, in the interests of the Overseas Corps, special samples of equipment are ordered to accelerate the deployment of troops upon arrival at the theaters of military operations.
On the other hand, all these amphibious and vertical takeoff aircraft are just decorative covers.
Large-scale combat operations are impossible without serious and lengthy preparation, without achieving supremacy at sea and in the air. Twentieth century examples clearly demonstrate the timing. Long months of concentration of forces in the chosen directions.
First, gaining access to ports and air bases of neighboring states. With the subsequent penetration into enemy territory (North Vietnam, Iraq) in organized columns across the land border. If the enemy is unable to provide organized resistance, and his state and power structures are decomposed to a state of anarchy and the Middle Ages, then the capital's international airport (Lebanon, Afghanistan) is used directly as a "portal" for the invasion forces.
Of the major naval operations, only the Incheon landing operation can be named as an exception. Which, firstly, took place 70 years ago. Second, the US Marine Corps was represented by a single division. The bulk of the landing was made up of British and South Korean infantry units.
More recent example. During the special operation in Grenada, the number of "marines" also accounted for only 30% of the total landing force.
This is a very important point. Let's turn to the statistics: during the Second World War, in the Pacific theater of operations, the Marine Corps units took part in 15 major amphibious assault landings of strategic importance. Whereas the units of the US Army are at 26!
The Marines cannot be accused of cowardice. The mortality rate among them was higher (3.7%) than in other branches of the armed forces (2.8% for the army, 1.5% in the ranks of the Navy), while 80% of the irrecoverable losses of the USMC were directly attributable to losses in battle. In terms of mortality, the "marines" were second only to the seamen of the civilian fleet (3, 9%).
The paradox had a banal explanation: the Corps was many times inferior in size to the Army, therefore it took part in fewer operations.
But the fact remains that way. If the missions of these "Rambo" were successfully carried out by conventional army units, then what is the uniqueness of the Marine Corps in this case?
The "accelerated deployment" of some USMC units equipped with special equipment is largely overestimated and may not be decisive
The Army and the USMC are fighting under the same conditions in the same directions. The need to ensure the same combat characteristics does not allow to drastically reduce the weight and size of military equipment. The identified problems are largely leveled by the capabilities of the transport command of the US Armed Forces.
Therefore, the "expeditionary forces" do not hesitate to use the MBT "Abrams" with a combat weight of under 70 tons. And as heavy trucks, engineering vehicles and tractors, the Corps uses five-axle army LVSR chassis (10x10).
Nevertheless, it is an obvious fact: the Marines do not even have 1/10 of the amount of heavy armored vehicles that are in service with the US Army. And this puts an end to USMC's "independent actions".
No matter how tough the Marines are and no matter how magnificent their Javelins are, with ATGMs alone, with a limited amount of heavy weapons, they will not withstand the attacks of the armies of those countries against which and for which they contain the 180,000-strong Overseas Corps.
No Strykers or Bradley BMPs. The Corps personnel move exclusively on Hummers (19.5 thousand units), trucks (11 thousand units) and the recently popular wheeled armored vehicles protected according to the MRAP standard.
The example of Somalia (1993) eloquently testifies to what situation such "light forces" will find themselves in when they try to act independently on enemy territory. Then the units of the US Army, also moving in trucks and light wheeled armored vehicles, got into a difficult situation. As a result, they were blocked and deprived of any chance of an independent exit from the encirclement.
400 tanks and two battalions of MLRS HIMARS in the USMC - too few for a serious operation.
And while the "Marines" are busy with their super-lightweight towed howitzers M777 - the army uses the self-propelled gun "Paladin". Providing army units with much greater room for maneuver in the DB zone.
The landing capabilities of the Overseas Corps are justified by the presence of 1,100 AAV-7 amphibious assault vehicles
The 30-ton amphibious armored personnel carriers drive beautifully along the beach and, in theory, make it possible to land on the coast occupied by the enemy. In practice, AAV-7s are more commonly found inland, performing typical tasks of armored personnel carriers. Associated with the transportation of personnel in zones of armed conflict.
The promising amphibious (amphibious) ACV armored vehicles ordered to replace the AAV7 will further affect the number of amphibious assault groups. It is planned to purchase a total of 573 amphibious armored personnel carriers, half of what is currently available.
Also in service with the "Overseas Corps" in small numbers there are wheeled armored personnel carriers-infantry fighting vehicles under the designation LAV-25 weighing 13 tons. They are able to overcome water obstacles by swimming and even parachute. However, the popularity of the LAV-25 among the Marines is low. The number of light armored vehicles is several times inferior to the "Abrams" MBT!
This is once again about the priorities and real tasks of the Overseas Corps, for which amphibious assault operations remain a beautiful ceremony and a memory of traditions.
Undoubtedly, in the Corps there are amphibious formations similar to our marines, but the bulk of the USMC's tasks are located at a considerable distance from the coast.
USMC aviation deserves special mention
The original idea was to be able to quickly deploy in a war zone. With the deployment of aircraft on board aircraft carrier ships and at forward airfields near the line of contact with the enemy.
In practice, all this was meaningless for several reasons at once.
