"Consensus That US Needs New Tank For Pacific" Topic

Found this was an interesting read:

link

What concepts or designs would you think would be successful on the pacific battlefield?

Lighter tanks with Active Protection Systems and AI controlled auto cannon tick some of those boxes.
Not sure what you do about any proper MB with high velocity rounds.
Maybe some APS could handle them though.

Light enough with right dimensions to be air droppable to support airborne and air assault units. Good APS. Potentially the ability to move through a few feet of water to make amphibious operations a little easier.

We used small light armor vehicles in WW2. Lots of LVT variants, and I think Stuarts. I would think the first thing to do would be to assess our opponents stuff and the various terrain situations.

Tort has the right of it.

Yes, as we learned in recent wars, we deployed lighter AFVs but in the end had to up armor them. E.g. Bradleys, Strikers and LAVs. Even the M1 had to be upgrade for MOUT with TUSK …

Yes jungle terrain is not the Mid East or Eastern Europe … But even in the jungle armor support can be used effectively. However, somewhat differently than in Europe or the desert …

Regardless as Tort pointed out … what will the enemy be using and where ? Then decide …

FWIW the US is working on a "light tank" called the M10 Booker.

link

Lighter vehicles can be deployed faster and in larger numbers. That being said … We thought the same about the Stryker and LAV. And as we saw they had to be up armored …

We obviously need amphibious Combat Mechs that can traverse water, cross reefs and make their way through jungle terrain that would block conventional vehicles!!

Don't think that's it …

They need to figure out how they will get them there and supply them once they do. Until that's answered it doesn't matter if they make Super Tank. Have to have lift, protection for that lift, fuel, and parts. The USMC was trying to find a way to get rid/lower the beach tether in A'stan and does the USN have the right number of transports (since they don't like building them) and how will they be protected on the way?

The article states what the Army thinks it needs to win. I am not sure the USMC will have armor after recent force restructure. I think the following questions need to be asked…

1. Is the strategic plan to defend islands like Taiwan or tiny fly speck islands?

2. Is the strategic plan to have airlift capability for rapid deployment and redeployment where needed?

3. Is the strategic plan for a land war in Asia?

4. Are they considering Army amphibious landings and if they are why make the USMC give up it's MEU armor?

"Lighter vehicles can be deployed faster and in larger numbers. That being said … We thought the same about the Stryker and LAV. And as we saw they had to be up armored …"-Legion

This might be an idea, modular vehicles that can swap out armor, weapon and propulsion systems. Need a light tank build one. Later in campaign you need it for a heavier role swap out armor packages. Not sure if it is practical and probably a logistics nightmare of an idea.

Re-introduce the M551.

Improve the armor, replace that stupid 152/Missile system with a 90 HVAP, upgrade the Fire Control and targeting system. Give it a 30mm Coax.

It's a lot easier that completely starting a brand new politically driven congressional pork spending packa….

Oh wait…

The US already developed a light tank. It was called the M8 AGS. It even had modular armor systems. Now we have the M10. Perhaps the marines can adapt it to their light armor requirement.

Damon

The US had over the years developed a number of proto types to be a light AFV for the 82d etc. Especially to replace the M551.

I look forward to seeing how effective the M10 will be, in actual combat. I fear the same lessons learned with the M2, Stryker and LAV may occur again. Having commanded an M113 Mech Co. '87-'89. We had to use lessons learned from Vietnam. We sandbagged the out of it in an attempt to improve survivability.

Don't think that's it …

Awww, come on! Why not have stompy combat mechs? Aren't you tired of proposals to have normal vehicles for island campaigns? First off, anything with wheels is a big NO. Ever been to some of these islands? You step off the road and 5-10 feet out you're lost. Unpaved Roads get nasty quickly, rutted muddy messes. So you need tracks. And even tracks have trouble off road, so at a bare minimum you should design a tracked vehicle with some innovative approach to traversing rugged jungle terrain, like the Howe "Rip Saw" all-terrain tracked vehicle. If you use any conventional vehicle, they will usually be confined to roads and you may as just use what we already have instead of designing something like a new conventional light tank.

