Why the Marines are getting rid of M1 Abrams tank
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 เม.ย. 2021
- A look at the Marine Corps restructuring effort including criticism of their plan. I'm going to practice at getting better with this type of format. In the next episode I plan on doing more criticism and opinions / commentary.
I think a recap in the beginning of the episode after I record the episode would be good too. Very curious to know your thoughts on how I can make this better! It's the first episode so the content can go in any direction.
Follow the Host:
/ cappyarmy
Follow the host: / cappyarmy
#MARINES #MILITARY #NEWS - บันเทิง
Everyone saying the mic is bad, but we both know this is a homage to the military radios
For a first video on a new channel I'm not complaining
Edit: not the first video, nonetheless no complaints
True that! I think this new channel should keep this vintage free format since its distinguished from the prepared presentation on main channel!
Roger roger, over and out
5 by
Didnt really mind it tbh
so Marines are going back to being Naval Infantry...
Isn’t that what they are this whole time....
@@joaquinocelotl7947 Origanly but during the war on terror they basicly transformed into army 2.
The middle east changed them now they're going back to normal. To fight the next great war against China.
And wearing leggings also.
so seals lol
Tankers suck when you don't need them, but you love them when you need them now!
Kind of ironic that the marines have spent hundreds of millions on the capability to carry these thing as part of MEU’s and now theyre getting rid of them after already spending so much money on setting themselves up for a more affordable future.
:: gets rid of MBTs::
1991 MEU using M60s because Army gets the new M1s: Are we a joke to you?
Cappy: the SAW is heavy and makes them less mobile
Me: laughs in M60 while my joints and back hurt.....
Amen bro my back let’s me know everyday about my relationship that I had with my M-60 Lol
Ow sorry bro
And I chuckle in GPMG (m240 to most of you I guess).
Try humping a 240 with ammo .
M60 was a beast to lug around but hella fun to open up.
I think special force is a strong term. Elite Amphibious Shock Troops sounds more like the direction they are maneuvering towards.
Yes, because amphibious combat is so common in modern warfare...
@@chuckschillingvideos well they are not navy seals or Deltas. So can't simply say they are special forces
@@chuckschillingvideos
Amphibious landings are so last century, Chuck. Maybe that’s why we don’t see them anymore.
Maybe they should just be recognized as Naval lint, I mean infantry. LOL
@@juanmangasmochas1533 Precisely. Opposed amphibious landings are good for nothing but reducing your own troop count.
@@chuckschillingvideos Against China in the Pacific it will be.
In 1971 one of my USAF MTIs had just transferred over from the Marines. He lost two stripes to do it, he did it by choice. We were given a taste of his USMC background and we were sharper than our sister flights.
I switched from Navy to USAF.
I found that Air Force Airmen don't like being reminded that they are in a military organization and they WILL STFU and do what they are ordered, like work 12 hr shifts six days a week, until ordered to work eight days in a shift.
I was in the USMC in the 80's 18 years old. After Grenada "Win" debacle , our training changed to joint service coordination . I was a regular grunt and my unit all of a sudden are fast roping from army black hawks practicing hostage rescue. It was tried before. Semper Fi
Same thing in 90s we tried assault teams, fire teams with 2 saw gunners.
I love the genuine humility in this video. Chris doesn't go in hard-opinionated despite being a veteran of the previous conflicts. His scripted self-deprecation is one thing, but you can get a genuinely humble commentary in this video.
It is something I like about him too. While I respect veterans, some of them can come off as 'know it all' or 'better than you' type of deal when discussing topics like these.
This concept was explored shortly after WW II. Like then it failed. It was determined there were too many short comings, particularly in logistics, when you plan an operation and do not have the necessary forces and equipment to not only take on the mission but to complete it by being able to combat known opposing forces. Furthermore, relying on different military forces to fight with ALWAYS has major problems due to command and control and the policies that function. Thus, communications ALWAYS run counter and hinder mission objectives. Result, they brought it all back.
Well, some things never change.
Well the war in Ukraine just proved you wrong. 😅
Militaries ditched armor, pikes, and swordsman once the BAYONET was invented.
The Spanish Tercios were the first combined arm force. Where a swordsmen, pikemen, and those bulky old school muskets were used together to comprise a single unit. The dominated the battlefield with their strategy until the invention of the bayonet and the creation of leaner muskets; both of which really replaced the pikemen, and even the swordsmen as a swordsmen couldn't handle a line of "miniature pikes" (bayonets) while also dealing with their buddies near the back who shot them while they were distracted.
Bayonets and the leaner muskets were also cheaper than pikes, armor, and swords, and easier to mass produce quickly. Pikes used up a lot of wood, and swords and armor took a LONG time to CUSTOM make, along with their expensive cost in material.
The age of the mass produced musket battle lines produced units who were easier to train as well, and didn't require as much training as sword fighting, archery, and pike warfare requires.
The age of drones and smart missiles changes everything. They didn't have this technology 10 years ago, let alone 60 years ago
So they’re effectively heading in the direction of the Royal Marines
There's video on TH-cam that describes the Royal Marines Comando doing much the same thing. Going back to its commando roots and disengaging from the current status quo as supplemental infantry.
Yes and if the Argentinians had a professional, well led ground force and a well lead Navy to support hem, the Brits would have lost the Falklands. If you have to depend on every war consisting of "Stomping Midgets", then I guess you can go on the cheap. The US has money to spend, so I don't see the logic and reason here.
This is what I think. The Royal Marines are so fucking cool. Every one I ever met was top tier. I felt like a lil bitch next to any of em, haha.
No they are not. The marine warfighting doctrine revolves around combined arms formations. They’ll never stray away from that as long as the pentagon feels it needs to have the ability to fight two wars at the same time
They're effectively heading in the direction as the British Army, which is also phasing out tanks and emphasizing mobility and expeditionary capabilities. Just with a slightly stronger emphasis on littoral combat.
2 Tank Bn 2 MarDiv 1997 here...need armor cause you cant rely on others to provide it like in somalia
My dad was a Seawolf in Vietnam. Specifically created because the Navy couldn't rely on AF or Army all the time for close air support.
