Help support TMP


"Marine Corps to let armor Marines out early as it prepares" Topic


17 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please avoid recent politics on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

A Fistful of Kung Fu


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Soviet Motor Rifle Company, Part 2

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian was going to do the rifle teams next, but he forgot something…


Featured Profile Article

Scenario Ideas from The Third World War

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian harvests scenario ideas from The Third World War.


Featured Book Review


1,022 hits since 15 Dec 2020
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0115 Dec 2020 10:34 p.m. PST

….for a tankless future

"Marines in tank-related fields could qualify to leave the service up to one year early under a "surgical reduction in personnel" as the Corps sheds its heavy armor in favor of a lighter, more agile force.

Eligible enlisted armor Marines, senior armor staff noncommissioned officers, tank officers and main battle tank repairer/technicians may be approved to separate up to 365 days before the end of their expiration of active service, the Marine Corps announced last week…"
Main page

link

Amicalemnt
Armand

Thresher0116 Dec 2020 12:11 a.m. PST

I REALLY hope they know what they are doing and we won't come to regret this.

USAFpilot16 Dec 2020 7:38 a.m. PST

And so the pendulum swings. Even the Praetorian Guard was eventually disbanded. And they really don't know what they are doing and may live to regret this.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse16 Dec 2020 8:18 a.m. PST

I posted a link about this before from Military.com. And other links and posts about the USMC losing it's MBTs. And again I believe this is an error …


E.g.
TMP link

Tango0116 Dec 2020 12:22 p.m. PST

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Thresher0116 Dec 2020 2:33 p.m. PST

I think it IS a major mistake as well.

Time will tell.

arealdeadone16 Dec 2020 3:16 p.m. PST

There's also the gutting of tube artillery with the replacement HIMAR rocket launchers not necessarily set up for ground support (being trained and equipped for anti-shipping).


The more worrying thing is the Marines are trying so hard to become a one trick pony.

And that one-trick is rather dubious:


1. Sail very slow virtually undefended ships built to civilian specs across the various China seas past China's massive littoral navy and massive minefields (China loves sea mines).

2. Land on some critical yet undefended island that overlook key Chinese areas of naval operations.

3. Blow the Chinese ships and subs up with missiles.

4. Sneak away.

5. Rinse – repeat as needed.

I think after drinking a ton of peyote, popping a few acid tabs and going on a spirit quest, General Berger and his cronies made the following assumptions:

a. China's navy will sit in ports and not sortie out until it's too late. All those hundreds of corvettes, patrol ships, FACSs, coastal submarines etc will sit in port.


b. Similarly aerial and satelite Chinese reconnaissance assets won't spot any slow USN ships chugging along at bulk freighter speeds towards them.

c. In case of crisis China will not deploy any of its 60,000-100,000 sea mines.

And then if it does USN's puny fleet of 8 MCM ships and some barely functioning sleds towed by short range helicopters will clear a path with ease.

d. Chinese cartographers are unaware of these islands. And even if they were aware of islands, Chinese never deploy military forces to islands – PROVEN FACT (drop another tab of acid).

e. Once the Chinese send their navy it will be completely unaware those sneaky Marines have deployed batteries of anti-ship missiles on islands guarding key navigation routes.

f. BOOM! BANG! SMASH! DESTROY! The USMC does what it does best and sinks the entire Chinese fleet without losses, all whilst smoking cigars, high fiving each other and saying cool one liners that would make Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis envious.

g. General Berger and his bong are awarded mega kudos, Congressional Medal of Honour, gets to flip the Army, Navy and Air Force off and he goes down with Nimitz, Nelson, Hein, Togo (of Tsushima fame), John of Austria as the meanest, bestest ship killing admiral of all time.

Note that to make sure this concept was flawless, Berger announced disbanding of all wargaming/concept testing units except the one that supports his concept.

