ComNavOps has often criticized the Marine Corps for what
it’s become. A once proud and valuable fighting
force has been reduced to silliness and irrelevance. So, what would ComNavOps’ ideal Marine Corps
look like? What would its main mission
be? What forces would it need? I’ve described some of this in passing in
previous posts and comments but here is the collected and condensed summary.
As always, it starts with mission. What is the Marine’s mission – its purpose?
There are two answers to that: legal (Title 10) and practical (what’s
actually needed)
Mission – Legal
Requirements
Title 10 [see Ref 1 for the text of Title 10, Section 8063]
defines the purpose of the Marine Corps which consists of the following stated
purposes:
- seizure or defense of advanced naval bases
- conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the
prosecution of a naval campaign
- provide detachments and organizations for service on armed
vessels of the Navy
- provide security detachments for the protection of naval
property at naval stations and bases
- perform such other duties as the President may direct
- develop, in coordination with the Army and the Air Force,
those phases of amphibious operations that pertain to the tactics, technique,
and equipment used by landing forces
- responsible, in accordance with integrated joint
mobilization plans, for the expansion of peacetime components of the Marine
Corps to meet the needs of war
Notice that it doesn’t actually say that the Marines must be
the ones to conduct amphibious operations, only that they jointly develop the
“tactics, technique, and equipment” for such operations. Note, also, that there is no explicit mention
of amphibious assaults, only “operations”, which can be any action initiated or
enabled from the sea. Again, that means
that amphibious assaults, while certainly one example of an “amphibious
operation”, are not the only possible action.
Thus, the claim that many make that the Marines must be capable of
performing amphibious assaults is not true, strictly speaking.
Mission – Practical
Requirements
Legal requirements aside, what missions are actually
pertinent to US military operations, in general, and suited to the Marines, in
particular?
Main Mission – Port seizure (a form of amphibious assault,
thereby satisfying the legal requirement)
Secondary Missions – naval base defense, embassy
protection, and the like
Regarding the more commonly envisioned amphibious assault, I’ve
said, repeatedly, that I don’t see amphibious assaults as being strategically
necessary in the foreseeable future so what does that leave? As we’ve often noted, any ground action
(adage: the seat of purpose is on the
land) requires a secure port for sustainment.
Over the beach supply cannot support a large ground action. For example, Normandy was all about securing
ports. Thus, the Marine’s main mission
should be port seizure. I’d add airfield
seizure to that except that the Army/Air Force once had that mission and,
presumably, still do. If not, that would
also be part of the Marine’s mission.
Many would suggest that the Marine’s primary – or, at worst,
secondary – mission is to be the nation’s first response force. Once upon a time that was true, though not a
legal requirement, but now the combination of Army/Air Force can respond faster
and with more force than the Marines can.
Thus, first response is not a Marine Corps mission although they might
assist in such a mission if circumstances warranted.
So, having defined the main mission as port seizure, what is
needed to execute that mission?
Size
Two divisions (10,000 men, each) ought to be sufficient to
execute a successful port seizure. If
you need more than that, you’ve probably bitten off too big a bite and should
look elsewhere for a port to seize.
There is also the practical concern that 10,000+ men crammed
into the relatively small area of a port is beginning to get too physically
crowded to be practical and would offer an enemy too concentrated a target.
In addition, one brigade (3000 men) should be dedicated to
specializing in the secondary missions.
Add in a 50% extra troop level for logistic support tasks
and you get a total troop strength of around 34,500.
Division Unit Types
- 3x Assault Brigade
- 1x Construction Battalion (300 troops) specifically
dedicated to port clearing and initial repair
- 1x Construction Battalion (300 troops) dedicated
to road construction and repair to enable landed supplies and forces to quickly
disperse outward
- 1x Harbor clearance and dredging unit
(specialized vessels, 100 troops)
- 1x MCM – land (100 troops)
- 1x MCM – sea (100 troops)
- 1x Recon Drone Company
Equipment
- Self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (think ZSU)
- Self-propelled anti-aircraft missile units
- Mobile C-RAM
- Mobile EW
- High speed landing craft with capacity for two
squads
- Amphibious tank like LVT(A) for anti-personnel
and anti-building and anti-fortification
- Small, very fast, very maneuverable assault
helos carrying one squad each; very fast
insertion/unloading/departure (think Vietnam Huey) unlike current helos and
V-22
- Specially designed, high speed attack transports
- Lots of self-propelled mortars for use in urban
areas requiring indirect fire.due to high rise buildings
- Combat Engineering Vehicles for debris clearance
Note some of the things that are not listed as equipment,
meaning that they are not useful or required under this concept: AAV/ACV, fixed wing aircraft, ‘jeeps’,
anything towed
Aviation
This is the big question.
Does a Marine Corps need its own air force? For the port seizure mission, I see a need
for a heavy helo component providing both attack and troop assault
transport. Helos are used for rapid
insertion of troops at key locations in and around the port. Attack helos provide the suppression and fire
support needed to land the ground force from the air and sea.
I do not see a need for a fixed wing component. Fixed wing aircraft are nearly useless for
ground support in an urban area and are far too vulnerable to ground anti-air
weapons. Aerial supremacy is a fixed
wing function but is a Navy responsibility so no Marine aircraft are needed for
that.
A division should have a helo component of something on the
order of 50 attack helos and 50 transport helos. This would require the use of three big deck
amphibious ships.
I’ve often stated that helos are not survivable over the
battlefield. Well, port seizure is an
exception to that rule though only under this specific scenario. The helos must be supported with ground
forces applying relentless attack against the enemy’s anti-air assets. Further, the helos do not fly overland to any
great extent and thus avoid much of the enemy’s anti-air threat. Finally, as described in the equipment list,
the helos must be designed for very rapid insertion, which is the polar
opposite of the MV-22 or any existing helo.
The idea of helos spending time over a battlefield is,
indeed, a non-survivable scenario as is trying to land in giant, open fields
using snail-slow descents and takeoffs as MV-22s are required to do. The helos in this scenario, as in Vietnam,
would use a gut-wrenching drop, a five second unloading, and bounce back into
the air heading directly away from the battlefield. You might want to look at videos of Vietnam
helo insertions to see just what we were once capable of.
One of the reasons helos had such high attrition rates in
Vietnam was that we attempted to use them to insert troops directly into high
threat areas. In this concept, helos
would be transporting troops around the periphery of the battle more so than
directly into the threat. We also
attempted helo ops without much firepower support, depending on surprise to
achieve survivability. For this
scenario, naval gunfire should be used to suppress enemy anti-air fire as the
helos are inserting. Of course, we have
no naval gun support but that glaring weakness is another topic.
Another aspect of aviation is the role of the fleet
carrier. Many people believe that our
carriers will supply ground support aircraft.
Setting aside the fact that we have no carrier based, ground support
aircraft, that is not the role of the fleet carrier. The carrier group’s job is to provide distant
interdiction of enemy counterattacks.
That means preventing enemy naval response, overland troop
reinforcement, cruise missile attacks, air attacks, etc. Typically, this would be done at significant
distances from the landing site and the carrier would not be in range to
provide effective ground support.
Ships
Amphibious Aviation Ship – Looking at the equipment
list, it is obvious that a new type of amphibious aviation ship, geared toward
port seizure, would be needed. The ship
would carry 30+ helos (attack and transport) but not troops. It would be purely an aviation ship – a
landing support carrier. As such, it
would be, conceptually, half the volume and displacement of today’s big deck
amphibious ships. Troop insertion helos
would be supplied and serviced by this ship but would pick up their loads from
the attack transports, as needed, using the same combat-quick ‘bounce’ loading
as for insertion unloadings.
Attack Transport – As we’ve previously discussed, WWII style
attack transports would transport and land troops. Landing craft would consist of around 30
reusable landing craft (think Higgins boat) as opposed to the sinlge use
AAV/ACV. While a well deck is an option,
I would lean towards a WWII style attack transport.
Basing
My Marine force would not function like today’s
Marines. There would be no deployments,
no extended MEU-like cruises floating around, doing nothing, just waiting for
something to happen. Instead, the forces
would embark from CONUS or, possibly, a central base such as in the Middle East
or Pearl Harbor. A port seizure is never
going to be a spur of the moment operation so there is no need for
deployments. The force would be home
based, training relentlessly – nothing else.
Mission
Methodology
The key to the success of the port seizure mission is
speed. This means a rapid approach to
minimize defensive reaction time. For
example, despite knowing pretty much where and when the Allies would invade
Europe, the Germans were still slow to react and were unable to mount a rapid,
coordinated counter attack. Even if the
enemy knows we’re coming, if we can hit fast enough and hard enough (shock), we
can still be successful.
Command
This force would have little need for a top-heavy command
structure. Here is the envisioned
command:
Commandant = General
Staff = Colonels, as needed
Division = General (1x per division, 2x total)
Brigade = Colonel
Thus, the entire force would have a total of 3 Generals and
a handful of Colonels. Hopefully, this
would create a smaller, more focused force.
Missing
What are we currently missing in order to execute my vision
of the Marine Corps? Well, almost
everything! Setting aside the missing
mission, organization, doctrine, operational planning, command and control
structure, and mindset, we lack the following equipment (partial list):
- Large caliber naval fire support
- Amphibious aviation ship
- Attack transport
- Landing craft
- Anti-aircraft vehicles
- Self-propelled mortars
- EW
- C-RAM
- MCM
- Amphibious tank
- Transport helo
- Combat engineering vehicles
- Harbor construction vessels
In short, we lack everything. Almost nothing we currently have is useful
other than largely untrained bodies.