Right there with you my Tankin Brother SFMF
You wonder if this General has ever seen the movie, "Blackhawk Down", let alone read the book. Politicians will put you into stupid situations, like all the Marines crammed into a building in Lebanon, with a Marine guard force with no magazines in their guns and no tanks at check points. People died because leaders don't plan for the worst and have standards in-place, like we don't send our people in without ammo or the ability to kill bad guys on sight, etc.
@@jager6863 the people running things want to destroy the Marine Corps and the country . Thats the point of these "changes"
same thing iwas telling the marines on their reddit. What are they going to do if a tank comes rolling out of a fucking garage or if its hidden from thermal sensors.
So they're making their manpower more efficient so they can fight armies that can leverage ten times as many men, seems sound.
Not in the military but this seems dumb. If you're fighting a higher quantity foe then you need more firepower but they're getting rid of armour and some artillery. In any peer or near peer conflict air support is going to be intermittent at best so that's not going to make up the gap. Special forces are also kinda terrible in conventional warfare as they're basically very high cost light infantry who get creamed in an engagement with any mechanized force. They weren't even that convincingly better in engagements against the Taleban/Iraqis without air support.
I see the Marines as being the fast reaction force to take and hold for a few weeks until the Army gets there in force. If however they only want to be a naval assault force for island landings then their budget should be slashed and reallocated to the Army as you don't need that many Marine beach assaulters.
@@nath9091 They are getting rid of armor and some artillery to make budget for higher quality standard equipment. The whole point has clearly blown over your head. Also, they *are* still mechanized they just dont have tanks.
Armored > Mechanized > Motorized
Tanks are a thing of the past for marines, anyhow. If you think the marines should mimic army doctrine, thats the thing that seems dumb. Just saying.
@@nath9091 I was in back in the early 2000s and that was the belief; we were there for a quick response until the Army could get on the scene. That was the role of the Marine Corps.
I heard an old drunk Colonel complain that the planners didn’t put enough tanks ashore in the first couple of waves at Okinawa. I guess now there won’t be any in the first couple of waves going ashore at Taiwan.
now we got the acv’s and accurate anti tank weapons plus the modernized air support
thats what I was thinking too. Also the Red Storm Rising scenario in Ukraine+ Norway/FInland.
@@hanzsolo5460 You’re counting on us having air superiority over the island. That’s no guarantee. We’ve given, and sold, and allowed them to steal enough of our tech I fear the parity of forces are closer than most people think.
They're not invading Taiwan, they're taking the islands in the South China Seas which are basically just landing strips in the middle of the ocean no more than a mile across. Any invasion of a large island such as Taiwan or Hainan, or the continent itself would require a large force with capabilitie that far exceeds what the Marine Corps will ever be able to provide. In other words, those operations would require Army support, if not an Army Operation itself.
And given current capabilities, tanks would not be available regardless during those first waves. They take up a fuck ton of space, have a huge logistics tail, can't offload during that first wave while under fire, there aren't enough of them to begin with (there's only 4 tank battalions in the entire Corps), and they're more or less obsolete because the M1A2 was too heavy for expeditionary ops so they are stuck with M1A1s.
@@taoliu3949 There are no longer any tank BNs in the Marine Corps. And I would guess the Army would be part of any large scale operation the Marine Corps didn’t have the weight for because the U.S. military is joint. You can’t ever make the mistake of saying what will or will not happen in war because that guarantees the opposite will. If you say no amphibious landing, you can guarantee there will be one. No vertical envelopment, start looking up.
I was an 0331 machine gunner with Weapons Co, 2nd Bn 5th Marine Regiment, Heavy machine gun section.
Given a Marine entered when he was 18 and has taken his job seriously, by the time they are in their early 20's, they are more than prepared to take on the task.
From a UK perspective it seems like the US Marines are shifting to become more like the Royal Marines.
You’re right it seems. My issue is what are you going to do with all the standards raised and the 18 year olds that fail their now way more advanced infantry training? It’s like sending guys right out of high school to RASP for Ranger battalion but then expecting a zero wash out rate. When infantry wash out of RASP they go to conventional infantry units. What are you going to do with these guys when they have no where else to go
@@peterprovenzano9039 Well in the UK from what I know if you fail Royal Marine training you can either re-apply and re-do the whole thing or try your luck in the Army.
But I'm not sure what you're asking? If they wash out they wash out?
@@Ben-fk9ey The US Army has a different culture. They would also have to redo how the branches do enlistment contracts.
It would not be easy to let USMC failures just take slots in the Army
I prefer Marine corp with Abrams
@@peterprovenzano9039 Someone's gotta make those great omelets at the chow hall...
My buddy was a Tanker, his last day in the Corps was three days ago, he had a year and a half left. Tanks are pretty much all out the door. Im in artillery and my job isn't going anywhere, they are downsizing the batteries. As a Forward Observer we were told they are gonna create new battalions for us, I guess that means we are not gonna be considered artillery anymore? Interesting times
Smaller and smaller I was in 5/10 S Co. Until they retired the battalion
They're getting rid of tube artillery in favor for rocket artillery. So it's more of a shift in equipment in that regards.
0861 k 3/11. here, been out since 2003. crazy things going on now.
what do you mean he had a year and a half left. They said they were allowing everyone to change mos or move to a different branch, such as the army. If he was a year and a half away from his 20 year service, he should have been offered early retirement with full 20 year benefits. Literally no one should have lost their jobs. Sounds like you're just saying some made up shit.
@@thebadness6217 we both joined in 2018 my guy. I didn't say anything about 20 years.
As a Marine Infantryman that had to join the ranks of the Army due to downsizing during the Obama administration, it was definitely a rough transition. Very interested to see how things shape up for the future of the Marine Corps. As always, thanks for your prompt and well thought-out assessment!
Bro get out of the infantry and get an MOS that will translate better in civilian world.
@@johnwayne2103 depends, infantry transitions very good into hired guns, police, ship protection, and guards. Plus here by me all the vets go into works like construction or good year where your previous job doesn’t matter to much still making 25 and hour.
