Marines cannot depend on the army for tanks or anything. Marines fight in our own way the army fights in a different way.

@taoliu3949

3 жыл бұрын

If you invade a continent, it's going to be an Army lead operation.

@minhpham-yh9qn

2 жыл бұрын

The marine way just don’t need tanks now because tanks is part of the army way. At least that’s what the top brass think

@michelewalburn4376

2 жыл бұрын

Yes they can. My dad was a Marine. He was stationed in Okinawa in the early 60's. Our government supplied the army with everything they needed and more. My dad was a tank mechanic. He and some of his buddies commandeered an army tank and uniforms and would go onto the army base and shop for whatever they needed. Hahaha. Thankfully they were never caught.

@Dana-fy8bg

2 жыл бұрын

@@michelewalburn4376 Standard Marine Operations. So long as the Army has something, the Marines will soon acquire it. In WW2 the Marines in the Pacific originally were armed with Springfield rifles. The Army arrived with M1 Garands. It didn’t take long before the Marines had the M1’s and the Army found itself with Springfields.

@gdurant

Жыл бұрын

The Marines cannot fight in the modern war because they are not equipped to fight in modern war 50 50 does not equal 100%

Marine corps tried that several times between the end of ww2 and now. Always end up back.

@stuartpenge3211

3 жыл бұрын

As a former member of 1st Tank Battalion I am unaware of any time since WW2 that the Corps did not have 4 Tank Battalions until last year. They may not have used them but they were there.

@Daniel-os9tb

3 жыл бұрын

@@stuartpenge3211 operative word in my post is tried. Not they did.

@Joe_Friday

3 жыл бұрын

@@stuartpenge3211 What do you think of the marines getting rid of their tank battalions? What about the tanks in the MEUs? Will they at least keep a handful for them?

@TheJBerg

3 жыл бұрын

@@Joe_Friday Tanks on MEUs never leave ship. My guess is that USMC is going to outsource their tank allotments on ship from big Army/NG rather than maintain their own.

@taoliu3949

3 жыл бұрын

​@@TheJBerg They're getting rid of their tank allotments in favour of bringing more of everything else. The issue with tanks on MEUs or any expeditionary force is that they have a huge logistics tail, nor are they able to be used in the 'first waves' of an amphibious assault because they're not 'amphibious'. Given that the USMC is focusing their mission on taking islands in the South China Sea, tanks are essentially useless (the largest islands are less than a few sqmi). If the USMC requires Tank support, then it would be invading the continent itself, which would involve the Army anyways.

Imagine Fallujah without tank support

@EScott-zx2gs

2 жыл бұрын

I was just thinking the same thing!!! On the first night of Phantom Fury I was just north of the cloverleaf on MSR Mobile watched 1st tanks do thunder runs through the city. I thank God for the work they did and how much easier they made life for us. I can't imagine what it would have been like without them. I know if the Corps didn't have tanks in 2004 the Army would have filled the role and done it almost as well haha. As a Marine on the ground it always felt good when I had air on station, armour support, artillery support, etc. that's just a click of the handset away. When that support is a Marine Aviator, Tanker, Armour, Artilleryman, QRF, it gave me an even warmer and fuzzier. When the shit gets extra deep I know a fellow Marine is gonna work harder to get rounds/bombs on target, drop into hotter LZ's, overall just go the extra mile for another Marine. I've seen it first hand on more than a few occasions. This is not a knock on the other branches. It's just what we do for each other. S/F

@joepops727

2 жыл бұрын

If Fallujah would have happened under this new doctrine it would have been the Army taking the lead instead of the Marines. I don't think people are grasping that the USMC isn't going to be fighting inland prolonged ground battles anymore in the future. Also if Fallujah happened today our tanks would have been smoked by swarms of $100 drones dropping bombs. Warfare and doctrines change with the times.

The fact of the matter is that technology is making tanks easier to spot and kill. Drones and extended range weapons with advanced guiding and warheads render tanks as useful as the Maginot Line was to the French. I think the Marines are right to resume their roll as a fast strike force and leave the large ground-holding job to the Army.

@solid_talk

9 ай бұрын

It make sense💯

@ssilent8202

8 ай бұрын

And then technology later in turn makes tanks harder to spot and kill.

@choppermontana8212

8 ай бұрын

@@ssilent8202 I guess we'll see about that, but the Marines need to be prepared to fight on today's battlefield, not "later's".

@ssilent8202

8 ай бұрын

@@choppermontana8212 not allowed to prepare for advancements in warfare. Got it.

@choppermontana8212

8 ай бұрын

@@ssilent8202 How pathetic is your life that you want to troll on this? Whatever keyboard warrior... 😂😂😂

What the Marines need is truly lightweight tank around 30-40 tons.

@danjohnson4082

3 жыл бұрын

Bring back the M4 Sherman!

@neiljasonvillanueva1864

3 жыл бұрын

Produce a "US" Terminator w/ 8 TOW Tubes in turret as opposed to 4 Kornets on Russian terminator.

@Joshua_N-A

3 жыл бұрын

Mitsubishi Type 16 MCV or General Dynamics MPF. China has the ZTQ-15 in production.

@marcelvetter3346

3 жыл бұрын

I heard that the swedish CV90 has a tank configuration equippet with a 120 mm cannon.