Conclusion
There you have it.
I’ve laid out a coherent rationale for the existence of the Marine Corps
and a description of their mission and what is needed to execute that
mission. Contrast my vision to today’s
Marine Corps vision – to the extent that they even have one. Which one would you like to devote your taxes
to supporting?
___________________________
[1] Following is the text of Title 10, §8063.
Title 10, §8063 United States Marine Corps: composition;
functions
(a) The Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy,
shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and
three air wings, and such other land combat, aviation, and other services as
may be organic therein. The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, and
equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with
supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense
of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be
essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. In addition, the Marine Corps
shall provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the
Navy, shall provide security detachments for the protection of naval property
at naval stations and bases, and shall perform such other duties as the
President may direct. However, these additional duties may not detract from or
interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily
organized.
(b) The Marine Corps shall develop, in coordination with the
Army and the Air Force, those phases of amphibious operations that pertain to
the tactics, technique, and equipment used by landing forces.
(c) The Marine Corps is responsible, in accordance with
integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of peacetime components
of the Marine Corps to meet the needs of war.
Great thoughts here!! I've been struggling with a continued, viable future for the Corps fir a while...
ReplyDeleteSo what future have you come up with for the Corps?
DeleteNothing as indepth as this... but in generic terms, similar. It'd leave EABO far behind, and move away from independent units and back towards grouped assault- port seizure being the main focus. Since there's no support for true amphibious assaults and no likely targets for one... It'd be a variant of the theme.
DeleteAs an aside... putting the Marines back on gate duty at naval stations is a bit overdue. I'd expand that and say that, with the threat of sabotage and homegrown terrorists, perhaps naval base security could be expanded with a rapid response force of Marines at all naval/Marine installations. Somthing like this would've been nice when we had that shooter at Ft Stewart ( and others) recently. The threat of Chinese operatives creating havoc on bases if a WestPac conflict starts should not be ignored.
You cover lots and lots of ground here. Something must be done. I agree the first step is to understand that we should never send anything larger than a blackhawk/seahawk anywhere near an enemy force. Drones, radar guided AAA, and shoulder-fired SAMs are just too deadly to risk huge, slow $100 million helos like the new CH-53K. V-22 are nearly as large. This has been proven in Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteThe 53Ks are valuable for rear area logistics, TRAP, and long-range urgent transport, but they must stop using them for helo assaults or stupid flights with artillery slung. Cut the helo force in half and dammit, no more helo assaults that are SOP for every Marine exercise! Against a peer enemy, most would be shot down on their first attempt.
Helos are rear area support aircraft, not combat aircraft! Even way back in Vietnam stupid helo assaults were a big part of most combat disasters, and that was before SAMs and drones.
I like the bring Marines home and make them the permanent, full time, researchers, teachers and masters of amphibious assault. Nothing says dead on ideas like just making a new repeat, LCAC, H-53 and LCU. Only recently have they hopped onto the army MSVL prototype to see what its all about. (Also really want a mobile mortar)
ReplyDelete"masters of amphibious assault."
DeleteOf course, I'm not calling for the Marines to be masters of amphibious assault ... just port seizure. I see no strategic need for traditional amphibious assault in the near to moderate future. If you do, you need to describe where you see the need. Having a capability without a strategic need is a waste.
"Nothing says dead on ideas like just making a new repeat,"
Now that is masterfully put! I may have to do a post on that.
What would be the examples of direct port seizure? To me, that would be Incheon, but they still came via the nearest beaches. Its probably more relevant in the modern age given the size and number of ports with urban areas.
DeleteWe're still going to need APCs. We're going to be fighting in a built up area that has long sightlines, which means we need protected transport for our troops that is carrying support weapons to assist their assault. I'm a Stryker man by trade: I would not want to assault through a port on foot. The Stryker protects my squad against enemy MG and RPG fire long enough to drop us just outside the objective. With a .50 and a 40mm AGL, it's like giving the squad two weapons teams. It's a clear increase in firepower compared to just being leg inf.
ReplyDeleteIt's baffling to me the song and dance going on with the ACV program. Both entrants were COTS APCs that have a combined procurement number of over 1000 vehicles. This shit works already, it's not rocket science. Just buy more of what the Europeans or Singaporeans are buying.
That's what the LVT's are for at least for something the size of a port. The Marines aren't for breaking out after taking the port that's the army's job.
Delete"We're still going to need APCs."
DeleteNo problem with that. An alternative approach is to develop a purpose built assault "tank" with a very large machine gun fit and a low velocity, howitzer type gun. Such a vehicle would operate with infantry in mutually supportive tactics. I'm not a ground combat guy so I'm venturing outside my field, here!
Wouldn't Bradley's be ideal?? Idk if their size/weight would be an issue though as far as loading and delivery...
Delete"Wouldn't Bradley's be ideal?"
DeleteI don't think so. They lack the heavy punch of a small, low velocity howitzer. That said, this is what the Marines should be doing - conducting actual field exercises to figure out what equipment works, what doesn't, and what doesn't even exist and needs to be developed. Perhaps they would find that a Bradly is perfect for the job ... or perhaps not. Instead of floating around on endless, pointless deployments they should be constantly experimenting and conducting exercises and evaluations and developing doctrine and tactics.
"Wouldn't Bradley's be ideal?? Idk if their size/weight would be an issue though as far as loading and delivery..."
DeleteNot really. Their amphibious capability isn't meant for crossing seas, it's for crossing calm rivers - and after the BUSK upgrade, all Brads are essentially ground bound, because the BUSK ERA package physically blocks the flotation pontoons from deploying. Stryer, Terrex and SuperAV don't have that problem because they can float purely from their hull design.
Am I biased because I am a Stryker man? Maybe, lol.
"No problem with that. An alternative approach is to develop a purpose built assault "tank" with a very large machine gun fit and a low velocity, howitzer type gun. Such a vehicle would operate with infantry in mutually supportive tactics. I'm not a ground combat guy so I'm venturing outside my field, here!"
This is actually quite similar to the original genesis of the M10 Booker. It's armored enough to tank RPGs and IFV autocannons, while carrying a 105mm gun and machineguns for infantry support.
The problem as I see it is that if you want to get any effective armor on a tank, it can't swim, and if it can't swim and has to be carried on a landing craft, there's not really that much point in designing a new tank over the Abrams we already have. My understanding of the LCAC is that it's limited by both size and weight, and while you could kinda fit 2 Bookers for the weight of 1 Abrams, 2 Bookers takes up more space than an Abrams.
There was a lot of whining about the Booker, but it was always meant to go to the Infantry Brigades, people who had no tanks at all, so that they would have organic fire support of their own, letting us keep the real tanks concentrated in the Armor and Cav divisions. Honestly, I feel the Booker makes a lot more sense for the Marines rather than buying Abrams (but of course, it didn't exist 30 years ago, when the Marines were doing their Abrams buys).
When you say fast helo insertion and mention the UH-1 Huey isn't that more to do with current training than the capability of current helo's.
ReplyDeleteSH-60's and UH-1Y's stripped down a little should be able to the same thing and are both already faster than the relatively slow original UH-1's.
If weight is the issue how about AgustaWestland AW159 Wildcat's they are a good 2+ tonnes lighter empty than either the SH-60 or UH-1Y.
Wildcat has just 6 pax capacity
Delete"both already faster than the relatively slow original UH-1's."
DeleteThe speed that matters is combat unloading speed. Drop like a rock, unload in 5 seconds, and bounce back into the air to haul ass. An SH-60 just can't do that. Don't know about the UH-1Y.
Squad helos like UH-60 and UH-1 can unload faster for two reasons: they're carrying a smaller number of troops, and the troops are closer to the exit doors. And, if you really need to unass quickly from a Blackhawk or a Huey, you can pop open the side doors and have troops sitting in the open doors, ready to drop out.
DeleteWith platoon helos like Chinook and Sea Stallion, you've got 30 dudes who have to exit down one ramp, which is what slows you down.
"The speed that matters is combat unloading speed. Drop like a rock, unload in 5 seconds, and bounce back into the air to haul ass. An SH-60 just can't do that. Don't know about the UH-1Y."
Skill issue on the part of Navy pilots. MH-60S Knighthawks are cargo haulers to replace the Sea Knight. MH-60R Seahawks are ASW helos. Neither train for this sort of fast dustoff.
Army UH-60 Blackhawks, which are more or less the same airframe as the Knighthawks, have no issues with this sort of quick unloading, because Army pilots train for these sorts of flight profiles.
The Normandy landing was june 6, Cherbourg (the only significant port nearby) fell the 26th, and was not really usable till mid august (mines, demolished quays, sunken ships ...etc.). Supply had to be done through the beaches for nearly 10 weeks.
ReplyDeleteThe war had been going for 5 years, the coast was heavily fortified, the german garrison in Cherbourg was around 21,000. And the distance to GB was around 150km, similar from mainland China to Taiwan.
The Marine force you propose is coherent with the current world, ie. limited operations on unfortified coasts / ports. Of course the chinese would design something much bigger.
Much of the German garrison was non-soldiers. The port began use at the end of July and ramped up from there as it supplied the push across Europe. The Marine force I envision would have been perfectly adequate to seize Cherbourg and its immediate seizure would likely have prevented much of the subsequent damage by the Germans. In fact, the Allies seriously considered doing a direct assault on Cherbourg but opted not to. I've never heard a really good explanation as to why they decided not to. That would be fascinating.
