"While Britain and the USMC are ditching tanks" Topic

…our enemies are having a ball with theirs.

YouTube link

link

Maybe it's because they are bullet and missile magnets and it sucks to have them near your unit.

They feel that they don't need them according to the latest whiz bang theory. This will hold until..they need them…

It was, in my estimation, a very low quality decision by the Marines. BTW, the tanks are already gone. Nothing there and so are the Marines who manned them. At the same time, the Corps hasn't fleshed out the doctrine or forces to replace them. Like I said, a low quality decision.

Maybe it's because they are bullet and missile magnets and it sucks to have them near your unit.

So what should they be replaced with? How does the modern infantry unit move from point A to point B whilst taking heavy fire?

How do you exploit breakthroughs?

And note the western soldiers no longer have access to ample fire support from tube artillery, MLRS,helicopter gunships, or strike fighters/attack aircraft. All those things are gone or reduced to token levels.

Even the much vaunted UCAV has been adopted in only a small number of European states (3 if you count Turkey) and then in token numbers sufficient for a deployment of a couple to somewhere like Afghanistan or Mali.

They do have lots of armoured trucks (MRAPs) and wheeled IFVs which are designed to tackle 1990s level insurgents equipped with IEDs and ancient RPGs and which have been proven to be relatively useless in Syria against ISIS!

Just because the west has decided war is irrelevant, doesn't mean everyone else has. Indeed we see constant reminders that the threats are increasingly real.

Ha, on the Al Faw in 2004 a company of T-55 left Basra heading South towards the lightly armed 3 Cdo Bde. Took a Tp of our Challies to be sent over to sort them out,

Tally Ho!

They feel that they don't need them according to the latest whiz bang theory. This will hold until..they need them…

+1

a low quality decision.

+1

arealdeadone +1 Being a former Grunt I know thru training, etc., how useful MBTs can be in many situations.

And IMO one of the things I see the modern Grunt has to deal with is very restrictive ROE and fear of Collateral Damage. Limits the support Grunts would like to have to keep their losses low and the enemies' high. I know an urban insurgency has some unique situations when it comes to ground combat. Plus some they are facing are fanatics that adds to the problems. But to not use supporting fires at times when they would be useful. Seems something the Grunt in a firefight need & want.

E.g. In A'stan I heard story of a US Army dismounted Infantry Plt was in a firefight with some insurgents in a one story "mud brick?" structure. A couple of M1 MBTS were moving by. And the Tank PL told the Inf PL that they would handle it for them. The M1s rotated their turrets to the rear and both rolled over the structure where the insurgents were. And the M1s continued on their way …

The Grunts went thru to clean up anyone left and to see if they could get any intel, etc.

That is the way Tank Support should work. Again combined arms … The Tanks & Grunts work together as a team. Even in this case with the MBTs not even firing a round.

Nick +1

Regardless … those are very pretty painted tanks … their commander must be a GW 40K player !!!! 😄😆🤣🤩

In these tank biathlons Russia provides T-72B3 tanks (same model it uses in the competition) for countries who did not bring their own. China always brought its own Type-96 tanks. India thought it could do better with its own T-90's in the 2017 games but they broke down (disqualifying India).

NATO had something similar called the "Strong Europe Tank Challenge" from 2016-2018, but looks like it ended after that:

link

Modern wars are now mostly urban in nature. They centralise around holding and seizing key settlements as opposed to terrain, as well as taking in the local population as a serious asset. Over the past 19 years this is a large takeaway for the Marine Corps. If anyone has been in an urban environment they can identify that it is riddled with hazards and creates a multi levelled environment that can become catastrophic with armoured units. Now more than ever the standard grunt has more assets and capabilities at his disposal, and each one cost a lot of money. Tanks are being phased out due to vulnerabilities in urban environments, logistically a nightmare, and the Marine Corps is not the Army. The Marines are not trying to be a micro-underbudget force, but a distinguishable asset that the United States could use to gain an advantage. Everyone may dislike the decision, but I love it.

and the Marine Corps is not the Army. The Marines are not trying to be a micro-underbudget force, but a distinguishable asset that the United States could use to gain an advantage.

There's a sea change in the role of the USMC. The new doctrine is called "Distributed Maritime Operations" (DMO) aimed at specifically countering China in the SCS and ECS. The goal is to be able to deploy small and highly mobile units with lots of firepower, networking and electronic warfare capabilities onto small islands and atolls within China's A2AD umbrella so as to disrupt Chinese warfighting capability if the proverbial stuff hits the fan.

it does seem that the Marine's strategy to win WWIII is the same one the Japanese used to lose WWII.

Everyone may dislike the decision, but I love it.

