View Full Version : Beginning of the end for the main battle tank?
Is this the beginning of the end for the main battle tank? I know there's been a debate whether the main battle tank is of value in modern warfare in past years. The Marine's are now ending their tank battalions. I don't see the big green doing that anytime soon considering the nature and scope of their mission, but that's a pretty big change for the Marines I thought and I suspect a trend that will continue:
Marine Corps Begins Shutdown of All Tank Battalions
The end of the Marine Corps' tank missions has officially begun.
Marines with 1st Tank Battalion recently watched the last of their unit's tanks depart Twentynine Palms, California. Photos taken of the event show Marines surrounding an oversized flatbed as the tanks were loaded up onto the vehicle and driven away.
Read Next: Miramar-Based Marine Aviation Unit Deactivated as Corps Gets Smaller
Less than two weeks later, Alpha Company, 4th Tank Battalion, held a deactivation ceremony at Camp Pendleton, California. The unit is the first of several companies with 4th Tanks facing deactivations this summer, Maj. Roger Hollenbeck, a spokesman for Marine Forces Reserve, said.
The changes are part of an aggressive plan the Marine Corps' top general set in place earlier this year called Force Design 2030. The plan, leaders say, will set Marines up for future fights, defending ships while at sea and operating in hotly contested spots near the shore.
Cont:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/07/21/marine-corps-begins-shutdown-of-all-tank-battalions.html
I have to think that once we see clouds of long-loiter time EFP-armed drones floating around, MBTs will have a hard time surviving. Even equipping tanks with systems like Trophy APS, the question becomes how quickly they become saturated. I think this is the same question facing CVNs... As Miyagi-san would say: if swarms of supersonic sea skimming missiles, no can defense.
Grand58742
07-21-20, 16:04
I have to think that once we see clouds of long-loiter time EFP-armed drones floating around, MBTs will have a hard time surviving. Even equipping tanks with systems like Trophy APS, the question becomes how quickly they become saturated. I think this is the same question facing CVNs... As Miyagi-san would say: if swarms of supersonic sea skimming missiles, no can defense.
The same could be said of any vehicle really. Armored or not, drones carrying around payloads like that would turn everyone back into foot infantry.
Bring back the horse cav!
The same could be said of any vehicle really. Armored or not, drones carrying around payloads like that would turn everyone back into foot infantry.
Bring back the horse cav!
But how many troop carriers with a point defense system can they put out for the costs of a MBT? Or some other system?
I don't know the answer, but it would seem the MBT especially getting more difficult to justify the costs compared to other systems and the way modern war is approached.
Interesting Read:
The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare
The future of the M1 Abrams tank is uncertain. With current fiscal constraints and the requirement for expeditionary maneuver, the U.S. Army is under pressure to demonstrate the need for its Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT), and specifically for its main battle tank, the M1 Abrams.1 The questioning of the tank’s role in the U.S. Army of 2015–2025 stems from an underlying uncertainty regarding the future character of warfare. An extrapolation from the past 13 years of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could lead to the conclusion that future conflicts are likely to be limited unconventional engagements; this supposition shifts the prior-itization away from conventional platforms. The implications of this reading of recent history influence Army force structure, concepts, doctrine and training, bringing into question the rele-vancy of combined-arms warfare—and, as a result, the role of the main battle tank
https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/publications/LWP_109_Role_of_the_Tank_in_Modern_Warfare.pdf
Funny. Some see USMC ending use of tanks and wax philosophical about modern warfare.
I see it and wonder if I need to start shopping at navy surplus stores or the fed auction website...
I swear we just had a thread about this earlier this year, and everyone lost their shit here because of it.
Or are you saying now that instead of the USMC cutting "most" of their tank Batts. they are cutting "all" their tanks?
Personally, I think it's a mite foolish to just drop them like hot potatoes for the "next new thing". At least until that thing has had some time to be deployed/field tested and proven to be *that* much better than heavy armored vehicles rolling through your country...
Business_Casual
07-21-20, 17:38
with current fiscal constraints
Say what now? Defense budget is quite generous.
I swear we just had a thread about this earlier this year, and everyone lost their shit here because of it.
Or are you saying now that instead of the USMC cutting "most" of their tank Batts. they are cutting "all" their tanks?
Personally, I think it's a mite foolish to just drop them like hot potatoes for the "next new thing". At least until that thing has had some time to be deployed/field tested and proven to be *that* much better than heavy armored vehicles rolling through your country...
It's not me saying, it's military.com saying it, and the word "all" is being used yup.
Coal Dragger
07-21-20, 19:01
There’s already been a thread on this.
The premise behind this move is to open up the budget to develop new weapon systems and stand up new units that specialize in maritime area denial. Think South China Sea, Philippines, anywhere you have archipelagos in areas that can effectively control large swaths of sea around them. The idea is to develop the capability to quickly put some ground pounders on an island, with a shit load of anti-ship missiles and supporting equipment, dig them in, and create major ass pain for any opposing naval force that wants to operate in the area.
