Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USMC proposed restructuring

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TacCovert4
    replied
    I think that 14.5mm all around would be sufficient for an amphibious IFV with armor kit for the frontal arc and the suspension rated for a few tons heavier to allow for any later options.

    I would like to see a light tank variety of the IFV, with 25mm protection and either a reasonably heavy auto cannon like 40mm and a missile or rocket system or a 105mm gun.

    Preferably a 105 and with a turret that'll allow for reasonable elevation. Be nice to have a vehicle that can dual role as artillery.

    Of course I also have crazy ideas about those Israeli spike NLOS missiles and an IFV with a VLS system instead of the troop bay. Mobile light precision artillery and anti tank.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    What would be perfect IMO, would be a modernized AMX10 RC. 15 ton 6x6 with a medium velocity 105mm. There is a huge gap between an MBT's 120mm and AFV's with 25-35mm autocannon. While AT missiles can make up some of that, they are bulky and expensive and sometimes you just need a big HE round to destroy a building. The problem with any new military procurement program of any country is that it ends up gold-plated. Witness the F35 and Zumwalts. Something safe against 20-35mm autocannons would be sufficient.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    Tac--you misunderstood what I was saying. I was agreeing with stripping the tanks from MEUs so that they would become light raiding units. I was saying that getting rid of the tank battalions was wrong since it would limit/weaken the entire Corps.
    I partially agree with you on your argument vis a vis the battalions.

    The other consideration is budget. The Corps has a grand total of 4 tank battalions. Say 5 if you stripped the tanks from everything else. The Corps does not have the other assets to make a 'cavalry' division, and these would basically be 'heavy tank battalions' in infantry divisions. I'm definitely not against that.

    OTOH, 4ish battalions of tanks means a rather sizable chunk of money, in training, in maintenance, and in equipment and personnel. The Corps is always strapped for cash to do any project. So with that in mind, if I could have 4 battalions of older model M1s, or I could have 4 battalions of new IFVs, from a budget standpoint I'd probably go with the IFVs. The Corps uses an older variant of the M1, and has not had the budget (or need) to upgrade it to M1A2 or any of the post A2 upgrades.

    For the reasons that I listed that make the M1A1 a bit of a liability to mobility and 3rd world operations, I think that the Corps would be better served overall by getting an AAV replacement that's also a real IFV and using it as such. Or getting an AFV replacement that comes in IFV and 'light tank' variants and replace the M1s with a lighter tank that can use local bridges and roads and can cross rivers and land amphibiously if required.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Tac--you misunderstood what I was saying. I was agreeing with stripping the tanks from MEUs so that they would become light raiding units. I was saying that getting rid of the tank battalions was wrong since it would limit/weaken the entire Corps.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
    So the marines have M1s but no Bradleys? Considering Bradleys destroyed more vehicles during the Gulf war I would have thought that IFV would've been more of a help than a hinderance.
    Sort of the opposite.

    The Corps has never used Bradleys. It's used a variety of other vehicles, LAVs, AAVs, and the like. The Corps would still have an amphibious IFV. It would be getting rid of the MBTs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied
    So the marines have M1s but no Bradleys? Considering Bradleys destroyed more vehicles during the Gulf war I would have thought that IFV would've been more of a help than a hinderance.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    I could understand lightening up the MEUs for maybe raiding some hypothetical island military bases somewhere near Asia but getting rid of all armor is wrong. Sometimes, even the lightest units need a big stick. You're limiting your options and capabilities then,
    The only issue I have with it is thus:

    A MEU comes in with a platoon of M1s. 4 typical, 6 maximum with spares. That's a LOT of tonnage at 70t a pop set aside for just 4 tanks. And honestly, that's barely 'fire brigade' levels of force for a battalion.

    From the landing perspective, you can't airlift them by helo, so you have to put them into a port or a beach. You take up an entire LCAC run Per Tank, so that's a LOT of time spent to bring in said tank platoon that could be spent bringing ashore a lot of tons of other things or multiples per run of smaller vehicles.

    The only thing an MBT is 'efficiently good' at is killing other MBTs. It's patently overkill for most anything else. And modern ATGMs are good enough that they can adequately handle tanks in the infantry support role. The MBT is 'armored cavalry' and quite wasted by putting a platoon into a battalion.

    70t tanks require a certain level of road, bridge, etc to operate. If you're running around with light armored vehicles that are averaging the weight of a dump truck, then you can be reasonably certain that they'll operate on any roads or bridges in the area designed for commercial traffic. Even in 3rd World nations. OTOH, the M1A1 or M1A2 are heavy enough that you have to think about which roads you'd be taking in the USA.....and in the 2nd and 3rd world you're highly limited to your bridges, which reduce your options massively.

