On a discussion on a different topic that touched on tanks, Lane brought this up to refute one of my theories...
MCWP 3-12 Marine Corps Tank Employment:Nowhere does it say that the vehicle used to provide that shock, outstanding cross country mobility, sophisticated communications, day and night acquisitions and lethal firepower must be wrapped in a 72 ton frame.
"Tank units provide the MAGTF commander the
ability to attack, disrupt, and destroy enemy forces
through firepower, shock effect, and maneuver in
coordination with other elements of the MAGTF.
The M1A1 tank offers the MAGTF a vast array of
capabilities—excellent cross-country mobility, sophisticated
communications, enhanced day and
night target acquisition, lethal firepower to defeat
most enemy mechanized platforms, highly effective
armor protection—and all of its capabilities
are interrelated."
"Tanks provide five major capabilities to the MAGTF:
armor-protected firepower, mobility, shock effect,
extensive communications, and flexibility."
And that is my issue with the M1A1 Abrams. The Marine Corps is suppose to be an expeditionary force. Yet on every MEU, we're taking along 4 vehicles that weigh in the neighborhood of 280 plus tons, that consume outrageous amounts of fuel and whose primary function is to support our infantry, not duke it out with enemy tanks. We have precision artillery, the AH-1Z or UH-1Y, and numerous vehicle and shoulder launched anti-tank missiles that can destroy them.
The Brits had the right idea during WW2.
 |
| Matilda II |
 |
| Valentine MK III. |
The infantry tank was a concept developed by theBritish and French in the years leading up to World War II. Infantry tanks were tanks designed to support the infantry in the attack. To achieve this they were generally heavily armoured to allow them to operate in close concert with infantry even under heavy gun fire.The concept is the important thing here and something that the Marine Corps should pay attention to. These tanks were specifically designed to operate in conjunction with the infantry. A hallmark of Marine operations.
We've been here before. This isn't the first heavy tank used by the Marine Corps.
Yeah. It made tons of sense. But the Marine Corps of that day and age also had a ship that has gone by the wayside. Without that particular ship, having dedicated tank units becomes a bit of an issue. You recall the LST (Landing Ship Tank) right?
_underway_in_1984.jpg)
Mobile Gun System. Good idea. Terrible execution.
The problem is it just doesn't work. What does work? The Italian Centauro.
Future armored design is leading to self sufficient, fuel efficient, combat capable forces that fight as combined arms teams that minimize their logistics tail and can scale to fight large armored formations of the past or insurgent terrorists of today.
In essence the Marine Corps should be at the cutting edge of todays armored development/theory. If the EFV and MPC had been procured then we'd be looking at a force that is perhaps unmatched in its reach and combat effectiveness. Since that plan has been scrapped we need to adjust to the new reality.
The costs of maintaining Tanks, along with the fuel costs, mixed with what will soon be a unique vehicle (once the Army moves to the M1A3) all point to the need to make a decision on heavy armors future in the Corps.
I say its time to shed the 70 plus tons, settle on ACV(AAV)/MPC force with a turreted 120mm gun on our MPC to do the mission of infantry support. We're already seeing the concept of tanks performing the infantry support and not the independent shock action already in Afghanistan.
The moral of the story? FIX MARINE ARMOR!
thats the way our "Marines", LEs Troupes de Marines The Foreign Legion use the AMX 10 RCR :
ReplyDeletehttp://www.servir-et-defendre.org/armees_francaises/materiels_des_armees_francaises/amx10rcr/bi_eclaireur_amx10rcr_3.sd.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-10_RC
In cold war conflict, it was Heavy Reco : now it does the job you spoked about in AFGHA and MALI...
Now our army think about a new one : the EBRC
http://www.alliancegeostrategique.org/images/sphinx-3-copie.jpg
A kind of wheeled Bradley but resistant to IED.
Our fights have perhaps proven that 40mm is better than 105mm in infantery support.
Note that vehicle is shipped with AT Missiles..
ooh. i forgot and like the AMX-10. the reason why i like the 105 or larger is for bunker or fortification busting.
Deletedirty secret? our engineers need the 165mm demolition gun but it went away with the M-60 series tanks. it would be a God send on a new engineering vehicle but i don't know what we could mount it on.
