So the United States Marine Corps has divested themselves of the M1A1 tank in order to become a more agile force. The tanks were given to the US Army and their tankers were given various choices such as transfer to the Army, early outs and transfers to other USMC MOS’s. But what happens to their M1150 Assault Breachers? Are they getting rid of them as well? Did they have tankers driving them or engineers? Just curious.
USMC got rid of them too.
“As a part of Force Design 2030, the M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles are being divested from the Marine Corps in an effort to accelerate modernization and realign capabilities, units and personnel to higher priority areas.”
Like the M9 ACE, those probably should have been assigned to engineers. I have not heard about them going away but it would make sense if they did from what they are trying to do. Not that I agree with it.
Here is how I figure the future Marine concept as of this moment.
Get rid of the Tanks to be more “agile”
Get rid of the Breachers and anything over the weight of a staff car to be more “agile”. Get rid of the infantry because as you know all marines are riflemen. So they don’t need a rifleman rifleman when you can have a radioman rifleman. So as I see things, the Log Train will be the primary fighting force of the future minus any heavy assets.
T’anks, Gino. I sure hope they amp up their mine-detection training if they can’t just fire MICLICs anymore.
More likely the tanks went to the rebuild/upgrade facility. The active Army is pretty much all M1A2 SEP v2 by now. I think most of the Army National Guard is as well. USMC M1A1s are two to three generations behind Army tanks. They would need to be upgraded before going to the Army.
Probably good for keeping tax dollars flowing to the upgrade companies (and no, that’s not a complaint - I think having folks doing those jobs and keeping up the trade knowledge is a good thing). But I also hope the USMC never has to prove their agility in a shooting war in years to come.
Just need a few more Combat Rocks.
I believe they still have towed miclics they have used with AAV’s in the past. Not sure if a LAV or Humvee can tow them but soon those will be the only heavy assets the Corp owns.
Apparently it can be mounted on the back of a pickup as well. Probably not the recommended installation, but I guess it works.
Awesome, needed something different for the technicals.
I guess when you think about though, if the USMC is going to a mainly light infantry force which will most likely be inserted by helicopters, is there a need for something like the towed MICLIC? I don’t really see them breaching a minefield anyways.
I don’t see any LAVs or AAVs being deployed in the initial waves (if at all). They will not be brought in until after the beach is secured by pounding the hell out of it with naval gunfire, next air assaulting ground troops inland to cut off any remaining beach defenders, then clear back to the beach. Only then would you bring in additional forces via AAVs over the shore. If there are any minefields left to breach, the AAVs can/do carry MICLICs. LAVs are used for recon; no need for them to breach anything, so no need for them to pull MICLICs. Just my thoughts.
I find no real fault with that logic on the future of the miclic.
Gino, That is what I am worried by. The USMC becoming the equivalent to the 101st airborne. It limits their role in the future.
I agree with you Top. Take a read of Force Design 2030 and you will see that is exactly what the Commandant has in mind. It lays out what will be cut (a lot); namely, all armor, 5 INF Bns, 1 INF REG HQ, -200 Marines per remaining INF Bn, 16 towed FA BTRYs, etc., etc., etc…
It doesn’t look like they will be capable of much more than a few light infantry Bns.
I’ve been talking about it with a retired Marine infantry officer whom I work with and he can’t figure it out either. He is worried the USMC will become just as you described it as well. With their statutory Title 10 Embassy requirements and statutory MEU requirements, they won’t really be able to do much else.
Ah I see their point. Better partnership with the Navy, pirate interdiction etc. I guess we are going back to manning the crows nest and the brig. Get the sharpshooters up on the ratlines and polish the sabers. Great for 1790’s but not the 2020’s. I cannot see how this this will increase force readiness in the western pacific. They have long ago upgraded from sampans and pirates. I think we should change the term FORCE READINESS to DETERRENT READINESS being that we are reducing any force of significance. The perfect example of what is happening is the local security services around town. Use to be if you stole from a store they would chase down the offender and drag them back to the store. Now what they are allowed to do is to call 911 and witness what occurred, but not get involved. Oh sort like NATO troops… On that note I think I will go outside and stand in the rain to try and wash the stink off.
on a more technical note
The US marines always seem to be almost a separate limb from the navy, more like the navy drops them off and lets them get on with it, now the proposals seem to be a much more unified set up
an infantry assault seems easier and perhaps even safer than trying to do an armoured assault from the sea, you have so much more flexibility where and how and in what strength to assault
if the marines are now about securing a beach head and need fire support presumably naval artillery and air support is better than a tank?
if the marines have secured the beach head and they need armoured support what specific training would be required for an army unit to be inserted? wading in a tank is an obvious first concern but I would have thought the idea is this would not be an issue in the new set up.
what inter service issues would need to be addressed
would the tanks be placed directly under marine command?
would the army tanks needs retrofitting to marine standard for things like radios etc
what happens further in field when the marines need secondary support from mobile artillery
or do the marines make the breach then the army simply drive through and take over operations?
i assume all this is being sorted !!
When is the last time a beach was invaded? It’s an outdated concept, like airmobile and paratroopers.
Two points, Dan. First, the USMC (per Force Design 2030) is reorganizing to be prepared to fight across the Pacific, i.e. taking Islands, against China. That is the potential future war. To me, that means potential “beach invasions”, or at least “island invasions”. I don’t think it is really outdated, just that it hasn’t been needed in a while. Two, Air Mobile, currently called Air Assault is far from dead. We have been doing Air Assault very successfully across A’stan and Iraq for the last 21 years. It is far from outdated. I do agree Airborne Ops are outdated though.
Airmobile against a modern army? Of course not as its not feasible.
I guess if we keep invading third world countries it works.
And I’m guessing invading a beach against a modern enemy won’t work as well as the navy might lose ships.
What happens to the Marines if there is no battles in the pacific and the army needs help in another part of the world? I don’t know.
I can see having a airborne BDE and a air assault BDE but thats about it.
My two cents.