Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
After Nearly a Century, the U.S. Marine Corps Is Ditching Its Tanks
#1
i was over at my moms this evening and she was watching Jeopardy. one of the contestants was a Marine Corps Tank commander one of the last ones.  
this was the first i've heard of this and think it maybe a mistake. it seems the Corps feels like we will be fighting china in the china sea and the man made and natural islands aren't big enough to warrant having them in inventory them. their also doing away with 3 infantry battalions, most of the artillery, 2 of it's amphibious companies, four tilt rotor and helicopter squadrons and cut the number of aircraft in the F-35 MAGs/ squadrons.






Quote:The Marines are eliminating all four tank battalions, including three active duty and one reserve battalion equivalent. The Marine Corps has fielded tanks for 97 continuous years, receiving six M1917 six-ton tanks from the U.S. Army in 1923. The cuts will remove approximately 200 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks from the Marines' inventory. Bridging units capable of setting up mobile bridges are also going away, as none of the islands have any rivers or streams.
The service will also eliminate three infantry battalions, each with about 800 personnel, 16 out of 21 artillery cannon batteries, two out of six amphibious companies, and four tiltrotor and helicopter squadrons. Even F-35 units will take a hit—though the Marines won’t deactivate any squadrons, each will have only 10 F-35s instead of the planned 16. Presumably that will also mean the Marines will buy fewer F-35s.

Link: After Nearly a Century, the U.S. Marine Corps Is Ditching Its Tanks

now i'm a big stick kinda guy, i believe in having the best weapons and a lot of them, with enough people to use them. it also concerns me that we may not be in just a one front war, and while they may not be ideal for the south china sea, they might be needed else where.

another thing that comes to mind is the Corps could be kicking ass and taking names for a while before any other service become fully engaged in any combat.  of course the navy would be there for support, but they and any other branch could be limited to what they can do until if and when war is declared. those eliminated units could very well make a big difference in any conflict that escalates  into a real chossen up sides shootin war.

there is also why, this article was dated back in Mar 2020, so that means it's been in the planning stage for who knows how long. just how long and what do they really know about what is about to happen.

no i don't like this not one bit, and it's got me to thinking that sh@@ maybe getting much deeper than it is now.

sure high tech weapons are the future, but no matter how much tech there will always be a need for boots on the ground, and some of those would be enemies have been planning for a long time and have had the time to hide people and equipment that all the new fangled rockets drones and what have you can't reach. hell we blew a whole mountain range down in afghanistan to get one man and still had to send in troops to get him, and he was gone when they got there.

what makes them think that a enemy that has had the time, money and stolen tech are gonna be any different?
"it seems to me, that i could live my life a lot better than i think i am"



the working man




Reply
#2
Music 
A huge purge like this would have ramifications on the other branches too. 

I am guessing instead of trying to be all the branches, the USMC wants to "purify" themselves and simply rely on the strenghts of the other branches in a combined fashion. 

I find it a little interesting they are devesting themselves, according to this information, of tanks and artillery while maintaining the F-35 albeit in lower numbers. For the cost of the F-35's, the USMC could maintain their ground fighting ability easily. And what do they really need F-35's for anyway? Other than demonstrating they are susceptible to lobbying efforts.
Reply
#3
Removing the bridging vehicles sounds dumb as dirt.

Why do I smell the stench of change cheerleaders in this?

Cheers
[Image: 14sigsepia.jpg]

Location: The lost world, Elsewhen
Reply
#4
(07-15-2021, 01:43 PM)ABNARTY Wrote: A huge purge like this would have ramifications on the other branches too. 
true, on or near shore for fire support it will be the Navy, further inland if the Army is there they will be the ones. Air Support it will be who ever is closer Air Force, Navy, or Army. then i wonder about screwed up communications, for called in support. or will each branch have their own people embedded with the Marines


Quote:I am guessing instead of trying to be all the branches, the USMC wants to "purify" themselves and simply rely on the strenghts of the other branches in a combined fashion.

that's always been a given to some extant, but having your own gives you the ability to not rely on another branch when it maybe a mission critical type deal. it has always been that Marine Expeditionary Unit was the forward deployment force that could take and hold a objective until a Marine Air-Ground Task Force can be deployed followed by or with the Army and Air Force.

i expect the other branches to start doing the same as more tech comes out. which to me is just plain stupid. tech is nice, but tech combined with manpower is always better.


Quote:I find it a little interesting they are devesting themselves, according to this information, of tanks and artillery while maintaining the F-35 albeit in lower numbers. For the cost of the F-35's, the USMC could maintain their ground fighting ability easily. And what do they really need F-35's for anyway? Other than demonstrating they are susceptible to lobbying efforts.

doesn't make sense at all, the Corps had always pushed for their own Close Air and wanted the best and they got it to some degree, what i really would have liked to have seen was the Corps to get their own A-10's( never understood why it wasn't adapted for them) along with the Harrier / now F-35, along with the Super Cobra's/ now replaced with the Viper. would have been a hell of combo.

now it's more than likely going to be others doing the job for them.

just make doesn't make sense to trim down the Corps this way.
"it seems to me, that i could live my life a lot better than i think i am"



the working man




Reply
#5
(07-15-2021, 02:59 PM)F2d5thCav Wrote: Removing the bridging vehicles sounds dumb as dirt.

Why do I smell the stench of change cheerleaders in this?

Cheers

to a point i understand not having a need on a small island with no rivers or other water or obstacles that need to be crossed.
but that doesn't mean their never gonna be needed again.

every Marine is a rifleman first. if there's no need for a bridge, leave that sh@@ parked put a rifle, motor, machine gun  in their hands and send them out to the field. then if you need a bridge built pull them out and send them to build it or bring the equipment to them and put them to work.

the more rounds and overwhelming fire power down range the better.
"it seems to me, that i could live my life a lot better than i think i am"



the working man




Reply
#6
@hounddoghowlie 

Marine platoon leader to battalion HQ:

"Sir, we can't go any further.  The Chinese are defending behind an unfordable stream!"  tinywondering

I guess there will still be Marine engineers?

The Corps needs another Chesty Puller.

Cheers
[Image: 14sigsepia.jpg]

Location: The lost world, Elsewhen
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)