For all you Leathernecks, Jarheads and Devil Dogs

C

cb7893

10-Year Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
3,637
Justification for cutting funding? Returning to origin purpose after19 years of Iraqistan? Serious questions from an uninformed, but interested observer.

news.usni.org

New Marine Corps Cuts Will Slash All Tanks, Many Heavy Weapons As Focus Shifts to Lighter, Littoral Forces - USNI News

The Marine Corps will soon lay out its path to achieve a 2030 force optimized for conflict with China in the littorals – a force that will completely divest of its tanks and slash most of its artillery cannon battalions, instead focusing on developing light mobility options to get around island...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
Berger is certainly shaking up the Corps. DoD must have signed on so i assume there is a plan should thanks be needed. There will still be artillery, though less, and the emphasis on long range fires should compensate for the lack. It will be a much more mobile force.
 
More mobile, more focused on doctrinal role in joint fight, and more focused to a large scale combat operations scenario from my readings
 
I’m not a Marine but here’s what I heard. The cited article has a few things the CMC has up his rolled sleeve. He wants to go back to the roots as a light mobile force from the sea. He wants to get away from being a large land force and occupying organization. We have an army for that. To be lighter and more mobile he wants to decrease the footprint by dropping tanks and eventually get rid of arty of the towed variety. He will keep HIMARS.

He has a three year phased plan. There will be more air units deactivated than the article mentioned. The law enforcement battalions will be deactivated over the three years. Bridge companies will be phased out over three years. The army does bridging. Another engineer idea but I’m not sure if it’s official, but they want to leave route clearing to the army and have Marine combat engineers stick to traditional pioneer, sapper, breaching, and provisional infantry tasks.

The breakup of the 8th Marine Regiment tweeks me. The deactivation of 3/8 in particular I suppose because I went to Africa with them in 96. LtGen Eric Smith, the CG Of MCCDC is a driver in a lot of this. He’s the one who says we will again call the operating forces, the Fleet Marine Force (FMF). And finally, since tanks are going, the Marine Det at the army’s armor school will be deactivated.

Edit: I read the article again and a bunch of what I wrote was included. Instead of slicing up what I wrote or deleting my post I will just add this disclaimer.
 
Last edited:
I try to balance the resistance to change and my "old Corps" bias against the need to constantly challenge our USMC to be ready for the future. That said, I am struggling with some of the announced changes. I feel we are trading bodies for technology. Particularly disappointed to see plans to drop Infantry units. In the end, you have to have boots on the ground.

There is too much reliance on drones and unmanned platforms. Precision fire (HIMARS in particular) is great but not at the expense and real need of towed artillery. Rather than get rid of the big beasts, revert back to the 105mm or something smaller which is light and easily deployable. Otherwise, we lose the ability to support multiple smaller units, fire for effect (a key tactic of infantry field maneuver), and from what I understand, the supply chain for the HIMARs is significantly more burdensome than the cannons.

Like cannons, which just kept getting bigger and bigger, tanks have become massive beasts that may not fit the mission. But the solution could be smaller, lighter, tracked guns that can provide direct fire at hardened target. Taking this asset away from the ground forces (even light, mobile forces) removes a needed asset.

Losing the ability to provide our Marines with close air support is concerning but the costs of the F35 make it a difficult investment. It seems that there could be some middle ground regarding air assets.

A sophisticated foe like the Chinese and others may create a real challenge with the electromagnetic battlefield. Jamming, EMP's, and other tactics could deny the very support we are advocating in unmanned platforms, precision fire, etc.

Something like 80% of the world is near littorals and a renewed commitment to fight from the sea makes sense. A lighter, faster, more mobile USMC makes sense. A capability to "island hop" in the Pacific makes sense. A singular focus on China (and Korea?) does not. Rather than a smaller land Army, I applaud a return to the Amphibious capability. But I am concerned about an overreliance on technology at the expense of bodies. I trust the USMC to get it right so I will sit back and watch.
 
I liked that post too, except for tanks getting bigger. The M1 Abrams and German Tiger II are virtually identical in size and weight.

M1 - 26'-0" x 12'-0" and 60 Tons
Tiger II - 24'-3" x 12'-4" and 68 Tons

:biggrin:
 
@THParent - the M60 was the primary weapon platform when I was in. From what I can remember, the M1 was a significantly heavier tank.

My memory is foggy, I am happy to retract the statement. :)
 
No need, brother. The M-60 still is my favorite. I was trading PMs with @AROTC-dad not too long ago, about that very thing.

The 120mm smoothbore gun (on the Abrams) replaced the 105mm (rifled) gun on the M-60. My "take" on the 120mm smoothbore is that it has a greatly diminished range (1,500 meters) over the old rifled gun (4,500 meters) of the M-60. The Abrams can also only carry 40 rounds, as opposed to the M-60's 63 rounds. Back in the 1970s, tankers could override the mechanical computer and go to their written shot tables to hit targets 5,500 meters away, with the first round. They used to zero those guns on the artillery range (in lieu of the tank range), because of that.

Don't get me wrong, though. The U.S. version of the Rheinmetall 120mm L44 smoothbore gun (designated M256 or M256E1, depending on the version) is awesome.

If you read this article: https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html
You'll be able to entertain people with your knowledge if we can ever get together in groups again.

I have never even sat in a tank, but have always been fascinated by them.
 
Last edited:
Not a Marine either, but spent times in Army units in the late '70s to late '80s, transitioning through M551A1 Sheridans, to M60A1 (RISE Passive), M60A3 (Passive), M60A3 (TTS), M1 IP (105mm gun version). My old unit got M1A1's (120mm gun version) in time for Desert Storm, long after I had DEROS'd. I understand the Marines went straight from M60A1s to M1A1, so they did not experience the incremental tank upgrades.

Technical comments: there was no loss of accuracy going from the 105mm gun to the 120mm gun. The M256 fires rounds that are fin-stabilized, at a higher muzzle velocity with a flatter trajectory, so they are less sensitive to errors in range estimation under combat conditions. The largest factor in accurate gunnery is accurate rangefinders. This happened with the incorporation of the laser rangefinder in the M60A3s and M1s. The mechanical ballistic computer of the M60A1, which basically only calculated superelevation based off the optical rangerfinder, was replaced in M60A3 and M1 with a digital computer, capable of accounting for crosswind, cant, tube droop, target lead sensors, and precision inputs from the laser rangefinder. Although the M60A1 and M60A3 had a notional shoot on the move capability, improvements in turret stabilization systems and suspension components made the M1 really capable of precision gunnery on the move at higher speeds. Finally, the limited night fighting capability of the original M60 (IR searchlight) evolved through image intensification sights to thermal sights in the M60A3 TTS and the M1, giving tanks a 24 hr precision gunnery capability.

The M1 was in development for most of the 70s. The M60A1 (RISE Passive), M60A3 (Passive), M60A3 (TTS) incorporated technology by retrofits and upgrades to the M60A1 turret. Physical limitations made for some less than optimal solutions. The M1 series has surivability features that could not be incorporated into the M60 series. The beauty of the M1 is that new technology was designed from the beginning. The M1A1 is a much better tank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top