Regarding the elimination of Tanks in the USMC, a recent You Tube titled “WARPIGS:Block to Block in Fallujah” highlights the inadequacy of LAVs in MOUT, current IDF Battles highlight the efficacy and necessity for Tanks w Combined Arms in Urban Warfare in an environment rich w drones, etc etc.. One possibility to be explored could be the utility of the US ARMY M10 Booker Combat Vehicle.
M10 is a terrible choice; I've made the assertion before here in the CP comments. One major critique is that significantly, for an AGS, a return to a 105mm is a regression without benefit. An modern AGS needs, at a minimum, the payload provided by the modern 120mm for chemical energy rounds. Lighter 120mm equipped Gun Systems have been available for over 20 years. I predict the US Army will come to regret circling back to the 105mm, among several other reasons they will regret pursuing the M10 as a new aquisition.
I agree with cfrog on this. While the light tank may be a good idea, the gun should be a 120mm. It should be able to take out a modern MBT. The concept of the M10 is a good idea, but a 120mm gun would have been better. The Army may regret the 105, in a 120mm world. The Swedish CV90120 light tank and the Italian Centsuro II are, I think, better ideas for light armor.
In the October issue of the Gazette, there is an article by 1st Lt.
Christopher Greubel (USMC) citing the need for some form of direct fire support for infantry. If a young Lt. can see the need for returning armor to the Marine Corps, what is wrong with our higher leadership? We should also refrain from using terms like assault gun, or mobile protected fire power. Its a tank! If there are any tankers in this forum, we need to hear more from you.
Randy- the reason I prefer the 120mm for an AGS is actually not the antiarmor mission. It's all the other targets large direct fire guns are useful for engaging. There is a substantive difference in the punch of a HEAT/Multi Purpose 120 round and a 105 round. The US Army knows this; that's why the Advanced Multi Purpose (AMP) 120 round is soon to be fielded(may be fielded- I don't know).
It has been said repeatedly here that the Marine Corps is not in mandated compliance of congressional statute. Either you are or you are not. Either you follow the process and lawful orders or you don’t. We don’t get to pick and choose that lawful order which we agree with and the ones that we find disagreeable. General Eric Smith has chosen to ignore statute. The incoming SecDef and his appointed SecNav no doubt will review the CMC’s performance and the Marine Corps future, and if necessary, one could hypothesize, that some corrective actions will be taken. It’s currently moot, as change of legal authority is weeks away.
As to the armor necessary for the next and ongoing fights, we know one thing a big gun that can shoot straight and bust up fortified structures is incredibly important. Hue’ and Fallujah stand out, but there are thousands of actions in the past 100 years where tanks helped the infantry carry the day. The discussion of 105mm v 120mm is insightful, and one that ought be happening every day either in the puzzle palace or at Quantico. It was astounding to hear the current CMC, say at a talk at the Brookings Institute last summer, that the Abrams main gun only had range to 4000 meters and therefore was obsolete in todays “stand off” battle spaces. His assumptions apparently are the Marine Corps would never fight in a close quarters environment again. (Hmmm brushfire number XXX, like Somalia where tanks could have been pivotal?) Part of General Smith’s arrogance is the belief that he can tell DOD and therefore the duly elected congress which fights the Marine Corps will show up for and fight. With that mentality he makes the entire Marine Corps obsolete, America may not need a Marine Corps but wants one, with General Smiths approach America may well say, we the people don’t want one. That would be tragic, as we hold the American public’s imagination wild with who we are and what we do and have done for going on 250 years.
We have seen politics seep into the active duty military over the last many years, like some sort of insidious biochemical gas, it has infected the war fighting mentality of all the services and even into the Marine Corps. Nobody asked the writer, but news flash, it is none of our business, policy and politics are for the civilian politicians, regardless of whom becomes the POTUS, one dutifully renders appropriate acknowledgment says “Aye Aye, sir or ‘mam” takes one step to the rear and executes a snappy about face and carries out the orders of day. Review of our 11 General Orders is instructive in the matter, particularly orders 5 and 6. Take them as they are or extrapolate to further the point.
Everyone here at CP from the most senior on down the chain of command (loosely implemented!) want a revitalized Marine Corps MAGTF, it does no good for political discussion to cloud the mission. What’s the mission? Fix it! By any means necessary fix it! Use every ounce of strength and charm and all manner of brain power and wiles, connections, friendships, authority and power to “fix it.” In the 80’s we wanted our MTV, here and now we want our MAGTF back.
