This has been in the works for a while, don’t know if everyone here is aware, very sad and I just can’t get my head wrapped around it.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35198/the-last-tank-has-left-marine-corps-base-29-palms-soon-the-entire-service
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
US Marines turning in their tanks
Kenaicop
#384
Joined: August 23, 2005
KitMaker: 1,426 posts
Armorama: 1,316 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 06:56 AM UTC
This post was removed.
JmeDubya
Joined: July 25, 2013
KitMaker: 124 posts
Armorama: 124 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 07:15 AM UTC
Not going to last any longer than any of the times they’ve planned to replace landing craft with helicopters.... Probably just a plot to get the Navy to replace A1s with A2s in a year or two...
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
panamadan
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 08:02 AM UTC
panamadan
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 08:02 AM UTC
This post was removed.
RobinNilsson
TOS Moderator
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 08:40 AM UTC
Gentlemen, and all the rest of you as well 
Please keep the politics to some other forum out there on the internet.
I know it can be tempting, my fingers are itching sometimes as well, but I will come down hard on politics since it would rapidly turn everything around here into a s h i t-storm and I prefer to keep this forum in its current shape, form and tone.
I tidied up this thread by deleting a number of posts, originals and follow-on posts.
YouTube is a great place to argue politics and have a jolly good keyboard war with the braindead drones of the "other side", regardless of which side You stand on.
The "enemy" is all over that place with plenty of opportunities to vent some political frustration.
Cheers / Robin
Please keep the politics to some other forum out there on the internet.
I know it can be tempting, my fingers are itching sometimes as well, but I will come down hard on politics since it would rapidly turn everything around here into a s h i t-storm and I prefer to keep this forum in its current shape, form and tone.
I tidied up this thread by deleting a number of posts, originals and follow-on posts.
YouTube is a great place to argue politics and have a jolly good keyboard war with the braindead drones of the "other side", regardless of which side You stand on.
The "enemy" is all over that place with plenty of opportunities to vent some political frustration.
Cheers / Robin
RobinNilsson
TOS ModeratorJoined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 08:45 AM UTC
Quoted Text
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-marines-want-to-get-rid-of-their-tanks-heres-why/
Interesting article!
The only way to win a guerilla war is by behaving like the guerilla. Being a nice big juicy target is a bad plan.
panamadan
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 08:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Texthttps://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-marines-want-to-get-rid-of-their-tanks-heres-why/
Interesting article!
The only way to win a guerilla war is by behaving like the guerilla. Being a nice big juicy target is a bad plan.
What if the enemy isn’t a gorilla and has tanks?
RobinNilsson
TOS ModeratorJoined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 09:31 AM UTC
Javelin?
Drones equipped with missiles?
IED's and mines?
RPG's?
Satchel charges?
Shaped charges?
There are many ways to take out a tank without using another tank. Active and/or reactive defense systems can be exhausted.
The force equipped with tanks in Vietnam (US) or Afghanistan (USSR) didn't win. A tank is only useful if it has something worthwhile to shoot at, while waiting for a target to shoot at it becomes a target itself. A tank needs infantry to protect it from opposing infantry and in that type of war the infantry is better served by acting on its own without dragging the tanks along.
Fighting one type of war using equipment designed for another type of war is usually a bad plan (Vietnam & Afghanistan).
Superior firepower is only effective if there is something to fire at, shooting at ghosts doesn't do any good. This is why clever guerilla units try to avoid getting located and pinned down and becoming targets.
Missile carrying drones in the air with recon and targeting on the ground can get things done.
Gorilla:
Guerilla:
Drones equipped with missiles?
IED's and mines?
RPG's?
Satchel charges?
Shaped charges?
There are many ways to take out a tank without using another tank. Active and/or reactive defense systems can be exhausted.
The force equipped with tanks in Vietnam (US) or Afghanistan (USSR) didn't win. A tank is only useful if it has something worthwhile to shoot at, while waiting for a target to shoot at it becomes a target itself. A tank needs infantry to protect it from opposing infantry and in that type of war the infantry is better served by acting on its own without dragging the tanks along.
Fighting one type of war using equipment designed for another type of war is usually a bad plan (Vietnam & Afghanistan).
Superior firepower is only effective if there is something to fire at, shooting at ghosts doesn't do any good. This is why clever guerilla units try to avoid getting located and pinned down and becoming targets.
Missile carrying drones in the air with recon and targeting on the ground can get things done.
Gorilla:
Guerilla:
UpperCanadian
Joined: June 28, 2020
KitMaker: 152 posts
Armorama: 133 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 10:04 AM UTC
I'm not up on current USMC doctrine, but I'm guessing it's for reasons similar to why the Army reduced its number of tanks and went for Brigade combat teams instead of armoured divisions - that 21st century battlefields will be mainly asymmetrical.