I can see the CEO of the varoius IAC counting their bonues.

Btw -- this is the map of Chinese bases and influence in the South Pacific. A lot of familiar names there -- Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Kiribati, etc.

Great discussion. Thanks for everyone on their input.

Awww, come on! Why not have stompy combat mechs?

I know, I know … I got a bunch of them in my 6mm Sci-fi forces.

Regardless I don't think anyone is working on big combat walkers … yet …

SBminisguy you posted this map before where did you find it?

That is an extremely depressing map. It looks like we are facing WW II without the Greatest Generation and our lost industrial capacity this time.

@dapeters – I made it after researching China's Belt & Road initiatives and announced defense deals in the South Pacific. I wasn't even aware of what China was doing until I read a travelogue from an American battlefield tourist who went to Guadalcanal to see where his Grandfather fought the Japanese. He recounted how the island was swarming with Chinese workers, how they were building a 12,000 foot runway and a "cruise ship port" supposedly for tourism.

So I dug around. Each Chinese flag represents a country that has joined China's Belt & Road initiative and now has a Chinese presence. Each flag with an anchor is a country that has joined Belt & Road and also announced defense ties and/or major airport and seaport infrastructure projects. In Papua New Guinea, China has lengthened the runaway on Daru island and has announced plans to build a major "fishing port" in an area that can't support mass commercial fishing. But a base on Daru island can close the Torres Straights between Papua New Guinea and Australia.

Here's an article about Chinese plans to develop a seaport on Tarawa Atoll.

China expands its island-building strategy into the Pacific

…The TKP's national development manifesto, the ‘Kiribati 20-year vision', which looks set to be integrated into China's Belt and Road Initiative, gives highest priority to building two ‘transhipment hubs'—major ports in a tiny country that has no economic market for such facilities.

One hub is planned at the capital of Tarawa Atoll in the west, which was the site of the first major amphibious landing by US forces in the push against Japan during World War II. The second is planned at the strategically located Kiritimati (‘Christmas') Atoll in the east, directly south of Hawaii and the major US bases there.

link

To Shagnasty's point, China is quite deliberately implementing Imperial Japan's Australian stranglehold policy. US planners and warfighters would have to be willfully blind to miss this.

link

This is a bit detailed but it covers three strategic options to meet the Chinese threat in the Pacific. IMO China does not have absolute control over some of these areas and they also expose scattered Chinese forces to attack as much as they threaten us. But they are growing their presence.

The alliance partners deployed for joint exercises that drive the Chinese crazy have been growing and strengthening their forces. IMO Chinese naval forces still trail the US in significant areas of development. As we learned from Fox News this week, the US has the strongest economy in the world. Our industrial capacity included.

Thanks, Tortorella, very interesting read.

Sbminiguy,,, tha is a rather scary map.

I remember having this very discussion about what should be used in Afghanistan when the subject of tanks and support vehicles was brought up.

Like Tort says, figure out what your potential enemy has as a start. Eventually, they will figure out ways to take things out and you can not protect against everything, that is a given.

My thought were to just use up all the second line tanks left over and looking for scrapping in the west. A prime example would have been the Leopard One.

Not as crazy for weight and road limitations. Lots of paerts and other variant vehicles and components developed like bridging, mine rollers, mine plows a couple of engineering vehicles and ARVs as well. The 105mm was more than capable of dealing with what ever it came agansit locally, you really did not have any requirement for a 120mm fin stab for anything. Losing them or abandoning them in place was not a heart rending decision compared to scrapping them anyway.

Maybe a better mix of mine, recovery and engineering support would have alleviated a lot of problems. Upgrades like, air conditioning, special spall lining or armour plates and anti mine kits were just as adaptable to them as to the next generation of M1s and Leopard 2s.

I keep thinking back to fighting the Japanese. Stuarts and Valentines were pretty easy to knock out. The Australians moved on rather succesfully to Matildas and got quite a lot of good use out of them.

I think the US moved on to Shermans mostly because of changes to tables of organization and really running out of the light stuff in the Pacific.