    Overall, the MBTs belong in the Army. IF we had light tanks, the Corps could use those quite well as they'd fit better into its mission.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    I could understand lightening up the MEUs for maybe raiding some hypothetical island military bases somewhere near Asia but getting rid of all armor is wrong. Sometimes, even the lightest units need a big stick. You're limiting your options and capabilities then,

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post

    This brings visions of US M1 tanks still in use over time rivaling the B52 bombers use. The beast has four decades on it. Will battalions still be in use circa 2060?
    With passive protection realistically no different, and active protection being the new technology.

    With the next step up being a 130 or 140mm gun, which can fit in the turret ring.

    With there being space for a sufficient engine in the hull.

    Yeah, I see the M1 being viable into 2060 as a front line MBT. Probably an M1A4, with a 130 or 140mm autoloader, maybe just a crew of 3, but I don't see it going away anytime soon. Realistically it's already at the top of the curve on weight, unless someone develops a revolutionary new armor scheme, which is doubtful, I don't see the hull at least changing....I see a wholly redesigned turret by then though to accomodate the gun and other systems.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl Schwamberg
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    ... and I don't see us Building an M3 MBT any time soon.
    This brings visions of US M1 tanks still in use over time rivaling the B52 bombers use. The beast has four decades on it. Will battalions still be in use circa 2060?

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    Everyone is forgetting the (military) politics of this. When we get involved in a war, everybody wants to come to the party--witness Grenada and Panama. If you don't have the proper toys to play with others, you won't get invited. If they were light infantry, the Marines wouldn't have been involved in Desert Storm.
    I can't really say they wouldn't have been. Certainly they wouldn't have been part of the spearhead into Kuwait. But the landing feint would have still happened. And certainly other forces like the Foreign Legion went into Desert Storm without heavy armored assets. In a major land war, I sort of see the Corps as a 'fire brigade' type of force that moves quickly to a point where the Army might be having some trouble, be it a city, a heavily forested area, etc. In those circumstances, heavy armor is not always necessary and can be an impediment to rapid repositioning.

    I see the Corps as defending or attacking things like Islands in SE Asia and the Pacific. And making or being the spearhead of amphibious assaults into major theaters. At which point, like the Airborne, they're pushed past by Big Army and then take a rapid reserve role. Make the beachhead, hold it against local counterattacks, maybe take a port town/city, and then the black bottoms bring in the Mechanized Divisions and Armored Cavalry to pursue follow-on operations.

    While tanks are undoubtedly very useful in cities, if you're building up from scratch(ish), you can optimize your lighter armor for that sort of warfare without taking away its ability to fight in the open. Things like RWSs, high angle main guns, multi-purpose rocket/missile systems, etc can be built into a new build easier than they can be retrofitted onto an MBT, and I don't see us Building an M3 MBT any time soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Everyone is forgetting the (military) politics of this. When we get involved in a war, everybody wants to come to the party--witness Grenada and Panama. If you don't have the proper toys to play with others, you won't get invited. If they were light infantry, the Marines wouldn't have been involved in Desert Storm.

    Leave a comment:


  • KRJ
    replied
    Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post
    I think my ideal British officer is.......
    Brigadier Simon Christopher Joseph Fraser, 25th Chief of Clan Fraser and 15th Lord Lovat;

    or,

    Lieutenant Colonel John Malcolm Thorpe Fleming Churchill.

    "Any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed." - "Mad Jack" Churchill



    Leave a comment:


  • OttoHarkaman
    replied
    Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post

    Been proved more times than I could count in my lifetime.
    Hope you are feeling better!

    I think my ideal British officer is Wavell, I don't know even what rank to give him, he seems to have so many. Amazing all the improvised operations he was able to accomplish.
    Monty%2C_wavvel%2C_auk.jpg
    center figure, between Montgomery and the Auk
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Auchinleck
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl Schwamberg
    replied
    Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post

    Operation Musketeer 1956 - Anglo-French Invasion of Egypt

    war-of-algeria-operation-musketeers-or-operation-700-le-31-aot-1956-picture-id162857513.jpg

    Operation Sutton May 1982 - British invasion of the Falklands

    The_empire_strikes_back_newsweek.jpg
    Aside from the MEF operation in OIF there was also the Argentine invasion of the Falklands. A two for one there. So, we are up to four executed, and one aborted in the last few hours to H hour. Below the brigade size there dozens of small operations by many other nations than the US. The world is mostly surface with water & lots of hostile shore lines. If you want to impose your goals on the people on the far shore you had better be able to carry military operations across the water in a effective manner.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X