Advantages over the M-1
1. Lighter yet has the same firepower.
2. Has equal cross country mobility...maybe more mobility due to its lighter weight.
3. Lower fuel consumption.
4. Less cube space aboard ship.
5. Allows easier transportation to shore.
6. Compatible with Trophy defense system.
Liabilities in comparison to the M1.
1. Not able to stand up to other MBT's in combat.
Its quite clear. If the Marine Corps is to continue to operate all weather, direct fire weapon systems in support of the Infantry then tanks are a must. The M1 is too heavy, too thirsty and takes up too much space aboard ship to be compatible with continued Marine Corps service.
Time to give BAE a call.
Principal Characteristics
Sol,
ReplyDeleteWhile it certainly can't take the blow of an AT mine or full-on ATGM, the pairing of the CV90120 with modern active protection systems gives it a fighting chance.
The most modern ATGMs will destroy an Abrams without APS and the least modern (most encountered) should be easily countered by the light armoring of these vehicles with an APS...so it sounds like a fair trade. No, it won't resist a massive IED blast, but then it's being used the wrong way...and an M1A1 might be as crippled anyhow.
As a 'heavy infantry support vehicle' to replace the M1A1s in service with a 'non-MBT' tank. An excellent choice for quick and light operations, where it would be nice to move one of these and a pair of LAV-25s to shore with each fast LCAC trip instead of a single (overloaded) trip with a single M1A1.
In many recent US mechanized battles, it has been the speed, reliability and technology of US forces that has carried the day, not the heavy weight armor. The M2/3 Bradley did a nice job for the Army in recent conflicts, why not give the Marines the same with CV90120s and CV9030/35s.
Keep the M1A1s in reserve (upgraded) for when the Marines need to be a second land army, but use these for contingencies.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteIt may look like a tank, but it isn't. It's an armored gun like the MGS. M1s are only too heavy if you don't plan on being hit by anything larger than an RPG-7.
CBD...totally agree. the issue of weight is becoming pretty darn dramatic. i also like the idea of an infantry support vehicle. it should be added to our Marine Corps.
ReplyDeleteB. Smitty....i can't disagree more. anything can be killed...and even an M1 was penetrated by an RPG-29. i'm focusing on the weight, logistics tail and firepower of this beast. i like it.
Anything can be killed, yes. But you're a lot safer in an M1. A LOT.
ReplyDeleteWere there any RPG-29 hits to the frontal turret or glacis that penetrated? I haven't heard of any. Sure, anything CAN be killed, but you are in a far safer place in an M1 than in a CB90120.
A CB90120 has NO safe zones for an RPG-29 hit, let alone a T-55's 100mm round, or even a Sagger. An M-1 is largely immune to these over the frontal arc.
APSes are still in their infancy. Do we know what enemy TTPs defeat them? How well do they work against APFSDS in a major shooting war? How well do they hold up under sand, mud, and continued use? What accidentally triggers them? Flock of geese? HMG fire?
Even if something like the CB90120 were added as an infantry support vehicle (not an MBT), there's no point in buying the CV90. Just buy Bradleys and put the CV90120 (or CT-CV 105mm) turret on them.
No point in re-inventing the wheel in US service. Any extra capability offered by the CV90 is massively outweighed by the existing spares, support and upgrade investments in the Bradley made by the Army.
Trophy has been trialed by the US Army and met specifications. yes they systems are in their infancy but they do appear to work...the Israeli's have combat experience with them protecting their Merkava's against heavy ATGM's. as far as buying Bradley's to mount the CV90120's turret...why? sorry but the Marine Corps should get away from the second land army conundrum. additionally the Army hasn't decided on its vehicle roadmap with the Bradley. if they're successful with the GCV then the Bradley will be going away...the CV series is in worldwide service...a much better supply chain.
ReplyDeletelastly i get what you're saying about heavy tank fire and the CV90120 being less survivable than the M1 but Marine Corps doctrine that i'm proposing would have these vehicles operating as SUPPORT vehicles, not assault so they shouldn't have to face main gun fires. they should be protected by Marine air (fast movers and helos) and more importantly infantry anti-tank teams.
the Marines fight armor differently than the Army does...integrated air is a beautiful thing...naval gunfires are also beautiful, but perhaps the best thing is the tanks (infantry support vehicles) being attached to the infantry and not the infantry being attached to tanks.
"Met specifications"... but not purchased.
ReplyDeleteIt's instructive to note that the Israelis are installing Trophy on their Merkavas and are pursuing the Namer HAPC. They are embracing heavy armor AND APSes. Not one or the other. They, more than anyone else, have the most experience with the lethality of modern anti-tank weapons.
How does buying Bradleys make them a second land army any more than buying CV90s? They are essentially the same vehicle. One is just built in the USA and has a HUGE installed base. The other is not.
