Over the Horizon Amphibious Assaults

[LloydTasiD]

Let's discuss the pros and cons of over the horizon amphibious assaults. Such assaults provide better element of surprise and protection to the assaulting fleet. But what about the long exposure of the amphibious sea vessels and troops? Does the longer distance from the ships equal more danger to assault troops? If it does, what tactics or strategies could be employed to counter this? Take into consideration and discuss other aspects of amphibious assault as well.

 

[Waylander]

IIRC I started a thread about this some time ago in the light of the USMC adventure of getting a over the horizon capable amphibious APC.

IMHO the idea of over the horizon assaults as some serious flaws.
On the one hand the perceived enemy has to be so capable as to force the US Navy to resort to over the horizon beach assaults in order to protect the amphibious transport/landing ships.
But on the other hand the same enemy is not capable of tracking this big fleet of amphibs some more miles out to the sea in order to narrow down the possible landing spots.
The same enemy which is a serious threat is also not able to cover the possible beach landing zones with concealed ATGM teams directly on the beach and some tank companies and artillery batteries in the near vicinity? Even an overstrength tank platoon or some tank hunter teams with modern ATGMs being at the beach while the Marines land is going to cause some serious losses. Losses which are going to hurt even more in these days of reduced manpower. Imagine a wave of EFVs (I know it is cancelled but something has to replace the AAVs, whatever it's name will be...) losing half a dozen vehicles in the first wave. That's 120 Marines dead or wounded. And IMO you are lucky to loose just 6 if the enemy is halway competent and technically advanced which should be the case if the Navy stays behind the horizon.
The same applies to drop zones for helicopter assaults near vital targets.

So IMHO the enemy is weak enough to stomp his defences into the ground in order to land relatively unopposed or he is not and attacking from behind the horizon is not going to help you much as even a few well trained forces with modern weapons can inflict serious casualties to any assault hitting the beaches.

And even with the advanced surveillance assets of the US I wouldn't bet my life on the ship based fire support (be it fast/rotary air or missiles/guns) being able to surpress and/or destroy enough enemy forces to get the Marines smoothly over the beach.

It's not like the defender needs whole brigades on every beach in order to inflict serious losses onto a landing force.

 

[Sea Toby]

IIRC I started a thread about this some time ago in the light of the USMC adventure of getting a over the horizon capable amphibious APC.

IMHO the idea of over the horizon assaults as some serious flaws.
On the one hand the perceived enemy has to be so capable as to force the US Navy to resort to over the horizon beach assaults in order to protect the amphibious transport/landing ships.
But on the other hand the same enemy is not capable of tracking this big fleet of amphibs some more miles out to the sea in order to narrow down the possible landing spots.
The same enemy which is a serious threat is also not able to cover the possible beach landing zones with concealed ATGM teams directly on the beach and some tank companies and artillery batteries in the near vicinity? Even an overstrength tank platoon or some tank hunter teams with modern ATGMs being at the beach while the Marines land is going to cause some serious losses. Losses which are going to hurt even more in these days of reduced manpower. Imagine a wave of EFVs (I know it is cancelled but something has to replace the AAVs, whatever it's name will be...) losing half a dozen vehicles in the first wave. That's 120 Marines dead or wounded. And IMO you are lucky to loose just 6 if the enemy is halway competent and technically advanced which should be the case if the Navy stays behind the horizon.
The same applies to drop zones for helicopter assaults near vital targets.

So IMHO the enemy is weak enough to stomp his defences into the ground in order to land relatively unopposed or he is not and attacking from behind the horizon is not going to help you much as even a few well trained forces with modern weapons can inflict serious casualties to any assault hitting the beaches.

And even with the advanced surveillance assets of the US I wouldn't bet my life on the ship based fire support (be it fast/rotary air or missiles/guns) being able to surpress and/or destroy enough enemy forces to get the Marines smoothly over the beach.

It's not like the defender needs whole brigades on every beach in order to inflict serious losses onto a landing force.

The whole point of over the horizon amphibious assaults is to avoid a likely beach. Recall MacArthur's tactic of hitting them where they aren't?

 

[W82DIE]

But their will have to be casualties you can try to hit a place where there is not as many people but the defenders of beaches to have a slight advantage if they are entrenched well.

 

[Feanor]

I think this sort of thinking comes from a desire to be able to fight enemies stronger then those the US is currently facing, without there being suitable stronger enemies against which to gauge the viability of the suggested strategy. The result is a lack of a reality check.