@Joe_Friday

3 жыл бұрын

@@neiljasonvillanueva1864 I was actually telling a buddy of mine the other day that I wish we had a terminator variant. Maybe dual bushmaster 25 or 30mm guns. A couple of MGs. Some ATGMs. Definitely not old ass TOWs but maybe javelin or spike variants. Maybe a 40mm grenade launcher too.

Actually good foreshadowing on the part of the commandant. With modern ATGMs, every tank is vulnerable. Lighter, more agile vehicles are necessary with a turret that has a decent anti material size weapon and a variant with anti tank weapons. For example LAV-25 and LAV-Tow.

@dalestreeter341

8 ай бұрын

It's great to have effective anti-tank capability, but that is a defensive strategy not an offensive one.

Marines are the most mistreated change my mind.

@batalorian7997

2 жыл бұрын

What about the coast guards?

@WohHappy

2 жыл бұрын

@@batalorian7997 those nerds?

@batalorian7997

2 жыл бұрын

@@WohHappy i thought the air force were the nerds

@WohHappy

2 жыл бұрын

@@batalorian7997 they are nerds that fly jets.

The firepower the Marines loose with their tanks is now replaced with MANPAD weapon systems and drone technology. A company of Marines can carry a tanks firepower on its back and not have to consider refueling or maintenance issues. They can move quicker, be less observable and draw less attention.

@kamraam1464

Жыл бұрын

You do realize a MANPAD is for air defense and has zero anti-armor use, right?

It's a bad idea to not to have a MBT better have it and not need it than need it and don't have it.

@Joshua_N-A

3 жыл бұрын

China has the ZTQ-15 tank in production. It's light, said to be sutiable for mountain and island operations.

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@Joshua_N-A and UAVs will kill them just fine

@Joshua_N-A

3 жыл бұрын

@@TacticalMetalhead that doesn't mean networks are invincible. Betting on technology alone won't secure victory. The US needs to step up its cyber warfare division. The real and dangerous threat isn't from outside but from within. Get rid of every moles and double agents in the WH & Pentagon first.

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@Joshua_N-A definitely

The Corps, like all the armed forces has a budget and must stay within it. During the 90s they got less than 6 cents of every defense dollar. The Marine officers take a lot of pride in doing things on the cheap. I was issued pre WWII equipment and C rations in Nam. Their tactics are great for achieving an objective regardless of lives. Bill Clinton called out the Marines more than any other President, mostly to secure or rescue embassy personnel - no armor. Tanks are battlefield specific. Cannot operate in swamps or against massed troops who have anti armor arms. They are vital in many situations like Hue or Baghdad. The Corps is "get there and stabilize the situation quickly" force and must have the equipment. The Corps has not the tactics, equipment nor mission to fight large battles. It is not an army sized organization and should not attempt that job. There were more Marines in Viet Nam than were on Iwo Jima or Okinawa, two of the largest Mariñe land battles in WWII. And about 25 Percent of the Names on The Wall are United States Marines and only about 10 percent of the Americans there. Too large a mission , too few men and insufficient/old equipment and WWII leaders & tactics. It is a fact that if a Marine leader loses lots of Marines, he gets the medal and the Marines, if lucky get Unit Citations that are mostly disregarded FYI: Criteria for Navy PUC is: If awarded on an individual basis is equal to a Navy Cross. That criteria has been abused but that is another story.

@dennisplatte7506

2 жыл бұрын

In WWII on the small islands tanks were necessary. Not sure this Commandant is even old enough to remember that----and obviously didn't read about it We had tanks from Guadalcanal all the way to Iwo Jima and Okinawa. But the Marines throw away nothing----and will have hundreds of tanks they didn't give the Army--still in Norway, on prepositioned ships, on every ship in the Gator Navy. So at a moments notice the Marines will have tanks back in action----if Europe ever has some crisis. You don't think the Marines don't realize that.

As an Army Loggy, I worked extensiely with the USMC types. Always enjoyed the camaraderie! The USMC Commandant is actually SPOT ON!! The Corps will become a 21st striking force, and remain world beaters! So.....why does feel like the break up during summer after senior year in high school.😢

@Joe_Friday

3 жыл бұрын

Will these usmc tanks be upgraded by big army and be absorbed into their armour divisions?

@TheJBerg

3 жыл бұрын

@@Joe_Friday makes sense. USMC tanks are barely A1 upgraded and Army/NG are all they way up to A3

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheJBerg because they would be too heavy for LCACs if additional bullshit is added

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@Joe_Friday Most likely go into reserve or sold to other countries

WTF were we thinking

no tanks with the marines is cuting our heads off

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

Not even close. Modern technology makes tanks obsolete like unmanned air and ground systems, naval artillery, hell a Javelin would smoke anything China has to offer.

@callofdutyguy9

2 жыл бұрын

TacticalMetalhead I think it’s too early to make that conclusion.