Task Force Smith.

Modern wars are now mostly urban in nature.

Not really – Ukraine, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq have all featured large amounts of warfare in non-urban areas as well as urban areas.

Over the past 19 years this is a large takeaway for the Marine Corps. If anyone has been in an urban environment they can identify that it is riddled with hazards and creates a multi levelled environment that can become catastrophic with armoured units. Now more than ever the standard grunt has more assets and capabilities at his disposal, and each one cost a lot of money. Tanks are being phased out due to vulnerabilities in urban environments, logistically a nightmare, and the Marine Corps is not the Army. T

Actually the Marines are de-emphasising urban combat or amphibious assault or in fact any combat save taking small islands/atolls and placing anti shipping rocket launchers on them.

They are striving to be a one trick pony instead of the well rounded force they were up to now.

And well used tanks have proven themselves very useful, if not essential in urban environments be it Berlin 1945 or Hue in 1968 or Fallujah 2004 or Aleppo 2012-16.

Again arealdeadone +1 Can't say it better myself …

Tanks are being phased out due to vulnerabilities in urban environments, logistically a nightmare, and the Marine Corps is not the Army. The Marines are not trying to be a micro-underbudget force, but a distinguishable asset that the United States could use to gain an advantage. Everyone may dislike the decision, but I love it.

Just asking were you ever a USMC or Army Grunt ?

Task Force Smith.

The goal is to be able to deploy small and highly mobile units with lots of firepower, networking and electronic warfare capabilities onto small islands and atolls within China's A2AD umbrella so as to disrupt Chinese warfighting capability if the proverbial stuff hits the fan.

By high mobility, do you mean the new Light Amphibious Warship LST throwback with its top speed of 14 knots (speed of a bulk carrier) and defensive armament consisting of a single 30mm gun and some .50 cals?

Cause that's the deployment plan.

And they want a mere 25-30 of these.

The other thing I don't get is once the Marines fire up their radars to acquire a target and then launch some small number of missiles, do they really expect the Chinese to be so stupid as to not figure out where the missiles came from!

And do the Marines expect to make an easy get away in their 8000 ton tub sailing at a leisurely speed of 14 knots?!?

As for firepower modern anti shipping tactics are based on target saturation to get past ship defences. The LST/LAW will be unable to carry huge amounts of launchers or ammunition.

And it all assumes the Chinese will let the USMC simply drive their slow tubs and occupy islands close to China and close to key maritime routes! Do they forget China has the largest coast guard in the world and its navy a huge amount of small coastal ships that pack significantly more firepower than the LCS.

Not to mention powerful Chinese land based over the horizon radar systems which are designed for the purpose of maritime monitoring (USA has such radars but they use them for drug trade monitoring in Caribbean – none located on west coast or Hawaii – link )

In fact the whole plans assumes the Chinese are completely clueless.

And finally what atolls are they talking about?

They certainly won't be taking control of China's new fortress islands with 75 men in a slow tub with a single 30mm cannon. Even the Iranians don't come up with such inane concepts.

Philippines and other Asian countries are no longer willing allies of the US and relying on them would be a fallacy.

Or is it going to go back to seating on Wake Island and waiting for the Chinese to come as they waited for the Japanese in 1941?

And you're assuming the marines would just be sent on futile suicide missions puttering around on their new LAW's taking islands entirely unsupported and left to fend for themselves against the inevitable overwhelming Chinese counterattack.

Get it through your thick skull for once that the marines are no longer the main event but merely play a supporting role in a network comprising of Navy, Air Force and Space Force assets. A cog in the wheel. The next war isn't going to be won with outmoded military concepts and strategies. Stop thinking in terms of fighting wars of the past and holding desperately to old paradigms, or we will lose the next war for failing to evolve and adapt as surely as so many other nations have done to their own detriment in military history.

We are at the dawn of a new revolution that spans across all military branches, not just the marines. Get used to it.

Stop thinking in terms of fighting wars of the past and holding desperately to old paradigms, or we will lose the next war for failing to evolve and adapt as surely as so many other nations have done to their own detriment in military history.

This x10.

The Marine concept certainly isn't new – as stated this is going back to Japanese tactics in 1941-42. The LAW's performance is same as LST in terms of speed and capacity!

The Navy itself has no new concepts. They're fluffing around with lasers and railguns but these are years away and without a purpose (anti shipping missiles outrange both and are more flexible).

It's last new operational concepts were the Zummwalt DDG and LCS – both dismal and embarassing failures.

Fleet procurement is still based on old Arleigh Burkes (basic design is 1980s vintage) and new frigate is the FREMM frigate which is an late 1990s/early 2000s design and which has been in service with European navies since 2012.