105mm should be more than enough to handle most targets ,even smaller calibre like 76mm or 90mm would make sense as you could carry 50-60 rounds vs 20-30rounds carried in a 120mm or 105mm armed vehicle.
DeleteLight tank concept was exterminated during wwII, losses were terrible. After the war medium and heavy tanks types where merged into MBT concept -- combining mobility of medium tank and armor and weaponry of heavy tank. And light tanks concept evolved into IFV family of vehicles.
ReplyDeleteMBT is expected to be nearly impenetrable in frontal projection, have a good protection level in general, capable to take heavy punishment and provide heavy weapons support. Light tank concept simply does not fits in, it could be called a "tank" but in reality just a lighly armored mobile weapon platform that could be knocked out with IED and hand carried AT-weapons from any direction.
If large caliber guns is needed to be quickly deployed to support assault, this is where helo airlifted artillery pieces fits in.
Only a Redleg would think this way! >No offense intended<
DeleteI agree though, the light towed arty delivered through Vertical insertion via Rotors has good merits.
A friend from the old days did this with the 82 AA as an Airborne redleg he would discuss the many different scenarios he attended via helo/arty insertion, a battery dropped suddenly before or during a fight will affect the battle in a positive way. Light tanks served the Marines well during the Pacific island assaults their foes did not have tanks that were superior to our Stewarts which cold take out most fortified emplacements with it's 37 mm the Terrain of the pacific islands made heavy tanks hard to manuver.
The PAVN used light Soviet tanks and had good results against the Chinese and the Americans such as at Lang Vie losing seven tanks from a force of twelve.
Light tanks have their uses.
Funny how history repeats itself.
ReplyDeleteCase in point, the M551 Sheridan. It was light (15 tons), could swim , was air droppable, helicopter transportable, had a big gun for bunker busting (152mm) , could maneuver well in urban areas, and had a missile for longer ranges shots and anti-tank duties.
Bring that idea to the 21st century with a 120mm mortar (think single AMOS or NEMO), APS, Hybrid drive, LAHAT missile for long range/AT duties, etc. If a little more armor is required, go with the M8 body (hybrid version) that allows for up to 4 troops or extra ammo in the rear and has multiple layers of armor upgrade-ability.
Why a mortar instead of a cannon. Simple, a mortar allows for more ammo (less propellant needed), better urban maneuverability (smaller gun means less obstacles), can influence the battle well beyond LOS, greater variety of ammo (bunker buster fuses, flare, beehive, WP, etc), commonality of ammo with ground troops, etc.
If you still want that 165mm, then go for an M8 chassis.
I agree Mortar like NEMO(unmanned 1.5T turret 10rnd/minute) makes much more sense that 105 or 120mm HV gun as round velocity is usefoul for armor piercing runds and nothing else and puts huge loads and weight on the vehicle + you rarely see more than 20 rounds carried in a 120mm light vehicle vs 60 rounds on Nemo
DeleteSPD I like you thinking about 120 mm auto mortars. Stryker AGS still has startup problems while the M8 was already under development a long time ago~? Put alongside the M551 and we see once again that "better is the enemy of good enough".
Delete8x8 wheeled vehcicle may not able to handle 120's recoil, 105 cal is more appropriate.
ReplyDeleteI posted on your forum before with the ideal of integrating 120 to EFV/ACV chassis. This is the best option available, I totally agree. Better yet, The small turret plus the lightweight 120 XM360 cannon developed for the FCS program should be adopted to further reduce R&D cost/risk.
I look around, there is no existing amtrack design other than EFV that is suitable for ACV requirement. Bring back EFV prototype, lower the requirement thresholds and simplify the propulsion design, then your have your ACV in no time. In addition to the three proposed variants (troop carrier, command vehicle, recovery vehicle), add the 120 assault gun which replaces M1A1.
ReplyDelete120 ammo profile is robust, especially consider US now possesses the best tank round stock in the west and the advantage will only increase with the introduction of next generation tank rounds such as AKE and AMP. Marine needs the lethality for direct action while the disadvantage of a main battle tank is evident.
i bash General Dynamics but they offered that to the Marine Corps and the Marines didn't bite. i have no idea why not. probably becausee they were pissed.