Never should have given up the armor

Marines locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, regardless of terrain or climate. The Corps battles will be close intimate warfighting. The Corps combined arms MAGTF structure (Infantry, Armor/tanks, Artillery/cannons, targeted logistics, Air Power/ fixed & rotary) gives that Commander a full tool kit that can be trained and exercised as a lethal team. That Commader own's those assets and are never meant to be split away thus disecting that level MAGTF (MEU or MEF). That said, maybe the point can be made to change out the M1 Abrams main battle tank for a smaller MPF light tank but not to strip that tool out of the structure. Adding new or subtracting new weapons capabilities should never create more vulnerabilies to the combat element but always add to the lethal mix. it is so sad we have to relearn lessons with loss of Marines and failed operations just to get back to a force structure we know we need. Dropping the MPs is one thing but dropping Tank and Artillery assets probably will prove disastrous when it is time to get intimate and that dedicated direct support is needed. God help us. 🇺🇸

Just look up -- Jose Juan Alvarado - Silver Star Award - and form your own opinion - Semper Fidelis, B Co. 1st. Plt. 3rd. Tank Bn. 1965 - 66

Marine Corps wanted to be “relevant” in the late 70’s, insisting and demonstrating that they can do Mech. The US Marine Corps, in the following years, evolved from one of the best Light Infantry Assault units to..... I'm not sure, Medium Infantry? Those AAVs are great APC's, aren't they? If the powers to be had decided to retrograde back to one of the best Assault units in the world..... I'd say -- Yeah. Tanks, Artillery, staying with 5.56 joke, losing a regiment, smaller battalions, -- I noticed in some commentary that there were no Air Wing cuts or concessions. They'll make up the ground combat issues with Technology. WWI tunnel vision, plan for the future battle and not realizing that the old, current stuff still works. And work again. And..... That's telling. It's also a shame.

@taoliu3949

3 жыл бұрын

The old stuff doesn't work. Tanks are not useful for taking islands in the South China Sea, and they require a huge logistical tail that makes it not worth the effort to keep. Not to mention, they're outdated (M1A1) and were getting extremely expensive to upkeep.

Thought the Corps was onto something when they were developing the EFV. Faster approach speeds to move ship to shore. New AFV is slower.

@TheJBerg

3 жыл бұрын

Normandy and south Pacific landing repeated today would be impossible. Either you suppress the beach to bring a ship next to shore, or you stay 100 miles away. Not much middle ground.

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheJBerg Not impossible at all. Drones, F35s, naval artillery, rocket artillery, missile batteries, cruise missiles, etc would wipe the island clean before a single boot hits the sand. Might as well set up a beach chair.

@tylerdubois9020

3 жыл бұрын

The AAAV/EFV never went through. When I was in AAV schoolhouse I saw the EFV and its too bad they couldn't continue the program. I think it went something as fast as 30mph in water compared to our current AAVs which are around 8. The EFV had better armor and weapons too.

@TheJBerg

3 жыл бұрын

@@tylerdubois9020 yup! EFV was a BEAST! But mission changed and MC leadership wanted the procurement money for F-35 instead.

@tylerdubois9020

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheJBerg Just a waste of over 13 billion US Taxpayer funds for what? A vehicle that never saw action in the FMF?

During the invasion of Iraq OIF, the first marines division with tanks along with the us armys 3rd infantry division spearheaded the invasion, now how would that work without the marines having tanks?

@MrWhitmen1981

5 ай бұрын

Because the next prediction of conflict is in Asia pacific. Now you try and drive through wetlands, mudflats, dense jungle, rubber plantations, prawn farms, flooded rice fields in south east Asia.

The answer is General Dynamics Griffin MPF (Mobile Protection Firepower) system M1 Abraham was too heavy and only amphibious platform for it was LCAC which is making both system extremely fuel consuming for an amphibious assault

US can't afford an army and 3 back up army's ( Marines, reserves, national guard) Either the Marines are something unique or they are another army

Stupid call. Marines need tank support if they have to hit any beach as well as their own air support. Marines need mobile, powerful land support that can move with the infantry.

Ever see what happens to tanks/treads in tropical environments after a good rain?

Everyone should watch some video of Azerbaijan fighting Armenia last year and see what the drones did to the armor on both sides. Tanks are very large targets and put out lots of heat. The Commandant is a very intelligent fellow who is not making these decisions on the spur of the moment by himself. Weapons technology is expanding and increasing capabilities all of the time. Drones with Hellfire-like missiles would scare the hell out of me in a near peer conflict if I was in an armored vehicle. Possibly The Corps will be assigning drones to the individual Infantry Company in the very near future. The technology is here now.

@GRANOLA77

3 жыл бұрын

I hadn’t thought of that

@Joshua_N-A

3 жыл бұрын

Drones are safe, for now. Once they learn, drones will be the first ones to fall. Anti-drone weapons shall dominate the battlefield.

@Rob-vy6zx

2 жыл бұрын

They're working on a individually deployed but network capable, loitering air effects weapon. I expect USMC will be issued it very soon. Total armor killer. www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40650/secretive-army-suicide-drone-smashed-mock-air-defenses-during-advanced-war-games this is about an army variant but relevant.

So.....we're turning my Marine Corps into the British Royal Marines?

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

just more technologically advanced with a wider mission set

@kirkmullins455

3 жыл бұрын

No, turning them into cannon fodder.

@gilmojica778

2 жыл бұрын

They started doing that in 75 and the powers that be wont be happy until the Marines are just a old memory. 2nd tanks 72-75

Canada tried that...then Afghanistan happened. Tanks came rolling on back. Combined arms means just that.

@stuartpenge3211

3 жыл бұрын

Canada has {82} Leopard 2 tanks. A fantastic tank, but only 82! They have found no buyers for their 50 remaining Leopard 1 tanks that are in storage. The Taliban would not be considered a strong anti armor threat. Tanks are fantastic weapons against poorly armed insurgents.

