Thread by @nicholadrummond

THREAD ABOUT THE US MARINES RETIRING THEIR MBTS

Reports that the US Marine Corps is getting rid of the M1 Abrams MBT have encouraged a lot of people to ask whether the MBT is dead. And, if it isn't, whether this decision is an act of madness. So a few thoughts...

Firs, let's talk about armour in general. Now and in the future, armies will need tracked and wheeled combat vehicles to perform two primary roles:
- Protected Mobility to deliver infantry where needed
- Protected Firepower to support infantry and neutralise other AFVs:

In general, tracked platforms are able to mount larger weapons, negotiate the most challenging terrain and to carry more protection than wheeled vehicles. They're more resilient in combat, but are difficult to deploy quickly and support at distance.

In contrast, wheeled vehicles are ideal expeditionary platforms as they can rapidly deploy over long distances and operate autonomously with a reduced logistical burden. The problem is they are less well protected, less resilient in combat and less agile in extreme conditions.

So, this isn't a question of which do you acquire: tracks or wheels. There's an emphatic need for both. It's why the British Army will have Strike Brigades and Armoured Infantry Brigades - and why the US Marine Corps is being reconfigured for an expeditionary role in the Pacific.

With the USMC's experience of Island-hopping campaigns in the Pacific, it figures that armour-v-armour slugfests will the exception not the norm, so why tie-up the considerable resources required to deploy the 70+ tonne Abrams? Why not maximise other resources like G/MLRS?

But the US Marine Corps has another trick up its sleeve. The LAV-25 has been in service with the USMC since the 1980s. This 8x8 platform (chosen in preference to the UK's CVR(T) family) validated the concept of an amphibious expeditionary combat vehicle.

First deployed to Panama in 1989, LAV-25-equipped Marine units, were able to move much more rapidly than Bradley-equipped Army units. During Operation Desert Storm, a battalion of LAV-25s held-off an entire Iraqi division equipped with T-72s and BMPs.

By today's standard, the protection fitted to the 12.8-tonne LAV-25 has fallen behind the curve. At the same time, the tracked Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) is even older, has inadequate protection and is far from an ideal expeditionary capability.

So, the US Marines is currently procuring a new platform, the ACV 1.1 - The Amphibious Combat Vehicle. Developed by Iveco of Italy as the SuperAV, it is being offered through BAE Systems in the USA. It can swim 12 miles at 8 knots with up to 13 Marines and negotiate 6-ft swells.

Before we get too excited about the ACV, the requirements for protection (heavy armour)) are the opposite of those for buoyancy (light weight). So the ACV is less survivable than other wheeled AFVs, even if its IED protection is vastly superior to that of the LAV-25.

In many ways, the USMC is adopting a similar expeditionary approach to the Royal Marines who are equipped with the Hagglunds BVS10 Viking. It will be interesting to see which vehicle is ultimately the batter the performer. My money is on the BVS10.

The ACV will also the same Kongsberg 30 mm turret fitted to the Stryker Dragoon. This will add the ability to fire ATGMs. Overall, the US Marines Corps may not miss the Abrams as much and people may think. Of course, if MBT firepower is needed, it can always stage a comeback.