Massive respect out to all the USMC tankers out there. I'm sorry for this news. As a armored crewman veteran, I can only imagine how hard this must hit to those who are in the corps serving with them. Keep safe everyone. Semper Fidelis

@joseontiveros8859

4 жыл бұрын

I blame the Brass

@devilbub8709

4 жыл бұрын

Hey mat how bad is your hearing loose since you're a gunner and being a gunner has always being intriguing for me so u want to know how bad the hearing loose is

@TheOriginalDeckBoy

4 жыл бұрын

I think we will find that new amphibious robotic vehicles will replace tanks and men storming the beaches.. the thinking perhaps.. why risk men on a beach head that was always going to be overwhelmed...

@BigBushWookie

4 жыл бұрын

Callum Gillman I agree especially after the blood bath on D-day

@TheOriginalDeckBoy

4 жыл бұрын

My prediction is China continues in secret to build it's under sea 'peace tunnel' to Taiwan that just happens to be planned to come out in the middle of their main artillery training grounds... China know that they would lose between 14 and 20 million soldiers trying to cross by ship to invade so they would undoubtedly bombard the Island with missiles.. However this would provoke an out right response from Nato, the US, many close by nations like Vietnam, The Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, Aus, NZ etc... so China would find itself in economic ruin as the financial apparatus of the worlds finance system, freezes debts from the belt and road and blocks all trade with chinese CCP.. this will lead to an over throw of the party so they must proceed carefully.. for the US.. motherships with 'close field' communications with dozens and possibly hundreds of AI driven bots will storm the oceans ahead of the fleets and run up the beaches ahead of the soldiers... tanks would just get wrecked being unloaded in many modern battle grounds...imo

Somewhere a whole battalion is busy labeling their Abrams as light reconnaissance assault vehicles alongside the Striker. All seems in order.

@thomascampbell4730

4 жыл бұрын

..along side our LAVs.....

@poisonousteapot2394

4 жыл бұрын

Well, if you stretch the definition for an reconnaissance vehicle a bit and classify it as a heavy reconnaissance vehicle it would probably work

@vospersb.thorneycroft602

4 жыл бұрын

Hello ☺️ Hmm a new paint scheme a little razzle dazzle and poof you have a rather strange-looking LAV 25

@clementineschalchen330

4 жыл бұрын

joshepi krakowski it’s military stuff

@ThreeProphets

4 жыл бұрын

"Heavy Reconnaissance Fire Support"

m1 abrams : I dont feel so good

@_Matsimus_

4 жыл бұрын

HAHAHAHAH!!

@noodles5438

4 жыл бұрын

Don’t worry buddy, the M1a3 Abrams will come soon. And just to be safe we have you all booked up to the M1a7 all the way into 2080. M1 Abrams: Thank you Congress: NOT so fast.

@EricTheActor805

4 жыл бұрын

@@noodles5438 Tanks are obsolete

@Azakadune

4 жыл бұрын

@@EricTheActor805 :cccccccc

@EricTheActor805

4 жыл бұрын

When was the last battle that was won because of tanks? Kursk? How many tanks has America lost in Iraq? How many tanks has Saudi Arabia lost in Yemen? How many tanks has Russia lost in Syria? How many tanks did Israel lose in the 2006 invasion of Lebanon? How many tanks did Libya lose in the 1987 Chad Border war? How much does a modern ATGM cost? How much does a modern MBT cost? What advantage does a MBT provide to a IFV or APV? What advantages does an M1 Abrams give you that a M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System, M1296 Stryker Dragoon, M2 Bradley or M3 Bradley doesn't?

Hopefully a Marine Abrams might find its way to the Bovington tank museum, they could really do with one.

@cliffcampbell8827

3 жыл бұрын

I could do with a few in my "museum" (a.k.a. my garage and backyard).

@sheriff0017

3 жыл бұрын

The realistic thing to do would be to put those tanks in Army stocks.

@sheriff0017

3 жыл бұрын

Actually, there are proposals that Australia increase its M1A1 force, so there may well be some ex-USMC tanks going (relatively) cheap.

@turiipipip1920

3 жыл бұрын

Or they are given to the army

@Butter_Warrior99

3 жыл бұрын

No, tank museum is great for future generations to see. And maybe ride in.

As a former 11-Bravo I can’t imagine why any fighting force would get rid of such a valuable asset. Instead of eliminating their armor branch it seems like the Corps should’ve found or built a different tank better suited to their needs. With an amphibious focus they should have tanks with the capability of the Abrams but smaller and lighter. In the next big war Marine grunts will find themselves at a disadvantage against an enemy that does have armor.

@cliffbowls

2 жыл бұрын

The grunts will have the advantage against armour if they’re properly equipped. Shoulder fired systems can knock out any armour they could face. Plus there’s nothing expeditionary about current and likely future tanks if they don’t get phased out all together

@coconutstory

Жыл бұрын

Idk. Looking at the UKraine war, drones are taking over. Tanks require a steady stream of supply lines and resources. While drones are significantly cheaper and can do almost everything a tank can do.

@jgw9990

Жыл бұрын

@@coconutstory Drones can't do everything a tank can do at all.

@coconutstory

Жыл бұрын

@@jgw9990 Drones cost less than a tank and can do the job of a tank with less cost and lives involved. A tank's job was to effectively disable other tanks and provide effective fire against hold-out positions. The drones can do all this. This is why some branches of the military like the marines are retiring from their tank roles. There is also no cheap effective answer to current hand-held rocket propellers. As seen in the Ukraine war and the losses in the Iraq war, tanks are losing the armor/RPG war, as even the cheapest RPGs can penetrate the armor of tanks without their ERA.

“Man, I’m so glad I don’t have any armored support right now!” Nobody, nowhere, ever.

@scottyou5443

4 жыл бұрын

Also Arty! No combined arms. What's the point of the Corps nevermind the MEU

@cm-pr2ys

4 жыл бұрын

@@scottyou5443 That's what I was thinking too. 21 batteries (84 guns) to just 5 batteries means there's only gonna be 20 M777 Guns for the entire USMC...does that mean 5 per Marine Division? I guess on the bright side HIMARS are smaller and more mobile than M777's.

@himedo1512

4 жыл бұрын

You are aware tanks are far from the only armoured vehicle?

@markkirkland1433

4 жыл бұрын

From what I’ve read this is supposed to occur over ten-year period of time so there must be something that they have in mind to replace the tanks to give Marines sufficient antitank antiarmor capabilities.

@bthestigman9667

4 жыл бұрын

@@himedo1512 oh plesse do tell of another vehicle that can take a hit from any tank built since 1960, none thats how many , you wanna pucker the ass of a any armored personnel carrier just them see a tank with its main gun pointed at them.

There is nothing like driving a tank.

@kauphaart0

4 жыл бұрын

Except for firing a TOW missile at one!

@Xindet

4 жыл бұрын

Driving an Aircraft?

@cricetus9361

4 жыл бұрын

driving two tanks

@TheLazyFinn

4 жыл бұрын

I agree, nothing feels like going 40 km/h down a tank trail, head sticking out, on a cold October evening and seeing the stars above you.

@ViolentKisses87

4 жыл бұрын

You sir have never driven a 1970's Buick.

Story of a Marine's life. "Don't worry, you'll make do."

@Masonrytodger

3 жыл бұрын

Marines is just make do and army is about logistics

@carolinacleaningforce2292

2 жыл бұрын

Facts

“Deletes Tanks” we wish to have the USMC be focused on Amphibious warfare in the Pacific “Reduces Amphibious battalions” Wait what?

@Cooldude-ko7ps

3 жыл бұрын

Alexiel I’d say that the USMC commission a specialised tank for their needs. Focusing more on mobility and firepower or mobility and survivableity and to have this tank be amphibious like those amphibious Sherman’s but perhaps without the outside floats. The Abrams is more suited to the army

@jeems2066

3 жыл бұрын

Think they don't want their tanks to be sitting ducks in the crosshairs of enemy long range assets. When you're attacking a much weaker military, tanks are fine. When you're facing a country for eg China, that has drone capabilities and long range precision weaponry, then tanks are the worst idea ever. Be ready to lose many men and tanks.

@FlakeTillman

3 жыл бұрын

Jeems Tanks were invented to counter trench warfare, so now we’re vulnerable to WWI era fortifications and barbed wire.

@FlakeTillman

3 жыл бұрын

Roger Wilco Don’t throw your old plunger in the trash just because your toilet hasn’t backed up in ages.

@FlakeTillman

3 жыл бұрын

Roger Wilco The marines aren’t getting a new plunger; they’re just getting rid of all their old plungers expecting state of the art de-clogging technology to fall from the sky. Tanks fill a niche that other vehicles can’t, and not having a mobile direct fire 120mm cannon you can also hide behind is going to be sorely felt by the ground troops. Imagine trying to attack a fortified position on the Asian steppe, 3 country miles away, zero cover or concealment, with thin-skinned vehicles virtually any serious gun can penetrate. WWII era AT guns will become a serious threat again.