@@hanzsolo5460
Don't forget leadership experience. If you've managed a 45 man platoon, you can do that anywhere as a middle manager
@@theimmortal4718 Government loves prior military for that very reason; leadership skills.
Good old obummer. They shrunk the Corps... And than a few years later forced stop loss and recalled thousands of us back in 2007-2008. Fucking politics at its best. We literally where convoy security and built bases that the Iraqi didn't need/use. Billions wasted. And now we have bumbling Biden about to do it all over again.
If we fight another major power, we will miss those tanks. Not a tanker ..just an 0311 but I think we will need tanks
Well we in the Army can always loan out an armored battalion or two when you Marines need them. We’ve loan out units to you guys in the past on multiple occasions.
@@rompryan7867 the problem is the army is overstretched as well and if they must fight some major power they will absolutely and understandably make sure they have everything they need before helping others
@@Its_shiki_time4876 If by major power you mean Russia or China, then a draft would be activated and either the Army would have enough manpower to provide armor support to the Marines, or the Marines would reactive their armored units. Yet the Army would still provide support overall to the Marines as they did in the Pacific Theater during WW2.
@@rompryan7867 how long would that take? and would that fit the strategy of mobility for the marines? I think the marines should have armor organic to themselves so that if a mission needs armor they have it on call immediately and gurenteed. While the army will take months to gear up for that and troops will not be satisfactorily trained.
@@rompryan7867 The Army could loan an armored battalion but it's not a guarantee. The USAF use to depend on the Army for Air Base Defense but decided to have their own Security Forces and train them in Air Base Ground Defense.
Ranger Batt. Has been putting capable young PVTs into action with a wildly high success rate for a few decades now...
It's all about standards, at every phase up the chain. The Marine Corps needs to make SOI/ITB more like an 11B OSUT/RASP 1 Blend.
They also need a "Ranger School" that meets their mission specific needs, and then to enforce that standard as the Ranger Regiment does.
The issue is maintaining the numbers of infantry they want and yet raise current standards . The 75th Ranger regiment only has to field three battalions worth of infantry. The USMC has to man an entire Corps.
Yes it’s doable but will be an extremely hard balancing act.
@@peterprovenzano9039 Well yes and no. Being totally entrusted with sensitive Mission sets? Maybe not completely. Maybe leave that to True MARSOC/JSOC assets...But achieving a rule similar to pre 2001 75th RR? That's an achievable goal (minus the silly garrison regs)
@@Bruceworkouts3184 you have thousands of infantry that go through and fail RASP every year. They get sent to conventional infantry units. Now run those numbers up by a lot for the USMC and what are you going to do with all the infantry failures?
@@peterprovenzano9039 You make good, and somewhat obvious points.
However, if the Corps wants Small "SOF Style Units" they need to define that mission a bit more.
IMO it seems like MARSOC is gonna take an expanded role (Like Batt.) And in a Lotta ways your going to have a Maritime Centric Ranger Batt Calle the Raiders lol.
Sound familiar (NSW) we'll see tho.
@@Bruceworkouts3184 honestly it sounds like when you dig down into it the USMC has not really worked out the details of their infantry plan.
A lot of units overlap mission sets, with some units specifically trained for them and others trained in them. Raiders have their place. I don’t think NSW is going to replace anyone
This platform would be great to discuss tactics for infantry units in depth and dive in to the strategy of how the us fights its wars with the other branches having their own videos as well. It’s easily researchable and you’ll make it fun.
Great format, just one critique... the microphone
Boo hoo
Naw fuck that keep it
@@TaskPurpose1stSquad True that! I think this new channel should keep this vintage free format since its distinguished from the prepared presentation on main channel! Keep the mic headset!
nick cage be like: OH REALLY?!
My critique is i wanna see that pug of his/ his gf's
Cool video! Certantly very interesting! As a european i've always had a problem with understanding the purpose of the marine corps considering the similarities with the army in both an equipment and role point of view. I think that they will probably reconsider the beach Landing vehicles when hardkill Active protection systems will be cheaper and lighter. At the end of the day the biggest problem with ifv's and stuff like that Is the protection to Weight ratio and a system that intercepts and destroyes incoming missles will make the heavy armor packages useless and those vehicles more viable. But Who knows? Thats the thrill of It right?
I appreciate you speaking to a topic that many may not be easily understand. My father was a Marine in Korea in the very early 1950's. I was an Air Force Russian Language Intercept Operator in the late 60's. Two of my 4 sons were in the army and spent time in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and Egypt. One of my sons is still suffering from PTSD, as a result of a roadside explosion to his jeep. The services must change according the to the missions given to them. The day may have arrived where the ability to fly a lethal drone into an enemy stronghold is of greater utility than hitting a single enemy with your rifle at 1,000 yards. I subscribe to the idea of preparing for the worst while praying that you are wrong.
At the time you posted the video USMC tanks had already been removed and shipped to the Army I was a USMC Tanker!
In reality, the USMC is smartly going to rely on drones, precision missiles, and MLRS
It's definitely going to be interesting to see how this works out.
Fascinating how the feared Russian Armor is doing in Ukraine when faced with "simple" Turkish drones, Javelins, NLAW, etc. And now Switchblades and Ghost drones are jumping in..........
@@jimmiller5600
Yep. And a quad copter is all you need to conduct an indirect fire mission with mortars and artillery.
@@theimmortal4718 Unless the weather really sux. Then it's back to a FO in the mud.
@@jimmiller5600
Yeah, weather affects every air asset. There always needs to be analog backups.
I came here for this historic moment!
Marines being a shoreline force with in range of Naval guns, attack helicopters, drones, cruise missiles, Navy/ Marine aircraft makes sense to me. Beach landing are not possible today, going to have to get Marines in with helicopters or airborne drops. With anti tank weapons now a beach landing would be a disaster. Tanks and IFV are way to heavy and great effects on planning and mobility.
