Who here remembers the roots of the current day Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalions? Devil puppies sit down. Grown folks are talking!
A quick recap.
War in the Middle East was all the rage. Marine Corps leadership was concerned that the USMC would get involved in a war in the desert against highly mechanized forces and be either truck, helicopter or foot mobile. In the environment envisioned that would just not do so they bought LAV-25's off the shelf, called the battalions Light Armored Infantry (LAI) and we were set.
Or so we thought. The problem?
Too light on infantry to hold ground. So back to the drawing board, a change in name and we have the LAR we know and love today. If we were being honest we'd call them Cavalry units and be done with it but that's another discussion.
Now to the issue at hand. If we're going to be cutting units. If we're going to have to lose forces, and if the MPC is coming online, then does it make sense to keep the LAV-25A2 and the LAR Battalions?
I don't know. Just throwing it out there.
If you don't mind an opinion from a dog faced Soldier....
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense to keep the LAV-25's around to work with the incoming MPC in a combined arms team concept. All the bunch of an M3 Bradley but lighter (and you would have to dismount a TOW system).
Whether the LAR Battalions are the right formation or not is a different matter. In the Army we would doctrinally use a Cav Company of cavalry to support a BN, and a Cav Squadron to support a Brigade. With the very limited number of M1 tanks in the USMC inventory, the LAV-25 is the best answer from an expeditionary standpoint, unless some future version of the MPC is going to be turretized with a 25 or 30mm cannon.
Personally I think that keeping the LAV-25's in a "LAR" and allowing them to train in the traditional Cav tasks (recon, screen, etc) and have the BN underneath a BDE to do the combined arms fight with the Infantry Battalions (combined assault, deliberate attack, echeloning of fires, etc) you get the best possible training by keeping expertise in the units, and the most tactical flexibility in terms of warfighting.
Yes, LAR needs to stay. The cavalry mission will not disappear and the cavalry mission set is different than the traditional mechanized infantry mission set. Now i know the counter response to this is, "More training" but there is a limit on that. You will either have bad cavalrymen and mediorce mechanized infantry or swapped. Specialization will still be needed.
ReplyDeleteThe bigger question would be do you keep the AAV BNs? Think about it. If you are just swapping AAVs boat spaces for MPC boat spaces does that really make sense? Or would you be better off assigning various infantry BNs to be full time mechanized units, or perhaps one company per BN to be a mechanized unit.
The above question of course points towards age old question of, "How do we fight?" As a MEF? In that case you should have permanently mechanized regiments that have tank BNs in a permanent association. Imagine 7th Marines trains at all times in MPCs and 1st Tanks always trains with them, to the point that the LCpls think more in terms of Task Forces than the actual command structure.
Or do we exist as MEUs and each infantry BN should have a company that is trained to be mechanized? Split the difference and MEB?
Or just continue to cobble together forces at the last second?
Marine should follow army's approach. Disband AAV battalions and release armored vehicles to select infantry regiments/battalions, treat them as organic assets for maneuver units. MPC should come with multiple variants for different mission profiles: IFV, ICV, mortar carrier, command vehicles, etc. I am also advocating a mobile assault gun based on same chassis to replace M1 tanks.
ReplyDeleteadaptus, the Marines work a bit differently from the Army, the AAVs usually only have one role, swimming door breachers, not mobile armour. You don't usually hear of the AAVs leading armoured assaults, they're not tough enough for that and their firepower is not MBT/IFV level. They are probably more akin to the APC than an IFV. Their main punch is their infantry squads. Since their role is only for a single job and a specific role in an invasion, it does not make sense to scatter them penny packet all over the place, using their unique capability in a role of mobile support gun is a waste and they don't really carry enough punch to make it worthwhile anyhow. Their firepower is only at the level of what we call 40/50. (40mm AGL tandem with a 0.5 cal).
Delete