DeleteWhen you see the Israeli's go into south Lebanon in 2006 with Merkavas and make little progress (granted, in large part due to poor tactics), I have to wonder if going lighter in armor is effective or wise.
ReplyDeleteThere have been big guns before but it wasn't until they were placed on an armored, tracked platform that it made them dangerous.
Here are some questions that I don't know the answers to:
Is the cost of a direct-fire, large caliber weapon required or are there other options with man portable missiles? Helicopter or other airborne missiles? Small Diameter bombs? guided 120mm mortar rounds?
Is the extra protection of an Abrams-sized tank required in the threat environment that the USMC is likely to face?
In lieu of the weight of armor, what other protection technologies exists e.g. active protection systems, reactive armor tiles, etc.
If suitable alternatives to an Abrams are found, can the USMC even afford another armored platform given the upcoming budgetary issues it faces? does it have the dough to solicit and eval bids, initiate a testing/prototype phase, develop training and logistics and acquire the vehicle? (it's one thing for us to say, "buy a Centauro/buy CV90-120, etc.", but it's costs nothing to conjecture and postulate unlike acquiring a platform for a modern military... sweet drunk talk is free, buying mobile gun systems ain't)
what you're talking about (the Israeli invasion) is when the REAL joint forces comes into its own.
DeleteTHAT WOULD BE AN ARMY MISSION! to mount an armored, deliberate assault? definitely the 1st ID type thing. Marines could guard the Army's flanks. could seize a port and link up. could launch a diversionary raid in the enemies rear but the deliberate assault type thing would be an Army mission...in a true joint force, roles and missions are known and not intruded on.
as far as procurement dollars are concerned, we have had two Chairmen of the DoD that promised that money saved from the cancellation of the EFV would be allocated to buying a new vehicle.
long story short. we don't have a choice. we desperately need a new vehicle.
Okay, that's fine. If you're saying that the USMC must stay light enough to be able to conduct raids, seize ports, etc., then the flip side is there are fights it must stay out of as well due to the size/capability/mechanization of a potential enemy. That's cool, but that means the USMC.
DeleteI still have doubts as to the financial ability of the USMC to manage a new program. Yes, the EFV cancellations freed up funds, but that was before sequestration and it provides them a rationalization to not ante up for any program. I just don't have a lot of faith in the DoD or the service chiefs these days. Too many politicized decisions.
are you serious? i don't know what's in the air but you seem to want to get on my nerves or you're an undercover dick.
Deletewant me to name failed Army programs????? Comanche, ARH-70, FCS, Crusader, and the list goes on....even some of the successful vehicles started off as cluster fucks...Bradley????? MBT-70????? you really don't want me to post a history do you???? i can if you want but i'll post your name and your comment and label it for the world to see.
PLEASE OH PLEASE DON"T BE A DUMBASS AND TRY AND SAY THIS IS A MARINE CORPS ONLY PROBLEM!!!!!!!
where did I say this was a USMC only problem?
Deletewhere did I even imply that? wtf?
What I am saying is the Five-Sided Puzzle Palace is a tad politicized these days and it would be really easy for someone to say to the USMC, "sorry, we can't afford a new program"
Although I'm a firm believer in air power, I realize close air support can't be guaranteed or available to the foot soldiers at any given time. The ground force always requires organic anti-armor/infantry support fire. The lethality offered by 120mm KE penetrator is irreplaceable in line of sight, heavy force on force engagement situation. ATGM with chemical energy warhead is inferior, no matter what they say otherwise.
ReplyDeleteA highly mobile assault gun is a better fit for medium weight force like USMC is pitching itself to become. WWII era tank destroyer concept is still relevant today, IMHO. Speed offers survivability too. Passive protection is not the only trick in the game. The trend for future vehicular armor is modularity and scalability, plus active APS, none of them requiring permanent chassis integration.
The M-103 was designed to take on heavy Russian Joseph Stalin type tanks and assault guns. The mission of the Med. Marines was to shore up the right flank of NATO, land in Yugoslavia and at the straits of Dardanelles to block Soviet access from The black sea bases. It was visualized that the M-103 would duke it out with Soviet armor at long range. There is an M-103 parked as a display vehicle at the Anniston Army depot across from the National History museum there, it is a huge monster and how they planned on landing that piece of steel I do not know!
