Our North - SSE Policy Update Megathread

[suffolkowner]

Actually the M1A2 was too heavy. Hence why the USMC never bought into it, but stuck to A1 variants.

deleted my reply lol

I imagine that would be rectified with the SSC landing craft program? Isn't delivery starting this year or next?

looks like its a marginal improvement so still only one MBT

LCAC 70+/- tons
LCM 60 tons
LCU 130 tons

M10 44 tons
ACV 35 tons?

 

[PrairieFella]

I'm not sure we can agree that the intent is clear.

The Booker was purchased to replace the MGS which was, effectively, an assault gun. The scale of issue, one battalion per division allows for one company per brigade and one platoon per infantry battalion. The debate then turns to should the Booker battalion be massed, inviting its use as a poor man's tank, or dispersed to as an a assault gun?

An assault gun for light divs (ie Airmobile). There's little practical application here when used in heavy divs when there are already ample MBTs, maybe as armoured recce WWII style but that seems to have finally been killed with drone proliferation. Beyond that I cant see a use. In terms of massing, if a commander deems fit I can't see why they couldn't. The problem becomes doctrine creep though, sure cowboy battalion and ICBT commanders might think they can be used as tanks and might even succeed from time to time but I sure as shit wouldn't want to be in that assault force going toe to toe with T90Ms in a guard position. They simply aren't designed for tank on tank combat and the 105 has been obsolete in that role for decades.

 

[markppcli]

I'm not sure we can agree that the intent is clear.

The Booker was purchased to replace the MGS which was, effectively, an assault gun. The scale of issue, one battalion per division allows for one company per brigade and one platoon per infantry battalion. The debate then turns to should the Booker battalion be massed, inviting its use as a poor man's tank, or dispersed to as an a assault gun?

I'm trying to understand if the Blackhats in the States are that keen of keeping jobs that they are willing to try to use the Booker like an Abrams.

Not it wasn’t. It won’t be in Stryker Bde’s who were the only used of the MGS.

 

[KevinB]

Not it wasn’t. It won’t be in Stryker Bde’s who were the only used of the MGS.

Arguable. Since the Strykers are now found in both Armor and Light Divisions (which remains to see how the neither fish nor fowl works there).

The Armored Corps down here seem view it as an Abram’s trainer. It has similar FCS and driver controls - so the ability to switch to a ‘real tank’ is much easier.

The previous version of the M-10 was a Tank Destroyer - so with some creativity this sort of is a modern continuation of that idea, with a gun in a sort of armored platform able to hit strong points and light vehicles while supporting Light and Medium Forces.

Now one of the biggest issues is this whole program flies in the face of US Army Light Force Doctrine - which says don’t do shit like that with light forces, and to use complex terrain and mobility to avoid the need for something like that, and that you have Medium (Stryker) and Heavy (Abram’s and Bradley) forces for those sort of fights.

 

[KevinB]

deleted my reply lol

looks like its a marginal improvement so still only one MBT

LCAC 70+/- tons
LCM 60 tons
LCU 130 tons

M10 44 tons
ACV 35 tons?

The LCAC cannot load a combat loaded M1A2 SepV4 tank.

The goal of the M1A3 is 55 tons, with max of 60 combat loaded.

 

[markppcli]

Arguable. Since the Strykers are now found in both Armor and Light Divisions (which remains to see how the neither fish nor fowl works there).

The Armored Corps down here seem view it as an Abram’s trainer. It has similar FCS and driver controls - so the ability to switch to a ‘real tank’ is much easier.

The previous version of the M-10 was a Tank Destroyer - so with some creativity this sort of is a modern continuation of that idea, with a gun in a sort of armored platform able to hit strong points and light vehicles while supporting Light and Medium Forces.

Now one of the biggest issues is this whole program flies in the face of US Army Light Force Doctrine - which says don’t do shit like that with light forces, and to use complex terrain and mobility to avoid the need for something like that, and that you have Medium (Stryker) and Heavy (Abram’s and Bradley) forces for those sort of fights.

I’d argue the modern tank destroyer is a Stryker TOW variant but potato potato.

The M-10 is going to be used like a tank, probably at great cost.

 

[KevinB]

I’d argue the modern tank destroyer is a Stryker TOW variant but potato potato.

Agreed, I would have preferred M-10 assault gun, but we didn’t call them that back when that class existed.

The M-10 is going to be used like a tank, probably at great cost.

110% With any luck it will just be cleaning up after the USAF…

 

[childs56]

I’d argue the modern tank destroyer is a Stryker TOW variant but potato potato.

