Hey All.
I have a modest proposal. While we're redesigning our AAV Battalions to operate two separate vehicles, I say that it would make sense and piggy back onto that development and add an additional class of vehicle to the mix.
As it is now we'll be operating AAV and Amphibious Combat Vehicles...Marine Personnel Carriers with crewmen designate (I'm assuming) to operate both vehicles under one unit.
How about we take whichever vehicle wins the Marine Personnel Carrier competition and add the gun designed for the US Army's MGS system to it! With that being done, we can then disband Tanks and have direct fire come from the USMC's newly built Direct Fire Gun System (hate the MGS moniker and I love to differentiate our systems from Army if possible)
 |
| CAB |
So in the end what do we win. We get all of mechanized assault under one roof. We get reduced weight aboard our amphibious shipping...and finally our logistics tail from fuel to parts will be reduced.
Instead of operating M1 Tanks, LAV-25's (if we go with MPC then it only makes sense to retire these vehicles), whatever MPC wins the competition and the AAV and its follow on, we're down to just the MPC filling the roles of LAV, MPC (and its gun system) and the AAV.
Consider this a combat vehicle neck down campaign if you will.
What do we lose? Command slots for Lt. Colonels and Colonels (not exactly a bad thing in a shrinking Marine Corps), but one other thing that isn't quite as good and might entail a bit of risk...we lose the shock action of tanks. My thinking is that our airpower (F-35, AH-1Z, UH-1Y and Harrier) will be tasked with another mission...anti-armor if we're up against a first tier foe.
Its not perfect and this is just an outline sketch of an idea but I believe it could work. But if it can't then we at least need to take steps to reduce the weight of the M1 and we need to work out whether they need to deploy with MEU's in greater strength, whether we move them to the Reserves or if we redesign them to make it all work out. I like what the Jordanians did with their old Chieftans...an unmanned turret should save quite a bit of weight...
Solid plan but you might it almost reminds me of a stryker brigade.
ReplyDeleteThe concept allows you to train one group of operaters and one group of mechs. They all go to soi like lavs does anyways, giving them the infantry training lav have. Then you just give extra training.g as needed. So of a operator is assigned to a dfg vehicle he goes to the crs.
What I would propose is opening up lav stle turrets, mortors, maybe a arty version (there was a stryker type that never saw production)
The big thing is would you lose power without the abrams? Yes I think you would its got such presence on the battlefield. But you could off set this by simply attaching tanks from say the army as needed?
i dont think the marines need an anti-armor force, if the marines are going to take a defended beach NAVAIR and marine air can take care of that, i like your idea you mentioned a while back (i think it was you) that if you need a tank force, just attach a cav element from the army, with respect to the marines, the army is more skilled and more history in tank warfare than marines.
ReplyDeleteSince all three AC are listed in this story, there is news out today that F-35 costs may slow down AH-1Z and UH-1Y production. Sol, though we may disagree on the merits of the F-35, I do believe you have the best interests of the USMC at heart, so in your opinion which is the least painful program to slow down?
ReplyDeletehttp://defensenews.com/story.php?i=8248956&c=AME&s=TOP
There were some interesting comments over at DefenseTech to an article about upgraded Russian MBTs and whether they will be relevant given the prevelance of airborne guided weapons, which I think are apropo to your argument that Marine Air can deal with opposing tanks:
ReplyDelete'"At the beginning of the war, I had 36 tanks. After a month of bombing, I had 32. After 20 minutes against the 1st Cav, I had none." Iraqi Tank Battalion Commander captured during Desert Storm.'
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/11/14/video-russias-t-90m-main-battle-tank/#ixzz1duCiOQku
Defense.org
And the same source on Kosovo:
Kosovo: 38,000 sorties (10,000 strike sorties), 20,000 weapons released (almost all guided) over 78 days which got us: 500 armored vehicles, 200 artillery pieces, 55 bridges, 17 airfields, and a handful of hospitals, railways, refineries, and other infrastructure. Those equipment numbers constituted about a third of the Serbian Army's toys. We hit a lot of decoys or nothing at all because we couldn't find them.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/11/14/video-russias-t-90m-main-battle-tank/#ixzz1duDUPMAL
Defense.org
I think the take away is that tanks call for tanks, so maybe borrowing them from the Army is the best solution, however, this doesn't solve the sea lift/space/weight/logistics tail issue.
The solution for Marine armor is to upgun the AAV with a 120mm cannon and remove it's transport capacity in favor of more ammunition and possibly a larger engine.
ReplyDeleteUSSHELM. sounds good but they're so thinly armored that if you hit an ied you'd have kills on any other vehicles in your convoy from rounds cooking off. same really applies if you're hit with an RPG-29 or another armor piercing variant. good in theory bad in practice.
ReplyDeleteGC. times have changed since desert storm. ISR is alot better. remember we're able to track humans now. tracking a tank won't be a problem. the idea that it takes a tank to kill a tank is passe' think about how many anti-tank weapons are on the battlefield now. so many they they're being used for different purposes now.
JOHN. give us (MARINES!) credit. the Stryker Brigades were modeled after the MEU's. we're not copying them, we're just modifying what's already worked for us and just taking it to the mechanized assault force we have.
JOE. really? do you really think that they US Army has more experience in armored warfare than the Marines? I say no. major tank combat didn't occur until WW2. during that time most major tank battles occured between the Germans and Russians. even during the Battle of the Bulge it was mostly an infantry affair with tanks in the support on the allied side. in the desert against Rommel, it was the Brits that led the way so the vaunted experience of US Army tankers vs. Marines isn't really valid. add to it the fact that during Korea, Marine tankers were more active...definitely more active in Vietnam...and just as active in desert storm and we at least have a tank company in afghanistan means that Marine Tankers have as long and in theory more historic experience than army tankers.
P454. I just don't know. i kinda think it makes sense but i need to read up on it a bit more.
Usshelm a 120 on a aav would never work. The recoil would rip the vehicle apart. BAE had enough problems with a 30mm cannon and from what I've heard finally found a good enough mount to work.
ReplyDeleteSol, with eaak you have a decent protection on the sides from rpgs as the 2in gap between the kit and the vehicle derive the rpg a lot of its power. It's the big cannon rounds and atgm we worry about.
As for the stryker brigade, and giving credit to the Corps, trust me I know where they got the idea from, they still need work I was using it as a example to base a CAB off.
As for removing tanks from the corps, you could do it and still be deadly, its called combined arms for a reason, tows, arty, smas's all make a great anti armor threat. Just replace the tanks with something like a MGS system so we still have the assault power