I'm still chewing on the Expeditionary Force 21 "guide" and I suddenly realized something.
If the next Commandant follows through and actual pursues this plan then Marine Tank Battalions are an endangered species. If they continue it will be at the MEF or Division but even if they survive they will be drastically cut.
Last numbers I had was a total of 221 Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tanks in Marine service. I could easily see that number being cut in half.
Additionally left unsaid, but pointed out by many is the fact that sequestration WILL continue and that will affect total end strength. A USMC that totals 150,000 (my early prediction on where we were actually going) will out of necessity mean a much larger air wing and a much diminished Ground Combat Element. EF 21 if actually implemented will change the Marine Corps in ways that will make it unrecognizable to current and former Marines.
Sidenote: I continue to marvel at the fact that with 7 months left in his tenure as Commandant, Amos would drop this bombshell on the Marine Corps. This is legacy building pure and simple.
You know they are rolling up two tank companies from 2d Tanks for FY15 correct? Along with the BN TOW platoon and maybe the scout platoon.
ReplyDeletei DID NOT(!) know that. thanks for the info!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletethe problem is that the doctrine doesn't match the threat.
Deletei've thrown away 3 posts this morning where i try to explain that Operational Maneuver from the Sea is as dead as disco. Distributed Ops is a fools game and that 65 miles is no longer valid.
ever hear of the S-400/500? unless our ships are hovering over 400 km offshore then the enemy can shoot down our MV-22's before while they're leaving the deck...and that's if the ships they're riding on aren't sunk by P-700/800 antiship missiles.
Well, Sol, let's then do some intercepting from 'near-invisible' least-profile Connectors...
DeleteI'd start with ANQ64-F1 for awareness, then add AIM-9X on AVENGER-mount and give it a try.
Or....
Time for a new Thread here, Sol: "LCU-X-based ARG defenses"
Sol, the answer to your concerns has been before your eyes since last summer, pp.60-64, July-issue of the PROCEEDINGS. From any distance and certainly from 65+nm (to rise as Coastal Defenses' reach keep growing) it is fast heavy-lift Connectors that are the only way to get MBTs to the shore.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't respect the need for such Connectors, you indeed lose the tanks.
And as stated here umpteen times, no more floating tracked or wheeled vehicles to shore on their own bottom. MBTs of course never could 'float'...
No bomb-shell either, since a preview of this by USMC's 'Ellis Group' ran in the November issue (pp.24-29) PROCEEDINGS of the US Naval Institute.
And the 'Ellis Group' of course was the Amphibious Capabilities Working Group which stated in April '12 that there was a need for at least 60 new heavy-lift Connectors fit for much larger stand-off distances to offer much greater protection to the ARG/MEU against the reach from shore-defenses.
So the obvious need to haul heavy stuff fast from further out has been stated by USMC effectively since April 2012.
No surprises - just confirmations and much more granularity in the new Doctrine.
Solomon, if 65 miles isn't a "safe" zone, then the answer isn't in changing the USMC, it is in the Navy and Air Force destroying threats to landing forces so that landing forces can land.
ReplyDeleteThe USMC units of action should be part of a Carrier Strike Group for this very reason. Simply putting a Marine strike force out there without a Carrier to back them up is pure folly. And if the Navy needs to stop those threats against aircraft and landing craft, then there is no excuse for the USMC to not have tanks supporting the infantry.
However, tanks are expensive, and in the realm of decreasing budgets a few outdated M1s owned by the USMC is definitely low hanging fruit.
There is no real "safe zone" against a modern opponent with all of the latest and greatest hardware until you're too far from shore to do much good. But the USMC and USN can still a forge a "safe-enough" zone for amphibious deployments. Support from Navy carriers and destroyers will be a necessity but this is (or at least should be) part of their job.
ReplyDeleteRegarding "outdated" USMC M1s, many have been upgraded to modern standards due to upgrades like the M1A1 FEP and later improvements like the SCWS. Those tanks at least should be retrained. An Abrams may be tough to get to shore but once there that firepower and armor is an excellent thing to have.