The M-10 is going to be used like a tank, probably at great cost.

Looking at how Ukraine has employed tanks with lots of hit and run smaller tactics. I wonder if the M10 is a good fit for their style of operations. Fast light, packs a bit of punch and can fire on the move. Instead of sending a 50-60ton tank the booker comes in at 40 tons. We keep looking at warfare as heavy against heavy, medium against medium light against light.
Why, instead have a good support network set up for all three where you can plug and play systems where they are most effective.

 

[markppcli]

Looking at how Ukraine has employed tanks with lots of hit and run smaller tactics. I wonder if the M10 is a good fit for their style of operations. Fast light, packs a bit of punch and can fire on the move. Instead of sending a 50-60ton tank the booker comes in at 40 tons. We keep looking at warfare as heavy against heavy, medium against medium light against light.
Why, instead have a good support network set up for all three where you can plug and play systems where they are most effective.

Ukraines essentially used tanks to roll into fire positions and engage then pull back. I would t really call it hit and run, they’re just rolling to run ups and backing off. A huge part of that is of course their general inability to employ combined arms tactics and need to Shepard resources they have difficulty maintaining.

We aren’t talking about warfare as heavy V heavy, light V light, medium V medium. What we do see is a need to counter the enemy’s capabilities, and the trade off of various force structures. Can a light formation be defend itself from a mechanized one? Yes providing it’s properly equipped. Does that mean it has an M-10 booker? Likely not. Now if you are trying to take ground against an entrenched position, you’re likely going to want to do so under armour, and then you need something that can take a hit.

 

[McG]

The LCAC cannot load a combat loaded M1A2 SepV4 tank.

I thought SEP v4 was canceled to allow development of a lighter M1E3.

 

[CBH99]

Anywhere the USMC needs tanks the Army will be there anyways. That was the rationale for getting rid of USMC tanks in favour of a more agile force.

Except for in Helmand province, where the USMC found itself fighting a relentless enemy without US Army anywhere really nearby. And the US Army that was in country didn't bring their tanks with them...

Both the Dutch and the USMC deployed MBT's to Helmand, and the Canadians next door in Kandahar did as well.

I suspect the USMC's casualty numbers would have been higher if they hadn't brought some tanks with them. But they really shouldn't be used as America's second army like they were when both Iraq & Afghanistan were in full swing, and I do see the rationale in their force composition changes

The next USMC combat deployment will be interesting to see, that's for sure

 

[KevinB]

I thought SEP v4 was canceled to allow development of a lighter M1E3.

Cancelled was an odd word for that released by the PM Shop, more like not fully implemented.

Only about half the fleet will get upgraded to v4, (at this time) while the focus is on a E3 (which will be the A3 if accepted).

The X seems to be the ‘baseline’ concept for the E3, but the goals of a different gun etc are still there.
That said I don’t envy the PM shop as there are a lot of conflicting goals in the E3 that lead me to believe that it’s going to be a ways out, and that we will probably see all the A2 fleet upgraded to v4 before it’s ready.

 

[markppcli]

Except for in Helmand province, where the USMC found itself fighting a relentless enemy without US Army anywhere really nearby. And the US Army that was in country didn't bring their tanks with them...

Both the Dutch and the USMC deployed MBT's to Helmand, and the Canadians next door in Kandahar did as well.

I suspect the USMC's casualty numbers would have been higher if they hadn't brought some tanks with them. But they really shouldn't be used as America's second army like they were when both Iraq & Afghanistan were in full swing, and I do see the rationale in their force composition changes

The next USMC combat deployment will be interesting to see, that's for sure

Dutch didn’t deploy tanks, or operate in Helmand. They were up in Urzugan. You’re thinking Danes.

 

[Good2Golf]

They did it again. Now they are saying it will be long range ground based missiles “to deter threats … at an appropriate range”. Presumably that means shooting down targets before they cross over land mass. (Very big presumption).

Is there an RCAF Regiment in the works? Are we BOMARC’ing again but this time with NGI? What a great way to push defence over 3% GDP with just a single program that will cripple every other project.

We won’t be Finland and acquire Davids Sling, that’s for sure.

Small steps. The fact that they didn’t use a clip-art Su-27 graphic this time is an improvement…

 

[dimsum]

Is there an RCAF Regiment in the works?

Way to get some people here excited…but no.

Are we BOMARC’ing again but this time with NGI? What a great way to push defence over 3% GDP with just a single program that will cripple every other project.

