there are many variants of 'light tanks' these days that IMO would serve the Marine Corps well --

i understand them getting away from the larger M1 tank series

but they should have some form of mobile gun platform in whatever form that takes.... sometimes the situation calls for that kind of firepower and 'show of force'...

--------------------------------

They still have some armored vehicles/weapon platforms, just not full-blown tanks.

These include AA7 and LAV25 variants, as well as the new ACV.

Mostly JLTVs going forward I’ve heard
My son is in a weapons company and that’s what they’re training on

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
They still have some armored vehicles/weapon platforms, just not full-blown tanks.

These include AA7 and LAV25 variants, as well as the new ACV.

how many years will go by before the 'next generation' of USMC leadership recognizes the 'lack of tanks' and fields a request for new armor?

i'll give them 5 years

i understand reconfiguring / re-equipping for future likely wars -- and in fact the 20 years of GWOT was horrible for our forces in that regard because we based an entire generation of decisions on that set of strategies / realities -- but i don't like taking options off the table.

we shall see

=====================================

Hey, is this thread about crayons and M27s?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Hey, is this thread about crayons and M27s?

Mmmm...I love the burnt ones....

quote:

Originally posted by Guardian555:
This move away from Tanks is a smart move. The USMC is forever fighting the battle of "why do you exist?" The army can do everything you can do. The navy historically fought to have a dedicated infantry unit for things such as installation security and projection of forces ashore from Navy ships. How do you get a tank to go ashore from the gators or helicopters/V-22s? If you are going somewhere with enough port facilities built to bring in a RO/RO ship or land a C5, you can send in an Army tank unit.

The Marines need to be different enough in capability and focus to keep them from just being another Ranger Battalion.

Lol not even close. And this speaks to the different mindset between the services.

"How do you get a tank to go ashore from the gators or helicopters/V-22s? "

We called that the deep-water fording kit. A standard Abrams can ford 48". A USMC tank equipped with a deep-water fording kit can ford 96". We routinely came off LST's and LCAC's and hit the beach.

The Army Airborne loves to talk shit, but me, personally? I Love the Navy. Take you anywhere in the world and drop you right off at the beach.

"If you are going somewhere with enough port facilities built to bring in a RO/RO ship or land a C5, you can send in an Army tank unit."

Well that's the problem. The enemy doesn’t just give up its ports so you can land an Army tank unit. They tend to want to keep them. That's why the USMC practiced amphibious assault.

May have heard of it. Worked well in WWII.

“The army can do everything you can do."

Again, LOL. Before this Commandant a Marine MAGTAF could be deployed anywhere in the world in 24 hours. That is enough combat firepower (air, land, sea) to fight for 30 days without resupply. Grunts, arty, tanks. At any one time the USMC had a two full tank battalions (116 tanks) on the water. With any one platoon ready to conduct a “breach’ (full amphibious assault) within 24 hours of a coastline anywhere in the world (followed by the rest of the tank company). Army does not have that. Last time I checked the Army needed at least 96 hours and that required a massive lift from the US Air Force. Army has no pre-positioned forces floating around that can hit a coastline on a moment’s notice with combined arms (and actually know how to conduct an amphibious assault and retain land).

Breaching. How many Army units know how to breach? How many Army tank units have trained with mine plows, blades, and mine rollers? All the USMC does (did) is train on how to breach. How many Army units even ATTACH their gear, let alone land on the sand with it?

Someone has to kick the door in.

USMC breaching platoon, AFG (FYI, Army never sent tanks to AFG, to “difficult” lol).



Know how many Army tanks were in AFG? Zero. Back in 2010 they actually asked us about the logistics of bringing tanks in. Decided it was too hard and expensive.

You know how awesome it was to have tanks out there? Priceless. On icom “chatter” they called us the ‘monsters”. When a tank section rolled in they ran away. Good feeling.

It got to the point that the grunts didn’t want to go out on patrol without a tank section on overwatch. Noting like being able to schwac a mortar team setting up at 3000 meters with one round from the main gun at midnight with no moonlight.

So yes, the USMC is different than the Army. So yes, we used tanks different from the Army.

History time.

Both of the services were shaped by WWII. The US Army was shaped by Europe, the USMC was shaped by the Pacific. Just talking tanks it was totally different.

In Europe tanks were used against other tanks. Armor battles were fought between the US and Germany. Strategy about how to use tank platoons, companies, and battalions were thought out. Armor on armor.

In the Pacific tanks were used quite different. The Japs did not have the armor we had and the battlefields were smaller. Tanks in the USMC were used in infantry support. Tank on tank battles were rare. A tank was a Godsend to a Maine infantry platoon. This carried on throughout the decades.