ReplyDelete--
The M-1 Abrams was designed with the Fulda gap and North German plains in mind. repelling Soviet tanks and counter attacking where needed.
The M-1 was not designed for amphibious operations in mind that involved a contested over the beach attack.
The M-1 is an Army weapon for Armored ops by large forces already ashore.
The Marines could use an updated and upgraded Patton type tank made for Infantry support as it's major task, it needs to be more amphibious and possibly have wheels.
The Centauro is in the right design direction if it can be made to swim like an Amtrac the Centauro would be perfect.
The old Corps during my tour used M-48A3 with an occasional M-60 here and there, the line battalions had Bn anti tank Plts armed with 106 RR for Armor before the Dragon came on line depending on Naval and Marine aviation for it's main anti tank roles. Flood the battlefield with Infantry man carried light and medium anti tank weapons in defense and go tank hunting with the Recoilless rifles at long range.
My view is the Marine Armor needs to be fast, have swim capability with lighter Armor protection and a big main gun with the Sighting equipment of the Abrams.
--
WW 2 The Marines found the M-4 Sherman's a good support tank but discovered the Light M-5 Stewarts to be more than adequate for both support and in the anti tank role. The Japanese did not have the Armor capability to make a bigger, more Armored tank necessary.
QUERY: has anyone tried mounting a Main gun turret on an AAV-7?
The Marines Javalin missile is a top attack profile anti tank missile, it can penetrate top decks and engine compartments and doesn't need to blast through frontal armor. A missile armed light tank with a top attack, vertical launched main battery could do as good as a Main Tank gun used right.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the tank and infantry battles in the videos and extrapolate from there how Armor is doing albeit in the hands of amateurs. It shows some surprising actions.
Modern ATGM's IR seeker can be exploited and defeated through effective countermeasure (IRCM), unguided tank round is incorruptible when come to targeting.
DeleteThat's true but it takes a larger, heavier and more robust vehicle to mount and use that weapon.
DeleteFor every measure there is a counter measure and a counter,counter measure.
Optically targeting UAV's can while airborne target vehicles and direct those same missiles via Laser, Optics or infra red.
Marines want a lighter tank not a 120mm behemouth that cannot swim, cannot cross just any bridges, operate in marsh or swampy beyond the sea wall terrain or be Inserted via anything smaller than a very large tank landing vehicle.
First wave assaults need fast hard hitting vehicles that are able to operate right off a beachhead it doesn't have to be a tank gun type vehicle.
Here is a though for a dual mode Landing Fire Support Ship (LFSS).
ReplyDelete1. Start with the Turkish LCU (or any other Ship to shore transport).
2. Create the Marine Infantry Fire Support Tank (MFiST)
3. Create the MFiST from the M8 Hybrid NG Chassis so that it can have the rear pass-through rear compartment. Use a modified hybrid M551 chassis if the M8 cannot be made to swim.
4. Us a manned turret based on the NEMO 120mm mortar
5. The LFSS should be able to pack 8-10 M8s (or 10-12 M551s), a command vehicle with MADL & Link-16, and other battlefield dataliniks, two dedicated AAAV’s to follow the M8s on shore and provider reloads, and armored reload containers (ArC) that would deliver Protected ammO Delivery (PODs) [numbers based on using an LCU as the LFSS].
6. As the LFSS approaches 5-10km from shore, it can start lobbing shells at 80-120 rpm. The LFSS would have plenty of defensive measures including smoke, chaff, tank-style APS, etc.
7. The ArC sits at the rear of the LFSS and feeds ammo via fold-down reload tracks that go along the side of the LFSS above the MFiST vehicles and then branches down to meet the MFiST at the rear hatch. As the LFSS approaches the shore, each MFiST is has a POD sitting on the cabin floor and will initially use up the POD stocks before moving to the on-board ammo. Each POD is a Kevlar armored case that protects the ammo while it’s moving around the LFSS.
8. When an MFiST uses up his POD, it is replaced by ready-POD sitting just outside hatch. The used up POD is routed back to the ArC and a new POD is brought forwards.