@taoliu3949

3 жыл бұрын

The USMC is not trying to be a 'second army'. They are going back to their roots and refocusing their mission as 'naval infantry'. Marines were sent to Afghanistan because they were a 'force in readiness', the operation needed troops and Marines were available. Sailors and Airmen were also deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq and were assigned to foot patrols, security, etc, does that mean we need to start standing up separate ground combat units in the Navy and USAF? No, it meant that the US military needed manpower at that time for that operation, and they were available so they were used in that way.

@stuartpenge3211

3 жыл бұрын

@@taoliu3949 Your comment is right on the money.

@majungasaurusaaaa

2 жыл бұрын

And what are marines supposed to do in a landlocked mountainous place? They're going back to their roots instead of trying to be a low budget army.

I was a 1811 tanker for 2 tours in the Nam it worked for us this makes no sense why fix something that is not broke

Well, tanks will be back sooner or later. History has shown they nees them.

@Glove513

3 жыл бұрын

I think you are correct but I think there might be another way to have that capability. It might be possible to have a small yet heavily armed and armored robot tank. It might even be amphibious.

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@Glove513 bingo

Although I appreciate the commentary I do actually think this is a solid idea. I wouldn't agree with getting rid of all 3 I think that's the mistake. But getting lean is good. We don't need a 2nd smaller Army. The Corps needs to be what it was meant to be. I served in both they are as they should be very different.

@alexishobbs2104

Жыл бұрын

Best comment here. I understand his concerns of taking them away completely. But they’re goal is different than the army’s. With the proof of how well the javelins alone work, on an island hopping campaign, they don’t need that much heavy armor in my opinion. But I think they should have some in reserve, unless it’s just greatly needed elsewhere at that time.

Excellent video, a great topic for discussion. So will this make the Marine Corps lighter thus making them more agile in response to any contingency and once there give them a smaller logistical trail, because obviously tanks require lots of logistical support? It could make the Corps more flexible with a smaller footprint, more akin to special forces. A good replacement for the Marine Corp's tanks could the lighter and more maneuverable M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System, equipped with a 105 mm gun. What are tanks used for? Well essentially to give you the ability to eliminate enemy tanks, hard points and breakthrough maneuvers, you can argue that the Marines could achieve the first two with aviation support and as for breakthrough that is more of an Army thing. However it's never a good idea to bet against tanks, they are always useful.

@Joe_Friday

3 жыл бұрын

I say get the Stingray tank

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

I think the ACV and UGVs will replace its role just fine, and more efficiently.

@taoliu3949

3 жыл бұрын

The USMC's refocusing its mission on taking south pacific islands, the chances of seeing enemy tanks are minimal. Any existing tanks/armored vehicles could easily be taken out from the air or from sea given how small the islands are.

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@taoliu3949 Precisely

@19KiloM1A1

2 жыл бұрын

@@taoliu3949 that is not true. The Chinese defenses of those islands you will need some sort of heavy weapon. Marine Air Power is being gutted. The Surface to air weapon systems they have are top notice as well as surface to surface system. So trying to invade a island with out a MAGTAF is going to be hard.

Marines still have their helicopter air support.

@vetrix

3 жыл бұрын

Except the air wing got gutted in Hawaii, being replaced by drones? I think

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@vetrix Yep. Vipers outfitted with drone systems

Horses used to valuable in war also

If we (the USMC) can justify cutting tanks, because the Army provides this, then how do we justify keeping any fixed wing assets? Or for that matter, why have ANY airborne assets? I mean, between the Airforce, the Army, and the Navy, that should all be covered.

@taoliu3949

3 жыл бұрын

Because airborne assets are a lot more useful in Naval expeditionary operations than tanks. Tanks requires a huge logistics tail and has too many limitations.

@WayneHarris

3 жыл бұрын

@@taoliu3949 I would agree that there are more logistical issues involved in using tanks in a seaborn operation. But I'm not sure I agree with your claim of usefulness. Regardless, I thought the decision to cut tanks stemmed from a sense of duplication of assets ("The Army already has tanks), I didn't feel that this decision was based on an assessment of the tank's relative usefulness. Assuming that I am right, and duplication of assets is the driving factor, then my question remains. Why maintain any duplicated aircraft: F-18s/C-130s etc. And while we are talking about duplicated effort, I can't help but wonder about the elephant in the room: We do have another branch that already provides infantry capabilities.. It sounds to me like my Marine Corps is having a bit of an existential crisis.

@taoliu3949

3 жыл бұрын

@@WayneHarris It's not about duplication of assets, it's about duplication of capability where it's not necessary to the mission. The comment about the Army having tanks stems from the fact that any operation requiring tanks would be at a scale requiring Army involvement anyways (eg. Invading anywhere on the Eurasian Continent). And yes, it's always been an existential crisis for the Marine Corps, that's why the service is refocusing on its primary mission, to seize advanced Naval bases in support of Naval Campaigns. The USMC cannot justify keeping its tanks if it means inability to carry out its primary missions. Aircraft for CAS and logistics on the otherhand is important for these missions.

