Japan and the US just recently conducted an amphibious
assault exercise, Iron Fist 2025.
“Iron Fist” !!! Yeah! Visions of crushing, overwhelming, amphibious firepower
swarming ashore from dozens of amphibious ships loaded with troops and
equipment. Aircraft carpet bombing the
assault site. Naval guns roaring. Stunned defenders, shell-shocked, cowering
and watching in disbelief. Explosions,
devastation, domination! “Iron Fist” !!!
The exercise lasted one hour.
One hour … to master amphibious assault. Wow. That’s some serious dedication to training, isn’t it?
What did the exercise consist of?
Let’s total up the immense amounts of amphibious equipment used in this exercise:
If that didn’t prepare the US Marines for amphibious
operations, I don’t know what could. The
ground must have shaken under the weight of that kind of force. The Chinese had to be quaking in their boots
(or peeing their pants laughing), witnessing that exercise. Seriously, is this the best we can do with our training time?
… hourlong amphibious landing exercise carried out by the Marines and Japan’s Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade … [1]
One hour … to master amphibious assault. Wow. That’s some serious dedication to training, isn’t it?
200 U.S. Marines and sailors along with 200 Japanese soldiers executed four waves of beach assaults. Equipment utilized therein included: combat rubber reconnaissance craft in the first wave; six Japanese amphibious assault vehicles (presumably the AAV7A1) in the second wave; followed by a Japanese air-cushioned landing craft (presumably the Landing Craft, Air Cushion built by Textron Systems) in the third wave. Meanwhile, two USMC AH-1Z Viper helicopter gunships (the successor to the legendary AH-1W Whiskey Cobra chopper) provided aerial reconnaissance and firepower.[1]
Let’s total up the immense amounts of amphibious equipment used in this exercise:
- Some rubber boats
- 6x Japanese AAV
- 1x Japanese LCAC
- 2x US helos
 |
| Amphibious Assault Force |
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/iron-fist-2025-usmc-and-jsdf-troops-train-for-amphibious-warfare
Iron Fist. How about "Nerf Pinkie"?? This sounds like the kind of thing that all Marine units should be doing three times a week, every week, with allies or alone- regular training, never advertised, and certainly not called an "Exercise".
ReplyDeletePerhaps the DOD is trying to "NewsOp" their pivot west, but until they start having real, proper exercises, maybe they should leave the news crews at home. A military news blackout might at least leave the enemy thinking we might be getting serious, which we seemingly are not. I'm optimistic that right now, budget, reorganization, and consolidation are the focus, with training and readiness hot on its heels. But, my sons Army unit just learned that it's yearly trip to NTC was canceled, so, I'm a bit unsure what's really going on.
"How about "Nerf Pinkie"?? "
DeleteThere's a future for you in Pentagon public relations!
Did you catch the part about the assault 'waves' ? The first wave was a few rubber boats. The second wave was six AAVs. The third wave was one LCAC. They didn't say what the fourth wave was - maybe a couple troops on surf boards? Does that sound like 'waves' of assault? I don't which would embarrass me more: to have planned such a pathetic excuse for an exercise or to have humiliated myself by writing it up as an 'assault'?
Delete4th wave was crack Special Naval Landing Force (Beach Party) with ruggedized all terrain tactical grills and gyro
Deletestabilized beverage coolers to prevent beer cook off.
"Did you catch the part..."
DeleteOh yes...!!! And if this was somthing that small units did routinely, it'd be fine. But advertising it as an Exercise is absurd. This is the kind of thing a first year Second Lieutenant should be able to throw together when he's writing up his units Plan Of The Day, the night before!! And any "news outlet" or DOD media office, should be ashamed for even committing this to paper, let alone distributing it!!
"There's a future for you in Pentagon public relations!"
DeleteLol, I could go all day renaming these exercises- but, this makes me want to go back to the days when Operation names were (I believe) randomly generated. Maybe its nice to give the folks back home a warm fuzzy feeling hearing them, but I cringe to think how many staff weenie billets are filled in some office just sitting around waiting to fill in the template [Fury, Patriotic] or [Rambo-esque verb, Flag-waving noun] . The [metal,body part] should be banned immediately....!!!