I'm a tank mechanic in one of the marine units that's getting cut. We are all sad to see the tanks go and morale is not super high among the tank community right now. That being said, this change has been a long time coming and frankly it makes a lot of sense for the direction the corps is going. I do NOT see this as an example of the brass being out of touch like many people have been painting it. Matsimus touched on some of the of the reasons in the video, including the corps shrinking in size, needing to spend heavily on modernization and innovative new capabilities, refocusing on being an expeditionary naval force instead of a "second army", etc. If you want to know more about that I urge you to read the "Commandant's Planning and Guidance" released by General Berger after he took over last summer. There is an even bigger factor at play here that you won't see in any articles written on this subject. Even before General Berger became Commandant and started plans to restructure the force, there were serious discussions of getting rid of our tanks. The problem with them is mostly that we still use the M1A1 variant instead of the more modern M1A2 SEP tanks. Not only are our M1A1s very old, but our particular variant (it's had a few upgrades beyond the A1 standard, but not enough to be renamed) is used by no one else in the else in the world, and the corps does not have very many of them. As a result, parts are pretty hard to come by and most of them are extremely overpriced because they are not mass produced anymore. So, our tank battalions cost an insane amount of money to support, far beyond the normal expenses associated with tanks. That made them a very easy target for the cuts needed to restructure the force as planned. Why not upgrade to M1A2s so we can get cheaper parts and have more capability? Since we are the Marine Corps and not the Army, our tanks need to be able to participate in amphibious operations. That means we need to put them on LCACs to go from ship to shore. The problem with that is LCACs are rated for 55 tons and our tanks weigh about 70 tons. We still do it regardless, but it pushes the LCACs beyond their limits every time and overall does not work very well. M1A2s are even heavier, with the newest models approaching 80 tons with a combat load. You just can't put that on an LCAC, it wouldn't work at all. So, we have stuck with the M1A1. Although much of the electronics and fire control of the M1A1 is obsolete, it is still roughly comparable to the most modern equipment. It still does the same things for the most part, just with older tech. We do lack a lot of battlefield networking capability that all newer equipment features heavily. But when it comes down to it, if an M1A1 were to fight an M1A2, the biggest determining factor would definitely be the crew's effectiveness. The M1A1s are still relevant on the battlefield for the most part. It's the logistics that are the issue. I fully expect tanks to return to the corps in the future. Perhaps within the decade. The Mobile Protected Firepower program that the Army is developing iseems like a perfect fit for Marine tank doctrine, which is focused around tank-infantry-integration rather than direct combat with enemy vehicles. For now, we are going to have a slow drawdown over a period of years, not months. I don't know what will become of the tanks themselves. Many marines will be getting out early since their job is disappearing, and those who want to stay in will be able to switch to LAV crewman, AAV/ACV crewman, or something else relevant. A lot of guys have also expressed interest in transferring to the Army so they can continue to be tankers. Again, sad to see the tanks go, but it does make sense at this point in time with the equipment we have available. If anyone has questions please ask away.

@steadmanuhlich6734

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for adding such a good, detailed comment on this topic. Makes sense.

@USMCArchAngel03

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for setting us straight brother. Semper Gumby!

@davidb6576

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the insight, great to have some context and detail.

@notsomalicious4435

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the insight! I wish the best best for yourself and your family in these testing times! From a Challenger guy to an Abrams guy!

@andrespodra8459

4 жыл бұрын

why dont you just simply buy more lighter tanks then?? Allies have Leclerc, Ariette - all are up to 60 tonnes. Even the Russians will sell you t90 if you ask.

Guys guys, it’s like in Halo 2: WHEN I JOINED THE CORP, WE DIDNT HAVE ANY FANCY SHMANCY TANKS! WE HAD STICKS! TWO STICKS AND A ROCK FOR THE WHOLE PLATOON, AND WE HAD TO SHARE THE ROCK!

@TheIrishRushin

4 жыл бұрын

This isn't a video game. You don't know how it feels to be knee deep in shit then an Abrams comes out of nowhere to save the day and not a peep after that.

@weaponizedautism8389

4 жыл бұрын

You Step I'll Bite I was just joking

@lancelotkillz

4 жыл бұрын

I miss halo 2. My bros and I used to play multiplayer all the time.

@weaponizedautism8389

4 жыл бұрын

J Solo it’s coming to MCC PC on may 12th

@Reactionary_Harkonnen

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheIrishRushin bro I was in Corps for 6 years. Abrams are beasts, and so are enemy tanks when you don't have one in your side.

Damn this new patch suck they didnt have to nerf the marines that much 😭

@Thebuzzki11er

4 жыл бұрын

They're just adapting to the new meta

@sgt.slaughter8170

3 жыл бұрын

AlanMota 303 😂🤣😂

@FBIAGENT725

3 жыл бұрын

@Ministry of Mystics the marines are part of the department of the navy, but not the actual us navy because the marines serve a different purpose from the navy. The us marines are based on the royal marines which were infantry soldiers put into marine units so the us kept with that practice

@spilledmilk4801

3 жыл бұрын

Its more of a rework to better fit the new and upcoming meta. Hope they get some buffs in future updates.

@slamdancer1720

3 жыл бұрын

@@FBIAGENT725 Royal marines are commando units. Not the same.

Abrams: was I a good tank in the Marine core? Death: no. Abrams: :( Death: i was told you were the best. Abrams: :)

@dangerousfreedom5340

4 жыл бұрын

Corps*

@truereaper4572

4 жыл бұрын

how tf do you misspell Corps?

@livewyr7227

4 жыл бұрын

@@truereaper4572 It's actually pretty easy to misspell corps... since 40% of the letters are fucking silent & useless. Don't be a toxic twatwaffle. (Especially to someone showing sympathy for an unpleasant event.)

@overlord165

4 жыл бұрын

I don't know why but this hit me RIP USMC Tank Battalions

@ovc1489

4 жыл бұрын

why the fuck did that bring in the feels

Restructuring is never easy... If they're Marines, they'll stay in the Corps. If they're tankers, they'll remuster to the Army.

@DirtNastyCivilian

4 жыл бұрын

J0HN_R1 that’s some heavy dope but extremely pure and true.

@Brecconable

4 жыл бұрын

I'd send each Mne Tank Btln to the following: 1st Cav Div, 82 ABD and 25 LID.

@lance5041

4 жыл бұрын

@@Brecconable does the 82nd operate M1s? When I was in, they had the Sheridan, some old timers were pissed about the guys that got their combat star on their 6th jump! (Panama)

@DirtNastyCivilian

4 жыл бұрын

RoughneckMP so the government finally brings the entire United States tank fleet up to modern spec.... but in keeping with the “hand me downs” tradition of the corps they can’t have that so give them to the army. Lol this all checks out.

@craigmcguire6573

4 жыл бұрын

Lance Na they decommissioned their only armor bn 3/73 back in 95ish. Four platoons of M551 Sheridans. Some given to Ft Irwin for Opfor and the rest dumped into the ocean.

USMC IS NOW OFFICIALLY A "TANKLESS" JOB!

@billrobert3226

3 жыл бұрын

o I c what u did ther

@eb3279

3 жыл бұрын

That's a good one.

@matthewbarber4505

3 жыл бұрын

And yet, we're all still tanked!

@jacobmccandles1767

3 жыл бұрын

Dah-dump, tsit.

@waynefletcher9884

3 жыл бұрын

😁🤣🤣🤣🤣

Bottom line: The Commandant is leading the Corps back to its original mission and that is of a litoral force.

@Eirik36

4 жыл бұрын

Steven Bennett we’ve had tanks since 1941... and have effectively used them since then. The commandant wants act like we still swing from sail boats to attack our enemy. Make us even smaller than we already are

@blackterminal

4 жыл бұрын

Does he also have a Sgt called Schultz?

@19KiloM1A1

4 жыл бұрын

Try and take a light battalion against a Regiment. How do you think that will work out? If the paln is meant to fight China this is a piss poor plan.

@DonMeaker

3 жыл бұрын

The Marine Corps original mission was as the Navy's police force.

@DonMeaker

3 жыл бұрын

@Randy Hodder When wars end, the military and navy downsize. That happens, and it is a good thing. So the command recommends the best way to cut, and what to keep.

This feels like it will make their expeditionary forces less effective, and also defeat the purpose if their just provided army battalions instead

@TheJBerg

4 жыл бұрын

The Expeditionary Force model got a 100% overhaul. The entire Corp got a revamp and focused on our core missions of being an amphibious Expeditionary light force. The future is in drones and hand-held rockets.

@Callsign_Prophet

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheJBerg plus the marines respond to crisis and that usually doesnt warrant a tank... not exactly effective at extracting people from embassies

@Callsign_Prophet

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheJBerg if it's a PLANNED war where you need tanks the army is probably strapped up and ready to go.

@fewtoes

4 жыл бұрын

I think they are setting up to raid and capture artificial islands. After which, they could set up large anti-ship missile bases.

@Callsign_Prophet

4 жыл бұрын

@@fewtoes bingo man... you got it down. Tanks dont swim and if there is armor you have both naval and air support along with infantry based anti tank weapons.

As a former Marine, I'm very unhappy with this move. The whole idea of a MEU is to wage a war entirely on our own until the army and air force gets spun up. How are we going to do that without tanks? I'm also okay with going completely the other direction and being more similar to the small unit commando raids of Royal Marines. Either one or the other. If anything, cut personnel, to under 50k, and get give us better training and equipment. We don't need to be 200k.

@dos_gringos9853

4 жыл бұрын

Justin I’m absolutely terrified of going to war with China with such limited arty and tank assets to back us up, the USMC is already heavily outgunned by all near peer armies and I am not confident in the Navies ability to provide Naval gunfire to replace arty.

@williamlyerly3114

4 жыл бұрын

If you are providing naval gunfire, you are a sitting duck.

@iannordin5250

4 жыл бұрын

@@dos_gringos9853 Considering that China has ship missils that turns our navy into a bunch of paper boats, yeah, USMC is fucked.

@Callsign_Prophet

4 жыл бұрын

I think we agree. I'm assuming this is the ultimate goal of the USMC command but they have to do it in small doses or it would meet more resistance... people are passionate

@fuegofootball758

4 жыл бұрын

Justin the marines as a whole got to big and would suffer due to it. They’re basically a smaller, less funded army. When they become smaller, they’ll have equipment on par with the army, and have support from the army( tanks) and Air Force( air support). Also naval support would most likely be from missiles making them more effective. The whole battle ground is changing and coming from a grunt, the future is gonna have less boots on the ground

Sabaton: Plays Devil Dogs *Everyone liked that.* Also Sabaton: Plays Panzer Battalion afterwards. *The Marines missed that.*

@Butter_Warrior99

3 жыл бұрын

Stop. I'm still sad to here. I still can't get that downed Abrams mission from OG CoD MW, Loved that campaign.

