by Tom Clancy
The story of the M1A1 coming into service with the Marines started in the late 1980s, when they ran compatibility trials with the Abrams. Marine Corps requirements had not really been considered when the Ml was being designed and developed by the Tank and Automotive Command (TACOM) in Warren, Michigan. In fact, the Marines have usually had very little to say when it came to the design of MBTs, and the M 1 was no exception. This is not to say that the M 1 was in no way compatible with Marine requirements. It was. But the Abrams was developed to be transported in the C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster heavy transport aircraft, without any particular eye to future use in the Corps. By the late 1980s, though, the obsolescence of the M60 was obvious to the Corps leadership, and moves were begun to bring the Abrams into Marine service.
The major additions and changes to accommodate the Marine mission involved the addition of a fording kit, which provided the M1's gas turbine engine with a steady supply of water-free air. This involved the addition of several tall stacks that are installed whenever the Abrams is involved in crossing streams or other water hazards, or emerging in the surf-line from a landing craft. Plans went forth to begin procurement of a small force (about four hundred) of the Mls to upgrade the Marine MBT force in the early 1990s. The 1990 crisis in the Persian Gulf short-circuited these plans. When it became clear in November that an offensive to evict Iraq from occupied Kuwait would be required, and not wanting his Marines to fight in obsolete MBTs, General Al Gray (the Commandant at the time) requested that TACOM send the Marines in the Gulf an allotment of M1A1 MBTs to flesh out one tank battalion (the 2nd) of I MEF. The 2nd Tank Battalion fought their way through the flaming hell of the Kuwaiti oilfields in February of 1991. Since that time, every tank battalion in the Marine Corps has received the M1. Meanwhile, the Marines procured enough extra tanks to flesh out the embarked tank battalions aboard the ships of the three MPSRONs stationed around the world. The last of these did not come easily, since they were diverted from U.S. Army stocks of the tank. The Army's position was that they needed all of the big iron beasts that they could get, though the diversion of several hundred to meet the needs of the Marines seems a small inconvenience for the Army. In any case, the money for the Marine Abrams program went right back into producing new state-of-the-art M 1A2s, which are much more advanced than the A1 models handed over to the Corps.
The M1A1 model lacks the advanced digital data links and electronics of the later M1A2s, but it has the same heavy depleted uranium armor, special M829 "silver bullet" ammunition, and engines as its more modern brethren in Army service. For the Marines, this is hardly a problem, since they tend to use their tanks in four-tank platoons, and are not in need of the extra command-and-control systems designed into the M 1A2. This is not to say that they may not desire to have some of the more modern versions later on. They might. The new AAAV is planned to have the same kinds of interconnects into the so-called "digital battlefield" planned for the 21st century, so don't be surprised if the Marines don't have General Dynamics Land Systems remanufacture their M1A1s into A2s sometime down the road.
One of the more interesting M1A1 developments has been the first deployment of M1s with the 26th MEU (SOC) in August 1995. This is the first tank deployment with an afloat amphibious unit in almost five years, and represents a new acceptance of the MBT by those who practice amphibious operations. The unit's commander, Colonel Jim Battaglini (whom we will meet later), wanted the edge that a platoon of four M1A1s might give his unit, especially if they were required to operate in the Balkans. This request was based on a careful evaluation of the Abrams's different assets and detriments. On the plus side was the incredible armor, firepower, and mobility that four such vehicles would give him. With its highly accurate and powerful 120mm smoothbore gun, the four tanks would have more gun firepower than a pair of Aegis cruisers with their twin 5-in./127mm guns. After the incredible reduction in supporting firepower that has occurred over the last five years, this is an important reason for taking the 67-ton steel monsters along. The downside of this has to do with the weight issue. That is, each one of the M1A1s weighs so much that a Landing Craft, Air Cushioned (LCAC) can carry only one M1, while a conventional Landing Craft, Utility (LCU) can carry two. Furthermore, both types of landing craft are limited to delivering them in fairly calm seas and surfs. Finally, the M1A1 has a big logistics tail, requiring regular refueling (it gets about 1 mi/1.6 km for every two gallons/7.6 liters of diesel fuel/JP-8 burned), lots of spare parts, and an M88 recovery vehicle. All this is a significant addition to the load carried by an amphibious ready group. Despite the problems, Colonel Battaglini felt the gains were worth the price, and the first deployment with the tanks has been completed successfully. There will be more to follow. For now, though, plan on seeing the M1A1 in Marine service well into the 21st century.