In a perfect scenario USMC tank battalions would still be in the budget along with the new units designed to kill ships from shore. Unfortunately the money isn’t there, and there’s no anticipation that we’re going to be fighting the Chinese for control of sea lanes around Asia with MBT’s.
Umm, no.
Pretty much. We don't think we need it, until we need it. And a lot of what we think we will need, won't be what we will need.
From the 1950s until 1989 nearly every thing we did, all the equipment we adopted and how we moved our chess pieces was designed for a war "somewhere in central Europe" against the forces of the Soviet Union. Instead we ended up in Korea, Vietnam, Panama (briefly), Africa and finally extended stays in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As a result we had to modify or adapt our equipment and tactics to where we actually ended up fighting. We did "ok", but we never got the wars we were expecting or training for. And now that we are more or less up to speed in Middle Eastern environments we'll probably end up in some godforsaken jungle war someplace.
But I can't imagine an environment where something like an Abrams tank wouldn't be a very important chess piece.
HardToHandle
07-21-20, 19:57
They said the tank was dead with hollow charge warhead in 1945 - Panzerfaust, Bazooka, etc.
They said the tank was dead with the Sagger in 1973.
They said the tank was dead with the RDF in 1984.
I am not sold on the end of the main battle tank.
I do totally believe the US Marine Corps will make just about any myopic strategic decision possible, given the rope to hang themselves. How can a service with the perfect force structure and skill sets for the GWOT manage to steer itself into total irrelevance in the course of 15 years?
Insist on a jump jet and tilt rotor no one else wants? Effectively destroy the budget for the next 30 years for exquisite capabilities almost without a mission.
Want the capacity to re-enact Tarawa but from over the horizon? Squander a few billion and end up with a contested landing party capacity consisting of rubber rafts.
Your next mission is to be a 21st Century Coast Artillery-meets-glorified-Naval Gunfire Liaison Officer role? Ummm, that is one UAS swarm from being a “serviced” target.
The Corps has seen bad times, but this may be one of the worst. Giving up their small full spectrum armored capacity, only partially supplanted by 40 year old LAVs, takes the Corps to back the hollow force that fought valiant but losing battles in 1941-42.
ColtSeavers
07-21-20, 20:08
Personally, I think it's a mite foolish to just drop them like hot potatoes for the "next new thing". At least until that thing has had some time to be deployed/field tested and proven to be *that* much better than heavy armored vehicles rolling through your country...
ARMY hasn't hasn't developed it for them yet... :p
vicious_cb
07-21-20, 20:29
I dont think you are understanding the context. The USMC ditching the Abrams has nothing to do with its survivability. The USMC is shifting to fight in the pacific theater against chinese incursions on small pacific islands. The heavy lift capability and logistics burden to rapidly bring a 70+ ton tank to one of those islands isnt worth it for them.
dwhitehorne
07-21-20, 20:57
They said the tank was dead with hollow charge warhead in 1945 - Panzerfaust, Bazooka, etc.
They said the tank was dead with the Sagger in 1973.
They said the tank was dead with the RDF in 1984.
I am not sold on the end of the main battle tank.
I do totally believe the US Marine Corps will make just about any myopic strategic decision possible, given the rope to hang themselves. How can a service with the perfect force structure and skill sets for the GWOT manage to steer itself into total irrelevance in the course of 15 years?
Because the Corps still has the we do it all ourselves and has continued to be inflexible in coordinating and combining with other services to accomplish a mission. They have pushed "combined arms" for years but that is only within the USMC. The concept could work integrating the strengths of the other services but that's not the USMC way.
I do think when a new Commandant comes in he will pick another project and the Marines will still lag behind in armor capabilities as they always have. David
Russia and China are not going anywhere. And Russia (and China) are not ditching their MBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_15_tank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99_tank
While China will have to use ships to get there, there are plenty of places for them to deploy tanks -- Taiwan, Okinawa, Japan, and many other islands. (And yes, in Japan there is a fear that Okinawa will be claimed by China in the future along with a lot of other stuff -- they are already in the S CHina Sea and all sorts of other island areas claiming things, chasing fishing boats out etc)
older article -- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/15/china-okinawa-dispute-japan-ryukyu
https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/retired-japanese-general-predicts-china-will-invade-taiwan-by-2025-okinawa-by-2045-1.569228
https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/chinese-carrier-sails-between-okinawa-islands-for-second-time-in-april-1.627782
https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/chinese-ships-chase-japanese-fishing-boat-near-disputed-islands-between-taiwan-and-okinawa-1.629250
My wife reads Japanese Twitter and a lot of talk is about how aggressive China is becoming. Things like the fishing boat, claiming all sorts of things, etc. Things will be interesting in the next 5-10-20 years
Grand58742
07-21-20, 21:06
But how many troop carriers with a point defense system can they put out for the costs of a MBT? Or some other system?
I don't know the answer, but it would seem the MBT especially getting more difficult to justify the costs compared to other systems and the way modern war is approached.