I was in a tanker unit. They turned us into a Light Armored Vehicle Reconnaisance battalion. One result was that allot of experienced NCO's who were lifers refused to re-up. This was back in 2006 so this change has been in the works for a while.

A few weeks from now in squad bay on Camp Lejeune, NC: "Bob is gonna be joining our unit for for the next few month....helping us be more efficient. Bob is a CONSULTANT."

@Marinealver

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe they had Sean Penn tell them on what to do. He was in Taps after all.

@goodcitizen3999

4 жыл бұрын

The Bobs.

@pentagramprime1585

4 жыл бұрын

@StahlBlitz who me? Hell no. I just loved "Office Space."

(Everyone): "Yep Tanks are obsolete now" (Also everyone, after next war): See? Told you what We needed was tanks!

@Briselance

4 жыл бұрын

When AA missiles were put in wide use, some sad man said fighters were soon to be obsolete. I still chuckle at remembering reading that. (I am not old enough to have witnessed that era. :-P)

@silvesby

4 жыл бұрын

@@Briselance I mean, some military strategists in the 20s and 30s thought the tank was obsolete since the improvement of anti tank rifles and field guns

@demanischaffer

4 жыл бұрын

@@silvesby And at the same time Tankers thought armor would replace the infantry

@KingSpittusFactus

4 жыл бұрын

tanks are told to ne obsolete after every war amd those people are always wrong

@Kakarot64.

4 жыл бұрын

@@KingSpittusFactus Tanks are a British invention they will only become obsolete when Tea becomes obsolete especially the British tanks that are equipped with their own brewing stations........ I mean who wouldn't want a magnificent mug of Yorkshire Gold tea whilst sitting the commanders chair of a 60 ton war machine while soluting a picture of the queen?

As a Marine Infantry Veteran, it’s a sad thing to see. Even in my time when we still had M-60’s, you learned to respect and depend on Marine Armor. From a logic stand point I see the thinking of abandoning heavy and hard to transport, 68 ton M1’s of the MEF is going all amphib. Since the world isn’t predictable, I also see the logic of having them and not needing them then needing them and not having them.....so to say I have mixed feelings is an understatement.

@averagecitizen8491

2 жыл бұрын

As a former USMC tanker I agree. Those grunt units will be sitting ducks w/o tank support. Our job as Marines is to be a force in readiness in any clime and place. Why are they concentrating only on the West Pac?

@RovingRoninEDC

2 жыл бұрын

@@averagecitizen8491 thank you for your service brother

@averagecitizen8491

2 жыл бұрын

@@RovingRoninEDC thank you too

@t_sixtyfivex_wing8787

2 жыл бұрын

@@averagecitizen8491 you and your tank save may marines during heavy gunfight in town, when the M1 Arrived the marines feel confident, your armor is very good cover. We are salute you 07.

As soon as I turned 17 last year I talked to my recruiter about being a tanker in the marine corps because I have loved tank and the marines just as much and that’s what I’ve wanted to do for as long as I’ve know what a tank was but then they did this. But I’m still going into the marines but I wish I could’ve gotten to work with those awesome vehicles

There's some good in this however, over the years the USMC slowly became an Army 2.0, with them giving up their traditional role of being naval infantry. There's really no point in having 2 ground based force branches in your military, so converting the Corps back to what it was supposed to be, a projectile fired by the US Navy, makes perfect sense. However disbanding all tank battalions seems harsh to me, i'd understand if they'd switched to amphibious tanks, but completely getting rid of armour could be devastating to the Corps offensive capabilities.

@justsomeamerican2301

4 жыл бұрын

Im no military expert but im pretty sure if you parked enough abrahams tanks on a aircraft carrier deck , you would have a battle ship

@justsomeamerican2301

4 жыл бұрын

@Memento Mori , idk bro , thats a lot of cannons

@ninicholas

4 жыл бұрын

I'm no military expert either, but the Naval and air support should be enough to support the marines in most operations

@jaredmackey4511

4 жыл бұрын

Austria Erit in orbe Ultima I think it’s bc they’ve been suffering from poor retention of manpower. At least it was that way when I was getting out 4yrs ago. They’ve been downsizing since 2012/13 but cut too much too fast

@DurzoBlunts

4 жыл бұрын

Give it half a decade and the navy/marines will be contracting prototype amphibious vehicles. They're already upgrading the lcac's and the landing ships.

Looks like the crayons had an unwanted side effect after all.

@ghosttankcommander5397

4 жыл бұрын

Daniel Lee what?!?!? They are getting rid of both tanks and choppers?!?!?! Are you fucking kidding me?!?!

@kilmentvoroshilov2827

4 жыл бұрын

@@Danielle-xs5cz Yeah until they need the fly boys in a a10 to get them out of a hot wax

@IZR02

4 жыл бұрын

@@kilmentvoroshilov2827 Oh god no... Please don't tell me they also remove the glorious A10.....

@followthegrow108

4 жыл бұрын

Lol

@gafeleon9032

4 жыл бұрын

You know what it looks like? It looks like the game was rigged from the start

This kinda breaks my heart . I was in Iraq in 06 when a marine tank hit an IED on Uranium killing the driver and attended the ceremony for him . I remember these warriors doing what they did back then and doing it well .

Getting rid of tanks is a bad idea! Having a Tank at the ready, is like having a Fire-extinguisher, “better to have it, and not need it,” “than to need it and not have it.” Woe to those who forget history.

@jmd1743

3 жыл бұрын

Armenia is getting clobbered.

@dusty54bhs

3 жыл бұрын

I believe thats going the be left the Army while Marines get to do actual marine tasks and not be the "little Army" anymore. Sort of like theyll take the beachheads so they army can land with the heavy stuff. Also, talking about history its shown that infantry based anti tank is far more bang for the buck then actual armor. WW2 was 80 years ago, imagine the criticisms back then from old soldier who trained on single shot rifles telling their men that tanks, planes, and machine guns were just whacky and impractical developments. Same now, history has taught that the last times tanks held pure domination over the battlefield without threats from aircraft and ATGMs, that are just or more deadly than opposition armor, was like 1960 at the latest so I dont get what you mean there.

@ohanailo7743

3 жыл бұрын

@@dusty54bhs, Terrain determines, “Tank Usage.” The Last and biggest, “Tank to Tank Battles was not 80 years ago. They were of most Recent the Second Gulf War and Invasion of Iraq. Open Terrain large crossing of open Terrain. Truck Jeep’s an Infantry had no cover. One Tank Strategically placed at a road crossing can control any traffic in or out of a specific area. What gave the U.S. forces the advantage to defeat the, “Amor Threat,” was the great advancement in the Helicopter Technologies and Missile advancement. Which was specifically designed to meet the Soviet threat of the 1980’s. During that second conflict, after action reports read by the bean counters in the defense department. To make a determination as to cost effectiveness after the battle, even though there was Tank to Tank engagements on the battle field. The differences between the True Soviet military and the Iraq Army are night and day. The Iraq Army was well equipped to fight any Army in that region. But, Sadam Hussein never thought his forces would ever be fighting U.S. Forces. Just like, General Noriega, never thought he would be running from U.S. troops in Panama, his own country. Why because they were both being used and allied with the United States. There are some very well written historical documentaries on this subject with both dictators. The tactics and usage of Armor is still very useful. It’s the bean, $$$, counters as well as those politically ambitious in the pentagon trying to make a name for themselves. At the expense of the actual, “War Fighters.” Those behind the curtain no name politicians will be the ones to blame. When your Marines need a, “Tank,” and non available.

@dusty54bhs

3 жыл бұрын

@@ohanailo7743 my point is that Marines will still have armored vehicles. They will still have anti tank weapons. This very terrain you speak of is the south pacific, vastly different from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at Chinas marines. Theyre modelled as an amphibious assault force capable of establishing and holding a beachhead long enough for their army to land with the heavy stuff if needed. I believe this shift for the Marine Corps is back to being a dedicated naval infantry assault force and away from being the Armys little brother to help out where needed.

@dusty54bhs

3 жыл бұрын

@@ohanailo7743 Not to mention I feel the gulf war argument support my point further. Different in design of the Soviet and Russian armies but using mostly entirely their equipment. You're telling me an anti tank missile developed to destroy a 80s and 90s model Russian tank isn't going to kill one from the 60s or 70s? Technological inferiority due to lack of military spending is political, not tactical most times. The fact Iraq was well equipped to fight an army in their region and not the US was because they didn't have the money to be. Helicopter and missiles obliterating multimillon dollar vehicles with 3+ crewman is my point. The "last great tank battle" was anything but, it was a complete slaughter from the start of the war for the most part. All those goals a tank can accomplish, can still be accomplished by the Army when its needed.

Yeah, Marines won't need tanks in the future.... This is a smart move. Goes right along with the idea that that Phantom did not need a gun.

@demanischaffer

4 жыл бұрын

I mean If you look at the statistics of Phantom kills, the addition of guns and gun pods didn't really make a big difference in kills The USAF was forced to take a fleet interceptor and make it engage enemy MIGS with tight ROE's within visual range, it also didn't help that the USAF tried using AIM-4's against fighters Once missile's were improved, better friend or foe systems were introduced and the addition of constant radar and information coverage from TEABALL allowed F-4's to have better situational awareness and allowed more BVR shots The addition of a gun was really the USAF trying to cover poor maintenance, tactics, data and radar coverage, and ROE *edit* Navy F-4's also never carried guns in combat but were able to avoid the issues of the USAF because the Navy pilots couldn't be ambushed from behind due to the sea, plus constant radar and data coverage from Red Crown and AWACS meant that Navy pilots weren't usually flying into ambushes

@SoloRenegade

4 жыл бұрын

the Phantom was an interceptor. No interceptors had guns except for the F-104. It was repurposed into a multirole fighter. Nowadays tanks are getting too heavy and can't defend against light anti-tank weapons. focus on lighter armor and speed.

