I've been extremely busy lately. With that in mind, while I was looking over the latest offering from
DefenseTech, a weird thought crossed my mind. Greg Grant point out that the Marine Operating Concept which just hit the streets has these as main points.
“The process of leveraging emerging technologies should begin with a
bottom-up reevaluation of all systems from individual equipment through
large principal end-items with a specific focus on making each system
smaller, lighter, and more efficient whenever possible.”
Toward
that end the Marines will pursue the following objectives:
• With the one exception of the KC-130
aircraft, every item in the Marine inventory must be able to be embarked
on an amphib and be employable from ship to shore without the use of a
pier.
• Consideration should be given to requiring that all combat
vehicles have scalable armor protection capable of being embarked
separately from the vehicle.
• Infantry companies must be able to
operate independently without combat vehicle support. To further reduce
vehicle dependency, the Marines should buy the aerial cargo drone;
reduce equipment density; reduce energy demands by emphasizing renewable
and alternative energies; and reduce battlefield contractor dependence.
•
All units must be self sustainable for 72 hours.
• Reexamine the
basic building blocks of the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) to
determine whether its current organization accurately reflects the
realities of where and how it will be employed.
• Lighten the
logistical footprint required to support the aviation combat element
(ACE) by buying newer, less maintenance intensive, aircraft. The ACE
must also reduce the amounts of fuel and oil it consumes.
• Add
Joint Terminal Air Controllers (JTACs) to the lowest echelon possible.
If this is our doctrinal direction then where does the Main Battle Tank fit? Is now the time for the Marine Corps to divorce itself from perhaps the most "Army of Army" weapons?
Before you go high and to the right think about it.
The M1A1 goes against the concept in every regard...
1. Heavy logistical tail...
2. Difficult to transport...
3. Unable to operate independently or as part of Company sized units of maneuver.
Others can probably easily expand on this short list. With more accurate artillery. With Marine Air being able to provide almost 24 hour-all weather support. With UAVs being able to provide ISR and close air support, then do we really need the shock action of the M1's 120mm main gun?
Tankers will state that the best anti-tank weapon is another tank. I agree but in these times of limited budgets, a changing doctrine and the focus on expeditionary operations from the sea--can we really justify the Tanks existence in Marine Corps formations?
I don't know but I think that it should be considered.
Note:
Marine Armor is approaching a "shatter-point" soon regardless. The US Army is due to embark on its M1A3 upgrade program. The Marine Corps is already facing the choice of Upgrading to maintain commonality, keeping the M1A1 and maintaining an independent supply chain (expensive) or abandoning the tank all together. The choice of whether heavy armor stays in the Corps will be decided one way or the other real soon.