Interesting Read:
The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare
The future of the M1 Abrams tank is uncertain. With current fiscal constraints and the requirement for expeditionary maneuver, the U.S. Army is under pressure to demonstrate the need for its Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT), and specifically for its main battle tank, the M1 Abrams.1 The questioning of the tank’s role in the U.S. Army of 2015–2025 stems from an underlying uncertainty regarding the future character of warfare. An extrapolation from the past 13 years of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could lead to the conclusion that future conflicts are likely to be limited unconventional engagements; this supposition shifts the prior-itization away from conventional platforms. The implications of this reading of recent history influence Army force structure, concepts, doctrine and training, bringing into question the rele-vancy of combined-arms warfare—and, as a result, the role of the main battle tank
https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/publications/LWP_109_Role_of_the_Tank_in_Modern_Warfare.pdf
The thing is, when you happen to need that MBT, you tend to need it very badly. Now, no, we have not "needed" an MBT since 2003, but that's not to say we can or should get rid of each and every armored battalion in the Army (or USMC for that matter).
Here's the thing. Even if they were to move away from that, our potential future adversaries won't. And that Stryker or whatever we use for anti-armor is not going to survive any better on the future battlefields than an MBT. Probably less time if you ask me.
Modern tanks are the A-10s of the modern battlefield. Designed for a single role (countering other armored forces) and damn good at it. Yeah, they can support infantry in urban areas from time to time, but they like wide open spaces and blowing shit up from three clicks.
I can understand like another poster said that the USMC wants to focus on "island hopping" and a 70 ton behemoth doesn't fit into that design. But even if it's not being used now, there is no reason the Army would need to retire the M1 series due to potential future conflicts. Again, our adversaries aren't going to do it and we will get butt banged if we get into an armored conflict in the future and roll in with thin skinned Strykers designed to fight the last war.
Say what now? Defense budget is quite generous.
It may be, but it’s government run so the actual budget and spending plan sucks. The funding just to fix our current equipment is ridiculously short.
The thing is, when you happen to need that MBT, you tend to need it very badly. Now, no, we have not "needed" an MBT since 2003, but that's not to say we can or should get rid of each and every armored battalion in the Army (or USMC for that matter).
Here's the thing. Even if they were to move away from that, our potential future adversaries won't. And that Stryker or whatever we use for anti-armor is not going to survive any better on the future battlefields than an MBT. Probably less time if you ask me.
Modern tanks are the A-10s of the modern battlefield. Designed for a single role (countering other armored forces) and damn good at it. Yeah, they can support infantry in urban areas from time to time, but they like wide open spaces and blowing shit up from three clicks.
I can understand like another poster said that the USMC wants to focus on "island hopping" and a 70 ton behemoth doesn't fit into that design. But even if it's not being used now, there is no reason the Army would need to retire the M1 series due to potential future conflicts. Again, our adversaries aren't going to do it and we will get butt banged if we get into an armored conflict in the future and roll in with thin skinned Strykers designed to fight the last war.
Yup, we didn’t need a gun on the F4 either, until we did.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was in a mechanized infantry unit. Ive spent a lot of time around the Abrams. The LAST thing I want to fight as an infantryman is a tank. On the other hand tanks are afraid of infantry.
In 2003 when we invaded Iraq my battalion whored out a few platoons to a tank battalion and we got a few platoons of tanks. Each company had two line platoons of infantry/Bradleys and a platoon of tanks. So my company consisted of 10 brads, 4 tanks, a few scout trucks and 2 or 3 M113 mortar tracks with 120mm mortars. I got to see first hand how a combined arms unit with tanks handled every adversary we came across. The 120mm HE round from the Abrams does a really good job of clearing out a sniper from the 2nd floor of a mechanic shop at 1000 meters. It does a really good job of leveling a house that has a machine gun nest inside of it. The Abrams were knocking out enemy vehicles before I could even see them.
I was also a Javeline missile gunner. Great and super effective missile system in open terrain. Forested or urban areas, its utility against an enemy tank is greatly diminished. They take a while to cool down and getting a good lock on a vehicle isn't exactly a fast event. Also once the missile is cooled I only have a fairly short timeline to shoot the missile before I need to reset. It's not as easy of a weapon to use as people think it is. What Im getting at is a combined arms enemy worth anything would have a counter to Javeline missiles. Not to mention the range of an Abrams 120mm cannon is double that of a Javeline.
BoringGuy45
07-21-20, 22:27
The only reason things like this are suggested is that people tend to be extremely shortsighted: We've been fighting asymmetrical wars against terrorist groups for the past two decades So, that can only mean that conventional wars between major nations will never, ever happen again :rolleyes:.
The MBT will evolve with the times. Its use and appearance may change drastically than what we know of it today, and it may not. But to think that it is a thing of the past is, as I said, shortsighted.
daddyusmaximus
07-21-20, 23:43
If the USMC wants to focus on the possibilities of a future conflict with China... Yay for them.
