USMC Information Thread

[redleg]

Thanks, JB - you da man!

[Devildog]

Redleg:

I served thru the end of the 90's with H&S Company, 4th CEB - our CP in the field (exercises and AT's at Quantico) was basically just a mob of HMMWVS - usually one each for the S-1 thru S-6, a couple of MC-145's (Comm HMMWVS), I think we had a couple of HMMWV ambulances (without the shelter - just soft tops) in the BAS, and I think one each for the CO and SGTMAJ. If we were mobile no tentage - just meetings and maps on hood of HMMWV, if more static we used buildings if availble, or GP tents.

I would imagine a rifle battalion CP being similar - if armored (AMTRACS) then add in an AAVC-7 and maybe an AAVR-7.

[Rutgervanm]

In terms of purchasing, my 1:1 MEU is nearly complete (don't even ask about the painting process though), but there are still some things that I need. All the combat units have mostly been completed, so now it's on to the logistical and other support units.

First off, another question. A Marine rifle battalion's H&S company allready has a Service Platoon with (among others) Supply, Transports and Dining sections and also a Medical Platoon and a Communications platoon.

However, a rifle battalion is paired up with an MEU Service Support Group (MSSG) in an MEU and this support group also has (among others) a Communications, Engineer, Supply, Motor Transport and Medical Platoon.

Since the MSSG only supports a battalion sized unit, it seems to be doing work that is allready being done by the battalion itself at first look.

So, basically, what is the deal with this? What is the added value of an MSSG.

Now for some more practical questions, what kind of trucks did an MEU have in the 1990's (ie. before the arrival of the MTVR), how many did they have and to which unit did they belong. I'm guessing they were 5-ton trucks assigned to the MSSG Motor Transport Platoon, but what types exactly?

Also, what types of fueltrucks did/do they use? I'd really like to buy the M978 Fuel HEMMT, but I'm not sure if this is what they would use to transport water and fuel. To which subunit would they belong and how many would be used?

Last question: what type of bulldozer was used in the 1990's by the (combat) engineers?

Thanks in advance,

Rutger

[Devildog]

Rutgervanm -
Ok - bulldozers would be the D-7 and 4th CEB had several M-9 ACE

As for the MSSG - bear in mind that a MEU includes a composite Medium Helo Squadron as part of the Air Combat Element (ACE) and a part of an Attack Squadron - AV8B
It is also intended to carry out extended combat operations (or as we have seen in the last few years, Humanitarian operations) in isolation - the extra logistics provided by the MSSG are vital for that - these would be in a rear area however, hopefully not on the battlefield.

Trucks - prior to the MTVR you are talking various versions of the M925 series (cargo, wrecker, fuel and water carriers etc.)

A MEU has four LVS HEMTT - usually POL tankers.

[Rutgervanm]

Thanks for a fast response!

The M9 Ace is a very cool model, but I understand they are not standard issue? I guess I'll have to get the D7 from Navwar.

I've looked it up, but I couldn't find a fuel/water version of the M925 truck, only a wrecker/cargo/dump. Could it be that you mean the M50 fuel version of the M35 2.5ton truck? Btw, I assume they would use the same type of tank-truck for both fuel and water? Allthough nowadays, I guess the water would mostly be delivered in commerical bottles, right?

The POL tankers, are they the same as the M978 Fuel HEMMT offered by GHQ? I hope so, as they are such cool models.

[Devildog]

Well, can't speak for the M-9 ACE being "standars" issue, but I know 4th CEB had access to at least 1 or 2 - but yes, the main earthmover used was the D-7.

All of the tanker trucks I saw in my unit were 5 ton M925 series trucks - I never saw
M-35 series 2.5 ton trucks. I believe the same model was used for both fuel and water - even if drinking water comes bottled, bulk water supplies for showers etc. still needed - the advantage of being in a Combat Engineer Unit - hot showers in the field
The dump truck, if I remember, has a shorter wheel base than the cargo variant.

Bear in mind that these vehicles were assigned to the Engineer Support Company - the line companies were mostly dependent on HMMWV's for logistics/transportation.

LVS (Logistics Vehicle System) HEMTT is the same model M978 that GHQ produces. You also see some of the cargo versions around as well.

[Rutgervanm]

How strange. Both Global Security and Wikipedia don't even mention a tank version of the 5-ton M939 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M939#Models and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... d/m939.htm ).

An possible explanation for this might be that the fuel/watertank version of the M939 is modified to such an extent that it has been renamed or something. But that hardly seems plausible. In any case, I'm screwed because no one makes it. You think I could get away with an M50 watertanker?