I was in Air Defense in the Marine Corps and they got rid of it. I was a 5923 (24C for Army), 5925, and a 5918. I worked on RADARS and fixed them. I then became an 0861 Scout Observer. That is a Forward Observer for artillery and Naval Gunfire. As long as I was Marine I was happy. Plus I got to blow shit up and got paid for it. Artillery isn't going away it is just evolving. The military is going UAV in everything. You shrink the force to buy or develope new toys is smart. Kind of hard to say that about Marines, but there are a few....the proud...the smart. If a conflict is coming you can build up for it, but with the new toys. You can develop the new toys and learn how to use them before you enter the fight, or you can wait for the fight and then develop toys.
There are 5 reasons why countries go to war. A Marine officer used an acronym that Marines could remember. SPERM. Social, Political, Economics, Religion, and Military.
Keep up the great work!!!
The Marine Raiders are making a comeback!
Yes, how much of this is, we want some of that SOCOM cash that keeps getting thrown around. Waiting for the Coast Guard to stand-up special forces to get a piece of that money pie, LOL
I'll drink to that! Oorrah!
@@jager6863 this is a good point. SOCOM , while amazing, has turned into a slush fund for a few connected "elites" .
It's just about money and prestige not about real service.
I'm worried about them saying that they are expecting uncontested beach landings. In World War 2, there are a number of campaigns where marines saw the amount of fire directed at a beach and thought that it would be uncontested, and it turned into a shit show. I know that long-range weaponry has developed since world war 2, but so has protection against those. Any time in the past when someone believed that pure airpower and artillery would wipe out an enemy, they were wrong and suffered.
I served 21 years in the Marines as an infantry officer with 3 years in combat. Platoon commander Vietnam 1968-69, company commander Evacuation of Saigon 1975, two years in Latin America supporting counter-insurgence operations 1986-1988. In that time, my units very rarely operated with tanks or amtracs. Amtracs did support us in Vietnam but always just to move Marines and supplies from point A to point B. And we rarely trained with amtracs for amphibious assaults. We only worked with tanks for a couple of months at Camp Fuji, Japan, but because of the environmental restrictions, the training wasn't realistic.
Marine battalions did train in mechanized exercises at 29 Palms, but that didn't include an amphibious landing training.
Obviously, tanks were useful in Iraq, and Marines do have a mission to support the defense of South Korea where tanks would have an important roll.
I'm 75 now and while my experiences are dated, I know tanks are not very useful in most of Southeast Asia because of the dense vegetation, marshes, rice paddies, mountains, narrow valleys, and numerous rivers to cross. I'm not sure it's a good idea give up the tanks completely.
The biggest problem I see with the Marines today is the lack of amphibious training and exercises to perfect landings at night and in bad weather. When I was a company commander in Okinawa, I tried to organize amphibious training for both day and night landings. Night landings were not allowed as being too dangerous. To me they are only dangerous if you don't work out how to do them and the amtrac crews don't know how to maintain formations during night landings. And as far as I'm concerned, a daytime landing is subject to accurate enemy fire. Ideally, I prefer a night landing in reduced visibility.
Night landings in my day were very difficult to control because of the lack of navigation aids to maintain formation and to land on the right beaches. We have the technology to do that today, but we don't use it and we don't practice night landings.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how the Marine strategy and tactics evolve without artillery and tanks. However, I likely will not be around to see the final results.
Marines: we are getting new rifle and new suppressor.
What does it cost you?
Marines: Our tanks
just saw your post about the new channel, wish for more content about new weapon system, especially in the field of aviation
Why are the marines stopping using the m1 abrams? Well, very simple ... It is not modular enough, it does not have picatinny rails, ejectable seats, or skirts to place external fuel tanks of the F16.
with all the shit they put on the M1A2, i thought it had enough modularity
What I see is they are trying to be Royal Marine Commandos. Which by the way get their Artillery Support from the Royal Artillery, get their Engineer support from the Royal Engineers, and it goes on like that.
Just have the 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions be built as overstrength Amphibious Assault Divisions with both air support and fast-moving artillery (LAV-mounted 81mm mortars, Hawkeye 105mm on Hummers, wheeled SP 155mm, and HIMARS). The 3rd Marine Division concentrates on Embassy protection. The 4th Marine Division does shipboard security and the port protecting FAST teams. One full AA Division is stationed on the East Coast, and one full AA Division is stationed behind the Granola Curtain (the West Coast to the rest of us).
The Marines want some of the Ranger Battalions action...
Ye. Rangers lead the way
Precision fires coupled with High end sensors UAV and man packed anti tank weapons are going to make mass armor attacks suicidal. Look at Battle of Khasham and Azerbaijan versus Armenia. I also remember how a Special Forces A-Team took down an Mechanized company with Javelins alone during OIF. Well trained infantry supported by precision fires can shred armor heavy forces.
active defense systems on armor may not make a part of this relevant
As a former Marine and someone who was stationed in aquatics a huge number of Marines can barely swim! It blew me away at how many Marines could not swim and more education and training needs to go into getting these men (and I guess women now) trained to survive in an amphibious environment. It blows me away that they claim the Marines is an amphibious operation force, yet so many of them cant swim across a swimming pool, let alone survive in an ocean environment!
We always thought it would be the POG commandants that did us in lol. How wrong we were
Haha, IKR? Considering Gen Berger is as legit as they get (former Recon officer).
You'll be alright. Infantry will be special operations capable (not special forces). Lighter SOF like gear, suppressors, drones, smarter smaller AT weapons, new dual thermal imaging PVS-31 looking NODs, smaller portable ECM jammers, more M32 in each squad. You'll be like Marsoc lite or one giant Ranger battalion, without all the fancy insertion into battle space. Marsoc and infantry already do some of the same missions in Syria. This is how Marines should have always been.
As for tanks, they will be missed, but will be useless in fighting underground tunnels and drone filled skies.
@Brandon Rhodes how that when you can level the building? This isn't COIN ops bs anymore.
Marines will be guarded by...sailors? Is it opposite day? Marine: "Wish we had fire support." Battleships: "sorry". Air Force: "can't slow down". Army: "sorry, in the desert". Navy: "sorry, our carrier is too far out to get there in time".