Hey, don’t give the GoC ideas…

We won’t be Finland and acquire Davids Sling, that’s for sure.

Mostly because our friend downstairs will probably push for an RTX option…

 

[KevinB]

Mostly because our friend downstairs, the only guy with actual missile stocks, will probably push for an RTX option…

FIFY

 

[childs56]

Ukraines essentially used tanks to roll into fire positions and engage then pull back.

that is hit and run. Don't forget drive back and forth over the trench.

I would t really call it hit and run, they’re just rolling to run ups and backing off. A huge part of that is of course their general inability to employ combined arms tactics and need to Shepard resources they have difficulty maintaining.

I find it amazing how they seem to conduct small group tactics when the equipment they have are extraordinarily good at larger scale attacks. I dont doubt the Russians artillery capability is always front thought when choosing equipment losses over battle area though.

We aren’t talking about warfare as heavy V heavy, light V light, medium V medium. What we do see is a need to counter the enemy’s capabilities, and the trade off of various force structures. Can a light formation be defend itself from a mechanized one? Yes providing it’s properly equipped. Does that mean it has an M-10 booker? Likely not. Now if you are trying to take ground against an entrenched position, you’re likely going to want to do so under armour, and then you need something that can take a hit.

The booker could fill a role that is being conducted by tanks right now in Ukraine. That is direct direct Infantry support agaisnt mostly infantry and Ifv/ Apcs with medium guns. You can have ATGMS to deal with the few tanks showing up and or keep your tanks further back for cover fire. Or you can use your tanks to directly attack the Infantry trenches while driving on top of them.

Maybe they should by some Israeli merkavas, put some Infantry in the back.

 

[GR66]

If you're going to have a DFS vehicle to support your infantry (in addition to tanks) then why have a completely new chassis like the Booker? Mount a DFS turret on the LAV (something like the Centauro II) to support our LAV Battalions and if we end up getting a tracked IFV like the CV-90 then go with a CV-90120 so you have common chassis across the unit.

As for the Light Battalions I think @KevinB said it well enough:

Now one of the biggest issues is this whole program flies in the face of US Army Light Force Doctrine - which says don’t do shit like that with light forces, and to use complex terrain and mobility to avoid the need for something like that, and that you have Medium (Stryker) and Heavy (Abram’s and Bradley) forces for those sort of fights.

 

[markppcli]

that is hit and run. Don't forget drive back and forth over the trench.

Respectfully it isn’t. They aren’t conducting maneuver, rather they are moving from a hide to a fire position. It’s no more hit and run than moving from the admin area to a trench

I find it amazing how they seem to conduct small group tactics when the equipment they have are extraordinarily good at larger scale attacks. I dont doubt the Russians artillery capability is always front thought when choosing equipment losses over battle area though.

It’s not amazing, it’s a fact of inability to coordinate coupled with difficulty in massing. They’re pushing out assault groups of a dozen with a vehicle or two because that’s all they can coordinate.

The booker could fill a role that is being conducted by tanks right now in Ukraine. That is direct direct Infantry support agaisnt mostly infantry and Ifv/ Apcs with medium guns. You can have ATGMS to deal with the few tanks showing up and or keep your tanks further back for cover fire. Or you can use your tanks to directly attack the Infantry trenches while driving on top of them.

What the Booker can’t do is advance across open ground and push the assault forward. Ie what a tank does.

Maybe they should by some Israeli merkavas, put some Infantry in the back.

That’s an oft quoted capability that’s really not a practical reality. The merkava’s back compartment is storage than can hold a soldier at best. Probably better used to hold ammunition.

 

[childs56]

Respectfully it isn’t. They aren’t conducting maneuver, rather they are moving from a hide to a fire position. It’s no more hit and run than moving from the admin area to a trench

Running upto and over trenches is not moving from a hide position to a firing position and back.
They are advancing, tanking trench and pushing the enemy out or killing them.

It’s not amazing, it’s a fact of inability to coordinate coupled with difficulty in massing. They’re pushing out assault groups of a dozen with a vehicle or two because that’s all they can coordinate.

It's their doctrine modified based on their willingness to take and accept risk/losses.

What the Booker can’t do is advance across open ground and push the assault forward. Ie what a tank does.

Why can't it as part of the all arms combined battle?

That’s an oft quoted capability that’s really not a practical reality. The merkava’s back compartment is storage than can hold a soldier at best. Probably better used to hold ammunition.

They can reduce ammo storage and add 4 or 5 soldiers. Can be more effective the just driving a tank back and forth over a trench