One of the problems that is getting worse is the element of surprise. It is becoming impossible to move large forces without being watched the entire time. Any time Russia or Ukraine move forces the opposing side knows about it long before the forces arrive. If the opposing side spots an invasion fleet at sea, the loss in ships and invading manpower/equipment could be severe. There would be time to collect the defending forces and have them mobile as soon as a landing spot was identified. What size fleet and manpower would be needed to have losses at sea and hold off a major response to an invasion of a major opponent? I think more than the Marines currently have and more ships than the Navy has available.
3 Likes
Its called cost cutting and is something the European Forces did way to much off and perhaps the Americans have realised why should they spend so much when Europeans are not.
4 Likes
It is a problem the next set of politicians will face and then blame the previous set of politicians.
3 Likes
There are tank cannon options for the USMC besides the Army’s M10 “Booker.”
The Textron Stingray II is a light tank with a 105mm cannon, but why bother now that the M10 “Booker” is around? However, Stingray II is 23 tons and can resist 23mm rounds, enough for protection from artillery fragments. “Booker” is around 40 tons.
Then there is the US Army’s Stryker MGS that the Army no longer wants. If the USMC wants cheap or free “Army hand-me-downs” for 105mm cannon, MGS is an option. It’s not the best option, but the Stryker parts are in the Army’s inventory and it might cost the USMC nothing for hand-off.
Or…M1117 ASV with the 90mm Cockrill Mark III turret. The US Army is selling off some M1117s so adding a 90mm turret might work for the USMC as another cheap “Army hand-me-down” for a wheeled option.
I seriously agree with that USMC general in that in urban warfare, having a tank cannon with HEAT, HE, or HE Squash Head rounds is way better than 30mm autocannon and safer than having Marines enter the building to place and set off demolition explosives.
3 Likes
So true, and so shameful.
1 Like
Well, now Europe will have to catch up to the current situation. I worry if the election goes Trump, we may be pulled out of NATO. I can’t see how that would be helpful anywhere.
2 Likes
I think in some ways this issue is being dictated by the Navy. They don’t have the lift capacity and that problem is going to haunt them for a long time. If the next conflict comes and an invasion occurs, does the Navy have the shipping/ manpower to pull it off? Will they just sit offshore or do a dump and run like Guadalcanal? The bad guys will know long before that you are planning an operation. There will be no surprise landings. The bad guys will be ready. The latorial concept stresses standoff and not nose to nose conflict. Standoff does not occupy ground. They make it sound like an artillery dual with missiles. To occupy ground you have to land people. The beach assault would be similar to WW2. You have to carry troops / equipment from the boat to the beach. With drones this becomes a very vulnerable time. Drones would seldom miss and Marines don’t float well with 100 lbs. of gear. Ships would be fending off waves of anti ship missiles during the invasion phase and the follow on support phase. You might have air superiority over the beach but that doesn’t stop drones and missiles. If you are to take port facilities and airfields you have to move and take ground. There cannot be trench warfare like in the Ukraine or the offence boggs to a stop. Drones, missiles and rockets will be a problem the entire time you are moving
2 Likes
Yes, lots of debate and uncertainly regarding the Landing Ship Medium (LSW), formerly called the Light Amphibious Warship (LAW).
The question arises on how capable the LSM is and how much it will cost. To make it survivable, the US Navy wants better armament. To make it more comfortable, it needs a mess hall, galley, and freezers for food. Speed will be limited to 14 KTS and any faster costs more money.
I proposed making the faster LUSVs the cheaper alternative with no mess hall and minimal armament and making the LSM more survivable as the US Navy wanted, and fewer than what the USMC wants.
Finally, there is a debate about US Navy seaplanes for the USMC. Many don’t see that wise and happening whereas I think it is needed as a QRF and distributed maritime operations.
Wouldn’t the attacking/landing force also use drones?
Hunter/Killer drones to chase the attck/bomber drones from the skies?
The hunter/killer drone needs sensors and a small charge. Keep it small for agility.
The quadcopter drones can be disabled by snagging their propellers with wires or nets.
I think kamikaze drones with small explosive charges would be most versatile.
The problem of course stems from what the client wants and they’re not seeing eye-to-eye very well or compromising. And of course cost is a factor. Requirements dictate LSM design and spending before anything is built.