The support isn't going away, it's just changing. According to the article, those support class items will be replaced will missile artillery and armed drones. Check out the recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in which drones basically won it for Azerbaijan. It was pretty one-sided.
@@GUNNER67akaKelt But will there be enough missiles and drones. I was never an Artilleryman but I was in combat systems in the navy and I know we had ALOT more 76mm than SM-1's. The ship also was equipped with a drone (Canadair) which worked until we tried to show it to our European allies and the sucker did a deep six right into the North Sea.
@@charlespfaff6585 IIRC somebody's working on missiles that can be fired from artillery. I guess one precision missile that obliterates the opposition is better than ten regular unguided shells that just scare them.
@@GUNNER67akaKelt It all comes down to price and quantity. Artillery was always the massive tool, you cant replace it with few missiles.
It's not that simple ,the unified commanders control combat operations ,not the service departments
I think this is a big mistake! It won't be quite, special forces. It'll be more like a Ranger unit. Still think you need mechanized support.
I love the raw off the top of head feel of this video. Long form unscripted discussion from a professional who knows what they're talking about is always the most engaging and satisfying. Feels like he had nothing better to do so he went, learned some more things that interest him, and shared with people who care to listen. Great video.
Dude, your long winded talks are helpful. I never was called up because I was too young for Vietnam, but my dad fought in WW2 and at least one grandfather in WW1.
If I remember correctly history showed that there was a lack of needed equipment at the beginning of WW2.
WW1 and WW2. We at least learned the lesson of disarming after WW2, and maintained needed force. (in WW1 our forces had to fly French aircraft and use in some cases French LMG. The aircraft was good, the LMG was total crap. We had early BMG, but did not equip our troops with it for fear the enemy would learn how to make them.)
Lack of everything
To me these changes are about handing a lot of work by the army
Back to the army
I agree with this decision. Marine Corp = lightning warfare. Army = armor and supply. It would make no sense for both organizations to waste their resources trying to cover the same areas, when each organization can use all of their resources on what they do best.
So armor is not compatible with lightning warfare?
*Nazi Germany looks at you quizzically...
@@HollowBurden Logistics. A tank can move faster, but if something goes wrong with the transmission or the tracks the tank will have to stay parked a while until a spare comes
Have fun establishing footholds without armor
Wow. I was just following up. My dentist hygienist used to be a Marine like me. He informed me that the Marine Corp got rid of all the Tanker Mos's. All the Artillery MOS'S . Also the Marine Corps got rid of all the cooks. So now the Marine Corp has contracted cooks. Well if they are still going to have a Marine Corp , then what jobs are left in my opinion? ( 1.) Logisitic's . Why , to plan for how many weapons , grenades , machine guns and all equipment . Even food. Like MRE'S. The next jobs that will always exist is : ( 2.) Admin jobs. ( 3.) IT or computer jobs. ( 4.) Drone operator jobs. Since the future wars will be fought with robots. Like the movie TERMINATOR. Now here is my suggestion : Have all Marines trained as Navy Seals. Learn to be airborne . Learn to swim with rifles with silencers . Learn how to scuba dive like Navy Seals. Learn foreran languages like the Green Berets . Languages such as : Manderan Chinese, Cantonese Chinese . Learn the Russian language. Plus Spanish. Why? In case we need spies in China . In case we need spies in Russia. In case we need spies in South America. The new Marine Corps should be expert trained in all deadly hand to hand martial arts. WOSHU KUNG FU. Israli Krava Maga. Judo . Brajilian Jutjitsu . All other hand to hand combat. The new Marine Corps should be trained on how to make bobby traps . Like the Vietcong did in Vietnam . All the new Marine Corps must learn how to disarm and detect road side bombs. Now with the help of DARPA and MIT, there needs to be developed a new tiny mosquitos drones. With Marines trained how to use these tiny undetectable drones. Some tiny mosquito drones will be used as spies. To sneak into the enemies private meeting rooms. They can be used to pick up conversations of the planning of attacks on allied soldiers and our own troops. The next type of tiny mosquito drones DARPA and MIT need to invent are tiny ( ATTACK MOSQUIOTO DRONES ). They will be very silent. These ( TINY MOQUITO DRONES ) are so small they will be able to stick a tiny Lethel poison into the blood stream of the enemy. Then terminate the enemy in two minutes. By shooting a tiny poisonous spear of poison into the enemy soldiers, side of the neck. On the juggler vein. Able to shoot the tiny spear into the inner main artery on the leg of the enemy. This attack will be at night. Where the ten thousand enemy soldiers are camped out. Terminate in complete stealth and in silence. Also these tiny ( ATTACK MOSQUIOTO DRONES ) will be able to go into under ground tunnels and around corners. These ( TINY ATTACK MOSQUIOTO DRONES ) will have Inferred, so they can see at night. Plus the ability to get a heat signature on the enemy . So the ( TINY ATTACK MOSQUITO DRONES ) could easily terminate one million soldiers at night. In complete stealth and silence . Also DARPA and MIT , needs to invent a perfect bullet proof vest. That protects the entire body , face and head. Against any type bullet or RPG . Light weight and easy to carry. Give this to the Marines. So the U.S. Army is now going to receive all the Tanks and Artillery. As far as food. MRE'S. So this is what appears to be going on. Also ; What appears to be the future of the Marine Corps. I threw in some of my own ideas. With what is possible. With the help in technology with the help of DARPA and MIT.
I always knew that the marines were designed to float first, fight second. Getting rid of the armored corp is ridiculous though. The Marines may have been a light fighting force first, but now they’ll never be able to fight in a near-pear war again.
So, I know this is a first effort and I applaud the idea to do a bit of news and analysis. With that said...
Presentation oriented commentary:
1 - I think reading the document live instead of scripting hurts the professionalism of the content. I would think that acknowledging your primary source and provide a link to it would be better.
2 - On that front, you have a number of what are essentially bullet points that you are drawing from. I would prefer to see them in a separate document than highlighting them in the article.