We call that “tank infantry integration”. And Marines trained on that concept hard.

So the USMC practiced tank infantry integration. Unlike the Army, where in a spearhead the armor was king, in the USMC the infantry was king. Backed up by armor. Totally different mindset.

The USMC carried this mindset to the present day. Grunts go first. We support them.

Fallujah was the perfect modern day show case of USMC tank infantry integration. While the Army was making “Thunder Runs” against Iraqi armor the USMC was doing what it does best. From the Japanese islands, to Hue city, to Iraq, USMC tanks worked side by side with the grunts to take ground. To conquer cities. To kill the enemy.

Good buddy of mine took his tank into Fallujah. When I was in the USMC museum a few years ago I saw they had his pic on the wall. Told him he was famous lol.




Early vid of a USMC tank practicing fording off the coast of Pendleton.



The USMC will never be replaced by the Army. Just a totally different reason for being.

Now, if the joint chiefs changes that reason….

Well then, I will still say “Semper Fi” and do what I know how to do. I'll fix tanks somewhere.

Sunday May 12th 2012 this pic was taken.



Next day some shit bag drove a truck full of boom into our ECP. Killed 3 Georgians and wounded 60 Marines.

Oh for the next 24 hours tanks didn't give anyone else the benefit of the doubt.

And now I am old. And posting on forums. Lol.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mbinky,

The link has several photos.

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/t...avor-of-the-m27-iar/

THE WEAPONS THE MARINES PASSED ON IN FAVOR OF THE M27 IAR

Travis Pike | December 8, 2021

We all know now that HK won the Marine Corps Infantry Automatic Rifle competition with the famed M27 IAR. The contest sought out an automatic rifle to replace the M249 SAW as a squad support weapon. The idea was to create a lighter-weight rifle that could suppress with automatic fire and do so with enhanced precision, versus just the traditional volume of fire method. The rifle promised to be lighter, simpler, more reliable, and more accurate than a belt-fed gun.


The Marine Corps loves their M27 IAR so much they’ve now pushed it to the hands of every infantryman. It functions as an automatic rifle, an assault rifle, and a designated marksman’s rifle within the Marine rifle squad. But it wasn’t the only capable platform in the running. In fact, some of these platforms have already found homes in other militaries around the world.

The Other Guns of the IAR Contest
So HK won, history was made, and the Marines love their gun. Who did HK beat, though? What other weapons competed against the HK 416 variant? Well, today, we are going to tackle the four competitors to the HK design that didn’t quite make the cut.

Colt IAR
Colt entering into the realm of the IAR only made sense. They were the original producers of the M16 rifle after purchasing the design from Armalite and went on to produce it alongside numerous carbine variants, and finally, the M4. Colt lost a few contracts to FN along the way, but was an early favorite to win the IAR contest with the Colt IAR. They submitted two variants, the 6940 and the 6940H.

Predictably both guns were built off the Stoner direct impingement design and were essentially a modified AR-15/M16 design. The barrel length was shorter than the M16 and longer than the M4 at 16.1 inches long. The weapon had a cycling rate of between 700 and 1000 rounds per minute. The biggest difference between the IAR and other Colt rifles and carbines is the front end of the weapon.

Colt installed a massive heat sink into the front of the weapon that doubles as a handguard. This would allow for the increased volume of fire an IAR would be tasked with putting out. The differences between the 6940 and 6940H were minimal.

The 6940 features a monolithic upper receiver for maximum stability and weighs 10.1 pounds. The 6940H features a standard upper and utilizes a Knight’s Armament Handguard and weighs 9.28 pounds. The 16.1-inch barrel is a heavy profile barrel to also help with a higher rate of fire—the handguard feature numerous vents to allow for air cooling as well.

LWRC M6A4
LWRC makes premium-grade weapons that have been used in small numbers by special operations troops around the world. Their entry into the IAR contest didn’t make the top 3 but is certainly worth mentioning. The M6 system is largely based on the Stoner design with 80% parts commonality. It, however, uses an internal piston system, as opposed to the Stoner direct impingement design.

The M6A4 utilizes a 16.5-inch barrel that’s free-floated for maximum accuracy and carries a unique system that fires with a closed bolt in semi-auto and an open bolt in full auto. When moving from semi to full auto, the bolt would first fire from the closed bolt and then switch to fire from the open bolt for subsequent automatic fire—this increased first-round ignition reliability and accuracy.

An open bolt design allowed the weapon to fire at a sustained rate while allowing more air to cool the inside of the weapon. Additionally, this helped prevent cook-offs of chambered rounds after sustained fire.