USMC wants more LSM for cheaper and less capable and survivable and the US Navy wants more expensive LSMs that are survivable. That can be accomplished with the LUSV and the LSM.
The philosophy is to have Marines out there constantly sailing around, but at 14 KTS, they’re not getting anywhere fast. Readers don’t understand that the US Army’s newest vehicle landing ships don’t have a mess hall to feed 75 Marines cruising around for 30 days…that is the concept of the Navy’s LSM although the USMC wants the Marines to eat MREs for 30 days on LSMs and have no mess hall for fresh food and fresh hot meals.
The US Navy seaplane concept gets shifted around, shot down, resurrected, stalled, etc. Meanwhile, China has the largest non-military seaplane operational.
2 Likes
Hello. My first post on this forum. Sorry I’m a bit late to this party. A quick and really brief background. I served as a USMC tank crewman (1811) back in 84 to 86. At the time, we had the M60A1.
Theres a lot of questions here. I’ll try to answer as many as I can within a historical perspective. Then my take on Force Design 2030.
First I’ll try to respond to questions concerning the role of the Marines within the armed forces and the use of tanks in the Marines.
To make this really simple, we all know the purpose of the US Army. They are the main force which fights land warfare. We all know the purpose of the US Air Force, to fight warfare in the skies above. And of course the purpose of the US Navy, to fight warfare at sea.
But what if we wanted to fight land warfare FROM the sea? This of course gives any navy far greater projection of power. In historical times navies would often bring along a contingent of soldiers to fight land battles from the ship. In early US history, the US Army was pretty much limited to the American continent. But the Marines went wherever the Navy went, and it was the Navy and Marines which were involved in many of America’s early overseas campaigns, which solidified the Marines first role as an expeditionary force in readiness.
Of course the US Army could take on the role of the Marines in these modern times. The Army participated in some of the largest amphibious assaults during WW2, like D-day. But there are many reasons which it’s not a great idea for the Army to take over the role of Marines or absorb the Marines into its numbers. The Marine Corps is an independent branch which forms a maritime team along with the Navy, under the Dept of the Navy. As such the Navy wouldn’t need to beg borrow or steal a land element to project forces onto land. During major campaigns, it isn’t uncommon for the higher ups to pull resources from other arenas. If the Navy was using soldiers to accomplish their own objectives on land, and it was decided to pull those soldiers by a high ranking Army General for the Army’s own objectives, the Navy would be out of luck and perhaps be forced to use their own Sailors to complete their objectives in a land role they were never trained for. The Marine Corps is basically the land element for the US Navy.
The role of tanks in the USMC differs slightly from the role of tanks in the US Army, in a few key ways. For one, Marines don’t have a calvary element, rather the Marine tank is generally used in the role of close infantry support. The tank in the USMC was less likely to be used in an armored thrust or armored assault, although Marines were capable of such. The Marine tanker did train at the Army’s armor school, as such Marines were familiar with the operations and tactics employed by the Army.
As for Force Design 2030. I believe it is a terrible idea. Sure, giving the Marines the capability of sinking ships from land is a novel idea and expands the traditional concept of fighting land warfare from the sea, -by reversing it. But Force Design 2030 severely limits the traditional role of the Marines as an expeditionary force in readiness, into a fighting force specifically designed to fight only one kind of opponent. If the Marines today were to be deployed to another regional conflict, as an expeditionary force without tanks, they may find themselves in serious trouble.
It was reported that under Force Design 2030, if the Marines needed tanks, they would call the Army. The problem with this is the Army might not have tanks available. Nor would Army tankers be trained to operate under Marine Corps objectives, and of course, a higher up in the Army may pull them for their own objectives, leaving Marines stuck without tanks.