The cruiser replacement program keeps getting delayed – now not due to commence design proceedings until 2026. Meanwhile the nyumber of Ticos is being reduced from 22 to 11 without effective replacement as Arleigh Burke production is slow.

Also note the earliest Arleigh Burke's themselves will need replacing soon as well – the oldest is 29 years old. But the Navy has openly said it doesn't have the money to upgrade the oldest Burkes and is considering divesting them as a budget savings project.

Gerald Ford carrier offers nothing over a Nimitz especially as it's technology doesn't work.

And naval aviation is still based on an air group operational concepts from the 1990s and will stay that way including a reliance on short legged and nonstealthy F/A-18E/Fs.

The air force is pumping a huge amount of money into the F-35 which is unsuitable for Asian ops due to ranges involved.

Their other priority is the B-21 which is basically a modernised and most likely smaller version of the B-2 stealth bomber. Again nothing new here.

And you're assuming the marines would just be sent on futile suicide missions puttering around on their new LAW's taking islands entirely unsupported

That is exactly what the USMC commander is talking about.

If the US wants true denial, then invest in more submarines, ship based anti ship missiles and sea mines. Instead submarine fleet is shrinking by 19% between 2019 and 2028 (total loss of 10 boats)!

The Marines are looking for a purpose now that the Navy has decided forced entry ops are too hard.

The revolution in US military affairs is the fiscal cliff which means less money for submarines or replacement warships, no money for USMC tanks, problems with funding the nuclear deterrent modernisation, upcoming massive cuts to USAF etc etc.

----

And US allies know the US is close to shooting it's bolt.

In Australia it is unofficially acknowledged the US can no longer be relied upon to provide security in the region. Hence it has initiated massive armament programs.

Japan is the same – hence the return of the Japanese aircraft carrier

The Philippines and Thailand already actively chum it up with China and others like Malaysia and Indonesia are quiet and accept new Chinese power in the SC Sea.

Yes we have to evolve in warfare as new tech and in turn new tactics, doctrine come about.

But I don't think I'm fighting the last war … per se. Until someone comes up with a better way to use troops than IFVs and/or support them with MBTs/AFVs, etc. I'm sticking with the tactical mobile combined arms team of MBTs, IFVs, helicopters[both Assault and Gunships], with Grunts, supported by mortars and/or FA + CAS. Let me know.

But I am sure even more drones/AI, robotic devices, etc., will find their way on the battlefield. Which in turn will be added to the combined arms team.

Look, I'm not saying that tanks are obsolete and no longer have a role on the modern battlefield at all. They still do, but leave them to the army link. No matter who deploys tanks they're cumbersome and slow to bring in-theater, requiring much planning and a heavy logistical train. Just look at how long Desert Storm took to build up against a second-rate opponent.

Russia's takeover of Crimea before the west can even react has shown that today's and tomorrow's wars are won by the side that can act the swiftest in our information age through multi-spectrum networked hybrid warfare.

As fine (not to mention tough) a warrior, commander and policy-maker as Commandant David H. Berger (and other likeminded planners) had seen fit to reinvent his marines into a leaner, lighter force as part of America's evolving strategy aimed at challenging China's A2AD in her geopolitical sphere-of-influence. Let's stop playing second-guessing armchair general and give him a chance.

Then we'd have nothing to discuss !

It wouldn't be the first time someone in the US military stuffed up their force conceptualization. Remember the LCS and Zummwalt!

In fact the new Marine concepts seems to be more of a throwback to that whole flawed mess – an emphasis on littoral ops.

I had read that Berger had also scrapped all wargaming departments except one he endorses. Obvioulsy he doesn't want dissenting opinions.

To be honest I don't think there is a need for even these Missile Marines. More submarines and better mine laying capabilities would do a better job of screwing up Chinese supposed superiority especially as the US is about 3 decades ahead of China in terns of submarine desig n .

Also ramp up ship building and invest in better more efficient ship maintenance infrastructure (currently really poor due to decades of lack of investment and selling off of numerous naval yards).

The other big one is diplomacy – US needs to regain economic primacy in the region.

But the US is in decline, China is ascendant and I suspect the Marines are acutely aware that they have no real reason to exist as 2nd army and 3rd air force.

With regards to information age warfare, it is funny you mention Crimea cause the Russians are still stuck in WW2 when it comes to information and C3 capabilities.

Radios aren't even standard at platoon level even in elite airborne units, let alone standard infantry platoons.

Any networking in Russia n air and naval forces is stuck in about 1980! There are no JSTARS battlefield information management systems. AWACS are in decline in terms of numbers and ma.nly non upgraded 1980s vintage ones

What they have is an aggressive and clearly defined foreign policy and a willingness to use their military to obtain it.