3 - You have a main point, but you buried it at the front of the video. The main point (to me) was that the Marine Corps is doing some radical restructuring. They are doing this primarily to counter China in the Western Pacific. This has a number of consequences - no tanks, eliminated MOSes, equipment changes - that are a bit of a gamble. Note, I made this 3rd because that is equivalent to what your video did.
Content oriented commentary:
I think you might want to have a bit more balanced view as well. Why have the Marine Corps on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq? Seems like Army territory. The other part of the idea is to carve out a niche for the Marine Corps that does NOT overlap with the Army.
Here is an idea that you might want to think about. How would the Army proceed in a war with China? Is the only place where this could happen be Korea? I think this is more of the point with the Marine Corps. Draw potential invasions outward from China. Where would the US get involved - Taiwan and South Korea for sure - Vietnam? India? Russia? Central Asia? On the other hand, if China seizes small islands what is the Army going to do?
@@TaskPurpose1stSquad I disagree with that guy almost completely but what do I know I'm just a pepe great content either way I'm sure.
@@TaskPurpose1stSquad I like you reading it live so we can see your reaction and raw thoughts on it.
The show can easily be structured in a way that you are still showing us the sources and presenting it to us in a unique way with challenging questions. I, for one, enjoy seeing the sources live with some gut reaction type commentary, it's what makes this channel different from the main.
I agree that sources should be listed, giving the audience a chance to research and come up with their own takes with the same source material.
A blend of T&P with Caspian Report style Geopolitics would be siccc
@@Bruceworkouts3184 I wholeheartedly agree!
I get the direction the MC is going in; however as armor enthusiast, it bums me out a wee bit to see the Abrams go. But like I said before, unless their armor is fitted (with very expensive) anti-projectile devices, tanks are more vulnerable now than ever before.
One day, we could get an armoured revolution one day.
@@steellegion7054 🤞👍
The Marines need to do something far better than any other branch to stay relevant. I think having a medium-sized, skilled infantry would benefit them greatly. Something between an Army infantryman and an Army Ranger. The only problem would be funding for more advanced equipment. I think expanding Marine helicopter aviation would be very beneficial as well.
My cousin went through Army basic last year and is now an Abrams driver. He said they had quite a few marine tankers that had to go through with them, so at least some of the armor has already been phased out.
Marines are going to be Space Marines. Mark my words here now of the Lord’s year 2021. MF’ing Space Marines! See you in Space. #OrbitalDropMarines
#OrbitalDropForceRecon
?
Air Force troopers pew pew.
Just like the Colonial Marines in the Movie Aliens..
For the emperor!
Future Marines better start practicing holding your breath.
Sounds like USMC is going back to the WWII concept of the 1st Raider Division
If war breaks out with China,
1. That's literally the plot of the Fallout series.
2. Even if a non-nuclear war breaks out, the global economy - both China's and US and, well, mostly everything - collapses. The US wouldn't be able to finance their debt (40%+ in China, another 40% in Japan, some others in EU nation-states) and we'd hit hyperinflation very quickly. We can't support our current budget, nor a $1 trillion defense spending (war + intel + VA + "diplomatic" + police roughly equals well over $1 trillion USD).
they should never get rid of at least 2 bat of armor. Short sighted. Armor is a game changer in a tight spot.
So how bad do you want the microphone quality?
Cappy: Yes
jk
haha i like how it makes you feel that he bothered to make a long-distance call.
As someone who talks to people a lot on xbox I don't find that microphone annoying or distracting at all
Great analysts man. I think that reorienting the Core to a position better able counter a near peer's (Chinese) aggression is absolutely the best move. Integrating The Marines even more heavily with the Navy compounds their effectiveness. Protecting the country from adversaries actually capable threatening us, should be the #1 priority.
3:39 "What can the Marines do better than the Army?"
Bro, there are a lot of things Marines can do way better than the Army.
#1 Eat crayons. Like it. Ask for more.
The list grows from there.
This is going back to the MEUSOC for the Infantry, Special Operations Capable is not the same as Special Forces.
I agree! After reading the actual report, I think calling the change to making them "Special Forces" is a misnomer, but definitely "Special Operations Capable". The Marines are the US’s rapid deployment forces and should be prepared for a variety of tasks beyond just amphibious landings. Unfortunately, after 18 years of deployments to the deserts, it’s now hard to tell the difference between the Marine and Army units. By adjusting them to more of a “light infantry” or something more similar to the Royal Marines, best retains this “all-round” capability.
Great job Cappy, I like the new format. Keep practicing with sounding out those tough words.
I have utmost respect for them and any American who puts his life on the line. I know you have training in tactics that I can and have read about. I haven't lived them. Your lived experience and ability to translate that means alot to me. Your understanding and translation may not be perfect, but it it is far better than I could guess for myself.
Love this format! I've always enjoyed a more in depth look at the things you cover.
They should just mount Gustav's on Camrys!
I like how those Marines in Hawaii are doing weapons drills without eye pro and body armor/helmet. I guess we don’t train like we fight.
Yup, noticed that too, no body armor, no rolling in the mud, looked like a IDPA match, only, so many holes in the targets, we can't tell who is hitting and who is missing, LOL.
It makes sense from the viewpoint that China, Iran and Russia has lots and lots of anti-tank missiles making them huge slow-moving taget practice. It would be easier to invest in fast transports that can drop off heavely armed infantry from the distance while the front lines are being hammered into submission by artillery and air power.
Back in the day, everyone in the USMC (including my brother) was a rifleman first and there MOS was second. I have no issue with them going back to that. The problem is the USMC was really a special force of its own and they tried to make them the Army in a boat!
I know a grunt that was usmc and says only pogs say that. And furthermore said the usmc doesn't trust the army. Is it just his opinion? A lot of those guys abuse the hell out of drugs, Steroids etc. Is there some kind of issue between the navy's guards and the army or is it loving poke fun or just one dude with an issue? Please let me know.
I just enlisted as 11x in the army, but not gonna lie, if this is all true, USMC Infantry seems like it'll be very awesome, and this is even with the new infantry training the army has right now.
