Thanks to Leon for the link. Article via Army Recognition.
_Type_081-1.jpg)
The Chine Army (PLA People's Liberation Army) has doubled the size of its Amphibious Mechanized Infantry Division (AMID) to boost its combat capabilities in the event of a conflict with Taiwan or in the East or South China seas, reports the newspaper Want Daily.Interesting.
The PLA originally had two AMIDs — one in the Nanjing Military Region and another in the Guangzhou Military Region — comprising a total of 26,000-30,000 soldiers. Between 2007 and 2012, Nanjing's 31st Army Group's 86th Motorized Infantry Division and Guangzhou's 41st Army Group's 123rd Mechanized Infantry Division were both reformed into AMIDs, doubling the total personnel to 52,000-60,000.
The four AMIDs will reportedly strengthen China's combat power as they can cooperate with the 20,000 troops from the PLA Marine Corps to conduct landing assault operations. Each AMID has three battle groups and can carry up to 300 amphibious transport vehicles.
I had been (I believe) mixing and matching units. I only considered the Chinese Marine Corps as being the units that would come from the sea. The thought that the Chinese Army would dedicate a division to that mission strikes me as...brilliant. Between the Amphibious Mechanized Infantry, Marine Corps and Airborne Divisions the Chinese are assembling what appears to be an EXTREMELY capable expeditionary force.
I wonder.
Would it make sense for the US Army to dedicate a Heavy Brigade Combat Team to the amphibious mission the way that they do the airborne role? I don't think it would necessarily mean that the Army is stepping into Marine Corps turf. Notice that I said Heavy Brigade Combat Team. I'm beating the drum but I think that we're going to see heavy armor units in the Pacific. I have my doubts that air power will be as decisive as some think...which means more tanks and heavy IFVs will probably be needed.
It would make sense. Ensure the Bradleys have their swimsuits and leave half the Abrams behind, supported by Apaches and M777's slung loaded under Chinooks, and you would have quite a bit of serious punch that would be tactically useful when combined with Light Infantry from either the USMC or Army airborne/airmobile units.
ReplyDeleteMarines seize a beachhead, Bradleys do a pass through going inland, quite the way to put some mechanized punch into the mix.
but would the Army be willing to dedicate a HBCT to becoming amphibious and start doing work with the Navy and Marines heavily?
DeleteI don't think the A3 brads can swim. the gave that up.
DeleteA3's are amphibious, they have a pontoon system that undergoes continuous inflation.
DeleteUnder our "Regionally Aligned Forces" concept it would be possible. We already have one Armor Brigade Combat Team in Korea, although the next closest ABCT is in Fort Carson, if I recall correctly. We also have prepositioned stocks in Korea and Japan (APS-4). The 11th ACR at Fort Irwin, California, has Bradleys, but they are dedicated to to the NTC OPFOR mission, so taking time off to play with the USN/USMC is problematic even though they have the right geography to work with 29 Stumps and San Diego, although they could probably rotate a Battalion minus through that mission at a time, which would make a fighting force of about 24 BFVs, which would be useful if augmenting a Marine Infantry Brigade. This would impact the NTC support mission, but the Army has been quietly pulling up stakes from California for decades.
If you don't mind training with National Guard units, there are Combined Arms Battalions in both California and Washington that could partner with the Navy and USMC in those states for at least a "proof of concept" demonstration.
The easiest unit to work directly with the Navy/USMC is the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia, as it has close proximity to ports and Navy/Marine facilities. 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood would be the next easiest, as there are number of Texas ports available.
You also going to fit Swim Fins to the HEMTT fleet that are needed to keep all those turbines and big diesels turning over?
ReplyDeleteWhat is your mission? If it's a straightup LOMD contest with these AMIDs, the Chinese have less distance to cross to bring in their tanks than you do and if they seize any of the three big airfields on Taiwan or the ten+ in Korea, they can do it in 10hrs.
OTOH, if you are supporting Marine units in urban fighting, the big deal is going to be keeping enemy units from going to ground in tall civilian structures whose occupancy and LOS angles gives them control over enclosed blocks of force staging. And the easiest way to make that happen is to drop the building every time they drop off a squad or platoon to take it.
Such is not really the mission of tanks and IFV (though they can do it, it requires LOS and that means exposure to the primary force) and while it's a natural for the artillery, anything towed is apt to get CB'd in a hurry.
My own view is that the need to embark forces and push them through the surf zone after a 400nm trip through BASM infested waters is it's own debacle waiting to happen viz a viz getting /sufficient/ force into action, quickly enough to make a difference in the ROC or ROK defense plan.
They do have one you know and are likely quite proficient at it without having to coach novices through the basics of terrain study and traffic cop.
My other thought was Anzio and Normandy. Where a simple destroyer/cruiser screen was sufficient to put fires 5-10nm inland and breakup panzer attacks which would have otherwise stormed the beaches and put the Allies backfooted in the white water.
Compare this to the single 11" railroad gun which effectively terrorized Allied ranger forces moving up and held our logistics from moving inland to any significant degree for /days/.
As far as I know, the hydraulic effect + 30 knots dominance of naval artillery still applies such that, if you cannot get past the approaches, you cannot bust into the beachheads and breakup whatever force massing is going on there.
DeleteWhereas the enemy only needs to last as long as it takes you to burn your last shell or their airpower to find your static bombardment positions.
Which brings us back to: Tanks are no longer optimized to LOS-only engagement doctrine. Increasing FIBUA and highly capable (Thermals + PGM) airpower makes it dangerous to get into a direct fire fight with an enemy that instantly pins you.
But if you can set your barrel to HEAT and loft APFSDS rounds, you have a 8-10km indirect which can move out, smartly, on tracks as soon as it gets through it's three round burst. Where you combine this with a 105mm top attack guidance capability, as 60 rounds onboard instead of 30-40, you start to get some synergies going.
First off, you don't need a 30 ton armor package and so you don't need a .25 mpg turbine engine. And your mech force doesn't need to be centered around the number of infantry in the TOE for security/screening because you are not playing Arracourt all over again.
Finally, since you now has a 20-30 ton vehicle which can be airlifted and perhaps air dropped ala Buford/Ridgeway you don't have to rely on the Marines to find space on their boat, sail 400nm from Okinawa, seize a beachhead and get you onto it to perform the pass through.
Instead, your entry into combat happens when a C-17 stops by an 'unknown and secret' depot in the Phillipines to pick up a tank formation stored their all the time, bringing the formation which trains with Stateside equivalents to do the mate-up on site.
Some 24-36hrs after the President says on-the-fly you have tanks dropping into combat with capabilities that the Taiwanese cannot match. And that's from a time-zero, 'surprise attack', step to the jets. If you preposition in a heightened state of readiness, that number comes down to 4-7hrs, with the Barney's sitting preloaded on the ramps.
ABCTs are simply too large to be a part of this. But ABCTs are sized around North European Plain rules of Cold War tank attrition.
The Marines stupid obsession with 'everything must relate to salt water' as a delivered force capability is going to be increasingly a crippling drawback in a world that no longer moves at WWII levels of pacing. We cannot afford the force structure sizes and we cannot afford the ODS level, 'late to the party', buildups.
Somebody must surely realize this, somewhere in the MIC. It's a sales opportunity dressed up as a force downsizing.