Interesting History Summary (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> The War Room



Message

kevinkins -> Interesting History Summary (11/20/2021 3:41:47 AM)

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/november/tanks-no-tanks

"No doubt budget constraints are involved in this decision, as tanks are undeniably expensive to acquire and maintain. No doubt data was analyzed, assumptions made, and contingency plans drawn up. In the history of warfare, however, seldom do assumptions and plans correspond with reality. Battlefield experience indicates that sooner rather than later the Marine Corps will regret this decision."




BeirutDude -> RE: Interesting History Summary (11/21/2021 6:36:10 PM)

Of course even with the USMC armored Regt they were stiffened during Desert Storm with 1st Brigade, 2nd Armored Division. So the precedent to attach U.S. Army Armor is there.



maverick3320 -> RE: Interesting History Summary (11/23/2021 7:25:00 PM)

The author is comparing a situation in World War Two (and Korea) in which the US/allies/NATO already had naval and air dominance to a current situation in the West Pacific where China is rapidly approaching blue-water naval parity with the US, and can presumably do a pretty good job of area denial out to the first, if not second, island chain.

Of course tanks are better for rooting out entrenched enemies - no one is arguing that. Yet the decision made by the USMC was a wise one; given the current situation - where armored units cost 400% more than other units, require massive logistical support in relatively safe areas, and budgets are tight - it was an obvious decision to divest armor. If I were King of the US DoD, I would go further; again, given no budget increases, I would shift resources from the active US Army to cyber capabilities and tech research.

If the US went to war tomorrow with China I'm guessing we would much more regret not having mobile, stealthy anti-ship teams spread all over the WestPac than we would a few battalions of Abrams that would really have no way to join the fight in a contested area.






tylerblakebrandon -> RE: Interesting History Summary (11/24/2021 1:21:36 PM)

I have used the WWII comparison in regards to USMC armor myself but in a different way. Today's M1 is a very different beast than the old M3 and M4 tanks. My belief is that the Corps should have armor but it would be better suited to something lighter and more mobile that an Abrams and more of a modern analogue to the older M3 and M4. The Corps' current LAV or the Bradley can be more likened to a M3 with the 37mm cannon, but they can carry troops. Oddly enough, something more akin to the M4 but suited to Marine Corps needs can be found in the inventories of peer competitors. Light amphibious tanks like a PT-76 or a ZTD-05.



Gunner98 -> RE: Interesting History Summary (11/24/2021 2:38:36 PM)

I believe that the question comes down to practicality as well as doctrine.

The USMC still uses the M1A1 which is 57 tons. The US Army uses the M1A2 and even the National Guard is retiring its M1A1s, soon the only user of the 'A1' will be the USMC, and they have fewer than 500 of them. So the 'A1' is becoming obsolete.

Can the USMC adopt the 'A2' - well that is 62.5 tons. The LCAC is rated for 60 tons, the LCM-8 is rated for 55 tons and I am sure there are other load issues.

So although it probably was not a deciding factor, the current suite of lift options was likely a consideration in the decision. Keep an obsolete and increasingly difficult to maintain tank, or change the new tank to fit, or change the lift options to accommodate the new tank. All pricy and problematic.

B




Gunner98 -> RE: Interesting History Summary (11/24/2021 3:19:23 PM)

quote:

Light amphibious tanks like a PT-76 or a ZTD-05.


I don't think either of these could be considered 'peer competitors'. The PT-76 is outclassed by anything with a 25mm gun and was out of date by the '72 Arab/Israeli war. I'm not certain about the ZBD-05, it has some updated capabilities and is probably good for what it is - but a tank that swims will have a lot of built in vulnerabilities.

I think the M-24 Chaffee or M-41 Bulldog might fit your description in a US context but I would lean toward the Brit FV101 series of CVRTs.

Surviving on a modern battlefield however is not going to be easy for anything with less protection than an M1A2, T-90, Leo 2A6 or Challenger II type tank. Fighting on secondary fronts or against non-armored opponents, as long as they don't have too many ATGMS, there might be a role for a light tank. Not convinced however.



BDukes -> RE: Interesting History Summary (11/24/2021 3:35:37 PM)

USMC tanks are gone.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35198/the-last-tank-has-left-marine-corps-base-29-palms-soon-the-entire-service

I think the assumption is the bunker-busting they were good at during WW2 will be handled by precisions munitions fired from everything else. There is merit to that given how deadly these things were in Afghanistan, Iraq, Armenia-Azerbaijan and probably Ukraine next[:)]

Question is whether the solution is digging in deeper or becoming extremely mobile until EW and Shorad can deal with the sensor detections that make precision attack reliable. I also think about the rebels in Terminator scurrying like rats. They used both but had a lot of wreckage and ruins to mask them. Pacific islands, not so much! Although Arnold dealt with the Predator in the jungles so maybe more hope in that kind of terrain.

Mike




Gunner98 -> RE: Interesting History Summary (11/24/2021 3:54:15 PM)

[:)]

Yes, in many ways the best protection is not being seen .... and tanks are easy to see. So investment in how to spoof sensors and detect spoofers is probably worth much more these days than extra armour.

B



tylerblakebrandon -> RE: Interesting History Summary (11/24/2021 6:11:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

quote:

Light amphibious tanks like a PT-76 or a ZTD-05.


I don't think either of these could be considered 'peer competitors'. The PT-76 is outclassed by anything with a 25mm gun and was out of date by the '72 Arab/Israeli war. I'm not certain about the ZBD-05, it has some updated capabilities and is probably good for what it is - but a tank that swims will have a lot of built in vulnerabilities.

I think the M-24 Chaffee or M-41 Bulldog might fit your description in a US context but I would lean toward the Brit FV101 series of CVRTs.

Surviving on a modern battlefield however is not going to be easy for anything with less protection than an M1A2, T-90, Leo 2A6 or Challenger II type tank. Fighting on secondary fronts or against non-armored opponents, as long as they don't have too many ATGMS, there might be a role for a light tank. Not convinced however.


By peer competitors I was speaking on a national level. I realize the PT-76 is obsolete but I was looking for examples of tanks which were lighter and had armor/mobility trending towards the M4 but were also amphibious to maximize ship to shore options.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.640625