"The Marines are starting to say goodbye to their tanks" Topic

"The end of the Marine Corps' tank missions has officially begun.

Marines with 1st Tank Battalion recently watched the last of their unit's tanks depart Twentynine Palms, California. Photos taken of the event show Marines surrounding an oversized flatbed as the tanks were loaded up onto the vehicle and driven away.

Less than two weeks later, Alpha Company, 4th Tank Battalion, held a deactivation ceremony at Camp Pendleton, California. The unit is the first of several companies with 4th Tanks facing deactivations this summer, Maj. Roger Hollenbeck, a spokesman for Marine Forces Reserve, said…"

link

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

"The changes are part of an aggressive plan the Marine Corps' top general set in place earlier this year called Force Design 2030. The plan, leaders say, will set Marines up for future fights, defending ships while at sea and operating in hotly contested spots near the shore….It's just that for the future fight, [tanks] are of less value than the things that we need most, such as long-range precision fire," Smith said."

Yeah, would be nice to only have to commit USMC units to a fight on US terms, near the ocean with over whelming US sea power and air power on call…nothing like preparing for the war you *want to fight* as opposed to the war you're gonna *have to* fight.

And "defending ships while at sea." What does that mean, and why would you get rid of the flexibility and power of the MEU structure to do that? Marines already provide ship-board security, but do we expect to face waves of marauding pirate fleets trying to board our ships? ARRRHHH!!

So what happens to the tankers? Do they re-train for a different MOS or what?

I read it as: "If you have a job that requires tanks, go call the army"

Soon to appear in a Egyptian battalion near you..LOl.

I believe the Marines are expecting to fight China in the Pacific, invading & holding small island strongpoints, repelling boarders on ship, or possibly aggressively boarding enemy ships (not sure). That being said, fighting in littoral combat regions is all fine & good…until the fight pulls you more inland. This structure probably works fine in tiny coral reef islands, but if things go down on an island the size of Guam, things get a bit more interesting & I bet the Marines would have liked some tank support, instead of waiting on the Army…

Damon.

Garand, it's amazing they forget how useful tanks were in the Pacific conflict in the 1940s.

Note the other changes coming including loss of tube artillery (replaced by MLRS), loss of aviation squadrons, loss of infantry battalions and shrinking of infantry battalions that will remain.

Unfortunately, this is necessitated by the harsh realities of today's shrinking defense budgets all over the world. Rather than maintaining heavy units that are costly such as tanks which, unlike in our wars against low tech insurgents in the Mideast ("low hanging fruit" as our friend arealdeadone calls it), require the total suppression of a near-peer adversary before they can even be deployed, the USMC has been remade into a lighter, more high-tech and survivable force, albeit one ill-suited to be a hammer and more akin to a dagger.

Fanatik, I agree on the shrinking defence budgets but I don't think the new Marines are more "survivable".

First of all they are losing the ability to apply massed heavy firepower which has been key to western conventional superiority since WWII.

Second of all they aren't just losing tanks but redundancy as they're also scrapping at least 9 aviation squadrons equipped with AH-1, MV-22 and CH-53s, 3 infantry battalions and a plethora of other units.

Third of all battalions are being shrunk by up to 200 men.

Fourth there is going to be a review in terms of the future of USMC tactical aviation especially as they are struggling to attract pilots and maintainers. No doubt this will result in cuts as well.

Fifth the Navy itself is moving away from the littoral due to the threat of Chinese anti-shipping missiles. So any unit of Marines that successfully takes over some small atoll will be left to their own devices.

An amphibious group will lack the ability to suppress a heavily defended fortress island. A usual LHA/LHD aviation component usually has a mere 6 F-35s with the rest of the hanger/deck space dedicated to transport helos and Osprey tilt rotors.

If the Navy won't risk supercarriers in approaches to such islands then the LHA/D groups will struggle suppressing the defences.

