Jump to content

Kev2go

Members
  • Content Count

    335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kev2go

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

2,843 profile views
  1. Yes their M1A1 have become comparable to M1A2 SEP v2 in hard stats, but M1A1 FEp still behind to the M1A2 SEP v2 when it comes to the digital interfacing, and integrated battlefield management system. M1A2 V3 ( or M1A2C) however certainly is another modernization in electronics and yet another step up in protection to both SEP v2 or USMC M1A1's FEP model, as that has next generation armor configuration and a longer turret for extra layers. Anyways seems like a wasted investment ( even if was a more budgetary modernization as opposed a proper equivalent to M1A2 SEP standards of conversion) now that their tanks are gonna be scrapped. i mean what else can they really do? Long term storage? US can't export them because they never thus far been willing to sell domestic M1's with 3rd gen DU but only with a downgraded export armor package
  2. yea its a shame they still can't have the budget maintain those 3 tank battalions. That was not a large sum to begin with , but just enough to give the corps greater flexibility and their own independent Main battle tank support. The marines had tankers since pacific theater of ww2.
  3. heh if only i didn't already own ( nearly) everything.
  4. This is not a military fault but an issue of foreign policy of not having US addressed Chinese "expansionism". ( Or depending on what perspective you look at more like creating a buffer zone within the grasp of their backyard rather than encroaching on US territory, but of course i digress) Those changes should not involve neglecting and entirely scrapping other units. The USMC should not be forced to sacrifice parts of their left arm to be able to use their right arm. Again the real counter simply to be addressed with strategic positioning and adjusting tactics when nessary and enforcing foreign policy with military if deemed necessary. as you said building airstrips and artificial islands is a compensation for lacking naval carrier group projection capability levels of the USN.
  5. I know they aren't just that. No one said anything about tanks being a necessity in that 1 specific scenario. Do we not recall that USA as a superpower maintains global interests? The world doesn't end with the pacific ocean even if they were to draw down in the middle east by leaving Afghanistan and Iraq to their devices entirely. Neither does Chinese domain end on small subset of islands or a few airstrips in the pacific ocean CHina itself is one big landmass., and its foolish to think that when warfare switches to any landmass larger than those described that armored and artillery units wont find relevance, or forget about about any potential flash point in another region of the world not related to China. its better to have something and not use it, rather than not having something and need it. having deterrents or in this case certain equipment for self independent branch flexibility still matters.
  6. exactly. this. thinking only about China the only nation that any conflict could break out with is asinine. IF anything a conventional war would be a more opportune time to have better use for main battle tanks rather than GWOT which had marines "nation building" or performing "counter insurgency". really this just put the marines in a situation where they will basically at the mercy of asking the US army to detach some armor and artillery that would otherwise be used for army operations supporting another branch's mission, if a situation ever arisen that they badly need it, however given their expeditionary nature that wont always be possible. here are some more assumptions to consider then: And what happens once these small islands are secure? The marines capacity to wage warfare and conduct amphibious spearheads into a larger landmass is now degraded. Tanks have more use in conventional warfare. It would have made more sense for the USMC to scrap their tanks when they were doing low intensity asymmetric warfare against an insurgency or" nation building" in the sandbox. Now those are missions where main battle tanks have limited use. Or what happens if no direct confrontation in the pacific breaks out? What if other conflicts arise? The marines need to be flexible as a global expeditionary force. The Pacific isnt the only region in the world that could necessitate combat deployment of USMC assets. Every politician ever in history has always tried to defended cuts ( or im sorry "restructuring") with "leaner is better". What really going on here is the anything going to the usmc is a cut from the navies budget that would otherwise go to Navy things. The department of the navy would rather " them than us". i guess. The marines have always been in the short end of the stick when it has come to funding to their sister branches, so i guess this treatment is nothing new. In actuality They could still keep their current size, and simply utilize their assets depending on the situation. Its would be better to have support assets like tanks and additional artillery and not need it, than to be in a situation and be with out it. ( although this line of thinking can be applied to anything really). This is still short sighted, as even if your only thinking of China , their domain doesn't end with some minuscule islands in the pacific, but of course budget cuts had to be made in the wrong places. At the end of the day any war with any adversary that can retaliate with a sizable nuclear arsenal is probably not going to be a feasible option. Mutually assured destruction still applies. Most conflicts will continue to be either proxy wars or low intensity conflicts. ( not saying that large conventional forces aren't a necessary deterrent)