Canada almost totally rid its army of tanks for this reason in 2006, although Afghanistan showed that a certain number of tanks can be useful even in asymmetrical wars.
Canada almost totally rid its army of tanks for this reason in 2006, although Afghanistan showed that a certain number of tanks can be useful even in asymmetrical wars.
panamadan
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 10:23 AM UTC
Sorry for my misspelling.
I’ll take my toys and go else where a hole
I’ll take my toys and go else where a hole
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 11:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted Texthttps://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-marines-want-to-get-rid-of-their-tanks-heres-why/
Interesting article!
The only way to win a guerilla war is by behaving like the guerilla. Being a nice big juicy target is a bad plan.
What if the enemy isn’t a gorilla and has tanks?
Don't worry. It isn't as if we will melt down all these Abrams being turned in. Most likely they will be upgraded to M1A2 SEP v2s (or better) and be placed in storage until the USMC needs the again. There are still plenty of near-peer competitors out there that we will need tanks to fight if/when it comes to be.
RobinNilsson
TOS ModeratorJoined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 11:10 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Sorry for my misspelling.
I’ll take my toys and go else where a hole
No worries Dan
I had so much fun doing a bit of friendly leg pulling
Sometimes it is the spell checker stepping in and changing things so we don't take spelling mistakes seriously around here, especially if they open up an opportunity for some tomfoolery
TopSmith
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 11:24 AM UTC
Me thinks the Marine Corps is again trying to make itself relevant to congress so that it is not eventually assimilated into the Army.
The challenge is in the balance of forces. If you move too far one way, you are not equipped/trained for a different direction. It appears the new plan is more guerrilla based low intensity warfare than a larger land conflict. If one of the other major players makes a major move then the corps may be sidelined if the Army is going to supply the heavy equipment and manpower.
The challenge is in the balance of forces. If you move too far one way, you are not equipped/trained for a different direction. It appears the new plan is more guerrilla based low intensity warfare than a larger land conflict. If one of the other major players makes a major move then the corps may be sidelined if the Army is going to supply the heavy equipment and manpower.
Tank1812
Joined: April 29, 2014
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 11:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextQuoted Texthttps://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-marines-want-to-get-rid-of-their-tanks-heres-why/
Interesting article!
The only way to win a guerilla war is by behaving like the guerilla. Being a nice big juicy target is a bad plan.
What if the enemy isn’t a gorilla and has tanks?
Don't worry. It isn't as if we will melt down all these Abrams being turned in. Most likely they will be upgraded to M1A2 SEP v2s (or better) and be placed in storage until the USMC needs the again. There are still plenty of near-peer competitors out there that we will need tanks to fight if/when it comes to be.
I don’t disagree.
It’s just sad and a travesty with the blood that will be spilled by the grunts when they need to fire the program back up and then the tanker blood getting back up to speed. Unfortunately if you read Ed Gilbert’s books you will see HQMC has made similar mistakes with the tank corps before. The reliance on other services for Marine support is just a bad idea. I get not wanting/needing a 70t vehicle but the grunts will need a big brother to knock down a door/bunker or two. I don’t think Syria example is a great one as it was one sided. We have bigger problems if we cannot have air superiority or at least 50/50. I hope I am wrong but we will spill blood unnecessarily because of this shift.
Trisaw
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 4,105 posts
Armorama: 2,492 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 12:33 PM UTC
The move to decommission the USMC M1A1s is because of A2AD and plans against China in the South Sea.
M1A1 MBTs invading small Spratly Islands don't seem proper as the tanks at 70 tons would be too heavy to accomplish this and would need LCACs and LCUs to land. I disagree...I think there is a need for M1 MBTs, but the current USMC General disagrees.
The USMC read reports that aerial drones armed with ATGMs destroyed a lot of tanks in the Middle East. Teams of RPG and ATGM rebels wrecked havoc on IDF Merkavas equipped with Trophy APS.
Therefore, the USMC M1A1s without APS and ERA appear to be sitting ducks to ATGMs and RPGs and thus the USMC "got scared" and decided to decommission the MBTs and instead go with drones armed with ATGMs, Javelin teams, and longer-range precision fires for anti-tank work.
I don't really agree with this because HiMARS has no COAX or machine guns to support Marines in CQB, and rockets and missiles are often for stationary targets. The PLA, PLAN, and PLANMC don't lack AAA, light tanks, fighters, bombers, and SAMs. But that's the USMC plan anyway. JLTVs and ACVs will replace the tanks for the foreseeable future. This is all online Open Source information that one just has to read up on.
The savior might be the Army's Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) light/medium tank with ERA and Iron Fist APS that might replace the M1A1 MBTs. It won't have Burlington armor though. We'll see if the MPF makes it into USMC service (and which one).