The M6A4 lacked a heavy barrel or heat sink, making it a little less capable for sustained automatic fire. However, the 7.5-pound weight made it approximately the same weight as a standard carbine and the lightest IAR on the list.

Ultimax 100 MK4
The Ultimax 100 MK4 is a Singaporean design with influences and contributions from American firearms designer L. James Sullivan. As a light support weapon, the Ultimax 100 MK5 was a true cross between an automatic rifle and a light machine gun. It’s been around since the 1970s! This light support weapon was built to be the most machine gun-like IAR.

This weapon handles more like an LMG but utilizes the STANAG magazine platform. The MK4 fires from the open bolt with a user-adjustable fire rate of 400 to 600 rounds per minute. The gun uses a constant recoil design which greatly reduces felt-recoil and enhances accuracy.

Finding specs on the exact model the Marine Corps tested seems to be tough. Variants with 16 inch heavy barrels and short 13 inch barrels are available. Pictures make it looks like the stock can fold, and plenty of Picatinny rails were added for accessories.

SCAR HAMR
FN SCAR series have been hit or miss with Special Operations use, but they undoubtedly won the naming competition with the HAMR IAR. HAMR stands for Heat Adaptive Modular Rifle. The HAMR is a gas-operated rifle with a short-stroke gas piston system that allows for a folding stock. FN equipped the HAMR with a heat sink to help keep the operator unburned after some sustained fire. The rifle weighed 11.2 pounds and utilized a 16-inch barrel.

What’s fascinating about the HAMR is the operating system. The weapon could fire in the closed and open bolt configurations, and the weapon would automatically switch between open and closed bolt depending on chamber temperature. I can’t find much information on how the system works, but it seems to be unique to the HAMR.

Like the SCAR series, the HAMR provided tons of advanced features, including a polymer lower receiver, a monolithic upper receiver, and a collapsing, folding stock system. Users would also have entirely ambidextrous controls.

The Rifles of the IAR Contest
Without a doubt, the IAR contest showed us some fascinating rifles and ultimately introduced a modern variant of the squad support weapon. Colt saw success with the Mexican Marines with their 6940 IAR, and plenty of countries and military forces adopted the Ultimax 100 in its various configurations. The IAR as a concept has caught fire, and we are seeing the world adapt and adopt as necessary.

quote:

What’s fascinating about the HAMR is the operating system. The weapon could fire in the closed and open bolt configurations, and the weapon would automatically switch between open and closed bolt depending on chamber temperature.

That's pretty nifty. I'm familiar with automatic rifle designs that fired from either the closed bolt in semiauto mode or the open bolt in full auto, like the older FG-42 or Johnson LMG, or the newer LWRC M6A4 as mentioned in the article, but not one that was capable of detecting and switching on the fly by itself as needed for cooling purposes.

According to FN's material, it's a purely mechanical system too. I'd love to learn how that works. Hopefully someone does a writeup or video on the internal system at some point. (*cough* Forgotten Weapons *cough*)

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
They still have some armored vehicles/weapon platforms, just not full-blown tanks.

These include AA7 and LAV25 variants, as well as the new ACV.

now the AAVs are off the table except in 'emergency'

bad idea to shelve something and not train on it -- only to 'assume' proficiency when SHTF. not a wise decision at all.

kinda like the Army saying -- Airborne Ops are dangerous. We need to stop parachute ops 'for safety'. We'll only jump in an 'emergency'...


https://news.usni.org/2021/12/...he-water-permanently


BREAKING: Marines Keeping AAVs Out of the Water Permanently

By: Sam LaGrone
December 15, 2021 3:14 PM • Updated: December 15, 2021 4:50 PM


The Marine Corps will keep its fleet of decades-old Amphibious Assault Vehicles out of the water except in emergencies, the service announced on Wednesday.

The water ban on the AAVs makes permanent restrictions the Marines placed on the 1970s-era vintage amphibious armored personnel carriers following the AAV incident in 2020 that killed eight Marines and a sailor in a training incident off the coast of California and led to several subsequent investigations.

“The Marine Corps stands by the efficacy of the recommendations that came from the multiple investigations into the AAV mishap from the summer of 2020, and with those recommendations implemented and sustained, the AAV is a safe and effective vehicle for amphibious operations,” reads a statement from the service.

“That said, given the current state of the amphibious vehicle program, the Commandant of the Marine Corps has decided the AAV will no longer serve as part of regularly scheduled deployments or train in the water during military exercises; AAVs will only return to operating in the water if needed for crisis response. This decision was made in the interest of the long-term health of the amphibious vehicle programs and future capabilities. The AAV will continue to operate on land; 76 percent of its tasks are land-based. In doing so, we reserve the capability to reverse this decision should the need arise.”

