"This Is Why The U.S. Marines Are Dumping Their Tanks" Topic

"In late February, Turkish forces launched an operation targeting Syrian regime army troops, decimating more than a hundred tanks and armored vehicles, dozens of artillery pieces and hundreds of Syrian forces.

Posted videos highlighted the mixed role of drones, Paladin artillery systems and aircraft pounding Syrian armor from the skies over the course of several days.

The Syrian army appeared helpless to defend from the onslaught of long range systems. Even tanks camouflaged by buildings and bushes were no match for sensors and thermal imaging watching from the skies…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The Day of the Tank is over?

The tank is vulnerable against peer adversaries with advanced anti-tank and precision guided weapons who has the ability to fire first. Against such enemies it has to be protected by other assets and operate in an environment of near impunity to survive.

Fanatik is right. The tank is just a tool. Like any weapons system it has its strengths and vulnerabilities. There is still a proper time and place for tanks.

Full plate mail armor went out of fashion due to gunpowder. But in the modern era soldiers are back to wearing armor, modern armor. And though the sword is no longer a battlefield weapon, it can still kill you in a melee.

It is the same train of thought the US Army went thru at the end of the Cold War. No need for expensive mechanized forces when light, rapidly deployable troops are what you need. Of course, they thanked their lucky stars the Cold Warriors were still around for Desert Shield/Storm. The Light hive mind is strong in the DoD. They have had 20 years of light fighting in Iraq and Afgahanistan. Even as they try to work back to the "Heavy" Army, the Light hive mind still tries to water down the requirements.

The Syrian army appeared helpless to defend from the onslaught of long range systems. Even tanks camouflaged by buildings and bushes were no match for sensors and thermal imaging watching from the skies

So the top of the line 1970s/early 1980s Syrian equipment and Russian doctrine-trained political and military leadership were caught unprepared by a surprise attack from Turkey -- and the day of the tank is over? OK…

So the top of the line 1970s/early 1980s Syrian equipment and Russian doctrine-trained political and military leadership were caught unprepared by a surprise attack from Turkey -- and the day of the tank is over? OK…

My thoughts exactly. I have to question whether Syria is a military near-peer of Turkey, especially after a decade of civil war…

Damon.

Usual stupidity probably driven by budget concerns.

Let's not forget tanks were useful even in Afghanistan recently.

But NATO as a whole is uber expensive airpower orientated. Current thinking is 34 F-35s and a couple of light infantry brigades with 14 105mm guns between them is better than 160 F-16s and a couple of heavily armed divisions woth hundreds of tanks and tube artillery.

This is what happened to Belgian military but it represents the thinking in a lot of NATO circles which in turn results in policy decision making and budget allocation.

Usual stupidity probably driven by budget concerns.

Yep…whatever happened to never forgetting the lessons of Task Force Smith?? Must we inflict this on our fighting men and women over and over…then swear never again, only to repeat it???

Or it could simply be sound fiscal planning. Marines will no longer be called upon to participate in large scale invasions a la' GW I and II that require the deployment of slow and cumbersome heavy divisions. That's traditionally the army's job anyway. Their sole purpose now is to operate and fight in small and highly mobile packets on islands in the SCS/ECS well within China's A2/AD zones.

It's a major paradigm shift, but it's not ill-considered since it resulted from serious study and evaluation by military (not political) planners.

The day of the tank isn't over.

It just needs integral AA and anti-missile capabilities, like have been designed before, and are actually in use now on some vehicles.

The MBT-70 had an integral 20mm AA cannon which would be very useful for dealing with helos and drones, in addition to light armored vehicles softskins, and personnel.

"Marines will no longer be called upon to participate in large scale invasions…..".

I imagine that assertion will be proved incorrect at some point in the future, or near future.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Fanatic, note even in the Force 2030 brief the Marines note they haven't properly proof tested/experimented the concepts and some are noted as needing an actual review (e.g. tacair).

The Marines will be called upon to do whatever the hell the US government calls upon them to do. If this means a large scale amphibious intervention in Taiwan or deploying in Europe to face russians or being involved in a ground conflict with Iran then the USMC will be deployed regardless of what USMC generals think their job is.

Capabilities once lost are often next to yo impossible to regain, let alone regain quickly.

The day of the tank isn't over.

No one said it is. Just that they need outside protection and support to survive even with integral active and passive countermeasures/defense systems against peer adversaries.

Marines will be called upon to do whatever the hell the US government calls upon them to do. If this means a large scale amphibious intervention in Taiwan or deploying in Europe to face russians

Of course. They will just have to leave the heavier stuff like tanks and bridging equipment to be handled by the army.

No one said it is. Just that they need outside protection and support to survive even with integral active and passive countermeasures/defense systems against peer adversaries.

Hasn't this always been the case? Combined arms and all that jazz?

This has even been the case against non-state actors such as the Houthis or ISIS or Kurds.

The same applies to infantry – squishy meatbags are easily over run when deprived of support.

Or attack helicopters as failed mass AH-64 raid on Karbala proved in 2003.

Every piece of the puzzle has a place.

Of course. They will just have to leave the heavier stuff like tanks and bridging equipment to be handled by the army.

Assuming the Army has spare tank battalions to share with the Marines! Especially as their European allies are very limited in the armoured department.

It's one reason the Marines have had every single tool in the tool kit since the 1940s – self contained combined arms.

Note the same logic would see Marines lose tac air (USAF) and artillery including HIMARS and helicopters (US Army).

If only there was another organization that the USMC could ask for tanks when they were needed! I don't know maybe they could be integrated as part of a joint force?