@tj6670

4 жыл бұрын

​@@demanischaffer Yeah, what I've read about the AIM-4s used in Vietnam is not good. Under the rules of engagement in Vietnam, it would have been very nice to have a gun. BVR missiles are not good for a head on pass if you aren't allowed to fire them until you can visually identify the target as an enemy, by which time the front of his aircraft is lighting up from his cannons. Sparrows of the time reportedly didn't work under any kind of g-load, no Doppler radar and sidewinders could be fooled. The air war in Vietnam has always been fascinating because of the lack of a lopsided air-to-air kill ratio. The Navy developed superior tactics with what they were given. Some descriptions of the dogfights involving F-4s sound like the Phantoms had a big advantage over the enemy fighters. Having an extra set of eyeballs.

@demanischaffer

4 жыл бұрын

@@tj6670 The AIM-4 was meant to down Soviet bombers Not fighters The AIM-4 required the seeker to be warmed up before firing a shot, however you couldn't just prewarm up the seeker as the battery would die leaving you with a useless missile, overall the USAF scored *1* kill with the AIM-4 from Phantoms The ROE of Vietnam was really awful and forced pilots into avoidable situations

@GeorgiaBoy1961

4 жыл бұрын

Precisely. Does the Commandant think that the Chi-Coms will up-and-surrender their tanks, too, just to keep things even?

I guess 'we' are no longer planning for set piece tank battles across the planes of Europe or the middle east ... but the reduction in lift capability baffles me.

@dzikijohnny

4 жыл бұрын

Touay Problem is Russia is.

@louiscypher4186

4 жыл бұрын

@@dzikijohnny NATO ensures the European theater is fine. Especially with russia's economy and naval assets slowly rotting away. However with china's expanding military and economy along with it's more bullish attitude in the south pacific presents a much greater risk particularly when the bulk of NATO cannot be relied upon for assistance in the pacific. Particular if the Russians chose to take the opportunity over a distracted US to fuck about in europe. It makes sense to reform the marine corps more to naval campaign's and facing the true threat. The doctrine sound's solid, focusing on multi role is not the best use of asset's. But like Touay said the removal of heavy lift assets is confusing. removing tanks is one thing, But you'd think you'd want more heavy lift to get assets into restricted access locations as fast as possible. Plus you'd think they would be expanding Amphibious vehicle's but they are reducing them too. Most confusing of all is scrapping bridge building companies. the lack Infrastructure on pacific islands is still a huge problem even for local forces. I cannot help but think what's really going on a much much larger shift in the function of the Marines with a lot more reductions further down the road.

@Touay.

4 жыл бұрын

@@dzikijohnny agreed.

@andresmartinezramos7513

4 жыл бұрын

@@louiscypher4186 This

@thomasmoran9114

4 жыл бұрын

The Marines were never tasked with fighting tank battles across the plains of Europe.

The Marines got their M1s during Desert Storm. At that time we still had M60s.

My eldest served in a tank unit and repaired their sophisticated communication equipment. He was reassigned to the Marine Corps Communication-Electronics School (MCCES), also based at 29 Palms, CA, shortly before they made the announcement to rid the USMC of their prized tanks. He said it was a sad day for all the tankers.

Just give me those tanks, ill give them a nice home

@ghosttankcommander5397

4 жыл бұрын

PanzerKampfwagen VI Ausf B [H] exactly adopt some of those tanks to me!

@pencilgaming1233

4 жыл бұрын

Give yourself a decent engine first lol

@ghosttankcommander5397

4 жыл бұрын

Španska inkvizicija yea I heard that they want to give the m1a3s a flex fuel Diesel engine or some shit which should be more versatile than that gas guzzling jet engine that the current abrams tank uses.

@user-pq9gy3fq1q

4 жыл бұрын

@@ghosttankcommander5397 as far as i heard, they picked the jet engine beacuse the maintenance was superbly cheaper

@ghosttankcommander5397

4 жыл бұрын

w really I heard it was harder to maintain because parts where costly idk either way the abrams kicks ass but it would be awesome if it wasn’t such a gas guzzler.

The tanks will probably go to local law enforcement to quell civil unrest.

@DragonHumper

4 жыл бұрын

You nailed it.

@BigSmartArmed

4 жыл бұрын

Yup. Marines won't pull for globalists, so marines armor had to go, and without armor a marine is a meatbag on a wire begging for artillery and air support.

@dickdykstra2234

4 жыл бұрын

I want one.

@nara6540

4 жыл бұрын

@Hoàng Nguyên Yeah, lol. There's a lot of propaganda in the US, for both sides

@nara6540

4 жыл бұрын

@Hoàng Nguyên Exaactly, at this point it is just sad to see, especially because there are enough people willing to defend this status quo in the US

USMC always bragged they had all the weapons to fight alone.

My time of service in the US Marines was a very long time ago. I my combat service was in Vietnam as a o311, combat rifleman, I never even seen a USMC tank. If it did not fit in a helicopter we went with out. Thank you for your service and sharing with us.

Wow. This was a shocker. I’m wondering as well who’s going to pick up the slack. So much for being tanker in the Marines.

@Callsign_Prophet

4 жыл бұрын

If you want to be a marine you can still join I mean if you had tried to enlist as a tanker you would have been reclassed to something else likely anyways. If you join the marines it's to be a marine... not for a specific job.

@kolinmartz

4 жыл бұрын

The army as always.

@Callsign_Prophet

4 жыл бұрын

@@kolinmartz Seriously the cult following of the Marines is so toxic and actually is negative when conducting joint operations

@ironstarofmordian7098

4 жыл бұрын

@@Callsign_Prophet so basically, you can join, and do something you hate for a job.

@odinlindeberg4624

4 жыл бұрын

I'm pretty sure the reason is that in the event of a China conflict, the army and air force would be striking from the mainland to the west of China while the marines would be with the navy, island hopping their way up the south china sea. So most of the time the navy would be within arm's reach, ready to hammer anything and everything with artillery. So the marines can't really do much with a tank that the navy wouldn't already be fielding with their ships. Instead, they'd be going in to clear out compunds with rifles and manportable launchers.

As a guy who spent his entire career in technology, I find the military's faith in it to be... disturbing. Nothing beats the man behind the machine.

@smutlee9143

4 жыл бұрын

Not just the military my friend.

@Aden_III

4 жыл бұрын

CC Ryder And once it’s hit you have the chance of being rendered completely blind if those electronics inside of it get rattled

@paulhetherington3854

4 жыл бұрын

Technology? Any kind, of skill-- retards. Scandinavian more than, Greek.

@erzhaider

4 жыл бұрын

@Luis Bolanos Yeah no, the tank has proven itself useful if used correctly. The infantry is also extremely important for any kind of operation on land but they need those tanks to help them in many cases

@luism5514

4 жыл бұрын

Yup. It is the STUPIDEST idea ever. How to you fight Russia AND China with less tanks, less fighter jets, less helicopters and less troops? You don't.

I served with Aco 1st BN from 92" to 94" as the Comm Chief and when I heard the Corps was disbanding the Tank BN's I was highly upset, even though I wasn't a Tanker I served with these guys and let me tell you these are some of the hardest working Marines in the Corps. I sure do miss it, Semper Fi Devil Dogs!!!

I'd just like to point out, the previous to the "mission creep" that started during WW2, the marines had light tanks like the Stuart. those worked pretty good until the japanese brought out 3" anti tank guns, so Shermans got rolled up. The reason they brought tanks to begin with is because it turns out having an armored death box on tracks is really great at fighting the enemy's concrete death boxes on the beach that can't move. I agree that the USMC probably doesn't need a bunch of Abrams tanks, but until they get a new amphibious vehicle design to replace the AAV7 that is their singular ground based heavy support. the EFV program got cancelled, the army has started and stopped at least three replacement programs for the bradley and stryker family. The AAV7's also are pretty much hot dogshit at this point. It's not 2003 anymore where the worst thing an armored vehicle can run into is a PG-7V built in 1974 by the soviets. Syria/Libya have shown that ATGM systems are incredibly widespread, as well as MANPAD systems. I guess really the question about keeping tanks and other armored vehicles these days is "How likely is a contested beach landing?". prepared static defenses seem to be a thing of the past, what with laser guidance and wire guided bunker busters like the TOW-2, but a hastily dug trench with a machine gun and an ATGM on a tripod tend to be quite the obstacle. Especially if they are looking at china as the main threat.

@bighands69

3 жыл бұрын

Contested beach landing are still a real thing in a major war. Iraq was not really a war for the US as they won in about 3 days time and then had to do world police for 10 years after. AAV are still required and so are standard tanks and beach landing tanks. China will need to be using trench defensive warfare and the probably are going to do it in a fashion that is not out in the open. The Japanese used it to devastating effect in concealed positions in WW2 even when the US had air superiority.

@mabdinur85

3 жыл бұрын

I think the point of rockets and drones as a new priority for the Marines is meant to overwhelm with precision any contested beach landing. Maybe they see the tank as being a much simpler target for an entrenched beachhead in the modern era.

@bighands69

3 жыл бұрын

@@mabdinur85 Drone warfare is decades away and then there will be counter drone technologies. And even then armoured vehicles will still be required to help flush out heavily defended enemies. The drone warfare thing is one of those future hype things that gamers love to talk about.