9. The MFiST command vehicle can receive target updates and SA from any drone, FO, or drone flying in the area.
10. When the MFiST unit is ready to depart, the reload arms of the ArC fold up and the MFiST can depart normally from the bow. By using the ArC & POD combo the MFiST was able to provide a significant amount of fire support while offshore while still rapidly arrive onshore and fully loaded with reloads.
SPD, a nice plan BUT far too many programmatic actions i.e new modified vessels/vehicles to see the light of day any time soon IMHO. Most Navy ships take 7 to 10 years to get into service..
DeleteI do like the NEMO & AMOS 120 mm auto mortars especially if they end on on landing craft.
If a USMC AFV can't swim or if it is a main battle tank, have strong (built in by design) fording ability it useless. OK, M-1 with snorkel... but...also, there is no simple HE-only round for that nice big gun on the M-1. Sad. You nailed it with the insane amount of weight.
ReplyDeleteSchnorkels on a tank? I wouldn't wish that on a broke dick dog.
DeleteBritish Infantry Tanks were heavier than the cruiser tanks that became MBTs.
ReplyDeleteIf you are complaining about logistics, they arent the answer.
A Modern Infantry tank would be a 100t super heavy.
we're talking about a totally different beast. not an infantry tank, but an INFANTRY SUPPORT TANK. or rather vehicle. large gun, trophy equipped, v-hull for ied's...decent armor in the IFV range and protected by ifv carrying infantry (or apcs). you drive up on a bunker, you get a fire support mission, delayed fuse round through the front of the bunker, the infantry assault continues and life is good. want to duke it out with tanks? call a Cobra or Harrier or artillery. get caught by tanks? scoot away while laying down covering fire, but your job is to support the infantry not kill tanks.
DeleteThe Bradley is closest to the concept of an infantry tank. It has it's main gun which can do in most targets met by infantry, it has a TOW for MBT defense.
DeleteIt has room for infantry to ride.
But it doesn't meet the actual qualifications for a tank.
What's needed is the old World War Two AmTanks. Amtracs with big assault guns and turrets. If the AmTank needs to defend against MBT's it can use a TOW or similar weapon. I'd say bring back the old 106 RR's but what the Marines would get handed to them is an Abrams sized Ontos.
The infantry tank in WWII was by and large a total failure because when enemy armor engages the infantry tanks were poorly armed. The various types of tanks in WWII such as the infantry, cruiser, heavy, etc, eventually merged into the MBT. There really hasn't been an infantry support tank designed that comes to mind, since the early 1940's. Unless one considers a CEV an infantry support tank rather than a combat engineer vehicle.
ReplyDeleteSol the Corps doctrine on tanks that you cited isn't for a limited role vehicle that you describe. Such a vehicle might be useful and maybe the Corps could do without tanks but you lose the protected firepower, shock, and ability to defeat enemy armor. This might be a perfectly reasonable trade off but the existing doctrine seems to support the MBT. Moreover, combined arms isn't going away. It's been infantry (spears), artillery (archers), and tanks (cavalry) since the dawn of warfare and nothing indicates it's going away. If the MBT is modern heavy cavalry an endless list of battles have been decided by one sides use of heavy cavalry.
The trend, as you've been noting on this site, has been for forces around the world getting heavier with more armored vehicles. When every vehicle in an armored/mechanized unit either becomes armored or has more added I'm not sure it's worth worrying about the weight of the tanks when the total unit weight is increasing anyway. When the MPS squadron starts offloading it's really not an issue how much the tanks weigh and given that an MBT is what you want.
You don't always get to decide to pull back your light/medium forces because enemy armor has shown up and aircraft can't always fly due to various factors. Heavy armored forces can do things and survive in places other forces can not. If the Corps is going to end up with a 40 ton IFV I don't see the point in fielding a 40 to 50 ton infantry support version instead of an M1 MBT. The loss in capability is probably not worth the marginal weight savings within the MEU's tank plat.
Lane! you're talking ARMY combined arms doctrine. combined arms in the Marine Corps can be as little as infantry and artillery to as expansive as infantry, artillery, Marine Air, Naval Gunfires, Navy air, Air Force CAS and Army Air.