According to Wikipedia, Real Clear Defense is a politically conservative, right wing leaning news media. A recent article published by Real Clear Defense, as one example, implied there was no violence associated January 6. This claim made even though 140 Capital Police Officers were injured in the 7 hour period and 5 died because of it. Compass Points and its senior leadership are apparently in step with another senior Marine whose recent article in Real Clear Defense once again attributes FD 2030 to the Biden administration when FD 2030 initiated by Gen Berger began in 2019 during the first Trump administration. It is my opinion that Compass Points aligning itself politically discredits itself and harms the future of the United States Marine Corps. It also violates DOD policy initiated in the Obama administration about military involvement in national politics. Col. Robert Whitener USMC (Ret)
I have known the Editor of Compass Points for 37 years; he has no political agenda and neither do any of us in the retired Marine Corps community who are pushing back against Force Design 2030. Finally, Compass Points does not control what articles RCD picks up nor do any of those who identify as members of Chowder Society II. Bob, your complaint should be directed at RCD, not Compass Points.
Compass Points has not politically aligned with anyone. Just my opinion but I think the editorial board is remarkably neutral. Accusations to the contrary lack substance and are highly opinionated.
^Marine Corps Global Response in the Age of Precision Munitions^
Of the 4 retired senior Marine officers listed as authors, Jerry McAbee is the junior retired officer listed. The resulting opinion seems real clear to me.
Bob, You appear bent on turning the comments section of Compass Points into a discussion of political views. That is not its purpose and I hope the Editor will not permit you to continue this effort. No one involved in Chowder Society II's work to get the Corps headed in the right direction has any interest in discussing politics and I don't believe those that support that work such as the folks at Compass Points do either. Please stop.
Bob, I remain puzzled on why you think Compass Points can control who republishes its posts. The Publisher has no control over any other publication including Real Clear Defense. With the possible exception of PBS can you identify any broadcast or print media that does not lean conservative or liberal? I doubt it, so any outlet that republished a Compass Points post would in your view "contaminate" Compass Points and those of a like mind such as Chowder Society II. Makes no sense.
Sir, I’m not sure what your point is highlighting that Gen. McAbee is a contributing author of the article.
Since the article appeared in RCD, I’m assuming that the authors don’t get to pick where their article appears in the publication. You seem to me to be impugning their motives, and not only Gen. McAbee’s but indirectly the other authors.
I know Gen. McAbee, I served under him, and worked directly for him, and I can tell you that there was not a better artillery officer or Marine officer I saw or worked for.
I don’t think impugning the authors was your motive, but appearances are sometimes determinative.
Regarding the elimination of Tanks in the USMC, a recent You Tube titled “WARPIGS:Block to Block in Fallujah” highlights the inadequacy of LAVs in MOUT, current IDF Battles highlight the efficacy and necessity for Tanks w Combined Arms in Urban Warfare in an environment rich w drones, etc etc.. One possibility to be explored could be the utility of the US ARMY M10 Booker Combat Vehicle.
M10 is a terrible choice; I've made the assertion before here in the CP comments. One major critique is that significantly, for an AGS, a return to a 105mm is a regression without benefit. An modern AGS needs, at a minimum, the payload provided by the modern 120mm for chemical energy rounds. Lighter 120mm equipped Gun Systems have been available for over 20 years. I predict the US Army will come to regret circling back to the 105mm, among several other reasons they will regret pursuing the M10 as a new aquisition.
I agree with cfrog on this. While the light tank may be a good idea, the gun should be a 120mm. It should be able to take out a modern MBT. The concept of the M10 is a good idea, but a 120mm gun would have been better. The Army may regret the 105, in a 120mm world. The Swedish CV90120 light tank and the Italian Centsuro II are, I think, better ideas for light armor.
In the October issue of the Gazette, there is an article by 1st Lt.
Christopher Greubel (USMC) citing the need for some form of direct fire support for infantry. If a young Lt. can see the need for returning armor to the Marine Corps, what is wrong with our higher leadership? We should also refrain from using terms like assault gun, or mobile protected fire power. Its a tank! If there are any tankers in this forum, we need to hear more from you.
Randy- the reason I prefer the 120mm for an AGS is actually not the antiarmor mission. It's all the other targets large direct fire guns are useful for engaging. There is a substantive difference in the punch of a HEAT/Multi Purpose 120 round and a 105 round. The US Army knows this; that's why the Advanced Multi Purpose (AMP) 120 round is soon to be fielded(may be fielded- I don't know).
Very good. Thanks cfrog.
It has been said repeatedly here that the Marine Corps is not in mandated compliance of congressional statute. Either you are or you are not. Either you follow the process and lawful orders or you don’t. We don’t get to pick and choose that lawful order which we agree with and the ones that we find disagreeable. General Eric Smith has chosen to ignore statute. The incoming SecDef and his appointed SecNav no doubt will review the CMC’s performance and the Marine Corps future, and if necessary, one could hypothesize, that some corrective actions will be taken. It’s currently moot, as change of legal authority is weeks away.
