Russian Armor Losses Validate Marines’ Decision To Dump Their Tanks Says General “I just don’t see any need" for tanks in the Indo-Pacific region, Lt. General Karsten Heckl, the Marine Corps’ Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, said Wednesday. “And when you look at an operating environment like the Indo-Pacific, where do you see tanks playing out? Taiwan? OK. Where else?" https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russian-armor-losses-validate-marines-decision-to-dump-their-tanks-says-general
After reading the article I can see and understand the general’s logic, but I would point out that the Marine Corps successfully utilized tanks in the Pacific against the Japanese.
Whats needed is a “medium” tank like what the Sherman’s were classified as. Something not as upgunned and heavily armored as an Abrams but still can pack a punch and take a beating while weighing 20-30 tons less. Basically a Bradley with the 100mm gun from the Strikers. Tracks are definitely still needed, especially indo-pacific with beaches and volcanic ash.
Don’t the Swedes have something like that but with a 90mm gun or something or am I thinking of the wrong thing.
I’m not going to try and counter the Marine Corps decision on tanks, I’m sure that a good amount of time and study was done by the Marine Corps for that decision, I will just say that during the whole cold war not once did we see the massive Soviet invasion of Western Europe, instead we fought it in the Mtns of Korea, the Jungles of Vietnam and ended up in the Deserts and Steps of the Middle East.
The Marine Corps is very good at adapting, but the one thing I know for sure is that when you expect a war in the Pacific, we’ll probably be involved in one in Africa, if we treat the Russians as the main threat, we’ll be in invading Peru or some other country. We need the capability, so we can adapt, but as the US has proven time and time again, we’ll forget certain lessons in an effort to focus on thing we think are important, only for that to change. Whats the saying from Tyson; “everyone has a plan until punched in the mouth”
Yeah, we’re always ready for the last threat and never prepared for the real threat.
I remember reading about the Troops in our Army freezing in Korea because they had summer gear in the frozen Korean winter and wondered why no one who ever read about the Germans in Russia didn’t see that one coming.
They’ve tried to do that for years and can never get a majority to agree and I mean they have been real close a couple of times, but no cigar.
Another problem with the weight of a tank is, you build a good basic tank and suddenly everyone has some new development they want to hang off of it. There is no end of that either.
I was lucky enough to be on Tanks for 21years I even went to Master Gunner school years ago. I retired and suddenly 9/11 happens 4 months after I retired. I couldn’t go back in so I took a job working for General Dynamics and ended up a Field Service Rep. for another 14, 4 of that on Strykers.
Plus that cannon on the Stryker was an old type 68 105, great gun, but the auto feeder on that vehicle sucked balls.
Like the M551 Sheridan? With modern armor and armament upgrades I’d bet procuring a few would not be a bad idea to augment the USMC “lane” on the future battlefield.
Mission creep doesn’t help either… look at the F-16, it was originally intended to be light, cheap, fast and agile–essentially in the F-104/F-5/MiG-21 class–until all the damn gearqueers got a swarm of visits from their own personal Good Idea Fairies.
I would argue that the situation is a bit different, with anti-tank options like ATGMs providing a far more reliable counter to tanks than anything the Japanese had until 1945. When the Japanese developed a reliable counter to the Shermans, we started suffering much higher than expected casualties and had to ship M26 Pershings over for the planned invasion of the main islands.
I agree that a light armored vehicle may be the way forward, but I’m not sure the tank needed to remain for that. I’m out of the loop for current USMC equipment, but don’t they have their own Stryker analog, the LAV25? That, or an up-gunned variant as said above, would seem to accomplish both the mission any tanks would perform and hold the Corps to the light and flexible force the Commandant envisions.
I think the Marines are more interested in mules than tanks. I see this is a survival strategy for them instead of duplicating heavy Army focus on light and anti ship.
The Marines made effective use of manpack flamethrowers during the Pacific campaigns, but I think PC considerations would prevent those from coming back.
The M202 FLASH (“FLame Assault SHoulder”) is an American rocket launcher, designed to replace the World War II–vintage flamethrowers (such as the M1 and the M2) that remained the military’s standard incendiary devices well into the 1960s. The XM202 prototype launcher was tested in the Vietnam War, as part of the XM191 system.[2]
Fire still has tremendous value as a psychological weapon; I’ve long thought any country needing to defend a border with Russia should invest in flame trenches and flamethrower traps, along with FAE’s and delivery platforms. Yep, I’m that guy, the one who thinks the answer to massed infantry is a BLU-82 Daisy Cutter…
Do you really see the US military storming beaches and conducting major land battles on islands today because I am having a hard time envisioning where this would take place. I see tanks being useful in Korea or Taiwan but they should already be there. But none of this matters because the Marines have already decided no tanks needed.
Whether or not we think they need them, CMC decided they don’t need them. It sounds like part of the new doctrine is to have army armor on speed dial. I agree given the new doctrine it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
There is a great scene a movie about the Bradley (had Cary Ewes and Frasier) in it where they have a great concept and then the generals all want this and that, a gun, missiles etc etc.
On the jets, I read a book about Boyd and his concept for fighter jets and the OODA loop concept. Really interesting.
“Surrogate Dad” (one of my college profs, who was like a father to me) was a retired F-106 pilot and a BIG fan of Boyd’s work. Ben Rich has an eye-opening discussion of the F-16’s genesis and why Lockheed’s bid was declined but the General Dynamics design ended up adopting a lot of the Lockheed “departures from concept spec” in his book Skunk Works.
Also, while I think if the Marines will be in the Asia/islands, maybe less tanks would be a good plan. You could use the Russian experience to justify it, but that doesn’t take into account the terrain and tactics. The Russians seem to doing all the wrong tactics for the terrain, or even just general tank employment.
Give a monkey a corvette and he’ll wrap it around a tree, give it to someone you knows how to drive…
I’m not certain, but I believe flamethrowers violate some law of armed conflict these days, not just pc. I don’t feel like digging that up at the moment, so feel free to correct me.
On tanks, something I’ve been curious about is how’d we arrive at the concept of “one tank to rule them all” Main Battle Tank vs a mix of light, medium, and heavy tanks that could (maybe) go more places and be produced and fielded in larger numbers? I believe we used more than one type of tank all the way into Viet Nam. Like the GPMG concept replacing both light and medium machine guns… did it really? If we still had light tanks, would the Marines still be using them? I certainly don’t know, but the idea interests me.
They have failed to employ their own doctrine. I can’t say for sure that they’d have done better, but I was really surprised they didn’t bother coming correct after the lessons learned in Syria and Chechnya, and the modernization, new vehicles, and all the buildup/exercises, and having intimate knowledge of the terrain and battlefield. It’d be like us invading Canada and not bringing coats or Mexico without margarita mix.