Nothing breeds success like sticking ones head in the sand and pretending other options don't exist.

arealdeadone16 Dec 2020 3:36 p.m. PST

Light Amphibious Warship Characteristics

Length: 200 ft – 400 ft

Displacement 4000 tons

Crew 40

Troop Capacity 75 Marines

Cargo Capacity 4,000 – 8,000 sq.ft.

Unloading stern or bow ramp

Speed 14-15 kts

Range 3,500 nm

Defensive System 1 x 25-30 mm gun

It's an LCM. US Army already has a ton of these by the way and with far greater range.

The Marines and Navy seems to think this thing will infiltrate Chinese defences with ease.

Irish Marine16 Dec 2020 3:48 p.m. PST

They should have kept the tanks in the reserves, but what do I know, I'm only an old Gunny.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse16 Dec 2020 4:44 p.m. PST

Hopefully with a new Commandant this will go back to a Corps with MBTS and all the other stuff is currently being dropped. But again the word is within a year or 2 there is a 10% reduction in the US Military and Vet Care budget. They have to find money to pay for all the entitlements, illegal aliens, etc., etc., etc.

arealdeadone – I agree with your assessment of the "new" USMC 2.0. Hopefully this "New Corps" will never have to be tested in a shot'n conflict.

It's an LCM. US Army already has a ton of these by the way and with far greater range.
Yes a lot don't know the US Army also has a bunch of boats and ships too.

Zephyr116 Dec 2020 10:01 p.m. PST

There's probably a Sun Tzu saying that goes "Disarm your enemy from within before he can fight you."

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse17 Dec 2020 8:26 a.m. PST

If not there should be …

Tango0118 Dec 2020 12:42 p.m. PST

(smile)


Amicalement
Armand

Striker18 Dec 2020 3:38 p.m. PST

They need to start cutting now as those cuts are coming. Whether or not saving a bunch of m1s is prudent, is the Corps going to invade China or any island near it? M1s are nice until you have to get them somewhere and the same lackluster transport being proposed isn't much different than what they would need if they keep the tanks and tubes. No transport and they might as well dump the tanks and guns. Any China conflict is going to be a Navy show with help from the Air Force, I can't see any place to use heavy armor against China.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse18 Dec 2020 4:47 p.m. PST

Yes, initially it would be a USN and USAF battle. But you still don't know what the future holds. So keeping an effective modern combined arms team is still a good idea, IMO.

Striker20 Dec 2020 10:23 a.m. PST

True, but it seems that invading China is just a recipe for massive losses to US troops. If the USN wrote off the PI pre-ww2 I can't see how adding more distance, more deadly and accurate weapons, better C3I, and overall lack of opsec is going to make any part of it easier and against a more populous country and military. The islands PRC has are not worth tanks (I haven't looked at all of them, just my recollection of maps), tanks => amphibs => vulnerable => escorts also vulnerable. Not to mention the tail needed and bodies to feed and maintain them. Yes we could be back in the sand but I would hope that we've gotten tired of that playground for a little bit. Plus there's an Army in the US that can handle that. I doubt pie-in-the-sky planning by HQMC is all that, but I can see the USMC being cut out of the big $$ with no solid mission outside of being tied more securely to the USN. Training, small wars (Africa, SE Asia, etc) where a heavy presence isn't necessarily good, and some small hit-run ops are probably all they'll be written in for. I could see the Korea peninsula being an area to work but how and what form of combat would that take considering the weapons available and the mentality of NK leaders.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse20 Dec 2020 10:50 a.m. PST

Agree with most of that … I'm a bit old school. But in no way do I think forced entry ops and high losses is at all acceptable.

I spent 22 months in the ROK, '84-'85 with a forward deployed Mech Bn in 2ID. With 2 tours on the DMZ. What the PRC did in the Korean War was always a consideration and concern today. If a hot war broke out again in the ROK, the PRC would be the wild card. And at no time did anyone think about invading the PRC. For many, many reasons …

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.