Going over the issue a few options came to mind.
1. Divest ourselves completely of Tanks and revert to the Gulf War I example and simply attach US Army armor to our forces when we go against a heavy armor force.
4. If the Marine Personnel Carrier Program continues then develop a version of that to fulfill the AmTank/MGS role. My top two contenders Lockheed Martin Havoc and the BAE Super AV both are capable of mounting low recoil 120mm guns.
5. Upgrade our standard M1A1's to the latest Army standard (I'm beginning to believe that this is cost prohibitive).
I don't know where the Marine Corps is with any of these issues. Hopefully we'll never run into a procurement train wreck like we have now. Again I'm repeating myself but we're waiting to buy...AH-1Z/UH-1Y, F-35, CH-53K, MV-22, JLTV, AAV Upgrade, ACV, MPC, M-16A4 upgrade, ACH helmets, G/ATOR radar and much more while dropping down to a planned force of 180,000 (and more probably...and its being planned for 150,000), upgrading SOCOM to a full 3 Battalions of MARSOC (AND a support battalion...plus recruiting/training) while being fiscally responsible.
The big chair in the Commandant's Office must feel like it full of needles....
"Divest ourselves completely of Tanks and revert to the Gulf War I example and simply attach US Army armor to our forces when we go against a heavy armor force."
ReplyDeleteThe USMC had M60 tanks in the Gulf War and kicked ass with them.
read the complete history. the US Army had tanks attached to us. trust me i'm solid on this. in addition the M60 was used more like they've always been used in Marine formations...as infantry support weapons.
Deleteleadership at that time only gave a damn about winning the War, if attaching Army Armor helped to lessen Marine deaths then awesome. oh and nobody was real concerned about Iraq tanks...we wanted overmatch capability, the real concern was Iraqi artillery and that's what USMC air power went after mostly. on the highway of death it was an all hands on deck but the USAF took the lead and blew those fuckers away.
COOL!!!!
DeleteMy view remains that one tank in the right place at the right time is far more valuable than 100 in the right place a day late.
ReplyDeleteMy favourite example being half a dozen Indian light tanks (Stuarts perhaps?) rolling up a Pakistani division.
So it would be a crying shame if MEUs lost their four tanks.
Blank slate, an assault gun would work, but the reality is, buying into army procurement is going to be cheaper, always, and the army buys tanks
Without considering financial constraints, the best option for direct fire support would be a new MGS design based on EFV hull. If 120mm generates too much recoil for the chassis to handle, then go with the same 105 rifled gun used on Stryker MGS.
ReplyDeleteWhy US decided not to upgrade their tanks to the longer barrel 55 caliber gun like other countries are moving toward. It improves ballistic performance quiet bit in comparison to the 44 cal version. DU rounds feature superior penetration but they have no future due to perceived health hazard and US forces are slowly withdrawing them from inventory. Once we switch to conventional tank rounds then our troops will no longer enjoy overmatch capability.
ReplyDeleteCombined arms isn't going away and so the Corps will at times require tanks. One could make arguments all day as to exactly what would be the best tank for the USMC but frankly there's a lot of very good arguments as to why it should be what the Army already operates.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside I'd like to know that evidence there is that the US Army is "slowly withdrawing" the M829 with DU? Far as I know the M829A3 is in current production and will eventually be replaced with the M829E4 under development. It's not just that the M829 uses DU but various other features got the M829A2 up to 1,680 m/s with a larger and heavier penetrator that is still broadly considered better than conventional rounds fired at 1,750 m/s by the L55. Thus the US Army would argue it doesn't need the L55 and it can always go to the L55 if it sees the requirement. Furthermore, DU behaves with some rather unique characteristics that make it ideal to penetrate armor. Another penetrator with the same density would still not penetrate armor nearly as well. So I'm very curious as to your statement the rounds are being withdrawn.
L55, isnt needed. this thought process of us doing away with DU? yah maybe because we havent needed to pull out our stockpile since we havent fought tank on tank in a bit, but DU isnt going anywhere. We use DU in our slap rounds for the .50.
ReplyDeleteAs for Tanks in the Corps. I belive the 4 tanks a Meu carries are well worth their weight in gold. 4 abrams are a sight to see, they can walk and talk with anything out their and while they take a trip from the Lcac's when those tanks hit the beach, or any combat zone their impact is felt. now the abrams ahs a large logistical footprint, but its capabilites are amazing! I do belive a assault gun var, of the ACV should be considered, just because of the firepower the first wave and follow objectives would get from this. The Abrams isnt going anywhere in the Corps. We dont have many tanks, but the tanks we have show their worth everytime we use them.
A 55 cal gun using Germany's latest DM-63 tungsten penetrator vs US 44 cal gun using DU round. Which one is better in performace?
ReplyDeleteYMMV,
ReplyDeletehttp://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm
German 120mm/L55 DM-63 tungsten 720mm at 2km (2006)
US M829A3 120mm DU 765mm at 2km (2003) (Russian estimate 795mm)