  7. Pretty recent official announcement from this month. MOS 1812 ( tank crewman) is now a dying breed. It will no longer be a thing as part of cutbacks and general restructuring. The current marine commandant has made the decision to remove all 3 tank ( M1A1) battalions by 2030. The marines will be without any MBT, leaving them only with light armor ( the likes of the LAV25 and AAV's) Which is shocking as marines had maintained dedicated tank units for many decades since at least ww2, from the pacific campaign. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/03/23/marines-shut-down-all-tank-units-cut-infantry-battalions-major-overhaul.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeNzt-7ZmT8 Among other will be removal of law enforcement battalions, a small reduction in infantry units, and also some small reduction to some aviation units. but also a drastic reduction in artillery battalions ( from 21 to 5). IF you want to trim the "fat" so to speak, really hurting the ground forces with scrapping so high degree of important support assets like Armor or Arty is not the way to go. Unless the USMC brass is trying to copy the UK's Royal Marine commandos ( which they aren't) this new approach is seemingly very short sighted and a poor decision.
  8. an M1A2 SEP variant mounted with Crows
  9. Simulations are also kinda of my thing. I wont complain if complexity persists or increases, because thats what simulations are about. Funny there was once this same discussion and realization among many in the DCS flight sim community with regards to the bolded bit. How many people say they have truly mastered operating all the combat aircraft. ( and jet figters can be argued to be more complex than tanks as particularly in single seat aircraft, the pilot is the sole operator. There is no 3 or 4 man crew), when to day in DCS there are dozens? I myself am only truly mastered in the F/A18 Hornet, and " intermediate level " for most of the others ( owning nearly all modules. In order to retain that "mastery" of a given vehicle, you need to practice, to be fluid in operation. as that is the only jet That being said having already "learn't" many aircraft. when stepping into a new one its always easier to learn, as opposed to the very first time you ever did it. As others have pointed out learning and even mastering an armored vehicle is not the hardest part of the sim, its when you are in single play and have to micromanage AI, hopping in between various tanks and various crew position in a large scenario with the appropriate tactics. that ends up making you feel overwhelmed. Relative to Flight simulation i only worry about having to fly my own aircraft, and not hopping between different aircraft cockpits to change the outcome of an air campaign.
  10. Yea as did earlier leopards. But that's the idea. Mechanical ballistic computer and optical rangefinder for an earlier era.
  11. From what I've read most aps purpose is stricktly in ration to ground basedAnt itank Top attack missiles like the javelin etc? I've always wondered if aps would also have any affect in stopping or at least partially degrading guided muntions fired from fixed wing aircraft like agm65 maverick which travels los, or against a laser guided bomb ( which would come from "top down")
  12. No that cannot be seriously considered a prototype. It's late 2019 not 2015 anymore. It even has an official designation. It's just finishing up finalized testing of what otherwise may as be representative of a finalized product something ready for larger scale production and army use. Considering that additional 100 t14s are to be produced and first of which are going to be entering army hands by 2020 ( ie within 1 year with) based on motions already put into play, then is not what you can seriously call a prototype. There is fine line between prototype and a final product.
  13. A prototype by definition "is an early sample, model, or release of a product built to test a concept or process or to act as a thing to be replicated or learned from" In this case within context "Concept" vehicles that do no represent a completed version or a production standard, are used for general showcasing or for testing out preliminary technologies. or functions, or expanding upon them to which the reach certain requirements, that would be acceptable what is envisioned of a production level vehicle. Vehicles that are actually representative of what would be classified as a "prototype" would be TTB, T80UM2 "black eagle" , or Chrysler XM1. ETC, So The T14 can not be consider a protype or not even really for the BTR82A . T14 is simply just a low rate production vehicle now in service. They simply have not reached mass production that was initially stated, in part due to lack of funding. In conclusion Its its understandable if you haven't modeled interiors them due to lack of accessible information, but please don't miscategorize or misrepresent these as just " prototypes"
×
×
  • Create New...