New concept. Don’t rely on airlift to move tanks.
1 Like
Reality sucks. Any armor system must be upgradeable in armor and capabilities as time passes. If you realize this from the start them understanding how to realistically transport them in the future must be considered. The failure of politics is to design for now and don’t look too far into the future. We are at a crossroad. Do we surrender armor support to the enemy and run a plan B or do we keep up armoring and up grading? Like battleships in WW2. Do we keep building or change directions?
3 Likes
At present, the Marines had already surrendered armor support and are running on “plan B”,
Unlike the Battleship, which were rendered obsolete by the aircraft carrier, there is no replacement on the battlefield for tanks. Tanks still have a role on the battlefield despite the numerous anti-tank weapons aimed against it.
“If tanks were vulnerable, then dismounted infantry were meat.”
Quote by Colonel David Johnson USMC -https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2024/february/rethinking-marine-corps-tank-debate
Top, I’m curious. You were 1811, What is your opinion on the divestment of USMC tanks?
Edro
1 Like
Much like early WW2, Battleships were thought of as the Queens of the ocean. Their change of role could be seen by some but not all, yet. I am at that point. The idea of air transporting heavy tanks has never been done before the C5 transport. That was done with limited success. Tanks have always been delivered by Navy shipping. To make Air transport a requirement for the Airborne is still tricky. You need to have control of the airspace and a landing site for the air transport to use. By the time this is accomplished, their job is about over, and regular Army infantry can be delivered by air transport. I am not sure that anything much heavier than an M551 would be practical if it were to be delivered with the airborne drop. Marines are not under that restriction. Marines are limited by what the Navy can or will deliver. It seems like the Marines have become a smaller Island fighting force (throws of WW2) and have surrendered their other roles to the Army. I am not convinced of the wisdom of that choice. I see myself as the Navy saw battleships the week before Pearl Harbor.
2 Likes
If the US Navy can’t fix their amphibious ship readiness rate for the US Marines, then there’s no real use discussing tracked armored vehicles if they can’t get to the fight. There are prepositioning places scattered around the globe, but still, if the Marines can’t transport their vehicles to the battle, then the point is moot.
Many people believe that the Landing Ship Medium (LSM) sailing at 14 knots with 75 Marines aboard and their vehicles is a “no-winner.” It just sports two 30mm autocannons and some machine guns and can’t defend against a Third-World gunboat or missile boat, let alone any enemy anti-ship missiles, warplanes, or helicopters. The reason for this weak and poor LSM design is trying to make costs as low as possible.
1 Like
That is an excellent point.
Regarding the LSM, just like tank warfare it shouldn’t be operating alone. Its the 30mm meant for the bigger issues you mentioned? The could have a H-60 or bigger on the helo deck. Maybe a good spot for an armed drone helo.
2 Likes
The problem also affects the U.S. Army. You can’t be the big boy if you can’t get to the field of contest. Russia does not have this problem because they just move across country and China is working on a solution to their ocean going problem.
3 Likes
The only problem is that that their country turns to an ocean of mud
in the autumn and the spring so they become restricted to firm roads
and railroads. Not even amphibian tanks can swim in mud …
Hovercrafts would work …
1 Like
The length of their supply line and railroads would be their challenge but all of that happens behind their own lines. Using shipping means moving your ability to make war into the open ocean where most anything can happen. A slow process that is easily followable. What could be done to an enemy fleet or convoy at sea? Would nuking a fleet or convoy mid ocean generate the same nuke response as if a country were nuked? Maybe not. You could not claim revenge if an attacking Navy/Army was destroyed without civilian losses. That would be “cleaver”.
3 Likes
Where satellites see them and drones hunt them …
War has become very difficult lately and all military thinkers are
trying to adjust. Compare with the aircraft in WW II or the
aircraft carrier in WW II.
HMS Dreadnought made whole fleets of warships more or less
obsolete when she was launched.
Everything we “know” is up for reevaluation, who knows where
it will end. I certainly do not, I’m just along for the ride making
wild speculations.
1 Like
…,War has become very difficult lately and all military thinkers are
trying to adjust.
War has always been difficult. The armies that marched against each other when WW1 began had no clue how the war would evolve or the technology that would be brought to bare. At the start of the war, the average infantry solider was most familiar with 19th century warfare. They had no idea of the devastation this war would bring. Much of it was in part due to the numerous new and-or improved weapons that would be brought to the battlefield. Machine guns were a relatively new thing. It rendered old style mass frontal assaults useless, mowing down troops in wholesale fashion. Artillery made huge leaps in technological improvements. Greater range, faster rates of fire, and the use of chemical shells opened up horrors never seen in warfare before. These things would bog down the fight from maneuver warfare to static trench lines that spread for miles. Of course the tank was born of this, in the attempt to break the stalemate with moderate success.
After WW1 ended, some military thinkers believed that if another world war were to break out, it would had been fought in a similar fashion with miles of static trench lines. Thus they designed their latest weapons for such a battle. Some interwar tanks were obviously built to fight trench warfare.
However when WW2 arrived, the expected trenches never materialized. The early days of WW2 brought new tactics and weapons designed to exploit such tactics. Blitzkrieg, tactics would revolutionize the nature of battle. WW2 of course cumulated with the most powerful weapons ever devised. Once the war was over, the thinkers believed that nuclear weapons had rendered most forms of battle obsolete.
The thing is, military thinkers are not always right. No one has a crystal ball or can divine the future.
But what we can do with reason, is learn from the past, while keeping an eye on emerging technologies and ideas
When it comes to tanks, some military thinkers have claimed for many years that the age of the tank is dead. They said it from the beginning, during WW1. They said it again during WW2. They said it, in light of the atomic weapon, they said it when Israel took tremendous tank losses from Sagger missiles, and they are arguing it today when faced with FPV drones. Over and over they proclaimed it, and each time they were wrong. The tank is not dead, even in the face of overwhelming odds, when there are so many weapons aimed against the tank.
The reason is the same. Tanks still provide a valuable role on the battlefield that no other vehicle or weapons system can effectively provide, especially to infantry troops.
Now there are other military thinkers and planners who know that tanks are not dead. That their role is vital especially to the troops who move with them. These thinkers and planners will be the ones who will develop the tactics and systems that will defeat these threats, as they’ve always done before. We won’t know what ideas they have, but this is what they do.
Edro
4 Likes