It’s California, just fit them with enough roof racks to accommodate sufficient surf boards for the personnel to complete the journey to the beach. Tactical surprise: “Putin don’t surf…”
Cheers,
M
4 Likes
Seems to be exactly like it says in the link from Gino @HeavyArty — its the new Mission Role. The added bonus of that is they can reduce buying and upgrades, saving lots of … 
and reinvesting into new role equipments and sort of keeping everyone happy with the Mission Role spin…
Also, knowing UK booties, if you give them anything more complex that a Landrover, it just hurts their heads 
And as someone did mention above, the real role of UK Booties was the lead in deployments to NATO’s northern flank for the Mountain and Arctic warfare scenarios. The only thing they do different and train for from an out the box UK Squaddie, is the cliff assaults. Thats it
From the Wavell Room, which is decidedly British slanted but informed editorials…
https://wavellroom.com/2021/03/03/what-is-the-tank-good-for/
More reading on the Russian tanks and their usage in Ukraine…
Seems the ACV doesn’t surf. If you cannot handle CA waves, that is a problem.
First ACV-30 (Kongsberg remote weapon turret with 30mm autocannon and 7.62mm COAX machine gun) is delivered to the USMC for testing. Photo from Defence Blog.
https://defence-blog.com/us-marines-receive-game-changing-amphibious-combat-vehicle/
It looks like it has a Independent Thermal Viewer on the turret roof for target acquisition, but no remote Anti-Air roof machine gun or smoke grenade launchers, but it’s hard to see if there are any smoke grenade launchers from the photo’s angle.
1 Like
Well it all seems like the USMC has a plan for what will happen in the future. However we know from 250 years experience that from the point of contact, the plan changes. When the only thing you have is light armor and heavy combat develops, you are toast. Who would have thought Russia would have to use T62’s and T 55’s in the Ukraine? Who would have thought that drones would have played the roll they have in the Ukraine? So… think all of the future will be high tech? I can’t imagine we will afford the amount of hymars and drones to last 2 or 3 years of intensive fighting on a large scale. That would be a huge cost. Artillery rounds are already in short supply in the Ukraine now. How many of these hi-tech ACV can you replace a month. The next conflict may have to be fought with what you have on hand. Look at what has been lost in the Ukraine. If you had 300 ACV’s, they could be gone in 2 months. Then what? If the Russians or Chinese dropped a million troops into a campaign, what would you do? The airborne were worried about only being a bump in the road at the start of Desert Shield being a light force facing heavier elements, I think the commandant envisions the Marines becoming something similar to the airborne, a light weight unit that for the most part will sit on the sidelines or be a bump in the road.
Time will tell.
3 Likes
The Army has Medics. The Navy and Marine Corps has more highly capable Hospital Corpsmen.
Sadly… that may be a plus.
1 Like
Might need more corpsman in the future to help with all the divestment. 
1 Like
The problem as I see it is that the Marines are defining their reduced roll too narrowly. In the future, 2030 combat will not be limited to latorial roles. Do they plan to not participate in all the various types of conflicts we have seen over the last 60 years? Do they have an opt out? Did they not need tanks in ODS, OIF, Afghanistan? I do not see where the ACR would have been at an advantage in those situations.
3 Likes
Some 4 Star will realise that during the next major conflict and wonder why did we dump the tanks …
2 Likes
Considering the use of drones in Ukraine the tank concept need to be reevaluted.
Thicker armour on top to handle drones diving in or some type of automated defense system able to handle missiles, fast drones, RPG’s, slow drones and drones waiting in ambush.
Ukrainian drone operators park their drones near where Russian vehicles move, when a vehicle is detected the drone can pop-up and attack, more or less let the vehicle drive into the drone.
I am not saying that the tank is obsolete (too many others have tried that stunt and failed …)
but it will need to improve.
1 Like
I subscribe to the Naval Institute Proceedings, and for the last several years there has been quite a debate on the issue of exactly what the role of the Marine Corps should be. It’s even gone into the issue of their doctrinal manuals and the definition of operational concepts such as just exactly what is “maneuver warfare” is how does it apply.
As a 30 year Army Officer, I feel like the role of the Army is to perform long term ground operations on land, and generally that would consist of land deep inland away from the ocean.
Obviously you have to GET there somehow, but I’m thinking along the lines of fighting deep in Central Europe.
The USMC on the other hand, I tend to think of more along the lines of an “assault/expeditionary” force which in conjunction with Naval Forces, kicks in the door from the sea and establishes a lodgement for further exploitation by other forces.
I realize that this is simplistic and of course sounds like “Europe” belongs to the Army and the Pacific (in large part) belongs to the Marines. This of course is NOT exactly the case, but it begs the question that has been going around since 1775.
Why do we have and need a Marine Corps in addition to the Army? If they are configured EXACT:Y the same and are tasked with EXACTLY the same missions, that’s a hard question to answer.
Since the GWOT has been going on, the Marines have been tasked with a lot of missions (which they have performed in an EXEMPLARY fashion) which in virtually every aspect could be completely handled by Army Forces. My personal belief is that this has occurred because of the need to have as much manpower available to accomplish these missions as possible, so the Marines get the tasking. And frankly, if I was the Commandant, I wouldn’t want to stand by for years watching the Army tasked with all the missions while the Marine Corps loses the benefit of actually gaining combat experience.
