It pains me to say this.
I don't like having to say this.
But the facts are plain and have been for the past 10 years.
The USMC can no longer afford the luxury of having tanks. Farm it out to the US Army and have them establish detachments aboard USMC bases....have the Army provide the logistics support --- but get the burden off the Marine Corps.
Just a few intense facts...
1. Marine Corps tanks haven't deployed to Afghanistan.
2. Distributed Operations (at least as I've read it) doesn't account for tanks in its doctrine.
3. The Marine Corps is attempting to become more expeditionary. Tanks don't allow for that luxury and even in the best case scenario would be relegated to Division or higher.
4. Tanks are a tremendous burden to the MEU.
5. The MEU could deploy more AAVs/EFVs/JLTVs, howitzers, MTVRs etc...if it didn't have the burden of having a tank platoon attached.
There are many more reasons that others could come up with I'm sure. But the basic fact is this. Having tanks as an organic part of the Marine Corps seems to have run its course. Having the US Army provide a dedicated Heavy Combat Brigade to support Marine Corps operations seems to be the solution to an unfortunate problem.
I thought you were a critic of the Abrams' conspicuous absence from that part of the Afghan fight. Didn't zee germans have success with Leopards before they remembered they were still flaming pacifists?
ReplyDeletePlease explain how you would utilize the marine corp to assault a nation with mbt's T-80 generation or better. Unless air power is 100% successful, I think we lose a lot of LAV's or Strikers in that process. Mike over at New Wars made your argument over the summer, and even though I concur that the logistical footprint is absurd, I don't see it as an option to compromise at this point in time.
I'm not a military expert, though (more of an attentive, but casual, observer) - am I missing something about our capabilities that dictates that we can truly accomplish everything via air power, atgm's and the like?
@Alex Read the post, pal. Farming it out to the Army doesn't mean that expeditionary forces would lose heavy armor capability, but they just wouldn't be driven by devil dogs.
ReplyDeleteFor 99% of ops, mbts are unnecessary at best for the USMC. If there is an event where tanks are needed, USMC-attached amphib units in the Army can do the job.
Maybe it shouldn't be a matter of throwing out the "tank" with the bath water. I think the Marines need some form of tank. The Abrams maybe too physically and logistic heavy to support in an expeditionary role, so how about a vehicle more in line with the concepts of a light or medium tank. A tank operating in a more direct support role rather than organized into tank battalions.
ReplyDelete"Please explain how you would utilize the marine corp to assault a nation with mbt's T-80 generation or better."
ReplyDeleteThe short answer is - not. The USMC is an expeditionary force, not a campaign army (even though it was such during OIF).
Speaking of OIF, a Marine unit was under threat by an Iraqi Rep Guard Tank Brigade, and a stick of B-52s carrying BLU-108s totally, and utterly destroyed the entire Iraqi Force in minutes.
That was some serious CAS.
So if a massive tank army is faced, besides USAF B-52 or NAVAIR, the JSF with WCMDs (BLU-108 Skeets) and/or SDBs could decimate a moving formation, with AH-1Z mopping up the rest.
And let's not forget Javelin...
The small USMC tank platoons are more used in the assault gun role, and could be replaced by the Stryker-type MGS.
Cheers.
Maybe if they had finished development of the M-8 Buford.....
ReplyDeleteWhile we're at it...when is the last time the Marine Corps used their organic anti-air assets? When is the last time the Corps fought anywhere that the U.S. didn't have air superiority...if not outright supremacy? Couldn't those resources (dollars, manpower) be better utilized?
ReplyDeleteI think Marcase is right on. The USMC needs an assault gun. Something to take out bunkers and other hardpoints from under armor.
ReplyDeleteRelying solely on airpower is dicey, and using handheld/small crew served weapons gets people Navy Crosses and MoH's. Usually after they're dead.
I think the M-8 is perfect for the USMC. 20-ish tons (three for the weight of a single M-1), and a gun big enough for most uses. It also has an add-on armor package. If that's not possible, I'd rather put the Stryker turret on an EFV or AAV7, than buy the POS Stryker AGS. The M-8 was type classified. It was ready to be bought before it was cancelled.
Ah, the M-8 was one of those gems which could've been a massive diamond. Besides the marines, the 82nd ABN and 101st AASLT, the export potential was (and still is) HUGE.
ReplyDeleteMany-many countries can't afford or don't need a massive MBT, and the M-8 would've been an great export success, surely repaying all investments.
Coulda woulda shoulda...