First read Hasik's article but a tidbit...
There’s a big difference between cross-country mobility over packed sand, and cross-country mobility through mud. Wheeled vehicles just haven’t shown that performance, and given the ground pressure inherent in any wheeled configuration, I’m not sure how they will. But is it possible that the Marines have found something amazing? As Commandant Amos told the Congress in April, the candidate vehicles "are commercial off-the-shelf… they’re already being made by several different manufacturers.” Normally, I’d call COTS (MOTS, really) an excellent approach—automotive technology isn’t advancing as rapidly as that of, say, robotics. But that means that we know the usual suspects: the AMV-360 from Patria, the Boxer from ARTEC, the VBCI from Nexter, the LAV-V from General Dynamics Canada, and perhaps the 6x6 RG-35 from BAE Systems (soon to be Denel). I haven’t run the rodeo myself, but I wouldn’t claim that any of these vehicles could keep up with a tank over soft ground.Yeah.
We're back to the age old question. Wheels vs. Tracks. Which has greater mobility. Which has greater utility. And if you need rough, swampy, sandy mobility can you make due with less than is offered by many tracked vehicles (including threat tanks AND infantry fighting vehicles/APCs).
But wait it gets better. Check out this article from Marine Gazette.
When another look was taken at the MPC program, in addition to the benefits mentioned in the paragraph above, it was found that wheeled vehicles have substantially closed the maneuverability gap that previously existed between tracked and wheeled vehicles. The MPC Technology Demonstrator uses “in-line” drive technology that enables all four wheels on each side to pull together in much the same way that a tracked vehicle’s does. Combined with a higher ground clearance and the central tire inflation system currently in use in the medium tactical vehicle replacement (MTVR), the wheeled variants have equal or better maneuverability than the M1A1 and are much more maneuverable than the AAV. This has been amply demonstrated in testing.Mobility issues.
We've seen enough Strykers stuck in the mud to know better. We see the US Army picking tracks for its Armored Multi Purpose Vehicle (AMPV). We see our allies like Germany with the Puma, the UK going for Ascod and Poland developing Anders even though they're operating AMVs.
Quite honestly I still wonder about the "de-tuned" EFV that retained all the bits except for the high water speed...that included MRAP quality protection against IEDs.
This whole issue is a mess and current leadership might have tied future leaders hands because of budget games. Even if thats the case I do hope that General Dunford is honest about the reasons why we're in the mess we are, his solutions (if he has any) and lay out a realistic way forward.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell we can always go in to Christie suspension system model, get both in one. But that was dead end.
ReplyDeleteTruth is that we need both, wheels and tracks in Army. All wheel force is good on roads but disaster in rough terrain. Maybe not always, as Polish Rosomaks manage to operate in Afgan mission pretty good but in other hand Strykers had a lot's of problems there. Track are perfect for terrain, but they luck speed of wheels...
Now the National Guard would be good with wheels. US have excellent road system and they can react and move really fast because of it. But forces that will need to go in the field on foreign soil, where there can be not a bloody road in horizon, well... track, tracks lead the way.
Thinking alike LOL That was the first thing I thought about, the Christie suspension.
DeleteI've seen construction equipment back hoes and such with eight tires, and when it gets muddy or rouh they attach a rubber linked track around the tires.
Might work!
We could always consider going back to the Hannomags.
Is "in-line" drive technology sounds a lot like locking differentials to me. :)
ReplyDeleteThe US has excellent road systems to just that, move troops about easily.
What the USMC needs to do is decide whether its needs a high speed amphib' or not. I think EFV developers just saw dollar designs. I wonder how the Chinese or Russians or Japanese would approach the problem given a clean sheet. Probably they would come up with something not as a fast but certainly not as expensive as a helicopter.
