PanzerKiel
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2006
- Messages
- 4,205
- Reaction score
- 199
- Country
- Location
Its costly of course, but its worth it afterall. If you talk of India, apart from the land borders, it has a very long sea flank as well. If our marines develop an offensive capability, Indians will be forced to raise or deploy major chunk of their forces for protection of their coasts.@PanzerKiel Sir is this viable? If yes, then can you kindly share the pros and cons of this? Also, in case you feel discouraged to post during these times, I would like to state that the knowledge that you provide on this forum is highly valuable to many of us so thank you so much for that and please never stop sharing your knowledge with us.
However, such operations come with their own set of complex problems.
An amphibious assault against a defended shore is perhaps the most difficult of all military operations, much harder than even a paratroop operation. It requires absolute local sea supremacy and an undisputed air superiority. The Allied landing of five divisions on the Normandy coast in 1944 involved there and a half years of preparation and a host of other operations ranging from Dieppe to Anzio for experience.
A forced landing is not something to be taken lightly. The only country today in a position to make such landings is the US, which maintains an approx 200k Marine Corps along with more than 70 large specialized landing ships. To cover its landings, the U.S. Marine Corps uses fighter cover from its own fighter squadrons operating off its massive assault helicopter carriers (including 40,000 ton ships), and fighter and gunfire support from the huge U.S. Navy armadas. A landing could be covered by atleast three giant aircraft carriers with 180 combat aircraft, 50 anti- submarine warfare aircraft, and upto 70 other specialized aircraft including tankers, ECM, and early warning planes. Some 30 frigates, destroyers, and cruisers would support such a force.