However, they would do well to remember one thing.
China... has main battle tanks...
Lots of them.
A few thoughts. I think MBTs are today’s battleship. Is it cool to roll up the coast with 9 or so 16” guns? Sure, but doesn’t a cruise missile do the same thing? And I have long been of the opinion the USMC is bloated and should be cut, and I’m a former 0311. The USMC should be mostly fighters and cutting MBTs can allow the fighters to be better trained and equipped.
But to play devils advocate against myself, it doesn’t seem to bright to completely cut all the MBTs in inventory without a feasible replacement. And I do believe DOD as a whole has gotten asymmetric centric.
daddyusmaximus
07-22-20, 01:40
Tanks sorta are the battle ships of today.... but the thing is... most every army in the world still has theirs...
When we mothballed our battle wagons, we had the last ones on earth. They didn't really have any foe to slug it out with.
If the Marines get rid of theirs tanks, they'll be without, and may well end up facing an enemy WITH...
Soon as we get used to fighting a bunch of terrorists... some asshole nation state will start shit, and we'll be up against a major power with a full on uniformed land army... and we will have (once again) prepared for the last war, rather than the next.
They said the tank was dead with hollow charge warhead in 1945 - Panzerfaust, Bazooka, etc.
They said the tank was dead with the Sagger in 1973.
They said the tank was dead with the RDF in 1984.
I am not sold on the end of the main battle tank.
Came here just to post the same thing. I'll add that articles from the late 90s/early Aughts predicted the end of the tank because Peacekeeping missions in Bosnia couldn't use theirs due to insufficient infrastructure and that the Stryker was supposed to be the end all/be all replacement. Yeah, no.
The only reason things like this are suggested is that people tend to be extremely shortsighted: We've been fighting asymmetrical wars against terrorist groups for the past two decades So, that can only mean that conventional wars between major nations will never, ever happen again :rolleyes:.
We see that a lot these days. If X tactic/weapon/asset hasn't been the cat's meow in COIN warfare, it must be obsolete and need to be dumped. Seen it with everything from airborne units to carriers. Back when ACUs in UCP were the order of the day, I was told that camouflage wasn't important in "modern war" and in COIN, so it wasn't important they sucked. Now that MultiCam is in, that seems to have gone by the wayside. Guess we can now add tanks to the list.
A few thoughts. I think MBTs are today’s battleship. Is it cool to roll up the coast with 9 or so 16” guns? Sure, but doesn’t a cruise missile do the same thing? And I have long been of the opinion the USMC is bloated and should be cut, and I’m a former 0311. The USMC should be mostly fighters and cutting MBTs can allow the fighters to be better trained and equipped.
But to play devils advocate against myself, it doesn’t seem to bright to completely cut all the MBTs in inventory without a feasible replacement. And I do believe DOD as a whole has gotten asymmetric centric.
What about attack choppers? Do they fill the role of the MBT for the Corp? Of course you cant park an Apache on a corner to control an area either.
Whiskey_Bravo
07-22-20, 08:17
The MBT is here to stay for a long time. As long as China and Russia have them we will too.
My grandmother was in the Corps, WWII, CONUS Motor-T. My father retired from the Corps. My mother's cousin was a E9 with service in China pre-WWII, the Pacific, Korea, and Vietnam. Not to mention about half a dozen ancillary cousins who were in the Marines who chose to do a single enlistment and get out. I was a FMF corpsman. So you could say, I have a long loyalty to and particular fondness of the Marines.
That said...the Corps has always made, ah, dubious decisions regarding restructuring that looked good on paper but turned out to be real turds operationally, especially when the crap hit the fan. Getting rid of armor, I think, is one of those decisions.
Not long ago, when the new changes were unveiled, I asked a friend about the changes (retired colonel), he texted "publicly, I applaud the Corps for engaging in innovative strategies to enable them to align with goals to meet peer and near-peer adversaries; privately, I have no ****ing clue what they are thinking, but believe they saw the handwriting on the wall regarding future funding and are trying to get ahead of it...."
I think they will mothball their armor, but I believe if they need to recommission those units quickly, they will be able to. I agree with the above, I don't know that the MBT is every truly going away.
Whiskey_Bravo
07-22-20, 08:57
I think they will mothball their armor, but I believe if they need to recommission those units quickly, they will be able to. I agree with the above, I don't know that the MBT is every truly going away.
Agreed. It's not like they are going to scrap them. They will be mothballed and if needed could be put back into service.
just a scout
07-22-20, 09:17
Agreed. It's not like they are going to scrap them. They will be mothballed and if needed could be put back into service.
It’s not that quick. All the seals and fluids have to be replaced, most of the hoses. Computers updated. Then there’s the fact that tanks are hard and learning to fight them is a lot more difficult than learning how to do a rolling T or stacking a wall. Tanks take a lot of work to keep running and they take a lot of knowledge and experience to fight effectively. You can’t just run somebody through a class and hey presto you have a tank crew.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Averageman
07-22-20, 09:38
35 years of my life on those damned things.
