Compass Points - Spring Cleaning
Time to clean out the garage.
Compass Points - Spring Cleaning
Time to clean out the garage.
May 6, 2025
.
Spring is here and it is time for the military to do some spring cleaning. It is easy for the garage to get cluttered up and no better time to de-clutter than May. As part of spring cleaning, the Pentagon announced that it is cleaning out some 4-star General Officers.
.
------------------
------------------
.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the military to cut the number of their highest-ranking officers -- four-star generals and admirals -- by at least 20%.
In a memo released Monday, Hegseth argued that senior leaders should be "unencumbered by unnecessary bureaucratic layers that hinder their growth and effectiveness" and "a critical step in this process is removing redundant force structure."
In addition to ordering the firing of a minimum of 20% of four-star positions on active duty, the memo also orders a similar reduction in the National Guard and at least a 10% cut across all generals and admirals in the military.
-- Military.com
.
------------------
------------------
.
Every Marine Corps squad needs one squad leader -- not three squad leaders. All the services also need General Officer leaders -- but no military service needs too many General Officers. What is the right number of 4-star Generals? The Secretary of Defense thinks the number should be 20% less. No word yet whether the Pentagon will open a website to collect votes as to which General Officers should be the first to go.
General Officers are not the only ones receiving a pink slip this spring. The Army is saying goodbye to the M10 Booker light tank.
.
------------------
------------------
.
Key Points: The US Army has cancelled the M10 Booker program, ending years of debate over the vehicle’s confused role—alternately described as a light tank, assault gun, or infantry support vehicle.
-Originally intended as a lightweight, air-droppable platform for light forces, the Booker became overweight (~40+ tons) due to requirements creep, rendering it unsuitable for its intended mission and even too heavy for some base infrastructure.
-- 19FortyFive
.
------------------
------------------
.
Over the last several years, the Marine Corps has focused on building a chain of island missile units off the coast of China. The effort has resulted in zero operational missile units off China's coast, and has done much to degrade and destroy too many combined arms units, equipment and capabilities. Among the crucial equipment removed from the Marine Corps has been tanks. The Marine Corps has no tanks today. Marine Corps infantry still needs some kind of mobile, armor protected, firepower system. What are the options? Compass Points reader Cfrog reviews some of the today's tank options.
.
------------------
------------------
.
Thoughts on the next Marine Corps tank
By Cfrog:
.
-Just when I think I am out, they pull me back in... 1) M1A1 FEP was an outstanding piece of heavy armor that had been heavily refined for USMC purposes. No finer Combined Arms Command and Control / FIST platform. Excellent, effective MG. The premier assault machine gun platform. Cross country mobility was breathtaking. Ground Pressure was workable. We had the logistics worked out...but not the 'sour grapes' because it required logistics. Was it heavy? Yes. Used gas, yes. Highly effective, yes. Breathe through a snorkel so it could be deployed across the surf zone by a LST, or ford deep water? Yes.
2) The Booker was the wrong platform. A 105 Tank Main Gun is simply not going to cut it. Heavy enough to stress the chassis, but too small to really bring the CE (explosive filler / shaped charge cross section / Anti Personnel Package) the NATO 120mm standard does. IF you want a large bore main gun for infantry support...there simply is no exception not to pick a M256 / NATO 120 compatible gun. Otherwise, something from the 30mm - 50mm Bushmaster family (or comparable) is a better solution, especially in lighter vehicles. The Booker had other shortcomings as well. It would be an albatross for the USMC at this point. If you hate heavy armor, you'll really hate light armor with a little gun (relative). Stop trying to make the 105 a thing again.
3) Why Heavy Armor? there are environments, where there simply is no replacement for armor protected firepower and crew survivability. Replace Heavy Armor with Low/No Armor and assume risk with respect to capability.
4) Between 30 and 40 tons seems to be the threshold for the low end of tank / Mobile Gun weight with decent performance. And despite my love for the M1 capability per pound, I get the distaste for going over 35-40 tons with respect to bridges and roads world wide.
Surprisingly, the Bradley, which is in this realm, has done very well in modern combat (Pentagon Wars notwithstanding). I've often thought that the Bradley is probably the closest to a modern Sherman for the USMC.