The USMC needs both tracks and wheels. Off the shelf solutions like the Patria as mentioned or the BAE/Iveco 8x8 (and 6x6) are ready to go for wheels. And for tracks there is the excellent Bronco from Singapore. What the USMC needs is a new generation of fast landing craft that is cheaper to run and to buy than LCAC. Not exactly to replace the latter just to increase lift. The UK have designs tested and the French have one in service. Another interesting option is the Spanish LCM-1E. It can carry 3 Bronco sized vehicles has a loaded speed twice that of an AAV and unload speed nearly 4 times as much. A Whidbey Island class could carry 8 of them which is approximately two companies worth. They are that light the US with its capabilities could easily carry more in theatre as deck cargo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCM-1E
Steve, I've always thought that the problem was that USMC LCUs evolved from the old Higgins boats in WWII, mules with economy as their main drive, hence high fuel efficiency, long endurance and low speed. Totally the opposite of what a fast assault craft should be like. The French have their new L-CAT, but even a totally old design worked on a different emphasis shows fair potential. I remember a rather rare class of LC called the FCU- Fast Craft Utility from ST Marine. 30 years old. Your LCM-1 shows that technology has come a long way since then, but it's still sad that the USMC can't even leverage 30 year old technology.
DeleteI don't recommend FCUs now, they are past their time. Unfortunately, that just shows how far back the USMC is with their equipment. I mean, a 18-25 knot LC that is 30 years old. Come on I'm sure they can do even that!
Love the LCM-1, looks good.
the USMC has input on landing craft but the Navy has the final say. quite honestly the requirements don't match up with the doctrine. the USMC keeps screaming about more than 25nm offshore but the CNO is saying that they're prepared to fight to the beach.
Deleteunfortunately everyone is listening to HQMC and the CNO's message has been drowned out. its really sad too, because the current Commandant is simply using the distance off shore as an excuse for why he has failed to solve the AAV replacement issue.
It's a strange drawdown when the USMC is intended to be nearly 1/3rd the size of the entire US Army, and the Army actually operates more gator freighters than the US Navy (just not the sexier ones).
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think it will ever be in the interests of the Corps to try to be Big Army II, just as it never has been.
The whole point of expeditionary warfare is to be able to go anywhere relatively close ashore fast, and that isn't generally conducive to a track-heavy force.
Just as after Vietnam, the Corps had to institutionally "pull its head out of the jungle", it's time for the strategists to "pull their heads out of sands of Iraq and the mountains of A-stan", and start addressing and beefing up core capabilities on a universal level, rather than the time-honored every-military-in-history approach of earnestly preparing to fight the last war, after budgetary application of the "more/better/bigger" paradigm.
We don't have those budgets, and we aren't going to see them anytime soon, if ever.
The best first step is handing Amos his walking papers, shoving him and his brown-nosed sycophants out the door with both arms, and letting the dog wag the tail for a change.
Those are RIFs I can support whole-heartedly.
The thing is the US can't put its Army back into its pre-1941 role of defending the US borders and few overseas colonies (I don't know which word to use other than that one!) as it is too big now and we in the West need it to remain that size. It means that yes the USMC continues on its traditional path of being the US's boots on the grounds (when needed) outside the US but will be increasingly be seen as stepping on US Army shoes even though the reverse is true.
DeleteThe bright side to this is that if the Marines ever need more tanks we have yard in the Nevada desert with 2,000 Abrams all ready to go.
ReplyDeleteDo not forget the maintenance piece though. Yes, I know I sound like a nerdy staff officer but this is a very real consideration. In an expeditionary enviroment I would be willing to forgo the additional manueverability of a tracked vehicle for decreased maintenance requirement of a wheeled vehicle. Logistics are the limiting factor here and with the helo assests already stressed with manuevering infantry and resupplying the ACE ashore at their FARPS what is going to be left to bring in parts for broke down tracked vehicles?
ReplyDeleteWhat you rightly see from the pointy end as a bug (the logistics nightmare, followed by the decreasing spiral of readiness, and risk of battlefield disaster) the defense contractors see as a feature (more maintenance contracts for us! - unless an unfortunate war comes along and shows what POSs are systems really are!).
DeleteNo points for guessing which side has more lobbyists in D.C.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteExpeditionary Marine Corps will have as its Chief Priority a resurging China. And with that a couple of scenarios where your ground combat vehicles must perform-
ReplyDeleteScenario 1- You go to the aid of Japan. Apart from the forces stationed there you bring in additional forces at a very short notice which is where your Marine Corps will shine as it is tethered with the Navy. I am sure Japan has a nice road/rail network coupled up with huge cargo handling ship ports and airports for handling heavy gear in the millions of tons range. Whether wheels will work better in Japanese rough terrain or tracks(or a combo), thats something that you'll have to ask Japanese Forces as well as your own forces stationed there. Nothing beats experience and those deployed on the front lines with years of experience with terrain might answer your question.