While there are other types of Marine armor available, the Marine infantryman does not have the kind of support only a tank can provide. And if those Marines were to be confronted by enemy armor, the current light armor currently used by Marines isn’t up to dealing with main battle tanks especially large numbers of them. Yes, missiles could cull the opponent’s numbers, but missiles are complex and expensive. And light vehicles could carry only so many. Tanks can fire much cheaper anti-tank ammo which is as complex as an anvil. Tank ammo can be carried on pallets with no need to worry about damaging them in transit. Missiles, not so much
If I were to have it my way, the Marines need their tanks back. Perhaps they can get by with a lot less tank. The M1 Abrams is a heavy beast. They aren’t easy to get them from ship to shore. The M10 Booker seems to be a better option, but the armor might be too light. Maybe come up with a Marine Corps M1 variant. Maybe go back to the 105mm cannon. It’s still a great and highly accurate gun, with the advantage of being lighter than the 120mm and you could carry more main gun ammo. The turbine engine is fantastic, but overkill for Marine use. Maybe go to a 1500 hp diesel. It will reduce the tank’s speed and maneuverability but gain fuel economy and range - a necessary feature for a tank that will be supplied by a ship parked miles off shore.
Edro
8 Likes
Welcome aboard Edro. I agree I don’t think it’s a good idea either that said it seems they want to change us from a heavy weight fighter to middle/light weight fighter. If that is cause money related, recruiting numbers, limit on MEU ships etc it makes more sense. Either way it’s done and hopefully these choices don’t have to be paid in Devil Dog blood later.
4 Likes
I’ve been in some discussions with high-ranking retired Marine officers and some of them believe Force Design won’t work except in very permissible environments. They too believe that Force Design is kind of a mistake, but they support the idea of smaller, cheaper, lighter, and more dispersed operations.
Right now, the highest direct fire ground caliber in the USMC is the 30mm autocannon (excluding the M777 155mm towed howitzer). Since the M1A1 was divested, the 120mm smoothbore cannon is no longer there.
A USMC general said that a caliber greater than 30mm would be needed for urban warfare and the USMC needs to explore this avenue, but so far, nothing has happened to boost ground combat firepower.
There are a few options for the USMC.
- Buy the 105mm M10 “Booker” combat vehicle and make it into a USMC tank with some modifications such as a wading trunk and a rear infantry telephone.
- Wait for the US Army’s Remote Controlled Vehicle (RCV) Heavy remote-controlled tank. So far there is no schedule to field this and the US Army hasn’t started formalized plans for one.
- Buy the AbramsX. At around 60 tons, the AbramsX is state-of-the-art and light enough to be carried aboard the LCAC. The divested M1A1s are too outdated for USMC service compared to the US Army’s M1A2SEPs. The AbramsX has loitering munitions and increased survivability in addition to counter-drone defenses. AbramsX does have an integrated Active Protection System and if the tank gets outdated, just upgrade or replace the remote turret since the crew sits in the hull. The USMC won’t need many AbramsXs, and they can make a difference on the battlefield.
- Place a 40-50mm autocannon turret on a remote unmanned ground vehicle.
3 Likes
Thanks for the welcome. My fear is having to pay for this in Devil Dog blood later. I know it’s done, but I’m also hoping it’s undone and soon.
Sincerely Edro
3 Likes
Trisaw, yes there are a few options for the USMC if they are going to regain tanks, and I’m all for it.
But we also have to keep in mind that the Marine Corps doctrine is very different than that of the Army. So in those terms it may not be necessary to equip the Marines with the same type or generation of tanks as the Army.
As a young 18-19 yr old Marine having been introduced to the tank for the very first time. The Marines were still equipped with the older M60A1. The Army on the other hand were just getting the M1 Abrams. Of course, when we all seen that tank, we wanted to be on the Abrams. At the time, I thought that the '60 was so old that it wouldn’t stand a chance against the more modern Soviet tanks then in existence. In retrospect, the M60A1 wasn’t a bad tank and IMO was actually ideal for Marine Corps use at the time, and it did quite well in Desert Storm against the more modern Soviet tanks we initially feared. (BTW is there a thread about USMC M60A1’s in Desert Storm? I’d like to read more about it)
Anyway, the point is, we were certainly trained in armored warfare but the use of tanks in the Marine Corps is designed to fit the USMC doctrine.
As for the options you mentioned. The M10 Booker is intriguing to me, but I wonder about its armor protection. (although it probably doesn’t matter since modern tanks are capable of accepting additional armor packages)
As interesting as the AbramsX appears, and I wouldn’t be against it, I think that it’s probably overkill for Marine use, unless the Marines went with a mix of AbramsX and M10s. Using the 'X to cover the troops from armored threats while the M10’s work as close infantry support until needed to support the X’s in tank on tank engagements. You wouldn’t need many of them if there were sufficient M10s.
