When it comes to the Ground Combat Element, we have a recurring issue that must be addressed. That pesky little issue of what is the future of Tanks Battalions?
I believe we have a possible solution...but the solution leads to another question. What about Light Armored Recon Battalions?
This whole issue is based on the Marine Personnel Vehicle.
In essence the USMC is about to acquire two personnel carriers...the first being the legacy AAV and its follow-on and then a new wheeled transport.
Why is this different from the way things have traditionally been done? Quite simply because in the past, tactical transport was provided by the AAV (a tactical vehicle) and the MTVR (and before it the 5-ton truck), a logistics vehicle pushed into the tactical role.
The opportunity here is to decide exactly when, and where we will be using the heavy fire power of Tanks Battalion and if its necessary.
I believe it is but the opportunity to mount a 105mm gun to a wheeled platform can't be overlooked. Additionally this could potentially lead to the Marine Corps being able to divest itself of the costly M1 Abrams, go to a lighter vehicle and incorporate all these vehicles into the AAV Battalions. We have done something similar to this in the past with the LVTH-6.
If you can follow that reasoning then that leads to the LAR Battalions. We are in essence going to have two separate wheeled combat vehicles (if General Dynamics doesn't win the contract).
That seems to be a waste of resources and a doubling of supply chains. Trained mechanics that must be proficient on the MPC winner, the LAV-25A2 and a possible Hummer replacement (the Marines haven't announced if they're pulling out of that program) and now you have not two wheeled combat vehicles (depending on configuration) but three.
The idea is totally unsat.
Its time for a vehicle neck down campaign for the Ground Combat Element. Cutting personnel might be a necessity, but cutting different vehicle types is a must.
UPDATE:
Let me be clear on an issue that Aussie Digger brought up. My idea is that US Army Tank Detachments can be called upon when needed for heavy support. How they decide to do it is up to them but I would probably push for 1 US Army Battalion of Tanks to be co-located with each Marine Division. Lets face it. Army Tank Battalions are looking for work, they can be easily attached and it would save us money. Win win.
The problem is that something that looks like a tank and almost has the firepower of a tank is going to draw the fire of a tank. It won't survive any incoming hits, that an M1A1 would just brush off.
ReplyDeleteThis idea has been tried before. Most notably by the French with their long line of AMX-10C 105mm gun cars and they work to a point. That point being so long as these vehicles don't have to go up against any armour, IED's, RPG's or more modern anti-armour capabilities...
They also maneuvre pretty well, so long as they are sticking to main metalled roads or hard country. The minute they get into soft country is the minute you start calling in the recovery vehicles...
You get what you pay for, the problem is these aren't a helluva a lot cheaper than M1A1's, but I guess you can deploy them a bit easier by air. That's the only real benefit they offer.
i get what you're saying but the USMC has an advantage that many others don't...integrated air AND the ability to pull form the US Army Tank Battalions that will be looking for work.
ReplyDeletewhen i say neck down of our heavy armor its with the idea that the US Army will provide detachments of tanks when needed.
our strategy is simply to complete the expeditionary effort thats currently underway.
you put a 105mm gun turret on an "assault swimmer" and you have complicated the speed vs. weight equation immensely.
ReplyDeleteaccording to the RFI these vehicles won't be required to swim from ship to shore. only inland water ways.
ReplyDelete