Note the islands here aren't like those in WWII. They are not isolated and in the middle of nothing. They are supported by land based system and are much closer to mainland China than the Pacific island ones were to Japan. They are also in relatively closed seas which limits capacity to manoeuvre .

Wonder how long it will be for them to find out this was a mistake?

I have to admit though, I'm much more concerned with their loss of Marine Military Aviation. Nothing like being able to call in for support from your own guys, who've actually trained in battle on the ground, even if briefly, to know what it's like.

"…but do we expect to face waves of marauding pirate fleets trying to board our ships? ARRRHHH!!".

Have you seen how many small vessels the Chinese have in their "fishing fleet", which is a pseudo-military, naval unit?

They could literally swarm any vessels in close, inshore waters, and use AKs, pistols, swords, and knives to fight with in boarding actions.

Should we fire back, we'll be accused of killing "civilians".

Wonder how long it will be for them to find out this was a mistake?

They probably know already but the USMC brass isn't going to admit that publicly.

It is interesting that the USMC commander openly said he wanted to align the USMC more with the Navy, instead of being semi-independent as the Marines have been for many decades.

But generals (and managers and executives) at that level are political animals and usually operate in manners conducive to further career progression than the success of their organisations.

Maybe if we spent less money on 'wonder weapons' we would have more for less sexy but equally important things like soldiers and vehicles and such mundane items of contemporary warfare.

The Marines can't stay as Army+. From what I've read they aren't planning on being a China invasion force but more aligned to "drop guys with some AS missiles on some island (like Japan has deployed) and attrit the PLAN. Include in raids on their "island carriers" and ship boarding. AAAVs may be soon be questioned as the Corps eyes up foreign small fast boats to get in faster from farther. In the beginning of A'stan there was a problem of getting fuel to units and it created a long and vulnerable tail easily exploited. Being more aligned with the USN also gives a bit of shelter when axes start falling as well. Some aviation is going to be replaced with drone tech and missiles for arty tubes. How all this shakes out is unknown since I don't get to sit in on the planning.

bet they wish they had finished off developing one of the aav replacements……

I was just reading about the AAV replacement (I just got a kit of a LVPT-7A1 as a scale model), & from the page I read acquisition of the new vehicle is under way.

If it was really budget issues then the Marines would retire several tank battalions but maintain others, to keep the capability. In wartime those existing battalions can be used to provide cadre for new/reactivated battalions. So I don't really buy the budget issues excuse.

As far as the other points, the danger of specialization is that when a situation comes up that is not tailor made for your specialty, it will hurt more. Like I said before, running around on small boats toting AS missiles is as well and good…until you run into a situation that is not tailor made for your structure…like the aforementioned mission in a place similar to Guam.

One of the most important turning points in the Korean War is when the landings were done in Incheon, effectively amphibious envelopment. I don't think the Marines could do the same thing if they are turned into a littorial infantry combat team lacking in amphibious expeditionary capabilities. They can still do it now, but if they give up their tanks & AAVs, they will not be able to do it in the future. One less option on the table.

The other point is that the Marines have always been a de-facto RRF for the US. I am unsure of they are turned into naval commandos they would still be useful in that role.

Damon.

The other point is that the Marines have always been a de-facto RRF for the US.

And no doubt this will continue as political leaders seldom understand intricacies of military operations but they know the Marines are there.

If you need to bring a banana republic to heel or fight a proxy war, send in the marines. If you need to go toe-to-toe with a near-peer adversary or invade a country en masse (like Iraq circa 1991 and 2003), send in the army with its heavy cumbersome divisions.

Fiscal constraints do not allow for redundant capabilities.

Fanatik, not disagreeing with anything you're saying but it's still not a great development.

The US military may be the world's largest and most potent by far but it is also spread thin and committed to two major theatres (Europe and Asia) and multiple smaller ones. The Chinese and Russians can focus their power, the US cannot.