The conditions and methods of basing USMC aircraft were no different from the basing of tactical aviation of the Air Force.
It is very naive to believe that 4th generation fighters (not to mention the F-35) will be able to operate and operate from unprepared airfields. Only first-class air bases equipped with the latest technology!
By now, the concept of "forward airfields" with the aim of reducing the flight time is completely outdated. For urgent requests, aviation strikes from the "air watch" position. After all, the duration of conventional sorties of US Air Force multirole fighters in modern conflicts reaches 9 hours. Fighters with bombs "hang" for hours over or near combat areas. Everything is done in the interests of the ground forces. From the moment a request is received to an air strike, it is a matter of minutes.
No VTOL aircraft stationed at the nearest airfield will provide such a response to a call.
In turn, the navy has its own carrier-based aircraft, superior in all respects to the aircraft of the Overseas Corps. USMC squadrons are present on board aircraft carriers only as guests of honor.
As a result of all the efforts to impart ghostly "mobility", the bulk of the aviation "Marine Corps" by now consists of outdated models of aircraft.
The basis of combat aviation is the first generation F / A-18C Hornet fighter-bomber and the Harrier II attack VTOL aircraft.
I believe that all experts in military technology understand what this is about, how different the capabilities of these aircraft are from the Strike Needles and Raptors of the Air Force.
Things are a little better with the promising F-35B, but there are also questions about the "vertical". It is inferior in most performance characteristics to conventional "Lightning" modification "A". From a less efficient “hose-cone” refueling system to an unnecessarily complex and overweight design with restrictions on permissible overloads and the value of the combat load.
But most importantly, the "Marines" do not have their own AWACS aircraft, the basis of the foundations of modern air warfare.
The USMC rotorcraft fleet makes a double impression. On the one hand, 800 units of helicopters and tiltrotors are power. Power with a capital letter.
On the other hand, there is only a faint resemblance to army aviation, which is armed with over 2,700 helicopters.
What is USMC in the light of these circumstances?
Conceptually - the invading army.
On the technical side - light motorized infantry with small "intersperses" of heavy weapons. To which aviation units are attached in order to simplify interaction and provide air support.
In reality, this structure does not correspond to the imposed image and does not have independence in conditions of real conflicts. Despite their large numbers and "naval" name, the Marines have neither the ability nor the technical means to carry out amphibious assault on the coast of any prepared enemy.
Just as they will not dare to independently advance deep into enemy territory by land without the support of army units.
This was clearly demonstrated during Operation Desert Storm, the largest military conflict since World War II. Tank "wedges" again became the basis of the shock army, which were provided with all-round support by other types of troops. By the way, the American command took into account the experience of its predecessors in Operation Citadel and that time effectively crushed the Iraqi defenses.
Under the indicated conditions, all the tasks of the "light motorized infantry" are reduced to reinforcing army units with heavy weapons. Acting in a single bundle, they truly represent a formidable force.
Here the last distinctions between the motorized infantry units of the Army and the Overseas Corps are erased. Soldiers differ only in chevrons and paychecks issued from different departments.
The USMC's independent action is limited to the lowest intensity conflicts, in which the first Marines to arrive are mostly police functions. Like any modern army, the Corps units in such conditions demonstrate confident superiority over a technically weak and disorganized enemy.
The author of the article does not see any sense in a detailed description of the features of the command of the Overseas Corps, which, as you know, "reports directly to the President."Who is whose deputy and of what rank? Those interested in bureaucracy can find this data in any source.
I will only note that even the President of the United States will not be allowed to carry out the order to deploy a contingent of this size. This is not a one-time drone strike. Finally, the Marines themselves have no ships under their command; without the support of the fleet and the Command of Maritime Transportation, they will not be able to get into any war.
The author does not set himself the goal of rewriting the established truths, therefore from this moment he returns to the familiar term "Marine Corps"
The main thing is to understand that under this phrase there is nothing like the marines of Russia (Great Britain, China, etc.), which, in their concept, are really parts of the amphibious assault.
The most interesting question: why overseas at the present time there is a need to withdraw part of the Army and Air Force units into a separate branch of the armed forces?
Everything is explained by tradition.
Traditions of military glory. And the tradition of benefits!
Using the presence of "one more army", it is possible to realize colossal contracts for the supply of "special equipment" for it. Everything - from rations and kits of uniforms, to questionable in terms of usefulness, but due to their small number of extremely expensive fifth-generation vertical take-off fighters.
At the same time, you can build an armada of amphibious assault helicopter carriers with a docking camera. By the way, at present, the Navy has tacitly admitted the fallacy of the “all-in-one” concept, dividing the classes of helicopter carriers and dock ships. In any case, neither one nor the other, nor the third are used (and cannot be used) for their intended purpose in modern combat conditions.
The Marines will soon run out of amphibious vehicles in sufficient numbers, and all combat operations are conducted on land. The US Navy does not need 20-knot half-aircraft carriers; it includes full-fledged nuclear-powered aircraft-carrying ships. But just imagine the appetites of the shipyard in Pascagoul! There, several generations of managers live on projects of such grandiose and meaningless structures.
This is what it means in practice, "a special type of armed forces" that needs special attention.
Not to mention the increase in the number of generals.