I remember in the Summer of 1978 while at ROTC basic camp at Fort Knox, I saw them testing the track unit on what was called the XM1. If I didn't get MI or Aviation as my branch, I wanted Armor.
My West Point Cadet did Air Assault within the past couple of years and he visited with an Armor Officer out of Fort Hood the day he completed his 12 mile ruck and graduation. The Armor Officer asked my kid: "How was the ruck?". My kid responded: "It was Hell, Sir". At that point the Armor officer smartly asked this question: "How would you like to have your weapon carry you and your ruck?" This is why my kid is selecting Armor as his first choice on his accessions packet this fall.
Regarding war with China and armor... not gonna happen. It will be an air and naval war with stand-off weapons raining hell on the PRC's ground forces. We won't put boots or tanks on the ground unless there is some move against South Korea.
It’s not that quick. All the seals and fluids have to be replaced, most of the hoses. Computers updated. Then there’s the fact that tanks are hard and learning to fight them is a lot more difficult than learning how to do a rolling T or stacking a wall. Tanks take a lot of work to keep running and they take a lot of knowledge and experience to fight effectively. You can’t just run somebody through a class and hey presto you have a tank crew.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
No doubt logistics and support for them must be intensive and I know the Army at least has been interested in lighter faster stuff that's easier to transport. I also wonder if the Abrams has finally gotten to the end of it's operational life span and what the next gen of tanks will look like. Must be some pretty amazing tech to follow. I bet the the science on armor, etc has come a long way since it's design. Or, maybe they have a major update and get another few decades from it. Above my pay grade, just fun to speculate.
BoringGuy45
07-22-20, 10:04
As far as Marines not using tanks, if they’re intent on switching from medium-to-large scale conventional battles to smaller, amphibious light infantry along the lines of the Royal Marines and the Dutch Marine Corps, tanks will be much less necessary.
As far as Marines not using tanks, if they’re intent on switching from medium-to-large scale conventional battles to smaller, amphibious light infantry along the lines of the Royal Marines and the Dutch Marine Corps, tanks will be much less necessary.
That was kinda the intent after WWII, after Korea, and in the 80s when Al Gray tried to transform the Corps into a more 'expeditionary' force. But then every time the Corps did something like that, the need for armor came back into the picture. We'll see.
I would become a dope smoking hippy, before I would ever get in a tank to fight a war. The only thing that is farther down on my list is being a sailor.
I saw tanks that were hit in 82, and a good friend of mine was in a tank in Lebanon that got hit. I have seen his burn scars, no thanks.
Your boat gets hit and sunk, your in the water, no thanks.
But in 82, when our infantry would come under fire from a building, they would call up a tank and they would solve the problem with no more soldiers getting hit.
So I really don't think, tanks will be going any where soon.
The question I have for the Marines, is if you get rid of your tanks will you be under greater pressure to cut and/ eliminate other programs and in the end your left as just infantry?
As a tax payer, that might not be a bad idea, but as an admirer of the attitude of the Marines I have met, I like them the way they are.
Grand58742
07-22-20, 14:08
As far as Marines not using tanks, if they’re intent on switching from medium-to-large scale conventional battles to smaller, amphibious light infantry along the lines of the Royal Marines and the Dutch Marine Corps, tanks will be much less necessary.
I could almost see some Army units being attached to USMC units when/if they needed armor support.
just a scout
07-22-20, 14:27
I would become a dope smoking hippy, before I would ever get in a tank to fight a war. The only thing that is farther down on my list is being a sailor.
I saw tanks that were hit in 82, and a good friend of mine was in a tank in Lebanon that got hit. I have seen his burn scars, no thanks.
Your boat gets hit and sunk, your in the water, no thanks.
But in 82, when our infantry would come under fire from a building, they would call up a tank and they would solve the problem with no more soldiers getting hit.
So I really don't think, tanks will be going any where soon.
The question I have for the Marines, is if you get rid of your tanks will you be under greater pressure to cut and/ eliminate other programs and in the end your left as just infantry?
As a tax payer, that might not be a bad idea, but as an admirer of the attitude of the Marines I have met, I like them the way they are.
I’ve personally watched an M1 get hit by another M1 during Desert Storm with a Silver Bullet. It left a gouge in the armor and went somewhere into orbit. The crew didn’t even know they got hit until later.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I would become a dope smoking hippy, before I would ever get in a tank to fight a war. The only thing that is farther down on my list is being a sailor.
I saw tanks that were hit in 82, and a good friend of mine was in a tank in Lebanon that got hit. I have seen his burn scars, no thanks.
Your boat gets hit and sunk, your in the water, no thanks.
But in 82, when our infantry would come under fire from a building, they would call up a tank and they would solve the problem with no more soldiers getting hit.
So I really don't think, tanks will be going any where soon.
