Yeah there seems to be a back and forth among some senior leaders and these “think tanks”, many of which are staffed with former military leaders. One guy says they ran tests with joint light strike vehicles with anti armor weapons that can destroy tanks at greater ranges that the tanks themselves and pointed out how the Army supported a Marine unit in the gulf war and it worked out fine. I find it very confusing, but lots of arguments for and against. Some suggest keeping a reserve marine tank force. I think one marine reserve unit just disbanded, the 4 th tank battalion??
MC just got rid of 1st Tank Battalion and that was the last one. 4th Tank was the reserve battalion.
Yeah, another good case study on that is Allied Force in Kosovo in 1999. The Serbs essentially hunkered down and continued to do their business during that campaign. The claims versus the reality of the war there were quite different. What was supposed to have been a few weeks long air campaign lasted for months.
2 Likes
Another interesting thing here but on a personnel level: When the 2nd tank battalion recently deactivated, as far as the enlisted marines goes, a handful who were able took early retirement, some took lateral transfers to other MOSs and 73 I think transferred to the army. None of the 89 officers transferred to the army. I wondered about that.
3 Likes
Two reasons. First is ethos the second is that officers routinely change jobs so nothing unique about changing MOS’s
1 Like
I was reading the Marine Times where the Corps wanted to be more Navy centric. The tanks are difficult for the Navy to deploy and the tanks with the latest upgrades overloaded the landing craft slowing the delivery to the beach. Eliminating the tanks solved the issue. Hummm… If the army tanks would be needed, the same problem exists. Nothing solved on that front.
3 Likes
The next big war will be biological!! Covid has shown the bad guys how easily they can save money of hardware. So numbers mean little.
Biological warfare crosses the threshold into WMDs amongst nations. If one side uses biological weapons in open warfare, gasses and nukes are not off limits in retaliation. Not to mention that biological warfare is more difficult to control than chemical warfare. For chemical agents, the prime concern is weather and wind conditions. Biological vectors feed on any life form and once unleashed have to run their course… an even more wicked genie to get back into the bottle.
1 Like
Stikpusher maybe we are seeing a test run with Covid. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. Maybe not. But it is food for thought. If so then any tinpot country doesn’t need conventional assets.
I understand the theory, but then it stands to reason of motive and opportunity for employment. It takes some skill to develop biological weapons. And then a bit of planning to deploy them- they really cannot be controlled once unleashed. They are very much a double edged weapon that cuts both ways.
The next thing is, why employ them if you’re not going to take action- force projection to obtain a national objective. Which again brings me back to the point of, they fall under WMDs in most nations playbooks. If the tinpot dictator of, let’s say Zangaro, uses a biological weapon on world power, directly or indirectly, and it is eventually traced back to them, most of those major and regional powers in the world will strike back in some form of retaliation extremely hard. Public sentiment would demand it. Remember in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, most Americans would not have blinked at turning Afghanistan into green glass. 20 years later, in hindsight, some might say that we could have saved a lot of American blood and treasure had we done so.
Why have your big stick deterrent if you won’t use it? That’s why nuclear and chemical weapons stockpiles were maintained. Seeing how most chemical agent stockpiles have officially been banned and disposed of by treaties, that limits the retaliatory WMD options to one.
Of course I am speaking strictly theoretically.
1 Like
Using biological weapons is like setting your neighbours apartment on fire to make him turn down the noise.
1 Like
Stikpusher I understand where you’re coming from. But keep in mind there is more than 1 or 2 ‘irrational’ leaders out there.
1 Like
All good points, however most of the larger bad guys wouldn’t blink an eye at losing a few million folks and it would make their job of control easier. There are many non-nation groups that would love a smaller population base around the world.
1 Like
@Uncle-Heavy - yes, and you live in the same apartment building as the neighbor!
@BGT - irrational depends upon what rulebook those leaders are playing by… by the standards of some East Asian feudal dynasty or 8th century theocracy, the moral and ethical considerations of warfare really do not have much sway.
@Tank_1812 - yes, the non nation players are the bigger worry and wildcard. They don’t have to play by any rules because those same rules keep them out of power.