@WayneHarris

3 жыл бұрын

@@taoliu3949 Fair points. but can you name for me any modern examples of where air capabilities were needed, and we didn't already have duplicate Naval, or Airforce air assets on hand? I can't think of any..

@taoliu3949

3 жыл бұрын

@@WayneHarris Again, it's not about duplication at large. It's about the necessity of retaining these capabilities. How does retaining tanks support the USMC with its mission to seize advance Naval bases in support for a Naval Campaign? How does retaining CAS and logistics assets support the mission?

BAD MOVE. NEED THEIR OWN ARMOR. US ARMY GUYS WILL SUPPORT IF GIVEN PRE KNOWLEDGE, BUT TO PUT AN A BRAHMS ON A ISLAND MAY BE A STRETCH

@solid_talk

9 ай бұрын

Tanks are obsolete too much technology out here.

Missles and drones make them too vulnerble. Don't live in the past

A lot of military’s globally are doing this. There are to many anti- armor weapons out there. I heard the Dutch gave their last tanks to the Germans don’t quote me though.

@larsseehans4718

3 жыл бұрын

They intriganted the last tanks in a German tank battalion. The whole Dutch army is integrated in their German army.

@batalorian7997

2 жыл бұрын

"A lot of military's globally are doing this. There are to many anti- armor weapons out there. I heard the Dutch gave their last tanks to the Germans don't quote me though." - Muffin Man

enemy doesn't play by our rules

Tanks are gone but at least give em A10s just incase enemy tanks shows up.

@donh1572

2 жыл бұрын

They have harriers

well Ukraine is proving that tanks are more of a liability than an asset…marines are ahead of the game

How do they expect to take rpg's.

The military is never going to be completely ready for whatever situation it is going to face. There will always either be a period of new ideas and adoption followed by relative success or else a failure to adopt and a relative failure. Such technical successes may be ignored by politicians if their actual intention was muddled, cloaked, implicit, or unarticulated. Winning and losing is something for the politicians to sort out - not something the military does or does not do. Retired officers in general aren't the best people to ask about current military policy. I'd go so far to call their ideas on the current military irrelevant, and ask that Military Times seek explanations solely from relevant active duty personnel. The only policy wonk work suitable for old soldiers is apply their active experience to the study of history and write their lessons learned while at the grindstone.

Marines should be treated like a singular “stand on its own” war fighting force. With everything a modern battle force would need to fight and win any battle, anywhere against anyone. I even think they should have their own air wings. A10s? 🤔🤠

@Rob-vy6zx

2 жыл бұрын

They do have their own air support. They use F-35Bs their very own variant.

@TheDustysix

2 жыл бұрын

Each Marine Division is paired with a Marine AirWing. 2nd MAW 1977-81 for me.

@TheDustysix

2 жыл бұрын

@@charlie3102 They are getting rid of V-22 I believe as well. Moving to missiles, small units, and embarked by stern landing ships.

Build more tanks....

@GhostK95

3 жыл бұрын

Legit... Lets go back to ww2 status am build up our military strength again

I think this decision will be the worst in history of the Marine corps.

@openingshift7070

Жыл бұрын

Why? The Marine Corps isn’t meant to be an occupying force like the Army. Marines are going amphibious which is what we’re known for being anyway

The marine need is light weight amphibious/airborne infantry support vehicle, the heavy threat is for navy and air force job

Marines: "Good. More targets for us shoot at."

AMTRACS are next to go.

This is not the Marine Corps getting rid of tanks----it is one Commandant that seems to focus on only one area of the World. He will probably be proven wrong----and the next Commandant could quicky pull out tanks from the Marine storage depots and put their remaining tankers back to work. This seems a very dumb and shortsighted move. BUT------then again if our Marine Corps has thousands of killer drones------they can at least take out enemy tanks. But someone said we don't have thousands of killer drones yet?

What the Marines need is a new commandant. Berger is delusional if he thinks the Marines can fight near-peers without tanks.

how did usmc fight without tanks

@gilmojica778

2 жыл бұрын

We did.

Tanks, or Airplanes. Take your pick.

Who needs tanks in paddy fields?

The truth is, armor support is invaluable. It was a hasty and galactically stupid decision. The Marines will learn a hard lesson pretty soon. RIGHT NOW drones are wreaking havoc BUT the pendulum is beginning to swing back the other way. Germany has developed drone suppression weapons specifically for their armor units. Eventually, there will be a jammer that shuts down drone operations and the Marines are going to be frantically trying to reincorporate armor back in the field. Hopefully, it’s not right before we go to war with China. Proficiency will be in the toilet. It’s a knee jerk response without a cooldown period. That pretty much sums up our correct military leadership. Starting with dee dee dee Austin.

WHAT...THE...FUCK? Are we going to get rid of our Air Wing, too? Will we have to call the Air Force for EVERY Air Support situation? WHAT...THE...FUCK?

@blue387

Жыл бұрын

Send your complaints to General Berger

and next soldier disarmed to be given a iphone or computer to do cyberwarfare by posting memes

Why not have a marine Stryker AFV? We'd be busting bunkers with that and they can tread water but I feel the marines just need lighter a tank

I like how he deliberately leaves out china which what they are actually training for.