Did you ever go on a tour with an MEU btw? (if so, any cool stories )

[Devildog]

Nah, sorry, I was a reservist and never got activated - the closest I got to a float with a MEU was a two week Amphibeous Warfare CAX out of Coronado - storming the beaches of Camp Pendleton.

I'm sure the other participants have much better "war stories" than me

Now that I think about it the Dump Truck 5 ton would have been in the 809 series and the refueller was possibly a 923 series (5 ton with drop sides) with a fuel tank and pumping system mounted on the cargo bed (ie not a purpose built tanker as in the M35 series)

As I said above, I was in the Comm Platoon of H&S Company 4th CEB and these vehicles were assigned to the Engineer Support Company that was co-located with us in Baltimore, MD.

[Rutgervanm]

Too bad, but I'm allready very greatful for all the help you're providing.

Forgive my going on about the fuel trucks, but how what that M923 fuel truck look like? Something I could covert at home? What would be really easy of course, is if the whole installation would be covered by the tarp. I don't think it will be that easy though.

Any indication on how many of each variant would be used by the different units in an MEU btw?

[Cpl_Blakeman]

I can affirm that the M-9 was not a standard vehicle. I was a 1345 (heavy equipment operator) and we did not even receive initial training in MOS school for these, just given a rundown of what it was. The D-7 is a Caterpillar brand bulldozer that has been adjusted for USMC use.

There is an optional armored upgrade package to it that I saw in manuals but never in use. I talked to one Staff Sergeant that saw them in use in the first Gulf War and said they were called by the nickname 'Ray Charles' since the armored upgrades limited the drivers visibilty to a small slit for forward movement, one to watch one edge of the digging blade, and one slit to the rear.

I would love to see the D-7 and the TRAM done in micro armor scale, as well as the LVS (HEMTT) with low boy trailer as these 3 vehicles are some of the most used vehicles in the motor vehicle pools of the USMC in my opinion.

[zaevor2000]

Since the hammerhead on the LAV is the same as on the M901 ITV, here is a pic someone took of me firing a TOW missile off of E-13 at Graf in 86 (E Trp, 2/2 ACR)

1st pic is w/the hammerhead raised getting ready to fire. The bulky part is facing forward w/the flat face. with the 2 holes for each TOW and the middle oblong hole is for the sights.



the 2nd and 3rd pics are in the stowed position with the loading section forward and the barrel end towards the rear. When you erect the hammerhead it comes up and you rotate it 180 to bring the shooting end around to shoot.





The LAV pics at the front of the thread show the back end forward when it is first erected. the big flat face is the barrel end where the missiles come out of. My guess is that they haven't swung it around yet in the pics.

Hope this helps.

Frank

[jb]

Frank, thanks for the info on the 901 turret. Now no one has an excuse to glue the double TOW backwards! And yes I did go and check mine. They are good!
Following is an interestng article about the LAv seies vehicles. The article is from National Defense magazine and is dated September 2003.
September 2003...

Marines Ponder Upgrades For Light Armored Vehicles

by Sandra I. Erwin

With no replacement for the Light Armored Vehicle expected in the foreseeable future, the Marine Corps must soon resolve how best to modernize the current fleet.

Most of the nearly 800 LAVs in operation today have been in service since the early 1980s. They are corroding, the sensors and weapons are badly outdated and they don’t have adequate communications systems to meet the demands of fast-moving operations, officials said.

“We have some decisions to make about where we are going to go in the future,â€￾ said Marine Col. John J. Bryant, program manager for the LAV. “We need a plan for the future of this vehicle.â€￾

An unofficial “lessons from Operation Iraqi Freedomâ€￾ report written in late April said that the “LAV community had favorable comments about the LAV. However, the concern was raised that LAVs are getting old, requiring increased maintenance. A replacement was desired for the near future.â€￾

The Marine Corps already has funded a four-year $200 million service-life extension program for more than 400 LAVs, including the development of a new thermal sight for the 25 mm gun on the newer LAV-25 model.

These upgrades were intended to extend the operational life of the LAVs until 2015. But a replacement vehicle will not emerge until at least a decade later.

“We were thinking there would [be] a replacement for the LAV sometime around 2015. ... Now, it’s going to be around 2024,â€￾ Bryant said at a conference of the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement.

“We are cracking, we are corroding, we have components that are becoming obsolete,â€￾ he said. “We have our bases right on the ocean. We drive these vehicles onto [landing craft air cushion] LCACs, zip along the water at 55 mph with salt spray coming into every crack and crevice of the vehicle. We employ them for six months at a time, in the well deck of amphibious ships, where they are subject to salt water.â€￾

As part of the service-life extension program, vehicles will get new electronics and will be made more corrosion-proof, he said. The upgraded LAVs will begin low-rate production in late 2004, depending on how quickly the vehicles return from operations overseas, Bryant said. Metric Systems Corp. is the prime contractor for the upgrade program.