Well, that is partially correct. The USMC MEU(SOC) normally sails with three US Navy amphibious ships, one ship that has the four M1A1 tanks aboard (a platoon). In many cases against African force exercises, the four M1A1s made a huge difference, but against peer nations, perhaps four tanks aren’t enough.
On a beach assault, the first ashore are often not the M1A1 tanks…they come in the second or third wave. The first wave is the AAVs.
The LCAC, and SSC successor hovercraft, cannot really carry the M1A1 unless it’s “overloaded.” Now that the US Army is outfitting M1A2SEPv3s with ERA, TUSK, and Trophy APS, that tips the M1A2SEP’s weight to close to 80 tons, way over the limit of the US Navy hovercrafts’ safe carrying load, and a risk on the structural integrity of the decks and ramps of the Navy amphibs. Basically, the M1A2s upgrades are getting so heavy that the USMC can’t keep up.
The USMC can use the 105mm Mobile Protected Firepower Light Tanks, but there is no indication that the Marines want to make this move. Instead, the USMC seems to want to use JLTVs with SPIKE NLOS ATGM missiles and Loitering Munitions and UAVs. Actually, General Berger even said at a conference that the USMC has no plans to purchase replacement tanks and getting rid of tanks is the way to go.
And cutting the tanks, artillery, infantry, and air assets is a way for the Marines to save money to buy newer weapons, many will be HiMARS with Anti-Ship missiles and Tomahawks on trucks or trailers. Congress will not give the USMC more money to modernize, and General Berger is correct, so the axe falls on something to save money. If this is the correct move is still and often debatable.
The US Army does have ships that can carry the M1A2SEP…the LSV. One LSV sailing at 11-12 knots can carry 15 M1A2s on deck and beach and land them…a far cry from the US Navy and USMC struggling to land just four lighter M1A1s ashore.
1 Like
If 4 tanks are not enough then a MEU is not the best option for the mission. The LAV’s and Tuna Boats are not going to last long.
Seems like command is missing the focus on the mission and risking soon no longer needing the Marines. Maybe a little hyperbole but when cutting grunts your cutting the core of the Marines. When pickup other Navy mission like ASW one has to wonder what the hell they are thinking.
Yes, but the log train for a battalion of tanks would be massive and mostly over kill for most MEU deployments.
I think the Navy needs to modernize to include heavier transport. If you are not keeping up with the Joneses then the mission will not get completed in a timely fashion.
Lesson learned many times over. To control real-estate you need boots on the ground. High tech is fine for detection. Unless you plan to develop self controlled robotic stealth drones with deathrays then you will need to control the territory. Boots on the ground. Cutting boots is cutting your ability to control.
I do not see where supporting Marines in the offence will suddenly require less. If you are trading tanks and artillery for high tech then you will need to bring lots of high tech. I do not see a smaller log train. Just different items in the trucks.
1 Like
The lift situation sounds similar to the Army in the early 80s. They wanted more divisions that were deployable, so several were converted to “light” configuration, that could easily be airlifted in far fewer aircraft. The main problem was that those divisions dropped most of their vehicles and firepower, were pretty much employable only to low and mid intensity conflicts in certain areas. Airborne forces could sieze an airhead and light forces follow on as reinforcements. But against an armored “peer” adversary, say in the Persian Gulf against the Soviets driving for their “warm water port”, they would pretty much have been a speed bump.
Seems like it’s headed in one of the directions this now ancient book from 2003 suggested.
Basically in one scenario, the entire US military ground forces amount to a total of 36 battalions. 18 active and 18 training and refitting.
With super high tech, biotech, the new internet aka The HyperNet, help from AI’s, 18 battalions are the ground power needed by the USA to hold down the world’s hot spots and ensure aka enforce world peace. Outcomes can be accurately projected and the 18 battalion system so incredibly unstoppable, the stock market always surges upward in time of crisis. Years go by between KIA’s occurring in combat.
It’s all well and good for decades until one day a crisis deviates from simulation and shortly thereafter a fast response battalion is wiped out. The ensuing psychological shock crashes the stock market, the HyperNet and the world economy in about 15 minutes. Another 15 minutes go by as advanced civilization implodes and the world descends into a new stone age.
1 Like
Simple fix to the Marines and their tank issue: Just have new recruits identify as MBTs. Heck, have a few identify as A-10s while you’re at it. No…wait…X-Wings.
1 Like