But we DO need a separate Marine Corps and the REASON for it’s existence is contained in it’s very name.
MARINE.
The were intended to and SHOULD be primarily a force with a nautical component to their missions and taskings.
And whether they need significant Tank assets to accomplish those taskings is something that needs to be addressed with some scrutiny.
Yes it’s certainly likely that in the future, the combat is going to get way beyond the littoral areas.
And at that point you have to ask yourself, why are the Marines (with only essentially 3 Divisions in their force structure) conducting operations which the Army is DESIGNED to conduct, and not being taken out of the fight to conduct OTHER operations which only THEY have the capabilities to conduct?
We need a Marine Corps. But if they are configured exactly like, and are TASKED exactly like the Army, SOMEBODY is going to revive the old argument that we don’t need them.
And they are likely come to the wrong conclusion because somebody caused the data to reinforce it.
4 Likes
Did I understand it correctly:
Take away the tanks from the USMC so that they can not be confused with hte Army?
Shrewd reasoning if that is the case.
Did I understand it correctly:
Take away the tanks from the USMC so that they can not be confused with hte Army?Shrewd reasoning if that is the case.
No, the USMC tanks were taken away because their logistics footprint was too big, too heavy, too slow, and too cumbersome to move into battle. And being M1A1 tanks, they were too outdated to keep pace with the Army’s M1A2SEPs. USMC M1A1s taxed the U.S. Navy’s LCAC hovercrafts to carry only one M1A1 OVERLOADED before the SSC hovercraft replacement.
Furthermore, ATGMs, loitering munitions, drones, and attack helicopter anti-tank missiles really scared the USMC into thinking that the days of the tank was numbered. Why attack with a tank cannon when a longer-range missile will do? Recall that USMC MEUs have just 4-5 M1A1s…in some training exercises…the M1A1s were pivotal to break the stalemate as Marines were pinned by the opposing training forces. But to move just 4-5 M1A1s into battle took a lot of time, effort, and logistics…and the M88. The M1A1s often came in the last wave of assault.
The U.S. Navy wasn’t designed to really carry the M1A1 with the transport and Amphibs that it has. It can carry the M1A1, sometimes overloaded, but the M1A2SEP keeps getting heavier.
The USMC’s problem is that they seem to want to get rid of ALL tracked vehicles, even the M1150 Breacher and AAV MICLIC without a potential replacement, let alone worry about a tank cannon.
The counter argument, especially from retired USMC generals, was that the USMC was a balanced MEU force of infantry, armor, and aviation that reitred Commandant General David Berger changed to anti-ship missiles, littoral warfare, and land attack cruise missiles for long-range precision fires and deterrence. Another argument is that the Marines will run out of long-range missiles before a tank runs out of 120mm rounds, but the tank has to close the distance to fire and the Marines want stand-off weapons now.
And the fact that General Berger didn’t see Congress as giving more money for Force Design 2030 caused him to cut armor, aviation, and artillery to change the Marines into more light, mobile, and fast. USMC tanks got chopped off and General Berger admitted the Corps did save money but wouldn’t say how much.
I know these things because I attended the online meetings and webinars with the USMC and I asked them questions and they answered them. Lack of USMC tanks was one of the popular questions months to years ago. But…a USMC did see a need for tanks in urban warfare and a requirement for more than just 30mm autocannon as the heaviest caliber so maybe the tank will return to the USMC, or at least a tank destroyer with a tank cannon.
5 Likes
Since the dawn of time, Marine tanks have been dictated by Army. I agree the Abrams would have been the last heavy tank for us. I think we could have a nice light/middle tank to do most of the similar jobs with the fire power needed. Again the Army hasn’t gone that route so we can’t have it. If they field the M10 Booker that might hit the sweet spot needed. Heck even a bigger gun on a few ACV (if they can get that or something similar to work) might be.
You need a few bruisers up front to make things personal. Stand-off, long range weapons only work to certain point. ROEs might make many of them unusable in a operation.
2 Likes
Robin, their role is to establish beachheads and ports for follow on forces. However, the Military is always strapped for manpower, and this is only getting worse. The Marines have been tasked with similar roles to the Army since the Korean War. I do not see this issue going away as manpower is shrinking. It is just a fact. So the Marines have a dual role. The commandant sees the need to move toward the amphibious role. I still feel the Marines are understrength to assault and hold beach and ports of a major power. The drone concept will eb and flow as anti-drone jamming improves. So the reliance on drones may be risky.
2 Likes
I was suggesting that drones are a new and different threat on the battlefield, not a replacement.
Drone jamming and anti-jamming will compete with each other just like the armour and anti-armour weapons have competed.
1 Like
So a couple of years from now the argument might be; are Drones still relevant on the battlefield, or have countermeasures made them obsolete?
Kind of like the current tank argument.
Ken
2 Likes
Not obsolete. Currently the drones are ahead of the anti drone because they are new to the battlefield and the OMG what do I do has not caught up yet. Much like the RPG there will be a balance at some point and they may not be quite the threat they are now.
3 Likes