---

China's military is a complete unknown and what is known are the already flawed Russia concepts that were used to modernize it from a 1940s mass people army with 1950s technology to a modern equipped force.

Note the Chinese military isn't used at all. It's a "fleet in being" ie its mere existence is exerting influence.

From a tactical level/standpoint MBTs/AFVs still very much have their uses in modern warfare … IMO …

Again coming from a former Army Grunt who often worked with MBTs and served in Mech units, in my youth …

Perhaps, on the Russian C3 front, though they are and apparently did win on the drones front in Ukraine, neutralizing, and/or downing a number of those sent to the country to assist the defenders.

From reports I've seen (granted sketchy), it appears that Russian, and/or Russian separatist controlled drones operate(d) with impunity there.

I agree that the cuts to the USMC seem quite severe.

I guess that might give more of an opportunity for them, and/or others to be more helo-borne, Osprey-borne, or even result in a renewal of the US Army's interest in helo-borne, and aircraft dropped paratroopers, eventually. Though, IIRC, I think that even the Army is dropping that for some of their units too.

A hot war, if it lasts for any length of time, will see a quick reversal in a lot of these areas, I suspect.

US Army's interest in helo-borne, and aircraft dropped paratroopers,

That has been the standard after WWII for Paratroops and airborne training. When I was at Ft. Benning, GA, the home of the US Military's Parachute Training School. Know as "Jump School". On any give day you could see the skies over the DZ, visible from the Infantry School, full of chutes.

Then of course Vietnam was where the US Army embraced the Helicopter/Air Assault Concept. With the US Army's primary Air Assault School being at Ft. Campbell, Ky.

I think that even the Army is dropping that for some of their units too.

Eventually the vaunted 101 ABN DIV, became the 101 Air Assault Div shortly after Vietnam. And no longer on jump status …

But many of us had graduated and were awarded both sets of wings, eventually. I.e. Airborne & Air Assault Wings. In both the 101 and some in the 82d. The 82d is still on Jump Status along with the ARMY RANGER Bns , 173d ABN Bde/Rgt, Special Forces[Green Berets], a parachute Bn with the 6ID in Alaska., etc. And some other ARMY Divs, now, e.g. the 25ID has an airborne element.

So the US ARMY has both an Airborne and an Air Assault Div.
As well as units like the US ARMY 10th MTN do a lot of Air Assault operations too.

Both the parachute & helicopters will be in use by the US ARMY for some time AFAIK. I see no reason to not give troops either or both of those capabilities. Gives you more options if need be.

Thresher, the Russians achieved superiority over the Ukrainians but note the Ukrainians had not invested a penny in military capability since the country was formed. Most of it wasn't even operational let alone upgraded to a modern standard.

Ukrainians aerial tactics were basically no different to those used in WW2, which of course exposed them to considerable anti aircraft fire (noting also the Russian air force over Syria uses those exact tactics!).

Thus it was relatively easy for even the by primitive by western standards Russians to gain an advantage over the Ukrainians, even with older SAM systems and commercially available drones.

My point is/was that the Ukrainians presumably got American contractors/guidance when we gave them the drones, but that they were virtually nullified by the tactics of the Russians/Separatists, and unfortunately, we/they can't say they were able to do the same back to their opponents.

From reports I've read, the Russian/Separatist signal jamming of the drones has been very effective, making them almost, if not totally useless.

The Russians/Separatists seem to be able to use their drones with impunity over the front, and Ukrainian territory, in order to direct rocket, mortar, and artillery fire down on the Ukrainian defenders. They've also been able to use real-time intel to direct their ground units too.

Question is how much of that US guidance funnelled through the chain of command and was "operationalised". And then how much of it was embraced by the Ukrainian units.

And which units received the new kit and were they even deployed on to the frontline before combat operations toned down.

I get the feeling that the Ukrainian military is not exactly competent and that the Ukrainians started relying heavily on nationalist and even neo-nazi militias to do much of the heavy fighting.

So again how much coordination is there between the Ukrainian decrepit military and these militias?

--

And faced with more capable opponents in Syria, the Russian land units (eg Wagner Group) have performed either poorly or at best mediocre.

I get the feeling that the Ukrainian military is not exactly competent and that the Ukrainians started relying heavily on nationalist and even neo-nazi militias to do much of the heavy fighting.

As do I, like many nations that the US gets involved with when it comes to defense matters. E.g. Iraq, A'stan, many in Africa, etc., for whatever reasons they just can't carry their own load.

Oh … let's not forget about (South)Vietnam.