Later today I'm going to expand on a discussion that me and B. Smitty have been having on heavy armor and the Marine Corps.
B. Smitty is a heavy armor advocate and I'm just not so sure.
Want to know what Infantry...what USMC Infantry fears (we're talking conventional warfare...not an insurgency)? Its not tanks...modern Infantry can handle tanks...what modern infantry fears is artillery fire.
With that in mind I penned an article stating that the BAE CV90120 should be the Marines next MBT.
But barring that a few other items come to mind....if we can't get the CV90120, then how about the turret from the Stryker MGS mounted to a Marine Corps vehicle...say the MPC or even the AAV?
Give the mission (if its ever required) to an Army detachment assigned to the Marines and find a smaller lighter vehicle to get it done.
It'd be an interesting experiment - purchase a couple of those CV90 variants, give industry a free hand, plus a fixed price range and 6-9 months to put something of their own together, then give all of it to an MEU and see what they do with them.
ReplyDeleteits a worthy experiment especially in light of emerging Marine Corps doctrine of distributed operations...mini amphibious ready groups and such...i'd love for it to happen.
ReplyDeleteHello, McFly????
ReplyDeleteYou're forgetting about the M8 AGS, made in the US btw.
Here it is in action (non english) and it's C-130 transportable.
For a load of info, go here
oh i'm well aware of the M8. but its out of production and the same capabilities can be found with the CV90120.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we need to focus on a pure air transportable direct fire weapon system again. that's always been the killer for the light tank.
besides the US Army long ago disbanded their airborne tankers
i think the stryker MGS on a vehicle is the best bet. it wont take on other tanks, its not survivable in a tank on tank engagement but the marines most likely wont be in a huge armor to armor engagement, attaching the MGS to a strengthened LAV III chassis would be the best solution.
ReplyDeleteIf air transport is not an issue, the M8 can be designed with heavier armor on a more permanent basis. I like its work on hybrid drive systems that would allow a 4-man fire team to ride in back, ala the Israeli Merkava.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, I am a 19K (M1 vet) and was severely PISSED when the DoD reneged on their deal with the 82nd Airborne to give up their M551s early for a promised replacement that never came.
i said the turret from the Stryker MGS, not the vehicle. sorry but i'm not hardly sold on it and neither is the US Army.
ReplyDeletethey've gone down an evolutionary path that they're desperately trying to back out of ... you can't explain it any other way.
if not then why uparmor the Styker with double hulls? why have Stryker Battalions performed so poorly in Afghanistan? why is the Army trying to field the GCV?
sorry but the Stryker is a failure.
SpudmanWP...hey thanks for the service buddy! we gotta stick together!
ReplyDeletebut hey, why haven't we seen a Stryker type MGS turret trialed on an M1????
That would cut down on so much weight it wouldn't be funny!
If the purpose of this notional tank is to support Marine assaults, then I believe the very heavy hull of the M1 is not needed an would put an unnecessary strain on parts and fuel supplies.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Stryker-style unmanned turret loses the commander's 50 cal (or Mk19 40mm AGL, CROW, etc) which I am sure the Marines on the ground would miss.
i'm not sure if thats necessarily a definitive statement anymore.
ReplyDeletethe German's have successully mounted a 30mm cannon along with a co-axial 50 cal with an independently targeted 7.62mm on their PUMA IFV.
but i get what you're saying. then the only problem with the M8 is that its not in production and the CV90120 is.
i'm still not in favor of the Stryker MGS. its not working. I'd rather see an AMX-10 solution...or even a Centaro? to what I see in that vehicle.
time to google.
well i meant put the gun from teh MGS on a vehicle the marines already have, like AAV but maybe something like LAV-III. i am a little concerned though about a wheeled vehicle as i think about, maybe mixing the strykers gun on a tracked troop carrier like the EFV chassis.
ReplyDeletei'm in the middle of my google foo but it seems like some other countries have had better success putting manned guns on vehicles rather than unmanned ones.
ReplyDeleteIf what I said was not a good enough clue, I was thinking that if the Marines went with the M8 then the chances of the DoD making right on their promise to replace the M551 would come true.
ReplyDeleteThe thought of C-130 air-deployable 120mm tank support brings a tear to this old tanker :)
yeah i get ya, but the 82nd has as many boosters in Congress as the Marine Corps (well almost) but they don't appear to be pushing for it anymore.