For a Light Armor Mobile Gun, nothing beats the CV90-120. And if you don't like the CV90-120, there are other proven versions....the CV9030 is a fantastic vehicle. I am not a Hagglunds shill...rather, I had my eyes opened during Battle Griffin 99 with respect to the CV90's capability. Hagglunds has been aggressive leaning into digital / UAS integration.
Centauro 120 could be a viable option, at least on paper. I have zero hands on experience or familiarity with the system. It does have a proven NATO service history for the 105 version and Leonardo Defense seems to be doing a good job with the 120 turret system (digital, good CROWS for the Heavy Machine Gun). It's a relatively light system (24 tons), so does well on that front. The soft recoil 120 gives access to the current range of Chemical Energy (explosive)rounds, so you get the full 'Kindergarten Cop party pooper' effect.
I will say, I understand the rationale for wheeled systems and tracked systems. The big factor is ensuring that it can hold up to the training/exercise/operations cycle. This is what sunk the Stryker-MGS and some other similar platforms. For the given usage we are speaking to, my opinion is that a tracked vehicle is preferable. Tracks can be a real PITA, but they work so well in so much varied/broken terrain. With a larger gun, tracks have some real advantages for long term hull durability. However, competent crews can do amazing things with a platform; that is the saving grace of the ACV right now.
5) Do we need a tank that can jump or swim? Sure. Can we actually make a decent tank that can jump or swim? No. Stop barking up that tree outside of RnD. The Army proofed the LAV again for Air Delivery in 2018-2020. They were running with it. Then disbanded their LAV unit to wait for the MGS (Booker). The jokes write themselves.
6) One thing I've noticed in the critique of the M1- series. "Too heavy, uses too much gas". However, no one asks :"what is our metric to evaluate?" Yes, it is heavy and uses more fuel than a LAV or AAV. It also will outstrip both cross country. Do we have a logistics constraint? What exactly is it (space, weight...what)? All the bitching I ever heard about the M1 weighing too much was always subjective. If the USMC could identify the actual constraints and restraints with respect to weight / POL / mobility support / maintenance support, it would make the choice easier. If you can only accept something that weighs as much as a JLTV with a 30mm on it....guess what you are getting. Not that the JLTV-30 is bad...I think for purpose and fit it has huge potential...though it'll suck a little when they discover that everyone shoots at the vehicle with a big auto cannon poking out. Also, when they discover that in lieu of any other assault gun or Tank, the job goes to the next closest thing.
7) In closing, with respect to PB's Ontos parable, some leftover M3 Bradley's could be pretty good, and fit with existing USMC systems, as far as weapons. They would dovetail with Army logistics and maintenance programs. This would be a lot better than the Bookers. No, they don't provide a good Heavy MG like the M1A1 FEP did, but Mars gives, and Mars takes away.
-- Cfrog
.
------------------
------------------
.
Compass Points salutes Cfrog for his insightful review of possible tank options for the Marine Corps and also salutes the Pentagon's efforts to prioritize what is essential from what is extra and unnecessary. As long as the Pentagon is looking this spring at what needs to be cut, the Marine Corps has an entire island missile program that should be set out by the curb.
.
- - - - -
.
Military.com - 05/05/2025
Military's 4-Star Officers to Be Reduced by 20% or More Under New Order by Hegseth
By Konstantin Toropin
.
- - - - -
.
19FortyFive - 05/05/2025
Too Heavy, No Mission: Why the US Army Killed the M10 Booker
By Robert Farley
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/05/too-heavy-no-mission-why-the-us-army-killed-the-m10-booker/
Upgrade the M1’s and buy them. I would have two Bns of them in each Division. 60 per Bn. We know how to task organize and can take all or none depending on the mission. Two Bn’s of LVTPs as well. The next fight will be a slug fest. You’ll need lots of artillery as well to include SP. The modern M-1 can do so much more than anyone talks about. Drones are additional, not substitutes.
Cfrog layed out 90% of why the modern M-1 is the best tank in the world. It will be even better in another year. Enough said in that.
The Corps has yet to launch the midget missile to kill a ship. Not one.
Agree…There is no substitute for tanks or tracks on our Assault Amphibian Vehicles. Little, or no thought, was given to the loss of tanks and incompetent testing for the wheeled ACV. It has little amphibious capability and cannot compare to tracked vehicles in most land operations. Marines have already paid with their lives due to these mistakes and there’s more to come. Semper Fi