Interesting. Anyone kind of have an idea what percentage of their missions in the recent past, last 20+ years, have used tanks? My initial thoughts was a non-majority amount.
They have used tanks in Afghanistan and Iraq. Can’t answer percentages of missions though, but it is likely a low percentage in Afghanistan.
I think you’d have to define ‘missions’ - as in down to the small unit/fire team level individual missions/patrols? Or do you mean overall, such as embassy protection being one mission, naval security being another, operations in Afghanistan being a third, etc.?
Majority of them.
Thrust of Marine warfighting doctrine led to the use of Combined Arms. The idea being any one weapon system has another counter weapon system to oppose it. The trick is to task organize for the terrain and situation.
I don’t know of a Grunt out there who wouldn’t prefer to have his own Armor in his Task Organization. While other arms might be attached directly or indirectly, or scheduled, it is much more assured when they are organic in direct support to your unit.
Drones aren’t Armor. As an arm, they may be valuable, but if somebody is shooting machine guns and sniper rifle fire and they know the terrain better than yourself, a tank is a nice weapon to have on hand.
I know they have a large maintenance tail, but they do help secure terrain and sure assist infantry to secure asymmetric warfare conflicts.