ReplyDeleteto be quite honest they're not even pushing to be mechanized anymore...something they were hoping for just a few years ago.
i don't know whats going on in the Para-Trooper community but they've been extremely quiet lately.
i've also seen the uparmored packages that the M8 had and it was quite an impressive little vehicle. i just can't see it coming back...
sorry SpudmanWP but i just can't come up with that scenario.
well one thing i wonder about is in the last few years we have fought two wars (iraq winding down and still in afghanistan) and the two are vastly different in how they are fought. both are low capability insurgents, so the enemy uses similar tactics but with regards to terrain its vastly different. i am wondering what the future combat scenarios the marines and army will be in, will it be in an urban or well built area where we can count on relatively good roads where wheeled vehicles can go but more vulnerable to ambush or a very rugged, mountainous area like afghanistan where vehicles have a tough time and air power is very important (if i am not mistaken most FOB's in afghanistan have no road access and only supply by air), how much does this fit into the equation of what kind of system to deploy.
ReplyDeleteOn that note, the M8 can be slung under a CH-47 or CH-53, IIRC.... Instant bunker :)
ReplyDeletewell isnt that one of the selling points of the CH53K? i know the V22 is doing well but its meant for range and while good payload not the very heavy lift the 53 can do. so those two systems really complement instead of conflict with each other.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would much prefer the Marines to have a tracked SP Howitzer and a tracked IFV equipped with a M151 in a armored turret loaded with Hellfires or Javelins.
ReplyDeleteKeep the Marines light and fast
i follow with the tracked IFV but not so sure about self propelled artillery.
ReplyDeletethe Marines gave that up during the 80's because towed artillery is strategically more mobile and tactically just as mobile because they're helicopter transportable.
But a SP gun can be used in a direct fire role against structures.
ReplyDeletewell if you're using artillery (even self propelled artillery) in a direct fire role then you've got bigger problems than whatever pillbox, building...whatever is holding up your advance...you've got capability issues.
ReplyDeletebut more to the point, self propelled artillery is moving toward (or at least it was) being truck mounted. you've combined your prime mover and artillery onto one platform but at the same time given up the ability to shift it rapidly about the battlefield by helicopter.
i just don't think thats a worthy trade off.
How about a 120 mm turret? That would be heavy direct and indirect fire support.
ReplyDeletethats kinda overkill isnt it? i mean we have alot of anti-structure, anti-tank weapons coming out, most man portable, also with zulus hittng the fleet, i dont think you need a true artillery piece, something like the smooth bore cannon on the M1 or something smaller would be sufficient, also what about vehicle mounted TOW missiles?
ReplyDeletealso SP artillery doest have very good protection, doesnt it? the paladin couldnt sustain anything in a fight very well could it?
ReplyDeleteIsn't the Marines the branch that trains their cooks to be riflemen? I figured they would appreciate a behinds the front line weapon that could also fight on the front lines.
ReplyDeletePersonally I don't always assume that our forces will have the proper weapon always sitting around ready to go. To quote Crimson Tide: "we don't always fight wars when everything is honky dory". That M1 tank might not have made it on to the beach, those TOW missiles could be sitting on the bottom of the Pacific with the ship they were being transported on, the AH-1Zs could be dropping like flies to enemy MiGs and an artillery company might just have to fight its way though an occupied city leveling some buildings along the way.
An armored and tracked SP Gun is the most flexible individual weapon system of its class available. It doesn't rely on other vehicles (like Helis for towed guns) to get it around the battle field and it has the protection of armor (unlike truck mounted guns.
in a scenario where amphibs are on the bottom of the ocean, AH-1Z's are dropping out of the skies because of Migs, and M1's didn't make it to the beach...we've got tons bigger problems than using artillery in the offensive direct fire role.
ReplyDeleteand i assume you mean using these weapons in an offensive direct fire role.
as for defensive direct fire, towed artillery has that covered. questions for ya. if self propelled artillery is so invaluable then how come everyone is moving toward truck mounted rockets? how come the Crusader got cancelled? when was the last self propelled tracked vehicle developed?
Q) "if self propelled artillery is so invaluable then how come everyone is moving toward truck mounted rockets? how come the Crusader got cancelled?"