Peter
M1A1 MBTs invading small Spratly Islands don't seem proper as the tanks at 70 tons would be too heavy to accomplish this and would need LCACs and LCUs to land. I disagree...I think there is a need for M1 MBTs, but the current USMC General disagrees.
The USMC read reports that aerial drones armed with ATGMs destroyed a lot of tanks in the Middle East. Teams of RPG and ATGM rebels wrecked havoc on IDF Merkavas equipped with Trophy APS.
Therefore, the USMC M1A1s without APS and ERA appear to be sitting ducks to ATGMs and RPGs and thus the USMC "got scared" and decided to decommission the MBTs and instead go with drones armed with ATGMs, Javelin teams, and longer-range precision fires for anti-tank work.
I don't really agree with this because HiMARS has no COAX or machine guns to support Marines in CQB, and rockets and missiles are often for stationary targets. The PLA, PLAN, and PLANMC don't lack AAA, light tanks, fighters, bombers, and SAMs. But that's the USMC plan anyway. JLTVs and ACVs will replace the tanks for the foreseeable future. This is all online Open Source information that one just has to read up on.
The savior might be the Army's Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) light/medium tank with ERA and Iron Fist APS that might replace the M1A1 MBTs. It won't have Burlington armor though. We'll see if the MPF makes it into USMC service (and which one).
Peter
Garrand
Joined: October 27, 2009
KitMaker: 195 posts
Armorama: 194 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 02:23 PM UTC
The thing about this restructuring is that it is great if you are going to fight against China. But what happens when your enemy is not China, not in a littoral area, & has tanks of its own? What happens if the Marines are called to intervene in Africa or some other place like that, where there is a real need for a rapid reaction force that can be in place very fast, in terrain that does not favor small teams of infantry & javelin missiles, or aggressive ship boarding actions? In those situations the Marines might wish for a few tanks, & now are forced to wait on the Army to do so...
You know, if the Marines thinks they have too many tanks, then reduce the number of battalions, but maintain the capacity. That way if they get into a situation where they need more tank battalions, it will be much easier to use the existing soldiers as cadre to form new battalions, than to start from scratch & beg the Army for a few tanks.
Damon.
You know, if the Marines thinks they have too many tanks, then reduce the number of battalions, but maintain the capacity. That way if they get into a situation where they need more tank battalions, it will be much easier to use the existing soldiers as cadre to form new battalions, than to start from scratch & beg the Army for a few tanks.
Damon.
tanknick22
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 1,100 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 03:50 PM UTC
Quoted Text
This has been in the works for a while, don’t know if everyone here is aware, very sad and I just can’t get my head wrapped around it.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35198/the-last-tank-has-left-marine-corps-base-29-palms-soon-the-entire-service
Bad move on part of the Marines, all of our potential adversaries are tank heavy, by the time the marines call in close air support
and it arrives on target a lot of Marines will be casulties
The Army realized now the mistake they made that after they took the light tanks from the 82nd Airborne that they realized they need a light tank and now they are going to give them a light tank in 2025
Kenaicop
#384
Joined: August 23, 2005
KitMaker: 1,426 posts
Armorama: 1,316 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 30, 2020 - 04:03 PM UTC
My 2 cents, I think the USMC sold their soul for the F-35 and CH-53K, the almighty dollar made them do it 
Striker
Joined: August 21, 2003
KitMaker: 94 posts
Armorama: 40 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 02, 2020 - 06:09 PM UTC
Here's a crazy idea: A conflict with China looks a lot like a War Plan Orange situation. Lots of water to cross, few allies to stage from, air and sea will dominate. I can't see a plan of invading mainland China going anywhere. I've got to order A2/AD still, I'd love to chew the fat or hang out in some planning room.
If it's inland fighting that's wanted then Airborne and Army can have it if the Marines are focusing solely on littoral warfare instead of trying to be ARMY2.0.
If it's inland fighting that's wanted then Airborne and Army can have it if the Marines are focusing solely on littoral warfare instead of trying to be ARMY2.0.
grunt136mike
Joined: November 24, 2012
KitMaker: 1,896 posts
Armorama: 1,858 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 02, 2020 - 07:40 PM UTC
Hi;
If the USMC is ever given to the Army; I will Volunteer to Live on Mars !!!!!!!
CHEERS; MIKE.
If the USMC is ever given to the Army; I will Volunteer to Live on Mars !!!!!!!
CHEERS; MIKE.
long_tom
Joined: March 18, 2006
KitMaker: 2,362 posts
Armorama: 2,005 posts
Posted: Monday, August 03, 2020 - 09:49 AM UTC
President Harry Truman originally tried to disband the USMC, but the Korean War forced him to relent.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.