While this might make sense, here's the part I'm still waiting for. Someone, in order to have their name stamped on a report, will serve up the idea that since we need to save money; now that we don't have armor, we won't need anti-armor weaponry. The enemy, seeing we don't have tanks, won't bother sending armor against us. We can be more mobile and save money at the same time. Then, someone will come up with the idea, well, we won't need anti-armor helicopters and close air support with that capacity. The next step, that guys right, we should do away with the aviation branch altogether other than vertical transport and logistics support. Not saying this Will happen, but I remember the up or out syndrome of the last century that put us in a very bad way for some amount of time. So the slippery slope scenario is a possibility, and that's before the legislature puts its thumb on the scale.

@taoliu3949

3 жыл бұрын

Tanks aren't useful for the kind of missions the Marines are gearing up for. South China Sea islands are too small to use Tanks. By the time you bring Tanks to shore, the battle will be over.

*Fast forward to today and Ukraine is getting TONS of OUR tanks. Where do you suppose they came from?*

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater

I think this was good move the Marines advantage is light quick force having slow tanks that can easly be destroyed by many things and needs a lot of maintaince does not help

Marine leadership should be careful what they say. We've been able to justify Marine aircraft on the premise that we don't want to have to call the Navy or Air Force when we need air support. The Corps could end up have nothing but light infantry with fixed wing aircraft going to the Navy and Helos and Osprey going to the Army or Air Force.

Armor Battalions aint UBER

Terrible idea. Marines will suffer for this. During Vietnam the top echelon said fighter jets didn't need guns. How did that work out ? Again I say terrible idea. I was in the Marines six years. I was in a weapons platoon, you depend on tanks. To the upper Marine echelon I say you have become a SNAFU.

In Somalia, the USMC Tanks prevented violence, the lack of Tanks will be a decision the USMC will regret. ..

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

Don't need tanks if you have UGVs, UAVs, naval artillery, the ACV with outfitted weapon systems, etc. Don't compare past wars with ancient technology to what we have now. We have come a long way since then

@JW-lo1ts

3 жыл бұрын

@@TacticalMetalhead Thank you for your reply, all due respect, the USMC Small Wars Manual points out the psychological impact of Tanks on preventing potentially hostile acts in "Small Wars" Reports from both Somalia and Iraq also note the impact of Tanks (or lack thereof) on imminent or ongoing hostilities..

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@JW-lo1ts 100%. I got all of their doctrine manuals as well. Now imagine that same fear, but the "tank" is smaller and unmanned. So if you kill it, you didn't accomplish anything.

@cm-pr2ys

Ай бұрын

@@TacticalMetalhead Makes no sense to upgun an ACV, now you're risking the squad it carries as well as adding weight and making it's signature/ silhouette bigger. I could see adding atgm's or even apkws rockets, but not the 30mm. That makes no sense. The 50 and mk19/ mk47 with atgms is enough for an amphibious apc. They can't be ad-hoc tanks just because we want to be cheap.

Present day videos on Russian Armor in Ukraine would seem to justify Berger's edict.

Best option when you're out gunned? Run!

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

Wrong. The answer is drones.

@toeknee3410

3 жыл бұрын

@@TacticalMetalhead Assuming the enemy (in this case China) hasn’t invested heavily in drone technology as well as anti drone tech just like you lol.

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@toeknee3410 it's the future of warfare

@RobertoGonzalez-my8um

3 жыл бұрын

@@TacticalMetalhead "Drones"... drones are just planes or ground vehicles without pilots, i think your view on them as being a complete gamechanger is misguided...

@Rob-vy6zx

2 жыл бұрын

@@RobertoGonzalez-my8um a lingering air effect that can be launched out of a M203 is really not just a plane without a pilot. It's like each marine being able to deploy their own heavy, precision air support on demand. With no need for combat air controllers or waiting for a jet to show up from who knows where.

I guess the marines don't lose enough men in combat what next no rifles this is the reason nobody wants to reup, 1811 today 0311 tomorrow, Former Dco 2nd tank bn Marine class of 72 and presently disgusted semper screwed.

It’s kinda messed up when this country calls the Marine Corps “America’s 9.1.1” but not even funded as large as the Army because they have all goods but the Corps should be really fully funded and should be the largest branch, but no.

In my opinion tanks are obsolete.

@Joshua_N-A

3 жыл бұрын

Hackers can make satellites and drones obsolete.

@madkabal

3 жыл бұрын

Another know it all military savant.

@Joe_Friday

3 жыл бұрын

No way are tanks obsolete.

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@Joshua_N-A how? Good luck chuck

@TacticalMetalhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@Joe_Friday Take a look at modern AT systems and drones. They are 100% obsolete, no question. The role of a heavily armored vehicle can be fulfilled with the ACV or future UGVs in development. Some AT missiles out-range even the Abrams and are a fraction of the price of simply training a tank crew.

This is such Bullcrap !!! Yeah, what if we need a Tank now this moment !! The Army tank will not be there, so many issues about this are F__cked !! I Hate the Brass Hats on this, just like the idiot USAF Top Brass that for years wanted to end the A-10 !!!! These "Officers" haven't got their Boots dirty in decades !!! I doubt they own a pair anymore !!! So Pissed off !!!!! SSgt, Semper Fi

I agree lose the firepower and you lose importance in the battle. I know everyone wants Space Marines, but this is only good for fighting Aliens...