@jacobmccandles1767

3 жыл бұрын

* snickers * "MANPADS".

@MUJUNKY

3 жыл бұрын

@@jacobmccandles1767 hehe manpad go dingdingding

Definitely doesn't sound like a good idea either for the tankers or the helicopter squadrons. Semper Fi

@EricTheActor805

4 жыл бұрын

Tanks are obsolete

@Joe_Friday

4 жыл бұрын

@@EricTheActor805 You keep saying in multiple posts that they're obsolete. How are they obsolete? I find this hard to believe.

@EricTheActor805

4 жыл бұрын

@@Joe_Friday When was the last battle that was won because of tanks? Kursk? How many tanks has America lost in Iraq? How many tanks has Saudi Arabia lost in Yemen? How many tanks has Russia lost in Syria? How many tanks did Israel lose in the 2006 invasion of Lebanon? How many tanks did Libya lose in the 1987 Chad Border war? How much does a modern ATGM cost? How much does a modern MBT cost? What advantage does a MBT provide to a IFV or APV? What advantages does an M1 Abrams give you that a M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System, M1296 Stryker Dragoon, M2 Bradley or M3 Bradley doesn't?

@motmontheinternet

4 жыл бұрын

@@EricTheActor805 You didn't answer his question in the slightest.

@gungde9419

4 жыл бұрын

@@EricTheActor805 *cough gulf war cough

I guess it sounds like they want the marines to be more infantry/amphibious based as opposed to multi mission expeditionary forces? Kinda makes sense if they’re anticipating leaving more of the heavy elements to the army but even so... the diversity of the marine corps’ structure has served them well recently. And, it’s always a shame to see all the tanks put to rest...

@charlieday6624

4 жыл бұрын

sgtrpcommand pretty sure that’s what the Royal Marines are doing also, downscaling everything to go back to their roots in ww2

@mxtz6903

4 жыл бұрын

They are cutting infantry units too

@garrettwight1027

4 жыл бұрын

It's like they're trying to make themas fast to deploy as possible. Faster and lighter, maybe even more effective? I guess we'll see

@sgtrpcommand3778

4 жыл бұрын

@@garrettwight1027 That's what I thought as well, but the fact that they're cutting infantry units as well makes me kinda suspicious. Unless they want to use the extra funds to get better equipment, but unless 16,000 troops is a LOT of lost firepower.

@hiddensalami4334

4 жыл бұрын

Its served them well in the past. But as the times change so should the tactics, the doomed horse cavalry charges of WW I are testament to that. Better to be ahead of the curve. I dont know anything, but id say theyre going to trend toward smaller more elite infantry units working closely with land based and aerial drones.

I was in the USMC in 1990’s we used the M60A3, I would’ve loved to have used a M1 Abram tanks I’m sorry to see them go! HORRAH boys

@donholland5410

3 жыл бұрын

m60a1 not m60a3

@shaydesofblue2281

2 жыл бұрын

OORAH*

I was in 3rd Tank Battalion as we transitioned from the M60 to the M1Abrams...I was one of the first to go back to Fort Knox to learn about it this new tank as well as all the other new equipment coming into the Marine Corps in 1984....Cucvee, Humvee, LAV, and the U S Army Bradley fighting vehicle. I came back as the XO of Tow Co, 3rd Tanks....as the only infantry officer in a Tank battalion, we need our tanks. Not sure which idiots came up with the retirement of our tanks. But a friend of mine...Rob Barrow, who's dad was Commandant Robert Barrow, also agrees with me and so would his dad...we need tanks!

USMC has always prided itself on being a complete combined arms military force unequaled in the world. This is disgraceful

@pwrserge83

4 жыл бұрын

On a modern battlefield, tanks are useful, but not essential for a combined arms rapid reaction force like the USMC. In fact, an M1 takes so long to deploy and requires so much logistics support that they would just slow down your operations tempo to an unacceptable degree. This is just the USMC focusing on what we do best. Having the nastiest shock infantry in the world. The rotary aircraft phaseout for CAS also makes sense. These days, helicopters can do little that drones can't for a fraction of the cost and logistics tail.

@southernaviation9581

4 жыл бұрын

@@pwrserge83 We don't have any drones capable of doing what the Uh-1y l/Ch-53e/Mv-22 can do...

@rollerr

4 жыл бұрын

@@pwrserge83 If logistics are the main factor holding back the abrams being used in this new evolved Marine corps, shouldn't they just design a tank that better fits that role instead of cutting tanks altogether?

@pwrserge83

4 жыл бұрын

@@rollerr Why does the Marine Corps need a tank for their primary mission profile? They aren't going to be thrown into the Fulda Gap

@pwrserge83

4 жыл бұрын

@@southernaviation9581 No... No we don't. But the transport side isn't getting cut, it's purely the CAS side.

This doesn’t sound like a good idea

@Callsign_Prophet

4 жыл бұрын

They're making them a more elite amphibious light infantry force like they should be... why have 2 Armies?

@nonpartisangunowner4524

4 жыл бұрын

Azriel: All infantry need to be backed by big guns, that’s what tanks are for.

@RickyTPB4L

4 жыл бұрын

Azriel they can deploy faster to the pacific ex) war with China.

@noodles5438

4 жыл бұрын

Azriel I think they should keep tanks but only a few mostly for the MEU. But what do I know I’m not General and I didn’t invent ACUs.

@BigBushWookie

4 жыл бұрын

Azriel have two armies so you can fight more enemies at once and have a massive amount of reserves

Thanks for the tough update...! Regards from 🇧🇷

Everybody gangsta till the other side show up in tanks

@majungasaurusaaaa

4 жыл бұрын

Coffins on tracks these days.

@natelav534

4 жыл бұрын

And get bombed from 40 miles away and retreat? This happened in iraq. Our infantry literally cannot keep up with our air force. They need to be faster. Infantry battles wont happen on the modern battlefield

@johne.osmaniii7217

4 жыл бұрын

MadProductionsink ain’t that the damned truth!

@LockheedC-130HerculesOfficial

4 жыл бұрын

But that's when the army comes in.. But i still agree that this isnt the best decision right now..

@midgetman4206

3 жыл бұрын

@@natelav534 so we are replacing heavy armor with light vehicles like the JLTV? Or are light tanks making a comeback because I've been wondering if we have any

I WILL assume that it's because the USMC is transferring total armored control to the Army to focus on forward beach control, to streamline deployment capabilities. I will also note that we (the US) is one of a few countries to actually to deploy a Marine Corps.

@yeahboi1577

4 жыл бұрын

Well that's because the US is one of a few countries to actually be protected by 2 oceans.

@williamjenkins9235

4 жыл бұрын

@@yeahboi1577 No, It means that the US has to constantly defend 2 Oceans. Our Defense spending is enormous because we need to constantly (at a minimum) Defend our East Coast and our West Coast! To put that into perspective, the Russians and Chinese do not/can not (at this time) project the same capability that we do on a consistent basis. I do not doubt the capabilities of our Allies, but I will say that we project more and contribute more than all Nations in NATO combined.

@razor1uk610

4 жыл бұрын

@@williamjenkins9235 ..ok, as you are so condiscending;... please give up and give back all US nuclear & gas turbine technologies to only the British then.

@davidrobinson7112

4 жыл бұрын

I really think this reorganization is wrong headed. We are going to be facing Chinese hordes as we did in Korea. If any thing we need a ten to one advantage. No fancy dancy exotic lasers or kinetic energy gadgets can or will make up for shock troops.

@Briselance

4 жыл бұрын

@@razor1uk610 " we project more and contribute more than all Nations in NATO combined." That might be just fact, you know.

If memory serves, the USMC used M4 Sherman tanks during the Pacific campaign in WW2, which were used for taking out fortified Japanese positions and Japanese light tanks. Also, the Philippine military which previously avoided acquiring main battle tanks, are now considering acquiring main battle tanks, following the 2017 Battle of Marawi, in which Philippine military units found it hard to dislodge ISIS militants from fortified urban positions. After Marawi, the Philippine military came to the realization that tanks are useful, for more than just fighting other tanks.

@Lobos222

4 жыл бұрын

Well, back then you couldnt pop a drone into your 40mm, fire it up into the air and have it automatically call in a bunker buster on the bunker. Future possible conflicts with nations that have close to equal tech will be very indirect and with that any tank is a sitting duck.

@SoloRenegade

4 жыл бұрын

But to take on such positions, lighter armor that can withstand larger small arms that is easier and faster to transport,a nd less likely to get stuck on battlefields the marines would fight on makes sense. Smaller, lighter, faster, easier to maneuver in terrain, sand, and mud (beaches). Such vehicles still have their uses. Speed is key. And heavy armor cant stand up to infantry antitank weapons anymore anyways. Smaller and lighter also means cheaper and less training. easier to replace losses.

@jsn1252

4 жыл бұрын

@Jim Nickles You do realize that all vehicles, aircraft, artillery, and a large part of infantry kit have electronics, right?

@patelivid1637

4 жыл бұрын

We should give them light tanks

@TheArklyte

4 жыл бұрын

Philippines. Fighting ISIS. I just love how we just accepted reality in which destabilized by USA Middle East was simply turned into a weapon polygon for US and its allies that have nothing to do with this conflict and just want to test new weaponry on young brainwashed hotheads, who're driven to join ISIS by propaganda sponsored by Saudi Arabia ie ANOTHER long term american ally:D Oh, I hope historical karma exists, boys...

I was in the Corp when the M1 was first introduced and it was such a welcome sight to see and know we had such a powerful element added to our strike force that gave us all a sense of relief. We can only hope they know what they are doing because I know personally how much value tanks brought to the infantry and unless they have a comparable system to replace them with they are doing a disservice to the infantry and putting them at higher risk then they already were!