You’re in for a world of hurt, 22 weeks of hell. Been through it
You will have many chances to use cool gear and go to a lot of schools, or selection courses. Marines don’t get that luxury. Also you have the option of trying to get into the 82nd, 101st, SF, and the Regiment. Army is a good option
New subscriber from your other channel, keep up the great work!
This is honestly great commentary, well thought out and said... great content, dude, keep it coming!
I feel tanks are important to keep. WW2 was also near peer and the Marines started procuring tanks during that time to fight against Japan in pacific islands. They didn't have tanks before but WW2 made the Marines realize their importance. The British didn't think tnaks could effectively move in the jungle but the Japanese surprised them with tanks nonetheless. Even if the Marines give up the Abrams, I think they still would need Strykers, Bradleys, or some other light tanks etc to give them that armored support.
USMC had tanks starting in 1923. Did they ever have the best tanks. No
chris another very pog video
Mhm I see you are here too
@@Hawky1 yes
@@TaskPurpose1stSquad yes
I get the reorganization efforts, I do...
I even moderately understand cutting tanks. However I don’t think cutting infantry battalions is a good move for an already comparatively small branch...
This isn't a cut in infantry numbers, this is ensuring existing regiments are fully manned. Most regiments are around 70-80% strength. This would make all regiments 95-100% and have more equipment for each.
Maintenance is less spread out, concentrate budgets, higher readiness, recruiting slightly less desperate for infantry bodies.
Just subded today. Really enjoying this longer more indepth format. The fact you actually citing the think thanks is awesome. No ones really talking about what they are actually saying.
Nice first video for the new channel. Happy to subscribe, and look forward to content like this from you :)
USMC: we want to be able to fight near peer advisory’s more effectively like China or Iran by getting rid of tanks and arty
China and Iran: some of the most armoured and mechanised military’s in the world...
Japan has Type 16 MCV. They too been focusing on islands.
Ya how the marines going to do if they have throw down with enemy armored or mechizined division. Hope that their light skin Lavs with tows are going to stop MBTs? Great if their old MBts like T72s but the T90 and Type 99 are laugh at it. I think Marines are being stupid.
You’re forgetting about our biggest military branch. The Army’s main job is to win our land wars. Been doing that since revolutionary war. Marines support the Navy
@@billyjackson2605 The army is going to take a long time to deploy to an area and the Marines may find themsleves SOL for a while till Army can scrape a relief force together and get it there in time. Also the Air force and Navy will too be busy fight off huge odds to support the Marines. So Marines will have to fight without support of the branches for first time ever cause guess what Russia and China have real large armies that more number than our armed forces.
@@Cavalier1645 the army has the capability to deploy fast also. 82nd Airborne division can deploy in 18 hours anywhere around the world. 10th mountain division can also deploy fast also. Marines were never made to fight other large standing armies. Armies fight armies that’s how it’s always been
The Marine Raiders (that's actually what they call themselves now) are definitely here to say but the Marine corps wants to go back to just being an Infantry landing Force for the Navy or an amphibious raid force.
Thanks for sharing Cappy
Ever since WW II the Marine Corp were actually Army 2.0 with louder public relations.
sounds like the Royal Marines' future commando force where the amphibious infantry are becoming a lot more like special forces after all they are commandos
bro whyyy....its called a main battle tank,and the marines are the front line fighting force...how the hell can they fight with no armor support?!?!?!?!?!??!
Well the plan is… If they’re going to fight in platoon landing teams and company landing teams on tiny little islands close to China they don’t need tanks. It’s the end of the Marine Corps in 20 years IMO.
The army I think is gonna be the new front line force. The marines will be come something like the rangers or the Russian VDV.
@@combatmuffin3192 And that is the problem for the future of the Marines. The army already has Rangers. The US could just add another couple of battalions to the Ranger Regiment if that is all the US Marines are going to be.
To summarize, the marines are specializing even further and reorganizing.
@@combatmuffin3192 It DOSENT matter what the unit is called Rangers,Path finders,Green beret, Marine corps, Seals. Your going to need a LOT of body's when your taking a thousand casualties a week and boot camp is 8 weeks and infantry training is 8 weeks like in 66. WAKE UP ! ITS PUSHING CHOPP MEAT INTO A SAUSAGE CASING .
Just one other thought: imagine a weapon that locks on its target and the round follows that target, regardless of where the target goes or hides. Sounds far fetched, doesn't it. It starts with shoulder held fire and forget and ends with pistol fire and forget.
There is no way that Marines haircut is AR-670-1 compliant. And yes, I'm jealous of that slick back.
Am I the only one cringing at the pistol recoil control and chicken winging with rifle?
Yup, looks like you are.
"The Marine Corps must reorganize to remain relevant"
That ship has sailed, General.
Seems like a good idea overall. The Marines current force structure is response to top brass not wanting to be left out of the fight (fear - being less relevant/necessary). Turning them into a smaller version of the Army. For ever and ever the Marine Corp has envisioned themselves as special forces. Something like amphibious Ranger/Airborne units. Going back to the island hopping, fast attack, establishing bases for other forces makes a lot of sense. And because they're establishing bases for other units, and not themselves, they should be able to avoid the, being out gunned at forward operating base scenario you described. The one concern I have about all this, is the "we don't need to have a close in capability, because all fights will happen at long range" mindset. The Air Force makes this mistake all the time with fighter development.
They're not getting rid of MPs, they're getting rid of law enforcement battalions which were stood up during GWOT for basically T&A purposes. There are still going to be MPs, what they're getting rid of is a lot of the legacy capabilities that were stood up for GWOT.
Yea they got rid of my 8th Marine Regiment retired our colors served in G 2/8 not to happy about it
1/8 "67"
@@libertyman3729 was 2/8 87-90
Welp there goes the job I wanted to have in the MC :(
I love tanks, I’ve studied them and I’ve seen some but there’s no way I’m joining the Army just to serve in one
Why not you have more room for advancement plus I’m sure the army will have an amphibious landing groups who specialize in stuff like this.