I watch the M10 program carefully, keeping in mind that a direct fire system also has to deal with return fire.

42 tons, huh.

A prime example would have been the Leopard One.

Since the threat of the Taliban using AFVs was very low if not 0. However, the newer MBTs had better targeting, NODs, etc. than some of the older ones.

In places like A'stan armor would revert back to its original mission from WWI. Infantry support … Much of the structures in A'stan and Iraq were not "modern". And mud brick huts could easily be taken out with MBT fires.

Stuarts and Valentines were pretty easy to knock out.

A lot of M3 Stuarts were used in the PTO. Valentines and Matildas were not as numerous. In the CBI even M3 Grant/Lees were still in use.

Eventually the M4 Sherman was fielded in large numbers in the PTO. But the suicidal IJFs still were able to knock some out. With FA, suicidal AT Squads, mines, booby traps, etc.

But in general, they were superior to any other Allied MBTs. However, IIRC there were never any tank battles in the PTO. Of course, the M4 would have made short order of any of the IJF's armor. I'm pretty sure only M4s with the 75mm made it to the PTO. No need for the 76mm.

42 tons, huh.

The latest version of the M1 is 72 tons. So yes, 42 tons is light …

Each Chinese flag represents a country that has joined China's Belt & Road initiative and now has a Chinese presence.

SBMinis, what does that mean? The PRC presence, either in the form of a consulate or embassy, was there before Belts and Roads.

As we discussed before, the fishing fleet base at Daru, PNG, is still being opposed by the locals and looks even less likely than it was last year. Palau (FS Micronesia) is refusing to cut ties with Taiwan despite PRC pressure. Even Kiribati has backed off the "artificial island to use as a port" plan the PRC is pushing.

One thing that would make your map consistent is colouring Australia red and adding two anchor symbols, for Darwin and Port of Melbourne. The state of Victoria also entered into a belts and roads agreement with the PRC. So do you see Australia as a base of operations for the PRC as well?

So do you see Australia as a base of operations for the PRC as well?

I'm pretty sure that won't ever happen … You are allied with e.g. NATO, even if you are not part of NATO. You got our 6 and we got yours …

We've been doing that since 1942, Legion. I believe the map is misleading, as it portrays the SW Pacific as a Chinese lake. However that's not the reality, which was apparent at last week's Pacific Islands Forum (to which the US, Oz and PRC were all attendees) showed. Even our current PM, who is far left by inclination and trying to pretend he's a centrist, has approved the blocking of a PRC-based company (so the PRC government) buying a power grid company here.

The PRC is a definite threat and is pushing hard to extend its influence. But things haven't got to the stage the map represents.

As for an "Island Tank", with modern RCL and anti-armoured missiles then the best idea may be something like the Leo 1, but with modular ERA and bar armour fitted after unloading.

These island zones of influence are not necessarily major staging areas for Chinese offensive actions. They may also represent vulnerable overextended and scattered outposts. As in 1942.

The types of weapons that will meet needs over a vast and varied area will will need a lot of study going forward. The roles tanks will play will depend on the terrain, the objectives, the opposition. The designs come from those factors.

And what do the Chinese have developing for island warfare? Types of fuel, weight, ammo…logistics. The Chinese cannot currently get a large army to Taiwan, not enough naval transport unless they add civilian vessels. Where is the shipping to supply armored, tracked vehicles and their logistical needs to these outpost areas?

I think no matter what is done with robotics, drones, etc, you will still need infantry, tanks and tactical air support for any major island operations. Tanks will likely be small, new lighter armor materials maybe, easy to transport and maintain. High tech add ons. Anything too complex will not work well for rapid deployment or extended service. We will see.

They may also represent vulnerable overextended and scattered outposts.

Tort, I agree that the PRC does not yet have the ability to take any of those areas by force, despite their vulnerability. And, the Solomons excepted, the PRC doesn't have any military or para-military presence either. If they did then, like the "police" force the Solomons is accepting, they'd have a survival expectation measured in hours if it was necessary to neutralise them.