Delete"coherent with the current world, ie. limited operations"
If you need more than two divisions of a dedicated, fully equipped port seizure port then you're into a Normandy scale assault. Seizing an isolate port does not, AND CANNOT, require much more than two divisions because there simply isn't physical room for more. The same applies to the defender, by the way. A port has only a finite volume of defensive space available.
I think one of the reason is that Cherbourg is at the end of the Cotentin peninsula which is # 30km wide. A force landing in Cherbourg could have been bottled up. The actual landing was further north on a wider front giving access to the whole of the Normandy coast (of course it was not so easy with the "bocage" and the numerous streams).
DeleteThe fact that the Allies decided to land on beaches and not ports was a surprise for the germans. But it should be noted that the large ports (from Dunkerque to La Rochelle) ie. the Atlantic "festungen" took a long time to be seized.
And I totally agree that in peacetime 2 divisions should be sufficient for the USA
Delete" A force landing in Cherbourg could have been bottled up."
DeleteOperationally irrelevant as the seizing force would have had no reason to go anywhere! You can only be "bottled up" if you have somewhere you need to go or supplies you need to keep fighting and, once having seized the port, the supply issue would have been solved!
I suspect - with no evidence to support me! - that surprise was the more likely reason for choosing not to seize the port directly.
"in peacetime 2 divisions should be sufficient "
DeleteThis is a war force, not a peacetime force. If you think it's inadequate during war then tell me what war mission(s) would require more troops.
Operationally irrelevant ? I beg to disagree. This was about Overlord. The objective was not to seize a port per se (like the canadian raid in Dieppe), but to invade. As such, being bottled up is a valid concern.
Delete"objective was not to seize a port"
DeleteYou need to study your history. The entire point of the Normandy assault was to seize the port of Cherbourg in order to support the drive across Europe. The fact that the Allies chose to accomplish it indirectly via landings at Normandy rather than directly is an operational choice. The Normandy landings would likely have occurred regardless. The only question for planners was whether to also directly attack the port or do so indirectly. They chose the latter and one consequence of that was that the Germans had time to destroy much of the port facilities.
Overlord was intended to seize a port. No port, no sustained drive across Europe. Hence, my emphasis in the post on port seizure as the Marine's main mission. Desert Storm was a perfect example of the mandatory importance of a port(s) to support large operations. Fortunately, we didn't have to seize a port, we already had friendly ports (one of many strategic failings on Hussein's part).
The size is too small. Brigade should be closer to 4500 men (5 battalions: 3x Inf, arty, logistic, about 6 companies: comms, combat engineers, UAS, C-UAS, EW, APC and etc). Division is closer to 18 000 size incl. aviation and logistic.
ReplyDelete"The size is too small. "
DeleteThe size and force structure is perfect for the mission. You're simply describing conventional army force structure.
Sure. For some reasons combined arms brigades looks very similar all over the world! 3000 size brigade means you lack of infantry or support troops or both for doing brigade job. It is like small crew of LCS.
DeleteMissing a third type of ship? If the troops are landing in Higgins boats or very fast by air, how are the larger items arriving since we're not relying on large helicopters? Don't we still need landing crafts and the ships that bring them into the fight? Or smaller ships that are the landing crafts that can make the longer journey?
ReplyDeleteThe WWII attack transports (APA) carried a variety of different size landing craft, not just Higgins boats. They included LCM, LCVP, and LCPL. The attack transports managed to get all their cargo ashore without needed massive landing craft or heavy lift helicopters. In addition, larger landing ships such as LSTs and LSMs helped provide heavy cargo lift. There's no reason why modern LSTs and LSMs or LCUs can't participate in an assault though not as part of the initial wave. Finally, if we have cargo too heavy for a landing craft, such as an Abrams tank, perhaps we have the wrong cargo? Perhaps we should have a purpose-built port assault "tank" that is much lighter and smaller? We had such a vehicle in WWII, the LVT(A).
DeleteUnless the marines are attacking a country that has no drones, missiles or artillery, this will never work. Just watch a few videos of the war in Ukraine to see what modern warfare actually looks like. And even the Third World Houthis managed to chase the USN out of the Red Sea.
ReplyDeleteYou understand that the Marines don't just show up alone right? And that there would be preparations including gaining air supremacy, and a countering/deletion of a large part of those threats before they ever come across the horizon....
DeleteThe videos from Ukraine aren't half as informational as you might think, and most of the "lessons" ... just aren't lessons, just examples of both sides enabling each other through bad choices.
As far as being chased from the Red Sea... thats ridiculous.
RE: the amphibious tank.
ReplyDeleteGiven that an amphibious tank is unavoidably going to be a compromise between the characteristics needed to move through the water and the characteristics needed to operate on land, I wonder if it might be better to just have a tank optimized for the land mission and a landing craft appropriate to carry one of them, optimized for the water part of the mission?
Are you looking at this from a CONOPS perspective? In other words, what/why is a tank? The Army has settled on the monstrously huge Abrams for moderately open land warfare. Now, what/why is a Marine tank? Well, they don't have one so what kind of "tank" do they need? Presumably, not an Abrams. If they need Abrams, then just call in the Army and let them do Abrams/Army things. The Marines, according to my proposed force mission, need a port seizure "tank" which, to my mind, entails a combination fortification/structure breacher and an anti-personnel vehicle. They need to be able to knock down structures and kill infantry! That's nothing like an Abrams. The Marines need a low velocity, large howitzer (like the WWII LVT(A) with a heavy machine gun component added.
DeleteYou seem like you're trying to solve the generic "how to get an Abrams ashore" question without first asking whether an Abrams is even needed!
The WWII LVT(A) is nearly the perfect answer. Update it, maybe add some modern armor and it's done.
After the Dieppe fiasco the British designed exactly this tank and used it on D-Day to eliminate German pill boxes and other obstacles to a successful infantry advance.
DeleteIt was called the A.V.R.E. - Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers and was based on a Churchill medium tank chassis. It carried a 12” spigot mortar which fired a very heavy low velocity demolition charge the size of a garbage can.
They used a similar design in the first Gulf War based on the old Centurion MBT, but with an even heavier howitzer gun as the main armament, along with a couple of MGs.
Quite successful as I understand it.
Yes, the AVRE is a good example. Of course, the AVRE was about 3x the weight of the LVT(A) and wasn't amphibious so that must be considered.
Delete"You seem like you're trying to solve the generic "how to get an Abrams ashore" question"
DeleteWell, not really. I'm actually just channeling your frequently expressed view that trying to design something that does multiple more or less unrelated things is likely to result in a product that isn't optimal for ANY of those things. I'm not saying that the Marines need an Abrams. I'm just suggesting that the requirement of operating in the ocean, with waves, and at reasonable speed, and with the ability to get through the surf, is a completely different requirement than what is needed once it's on land, so there is a risk of compromising the REAL (that is, what it's actually there for) requirements in order to achieve the water requirement.
If you are saying that the on-land requirements are simple enough that they can be fully met while simultaneously being an effective on-water platform, then fine. It's just that recent attempts to do that sort of thing (LCS, F-35, etc) have produced underwhelming results.
Note the Chinese ZTD-05 IFV and ZBD-05 assault gun. They've had to make strict compromises to size and armor in order to be able swim ashore. The armor is rated purely against machinegun fire, with almost no RPG protection.
DeleteBut well, some IFV and some assault gun is better than no IFV and no assault gun.
"If you are saying that the on-land requirements are simple enough that they can be fully met while simultaneously being an effective on-water platform"
DeleteWhoa! There's a huge difference between an "effective on-water platform" and a barely adequate on which is possibly what I'm proposing. The WWII LVT(A) was a barely adequate water platform that was capable of a short swim ashore. It was not, by any stretch, an effective water platform. It wasn't fast in the water. It wasn't maneuverable in the water. It couldn't fight from the water. It could swim a short distance and that was all.
Your analogy to the LCS/F-35 is incorrect because those platforms attempted to be fully effective at multiple, largely incompatible functions. In sharp contrast, the LVT(A) made no attempt to be fully effective as a water platform. It was just barely adequate enough to get ashore more often than not. See the difference?
"They've had to make strict compromises"
DeleteCompromises compared to what? A monstrous main battle tank? Well, duh. But that's not what an amphibious assault force needs in the initial attack. They need a small, anti-fortification/anti-personnel vehicle that can be procured in large numbers, stored on ships in large numbers, and get ashore with minimal extra support. That need is NOT a main battle tank. That need actually describes, pretty well, what the Chinese have developed.
Once the beachhead has been established, main battle tanks can be landed from LSTs or whatever to support the inland operations.
Compared to a main battle tank? Sure, it's compromised.
Compared to the need? Pretty much spot on!
"Compromises compared to what? A monstrous main battle tank?"
DeleteI was actually comparing the ZBD-05 to it's PLA Ground Forces counterpart, the ZBD-04 IFV. Specwise, the ZBD-05 is objectively compromised to the ZBD-04 in terms of firepower and protection:
- The ZBD-04 is more heavily armed, with a more powerful 30mm autocannon carrying VT fuse HE-frag rounds and a 100mm gun that fires HE rounds and GL ATGM; the ZBD-05's 25mm autocannon has only impact fused HE, which gives it a lower killing radius and suppressive effect against fortified infantry.