Deletethat's the thing that has always mystified me about the way the Army fights. you have the second largest air force and the largest helicopter force in the DoD but they're not included in the warfighting doctrine at the lower levels (company?). a USMC Company Commander would have no problem demanding supporting fires from each and every available swinging dick driving a truck, flying whatever and shooting whatever. the Army keeps everything in house. extremely in house. Additionally if you think that the USMC tanks are task organized to fight the way that the US Army does then you better take another look at our equipment tables. the 1st Armored Division has more tanks (damn near more vehicles) than the entire Marine Corps. there was a reason why the Marine Corps had to augment its tank force during Gulf War One with Army Armor.
a MEU which is approximately equal to a reinforced Army Stryker Brigade Combat Team only has 4 tanks in it. 4. over 2200 Marines. aircraft. AAVs. Humvees. Artillery. helicopters. but only 4 tanks.
what does that tell you about Marine Armor? its designed to support Marine Infantry which is as it should be. the only thing i'm proposing is that instead of basing this M1A1 on the Abrams we instead place a heavy gun on a lighter vehicle so that they can continue to perform the same mission.
That a "battalion-sized" MEU has about the same manpower as an SBCT says something else...
DeleteThe flip side of your argument is that 4 tanks don't really contribute that much to the overall MEU footprint. You still have to replace them with four assault guns.
OTOH, tanks provide unique capabilities that would be lost if the Marines went with an assault gun vehicle. The GCE would lose the tip of its spear ashore. You can't use assault guns in the same fashion without getting them killed.
If anything maybe each MEU should have a company of tanks instead of a platoon.
I do not believe the Marines would give up all their Abrams tanks, this vehicle we are designing is for Infantry use against Infantry targets during an amphibious landing before the heavy equipment can land. Think First to third wave assaults, the Abrams few in number would land later and be used to counter threats by enemy MBT's. That is a whole 'nother battle space and arena.
DeleteThat's a deeper penetration mission than just taking a beach head.
Those four tanks are there strictly for the support of the Marine riflemen they are and never were intended to go dashing about doing Tank battle events.
Besides a company of tanks would take up the room the AMTRACS need for loading and then all you have are Mike boats and tanks.
History shows Marines tanks played very small role in most Amphib Ops.
I believe every tank landed on betio was put out of action by the Japanese shore guns and the US navy bless their l'il sea going hearts. because an M-4 could not handle the terrain.
The Tanks landed at Omaha played no part in the assault at all except as future monuments at low tide.
How ever AmTanks did do their jobs very well which was breaking up counter attacks and bunker busting.
BUT.... the heavy vehicles and tanks can only get ashore in LCAC/SSC (few in numbers) and LCUs (slow). The equation must be solved as to how to land ALL the tacatical equipment needed, when it is needed.
DeleteZebra Dun,
DeleteThere's a lot of stuff in an MEU that isn't dedicated to initial assault waves, and requires lift support to get ashore. (e.g. LAVs, arty, tanks, Logistics Element) The MAGTF is meant to be a full-spectrum force, not just an amphibious assault unit.
Four tanks plus LAVs might let you mount a rescue op like the one launched to get Task Force Ranger out of Mogadishu, but that's about it. Might be able to do it with two and hold two in reserve. I wouldn't want to try that with four assault guns. Tanks are much more likely to survive a hail of RPGs in tight city streets, and be able to push through resistance.
It all goes back to what we want the MAGTF to be. At present, it's more jack-of-all-trades, master of none. But maybe that's best.
Sol, I strongly recommend "Marines Under Armor: The Marine Corps and the Armored Fighting Vehicle, 1916-2000" by Kenneth Estes if you want the historical background of the USMC's use of armored vehicles, including the M103.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, what you're talking about sounds a lot like the concept of an assault gun. Do you want tracks or wheels? Considering that the Marines are trying to mechanize themselves with a wheeled MPC, a wheeled sp armored assault gun, like the Centauro, would be the way to go.
An Amphibious STuG III?
ReplyDeleteSol I served on the Newport and would not call them comfortable in any higher sea state. The MAIN improvement they brought was higher transit speeds and full Ro/Ro capability but they were limited in cargo capacity compare to more modern amphibs.
ReplyDeleteThat said you other points about lighter tanks is important since they can operate off more ships not just big amphibs. I mean I think more armored vehicles brought to the theater has got to be better?