The Marines have used the AAVs since the 1970s and they’ve been employed widely across the globe. The service is on its second attempt to replace the amtracs with the Amphibious Combat Vehicle – after the cancelation of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle in 2010.

The ACVs are under their own restrictions from waterborne operations.

“The Marine Corps will continue deployments with myriad lethal capabilities which currently exist, and we remain committed to fielding the Amphibious Combat Vehicle,” reads the statement.
“ACVs were temporarily suspended from open ocean waterborne operations as we worked to solve an issue that was identified with the towing mechanism. We expect that issue to be resolved soon and for ACVs to return to the water early in the New Year.”

The Marine Corps in early September announced the pause to ACV water operations due to the problem with the towing mechanism.

The ACV program entered full-rate production late last year, after completing the initial operational test and evaluation phase (IOT&E), which allows Marines to experiment with the platform and provide feedback on what could be improved.

For example, one issue Marines experienced during testing was punctures to the vehicles tires, but they could not address the problem quickly because the Marines didn’t have access to a jack. The Pentagon’s top weapons tester suggested the Marine Corps give all sections a kit for spare tires to address this problem.

The Marine Corps is slated to buy four ACV variants – a personnel carrier, a recovery variant, a command and control variant and a vehicle with 30-mm cannon variant.

BAE Systems, which is building the ACV for the service, started with the personnel variant, which was the type of ACV the Marine Corps had been testing during IOT&E. in February, BAE announced it had provided the Marine Corps with the first command and control ACV.

The following is the complete Dec. 15, 2021 statement from the Marine Corps.

The Marine Corps stands by the efficacy of the recommendations that came from the multiple investigations into the AAV mishap from the summer of 2020, and with those recommendations implemented and sustained, the AAV is a safe and effective vehicle for amphibious operations. That said, given the current state of the amphibious vehicle program (the program that manages both AAVs and ACVs), the Commandant of the Marine Corps has decided the AAV will no longer serve as part of regularly scheduled deployments or train in the water during military exercises; AAVs will only return to operating in the water if needed for crisis response. This decision was made in the interest of the long-term health of the amphibious vehicle programs and future capabilities. The AAV will continue to operate on land; 76% of its tasks are land-based. In doing so, we reserve the capability to reverse this decision should the need arise.

The Marine Corps will continue deployments with myriad lethal capabilities which currently exist, and we remain committed to fielding the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.

ACVs were temporarily suspended from open ocean waterborne operations as we worked to solve an issue that was identified with the towing mechanism. We expect that issue to be resolved soon and for ACVs to return to the water early in the New Year.

=====================================

Man, this Commandant will be the death of the Corps as we know it.

The ACV is garbage. I'm no fan of the AAV either but it worked (and it did need to be replaced). It's been beached since the investigation into that sinking a year or so ago. And that was an absolute complete leadership failure, from the NCO's to the officer's (and from the maintainers to the operators).

The ACV though? They at least couldn't buy a vehicle from an American company? They chose an Italian one? Iveco Defense. What a piece of garbage. Lol the best part? They planned on recovering damaged the ACV's with the M88, no specific "R" type ACV. Then they got rid of the 88 when they got rid of tanks. So now they need a recovery version...

In my opinion, in ten years, the FMF will look like the 1920's Marine Corps. Providing security on ships and security while ships are in port. If they are lucky.

I think this Commandant's tour is up soon, but with this administration I expect the next one to be more useless.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Man, this Commandant will be the death of the Corps as we know it.

....

In my opinion, in ten years, the FMF will look like the 1920's Marine Corps. Providing security on ships and security while ships are in port. If they are lucky.

...

which would be very sad and a horrible blow to our national defense

i am former Army but I have a solid respect for the capabilities a well-trained, well-equipped USMC brings to the table

i hope they can get this mess straightened out

--------------------------------------------

quote:

am former Army but I have a solid respect for the capabilities a well-trained, well-equipped USMC brings to the table

Absolutely. I think the Corps brings a unique tool to the tool box. For an Army guy, you ain't half bad

It's late, how about some sexy tank sounds?

I can hear the starter kickout. (The mech in me smiles )



This is why the Abrams beats any other tank. We have fire control down to a science. Stabilization. We can do it. They suck at it. I like the Leo. I like the Challenger. On the range they don't compare. Our first shot hit on the move is amazing. Out to 4000 meters (further with the new ones) That transmission got a workout too. Allison makes good shit. X1100-3B. Tough as nails. Designed to kill Soviets but runs over goat herders just the same. Don't even need to put it in reverse.