- The ZBD-04 is more heavily armored: it has thicker hull armor and can mount ERA arrays to give it protection against 30mm autocannons and RPGs, meaning that the opposition has to use heavy tank-killing ATGM (Javelin, TOW, Kornet) to kill it, and outside the US Army, these weapons are company level weapons. Conversely, the ZBD-05 can be killed by squad-level RPGs like LAW and the classic RPG-7.*
The ZBD-05 does have a clear advantage over the ZBD-04: it has a larger troop bay, carrying 8 soldiers instead of the ZBD-04's 6.
The point I'm making is that we need to recognise that it is necessary to make compromises to achieve an 80% result, instead of refusing to compromise in pursuit of a 100% solution that has a 0% result because it can't be made (the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle springs to me). Some IFV is better than no IFV. The ZBD-05 is less armored and less armed than the ZBD-04, but it carries more troops and it can swim a reasonable distance. They couldn't fit both an autocannon and a 100mm gun onto the same platform, so the compromise solution is to split into separate vehicles: an autocannon-carrying IFV and an assault gun.
*To explain further: RPG protection isn't just beneficial to keeping the IFV alive long enough to suppress the defending squad, it also complicates the tactical picture for the defenders. Heavy ATGMs like Javelin, TOW, Kornet, Spike, and HJ-12 are company-level assets for the infantry**: their numbers are quite limited, and the company commander keeps them in reserve to deal with enemy tanks. As a result, these weapons are tactically less responsive, and the enemy company commander is faced with a dilemna: if he uses these weapons on the IFVs now, he won't have them when the enemy tanks attack; BUT, if he doesn't use these weapons now, the IFVs will deliver their troops and his positions will be overrun.
China unveiled their new 8x8 APC at their national day parade last month. Reportedly, while the majority of units are going to PLA GF formations, to replace their older 8x8 APCs, PLA Marine Corps will also be procuring these vehicles as replacements for the ZBD-05 and ZTD-05, which are coming onto a fleet age of some 20 years.
DeleteChina copied EMALS from us, and now they're copying the ACV program.
" the ZBD-05 is objectively compromised to the ZBD-04"
DeleteI don't know for sure what missions the two have in the Chinese way of thinking but in the US scheme, those would be two completely different mission sets. An amphibious assault anti-fortification/anti-personnel vehicle has a completely different mission set than an IFV. An IFV provides protected transport with fire support. An assault vehicle is a "knock down the wall" machine. Two different mission sets. There is no valid comparison and, therefore, no compromise. A compromise would be if we had an anti-fortification/anti-personnel LAND vehicle and then we stripped capabilities from it to make an amphibious version.
"they're copying the ACV program."
DeleteGiven how well the ACV program has worked for us, we should encourage them to copy it !
There's a bit of nuance here that needs to be understood for a fuller picture.
DeleteBoth vehicles have the same role and mission set. Both are IFVs meant to transport troops to the battlefield and stay on site supporting them. The chinese themselves use the same term and classification for both the ZBD-04 and the ZBD-05.
It's the ZTD-05 that's the assault gun - note the 105mm gun, which is a larger caliber than the ZBD-04's gun, which is a low velocity gun really only meant for GLATGM. The 105mm gun is a licencesed copy of the Royal Ordnance L7 tank gun, which was the most popular tank gun of the last 50 years. It's fallen off in terms of antitank capability, but it's still an excellent fire aupport weapon, and there exists a lot of stockpiled rounds and industry support. It's a known, mature weapon that makes perfect sense to arm.an assault gun.
Doctrinally, the breakthrough vehicle that knocks the wall down is the tank. But a tank cannot swim. So they have the ZTD-05 assault gun as a tank alternative to do infantry fire support and antitank work with GLATGM (because rifllrd 105mm sabot is not going to frontally penetrate today's tanks).
Comparing the ZTD-05, even withinnits limitations, it's a marked improvement over its predecessor, the Type 63A light tank.
It's actually interesting to look at Chinese sources and the lineage of the ZTD-05, because they consider it a sucessor to the legacy of their earlier amphibious light tanks.
As a note, the Chinese have been moving away from the East Asian year type classification system and have adopted Russian naming conventions, and so type classify the vehicle in the name:
ZBx - troop transport
ZBD - tracked IFV (ZBD-04, ZBD-05)
ZBL - wheeled APC
ZTx - assault vehicle
ZTD - tracked assault gun (ZTD-05)
ZTL - wheeled assault gun (ZTL-11)
ZTZ - main battle tank (ZTZ-99)
"Given how well the ACV program has worked for us, we should encourage them to copy it !"
DeleteNo idea how amphobious the Type 22 APCs are, but it looks a lot like centralising and consolidating of industry and procurement - with all their modernisation needs, there's just not enough slices of the procurement pie to go around. It's not an inherently bad idea, but it could also just be the navy being forced to accept a joint program with the army as.a compromise for getting their big ticket items, because they have a lot going on: their next CVN, their naval fighter development, the follow on for the Type 55 destroyers, their missile programs, laser development...
It's probably necessary to rethink the bigger picture of where the Marine Corps fit in given the hand that they've had in the middling outcome of the entire JSF program ...
ReplyDelete"bigger picture of where the Marine Corps fit in "
DeleteThat's what this post was about - describing a new place for the Marines in the US military structure.
Do you have a different view of where they fit or did I misunderstand what you meant?
The Number One purpose of any Marine Corps/Foreign Legion, etc... is to police the empire during peacetime. This is true of the USMC as well.
ReplyDeleteThey were designed from the beginning to be the "Private Army of the Secretary of State" to win the peace. Their peacetime role should be their primary focus, because it's the only reason the CONTINENTAL Congress created them in 1775, under pressure from the Knights of the Golden Circle.
This all changed in 1932 when FDR created the Good Neighbor Policy and ordered the Marine Corps to begin preparing amphibious ops for War Plan Orange. Ever since 1945, the Corps has suffered from an identity crisis and a fanatical worship of Iwo Jima because they have forgotten their original purpose.
Well, that's a fascinating perspective ... that I don't agree with or, perhaps, find to no longer be relevant ... but it's well worth discussing. A Marine Corps whose primary focus is peacetime operations is a radically different concept and would result in a radically different force structure and size than today's Corps. What would you suggest is the ballpark size and structure of such a Corps? How would they deploy to trouble spots since it would be difficult to justify a 30+ big deck amphibious fleet for purely peacetime activities? Would they need/justify an aviation component? Please expand on your thoughts! I'm genuinely interested to hear more about this.
Delete"Corps has suffered from an identity crisis and a fanatical worship of Iwo Jima"
DeleteAnd yet, they have publicly stated on multiple occasions that they are now out of the amphibious assault business. What do you see as their view of their primary role today since they've stated it isn't amphibious assault? Or, do you believe, as I do, that they're currently lost and floundering and do not have a role they can clearly articulate?
You have asked for a 15 page document. It won't fit in the comment section.
DeleteBut yes, the USMC has been adrift, and stumbling around looking for relevance, since WWII.
A short study of the founding dates of the Marine Corps of Spain, then Portugal, then the Dutch, and then the Royal Marines will give an idea of what their true role is supposed to be. The founding dates for the French Foreign Legion and the Spanish Foreign Legion will also help complete the picture.
I haven't studied the world's marines in great detail but my impression is that they were all founded to support naval operations, chief among them ship defense and land (amphibious) operations. Recall that at that time, there was not really any such thing as peace. Countries were constantly in a state of war, sometimes flaring and sometimes ebbing. The limitations of transportation speed and communication meant that a company of naval marines on a ship were often used for attacks/raids against enemy's land sites. Hence, the foundation of most marine organizations was, indeed, amphibious ops, in large measure.
DeleteThey were all started as each country acquired, or sought, overseas possessions and empires.
DeleteIt should be recalled that until recently, Armies were raised for short times and mostly to defend the homeland. Armies preceded nations and even kings. And Armies will be here after all the nations and kings fall. They are always just the men of the nation, 16 to 65, defending what is theirs. Marines or Foreign Legions fight for other reasons. They don't fight for the nation, but for the nation's "interests".
This is easier to see in the names of the UK forces. It's the BRITISH Army, and the ROYAL Marine Corps. The ultimate sovereign power of each is completely different.
Our Marine Corps was raised at Tun Tavern for one task: Not to defend the 13 colonies, but to seize the entire Caribbean, and eventually the rest of the "Golden Circle" from the British, French, and Spanish empires and create a new empire... ours. The Tun Tavern Marines were to start by taking the Bahamas, and all the Royal Navy Yards in the Carolinas (including the Fleetwood at Hilton Head Island). The Navy commander, Capt. Hopkins, failed and was court martialed later for his trouble. Our Founders had big plans from the very beginning.
Closely reading Smedley Butler's book, "War is a Racket" and the old Marine Corps "Small Wars Manual" (the original Counterinsurgency Manual) should give one the general idea. Every Marine officer should be comfortable with both. Every US Army officer should be disgusted by them. Two completely different missions and two completely different worlds during "peacetime". That's why they required two different services.
Until 1945, the State Dept/Office of Naval Intelligence and Wall St. and the Marine Corps were tightly linked (Especially during the days of 'Dollar Diplomacy').
One to get the intell & the blackmail, one to strip the assets & launder the profits, and one to do the dirty work.
Today that team is now the *civilian* CIA, Wall St., and Organized Crime to do the same tasks.
Hence, the identity crisis the Marine Corps has suffered for decades.