I would still welcome a possible Marine variant of the M1 since it’s a proven platform with many still in service. (One of my biggest pet peeves is why does the powers that be, sell off our old stuff when we could mothball them for a rainy day?) There is going to come a day when we need numbers. Sure we can build stuff, but it takes time and money, these are resources we may not have if the SHTF
Edro
4 Likes
The armor rating on the M10 “Booker” was never publicly disclosed, but I’m guessing that it is around 30mm, but I don’t know if 30mm, 30mm AP, or even 30mm protection all around. Since it weighs around 40 tons, it has better armor protection than Textron’s Stingray II which is 23mm frontal arc and 14.5mm AP all around without side skits…and Stingray II weighs in at around 23 tons.
The M10 can accept applique armor although with the bolting system, it looks like the armor is already added.
Another issue is that the USMC is often not invited to the US Army’s tank designs and discussions. General Dynamics Land Systems told me that the US Marine Corps never asked them for any M10 “Booker” Marine version, but they are willing to work with the USMC if asked.
Then comes logistics…tractor-trailers and fuel tankers for tanks again, and with US Navy amphibious ships approaching 30+ years of service and breaking down, and the shortage of new Navy amphibious ships, I wonder if the USMC can properly accommodate the train of vehicles required to support tanks again. Nonetheless, I think that the USMC needs tanks reintroduced because time and time again, it seems that the tank makes a difference in land warfare, especially when holding the ground and calls for direct firepower. When warplanes can’t get to the fight, or the LHA/LHD amphibious ship is broken, then the tank will be the Marines best fire support call. Furthermore, with enemy artillery and rocket fire and drones, having Marines out in the open exposed and trying to pilot combat drones seems extremely vulnerable to be still for a long time staring at a screen.
3 Likes
Hi Edro, welcome to the network. Thank you for posting about your experience and perspective.
Tanks in USMC? It seems to me USMC needs some; would be better to have them and not need them. I recall in the late 1980s reading a USMC publication concerning reactive armor that USMC doubted they could kill Soviet tanks with what they had at the time, and were dredging up WW2 improvisations of molotov cocktails and demolition charges at close range.
I hope to see you posting more. Please share your models, too?
All my best,
Fred
2 Likes
Amen
Edro
2 Likes
As I recall it, there was a concern that the M60A1s we fielded at the time weren’t going to be capable of defeating the newer generation of Soviet armor. At the time, the T64 and T72 were newer tanks with much bigger guns, and there wasn’t much known about the armor quantity and quality of these tanks. What we knew of them was they had a gun big enough to defeat our armor, they had auto loaders, which was said to increase rate of fire and a much lower profile which was supposed to make them harder to hit. As it would happen, it was all hype. The gun size, auto loader, profile and armor weren’t major advantages. Don’t get me wrong, a well trained crew in a T72 could easily defeat an M60, but in my opinion, when it comes to one on one these tanks are about equals.
Yes, those tanks had bigger cannons, but ours were good too and they were more accurate at long range. As a side note, as I read it somewhere, Israel had figured out that the 105mm cannon could really reach out and touch someone, and began training their tankers as if they were snipers, to great effect. Using this tactic, time and time again Israeli tankers were able to take out enemy armor at distances beyond the ability of their enemies to strike back. The US Army took notice of this and sometime during the 70s began training their crews for accurate long distance gunfire. And of course this tactic trickled down to USMC tankers.
I don’t believe I’ve ever come across the article you’re referring to. But from my own experience, I do recall that there was some doubt that our tanks could defeat Soviet armor based on what I mentioned above. I heard about reactive armor, and I recall that if we went to war with the M60, they would be equipped with ERA. I didn’t really remember, if at the time the Soviet tanks were being equipped with their own ERA. In retrospect it didn’t really surprise me when tanks were being covered with bricks. I remember it as up and coming technology that is now considered ancient history.
Change of subject. I probably should post this in the appropriate location, but yes I joined up to talk about models, It’s just that I started here because I am no fan of Force Design 2030 and I believe deep in my core that taking tanks out of the Marine Corps is a terrible mistake, which is going to cost lives.
As for my Armor collection, I’ve got over a hundred armored fighting vehicles sitting in my conex, I plan to convert into my hobby room, someday soon. I’ve been out of the game for awhile and been wanting to build something.
Edro
3 Likes