The second piece of the SLEP upgrade is an improved thermal sight system, with a second-generation forward-looking infrared sensor, now in development by the Raytheon Co. The ITSS is scheduled to begin production in 2005. The system is “critical to our ability to ID bad guys on the battlefield,â€￾ Bryant said. It includes a laser rangefinder and, for the first time in the LAV, a computerized fire-control system. This technology is immensely helpful to the artillery units, he explained, because it provides 10-digit coordinates for precise targeting.

Three other LAV upgrade programs are scheduled for the 2005-2009 budget cycle: a new anti-armor system, an expeditionary fire support system and a more advanced command-and-control variant.

The current anti-tank vehicle, called the LAV-AT, is inadequate, Bryant said. Its firing cycle is too long, leaving crews vulnerable for up to two minutes while firing. It also has excessive corrosion due to design imperfections, its maintenance costs are rising, and Marines, for years, have complained about the poor performance of the Emerson 901 turret, which has been discontinued in the Army and Marine inventories.

“Our readiness rates on our anti-tank systems are going down and getting worse,â€￾ said Bryant. “Maintenance costs are going up.â€￾ It got so bad that Marine Expeditionary Unit commanders, said Bryant, “pretty much decided they didn’t even want to take this thing out. It was more of a hassle than it was worth.â€￾

The plan is to replace the entire inventory of 95 Emerson 901 turrets with an LAV-AT turret, to be purchased from the open market. Another option is to use the funds to buy anti-tank guided missile launchers for a portion of the LAV-25 fleet, thus allowing the Marine Corps to get rid of the LAV-AT system completely.

“We are doing tradeoff ** CENSORED **-yses and cost-benefit ** CENSORED **,â€￾ said Bryant. His office wants to have a new system in the field by 2008.

The preferred missile for the anti-tank system is the TOW 2B, he said. “We are doing R&D work to find out if we can get a universal launcher that can do TOW, as well as some other things.â€￾

For the LAV fire-support upgrade, the Marines are pursuing a so-called “expeditionary fire support system,â€￾ or LAV-EFSS, which would replace the current 81 mm mortars.

This program has “caused a lot of confusionâ€￾ among contractors, said Bryant, because the Marine Corps Systems Command sponsors a separate EFSS program that was not associated with the LAV. Now, “we are seeking a common materiel solution for two different requirements,â€￾ he said. The LAV-EFSS is likely to be a small howitzer or mortar that can fit in the back of the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor and would provide fire support to vertical assault forces. Bryant stressed that the EFSS would have to be smaller than the Corps’ M777 towed 155 mm howitzer.

“I have range and lethality deficiencies on my current 81 mm mortar,â€￾ which has a range of less than 6 km. In a light armored reconnaissance battalion, he added, “you almost have to put your mortars in direct fire range to even get them into the fight.â€￾

The Marines own 50 LAV mortars. One option would be to integrate an existing off-the-shelf weapon and fire control system. These vehicles are slated to enter service in 2009.

The command-and-control LAV upgrade will need to address the “digital divideâ€￾ in the Corps today between the division-level command posts and the moving forces. Satellite communications, digital fire control systems and intelligence-collection terminals are available at the division and regiment level, with fairly static command posts. Mobile units, meanwhile, are not part of the network. “As soon as you start driving, you are off the net on all that stuff,â€￾ said Bryant. “It has caused a digital divide.â€￾

In the light armored reconnaissance battalion, the commander is talking to a regiment commander or a division commander, but is not “playing in the digital environment,â€￾ he added. “Right now, we have no capability to do sat-com on the move. ... We have an intercom system in our vehicle that doesn’t work right.â€￾

Current LAVs have HF (high frequency) radios, but they are not “dependable HF on the move.â€￾ With an upgraded LAV C2, the reconnaissance battalion would have the connectivity needed to operate directly under a division commander, for example.

The goal is to upgrade all 50 LAV C2, beginning in 2008, by integrating existing radios and off-the-shelf digital C4I systems.

A trade study was scheduled to begin this summer to determine what computers to install on the vehicle and how much commonality the LAV C2 could have with the C2 variant of the Marines’ new Advanced Amphibious Assault vehicle.

These near-term upgrades, however, will not be enough to sustain the LAV for 20-30 more years, until a new family of vehicles is introduced, Bryant said. Of particular concern is that the LAV technology gradually will become more outdated, compared to other vehicles that probably will be employed by future enemies, he said. “The threat that we used to be able to defeat, we can’t defeat anymore.â€￾

A case in point is the Soviet BMP-3 infantry-fighting vehicle. This latest version of the BMP—with a 100 mm main gun that fires high-energy and anti-tank munitions—easily would overmatch the LAV, Bryant said.