During wartime, the task is easy: Scale up the Corps to as many Divisions as you can and assist the Army (use the Army's TOE for Inf. Div) in Europe, or in the Pacific, seize Naval Bases for our merchant fleet. Your TO&E ideas are great.
PS: However, I do think the Marines should have an Air Wing. Helos like you described, but also simple, prop driven CAS & Observer/Elint aircraft. Let the USAF and Navy Air do everything else, but the Marines should have dedicated close air support & transport aircraft for their adventures in the 3rd world. The old C-123 is a perfect jungle jumper for what they need. Of course, during a real war... all that changes.
PPS: I realize I sound negative about the Marine Corps' peacetime mission, but it doesn't have to be. I have ideas how they can also be used in a positive way. Let me know if you're interested.
PPPS: It's Saturday night and I'm 3 bourbons in, so I hope this was all clear. I'm glad to get your feedback. Cheers, CNO. Keep doing what you're doing. We love it.
Great discussion.
DeleteIn olden times, the Marines/Sailing Navy could, and did, make their own diplomacy as they went since they were out of touch with Washington. Raids, by all countries, were commonplace and an accepted component of diplomacy. So, that constituted a valid peacetime (semantics aside) mission. Today, armed intervention without a recognized war (whether declared or not) is extremely rare. Thus, a peacetime Marine Corps mission does not really exist and certainly nowhere enough to justify the size of the Corps! That leaves only your wartime purpose which, as you put it, is to "Scale up the Corps to as many Divisions as you can and assist the Army". The implication of that is that the Marines are simply an Army "reserve" in waiting. If so, merge them into the standing Army and eliminate the overhead, duplication, and waste of maintaining a separate Corps that exists only to become the Army when war comes.
"I have ideas how they can also be used in a positive way."
DeleteTell me! ... or write a guest post.
I would love to submit something for your approval. Just let me know how.
DeleteBy the way, CNO: I absolutely agree with you on the peacetime size of the Marine Corps. I would have it the same size as it was before WWII. About 40,000 men & officers. That's all that is needed. Much smaller, much more "commando", and much more focused on COIN.
DeleteOne last point: Notice the Marine Corps is the only US service with a peculiar line in its Mission Statement. After covering all the standard stuff about the Naval Infantry mission, Ship Security, etc... It ends with this:
"Perform such other duties as the President may direct."
Almost a throw-away line, but I think it about covers the true purpose of the "peacetime" Marine Corps.
"I would love to submit something for your approval."
DeletePost your email address in word form, like: "example at something dot com"
When I see it, I'll immediately delete it and then contact you.
@Big Bill, I've sent you an email.
DeleteThis will probably set off a fire storm, but I would just disband the Corps. and transfer the appropriate units to the Army, and Navy (ground/air). Let the Army establish several specialist amphib brigades that can be used for port seizure and river crossings. They're going to have to come in at some point to relieve the lighter assault force, put all the expertise and command structure under one branch. The Navy can stand down most of the amphib force (active reserve) and keep a hand full of ships on active duty for exercises in home waters. No more endless cruising around. As a plus to the amphib troops, give them a special status like the airborne/ranger and mountain units.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify, disband is not the correct idea I was suggesting but a change of ownership if you will. The Navy will divest itself of the Corps. and concentrate its efforts and resources on all things oceanic, and the Army takes control of the Corps. and all things ground operations. I would leave the ground units as is and split up the air element to whoever needs what. Continue to call them Marines ( same uniforms, specialist vehicles, etc.). It might take a few years for everyone to fit in together, but it would be interesting to see what new idea's and CONOPS might result from such a union.
DeleteSemantics about "disband" aside, I agree 100%. The Marines, currently, offer no unique benefit to our overall military. They could, if they adopted my post proposal, but they won't.
DeleteThe Marines should return to traditional naval roles that don't excite Generals. Take over Navy MP (Master at Arms), take over the Navy V-22 squadrons that provide COD to carriers. Take over the Navy's odd reserve C-130 squadron. Provide the much needed CH-53Ks for Navy minesweeping. Take over the Navy Spec ops helos (MH-60S) role. This would free over 10,000 sailors for ship duties.
ReplyDeleteIf the Marines care to land on defended beaches in the future, they should know their stupid ACVs will be blown out of the water by drones and anti-tank missiles long before they reach shore. Marines need to modify high speed hydrocraft to carry ten men each that are 20 times faster. Here is video:
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/UcmIRSAYmk0?t=301
It's a good thing in calm water. On the waves your spine will fall apart!
DeleteThis is a really thought-provoking post.
ReplyDeleteWhat to do with the Marine Corps? And a creative solution provided.
My thoughts on how to utilize a marine corps are much less innovative.
I would see the Marines as part of the spectrum of land forces available to the Dept of War.
The Army would have the armor, mech infantry, Stryker infantry, air assault infantry, airborne infantry, rangers, spec forces.
The emphasis would be on the armor and mech forces, with smaller contingents of the light infantry.
Making up that shortfall would be the Marine Corps, which would also be naval infantry.
Three divisions of three maneuver brigades each, an artillery brigade, an armor battalion with M10 Booker-like 40 ton medium tanks, engineers, logistics, etc...
Two of the maneuver brigades in each division would be stryker equipped.
The third brigade would be light infantry. The light infantry's job would be, in an amphibious assault, to ride the AAVs into the beach and air assault behind the beach by helicopter. (after that they walk or ride in trucks when not heliborne)
Amphibious assault would be supported by AAVs outfitted with 20mm vulcan guns for suppression and recoilless rifles for hard points.
For really tough hard points....helicopter gunships, CAS, or laser designated copperhead naval gunfire.
Follow-on forces like tanks and stryker via landing craft.
All unloaded from attack transports that can get in close.
Divisions would have towed 155mm artillery, but an emphasis on vehicle mounted 120mm mortars.
Marine aviation would be two things:
1) Helicopters and VTOL aircraft.
2) Fixed wing CAS with navalized A-10s for less permissive environments and A-1 Skyraiders for more permissive environments. If not a permissive environment at all, then no CAS that day.
That should be an effective fighting force that should be able to do the landing and subsequent MOUT fighting that a port seizure would require, and also be effective at other combat in light to mid-intensity conflicts.
Lutefisk
Your description makes it sound like just a detached Army unit waiting to be incorporated into the Army during a war. If that's the case, why wait? Incorporate them now and be done with the additional overhead, duplication, and waste of a separate organization.
Delete"towed artillery"
I'm not a land combat person but everything I've read says that towed artillery is inefficient and non-survivable on the modern battlefield. Everything seems to be shoot and scoot.
The Marine Corps prior to Force Design was task organized based on the mission. I would basically leave the infantry regiments as they were prior to FD. Starting with a pre-FD Marine Corps, I would add a second tank bn. The tanks don't have to be Abrams, but should mount a 120mm gun. The Italian Centauro II or Swedish CV90120 would work. Each artillery regiment would have three 155mm bns. plus a HIMARS bn. The tube artillery should be at least truck mounted, like the Brutus 155 on the Army FMTV 5T. I would also like the infantry regiments to have their own 120mm mortar battery or a 105mm Hawkeye battery.
Delete"Your description makes it sound like just a detached Army unit waiting to be incorporated into the Army..."
Delete:)
As a former army guy I guess my background betrays me.
I know that some posters have mentioned the army assuming that role so I thought about that, training Army units for amphibious warfare.
But I lean towards keeping the Marine Corps instead.
In my vision of the Marine Corps, they would work closely with the Navy...using navy logistics, ships, air cover, and incorporating each other's strengths.
I think of the comment that CDR Chip had made when he said that in Vietnam, the Marines should have been working with the Navy in the Mekong instead of the 9th ID. That makes total sense to me and illustrates the synergy that they should be able to accomplish.
If the Army takes over that amphibious role, those units are going to end up being naval infantry anyway.
And I think the Marine Corps does a good job and has something to offer.
Lutefisk
"...everything I've read says that towed artillery is inefficient and non-survivable on the modern battlefield."
ReplyDeleteI think that in a high intensity conflict I think that is true. But I envision the Marines as a light unit, which would put them in low to mid-intensity conflicts.
The comment that Anon made about truck mounted artillery makes sense too, though.
It all depends on the threat level.
Lutefisk
"The tanks don't have to be Abrams, but should mount a 120mm gun."
ReplyDeleteIf you don't need an Abrams, do you need a 120mm gun?
I think that if you are in need of a 120mm gun, you are shooting at things that the lightweight or middleweight tank is the wrong choice to send into that fight.
If you use a 120mm, that is a lot of weight in gun breech, recoil mitigation, stabilization, and a lot fewer rounds in the magazine.
"...Swedish CV90120 would work."
My plan for a 40-ton tank for the Marines (and the Army as well) would start with the CV90.
I would 'Americanize' that with our systems, drive train, and armor....buffing it up to 40 tons (and visually modifying it to look as much like an Abrams as possible).
But I would put a 105mm gun on it. That should be enough to kill the vehicles that you would expect to encounter.
Lutefisk
"105mm gun on it. That should be enough to kill the vehicles that you would expect to encounter."
DeleteWhat vehicles would you expect to encounter in an amphibious assault - which is the mission you described for the Marines? My vision of an amphibious assault tank doesn't have it encountering vehicles, at all. It is an anti-fortification/anti-personnel "tank".
You seem to be envisioning a tank versus tank battle with, perhaps, lighter tanks?
"What vehicles would you expect to encounter in an amphibious assault..."