And no doubt this will continue as political leaders seldom understand intricacies of military operations but they know the Marines are there.

Yep -- so how hard is it to understand at some point the politicians *will* commit the Marines to a mission that their shiny new lower cost force structure is simply unsuited for? And then our men and women will pay in blood and pain to re- re- re- learn a lesson you'd think we'd have learned by now…

so how hard is it to understand at some point the politicians *will* commit the Marines to a mission that their shiny new lower cost force structure is simply unsuited for?

I don't think politicians/decision-makers play armchair general like Hitler and micromanage to the extent that they pick the military service to perform the mission. They leave it to the generals and the Joint Chiefs to decide how best to accomplish the objectives. In other words, they will defer to military expertise.

The days of the marines being a fully self-sufficient combined arms force is over. Henceforth it will have to coordinate more closely with other branches of the military as one part of a whole.

I don't like it either (I have a fully self-contained 1980's USMC army for the game 'Team Yankee') but it is what it is.

History lessons…
And if you have the tanks and need them, it works. If you don't heed them just don't take them.

I don't think politicians/decision-makers play armchair general like Hitler and micromanage to the extent that they pick the military service to perform the mission. They leave it to the generals and the Joint Chiefs to decide how best to accomplish the objectives. In other words, they will defer to military expertise.

Task Force Smith…

The days of the marines being a fully self-sufficient combined arms force is over. Henceforth it will have to coordinate more closely with other branches of the military as one part of a whole.

There's a reason why the MEU structure evolved, it took too damn long to spin up the logistical train if a US Army armored unit and deploy it someplace. So the MEU was intended to accomplish something *now* while that heavier force was activated, etc. I don't see any change in the world situation that nullifies that need.

History lessons…
And if you have the tanks and need them, it works. If you don't heed them just don't take them.

That just makes too much sense to happen…

And it's too much to hope for that the people pushing this policy will be in the first wave to hit a beach where tanks are needed…

What is the strategy if a conflict with China starts? Most people agree that there won't be a land invasion so area denial would be the fight. Since at least 91 people have been taking about how old-style Marine landings are a thing of the past, why would that change now? A contested landing against near-peer rivals would be very expensive if not unthinkable. Tanks won't be part of that. Even if you have tanks but don't take them you still have to train crews, fuel, and replace parts on them. Who knows what the future holds.

What is the strategy if a conflict with China starts?

Very good question.

It seems to me USA has a more coherent idea what to do against any Russian military action than Chinese.

In fact I'd say after Obama's Asia Pacific Pivot was stillborn, the US has lacked a coherent strategy on the Asia Pacific. And even Asia Pacific Pivot was vague and mainly based around increasing assets as opposed to a coherent strategy and which never really happened.

And back to the Marines, they have this weird little island strategy but it does not seem to be backed up by similar changes in the Navy or other US forces who seem to be pursuing their own ideas.

Nor is it backed up by diplomacy. The US technically hasn't got any allies in South China Sea. Even the Philippines have got closer to China despite losing the most to them. There is Singapore but being a tiny island state, it lacks strategic depth.

Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand all have varying states of neutrality and all are cosing up to China to varying degrees. US does not have basing rights in any of these countries and most maintain independent defence outlooks and some are at times hostile to the USA. Even once close ally Thailand has been getting closer to China including buying Chinese warships and submarines.

And all save Singapore are extremely weak militarily and would need massive bolstering by US forces if they did decide to join the anti-China party. Remember these are countries who couldn't even monitor one errant airliner going completely off course (MH370) let alone intercepting it as per even the most basic air policing protocols.

So the Marine strategy is to go into hostile seas and deploy themselves on little islands surrounded by unfriendly or at best ambivalent and very weak countries.

Meanwhile the Navy itself appears to be wanting to keep its core assets out of harms way which means not approaching little surrounded islands guarded by swarms of anti shipping missiles backed up by a growing hostile navy and air forces.