The question I have for the Marines, is if you get rid of your tanks will you be under greater pressure to cut and/ eliminate other programs and in the end your left as just infantry?
As a tax payer, that might not be a bad idea, but as an admirer of the attitude of the Marines I have met, I like them the way they are.
The Corps would never go that far, they will maintain the essence of an expeditionary force with organic capability and the Army's infantry, or model of it, is just too cumbersome without an organic supply chain to allow it to operate as a maneuvering expeditionary force.
While cutting armor and a few other units, they are augmenting and adding on another areas. This isn't just a straight RIF.
Should the Marines need armor capability, they will have an army unit attached, but there are lingo and operational issues where that is going to be an issue.
vicious_cb
07-22-20, 15:32
As stated in another thread, I wouldnt be surprised if the USMC dipped into the Army's MPF program(basically an air mobile light tank). Its a logistics issue not a survivability one. The Japs literally had to develop a new lighter tank(Type 10) just so they can bring tanks in other places besides their main island.
Grand58742
07-22-20, 16:29
but there are operational issues where that is going to be an issue.
You mean like the Marines finding out the Army personnel know how to read and their parents are married?
Averageman
07-22-20, 18:15
As long as you can take advantage of a flank by quickly moving large amounts of firepower in to position, there will be tanks.
The tank's demise has been predicted for the past few decades and they're still around. It doesn't seem like the US Army has a tank planned beyond the Abrams series, though. They just seem to be endlessly modifying/updating it.
BoringGuy45
07-22-20, 22:31
The tank's demise has been predicted for the past few decades and they're still around. It doesn't seem like the US Army has a tank planned beyond the Abrams series, though. They just seem to be endlessly modifying/updating it.
And that's probably the best way to go about things right now. No nation is spending much money on tanks right now because all the wars have been relatively low intensity since the turn of this century, so there's no need to dump a lot of time into getting to the next generation of MBT. Keep them ready in case it looks like a conventional war could break out, but there's no need to do more than that.
You mean like the Marines finding out the Army personnel know how to read and their parents are married?
LOL, something like that...
They all go to the same school (Ft. Knox), but the doctrine is way different, much less the language.
telecustom
07-23-20, 07:55
I remember back in 2011, after OIF switched to OND, there was a major freak out when there the Pesh moved into (& surrounded Kirkuk). US leadership were terrified because there were only 8-12 US Abrams in country. They were in a storage depot and there was no actual fighting ammo (only Illum rounds) in country for them. Everything turned out good because we were able defuse the situation after a month of tension.
It’s a horrible feeling to need tanks and not have them available for support.
LOL, something like that...
They all go to the same school (Ft. Knox), but the doctrine is way different, much less the language.
Tank school is at benning now if that’s what you’re talking about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As long as you can take advantage of a flank by quickly moving large amounts of firepower in to position, there will be tanks.
The holding attack has been American battle doctrine taught at Fort Leavenworth since the 1920s and 30s. It's worked through WWII to today.
Tank school is at benning now if that’s what you’re talking about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LOL, thanks. I forget that with every passing year I have been out that much longer....
The tank's demise has been predicted for the past few decades and they're still around. It doesn't seem like the US Army has a tank planned beyond the Abrams series, though. They just seem to be endlessly modifying/updating it.
Perhaps that's something they'd planned for the design? I don't know if it's still the ultimate in MBT compared to some more modern MBT's but we have the numbers and no doubt it's still top 5 or there abouts and superior to who would be our adversaries.
Averageman
07-23-20, 12:59
Perhaps that's something they'd planned for the design? I don't know if it's still the ultimate in MBT compared to some more modern MBT's but we have the numbers and no doubt it's still top 5 or there abouts and superior to who would be our adversaries.
The greatest problem these guys are facing is that;
A) Young guys have much less mechanical experience and aptitude than their Dads did.
Add to that;
B) That ten pound sack has about 17 lbs of sh*t in it right now, the more you squeeze it in, the more it wants to squeeze out somewhere else.
For instance, the fire control and night vision capabilities are off the charts, but the battery requirements to feed power to all of those gadgets has to come from somewhere. They now have 12 batteries on board in two separate battery banks. In order to slip those six batteries in some fuel storage had to go away.
So now you have a kid who knows next to nothing about how to maintain a battery being supervised by another guy who has little or no more knowledge about batteries and you have twelve dead batteries versus six.
vicious_cb
07-23-20, 13:02
The greatest problem these guys are facing is that;
A) Young guys have much less mechanical experience and aptitude than their Dads did.
Add to that;
B) That ten pound sack has about 17 lbs of sh*t in it right now, the more you squeeze it in, the more it wants to squeeze out somewhere else.
For instance, the fire control and night vision capabilities are off the charts, but the battery requirements to feed power to all of those gadgets has to come from somewhere. They now have 12 batteries on board in two separate battery banks. In order to slip those six batteries in some fuel storage had to go away.
So now you have a kid who knows next to nothing about how to maintain a battery being supervised by another guy who has little or no more knowledge about batteries and you have twelve dead batteries versus six.