As a US Army infantry man I can tell you from talking to people in my knowledge of it the main reason they’re getting rid of stuff like that and making changes is because right now the Marines operate almost as a second army and they are not a second army so they are making changes like this

@retrobat153

4 жыл бұрын

exactly, I have enlisted for marine basic training and leave in a few months. But the marines are supposed to be a short term fighting option till the long term fighting option in the army/airforce/navy can fully mobilize. There is no reason to take resources away from the army like tanks for the marines

@devinptacek9122

4 жыл бұрын

Do you know if there giving the tanks to the army or are they selling them

@retrobat153

4 жыл бұрын

@@devinptacek9122 if they are selling them its to upgrade to better equipment, but I don't think they are doing that and the army is more than likely getting them. The marines are looking to slim down and be faster and be able to mobilize faster

@KB4QAA

3 жыл бұрын

@@retrobat153 USMC tanks were never 'taken away from the army". They have separate budgets and separate OR (Operational Requirements". -old navy guy

@KB4QAA

3 жыл бұрын

@@retrobat153 They aren't selling the tanks, and the army will not obtain them directly. They will probably go into storage with the hundreds of other used M-1's.

I'm waiting for the first brass to say "learn to code".

@pentagramprime1585

4 жыл бұрын

Will they hire George Cloony to as an ax man? If so, would he need to complete MCT?

"barge bases" hold on, we getting Battle Barges?

@andrewsuryali8540

4 жыл бұрын

For the Emprah!!!!

@martontoth2063

4 жыл бұрын

Spessh Mahreens!

@seb2750

4 жыл бұрын

Bring on the boarding actions! SPESSSSHH MAHREEENS!

@mikmat8797

4 жыл бұрын

yeah what the fuck is that

Ok now I made it through the video... you spoke for me. Thank you. I didn’t even know when I shared it. But that is my motivation. I don’t need to be retrained. I just want to see it through to the end. Ocs would be a full better second chance... but I am not strong enough for that yet. Hopefully it will work out. Thank you

Matsimus, could you tell me what the music is at the start of this video please? Thanks in advance! 👍🏻

This reminds me of what the Army was trying to do two decades ago. They wanted to mostly disband the tank units and go to light, more deployable forces that relied on sensor fusion and firepower with precision weapons for fire support, the now defunct FCS program. They (the Army brass and DoD) thought tanks were too heavy and slow to arrive in theater and would not be as relevant in a future conflict. Then Iraq and Afghanistan happened and showed that when tanks were available they were game changers. Fallujah, Baghdad, Al-Najaf, etc...tanks could take fire and fish it out. USMC units have had their own organic tank units since WW2 and in every single conflict since then, Marine Corps tanks have proven invaluable on the battlefield. And on top of this they are trimming Marine Artillery by 75%, and they’re axing fighter squadrons and attack and utility helicopter squadrons. That’s a lot of combat power being removed from a branch that specializes in forced entry and assault. This is also at a time when other militaries and the US Army as well are recapitalizing their tank and artillery forces for peer conflicts demonstrating these platforms are still relevant. This sounds like the “transformation” push SecDef Rumsfeld was trying to push but didn’t really work out. I just hope the brass knows what they are doing and they don’t end up getting a bunch of Marines killed by planning for the war they want to fight instead of the wars they will fight.

@birddog7492

4 жыл бұрын

We all know they are going to get a lot of Marines killed. My son is a Marine Tank mechanic. However he deplored with RCT8 in both theaters. He's state side now.

@Nyx_2142

4 жыл бұрын

@Hammer Of Crom The same ones that they hamfisted through training and lowered the standards wherever they could to get them in. Talked to a guy that went through the same time a female class went through, he said if him or his buddies even did a fraction of the shit the women did they they would've been axed. Affirmative action and gender quotas have no place in the military.

@birddog7492

4 жыл бұрын

@Hammer Of Crom Lol

@EricTheActor805

4 жыл бұрын

Relax The Marines just adopted the Iveco SuperAV for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle program.

@Marc83Aus

4 жыл бұрын

@@EricTheActor805 Exactly what the marines need. Get rid of those silly LCAC's recklessly zooming around at 60mph, carrying obsolete tanks with unneeded 600 mm equivalent armour, overpowered 120mm cannons and dangerously capable of 50+ mph using old fashioned caterpiller tracks. Just death machines for their own crew. Much better to give them nice shiny new untested multi purpose vehicles that can cruise along comfortably at 65 mph using big wheels, with much more appropriate 15mm steel armour and maybe carrying a 40mm cannon as long as you don't mind carrying less marines. As a bonus they can travel almost 7mph in the water. a nice pleasure cruise for all involved.

None of this surprises me. The Marine Corps has been trying to get back to its amphibious roots for over a decade now and the Abrams just doesn't fit. It takes to long to get off the LCAC, it needs a ton of fuel that needs to go from a ship to a boat to the shore and then to the tank and it is also not amphibious, not allowing it to support a beach assault. I remember freezing my balls off waiting for the tanks to be unloaded on many nights and I can tell you that getting these things ashore is not the quickest thing. I feel the Abrams was a handy down from the Army as it doesn't fit any of our missions. As the AAV is also in need of replacement It wouldn't surprise me if the Corps has a new family of amphibious assault vehicles in mind, which would probably include one that acts as a light tank.

@jetboy770371

4 жыл бұрын

That new AAV is rolling out very soon to be deployed to replace the Amtrack LVT-P7 that replaced the P5 in 1972 . I got to know it back in 1977 at Camp Pendleton. With that current Amtrack you want tanks to be out in front of you on land , that thing is made of thin aluminum and can't take a big hit.

@tangocharliedd-2146

4 жыл бұрын

They should operated new modern medium tank because it's fit and had strong fire power for amphibious landing i believe us can do that cause a country called Indonesia made a new modern medium tank that can provide for jungle warfare and amphibious landing that's what us Marine needed we should reactive the medium tank again

@ericgill4665

4 жыл бұрын

No one needs a tank untill you come up against a few T34s.....

@tangocharliedd-2146

4 жыл бұрын

@@ericgill4665 than what?we can destroy that now we need only 40mm self propelled launcher

@jrcozens

4 жыл бұрын

I would think a modern spitball would take care of a T34. The Abrams is a great tank for fighting across the North European Plain with but at making a beachhead and pushing inland not really and any tank that's out of gas is useless. Just because the Corps doesn't have a tank doesn't mean that it wouldn't have a 120mm gun a vehicle.

The Marines were never historically a heavy mechanized force. They are best used as a quick reaction force that can be used as a stop gap until the Army can arrive. Stationed on Navy ships they can be ready to strike anywhere in the world within hours.

@mariag2563

Жыл бұрын

Why would you use MEUs in that role when you've got SOCOM, who are much better trained and funded than the Marines? Not to mention, it's quite large - bigger than some world armies, it could be its own branch of the US military. In the real world, that's pretty much how it happens now. SOCOM is waging war days, weeks, or months before conventional forces arrive. But the first conventional forces on the ground tend to be the rapidly deployable Army units like those in XVIII Airborne Corps and the 173rd Airborne Brigade. This is pretty much why the USMC has a never ending existential crisis. The only thing they genuinely offer that can't be done by the other branches (at least none by themselves) is the combined arms and logistical infrastructure needed to carry out an amphibious assault on a relatively large scale. They haven't done that since 1950 in Korea - and there is a reason for that. They're fucking suicide in the age of high precision guided munitions.

I served with the 1st Tank Battalion 7th Marine Regiment. It saddens me to hear this news but I guess the military is a constantly evolving and changing animal. Semper Fi Marines!

Unless the Marines plan to reorganize themselves into something similar to the British Royal Marine Commandos, then their infantry still need the option of being backed by big, mobile, well-protected line-of-sight weapon platforms. Just wait until the next major war, when a bunch of Marines are pinned down with their thin-skinned light vehicles shot to shit, aircraft can’t get to them, but they fight on having accepted their fate, while praying for God to send them just one tank.

@BigBushWookie

4 жыл бұрын

Non Partisan Gun Owner then all of the sudden *rise of the valkiry starts to play*

@commiespy4908

4 жыл бұрын

Everyone is saying a "more elite amphibious force" and "use the army instead" which directly contradict each other. An amphibious force can't make any reasonable advance without armor support, and you can't get army armor somewhere if they don't have anywhere to land it. Ergo, you need Marine Corps units that are capable of landing on beaches to support infantry advances.

@kolinmartz

4 жыл бұрын

They’re removing units. But that doesn’t mean they’re getting rid of big guns embedded in expeditionary units.

@coreys2686

4 жыл бұрын

@@kolinmartz They're also reducing their artillery from TWENTY ONE battalions to FIVE. Sure sounds like they're removing guns. They're removing MBTs altogether. They try landing on a beach nowadays with the current threat environment, they won't get within 20 miles of the beach, if they're lucky.

@peniskopf653

4 жыл бұрын

@@coreys2686 bradley has thermal sights a fast firing 30mm gun tons of era amd maybe theyll get a aps soon if a missile hits it it will be fucked. i cant say that the mbt would be in any better state after a top down hit by a missile that is shoulder launched. if they need a full scale combined arms operation theyll be in bigger trouble than not having tanks :'D

The Marine Corps hierarchy has forgotten the lessons of the past.

@2adamast

4 жыл бұрын

Edwin Charles Chan Cavalry history?

@velocitywot9573

4 жыл бұрын

@@2adamast they're assuming that China hasn't(and will not fortify) fortified any of the islands. That tanks aren't needed. When the Marines have literally had armored support on almost every amphibious landing in World War II. This decision is akin to the group that convinced everyone the age of dogfigting is over. That missiles are the new thing. What a lesson we learned. When the missiles didn't work and oh shit lets strap gun pods on the F4s. Anyways in this new 'bold' strategy there might be another Tarawa for the Marines in the South China sea.We'll see then. And when a armed conflict includes Russias massive hordes of tanks the Marines might as well be a reconnaissance branch.