DeleteI hope none. That's why they wouldn't need to be in the initial assault waves.
But I really like your port seizure idea, and I think tanks would be pretty important for the advance on the port area, especially in the urban fighting (MOUT) that could be expected around a port, and then holding onto it.
The 105mm gun would be ideal for light armored vehicles, BMPs, and should be plenty adequate for T-62 and older tanks.
If the Marines were to encounter heavier tanks than that, we probably screwed up. But with a DU sabot round, would still have a chance.
The 105mm gun, with a HEAT or HE round, would also be pretty effective against enemy fighting positions or blockhouses, etc.
I would also see if I could squeeze a low velocity, short barrel, low recoil, short range (5k or less), 155mm howitzer in that turret for blasting (obliterating) stuff in support of the infantry.
Lutefisk
I would go with the 120mm. While the armor might not be that of an MBT, it should be able to defeat whatever it encounters. Rather be safe, than sorry. Plus, you never know what you are going to encounter. Regarding "what vehicles you'd encounter in an amphibious assault." I don't expect the landing force to just go a mile or so inland and stop. As an expeditionary force, the force could also do a landing and move inland without doing an actual assault.
Delete"I would go with the 120mm...Rather be safe, than sorry."
DeleteWell, I do agree that overkill is underrated.
But the weight that is spent on the 120mm gun, its supporting structures, and its ammunition is going to come out of things like armor, engine HP, drivetrain, tracks, etc.
Everything is a trade-off.
Lutefisk
@CNO: the purpose of the 105mm gun is as an anti fortification weapon. It's possible to fortify buildings to provide sufficient defense against autocannon fire. That's why tanks carry more HE than they do sabot: they expect to use the bulk of their rounds on fire support.
Delete105mm is in fact the right caliber for an anti fortification fire support vehicle. 20mm suppresses the room, 105mm destroys the room - and then some.
@Lutefisk: plus, going to 120mm reduces your rounds carried, which is always a problem.
Delete" I think tanks would be pretty important for the advance on the port area, especially in the urban fighting (MOUT) that could be expected around a port, and then holding onto it."
DeleteBe sure you distinguish between the seizure phase and the subsequent holding/expanding phase. The seizure phase is the immediate port and, to my way of thinking neither requires nor can actually use a MBT. The holding/expanding phase can certainly use MBTs but they would come from the follow on forces that are enable by the initial seizure.
"Rather be safe, than sorry."
DeleteI say this gently, that is one of the worst design philosophies to have because it implies there is no upper limit. Instead of, say, a 40 ton/120 mm tank, why not a 80 ton/155 mm tank? You know, just to be safe! Or, a 500 ton/16" battleship gun tank? Just to be safe! Do you see the problem? There is no upper limit to "just to be safe". You can always add more, just to be safe. The problem is "just to be safe" means more money, more complex, harder to maintain and repair, fewer numbers, more limited transportation options, etc. The drawbacks far outweigh the benefits.
The proper design philosophy is not the maximum that can be achieved but the absolute bare minimum required to do the designated task. Understanding what that task is, is why a pre-design CONOPS is so vitally important.
"Everything is a trade-off."
DeleteIt's worse than that. Overkill in design doesn't just negatively impact other design aspects, it adds cost, complexity, longer manufacturing time, fewer numbers, etc. Overkill in design is to be avoided at all costs. Ask the Germans about the Tiger tank.
"the purpose of the 105mm gun is as an anti fortification weapon."
DeleteWhy did the Marines choose to go the howitzer route for exactly that task with the LVT(A)?
"Why did the Marines choose to go the howitzer route for exactly that task with the LVT(A)?"
DeleteMy guess, and it is just a guess, is that it was chosen for the soft recoil.
Lutefisk
"Why did the Marines choose to go the howitzer route for exactly that task with the LVT(A)?"
DeleteLVT(A)-4s had 75mm howitzers for superior bunker busting ability versus the original LVT(A)-1 armed with 37mm guns. Also, from an industrial standpoint, the 75mm howitzer was the main pack howitzer that was in use by the US military in that time. It had a lot of industrial tooling and support, and it was an in-service weapon that benefited from existing stockpiles of ammunition, parts and barrels.
Speaking of existing stockpiles, both the 75mm howitzer on the LVT(A) and the 75mm tank gun on the Sherman tank used the same M48 HE shell. The only real difference, when employed in the direct fire role, is that the howitzer's muzzle velocity is less than the tank gun's muzzle velocity, but that's a nonissue with HE, which is velocity agnostic for its terminal effect.
Industrial reasons are why the Chinese chose 105mm for their assault guns, as did most countries today who're making a fire support vehicle on an APC/IFV chassis: the Royal Ordnance 105mm gun is a very prolific and mature gun that benefits from massive industry support and weapons stockpiles. It was the standard NATO tank gun for almost half a century. Even today, we still have a massive stockpile of rounds for it, because we were also one of the biggest users of 105mm. 105mm is a caliber that remains supported by industry. Even the low pressure 105mm guns on the market, the competitor guns to legacy 105mm, are designed to be compatible with the L7's ammunition.
Again, consider the Chinese and the ZBD-05 IFV and the ZTD-05 assault gun. They independantly came to the decision that they needed not just a swimming IFV carrying a 25mm autocannon, but they also needed a swimming assault gun to provide direct fire support and anti-fortification work. (Also, 105mm allows you to carry gun-launched ATGMs for antitank work and for precise longer-ranged shots.)
Now, that being said, if we accept that the gun on our notional amphibious assault gun is only going to be firing HE, it's possible to go to smaller calibers and still be a viable fire support platform. Cockerill has made 90mm guns for decades, and there's also the British 76mm gun on the FV101 Scorpion. The main argument against these two options is that the Cockerill 90mm is European, not in system, and would require us to spend additional costs on lisencing, qualifying the system, and setting up local manufacture and working the teething issues out. The British 76mm is defunt and doesn't exist anymore, but with enough will, we could find the way for it.
But is it worth it going to a boutique caliber, when there's already an existing caliber with tremendous levels of industry support and existing stockpile? That's a question the logisticians and economists will need to answer for us.
"it was chosen for the soft recoil."
DeleteThe vehicle's purpose was amphibious anti-fort/anti-personnel. That would suggest the equipment should be the lightest, smallest "stuff" that would get the job done rather than the biggest, heaviest "stuff" that's available. The WWII designers knew what they were doing. It's us, today, who have forgotten all our design lessons ... a small, cheap, light gun will do the job so let's select the biggest gun we can find just to be safe.
Just FYI, but if the concern about the 105mm is the recoil, it's worth noting that there are a number of low pressure 105mm guns out on the market, like the Centauro's 105mm, the XM35 gun on the XM8 Thunderbolt, or even the low recoil force variant of the L7 that was employed on the Cadillac Gage Stingray.
DeleteOne of the problems with the Stryker MGS was that the Army demanded it mount the full power version of the L7 so that it could fire antitank sabot (against WHAT tanks, nobody knows, as the MGS missed the Baghdad Thunder Run and spent the entirety of its GWOT Iraq and Afghanistan service firing HE at fortifications). It would have been better served with any of the low recoil 105mm offerings on the market.
"LVT(A)-4s had 75mm howitzers for superior bunker busting ability"
DeleteVery nice comment. I'm not a land combat person so I can't assess the options presented but the comment was well written and informative. Really nice piece!
"Be sure you distinguish between the seizure phase and the subsequent holding/expanding phase."
DeleteI envision it as being something like an airborne drop. They seize the objective and hang on until relieved (rescued).
Lutefisk
"Very nice comment. I'm not a land combat person so I can't assess the options presented but the comment was well written and informative. Really nice piece!"
DeleteThank you, I try.
Anyhow, going back to the LVT(A)-4, it just reinforces the point I made earlier: having just autocannon IFVs for our breakthrough force onto the ports and the beaches is not viable, because if 37mm guns couldn't bust bunkers, then 25mm guns sure as hell cant. We have reports from Iraq and Afghanistan of insurgents who had fortified their buildings so hard that the 25mm autocannons of the Bradleys were unable to penetrate, and they had to resort to using TOW ATGMs because they had no tanks available to deliver HE onto the target.
I am belabouring this point a little, but 75mm was the standard caliber of its day. It was the standard howitzer caliber, it was the standard tank gun caliber, and both howitzers and tanks fired the same HE shells. There was massive industry support behind it and a massive stockpile of shells. We have that with 105mm.
@Lutefisk: your remarks about envisioning this as the Airborne reminded me of a conversation with an acquaintance, who's argued to me that for the airborne, a 120mm gun-mortar makes sense for their fire support vehicles, because:
1) 120mm mortar rounds are significantly smaller than 120mm tank rounds,
2) 120mm HE mortar rounds are perfectly fine when used for direct fire support,
3) After the immediate area has been secured, the guns can transition to provide indirect fire support, at which point they behave like standard vehicle borne 120mm mortars.
This seems, potentially, like something that would be of benefit to the Airborne and the Marines, but given we've never run 120mm gun-mortars before, and we have a tendency to want to gold plate our equipment...
I still recall how the M10 Booker was envisioned to be lighter than the 42 tons it ended up being, but it ended up at that weight because IFV protection was demanded of it (30mm autocannon and RPG), and they wanted it to reuse the Abrams turret to save developmental time (instead of designing a smaller, more optimised turret).