ReplyDeleteA) $
Q)"when was the last self propelled tracked vehicle developed?"
A) The Singapore SSPH Primus: 2002
The Chinese PLZ-05: 2007
The Polish AHS Krab: 2008
well our military needs are different from those of singapore, china and poland. also the marine corps is different than the regular army. if the military wants more armored forces they need to stand up armored divisions, the marines should be a mobile, amphibous force it has been, and SP artillery would make that more difficult. also given the great morters that are coming along with GPS guidance, those can be strong counter battery fire along with artillery deployed via helos. Also SP artillery would have to be delivered via some sort of ship because a SP artillery would be too heavy for a helo and so your taking up alot of space on landing ships that can be used for infantry, fighting vehicles, infantry carriers, support units, etc.
ReplyDeletei was too slow but joe hit the nail on the head. why would we want to add another 4 or more 50 ton weapon systems to the mix?
ReplyDelete30 tons!
thats what you're looking at when you look at a M109A6.
30 tons!
can we justify that onboard ship? i don't think so. especially when compared to towed artillery that you can airlift ashore.
sol i think not only airlift artillery but the morters we have coming out now are becoming far more effective than ever before, with very good range, and with man-portable systems like the javelin and the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon both give the grunts huge anti-armor, anti-bunker weapons never seen before in warfare.
ReplyDeleteI'm with B. Smitty. Your logic is out the window! You say modern infantry does not fear tanks?...ok, you definitely lost me there...flash news: infantry is no match for "modern" tanks
ReplyDeleteout the window? you're talking nonsense and WW2. facts go something like this. 1973 Israeli-Arab war. Israeli tanks got mauled by Egyptian anti-tank teams. some experts called it the end of the tank. fast forward to the 1st gulf war. the USMC had Army M1's attached to it because of fears of a major tank battle. those fears never materialized because Marine Air and artillery with a big help of USAF A-10's nullified the threat.
ReplyDeletefast forward to OIF during the invasion, the USMC General in charge of the Marine portion of the assault told his pilots not to worry about tanks...his infantry could handle the tanks..what he told his pilots to go after was Iraqi artillery.
move up to the here and now. a MEU has at its disposal AV-8B's, AH-1Z's, UH-1Y's, Javelin, Tow, Hellfire and precision artillery.
yeah Infantry doesn't fear tanks at all. we fear artillery. get with it cowboy. i don't know of one infantry unit in any country that doesn't drill constantly to channel and then destroy tanks.
tanks are easy. if your cover and concealment is good. if you have good command and control to launch an effective ambush...then tanks are toast...every freaking time.
the only place where tanks have even a remote possibility of survival is in the open desert. in every other terrain feature they're as dead as disco.
well our tanks were so superior in desert storm the engagements we did have were so one side (i.e. battle of 73 easting). tanks have their role in the regular army, but the marines needs heavy gun support (like a MGS on the CV90 but not the huge M1), and more as infantry support than to do tank on tank engagements which will get destroyed by the CV90 and infantry. my guess is if we have to take on a force which has major armor assets then the army's armored units will take that battle. there are some things the marines are good at, other the army good at.
ReplyDeleteSol, one idea would be to take older M113s, and put a gun on top of it, like a 90MM or whatever gun, we have plenty of M113s because army arent using them, using MRAPs or strykers more. i know its bulky and would take up space so you wouldnt need as many as the M1s but would give good fire support on a proven chassis.
ReplyDelete73 eastins was every tankers wet dream.
ReplyDeletebut like the guy up above said news flash! the m113 is out of production, is too light to support anything above a 76mm gun and its been tried before to very limited success.
If you want direct fire why not just upgun a AAV or EFV with a 100mm gun? If that doesn't work out try using a Paladin with increased armor.
ReplyDeletethat sounds like a plan too. the main issue is for the vehicle crewman to not forget what they are...infantry support and not a main battle tank.
ReplyDeletehaving a vehicle that can go in with the first wave would be a great help too.
I like the idea of a fire support EFV. It puts a big gun on the beach early.
ReplyDeleteHowever I still don't want to phase out Marine MBTs. They offer a unique combination of firepower, mobility and protection. Lighten the load elsewhere. Or buy bigger (or more numerous) amphibs.