Correct move ! Micro drones armed can take out the biggest tanks, artillery units, armored vehicles & rocket launchers silently : In Azerbaijan-Armenia War , $ 20 million in drones destroyed $ 300 million in tanks, artillery , rockets , armored vehicles , etc., these little armed drones destroyed the Armenian Forces. The Marines should be the ultra Mobile Force, Soldiers on personal drones sending waves of micro drones to the enemy taking out all electronic command & control first & then the heavy equipment & supplies.

@Joshua_N-A

3 жыл бұрын

Electronic warfare and heavily jammed environment including cyberwarfare.

Something people fail to understand: DRONES. Unmanned light tanks will make manned heavy tanks obsolete. UAVs already make tanks obsolete, let alone attack helos, jets, etc. An Army BCT will get totally wiped if hostile drones have air superiority, which will surely be backed by ground forces. Adapt or die, the battlefield is getting more and more technologically advanced every day. We don't use horse cavalry now for a reason. Manned tanks will experience the same fate. Tanks were viable prior to modern air and ground AT systems, so looking at past wars is idiotic. The ACV will allow infantry an armoured asset on the ground as well as future UGVs, which will be plenty for small teams of Marines being covered by Vipers, F35s, naval arty, cruise missiles, etc.

It makes no sense to take the tanks away from the marines 2nd tank battalion DOESNT exist anymore??

@gilmojica778

2 жыл бұрын

I know and it makes me sick, Dco 2nd tanks 72-75

Wha the hell is happening to my Marine Corps? The new 3 day rifle qualification course with scoped weapons, now no tanks? Ahhhhhh!

Fast forward today and look at Ukraine today, looks like the marines were thinking ahead of time.

Лидер может использоваться ДРУГИХ регионах нормально или т.д ✨💯🤏✍️🤌🤌🤌🤌🚝🚝🚝🚝🚛🚛🚛🚚🚚🚚🚌🚌🚌🏢🏢🏢🏗️🏗️🏗️🏬🏪🏚️🏭🏭🏭🏨🏨🏨🏨🏫🏥🏥🏪🏪🏪🛕🛕🏯⛩️⛩️🏙️🌆🛣️🛣️🛣️🛤️🎧🎧🎧🪖🪖🪖🪖🪖🪖📢📢📣📣🌊🌊🚒🚒🚒🚒🚒🚒🚔🚔🚔🚔💙💙💙💙💥💥💥😡😡😡💝💝💝👣👣👣✍️🚛🚛🚛🚚🚚🚚🚌🚌🚈🚒🚒🚒🚒🚒🚒🚒🚑🚑🚑🚑🚔🚔🚔🚔🚔🚔🚔🚍🚍🚍🚛🚛🚛🚚🚚🚚🛢️🛢️🛢️🛢️🚇🚁🚁🚁🚁🚁🚁🚁🚁🚁🚁🎡🎪🗽🏗️🏗️🏗️🏗️🏗️🏢🏢🏢🏢🏬🏬🏭🏣🏫🏫🏠🏠⛺⛺⛺⛺🏙️🏙️🌆🌇🛣️🛣️🛣️🛤️🛤️🛤️🌁⛱️⛱️🏕️🏕️🏕️🏥🏥🏢🏢🏢🏗️🏗️🏗️🏚️🏚️🏚️🏬🏭🎧🎧🎧🖲️🔋🔋🔋💻⌨️🖱️📠📠📠🧾🧾🧾🧾💳💰💰💰💰💷💷💷💶💶💷💷💷💶💶💶💴💴💴🪙🪙🪙🪙🪙🪙🧮🧮🧮🧾🧾🧾💰💰💰💷💷💷💷💷⛑️🦺🪖🧤⛑️🦺🎓🚲🏍️🏍️🏍️🛵🛵🛵🏎️🏎️🏎️🚜🚜🚜🚜🚒🚒🚒🚑🚑🚑🚙🚙🚙🚇🚇🚇🚏🚛🚛🚛🚚🚚🚚🚌🚌🚌🛺🛺🛺🚈🚈🚈🏪🏪🏪🏠🏠🏠🏬🏬🏬🏭🏢🔫🔫🔫🎲🎲🎲🖼️🎮🎮🧩🪖🧤🪖🧤🪖🧤⛑️🦺⛑️🦺🦺🦺🦺🦺🤝💝💝💝💟💟💟❣️❣️❣️✨✨✨✨💯💯💯💯🤓🤓🤓🤠🤠🤠🤯🤯🤯😡😡😡😡🌬️🌊🌊🌊🚒🚒🚒🚔🚔🚔🚛🚛🚛🚚🚚🚚🛢️🛢️🛢️🛢️⚓⚓⚓⚓🎠🎠🎡🚁🚁🚁🚁🪖🪖🪖🪖⛑️🦺🧤🧬🩺🧰🧰🧰🧰🧰🛠️🛠️⚙️🗜️🔧🔧🔧📔🖊️📦📦📦🏷️🏷️🏷️🔖🛎️🕰️📢📢📢⏲️⏰📅🛡️🛡️🛡️🔐🔐🔐🗡️🗡️🗡️🈴🈴🈴🈲🈲🅱️🉑❕❕❕🚫🚫🚫🚫🚫🔂🔂🔂🔁☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☣️☣️☣️✳️✳️✳️🔰🔰🔰🔰✅✅✅🅱️🈴🉑❗❗❕❕🚫🚫🚫🆗🏧Ⓜ️🕎🕎🕎🪖🪖🪖⛑️🦺🚳🚯🆘⛔⛔♨️♨️♨️‼️‼️‼️☢️☢️☢️☣️☣️☣️⚠️⚠️⚠️🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰✳️✅✅✅6️⃣7️⃣0️⃣0️⃣🔹6️⃣0️⃣⚕️⚕️⚕️🏧🏧Ⓜ️7️⃣8️⃣0️⃣☣️☣️☢️☢️☢️🚝🚝🚔🚔🚂🚁🚁🚁🚁🚁🛫🛫🛫✈️✈️✈️🚨🚨🚨🛢️🛢️🛢️🛢️🛢️🧭⚓⚓⚓🚛🚚🚚🚚🚲🚲🚲🏍️🏍️🏍️🚙🚙🚙🏎️🚜🏕️🏕️⛱️⛱️⛱️🏙️🛣️🛣️🛣️🛣️🛤️🛤️❕❕🚫🚫❗❗🅱️🅱️🅱️🅱️🚫🚫🚫🔻🔻🉑🈴🈴🈴🈷️㊗️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☣️☣️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚜️❇️🔰🔰🔰✅✅✅🔂🔂🔂🔁🆗🏧🏧🏧4️⃣5️⃣0️⃣0️⃣🆗🆒Ⓜ️🕎🕎🕎🕎🆔⚕️🈂️🈂️🈂️🛃🛂🅱️❕❕❗❗🪖🪖🪖🚔🚔🚔🚔✈️✈️✈️✈️🗽🗼🕌🏠🏠🌆🏬🏬🏭🏨🏥🎧🎧🎧🎚️🗒️📒📊🗄️🗄️🗄️🗃️🗃️🗃️📉🏷️📢📢📢📣📣⏰⏲️🛡️🛡️🛡️🔐🔐🔐🗡️🗡️🗡️📜📜🪧🪧🪧🛎️📿🛎️📅📅📅🔍📍📍📍📘📙🔖

