That may be true .. and then there were BOLOS ...
Posted on 05/07/2022 3:53:02 PM PDT by Lazamataz
The three-star general overseeing the Marine Corps’ effort to reinvent itself was blunt in his assessment of why the Corps divested itself of tanks.
“I just don’t see any need" for tanks in the Indo-Pacific region, Lt. General Karsten Heckl, the Marine Corps’ Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, said Wednesday. “And when you look at an operating environment like the Indo-Pacific, where do you see tanks playing out? Taiwan? OK. Where else?"
Taiwan is probably the only place in the Pacific where tanks will play a role, says Marine Lt. Gen. Karsten Heckl.
Heckl, the Marine Corps’ Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, is the point man for Commandant Gen. David Berger’s controversial Force Design 2030 plan. First developed in March, 2020, it calls for a realignment of the Corps away from the land force it had been used as during the past 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq back to its naval warfare roots.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Yet, I notice that this General (LTG Heckl) speaks of returning to the Marine's naval roots. Be aware, General.... ships are equally, if not MORE, vulnerable.
I believe the future of effective combat will involve, mostly, remotely-controlled vehicles.
All thanks to US intelligence and weaponry.
Without ships, how will the Marines get to the battle?
Hazel, is sucking up to the Commandant. He has no choice. EUCOM would love to be able to deploy a couple of USMC tank BNs to Europe right now to bolster US Allies...but we don’t have them. Here is the thing. The tax payer actually paid the majority of the cost to keep our M1 through 2025 so the CMC saved a few million dollars but at the cost of billions in lost investment. Also, the USMC actually lost all the structure they hoped to capitalize on... why because they walked away from force structure with a naive concept that he could divest to invest...however it ain’t his money, it is congresses money and he lost it all. THAT is why all the old generals are on CMCs ass... he is naive and he lost Billions in budget authority and lost total force strength. Oh and 15% inflation ain’t helping either.
“I believe the future of effective combat will involve, mostly, remotely-controlled vehicles..
Drones are playing a role in Ukraine, but what it is really showing is the the 21st century is the golden age of infantry.
An infantry platoon can carry missiles that can eliminate any vehicle or plane that gets in their line of sight.
The USMC should be able to thrive in this sort of conflict.
The hallmark of the Marine Corps has always been flexibility - the ability to contribute meaningfully regardless of the particular theater or mission. Ditching all our armor and most of our tube artillery pigeonholes us into much more limited roles.
Bad move.
I think that's my subordinate point... I think the Marines will get to the battle, in the future, via telemetry.
So … fight the democrat party?
Uber
Even during WW2 Pacific\Burma\China Theaters the Army\Marines needed tanks even obsolete ones.
Oops. Wrong thread. Sorry.
That may be true .. and then there were BOLOS ...
I would have loved to actually see one of those move.
It would be like moving an entire city block
There is a major issue with remote controlled systems.
They can be hacked.
The US has had issues with that.
CYA there General now trying to make Biden and Lloyd’s Afghanistan debacle look like well thought out policy.
In defensive posture as the Ukies are doing this makes sense. But in offensive ops a Javelin is of little use and with the way Biden is going Southeastern Europe and the Black Sea may be the Corps new area of concern. And where in Indo Pacific does the Commandant see the Corps operating in.
So you wouldn’t need fit Marines, just couch potato gamerz.🤔
Yup.
Pure confirmation bias.
#1. A tank’s primary reason for existing is to kill other tanks. If there are no tanks to be killed, send something else.
#2. Military hardware always is a game of cat and mouse. Chobham armor (as first seen on British Challenger tanks and the US’s M1 Abrams) was invulnerable until it wasn’t. The cat becomes the mouse, until it becomes the cat again.
#3. Active protective measures developed by the Israelis are breathing new life into old tanks. It’s already combat-proven (2014 Gaza War) and the US already is buying it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gaza_War#Other_weaponry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Fist_(countermeasure)
“#1. A tank’s primary reason for existing is to kill other tanks. If there are no tanks to be killed, send something else.”
In the Marines, their primary reason is to support the grunts. Same with USMC air and arty. Missiles cannot replace them.
Like all assets, the work best in mutual support.
But it is horrifyingly short sighted to get rid of USMC Arty, tanks, half the Cobras, the Amtracs are no longer allowed in the water except for war emergency. They are hiring techy kids that don’t have to go to boot camp, have women and trannies and homos as Platoon commanders.
They are gonna get a tragic wake up call one day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.