Id been thinking about the artillery side of this... and I wondered if fresh versions of previous older incarnations might work. Somthing more along the lines of an open-topped, light weight ( relative to modern guns like Paladin) gun reminiscent of the old WWII M7- or the later M40?? Now this wouldn't be amphibious, it'd be carried ashore by landing craft. I dont know if the weight and ammo capacity penalty of a 155 is worth it... the 105 is probably the better choice. An easy variant of this would be a mounted 120mm mortar. The idea being somthing smaller and closer to 20 tons than 40. To help with sustainability, maybe start towing ammo trailers again(??).
DeleteAlso, while usually the "common platform" idea doesn't work well- I wonder if a common chassis could support multiple vehicles- the 105 howitzer, a 120 mortar, and perhaps also an autocannon variant. All designed to be light and nimble ( maybe even relatively cheap) for Marine ops like this. We'd have to look at size and weight closely to get the maximum amount of them aboard ship, as well as the connectors.
"They seize the objective and hang on until relieved (rescued)."
DeleteSomewhat correct. However, unlike an air drop where the relieving force must fight its way through enemy resistance to reach the air element, the "relieving force" for a port seizure comes in through the port, more or less on the heels of the assault force. No need to fight through enemy resistance. Thus, the "holding on" portion of the assault is a well known and planned for period of time.
Perhaps the gun system we need is a western knock off of the 2B16 Nona K, but SP like the Russian airborne 2S9 (BTR). A rifled 120mm combination gun, howitzer and mortar. Also can fire tube launched ATGM. The Russian airborne has a Fire Support Battalion that provides AT, indirect and direct fires. Using something like the CV90 or ASCOD as the base vehicle we could have a 18-36 SPG unit that provides indirect and direct fires, as well as AT defense (LAHAT). I would also ad a armored rocket battery of 6 MRL ( TOS 1 type) as well. You could get your Brigade fires/ infantry support and anti tank needs done with one multi role unit. (NONA K http; odin.tradoc.army.mil.) for gun description.
ReplyDelete"I would also ad a armored rocket battery of 6 MRL"
DeleteYou seem to now be describing general combat rather than the specific port seizure force needs.
Its just an ace up the sleeve. direct line of sight system (less than 5 km) like the Russian TOS 1. Thermobaric ball buster to take out large area's of resistance or advancing enemy forces in mass till the cavalry ( armor) arrives.
Delete"Russian TOS 1. Thermobaric ball buster to take out large area's of resistance"
DeleteSee my comment below about distances. What you're suggesting might be good for open country fighting, the streets of a port/city may not be suited for it.
Just a general thought for everyone ... in a port seizure scenario, the guns/cannon/artillery/TOW/whatever aren't going to be taking 2 mile shots. They'll be shooting end of the block or closer! How that impacts weapon/sensor choice, I don't know but it's worth keeping in mind.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I envisioned lighter open topped artillery and perhaps simplified autocannon that's more 1940s-60s styled than 2020s. Light and without all the gadgetry. Basically "iron sights" on tracks!!
Delete"...lighter open topped artillery..."
DeleteA concern with that might be the open top in a MOUT (military operations in urban terrain) environment.
The crew would be exposed to snipers, grenades, molotov cocktails, things like artillery blowing up at the tops of buildings, etc.
Just a consideration to keep in mind.
Lutefisk
I could see snipers being a potential issue, but if the enemy gets within pitching range of the artillery, the Marines dropped the ball- they should be mutually supporting....
DeleteI specified open tops to greatly simplify the vehicles. Light front and side armor, like the old Priests. No roof means no lighting, no periscope or camera systems, no NBC systems, etc. Lighter and simpler and cheaper.
Open tops are also hilariously vulnerable to indirect fire, i.e. mortars and tube artillery, which a competent enemy will certainly have.
DeleteVehicles without roof protection will be hilariously vulnerable to mortars and artillery, which a competent enemy will certainly have in stock.
Delete" which a competent enemy will certainly have."
DeleteWithout either agreeing or disagreeing with the idea, bear in mind that ALL weapon systems are compromises and have weaknesses. It all depends how you use them (CONOPS). Our WWII tank destroyers were open top and yet quite effective. If we're going to eliminate from consideration every weapon system that has a weakness, we won't have any weapons!
It should be noted that our open topped tank destroyers were effective i spite of their vulnerability, and this was a specific design tradeoff accepted because their concept of operations assumed that they would be less exposed to enemy fires because the TDs would be engaged in maneuver warfare and would thus be not so static. The reality showed that wasn't the case - the TDs spent plenty of time being strategically static because they ended up acting as infantry support assault guns, while the tanks ended up having to fight other tanks (which is why the postwar army have given up on separate TDs and tanks, and why the modern TD is the attack helicopter, but I digress).
DeleteMany ports are within an urban sprawl, and it is trivially easy for the adversary to find sightlines for recon assets to observe and call in artillery fires on our positions. Troops can dig in and take cover in buildings, vehicles don't really get to do that.
Again, note the Chinese ZBD-05 and ZTD-05, which still have a modicum of protection against artillery splinters.
Type 076 amphibious assault ship has just started first sea trial. This ship will bring marine to a new level giving its EMALS installation. It can carry many different types of drones, from heavy to light plus manned helicopters and amphibious landing vehicles (type-05, etc.).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202511/1348173.shtml
Do you think that US Marine should also build this kind of ship?
Successor of type 05 use unmanned turret:
Deletehttps://interestingengineering.com/military/china-next-generation-amphibious-army-vehicle-unmanned-turret
The War Zone gave more details of type 076 today:
https://www.twz.com/sea/chinas-type-076-supersized-amphibious-assault-ship-heads-to-sea-on-its-maiden-voyage
076 is pretty tall - with hanger and well dock, I suspect its gravity center is also high, especially if well dock is not fully loaded or after landing gears sent out but hanger and deck are still full of helicopters and drones.
Delete"I’ve said, repeatedly, that I don’t see amphibious assaults as being strategically necessary in the foreseeable future"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure. I do remember some of what you wrote previously on this subject, and I reviewed your post on it in 2017. I certainly agree that we won't be doing an amphibious invasion of the Chinese mainland. That would be crazy. And almost certainly not the Russian mainland either. Both for the reasons you gave. For North Korea, I don't see an amphibious invasion as the main thrust. I suppose there MIGHT be a place for using amphibious forces in a tactical way to bypass or outflank strong points on the front line and attack them from behind. But of course this becomes non-feasible since we have no real mine control or naval gun support capability.
In general, I agree that there won't really be a place for launching a major invasion of a great power's home territory by amphibious assault.
However, I do see at least a potential for somewhat smaller scale actions to take back islands that had been seized by the enemy. Since they are islands, an amphibious assault would probably be necessary to take them back.
Here are a few scenarios that seem at least plausible. Some might even approach being likely:
(1) You've already mentioned the Taiwan situation
(2) Suppose the Chinese seized one or more islands in the Ryukyu chain from Japan (that's the chain where Okinawa is). Not uninhabited islands but actual islands with people, assets, and resources on them. Note that the Chinese are already starting to build the case (in statements from certain military leaders and in state owned media, albeit not yet officially from the Foreign ministry) that the Ryukyus don't really belong to Japan. Reasons?
- Perhaps to hold them hostage to coerce Japan into concessions (neutrality perhaps?)
- Allowing their navy to break out into the Pacific
- For the southern most islands, which are very close to Taiwan, to make it more difficult for us to interfere with their blockade and/or invasion of Taiwan.
(2) Suppose the Chinese seized one or more islands from the Philippines. Perhaps the northernmost ones, which are close to Taiwan, again to prevent us from intervening with their blockade or invasion of Taiwan, or to improve their direct access to the Pacific Ocean. Or perhaps Palawan, which is pretty close to their man-made islands in the Spratly chain.
(3) Suppose Russia seized Gotland island in the Baltic Sea from Sweden. Gotland is in a strategically important position in the Baltic Sea. And of course Mr. Putin is constantly looking for ways to split up NATO. Taking a strategically important piece of territory from an actual NATO member without an effective response might just do the job!
Since we have defense alliance treaties with all of these countries, wouldn't we want to have a capability to at least try to take these islands back?
I do agree with your view that we don't need a huge active duty force capable of doing this. We should probably downsize that to a core capability sufficient to develop and maintain institutional knowledge. And to make sure we have at least designs for the equipment needed so it can be built quickly if needed. Although since we have such limited shipbuilding capacity these days, it might make sense to build some extra ships and keep them in reserve, crewed by reservists. In addition, we could use some of the financial savings to rebuild our ability to do mine warfare and naval gunfire!
"I do see at least a potential for somewhat smaller scale actions to take back islands "
DeleteNone of the scenarios you describe really call for amphibious assaults. It is highly unlikely that any of them would be seized and garrisoned by China in any significant way. Far more likely would be China placing small missile/sensor units on the islands similar to the US Marine's concept. In that case, an amphibious assault would not be necessary. Most could be easily and effectively bombarded from nearby shore locations and dealt with by small special forces units like SEALS.
"wouldn't we want to have a capability"
I've stated, repeatedly, that while we have no need to maintain a large, standing amphibious force, we should maintain a small group of Marines and half a dozen or so ships to maintain institutional knowledge about conducting amphibious ops in the unlikely event we need them.