It's hard to read PRC strategy, but I think they're more interested in the islands as part of an intelligence network- probably relying on the drones you mentioned for SIGINT and visual detections- and possibly for staging SIGINT, sub-surface mapping and distraction operations. Any dreams they have of being able to stage sub's, ships or aircraft through them didn't get past last year, when their delegation (and a couple of others, including the US and Canada) was blocked from last year's Pacific Islands Forum. The islands also rejected Foreign Minister Wang Yi's proposed 10-nation agreement as lacking detail and having no discernible benefits to those nations.

"They may also represent vulnerable overextended and scattered outposts."

But they could become missile bases for the Chinese just like the USMC force structure changes, they could blanket the Pacific with missiles. Guam would be pulverized. The Chinese isolated forward bases would wither and die on the vine when we cut supply chain but they would be acceptable losses if they enable China to take Taiwan.

But they could become missile bases for the Chinese

To do that the PRC would have to invade, mate, and as I said above I don't think they have that ability. There are no PRC military or naval forces based in the area, only a "police" force (probably para-military) based in the Solomons. The PRC received a few reality checks in the last 18 months or so, especially as it's become known just what an effect belts and Roads has had on the Sri Lankan economy. The fact that the PRC's proposed 10 nation security agreement was rejected by the islands means last year means it's highly unlikely the PRC will have any military or naval presence on the islands in the immediate future.

The state of Victoria also entered into a belts and roads agreement with the PRC. So do you see Australia as a base of operations for the PRC as well?

The flag means influence via Belt and Road -- and the intention of China's B&A is always clear: To coopt and suborn local control via $$$ infusions, and Australia is no more immune to that than any other nation. Certainly the US has seen a lot of Chinese corruption exposed, favorable treatment given by many politicians who protect themselves from fall out.

So please quibble away with the details of my map -- but China is not secretive about its plans. It intends to isolate Australia and control it – politicly, economically via Belt and Road $$ and ties, and influencing Australian politicians to move away from the US and see their future as in alignment with China as a "Pacific Nation."

If that doesn't work, they haven't been shy of saying they would even control Australian militarily if it has to because it will not be able to dominate the Pacific unless Australia is managed. Thus the actual bases and planned bases. And it's nice that locals in PNG don't like the plans, but as we've seen in other 3rd world nations, Chinese cash leads to local concerns getting buried. In Solomon Islands, on Guadalcanal, it means Chinese police training, tactics and equipment for the Solomon Islands constabularies. It means cracking down on dissent. It means authoritarianism funded from Beijing. It means that local concerns about the destruction of their fishing industry by Chinese fishing fleets gets buried.

I'm of the opinion that you should believe when your adversary tells you what they intend to do.

We've been doing that since 1942, Legion.

Yes history demonstrates that. The ANZACs were there …

As for an "Island Tank", with modern RCL and anti-armoured missiles then the best idea may be something like the Leo 1, but with modular ERA and bar armour fitted after unloading.

Well a lighter MBT may be an advantage, e.g. an M1A3 is heavy weighing in at 72tons. However, the M10 Booker is only 42tons, IIRC.

But we both know the US and Aussie forces in Vietnam successfully used MBTs, APCs, etc. there. US M48s & Aussie Centurions, plus other AFVs. My favorite is the Aussie M113 with Saladin turret.

As well as The French in '47-'54, used mostly US MBTs, etc. in Vietnam/French Indochine. Successfully in the Infantry support roll.

Tank crews know to stay out of swamps, etc. They can support by fire while the Infantry goes into place AFVs can't go. Of course, in the deep jungle or even forests where AFVs can't go, the Infantry will be on their own but with FA support, CAS, etc.

To coopt and suborn local control via $$$ infusions, and Australia is no more immune to that than any other nation.

I agree, mate, and China has had quite a bit of success in doing that here, as well as in the islands. When we did refuse to play by their rules the PRC slammed on economic penalties. They even had a unlikely cheer squad of the greedy rich and deluded greens trying to frame the PRC as victims of Aussie racism.