The M1A2 SepV3 just added a separate under armor generator for power. Batteries not needed.
Averageman
07-23-20, 13:22
The M1A2 SepV3 just added a separate under armor generator for power. Batteries not needed.
It's not the first time that they've done that. Do you know what dies faster than batteries? An APU.
I'm pretty jaded, I used to be in Tank and Stryker units tracking maintenance and trying to keep ahead of the stupid stuff people did and do.
The final straw was pleading for people to just keep the food out of their vehicles. Once the rats get in, it's difficult to get them out, once they're done with the food source they start in on wiring and any sort of source for Coolant in the Strykers.
It's Fort Hood and it's stupid so that's not going away anytime soon.
Hell I couldn't get them to load test cranes and I was a grumpy old man for bringing it up, right up until two hooks came off of cables under load.
The greatest problem these guys are facing is that;
A) Young guys have much less mechanical experience and aptitude than their Dads did.
Add to that;
B) That ten pound sack has about 17 lbs of sh*t in it right now, the more you squeeze it in, the more it wants to squeeze out somewhere else.
For instance, the fire control and night vision capabilities are off the charts, but the battery requirements to feed power to all of those gadgets has to come from somewhere. They now have 12 batteries on board in two separate battery banks. In order to slip those six batteries in some fuel storage had to go away.
So now you have a kid who knows next to nothing about how to maintain a battery being supervised by another guy who has little or no more knowledge about batteries and you have twelve dead batteries versus six.
Besides playing vid games and complaining about how 'the man' is keeping them down, do they have an aptitude for anything their dads did?
vicious_cb
07-23-20, 13:50
Besides playing vid games and complaining about how 'the man' is keeping them down, do they have an aptitude for anything their dads did?
Pretty sure playing alot of video games is good thing if you're in a M1A2. They dont call them CDATs for nothing.
It's not the first time that they've done that. Do you know what dies faster than batteries? An APU.
I'm pretty jaded, I used to be in Tank and Stryker units tracking maintenance and trying to keep ahead of the stupid stuff people did and do.
The final straw was pleading for people to just keep the food out of their vehicles. Once the rats get in, it's difficult to get them out, once they're done with the food source they start in on wiring and any sort of source for Coolant in the Strykers.
It's Fort Hood and it's stupid so that's not going away anytime soon.
Hell I couldn't get them to load test cranes and I was a grumpy old man for bringing it up, right up until two hooks came off of cables under load.
Weren't those previous APUs just bolted on the back of the turret bustle? You'd think they'd do a better job integrating a APU if its part of a ECP upgrade instead of an afterthought. Do you know anyone working on the SEP V3s that can attest to how reliable they are?
Perhaps that's something they'd planned for the design? I don't know if it's still the ultimate in MBT compared to some more modern MBT's but we have the numbers and no doubt it's still top 5 or there abouts and superior to who would be our adversaries.
The Abrams' theoretical replacement was supposed to be the Ground Combat Vehicle (or whatever it was called) in the "Future Combat Systems" program, which was canceled in 2004 or so after spending billions and delivering zilch. The idea was that this new vehicle was to be much lighter than the M1A1/A2-series. Instead of a heavily armored tank able to absorb a lot of punishment, the new tank was supposed to survive by avoiding getting hit. This was to be accomplished by superior situational awareness provided by all the new hardware that was promised by the new system. Then Iraq happened, with vehicles getting hit by IED's, and some people started rethinking the "lighter tank is better" concept.
The Abrams' theoretical replacement was supposed to be the Ground Combat Vehicle (or whatever it was called) in the "Future Combat Systems" program, which was canceled in 2004 or so after spending billions and delivering zilch. The idea was that this new vehicle was to be much lighter than the M1A1/A2-series. Instead of a heavily armored tank able to absorb a lot of punishment, the new tank was supposed to survive by avoiding getting hit. This was to be accomplished by superior situational awareness provided by all the new hardware that was promised by the new system. Then Iraq happened, with vehicles getting hit by IED's, and some people started rethinking the "lighter tank is better" concept.
Being the least armored part and flat underneath, I'd thought the IED's were damaging the tanks too no? Not sure about loss of life. Would makes sense they may factor in IED's for future designs. Specific to IEDs, is the MRAP more survivable?
Averageman
07-24-20, 10:52
Weren't those previous APUs just bolted on the back of the turret bustle? You'd think they'd do a better job integrating a APU if its part of a ECP upgrade instead of an afterthought. Do you know anyone working on the SEP V3s that can attest to how reliable they are?
They were actually fine, easy to care for, redundant starting systems. Not too difficult to maintain, easy to replace.
But again, you have to be able to take care of these things. You have to inspect things, you have to do basic maintenance. Those days are gone.
I've seen Stryker guys run a hub, rim, lugs, nuts so damned loose that the hub finally fell off. Nobody said Boo!
just a scout
07-24-20, 17:03
They were actually fine, easy to care for, redundant starting systems. Not too difficult to maintain, easy to replace.