As to the armor necessary for the next and ongoing fights, we know one thing a big gun that can shoot straight and bust up fortified structures is incredibly important. Hue’ and Fallujah stand out, but there are thousands of actions in the past 100 years where tanks helped the infantry carry the day. The discussion of 105mm v 120mm is insightful, and one that ought be happening every day either in the puzzle palace or at Quantico. It was astounding to hear the current CMC, say at a talk at the Brookings Institute last summer, that the Abrams main gun only had range to 4000 meters and therefore was obsolete in todays “stand off” battle spaces. His assumptions apparently are the Marine Corps would never fight in a close quarters environment again. (Hmmm brushfire number XXX, like Somalia where tanks could have been pivotal?) Part of General Smith’s arrogance is the belief that he can tell DOD and therefore the duly elected congress which fights the Marine Corps will show up for and fight. With that mentality he makes the entire Marine Corps obsolete, America may not need a Marine Corps but wants one, with General Smiths approach America may well say, we the people don’t want one. That would be tragic, as we hold the American public’s imagination wild with who we are and what we do and have done for going on 250 years.
We have seen politics seep into the active duty military over the last many years, like some sort of insidious biochemical gas, it has infected the war fighting mentality of all the services and even into the Marine Corps. Nobody asked the writer, but news flash, it is none of our business, policy and politics are for the civilian politicians, regardless of whom becomes the POTUS, one dutifully renders appropriate acknowledgment says “Aye Aye, sir or ‘mam” takes one step to the rear and executes a snappy about face and carries out the orders of day. Review of our 11 General Orders is instructive in the matter, particularly orders 5 and 6. Take them as they are or extrapolate to further the point.
Everyone here at CP from the most senior on down the chain of command (loosely implemented!) want a revitalized Marine Corps MAGTF, it does no good for political discussion to cloud the mission. What’s the mission? Fix it! By any means necessary fix it! Use every ounce of strength and charm and all manner of brain power and wiles, connections, friendships, authority and power to “fix it.” In the 80’s we wanted our MTV, here and now we want our MAGTF back.
According to Wikipedia, Real Clear Defense is a politically conservative, right wing leaning news media. A recent article published by Real Clear Defense, as one example, implied there was no violence associated January 6. This claim made even though 140 Capital Police Officers were injured in the 7 hour period and 5 died because of it. Compass Points and its senior leadership are apparently in step with another senior Marine whose recent article in Real Clear Defense once again attributes FD 2030 to the Biden administration when FD 2030 initiated by Gen Berger began in 2019 during the first Trump administration. It is my opinion that Compass Points aligning itself politically discredits itself and harms the future of the United States Marine Corps. It also violates DOD policy initiated in the Obama administration about military involvement in national politics. Col. Robert Whitener USMC (Ret)
I have known the Editor of Compass Points for 37 years; he has no political agenda and neither do any of us in the retired Marine Corps community who are pushing back against Force Design 2030. Finally, Compass Points does not control what articles RCD picks up nor do any of those who identify as members of Chowder Society II. Bob, your complaint should be directed at RCD, not Compass Points.
Good Sir. I respect and appreciate your response. Somtimes the company we keep can be misleading. SF
Compass Points has not politically aligned with anyone. Just my opinion but I think the editorial board is remarkably neutral. Accusations to the contrary lack substance and are highly opinionated.
Quote; ^Real Clear Defense 06/27/2024^
^Marine Corps Global Response in the Age of Precision Munitions^
Of the 4 retired senior Marine officers listed as authors, Jerry McAbee is the junior retired officer listed. The resulting opinion seems real clear to me.
Bob, You appear bent on turning the comments section of Compass Points into a discussion of political views. That is not its purpose and I hope the Editor will not permit you to continue this effort. No one involved in Chowder Society II's work to get the Corps headed in the right direction has any interest in discussing politics and I don't believe those that support that work such as the folks at Compass Points do either. Please stop.
Bob, I remain puzzled on why you think Compass Points can control who republishes its posts. The Publisher has no control over any other publication including Real Clear Defense. With the possible exception of PBS can you identify any broadcast or print media that does not lean conservative or liberal? I doubt it, so any outlet that republished a Compass Points post would in your view "contaminate" Compass Points and those of a like mind such as Chowder Society II. Makes no sense.
Sir, I’m not sure what your point is highlighting that Gen. McAbee is a contributing author of the article.
Since the article appeared in RCD, I’m assuming that the authors don’t get to pick where their article appears in the publication. You seem to me to be impugning their motives, and not only Gen. McAbee’s but indirectly the other authors.
I know Gen. McAbee, I served under him, and worked directly for him, and I can tell you that there was not a better artillery officer or Marine officer I saw or worked for.
I don’t think impugning the authors was your motive, but appearances are sometimes determinative.
Semper Fi Sir,
Greg Falzetta
Excellent points made in this article with quotes/references to the proven legends of our beloved Corps!