Regardless of that, even our current PM has been ready to block further attempts by PRC companies (either openly or hidden in consortia) to gain control of critical infrastructure. In the islands the rejection of the mutual security pact and some of the associated infrastructure plans surprised and angered the PRC, who was tossing money around like confetti.

So having a Chinese presence doesn't mean the PRC owns the place, or is even just renting it.

So please quibble away with the details of my map

I already am. :-)

I'm of the opinion that you should believe when your adversary tells you what they intend to do.

Not when it was "reportedly stated", yet no original video or aural evidence can be produced. I don't trust the PRC at all, but having worked with or for gun-runners I don't trust 90% of the "scary stories" and threat analyses that appear on the net or the media, either. The prospect of peace breaking out and all those lovely, over-blown contracts getting cancelled scares the big defence companies shitless.

I know the PRC wants Oz' resources. Particularly yellow-cake, bauxite and rare earths. At the mo' they're buying them (which is stupidity on our part- we should have slammed the shutters down when they piled on their tariffs) but they'd prefer to own them- one way or another. So, is invasion worth the risk in the face of AUKUS? Will AUKUS work, for that matter?

Well a lighter MBT may be an advantage, e.g. an M1A3 is heavy weighing in at 72tons.

The M113A1 with Saladin, and later a Scorpion, turret was the Fire Support Vehicle, aka "The Beast". It was too top heavy and had a habit of falling over. It really was a poor man's tank.

For the jay they found in WWII that light tanks (under 20 tons) were stopped by vegetation and the terrain far more often than the Matildas. The Matildas could flatten stumps and knock down trees that stopped the Stuarts (and also Shermans, Grants and Lees, as they found at the Tropical Trials Centre). The lesson was reinforced in VN, where sometimes the Cent's had to break a track for the carriers.

Smaller islands will pose a different problem- heavier vehicles- even M113- are going to get bogged unless the drivers really know what they are doing.

If there's a good answer to the problems, mate, I don't know what it is. Neither do the gun-runners. :-)

link

The M113A1 with Saladin, and later a Scorpion, turret was the Fire Support Vehicle, aka "The Beast". It was too top heavy and had a habit of falling over. It really was a poor man's tank.

Yes I had heard that … But an interesting "concept" …

The Aussies have a "stretch" M113 too. Some were given to the Ukraine.

Smaller islands will pose a different problem- heavier vehicles- even M113- are going to get bogged unless the drivers really know what they are doing.

Yes, that is the bottom line … The Driver[and hopefully the TC] is good at his job.

If there's a good answer to the problems, mate, I don't know what it is.

As always it depends on terrain and situation.

Interesting link dapeters. Regardless if need be, the good old "ANZACs" will be there … Especially in the PTO.

dapeters, ASPI is a source for a lot of useful information. I don't agree that it's in the pocket of the big defence companies, but there are times when it has come across as unduly alarmist. I'm not sure if I agree about the B-21 either. That would require another cut to the other Defence spending and probably come from the Army share- which has already been cut. As Peter Leahy has said, the government's strategic review which has just been released was a bloody disaster in the making.

I agree that the RAN and RAAF have a greater role than the army in securing Australia's surrounds, but it's Army that does nearly all of the fighting and dying, especially since WWII, as well as most of the aid on the ground to the civil authority during emergencies. To add insult to injury they have just announced a cut to the number of IFV we were buying- to provide more funds for submarines- and cutting the number of battalions ( link ).

Legion

The Aussies have a "stretch" M113 too. Some were given to the Ukraine.

That's the upgraded M113AS4 ( link ). I have to bite my tongue on that, mate, but I can say that that vehicle is what happens when an incompetent project (Project Waler) is married to less competent defence ministers. Instead of getting new IFV in the '90's we got refurb'ed APC, which we'd bought in the 1960's, in 2012.