@Poctyk

4 жыл бұрын

​@@velocitywot9573 >When the missiles didn't work and oh shit lets strap gun pods on the F4s. No, US learned that it needs to rethink it's training program. Also, comparing 1960s electronics and missiles in general to modern is insane.

@comedyguy911

4 жыл бұрын

@@velocitywot9573 Can you go look up the statistics of missile vs guns kills with the F4s because opening your big dumb mouth.

@birddog7492

4 жыл бұрын

We all know what happens to troops on the modern Battle field without Armor. It would seem that the high command wants dead Marines. And if they keep this up they will get them. I don't know what there plain is but it is plain to see they are going to use the Marines as canon Fodder.

I put off watching this video for a minute but I finally broke. As a current Marine Tanker this hits hard but I loved the video. The last of a dying breed and in a situation I never thought would happen in my time there's a lot of politics to it but we will adapt and overcome like many marines before us. Great tribute video man it was A1.

RIP Cobras. Always enjoyed seeing them flying around Camp Pendleton when I was stationed there.

“Hey guys, what’s the best way to beat the Chinese?” “Why don’t we just get rid of our tanks and airplanes?”

@monsieurstalin6841

4 жыл бұрын

@@KJ-is5ug we aren't Americans we are United States Citizens.

@noellesato311

4 жыл бұрын

GLA POSTAL SERVICE The USMC needs small, maneuverable infantry support mechs, around the size of two, maybe three golf carts. Instead of conventional weaponry, it’ll have crayon dispensers to support the Marines during urban combat operations. It’ll be small and flexible enough to maneuver around more compact streets and even inside some buildings, where most vehicles may be unable to move.

@van6646

4 жыл бұрын

@@KJ-is5ug i think she is talking about the military not the civilian population..

@MrTangent

4 жыл бұрын

Apple Nothing racist saying “chinese”.

@fuckintegridycuh2091

4 жыл бұрын

@@KJ-is5ug Chinese isnt a race and fyi most Asians dont even like the Chinese or as they would call them "mainlanders"

It's sad to see the Marines loosing their tanks, even from an Army veteran. Marines you have my respect 👍.

@koreanbassinalt9851

4 жыл бұрын

@eddie money dude who cares?

My daughter was the first female tanker in the Marines ( in 2014 ) she is now a Tank Commander in the Army working with the new tanks they got recently

@robertisham5279

2 жыл бұрын

Oh no she wasn't

Bro! I was on FOB Edi too! We took it over from you guys, I was there in 2010. Thanks for leaving the gym, and food.

I first heard about this 15 years ago when I was a cadet at The Citadel. It's finally coming true. The Marine Corps wants to return to its roots as a lighter, more mobile force.

@Callsign_Prophet

4 жыл бұрын

As it should be in my opinion... I've been wondering why I was in the middle of the desert as a MARINE (literally relating to ocean) Edit: this isn't no march to Tripoli no we were just chilling doing patrols... I thought that was the Armies job. Marines were never meant to be utilized like Army #2

@joshm3484

4 жыл бұрын

I don't believe cutting half its heavy lift capability will make it lighter or more maneuverable.

@xduwutees9575

4 жыл бұрын

Kurogane 556 putting marines armed with advanced drones and anti ship missiles creates a way more advanced light unit that can deploy anywhere at anytime and pose a threat to nearby sea units . How will the Chinese get to those islands? By sea or by the air . What poses a major threat to the Chinese navy ? Aircraft carriers and anti ship missiles and submarines .Trying to land your troops on a beach filled with marines and then having your ship being blown to shit by a missile can put a anchor on any force . This stops any amphibious force from coming near the island itself just knowing a sea skimming missile can come out of no where and not be detected until 5 miles out . That is scary knowing they are going at hypersonic speed and can reach you in less than 30 seconds . One hit is all it takes to fuck up a naval ship and make it useless . The drones were needed if you can spot your enemy before they can spot you it’s a huge advantage not only can you engage them early but set up quickly and create kill zones for them . This allows for the marines to intend what they are supposed to do . Be a light hard licking force that jumps from one island to the next and dig in and hold off the forces trying to take over and wait for the army to come in with reinforcements such as heavy tank support or mechanized amphibious units . Also artillery and air support . If you have the marines all over the place with tanks and jets less supplies and resources are actually going to the infantry . Plus the marines need new standard rifles and light machine guns . Plus new anti tank equipment for each fire team . So it’s all a big change but for the better . Now for the Middle East that is a different problem . The Middle East will always be the case that will never be solved .

And the next Commandant will want them back.

@josephdizon3493

4 жыл бұрын

PickelJars ForHillary I hope the next Commandant will get it back, because I don’t see the Marine Corps fighting against China or Russia without those tanks. And especially Russia could be a potential threat to us. I’m just so disappointed. The next Commandant will need to retire M1A1s and get the M1A3s.

When I was little I wanted to be in the US Marine Corp and the MOS I wanted to have was Tank crew member. It's sad that they are getting rid of this occupation.

As a former 1812 I'm pretty bummed about this. There was a lot of push back from the tank corps leading up to this, but this seems to be the future. Line units need to be able to meet present and upcoming threats to be effective.

I always thought Marines as a mix of all the branches. With their armor, jets, and boats. They had a bit of armor with the M1a1 Abrams while the Army got the A2 and Bradley and the Marines got the Harrier but not the F-22. They always seemed to act as a small military of all branches able to do all thing. Wonder how this will affect the MEU when they do invasions in the future.

@Callsign_Prophet

4 жыл бұрын

They want better integration between branches so I'm sure if they are in need of tanks or additional heli support they will get it from the army.

@TheJBerg

4 жыл бұрын

The idea is that if a long-term footprint or mechanized assault is required, joint ops with the Army will be leveraged. The Corps wants to reduce their reliance on Landing Support Ships an become a nimbler force and leave the heavy stuff with the Army.

@piotrd.4850

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheJBerg Which is roughly as it should be.

@mixmaster2909

4 жыл бұрын

orphanof CROM they are a department of the navy not a “sub division” it even says it in the Marine Corps seal

@ondrejlukas1121

4 жыл бұрын

@@mixmaster2909 the are not a department of the Navy, They are part of the Department of the Navy

"Hey! We'll win wars with 'Wunderwaffen!" I think I've heard that before somewhere?

Matsimus do you have a link to the video you did about the US army airforce tender for a new CAS plane ?

*Sir, Thank you for this video Sir* .

This might just be the single largest gathering of military experts I’ve ever witnessed. I probably couldn’t even count the decades of experience with my hands.

@thetrippedup9322

4 жыл бұрын

Listen here, *pip squeak*, I was an elite sniper shock marine commando with the 3rd Navy SEAL Brigade aboard the Pillar of Autumn. I bet you've never even seen a Dalek! Let alone fight them on the surface of an ancient ringworld/Iraqi WMD. I was General Colonel Master Chief of my squad, Shadow Reaper squad, and I was a hell of a lot more respected then you'll ever be! #respectveterans #installation04veteran #iwouldabeenyodaddybutthedogbeatmeoverthefence

@thehavoccompany-a3

4 жыл бұрын

@@thetrippedup9322 That HALO stuff got me lmfao

@thetrippedup9322

4 жыл бұрын

@@thehavoccompany-a3 It's funny, because I conducted a HALO jump from space only a few days before that battle. That's right, ladies, I was on the Long Night of Solace. Only survivor. My codename was Noble 6.

@FPSGuy100

4 жыл бұрын

@mandellorian You can never tell what kind of people lurk in these comment section. It could range from a 6 year old to General Mattis himself.

Imagine how the blokes who used to ride Horses felt when they were told - 'no more Horses ... you ride Helos now!?'

@HereticJon

4 жыл бұрын

The Army still has a few horse units.

@thevelointhevale1132

4 жыл бұрын

@@HereticJon So do the British Cavalry Regiments, but they don't ride to war on them.

@morecopemorerope4372

4 жыл бұрын

Heretic Jon they are purely ceremonial

@paulinotou

4 жыл бұрын

Pretty sure the transition era was long enough lol.

@WhiteTemplar01

4 жыл бұрын

Not to mention they went to something faster and better. This is tankers going from something to nothing. Tanks save lives. Now its all going to be squishes getting squished.

The thing I keep coming back to: when you need a tank, you need a damn tank. Nothing else I can think of can be a tank, but a tank. My perspective USMC, 1966 to 1968

@Stargazzer811

3 жыл бұрын

Well said.

Kinda a weird decision IMO. Respect to the United States Marine Corps and their tankers. The Armed Forces of the Philippines have worked with you guys for such a long time. :)

This seems like the Marines going back to being Marines. Being light and mobile focused on naval combat and invasions is something i feel has been lost in recent wars.

@vauxvids

4 жыл бұрын

IvanTheTerrible not really the Russians and Chinese you heavy tanks with their marines

@andresmdc78

4 жыл бұрын

Marines still had Armor. The Marine corp is suppose to operate with little assistance from other branches.

@davecrupel2817

4 жыл бұрын

@@vauxvids Marines were not, historically speaking, a land based fighting force. They were ship-borne light infantry used as an initial resistance, backed up by their ships' artillery. meant to hold out untill the main military arrives.

@jefferydraper4019

4 жыл бұрын

@@davecrupel2817 so ship borne raiding force.... Guess we can cut back to a few thousand like before WW2.

@therealnatersx

4 жыл бұрын

Total Victori times change, different wars where fought

I’ve served with two former-Marine Tankers in the ARNG. They are some of the finest Tankers I’ve ever worked with. If the USMC wants to dump some of their boys out with this IMO STUPID decision, I’ll gladly pick them up and keep them on the Tank. Respect to my fellow Tankers out there- Ride Fast, Strike Hard!

@harrisn3693

4 жыл бұрын

Torrence Yarborough M1 is good when y’all invading nations that can’t hold FOBs, but fight a nation that knows y’all use M1s for beach incursions, you might just as well be lit up like IDF did when fighting Hezbollah in the golan heights. The only purpose of the M1 is to make a poster boy image, but not realistic when it comes to a serious assymetric warfare situation.

I was with 8th Marines HQCO in the 80's at Camp Geiger. Still had open barracks in those days.

My admiration and respect for the USMC. Greetings from Mexico City.

They just lost a budget battle badly. I was in Desert Storm where we had all 4 tank battalions - both M1s and M60A3s. Couldn't have taken Kuwait without them.

@d.b.m.7089

4 жыл бұрын

Eagle,Globe,and Anchor. Marine Corps Tanker!!!!

@gavinstutler2469

4 жыл бұрын

Tanks are rolling coffins against major powers that actually have modern anti tank rockets.

@Lifechanging99999

4 жыл бұрын

Gavin Stutler that’s what your infantry is for. To kill those bastards. Tanks protect grunts, grunts protect tanks.

@gavinstutler2469

4 жыл бұрын

@@Lifechanging99999 Tanks are just expensive piles of trash. Those grunts better be at least a mile ahead of the tanks because of the range of the anti tank weapons. They are expensive artillery pieces. Just put some 105mm on an old jeep and save a billion dollars.

@Lifechanging99999

4 жыл бұрын

Gavin Stutler i take it you never used them in combat did you?

it's like when the army lost the usaac and their planes

@joeclaridy

4 жыл бұрын

No they didn't want to do any infantry training or PT they just wanted to fly.

@samuelthompson5299

4 жыл бұрын

S I guessing this is a troll but are you seriously implying that Jews are the reason for problems, go fuck your self if you actually believe that and if it’s a troll good on ya for getting me I guess?

@samuelthompson5299

4 жыл бұрын

Mr Me Really want a woosh moment

Hard news but thank you for letting us know. I appreciate you letting us know about force developments, even if they are a bitter pill to swallow.

Tanks for the memories.

Player:* selects all armored divisions and click "delete"* USMC:

the most successful armies in history always adapt and evolve. Goodluck.

@Birdy890

4 жыл бұрын

Adapting and adopting are not interchangeable words yknow.

@daytonasixty-eight1354

4 жыл бұрын

The most successful armies also didn't just disarm themselves.

@fixmix9857

4 жыл бұрын

@@Birdy890 sorry English is not my first language.

@fixmix9857

4 жыл бұрын

@@daytonasixty-eight1354 they just disbanded a part of their fighting force not the entire army. They just want to adapt or set the future battlefield scenario to avoid future losses like what happened to the cavalry units in world war 1.

@Birdy890

4 жыл бұрын

@@fixmix9857 You don't have any reason to apologize then. (Good on ya for editing it.)

That's Sr 10 on Lejuene, I worked that range for years as a civilian contractor. Fun times doing tiger comp!

This is sad and a scary move If this is the beginning of an era where all combat vehicles will be unmanned and life will be decided by a computer or whoever is infront of a computer and with the current state of the government i dont trust who will call the shots.

Remember that the Marines even used tanks when they attacked Tarawa and the other Marshall Islands during WWII. The tanks were brought to the island and fired their guns into Japanese fortifications that were pinning down troops landing on the beaches. So these tanks are useful for more than just killing enemy heavy armor.

@samuelthompson5299

4 жыл бұрын

Hannah Miyamoto But we have more effective shoulder launched munitions these days and you can always take cover behind a lav, Amtrak or Bradley or what ever amphibious vehicles they bring

@LuvBorderCollies

4 жыл бұрын

They might have had a few but most of the tank work in the Pacific was done by Army tank battalions. One old Army tanker claimed his M4 Sherman battalion was the best and when things got tough the 1** Battalion was requested and they'd be shipped to the trouble spot. No idea how all those logistics worked but as I recall his stories his tanks would be together on LST's. If there was a call for tanks the LST would drop them off and they'd go to work. It was my impression they just stayed off-shore until there was a need, they never went in as a planned spearhead of a 1st wave landing.

@HSMiyamoto

4 жыл бұрын

@@LuvBorderCollies Can you look that up and verify how many Army troops landed with Navy in 1943? I know that Nimitz and MacArthur split up the Pacific Theater early in the war, but did that go all the way to keeping Army our of the Central Pacific campaign? Don't know. I remember learning about the tanks in small island invasions from a documentary that of course include interviews with vets. He even talked about fighting Japanese tanks, obsolete but still safe against small arms, in one of these beach landings. They might have been light tanks, but they were still armored with tracks and a cannon. My real point is that people think tanks were only used in WWII in North Africa or the Russian steppes, where a 1000 meter shot was possible. On islands like Tarawa, a tank could shoot all the way across the island and only frighten fish, but they were still combat effective.

@LuvBorderCollies

4 жыл бұрын

@@HSMiyamoto Most of my detailed information comes from WW2 veterans I talked to over the years. I'm 60-something so there were millions of US vets around in my lifetime but no more. Through no fault of their own, the Marines got most of the attention from the press as they should have. For small islands it was pretty much a Marine only fight. For larger places like Philippines, Guadalcanal, Okinawa and numerous other mostly forgotten invaded islands, the normal plan was Marines go in first to establish a beach head then Army would come in with its larger numbers and finish up the island fight. Most vets I talked to were low grade NCO's or PFC's, very few officers except for the Air Corp pilots. Every man's view of events was limited to his own experience or maybe the "rumor mill". Which means their experience or perception may not fall in line with the big picture of events so their view is distorted, although still very interesting as much never made it into history books. Frankly, I don't know how the Army tank battalions operated (for real vs by the book) except that WW2 tanker I knew. And I don't know where to find the information for question. Wish I could be of more help because I love learning new stuff but right now my hands are full of other activities. It is a very good question you asked I must say.

@himedo1512

4 жыл бұрын

WWII tanks aren't even comparable to MBTS. The entire reality of armoured warfare has changed

Ok taking away the ospreys is just a step too far cuz I can see how the ospreys would be useful for transport in between pacific islands that are too small for air strips

@jeffho1727

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, if they are looking to be lighter, more nimble I can see them losing the Tanks but the helios and the Landing Craft?? That seems counter intuitive..Transfering the Arty over to rocket and anti naval seems within an idea but I would love to see some reasoning for others.

@GrizzAxxemann

4 жыл бұрын

They might rely on Navy and Air Force airlift down the road

@TakNuke

4 жыл бұрын

Their is no need for USMC, seals and USAF special forces.

@GrizzAxxemann

4 жыл бұрын

@@TakNuke downvoted for poor grammar.

@josephmontanaro2350

4 жыл бұрын

The lack of artillery and fighter aircraft for island landings really seems like a bad idea, 2 things critical to get set up ASAP when you land (first you gain air superiority, then you land your infantry and armor (this latter component is still useful for island hopping but can be harder to use on some islands) then once you get a foothold you bring in the artillery to pound the dug in defenders further inland and to prevent a counter attack pushing you back into the sea, it's almost like the lessons we learned from gallipoli, those pre d day british raids that messed up but helped us learn how to land troops) and the entire expirence developed during and after ww2 on how to properly land on a beach, also if they want to be leaner and more spread out why cut back on transport aircraft that would literally be critical execute said plan? And the whole reduction in overall size as well, makes absolutely no sense

you know. i did find it weird how the Marines somehow where getting the M1A2C (SEPv3) before the Army. i guess. its not going to them. There is a large place for that 120mm gun the M1 has. any nothing to really stand up to it or the FCS and sights all integrated together. So... what will replace it? because that bit of fire power is needed, not exactly that armor. yes itll be nice. but the Marines need to lighten their load. Will the Marines switch back to the Stryker MGS 105mm? will they look for something new?

Support our Marines at all cost.

US Marines: Now announcing: Mechas; the literal jarheads

@arisenprestige5717

4 жыл бұрын

*cruel angels thesis plays as they roll out*

@migkillerphantom

4 жыл бұрын

@@arisenprestige5717 don't think they'll go the dead mommy soul route for control software

I haven't watched the video yet, but a lot of idiots think that tanks are obsolete. Truth is that yes, they are more vulnerable than ever before. Just look at all the tanks that the Turkish army took out with DRONES just a few weeks ago. However tanks are necessary in conventional warfare. In all out assaults they will always lead the way on the ground. By themselves they are vulnerable, but together with air power they are unstoppable.

@followthegrow108

4 жыл бұрын

Except for shoulder fired rocket launchers. Especially the new ones. Will def put a tank out of business if not for good.

@krakenburger56

4 жыл бұрын

@@followthegrow108 _Laughs in one Challenger 2 which survived 70+ RPG hits in a mission with only damage to the optics_

@jeffkardosjr.3825

4 жыл бұрын

@@followthegrow108 That's why Russia has been pushing for multiple active and reactive systems.

@Riceball01

4 жыл бұрын

@@followthegrow108 That's why tanks work with infantry, at least the smart armies do. The Israelis certainly learned that lesson the hard way. Grunts and tank compliment each other, the grunts screen the tanks from other grunts armed with ATGMS and the like while the tanks provide cover from small arms fire and provide heavy firepower against other armored vehicles and hardened targets.

@JefeInquisidorGOW

4 жыл бұрын

They need to implement active defense systems

This is disgusting. You know what you need to win a war; infantry, tanks, aircraft and artillery. The only thing that was agreeable was get rid of MPs.

When you change templates in Hoi4