Light Armored Vehicle (LAV)
Back in the late 1970s, the Marine Corps began to be concerned about its lack of a good, general-purpose armored reconnaissance and personnel carrier. What was required was something smaller, faster, and more agile than an MBT like the M60 or a large personnel carrier like the LVTP-7/AAV-7. Traditionally, the Marines have lacked the kind of armored cavalry units that the Army considers essential to its operations, and the coming of large Warsaw Pact armored forces in the late 1970s worried the Corps leadership. They feared that without an armored reconnaissance and screening force, MAGTFs might be overrun before they could be made ready to repel an armored assault. It was in this context that the Marines began a program to build a family of light armored vehicles to support their operations. The requirement was rigorous, because it specified that the winning design would have to be both armored and capable of dishing out enough firepower to kill an enemy armored personnel or reconnaissance vehicle. In addition, it had to be capable of being lifted by transport aircraft as small as a C-130 Hercules, or carried as a swing load by the new CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter. This meant that the new LAV could weigh no more than sixteen tons, and this almost guaranteed that it would have to be wheeled instead of tracked. Thus, the new vehicle would have to be an unusual kind of armored fighting vehicle these days, an armored car. What sets armored cars apart is that they carry fair armor and weapons, but on a chassis only half the weight of a tracked vehicle. In addition, they are very fast on roads and good terrain, though somewhat less so in poor terrain and driving conditions (snow, mud, etc.). Dating back to World War I, they have been used by reconnaissance and screening forces with great success.
A total of eight contractors submitted bids on the LAV contract, with the winner being declared in 1982. The winning team was composed of Detroit Diesel, General Motors (DDGM) of Canada — which supplied the chassis, and Delco Electronics (part of Hughes/GM) — which built and integrated the weapons turrets. The vehicle itself was based on the Swiss Piranha (designed by MOWAG), a diesel-powered, eight-wheeled vehicle which would carry an M242 25mm Bushmaster cannon and an M240G 7.62mm machine gun in the turret. Fast and agile, it would also be capable of carrying six Marines in the rear compartment, thus allowing it to act as a small armored personnel carrier. While it would not be as capable or as sophisticated as the new M2/3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) that was also just coming into service, it would do its job for about half the cost ($900,000.00 at the time). In addition, it would be far more deployable and mobile across a variety of conditions than the Bradley. Because the LAV was based upon an off-the-shelf design, procurement was fast and the first units were in service by the mid-1980s.
So successful was the initial version that a number of variants were procured. All of them were based upon the same basic DDGM chassis, and generally have a driver and commander, as well as gunners and other crew as required by their respective roles. The driver is located in the left front of the vehicle, where he (USMC armor personnel are currently male) steers with a conventional steering wheel. Other controls (accelerator, brakes, etc.) are also fairly conventional, and the LAV family drives very well. All versions o
f the LAV are armed with a single M240G 7.62mm machine gun (with two hundred ready rounds and eight hundred additional stowed) on a pintle mount and eight smoke grenade launchers (with eight ready grenades and eight stowed), and are fully amphibious (with only three minutes preparation) for crossing rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles. The LAV family is driven by a 275-hp General Motors diesel engine with all eight wheels being powered (8X8). Thus, even across broken or steep terrain, the LAV is a very quick vehicle. Speeds of up to 62 mph/99.8 kph on hard-surface roads are possible, while the LAV can swim a calm body of water at 6 mph/9.6 kph. Armor protection might be described as "basic," which means that while it can stop shell fragments and fire from heavy machine guns and light cannons, it will probably not survive a hit from an anti-tank missile or an MBT gun. On the other hand, the LAV's high mobility and maneuverability make it capable of running away from everything but an attack helicopter or aircraft.