And the above scenario can be taken common for both South Korea and Taiwan. Both can be problem areas for US Marine Corps. But both have advantage of infrastructure which can at least technically support the heaviest and most logistically heavy US equipment.
Scenario 2- The US is called on not to protect Tier 1 Infrastructure countries but Tier 2-3 countries like Phillipines and maybe Vietnam. Countries which will not support heavy equipment and logistical baggage over a certain limit.
Scenario 3- WW2 style Island jumping with no native Infrastructure.
Scenario 4- The least likely. The US comes to aid India in a Indo-China fight. And unless the Marines have experience figthing in the vvery high mountains, you will have to sit this one out.
Marine amphibious doctrine is to assault, seize, support and defend advanced Naval bases, air fields and ports in pursuit of a Naval Campaign.
DeleteThe Army, bless they's pea pickin' l'il Khaki hearts will get bogged down in pursuit of an ARMY Campaign with all the ARMY mission creep objectives and will either tether valuable Navy ships to a kill box around them to be sunk not as a Navy but as targets or be left to pursue ARMY goals and strategy.
The Marines understanding both Naval and Land warfare in conjunction with Naval tactics will always be best for working with Naval units in amphibious warfare.
The Army having ships and able to land on beaches does not make them a true amphibious force just an ARMY unit that can make a beach landing, prior to fighting deep battle ashore.
Scenario 4, The Afgan mountains are quite high, the mountains of Korea are too, Marines have been there, done that, walked away victorious singing their tune, "In every clime and place where we could take a gun".
DeleteThe problem with just a simple numbers comparison on "tracks vs wheels" doesn't show the whole picture. Heavy/medium tracked vehicles get bogged down in mud too (and you f-ing swear when that happens, recovery vehicle time), so any driver, tracked or wheeled, will avoid "marginal terrain" like the plague. If drivers then avoid all the nasty areas, does it matter if tracks are, for example 10% better in mud than wheeled when all of them avoid such terrain instinctively anyway? It's like saying the M1 flies better than the Stryker. It's a bit irrelevant because anyone with brains is not going to fly either of them off a ramp. (If you do, call me beforehand, I really want to watch!). Admittedly, the example is fairly extreme, but it is to illustrate the point that operationally and technically are two different things.
ReplyDeleteHow do I put this clearer...
Say, your car has a maximum speed of 160 km/h.
Do you always drive around at that speed? No, because you simply don't and can't use it that way, not if you don't want to end up as a hood ornament. Same thing, even tracked vehicles avoid mud because while they are "better" in the mud than wheeled vehicles, they are a long, long shot from being good in mud.
The answer lies in a dedicated fast amphibious tracked landing vehicle, suitable for the sea to just beyond the High water mark.
ReplyDeleteSmaller hover craft made just to land dedicated Infantry Fighting vehicles.
A separate Dedicated Infantry fighting vehicle that is designed to operate any climate, any surface BUT sea and below the high water mark.
First wave assault troops use the new improved whiz bang fast as a greased pig amphibious vehicle.
Follow on forces use the single vehicle transport carrying the IFV beyond the sea and high water mark.
Wheels? Tracks?
Wheels are fast when you have a road network or terrain suited for that, after a big enough fight, the terrain will look like the Somme or Verdun of WW1, wheels will not cross that.
At best the terrain of the battle field will look like a heavy forested pulp wood field dotted with insane placed patterns of swimming pool sized holes. Unless it's a skidder it will not cross that with wheels.
Tracks? I recall during Iraq war 1 or 2 a Marine regt assaulted a town and were repulsed all except for two or three amtracs who blew through, the Co decided to go around the town, assaulting in formation they became stuck in formation in a sewage field of dust and sand covered mud, amtracs, tanks, LAV-25's and Hummvees.
There is a picture somewhere on line of this.
The assault stalled to a drop dead halt, and the three Amtracs that did get through town and captured and held the bridge were destroyed by A-10's in a Blue on Blue attack.
Tracks don't always do the job either.
"Where are Hammer's Slammers hover plows when ya need them?"