Good answer. Semper Fi.
If they are talking about a return to "island hopping", like in WW2, the navy is also going to have to change, and bring back shore bombardment (guns from 5" to at least 12") and all the coordination required for front line supply and medical support. We did it once, but it took awhile to get all that "up to speed". It seems like the marines still needed tanks and artillery to perform their tasks. The tanks were used more as support than independent units, but the Russians did that successfully too. If they are talking about "hit and run", well, that didn't work out very well 50 years ago, maybe someone needs to check that out instead of ignore it. There's nothing wrong with looking at another country's militaries, but maybe the English is not the best one.
I Like that you are interesting for both Americans to watch, but also people generally interested in military history as well as current events.
This format is awesome.
alright- finally got around to finishing the video- this is deeply horrifying to me. this reminds me of all the terrible assumptions regarding new warfare game plans and strategies made going into Vietnam ("no need for guns on the f4 phantoms because thats the old way of aerial combat" for example) i would assume major conflict with china would be one of semi proxy in nature. i say proxy only in the sense neither of our own countries would be the battlegrounds in fear of MAD (almost like an insane gentleman's agreement) so were talking india, and probably all the pacific nations- IF it even came to that large scale of a conflict in the first place. secondly, our modernized military tremendously lacks bulk in exchange for smart bombs etc. thats all well and good for "threats" in caves, warlords, and evil sobs oppressing their own people, but against another modernized military, your gonna run out of expensive smart rockets and such after about a week or two of sustained large scale combat. after that, "lower end" assets such as boots on the ground supported by arty and armor would be needed and things would ironically be decided on lower tech right? im just a dumd dumb ex-corpsman that spent most of my time around marines- so i genuinely have a very specific understanding of warfare and our abilities- im very open to legit conversation on this if im wrong with these suspicions / concerns (which i totally might be idk)
Sounds like the Marines are setting themselves up for failure.
No. They're facing the reality that stealth is important in fights, again. Drone and guided missile technology has made the tank a bigger liability than asset. If they need armor support, they have the Army like in Fallujah.
Watching the azerbaijan/armenia conflict, we see that a mix of missile armed drones along with smaller kamikaze swarm drones makes all troops much more vulnerable.
@@theimmortal4718 Stealth will only get you so far though. It might not be so useful in an intense firefight
@@mr_beezlebub3985
That's where the precision firepower and constant ISR come into play.
They will always have drone coverage, from squad level, all the way up. Small drones like black hornet in ever squad, longer range quad copters, and fixed wing uavs will be flying constantly. All with FLIR, GPS, and LRF. Find, fix, destroy from mortars, Himars, Javelins, and shore battery. Not to mention loitering munitions carried by individuals and in teams, and armed fixed wing and rotary drones that are still being developed.
Being ambushed or manuvered will be much more rare, as they will he able to see out very far, with great detail, in real time.
If they see it in FLIR, day or night, they can hit it with a lot of firepower.
@@mr_beezlebub3985 how would it not be useful? You can get closer to an enemy without them seeing you every army that has tested against their equipment says this is a serious advantage
No matter how it is "preped", assume all landings will be contested. It is the level of contestation that is critical.
Special unit sent in ahead to minimize, enemy resistance at the beachhead seems to be part of the strategy.
Just seems like the mass casualties taken on landings during ww2 in the pacific after days of bombardments from naval ships and bombers...
@@siege2928 if you try to do a landing on china ...with how china doesn't care about its people will will just glass their own beachheads.
The USMC only had about 200 of the 12,000+ tanks in the US arsenal anyway. And the idea of the marines being a lighter, more mobile, and expeditionary force is not new. It's actually the whole reason they were founded in the first place. The abolition of the MP's will make no difference. Bases are policed by civilian police anyway.
Lol crayon eaters ego getting out of hand.
What limited role the marines actually have should be rolled into the Navy and the rest jettisoned. There is almost nothing they are "special" at, not even amphibious landings. The US Army conducted the largest amphibious assault the world has ever seen. The non-nuke aspects of the Airforce, likewise, should be rolled back into the Army where it belongs and the nuke/strategic assets moved over to the space force. Doing these two things will save billions of dollars per year in defense spending, reduce nonsensical "joint" platforms and focus efforts where they really need to be: dominating the lands and seas.
The us army conducted the largest amphibious landing only because they had the numbers for it. The usmc still sent troops there and helped plan the event. Based of your ideology of “special” the army’s air power should go to the airforce. It’s not about being special at something. It’s about being specialized in that field. The usmc specializes in ship to shore. The army did the largest. But not much at all. The usmc did it throughout all of ww2. It would cost much more as well. The usmc is known for doing more with less. It’s not a secret that they aren’t given the shiny toys. Imagine having to give the usmc all the new things the army gives out. It simply isn’t logical to remove the usmc. especially not with the future theater. island hoping campaigns will be fought if we go to war on china and the usmc is the best thing for it.
@@hanzsolo5460 Right, the US Army did the invasion because nobody else could do it. You got it! Sure, the marines supplied cooks and water boys.
@@prime-rib cooks and water boys ? Last time i checked the army couldn’t hold Fallujah without calling the marines to take it back like they first did
@@hanzsolo5460 You seem to have your history confused. I'll un-confuse you. There were two battles for Fallujah. I was there in 2004 for the first. Were you? Army General Conway ordered the 1st Marine Exp Force to go in there because of some Blackwater deaths, etc. The marines did not want to go in. They wanted airpower to do the work. Nevertheless, they were ordered in. They were not alone, by the way. Later, everybody was pulled out and the job was handed to the Iraqi, "Fallujah Brigade," who would lose the city. The second battle for Fallujah took place sometime between 2008-2009 time period. I'm not sure as I was in Afghanistan by that point. Though there were marines involved, it was spearheaded by the 1st Infantry Division....the Big Red One, you might have heard of them.
If we trade off 3 tank brigades infavor of a new concept which is not yet tested in actual conflict,. I fear that the marines would be losing a massive firepower against a potential adversary- the PLA.