In my opinion a proper amphibious exercise should include the use of proper mine mitigation equipment. Use dummy mines off the beach and on the beach. But wait we do not have proper mine mitigation equipment as reported here. ( Our mine mitigation is woefully too slow & not adequate. )
ReplyDeleteA proper amphibious exercise should involve at least an entire MEU, mines, beach obstacles, explosions, intentionally induced confusion, a dedicated OPFOR, smoke, enemy air and artillery, full enemy electronic warfare, etc.
DeleteWhile it seems they have a bit of dramatic flair, and the amount of photo op staging is unknown, pics from past Chinese exercises seemed to have more of those elements of realism included. Even of they were staged- I'd suggest they were more useful for training than ours... (larger unit,more vehicles and troops, more ships, obstacles, smoke)
DeleteYeap, so many people on FB or Threads like to make so much fun of Chinese exercises BUT seriously, that's embarrassing to even call that an exercise!
DeleteI wonder what a similar exercise was 20 or 30 years ago by USMC, Im pretty sure this isn't it!
Also proper intel as to what would be in store for the assault wave. The planning officers, for the exercise mentioned in your post, were not warfighters !
ReplyDeletePB
If an enemy has IR stuff, they'll see the guys in rubber boats two miles out and blast them with machine guns. If they have drones, or anti-tank/aircraft missiles, the AAVs and helos will be destroyed two miles out. The only solution are LSTs. Send a few dozen toward shore. They are big, cheap, and can takes hits and make it to shore.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.g2mil.com/Landing%20Ship%20Assault.htm
"The only solution are LSTs"
DeleteI'm highly dubious about this. A single hit in the bow, for example, would prevent any unloading due to fire, twisted metal, jammed bow doors. LSTs are a sustainment asset rather than an initial assault asset. While there were exceptions for lightly opposed landings, generally speaking, in WWII, LSTs were follow-on assets.
The lead vehicle was always a tank or bulldozer that could force the doors open. There is also a stern door where offloading could occur in shallow water or with the help of nearby LCUs. Did you watch that link of a SINKEX where our modern Navy attacked an old LST? The 5-inch gun fire rarely even hit this stationary boat.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9T0ZvYDfB4
There's a world of difference between nudging open a stuck door hinge and trying to plow through twisted, thick, steel wreckage. One is doable and the other is not. Further, a hit in the bow would likely render the ramp(s) destroyed.
DeleteHey, I don't want to spend time debating how much wreckage a tank could drive through. The larger issue is whether an LST is too vulnerable to risk as an initial landing unit. Common sense would suggest it is due to the damage issue. The ship doesn't have to sink to be rendered a 'mission kill' (unable to offload).
As I noted, as a rule, LSTs were not used as initial landing units in WWII. We need to try to understand why because it is almost certain that the same rationale would apply today. I'm pretty certain the rationale was the damage issue and the concentrated risk to the embarked troops and equipment. A hit anywhere would result in horrific losses among densely packed troops and equipment.
Add to that the advent of modern guided weapons and the situation becomes even more of an issue. Sure, if the only threat was unguided artillery rounds then it might be worth the risk although, again, that was the only risk in WWII and it was deemed not worth it. Today, guided weapons, even simple Javelin/TOW/RPG type weapons would devastate LSTs - not sink them outright but, as I said, render them mission kills and death traps.
There's a reason why WWII assaults led with LCVPs and LVTs instead of LSTs. Before we toss that blood-earned lesson aside, we need to understand why it existed and what we think has changed, today, to justify ignoring that lesson.
What do you think?
We can have smaller cheap LSTs. The basic idea is they must be able to take hits and keep moving forward. As links in my article showed, ships can take lots of hits so long as they don't have explosive aviation fuel or ammo crates aboard. We should be able to produce a dozen cheap LSTs for the price of one new LPD. I imagine 200 LCUs and 100 LSTs coming over he horizon and hitting the beach at the same time. They would pose too many targets for the defenders and most will hit the beach with little or no damage.
DeleteA small boat or ACV will blow up with one hit and sink. LCUs are good too as they can take some hits. In a real war, LCUs can cruise hundreds of miles from the staging area direct to a beach and don't need to ride in a well deck.
LSTs were few in number when they appeared in 1943 so not risked as they were used for basic supply missions to areas without ship piers. They had lots left in 1950 and led the charge at Inchon, albeit with little enemy opposition.
Trying to look on the bright side: can someone assure me that no US medals have been awarded for participation in this exercise?
ReplyDelete