Marines might be correct in giving up tanks in 2021 given current results of Russian - Ukrainian conflict.

Хмм сегодня сделать тогда жди изгнан т.. по

Unless a 360 degree laser protective system is employed to knock down drones, tanks will become obsolete. Just look at the current sit in the Ukraine.

@MilitaryTimesOnline

2 жыл бұрын

Hey Mike, we're starting to see that kind of tech being offered from industry. We'll make sure to cover it if we see it at the AUSA conference in the fall or any time sooner. Thanks for the comment.

You guys care more bout fox news than defending us!

China just fielded a new 30 ton light tank with a 105mm gun. It has amphibious capabilities. It's a good thing the Chi-coms will play fair and not use it against us!!!

So here it is in a nutshell, the Marines will NOT be relevent anymore they are finally going to give the Army everything and that is that. We we can at least look back and remember how great we were!!

@heavydutyrepair64

2 жыл бұрын

Were you think the marine corps gets the tanks from ?,they get them from the Department of the army

Go back to the old Ontos type vehicle instead of 106 rifles use anti tank missiles be light fast and a tank killer just a thought

@neiljasonvillanueva1864

3 жыл бұрын

Just like russian BMPT "Terminator".

Хмм протлить регистрацию п.нсиию 💯 л

...BOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :(

Yeah, cause tanks aren't needed in warfare.

Booooooo

Semper Fi, Dinosaur. The Russians thought the same of the Ukraines 🇺🇦......1997-2006 Marine infantryman Sgt.100P.T.

Does the Corps need a light tank. But the drones can make most armor worthless . the Armani army knows this.

@Joshua_N-A

3 жыл бұрын

Never too dependent on technology alone. Sooner or later drones will be the first one to fall. Strength can become weakness. Back to basics is essential in warfare.

@madkabal

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, the army that parked its tanks taillight to taillight and just sat around in the open waiting for someone to kill them?

@taoliu3949

3 жыл бұрын

USMC does have a 'light tank', it's called the ACV and LAV.

@mr.v8194

3 жыл бұрын

@@taoliu3949 lavs are light armored true but not a light tank. There main gun is only 25-30 mm bush master .and they have wheels not tracks. USMC 1980 -86.

@mr.v8194

3 жыл бұрын

@@taoliu3949 ACV is a beer can .Aluminium hull .

Omg the USMC never had a role that was never relevant in every in any result!!! Tell me for purely and non-emotional standpoint with him Marine corps was important in US history? It's been a redundant force from the very beginning. Stop being emotional and eliminate them! This is true for all emotion which means eliminating most of the Air Force and Navy and Coast guard and replacing them with robots has been proved by the most recent wars in the Middle East and in Ukraine Russia. There's been no Air Force involved and no Navy involved from a relative in standpoint. Everything is been done by software and robotics both airborne and naval and to a certain extent on the ground. The future of warfare is all robotic and Air forces and naval forces are completely irrelevant even now!!!!!! Ukraine Russia war is a stick in the fork of Air forces in naval horses and it proves 100% is that not any automated forces on the surface other than on the ground are irrelevant especially naval and Air forces. You can simply automate naval and Air forces which have actually been done with the elimination of the Russian Air Force by anti-aircraft fire and by shore based cruise miles.

Tanks are obsolete…..look at modern battles like Armenia and Ukraine. They are sitting ducks