We saw a glimpse of this earlier but now its much clearer to me. The mating of the Korean IFV with the turret from CMI to produce a light tank. Interesting. Should the Marine Corps consider giving the heavy tank mission to the US Army and relying on turreted Marine Personnel Carriers armed with these 120/105mm cannons for infantry support? I think it should be considered.
In a word no. Not unless everything in MCWP 3-12 Marine Corps Tank Employment is suddenly wrong:
ReplyDelete"Tank units provide the MAGTF commander the
ability to attack, disrupt, and destroy enemy forces
through firepower, shock effect, and maneuver in
coordination with other elements of the MAGTF.
The M1A1 tank offers the MAGTF a vast array of
capabilities—excellent cross-country mobility, sophisticated
communications, enhanced day and
night target acquisition, lethal firepower to defeat
most enemy mechanized platforms, highly effective
armor protection—and all of its capabilities
are interrelated."
"Tanks provide five major capabilities to the MAGTF:
armor-protected firepower, mobility, shock effect,
extensive communications, and flexibility."
and which one of those functions couldn't be carried out by a vehicle that weighs less than 72 tons yet still wields a 120mm cannon.
Deletethe US military lost its damn mind and got scared to death by the Russian threat. the M-1 Abrams is NOT an expeditionary tank. its a defensive tank that is misaligned with the needs of the Marine Corps. on an MEU i have four tanks that tank up 280 tons worth of lift capacity on my amphibs. think about it 4 tanks take up 280 tons of lift?
does that sound right to you?
Sol the MBT evolved during WWII from the infantry support tanks, cruiser, heavy, etc., from the result of combat. If the Corps wants to compromise protection for a lighter "expeditionary" light/medium tank that's a perfectly reasonable position; however, the Corps doesn't seem to believe it's a good idea and the MBT seems very much a part of the current doctrine.
DeleteThat said another way to look at this is to note 4 40 ton medium tanks might weigh only 160 tons. Now exactly what are you trading off in that 120 tons difference with an MBT? Expeditionary doesn't mean light forces but rather overseas forces and quite often it's the heavy units that make all the difference.
As for the US losing it's mind over the Soviet threat I agree to disagree. The evolution of the MBT followed a logical evolutionary path and M-1 and Leopard II grew out of the US/German joint tank project. The essential aspects of a tank are firepower, mobility, and protection and the modern MBT combines all three. Consider the previous generation of MBT's where the Leo 1 sacrificed protection and the Chieftain mobility.
Personally I'd argue the Corps lost it's mind with the water speed requirements of EFV resulting in a 40 ton IFV with a 2,700hp engine. That's a bigger impact for a MEU, in terms of weight and maintenance requirements, than the weight of the specific tanks in a tank platoon. Marine tanks are far more likely to roll off an MPS ship than a Gator in any case.
Why 120mm if its not used to kill tanks in such case a much lighter 76mm(Rooikat), 90mm or 105mm gun would be better as it would enable more rounds to be carried and more weight to be used up on protection.
ReplyDelete