But again, you have to be able to take care of these things. You have to inspect things, you have to do basic maintenance. Those days are gone.
I've seen Stryker guys run a hub, rim, lugs, nuts so damned loose that the hub finally fell off. Nobody said Boo!
On my Bradley, every time we stopped for more than a minute, my driver was out of hole checking track tension, shoes, road wheel hubs and sight glasses. And fluids every morning. While we checked everything in the turret and cleaned/lubed the weapons, the JAFOs cleaned and maintained all the shit in the back. Period. None of it was optional and we never had a deadline for longer than it took to get a part.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Looks like they're heading for the electric Bradley:
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/bae-systems-qinetiq-tasked-with-a2-bradley-hybrid-electric-drive-retrofit
Belmont31R
07-24-20, 17:18
As I said in the other thread I think there's been a huge proliferation of effective AT weapons in the past 10-15 years. A lot of the videos out of Syria and other conflict zones like Yemen show them being used extensively. The Marines are gearing up for Pacific combat. I'm not so sure how effective tanks would be there when the Marines are trying to return to being more mobile and if you view China as the threat there won't be any shortage of AT weapons being used. They also require a **** ton of fuel and maintenance that has to follow the fighting force around.
The goal is ultimately protecting Taiwan and keeping the South China Sea from being annexed and put under Chinese control. Thats a HUGE volume of commercial shipping they would directly rule over. Taiwan is hugely strategic for multiple reasons but the biggest one is TSMC. If China had a monopoly over chip production in today's world, and the future, they could easily put themselves ahead technologically. Chip fabs do not pop up overnight nor do the engineers and IP. If you wanted to start a chip fab in the US today it would take over a decade starting from scratch just to put out mass quantities of usable chips.
Being the least armored part and flat underneath, I'd thought the IED's were damaging the tanks too no? Not sure about loss of life. Would makes sense they may factor in IED's for future designs. Specific to IEDs, is the MRAP more survivable?
I remember being at a classroom session in the beginning of deployment workup, circa spring 2010. Battalion was receiving classroom instruction and general familiarization classes from contractors on MRAPs we hadn't received yet, but would be manning in country.
The guy giving the brief said something to the effect of, "Marines, we built these things to withstand the IED's that are your biggest threat in combat. The shape of the hull will protect you from this threat, and worst case will be a mobility kill."
So there's me raising my hand. "Yes, Sergeant. Question?"
"Yes sir......what if...what if they start building bigger bombs?"
I still laugh at the look on that guy's face. I mean I wasn't trying to be too much of a smartass, but it got under my skin the idea that someone somewhere convinced someone important that just by shaping the bottom of the truck differently, poof! Magic safety! And that someone could get a paycheck telling grunts, 'yeah you'll be fine, no worries....'
We adapt, they adapt, we adapt again, ad infinitum. Which brings me to my point. The evolution of the infantry squad in the Marine Corps has been impressive in my mind. It's been sometime since I was a line platoon squad leader, but the integration of more advanced comms and drone capabilities impressed me for no other reason than I expected more institutional resistance from the 'we've-always-done-it-this-way' crowd. The squad as it's theoretically constructed now is much better adapted to the likeliest threats. Now it's time for restructuring at the divisional level, and IMHO MBT's are better suited a force that does not see expeditionary capabilities as its bread and butter.
I've never been one to under appreciate fixed wing CAS, either, but I have long thought the Corps wastes time with F/A-18s and F-35s. If you can't force the Navy to provide that support where necessary, then they aren't being pushed enough at levels where things get accomplished. The light footprint MEU is where the USMC is going to preserve their utility as the GWOT has wound down. They should seek to stay adaptable, but also demonstrate that they can specialize. MHO.
Apparently the Abrams is tough enough to smother a car bomb:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVJqBSr_FEs
Apparently the Abrams is tough enough to smother a car bomb:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVJqBSr_FEs
There's lots of pics of Abrams that were put out of commission permanently in Iraq from IEDs. I don't know what % lead to death or serious injuries as those tanks are incridble at protecting their occupants. The don't say how this one was taken out but it bottled them up for 18 mins and made them a bullet/RPG magnet. I assumed they took out the tank with an IED as a set up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTkfHDz8gpA
Averageman
07-25-20, 13:05
The details are a little foggy now, but here's one that wasn't my unit, but from the unit of one of my coworkers.
The FOB had an Abrams that was being used as an OP. Same position for several days. When that pattern got established the OPFOR put in a home made mine that included a refrigerator several 155 shells and lots of explosives packed around the 155 shells inside the fridge. the door was rigged as a pressure switch.
Well the tank, when relieved would move down the road a klick and turn around on the same place and return to the FOB.
When the tank hit the mine, the whole thing was lifted off the ground and the turret separated from the hull. Three wounded one KIA. They simply couldn't get the driver out in time to save him.
Actually I don't want to call them like I see them in this case.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.