There are many versions of the LAV; they include the following:
• LAV-25—This is the baseline version of the LAV, which is equipped with the M242 25mm Bushmaster cannon and a M240G 7.62mm machine gun. An additional light machine gun can be mounted on a pintle mount. The two-man (commander and gunner) turret has 210 ready rounds—150 high-explosive (HE), 60 armor-piercing (AP) — of 25mm ammunition, as well as stowage for 420 more in the rear compartment if troops are not carried. There are 400 and 1,200 rounds of 25mm and 7.62mm ammunition respectively. The weapons are sighted through an optical sight with a light-image intensifier for night operations, though no FLIR system is yet carried. The turret is powered by an electrically pumped hydraulic system, which is fully stabilized so that it can fire on the move. A total of 401 LAV-25s are in service with the Marine Corps.
• LAV-AT— The LAV-AT (for Anti-Tank) uses the same chassis as the LAV-25, and is equipped with a two-man "hammerhead" mount for a twin Hughes Tube-launched, Optically sighted, Wire-guided (TOW) missile launcher in place of the 25mm cannon turret. In addition, a M240G pintle-mounted machine gun with four hundred 7.62mm rounds is carried. Thanks to the erectable "hammerhead" design, the LAV-AT can hide behind a hill or rise and still sight and fire its missiles. A pair of missiles are stored as ready rounds in the launcher, with room for fourteen more in the ammo compartment. A total of ninety-five LAV-ATs are in service with the Marines.
• LAV-AD—The newest version of the LAV is the LAV-AD (for Air Defense). The weapons station is armed with two four-round packs of Stinger SAMs as well as a 25mm GAU-12 three-barreled Gatling gun. Equipped with a FLIR targeting sensor and a digital data link for queuing, it is a significant improvement over the existing Avenger system which is based on an HMMWV. Currently, seventeen are being procured by the Marines, with additional procurement likely.
• LAV–C2—Every unit needs secure positions where commanders can receive reports and issue orders. Unfortunately, fixed command posts rarely last long in combat, because either they fall too far behind an advancing force, or they are quickly destroyed by enemy artillery or air strikes when their positions are determined by radio-direction-finding equipment. Thus, the armored mobile command post. To give this capability to LAV units, the Marines have purchased a force of fifty command variants. In the LAV–C2, the weapons turrets are deleted, the crew and ammo compartments are made into a single space and equipped with a shelter tent extension for the rear of the vehicle, and there is a battery of radio gear. This includes four VHF sets, a combined UHF/VHF unit, a UHF position-location reporting set, one HF radio, and a single portable VHF set.
• LAV–L—Armored units need a lot of supplies in order to accomplish their crucial jobs. Since logistics vehicles of LAV units come under the same kinds of fire as the combat vehicles, they need to be armored as well. For this reason, 94 LAV–L logistics versions were purchased. Based upon the LAV–C, the LAV–L is basically an open compartment for carrying supplies; and it is equipped with a 1,100-1b/500-kg manually powered crane for lifting heavy items like pallets and engines.
• LAV-M—One of the shortcomings of Marine armored units is that they have no organic armored artillery units like the Army's M 109A6 Paladin 155mm self-propelled howitzer. However, the Marines have developed and deployed fifty armored mortar carriers, based on the LAV. Called the LAV-M, it is equipped with an M252 81mm mortar and carries ninety-nine (five ready, ninety-four stowed) 81mm projectiles. Using the same open-compartment chassis as the LAV–L and C variants, it has a hatch over the rear compartment for the mortar to fire through. The LAV-M also carries a baseplate and bipod for operating the M252 dismounted.
• LAV-R-Nearly every family of armored vehicles breeds a recovery version, which can be used to haul broken or damaged vehicles to the rear for repair, and the LAV is no exception. The Marines have acquired forty-five of this type, designated LAV-R. Each LAV-R is equipped with a 9,000-1b/4,086-kg boom crane, a 30,000-lb/ 13,620-kg winch, a battery of floodlights, an electric welder, a 120/230-volt generator, and a 10-kw hydraulic generator. The crew consists of a driver, commander, and rigger who is cross-trained in welding and other maintenance/repair skills.
A Marine LAV–C2 (command and control) of BLT2/6 disembarks from an LCAC in Tunisia in 1995.
OFFICIAL U.S. MARINE CORPS PHOTO
Other versions are currently in development, including an electronic-warfare (EW) version that has an array of direction-finding, intercept, and jamming equipment packed onboard. Watch for this LAV-EW version to appear before the turn of the century in USMC service. Other countries using versions of the LAV include Australia, Canada, and Saudi Arabia.
In combat, the LAV has acquired a reputation for reliability and effectiveness, in spite of its light armor and lack of a FLIR thermal sight system. During Desert Storm, LAVs acted as the armored cavalry for the units of I MEF, fixing and finding Iraqi units from the Battle of Al Kafji to the final liberation of Kuwait City. Tragically, the bulk of the LAV losses occurred from friendly fire: One LAV-25 was mistakenly destroyed by a TOW missile from an LAV-AT; and an errant AGM-65 Maverick missile from an Air Force A-10A killed another.
United Defense LVTP-7/AAV-7A1 (Landing Vehicle, Tracked, Personnel)
There is no more traditional Marine mission than to land on a beach and then storm inland to an objective. Doing this mission right calls for an extremely specialized kind of vehicle — the amphibious tractor. The amphibious tractor is a strange hybrid mixture of landing craft and armored personnel carrier, a seemingly impossible mix if you think about it. The first requirement for an amphibious landing craft is that it be a seaworthy boat. It needs to handle well in rough seas, and to be able to come ashore in plunging ocean surf — up to 10 ft/3 m high — without swamping or getting stuck. On top of that, the armored personnel carrier must have good cross-country mobility, all-around firepower, and protection for the crew, at least from small-arms fire and shell fragments. All of those requirements make for a design problem with daunting contradictions. Consider the following. You need to design a machine that can deliver a platoon of twenty-five Marines from a landing ship some miles offshore to a hostile beach, making at least 8 mph/13.5 kph. Then, the machine has to be able to crawl inland at 40 mph/64 kph. And it has to have both protection and firepower. The resulting design was neither subtle nor pretty. But it was a great improvement over previous Marine amphibious tracked vehicles.
The Marines call it an "amtrac" (amphibious tractor), and it's the product of an evolution that began way back in the 1930s in Clearwater, Florida. Donald Roebling was an eccentric millionaire, the grandson of Washington Roebling, the visionary engineer who designed and built the Brooklyn Bridge. One of Roebling's pet projects was the "Alligator," an amphibious crawler designed to rescue hurricane survivors or downed aviators in the cypress swamps of the Everglades. Engineers at the nearby Food Machinery Company (FMC, which built orange juice canning equipment) helped him fabricate parts for the contraption in their spare time. In 1938, the Marines sent an officer to request a demonstration, but Roebling wasn
't interested. Then came Pearl Harbor. And Roebling changed his mind. Even so, he maintained his quirky integrity: He refused to accept any royalties from the Government for his design patent, and when he discovered that the cost of building the first military prototype, the LVT-1, was $4,000 less than the Navy Department had allocated, he insisted on submitting a refund!
A pair of AAV-7A1s moves to contact during an exercise.
UNITED DEFENSE
By the end of the war FMC (now the managing partners of United Defense) had built over eleven thousand LVT "Water Buffaloes" in dozens of different types and modifications. They first saw action with the Marines at Guadalcanal in 1942 as cargo carriers, but their moment of glory came in the invasion of Tarawa in November 1943. Planners had miscalculated the tides and underestimated the difficulty of crossing the jagged coral reefs that encircled the tiny atoll. But the amtracs waddled ashore while the normal landing craft were stranded and shot to pieces, thus saving the day and the invasion. The Marines eventually organized a dozen amtrac battalions in the Pacific, and the U.S. Army even formed a few in Europe (these spearheaded the assault crossing of the flooded Rhine in the spring of 1945). Later, in the Korean War, amtracs played a key role in the Inchon landing.
When Marines were deployed in force to Vietnam in 1964, the standard amtrac was the LVTP-5, a forty-ton steel monster that carried thirty-seven men, with a ramp door at the bow and a gasoline engine in the rear. It was a good landing craft, but impractical for the jungles and rice paddies of Southeast Asia. The fuel tanks were located under the floor, which made the vehicle a death trap if it struck a mine. As a result, Marines generally preferred to ride on top, and contemporary photographs often show LVTP-5s decorated with improvised forts on their roofs made of sandbags and chain-link fence.