“BMPs have come a long way. Our 25 mm round falls a bit short in performance against some of our most common threats,â€￾ he said. “Our turret is more primitive than an M-60 tank. It’s a hydraulic turret with almost no stabilization.â€￾ An electric turret would be more desirable, he said.

In simulations, engineers have shown that the LAV could improve its capabilities drastically by up-gunning the turret and making it fully stabilized. “Users are screaming for it,â€￾ said Bryant. But so far, no funds have been budgeted for these upgrades.

Marine battalion commanders also are asking for survivability enhancements that would not necessarily turn the LAV into a tank, he said. “It doesn’t have to be just armor.â€￾

The Corps, however, currently has no budget for any survivability features. On the wish list are technologies in signature management—to make the vehicle less visible to enemy sensors, countermeasures (laser warning receivers, missile warning receivers), active protection and some type of lightweight armor.

Active protection potentially could defeat chemical energy rounds without adding extra weight, Bryant said. But active protection systems are viewed by most senior officers as unsafe and are unlikely to become an acceptable option.

LAV operators, meanwhile, would like to see a better drive train and suspension, he said. “As we look at adding protection, we have to improve cross-country mobility.â€￾

Another vexing problem is tires. Marines often have grumbled about the durability of the sidewalls in their tires. Most LAV tires are variants of radial truck tires, and are vulnerable to punctures. It is a simple issue, he said, “Do we need a 40,000 mile tire if the sidewall is going to get punctured before it gets to 40,000 miles?â€￾

The Marines also are contemplating 120 mm, 81 mm or 105 mm mortars for the LAV. The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory developed a 120 mm prototype. The Army’s version of the LAV, called the Stryker, has a 120 mm mortar as well.

“We are totally openâ€￾ to various options, said Bryant. “With 120 mm mortar, I am not getting an improved capability unless I go to an improved range round. ... Our 81 mm at 5,900 meters has a much higher rate of fire compared to 120. Unless we improve range, we don’t have much added capability.â€￾

[ZMONSTER]

Rutgervanm,

The only reference I could find was of the M49A2 tanker truck. Like the old M936A1 Wrecker, the Fuel trucks were retained until a replacement appeared. The newest model replacements were in the HEMTT M984E1 Wrecker, then more recently the FMTV class of vehicles appeared the M1089 Wrecker.

But the 2 1/2 ton and 5 ton truck equipped units still maintained the older Fuel and Wreckers, some even equipped a 5 ton truck with two 500 gallon tanks for full transport and distribution.

This changes I personally observed from 1983 to 2007, my own period of National Guard and Active Duty Service.

My units of assignment where I saw these vehicles in service:

1983-87 475th Combat Support Hospital used 5tn with 2 500g Fuel Pods

1996-98 10th Combat Support Hospital used M49A2 Fuel Truck

2000-2002 86th Combat Support Hospital used M935 5ton M1083 with 2 500g Fuel Pods
this was at Fort Campbell, Ky, most units were issued the FMTV's, the larger transportation Battalions were equipped with the FMTV and HEMTT Tanker Trucks

2002-2007 32nd Medical Brigade still used 2 1/2 ton & 5 ton till 2007, were issued FMTV's

[Rutgervanm]

Thanks for your reply ZMONSTER! Very helpful.

Am I right in guessing that you served only in Army units? But I assume the same goes for the marines right?

What do those 500 gallon fuel pods look like?

[ShortRound70]

Gentlemen:

Sorry that I,ve been away for so long, I've bee dealing with some health issues. I still haven't been able to build anything new. Hard to do one handed. Still buying stuff and enjoying the forum. Lots of things going on.

Redleg, I finally got an answer to your question on the Battalion CP set up in the field. As usual for the USMC, it isn't simple.

1. If deployed with AAV's: 2xAAVC-7A! Command Tracks, 2xM-1025 Hummers, 2xCargo Hummers, 4x"Command" Hummers (4 Door), and 2xM-925A1 5 ton trucks (carrying tentage, etc.)

2. If deployed light: 2xCommunication/Signals Hummers, 2xM-1025 Hummers, 4xCargo Hummers w/trailers (carrying tentage, etc.), 4x"Command" Hummers (4 Door), and 2xtowed generators.

In each case , tentage is limited to what they can load-out. Usually 2xGP's strapped to the vehicles.

Both of these configurations are from FTX's stateside, not in a combat zone. The set-up is probably similar. This info comes from my friends in the USMCR.

Hope that this helps, guys.