"I’ve said, repeatedly, that I don’t see amphibious assaults as being strategically necessary in the foreseeable future"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure. I do remember some of what you wrote previously on this subject, and I reviewed your post on it in 2017. I certainly agree that we won't be doing an amphibious invasion of the Chinese mainland. That would be crazy. And almost certainly not the Russian mainland either. Both for the reasons you gave. For North Korea, I don't see an amphibious invasion as the main thrust. I suppose there MIGHT be a place for using amphibious forces in a tactical way to bypass or outflank strong points on the front line and attack them from behind. But of course this becomes non-feasible since we have no real mine control or naval gun support capability.
In general, I agree that there won't really be a place for launching a major invasion of a great power's home territory by amphibious assault.
However, I do see at least a potential for somewhat smaller scale actions to take back islands that had been seized by the enemy. Since they are islands, an amphibious assault would probably be necessary to take them back.
Here are a few scenarios that seem at least plausible. Some might even approach being likely:
(1) You've already mentioned the Taiwan situation
(2) Suppose the Chinese seized one or more islands in the Ryukyu chain from Japan (that's the chain where Okinawa is). Not uninhabited islands but actual islands with people, assets, and resources on them. Note that the Chinese are already starting to build the case (in statements from certain military leaders and in state owned media, albeit not yet officially from the Foreign ministry) that the Ryukyus don't really belong to Japan. Reasons?
- Perhaps to hold them hostage to coerce Japan into concessions (neutrality perhaps?)
- Allowing their navy to break out into the Pacific
- For the southern most islands, which are very close to Taiwan, to make it more difficult for us to interfere with their blockade and/or invasion of Taiwan.
(2) Suppose the Chinese seized one or more islands from the Philippines. Perhaps the northernmost ones, which are close to Taiwan, again to prevent us from intervening with their blockade or invasion of Taiwan, or to improve their direct access to the Pacific Ocean. Or perhaps Palawan, which is pretty close to their man-made islands in the Spratly chain.
(3) Suppose Russia seized Gotland island in the Baltic Sea from Sweden. Gotland is in a strategically important position in the Baltic Sea. And of course Mr. Putin is constantly looking for ways to split up NATO. Taking a strategically important piece of territory from an actual NATO member without an effective response might just do the job!
Since we have defense alliance treaties with all of these countries, wouldn't we want to have a capability to at least try to take these islands back?
I do agree with your view that we don't need a huge active duty force capable of doing this. We should probably downsize that to a core capability sufficient to develop and maintain institutional knowledge. And to make sure we have at least designs for the equipment needed so it can be built quickly if needed. Although since we have such limited shipbuilding capacity these days, it might make sense to build some extra ships and keep them in reserve, crewed by reservists. In addition, we could use some of the financial savings to rebuild our ability to do mine warfare and naval gunfire!
Let’s assume our goal is to seize some sea port. This port is part of a town 50000 population, 5x7 km size.
ReplyDeleteEnemy land forces are:
Regimental HQ;
1x light infantry battalion (small arms, RPGs, mortars, land mines);
Local militia about 1000 men (small arms, Molotov cocktails);
1 gun battery (6 152 or 155 mm towed howitzers, 6000 rounds);
1 AA battery (12 manpads, 12 DShK);
1 unmanned system company (5000 FPVs, other UAVs);
Small SOF and EW teams.
Coastal defense forces:
Battery of antiship guided missiles (radar, CP, 4 launchers, 16 missiles like C-802 or Kh-35);
Couple border force’s fast patrol boats; some USVs;
Mine laying capability (civil transport boats, stockpile of more than 100 sea mines, mostly old-fashioned horned ones with dozen modern Italian sea mines).
I think AShM is not a big deal. Combat ships can protect our landing force from them.
But combat and amphibious ships shouldn’t come to beach closer than 15 or even 20 km because it is zone of effective fire of artillery and drones.
No matter how fast landing crafts and any kind of LVTP (ACV) are easy target for FPV drones.
So we need a lot of manned and unmanned combat boats for force protection with radars, EW, lasers, missiles, MGs.
We need UUV unit for MCM.
We need unmanned landing crafts for UGVs (mine clearing, fire support, logistic, casevac role) and UAVs launch.
Of course a lot of UAVs for ISR, attack and logistic is needed.
According ATP 3-06/ MCTP 12-10B (see 5.59) we need at least 2 infantry brigades to seize this kind of port and town. Up to 1/3 of forces should be engineers.
Nothing wrong with army infantry brigade organization.
On division level we need a regiment of unmanned systems (full spectrum of UAV, UGV, USV, UUV).
Maybe it’s reasonable to have combat boats and landing crafts in marine division (not in USN).
"But combat and amphibious ships shouldn’t come to beach closer than "
DeleteYour entire comment is based on the premise that the enemy will be able to operate their assets with impunity, unhindered by anything we do. In reality, if we can't relentlessly bombard the area, suppress enemy fires, shut down UAV ops, clear mines, etc., then we have no business attempting a port seizure.
Consider any of the WWII Pacific island assaults. On paper, the Japanese were quite capable of opposing our landings. They had tanks, artillery, aircraft, strong fortifications, excellent sensor networks, etc. However, we planned for, and destroyed or suppressed those capabilities. The same applies today.
"According ATP 3-06/ MCTP 12-10B"
The urban ops doc you cite is a collection of absolute garbage, unsupported by any logic or reality and does not apply to the concept in this post.
Here is the future of amphibious assaults shown in this new vid from Ukraine. Fast boats with lots of trigger pullers firing shotguns or whatever. ACVs are slow ducks with no defense against drones or ATGMs.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bitchute.com/video/YCCSifUk6nAX
This makes me wonder if either side is actually trying to win or just stay in a never ending conflict!! On one side, you've got a handful of guys with shotguns. Where are they going? How dangerous are they in a boat in daylight? On the other hand, you're sending a barrage of drones, trying to take out this boat with four guys in it. Sure... the drones are inexpensive, but how many did they send for nothing? How many people are involved in building them and operating them, just so they can be wasted on a speedboat with four guys in it. This just gives the impression that it's a clown show...everyone's as worried about making videos as winning the conflict it seems!!
DeleteThat's just a pointless PR video, presented in total strategic and tactical isolation and without relevance.
DeleteDo you really need all those unmanned?
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
Wherever possible, replace humans with drones!
Delete"Wherever possible, replace humans with drones!"
DeleteOK.
It's a nice, humanitarian sentiment.
The problem, as I see it, is that combat is a difficult endeavor.
It requires tactical decisions to be made.
Those decisions must be made by a thinking 'brain' of some sort.
If your unmanned weapons' decisions are being made by a human brain, then you have a controlling link of some kind.
That is susceptible to jamming or some like kind of interference with the controlling signal.
If your unmanned weapon is being controlled internally, then you need some kind of highly sophisticated AI type of processor to make those decisions.
As far as I am aware, that kind of advanced technology does not exist. And when it does, it will be very expensive.
Does all this unmanned really make sense?
Lutefisk
A bit of a strange question in 2025. Before the war, the Russians had wonderful jammers. Each one was carried by three large trucks. "We'll shut down all electronics in Ukraine," they shouted. Where are these wonderful jammers now? Now they use small electronic warfare systems. But all this systems aren't all-killing magic.
DeleteId been very interested to see how well the recent anti drone EW systems coming from the UK and US work. The biggest problem I see with these energy weapons have to be somewhat aimed- that amount of RF energy can't be very indiscriminate. But I think that eventually drones as we see them today are going to be in a very nonpermissive environment.
Delete"Does all this unmanned really make sense?"
Delete"A bit of a strange question in 2025."
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on drones or unmanned.
But haven't the warring parties in Ukraine started using fiber optic connections to their drones so that they can maintain control of them?
That doesn't seem all that practical to have all those fiber optic wires crisscrossing the beach in an operation as complex as an amphibious landing.
Lutefisk
Also to note- even though they are going to fiber optic control so that signals can't be jammed, I'd think that the new antidrone EW weapons are still operating in "just cook it" mode, so those would be no different than the RF guided ones...
DeleteAbout 15 percent of FPVs are controlled via fiber-optic cable. Electronic warfare is one reason. Signal loss near the ground over long distances is another.
DeleteIt is impractical to send people in the first wave on a transparent battlefield.
"Wherever possible, replace humans with drones!"
DeleteWhy? There is zero evidence that unmanned assets will be effective in peer combat against a competent enemy.
"Where are these wonderful jammers now?"
DeleteI have no definitive information about Russian EW one way or another. There is, however, a great deal of circumstantial evidence that Russian "jamming/EW" has proven very effective at disrupting Ukrainian communications, pinpointing transmission sources, disrupting guided weapons, etc.
You may recall that the US has acknowledged that many of the guided weapons we sent to Ukraine have proven susceptible to disruption and been rendered substantially ineffective.
Please read this interwiew with head of the information and analytical support department at the 69th Separate Special Electronic Support Center:
Deletehttps://oboronka.mezha.ua/en/chi-mozhe-reb-zbivati-raketi-kabi-ta-shahedi-interv-yu-z-69-m-centrom-elektronnoji-pidtrimki-306218/
there is lot of interesting information about EW, GPS-spoofing, drones and communication!
"Interview"
DeleteNice article although it didn't really offer any new information. The most interesting quote was this:
"We are currently able to jam 90% of the drones flying toward the city. But the remaining 10% are very noticeable to local residents, especially when 50-100 drones fly per day.
It is possible to create a solid wall against enemy drones, but then many things on our side will not work. This is not so much a question of the amount of equipment as it is a question of interaction between units."
One also has to bear in mind that it is largely propaganda, as well. For example, the various statistics are likely "spun" to give the best possible impression for PR purposes.