Yes that's it M113AS4 … Well looks a little roomier than the standard M113. I commanded a Mech Co. of 14 M113A1s with a Mech Hvy Bde of the 18th ABN Corps, '87-'-89…

Yes, mate. They stretched them with an extra road wheel on each side. I don't how much different they are as far as being bounced around in the back goes, but the mech blokes think they're an improvement. Though that could be a result of new torsion bars that weren't made in 1965. :-)

They were going to replace them with the Hanwha AS21 Redback ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K21 ), but now they've reduced that buy who knows what the plan is?

mech blokes think they're an improvement.

Well being in Mech too, the inside of an M113 can be a little "cramped" full of troops and their equipment. Especially with those big old cornfed country boys and Samoans !

That K21 looks pretty good, their Black Panther MBT is supposed to be very good as well. When I was in the ROK, '84-'85 the ROKs used mostly US equipment.

now they've reduced that buy who knows what the plan is?

Something similar happened with the IDF. That is why you see they have a lot of M113s running around. Albeit they were upgraded a little. The Zelda – link They were going to replace most of them in many Infantry units with the Namer HAPC. link And even add a turret like on the Bradley to make some Namer IFVs. But they ran short of $. USD So not all their Mech have the Namer HAPC and the IFV version is still not issued, AFAIK.

The Namer Heavy APC is similar to what the IDF did with a lot of the captured Arab T54/55s. They converted them to HAPCs called the Achzarit. And they are still using those in some IDF Infantry units.
link

They also have a wheeled APC like e.g. the Stryker. Called the Eitan.
link

AFAIK they all have been used in the IDF attack on Hamas …

I spent a few exercises either bouncing around in the "veggie bin" or trying not to crack a rib on the cargo hatch coaming, mate. How ever often I told myself that a 3rd class ride is always better than a first class walk, I was still glad to get out of that box. :-)

The South Koreans have come up with some good gear in the last 20 years or so. A mate on the IFV project is in love with the Redback (named after an irritating spider- a close relative to your Black Widow- that legend says likes to live under toilet seats), which is rare in project offices. If he's right it may even live up to expectations.

The old ASLAV is on the way out. (That sentence makes me feel old- I was still in when 2CAV got the fist lot.) The German Boxer AFV will rep[lace the ASLAV's. When you see them side-by-side the ASLAV looks like a VW Bug next to a Mack. As an ex Mech-Head you may find this interesting:

link

I spent a few exercises either bouncing around in the "veggie bin"

Yep, been there … did that !

Yeah, the ROKs know they may have to be ready to take on the North or even the PRC/CCP at any time. So, they have to have good equipment. The US Army had OPLANs to go Pyong Yang and further North along with the ROKs. In response to the North attacking across the ROK border.

Those IFVs on that link look pretty damn good!

Dal Gavan , you were at 2 CAV 1989-92 ? I was posted to the workshop about a month before K89 . I remember the LAV trial quite well

"How ever often I told myself that a 3rd class ride is always better than a first class walk" -Dal Gavan

Amen!

I was Airborne infantry we had no vehicles after we dropped and had to hump all our gear. I was always jealous of anyone driving past laughing at me. Until I got to laugh at them when they were in the motor pool and I was heading into town.

Those IFVs on that link look pretty damn good!

They do, mate, but they're big, though. Still, they're a fighting vehicle, not a battle taxi like the old tracks.

you were at 2 CAV 1989-92 ?

Another of the RAEME brethren, mate? I was the boff CPL at TST 8/12, 89-94 incl. I remember when the new toys started arriving and 2CAV was giving joy rides around the brigade. 89-92 was a period of change, wasn't it? SLR out and F-88 in, cams replaced greens and the 110's started tricking in. My GMV was a big advance on the pie wagon I had.

I was Airborne infantry we had no vehicles after we dropped and had to hump all our gear."

I started my career in infantry, Dragon. At that stage (1975) only one battalion was working up as mech and the rest of us were "normal". What they call "light infantry" these days- though carrying 35+kg of weapon, gear, rats and water didn't feel all that light. I never went for para wings. I did a famil jump which convinced me that parachutes were not compatible with my underwear.

After I had to reallocate to RAEME I discovered some of the benefits of driving rather than walking. And the disadvantages as well.