Buy Bradleys until the Army gets their act together with the GCV, and then buy that! Save taxpayer dollars. Don't be different just for the sake of being different.
6,700 Bradleys have been built. I don't know how many are still in service, but it's in the thousands. Only a handful of European countries have purchased the CV90. Sweden being the largest customer with around 500. I don't think we'll be fighting many wars in Northern Europe. ;)
Support vehicles are nice to have and all, but you just can't use them aggressively like a modern MBT.
In OIF MCO, most engagements were "movements-to-contact", meaning we didn't see the enemy until they started shooting at us.
Try to lead with CB90120s in these situations against enemy ATGM teams, and you'll have a lot of dead Marines.
Often, the tip of the spear needs to be the hardest.
being a second land army does mean something. it means that the Marine Corps got heavy. got slow. started operating in a mounted instead of dismounted fashion. i could go on but the point remains.
ReplyDeleteas far as buying US, i'm all for that but i'm also aware of global realities and one of those realities is that BAE USA has operations in the US, is separate from BAE (Europe) for security reasons and will use US workers.
to refurbish the huge Bradley would be a step in the wrong direction...you're downing the CV90120 but its a newer design than the Bradley (which again, the Army is ready to dump), has a lower silhoutte, has better optics and superior firepower and we're still talking about its APC version.
i know all about the movement to contact issues and advancements just over the last few years will make those type engagements a fair less risky proposition (unless you're fighting insurgents)...meaning you'll see them long before they get in range.
the Israeli's adopting the NAMER isn't actually a valid comparison either. they trialed the Stryker and refused it out right. they did adopt Trophy. are they wrong on one hand and right on the other?
you talk about them having experience with heavy ATGMs but they're in a unique position. what would the US Army buy if they had to face an enemy that could fire ATGMs over the border and then hide? it would have them in a M1 GCV...like they were considering...an APC over 70 tons at one time!
Interesting idea, but would there be funds to pay for it?
ReplyDeletehonestly...i don't know. one thing people forget is that US made products generate funds for the US that double the expense.
ReplyDeletethis especially applies to military spending. every tank, ship, sub etc that the US buys that is sourced from within the borders here goes toward a company that is hopefully hiring a US worker, who pays US taxes on the fed, state and local level...
so to answer your question it depends....maybe....maybe not.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteOn what evidence are you basing your comment that the USMC got heavy and got slow?
How many tanks does your average MEB have? 17-ish? A MEU only has 4? Not that many.
I don't see how having the M1 contributed to Marines operating mounted. There are only four Marines in each tank. If squads aren't dismounting from AAVs, that's a different problem.
If you take away tanks, you take away dismounted Marine's ability to do this,
http://warandgame.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/fire6a.jpg
Heavy armor may be a burden during deployments, but it enhances battlefield mobility under fire.
Bradley is taller, sure, but that hasn't been a problem for the Army, so I don't see why it would be for the Marines. The CV90 may be a newer design, but the Brad has been continuously upgraded since it came into service.
Since the Army and Marines often deploy together in conflicts, using a common vehicle would allow them to share a spares and support pipeline - thus "lightening" both.
The Israelis are not wrong on either hand. Heavy armor and APS systems are BOTH important.
you're talking about one vehicle...i'm talking all the vehicles. from the MTVR or MRAPs to uparmored HUMVEE to aircraft...everything has gotten heavier.
ReplyDeleteif you read many of the journals you'll see that the weight issue is becoming paramount. many times you'll have ships weight out long before they cube out. additionally i'm talking about the logistics tail to support one M1 in the field...tankers, wreckers, POL, mechanics etc...
heavy armor doesn't enhance Marine Corps operations...you're still thinking Army. enhanced battlefield mobility for the Marines is more akin to the way the 101st or the legacy light infantry did their missions than how a Stryker or Heavy Combat Brigade does theirs.
the Israeli Army is playing catch up...they got their ass handed to them in Lebanon and now they're trying to reorient to get wit the times. in essence they're trying to double down on their armored forces because just like everyone else (except the US and Australia, Canada and a few others) they've allowed there infantry skills to atrophy and became vehicle centric.
they didn't have infantry out and hunting so their armor got mauled by anti-tank teams.
the terrain is too varied for them to take this heavy weight approach...unless every battle will be in the Negav desert and not on the Golan Heights then they're asking for trouble.
Well if they aren't going to be a second land army, and are back to being a "kick the door down" force, why do they need the MRAPs and uparmored HMMWVS?
ReplyDeleteIMHO, tanks are far more important.
the 82nd airborne is a kick down the door force...they don't have tanks...the 101st is called a kick down the door force...they don't have tanks...and they don't have integrated air and lack the amount of artillery that a comparable Marine unit has.
ReplyDeleteCan't airdrop or helo lift MBTs. Otherwise they would.
ReplyDelete