Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The need for motorized assets
Zardoz    4/20/2007 2:28:04 PM
I was reading this article (see below) about the need to turn the Army into a mobile infantry He talks about a light infantry unit, being reorganizing as a motorized company because nothing was within walking distance. “Paktika is 19,101 square kilometers, with over 600 kilometers of border with Pakistan” and the motorized unit’s lack of a combat service support system He talks about “As part of the current Army transformation, every light infantry brigade is undergoing a massive overhaul of task organization and equipment to become the new Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT)” My question does anyone thing the Marine Corps will reorg all rifle/weapons companies to motorized unit’s or mechanized unit’s? Thanks Lee INFANTRY THE NEED FOR A NEW CARGO HMMWV By CAPTAIN TIMOTHY F. WRIGHT Mar 9, 2006, 08:08 http://www.trackpads.com/magazine/publish/printer_1636.shtml
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
longrifle       4/23/2007 7:03:27 AM
Is there any good reason - besides cost, of course -  that the Marine Corps couldn't or shouldn't  acquire additional LAVs and integrate them into the order of battle at battalion level?  It seems to me that their battalions would be better combined arms teams if their fourth company was a LAV company instead of HUMV mounted.  The Marine Corps is obviously comfortable with the LAV so why not integrate them into the order of battle at a lower level?

 
Quote    Reply

phrogdriver       4/27/2007 9:06:30 PM
LAVs provide light armored RECONAISSANCE as their primary mission.  While the LAV brings a lot to the fight, its small carrying capacity limits its ability as a true mech infantry platform.  Remember the premium the Corps places on strategic and operational mobility, i.e. the ability to deploy quickly to theater, vice tactical mobility, i.e. the ability to displace quickly once there.  Tactical mobility has been provided by helo assets and to a lesser extent by the AAV.  This will be enhanced by the V-22 and if they ever get the program on track, the EFV.  More armored vehicles mean its harder to get to the fight, even if mobility is enhance when one finally gets there.  Anything else will be on an ad-hoc basis, such as with the purchase of the Cheetah, Grizzly, and Buffalo mine-resistant vehicle derivatives (I've forgotten the name of the new Marine model of these that we are buying a butt-ton of.
 
Quote    Reply

Claymore       4/28/2007 1:42:27 AM

The Marines bought the Isreali Rafael "golan"

 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       4/28/2007 5:10:00 AM
Phrog,

Yes, I understand that the LAV is and has always been used for light armored recon.  My thinking was that the Bradley, M113, and the Stryker all have both recon and troop carrier roles, so I thought the LAV might be acceptable for both roles also.  I know it doesn't hold many dimounts but I'm guessing a fire team will fit, correct?

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics