why is the USMC "Force Design 2030" getting rid of tanks?

why is the USMC "Force Design 2030" getting rid of tanks?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    is this real?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      LMFAO

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they ran out of crayons, couldn't fix it by then.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Shoulda fed the Marines first.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's how you KNOW it's real.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rah. The Corps I know and love.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://www.marines.mil/Force-Design-2030/
      My fucking sides the marines being marines

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >HIMARS - 14 Duel Purpose...
        this can't be real

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      bro that right there is the marine mark of authenticity

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >ioin
      it's a cartoony boner sound
      hello nurse

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Abrams can't fit on an LCAC anymore?

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably trying to specialize instead of being a bloated Army 2.0.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/03/22/goodbye-tanks-how-the-marine-corps-will-change-and-what-it-will-lose-by-ditching-its-armor/
    >Goodbye, tanks: How the Marine Corps will change, and what it will lose, by ditching its armor
    >Commandant Gen. David H. Berger has said that should armor be needed by Marines, he would look to the Army to provide that capability.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >should armor be needed by Marines, he would look to the Army to provide that capability.
      this defeats the purpose orf the MEU

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They'll still have light armor, which is pretty much decent enough for anything they'd be involved in right now short of WWIII.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The MEU is being repurposed

        we're talking about a force design that wouldn't be able to perform tasks it did 20 years ago. how is this any good?

        It'll be able to fight the next war instead of planning to fight the last war

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No it doesn't. He's basically saying that anything that is going to require tanks is going to be a fight big enough that the Marines won't be alone anyways. At that point, why not have the Army bring the tanks, they're going to be there anyways.

        While the Army maintains it's own amphibious capability, that capability is more oriented to over-shore logistics and not joint forcible entry. How those Army armor units are integrated into the amphibious attack will be the most important doctrine puzzle to work out. If Army ships are just going to ride on Bob Hope class Ro-Ros and then borrow an LCAC for landing, that's a lot less strain on the LHD/LPD and a lot less integration training between the Navy/Marines and Army.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Just drop in tanks from space.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The last time a MEU used full force, they did so in level II plated Humvees and nothing else.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          TEMPO TEMPO TEMPO

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Potentially going back to their WW2 roots with the tech of today in preparation for potential war in the Pacific.

        MEU is simply getting reformed to be leaner and meaner. HIMARS already had almost a whole year in actual conventional combat showing how effective it is, if the Marines are going to be doing something so big it requires tanks then they can either do a joint op or rethink strategy. The Marines aren’t like the Army, their entire structure is being a quick fast reaction force that can pop up anywhere in no time and wrecking enough shit to either push through or have the big Army and its toys arrive to be the sledgehammer. Abrams tanks haven’t exactly seen much action since 2003 and we can already see glimpses to what an actual modern peer to peer conflict would be like, and its showing that Abrams aren’t some vitally needed game changer. Better to scrap it and let the Army handle that kind of shit and focus on other areas that fall more in line to what your entire purpose to begin with is. The USMC having both the USN and both its own and Navy air wings available on demand make having their own Abrams a completely moot point.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Shift towards island fighting where the old-ass last gen Abrams they had would mostly be a liability, and a general lightening of the force in favor of updating other more important looooong in the tooth assets for the reassertion of the Corps's amphibious/expeditionary goal, like the Harrier and AAV.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      120mm gun is 120mm gun. Surely they don't think the over-extended navy will provide them direct fire support?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If they're close enough to be putting Marines ashore, they're also going to be putting PGMs ashore, also I'm pretty sure the sheer girth of the Abrams would get the thing pretty easily stuck or outmaneuvered on just about any island it could possibly be landing on. It's not exactly a tiny, light thing like the Sherman was by comparison. Also, those Abrams the Corps in particular had were fucking ancient variants.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          On of the good things about giving it to the army is the opportunity to modernize it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >PrepHole in 2022
          >still doesn't know about ground pressure
          >thinks the M1 could get "outmaneuvered" on a beach
          I share a board with fucking retards

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >thinks the M1 could get "outmaneuvered" on a beach
            Yes, because the tank will just sit on the beach, that'll totally make it worth bringing along. How fucking big and clear of obstructions do you think these islands are going to be?

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the pivot to China requires more emphasis on naval warfare so the Marines are restructured as an expeditionary strike force- small units, highly mobile, many fronts. the Army will bring the armor after the Marines go in if needed. They demobbed the 1st Tank Battalion last year, the tanks are already gone.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Marines aren't going to be operating anywhere where they would need their own tanks any time soon.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      we're talking about a force design that wouldn't be able to perform tasks it did 20 years ago. how is this any good?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Look, the Marines can continue having to fit into the second Army role they've been shoehorned into and lose a bunch of their budget on keeping legacy equipment that's getting way too old for a modern battlefield around; or they can get ready to fight the next war like they are and accept that while they won't be able to mimic every single last capability the Army has by doing so. At least this way they'll be really goddamn good at the thing they'll actually called upon to do before it happens.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Look,
          if you start your post like this im not reading the rest of it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, I'll accept a win by default.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah and the guy that came up with the new force design got lit up by retired Boomer generals that can't let go of the thunder run to Baghdad and grasp a changing world.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >shoehorned into
          You mean the only thing they've ever actually done in practice. At least they'll be able to fire off a few subsonic anti-ship missiles from a JLTV though

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You mean the only thing they've ever actually done in practice.

            What even is the point of the Marines then? May as well split the money between a few more light and heavy Brigade Combat Teams in the Army then.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        see

        The MEU is being repurposed

        [...]
        It'll be able to fight the next war instead of planning to fight the last war

        >It'll be able to fight the next war instead of planning to fight the last war

        While the Navy, and Air Force are both trying to figure out how to fight the PLA from standoff ranges, the Marines are actively trying to build a force that is capable of contesting and holding objectives inside of the PLA's ability to fight back.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tank heavy

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks are a novelty of the 20 century.
    They are no needed anymore.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Have you watched the news lately?

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because its a liability for a rapid assault force. Marines are focusing on being fast and agile. Tanks, aside from IFVs, do not provide that. If they want some heavy armor, they are going to ask the army rather than relying on surplus abrams.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I thought the whole point of the modern marines was as an expeditionary force that didn't need to ask anyone else for anything.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The purpose of modern marines now is to be agile and fast. Tanks are a logistical burden for a force focusing on spearheading positions.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You aren't gonna be very fast standing around waiting for the army's tanks to show up.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >waiting
          If the marines want tanks, they can ask the army to peel off some units for an op if they need to. There's a thing called combined arms tactics.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And I'm arguing that not needing to do that made them quicker to deploy, which is what made them so useful.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              And you’d be wrong and also retarded

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No, because they are a logistical burden and are liability when it comes to spearheading positions. The army are the heavy hitters and can handle the logistical burden of maintaining and deploying tanks. The marines can handle being fast and agile. Along with the marines not wanting to handle the cost of maintaining tanks. Again, there's a thing called combined arms tactics. If the marines want heavy armor, the army will be more than happy to peel off some units or divisions to support the marines in a operation.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >muhreens establish beachhead while Army is getting it's ass in gear and before enemy is prepared
          >holds the landing zone to enable big dick Army to land safely and start doing Army things

          I understand it's not quite as sexy, but the Marines can't afford to continue to LARP as both the Army, Navy, and Airforce all at once so it's better for them to pick the two they've invested the most in the hardware for and are useful for their mission which is focused on island hopping in the Pacific for the next decade.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The army has amphibious landing ships of it's own and can also make use of Navy ESBs.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that was what USMC sold themselves as for the past 50 years
      unfortunately, they don't have the budget or manpower to do that, AND contribute to the Pacific missile massacre

      It would be ideal of course for the USMC to be able to maintain a full armoured division plus all the bells and whistles to repeat D-day with, in case we ever need to invade St Petersburg or storm the Persian Gulf yet again. But the fact is that there's no budget or manning.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is the second time I've seen this thread in less than a week.
    The Abrams was Axed because it took up 60% of the ordnance budget and 25% of the overall budget.
    The money saved was spent in other areas because there's absolutely nothing stopping us from borrowing a platoon or company from the army if we really need some heavy armor.
    More worth it to invest the money in more flexible platforms.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think the major contention was that keepong tanks fueled over 2000 miles of ocean is a pain in the ass. Muhreens want to lighten their logistical burden.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Oversized, sorry, body positive trannies can fit that role with same effectiveness.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Their intention is to go from the bloated USMC to a more streamlined maritime capable raiding force

    It's the right move imo, they can supplement armored elements from the army and having more capable infantrymen will pay dividends in the next war

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Interestingly, something that's kinda lost is that Berger wants the USMC brigades to specialise; something like being able to stand up, at all times, 1 regiment ready for Pacific missile hopping, 1 regiment ready for MARSOC-like raider/SF stuff, and 1 regiment ready for "traditional" amphibious landing ops.

    What do you think about that?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      makes good sense. force domination is air based and will be space based, grunts are inherently marginalized in strategic AND tactical situations, that's been proved out in the kitty litter very thoroughly. with proper air support a regiment is a small army capable of extending very quickly over large areas to seize objectives and hold them until the Army/SOF can get there to administrate and mop up.
      So when China invades Taiwan and make no mistake this reorg is ALL about China, you send send the invasion squad to the beaches, MARSOC to Taiwan's rear, and the island hoppers go wherever bros need a missile barrage, like China's South China Sea bases
      >smart.gif

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        except all the USMC generals don't want it

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          fuck em. 90% of egg hats are doing nothing but playing CYA and protecting their budgets until they can retire and get a $200K gig with a defense contractor and have zero interest in strategic thinking or boring shit like force posture

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because they need to replace the AAV and LAV family of vehicles with something made within the last three decades. They can't afford to do that in a reasonable time frame while continuing to maintain their tanks

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because they are giving their tanks to the US army

    USMC is transitioning away from being a mini-army in the navy back into a lightweight expeditionary force
    if they need tanks, they will just to a joint ops where US army tanks will be used rather than having their own

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *