The US Marines Bold Risky Plan to Defeat China
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ม.ค. 2024
- Go to tryfum.com/TASKPURPOSE and use code TASKPURPOSE to save an additional 10% off your order today.
You might be surprised to learn the US Marines believe their M1A1 main battle tanks would only hold them back. They’ve officially decided to ditch their tanks, dissolving all 7 of their long storied tank companies as part of their bold but risky new Force Design 2030 plan. This controversial decision will call for the corps to get rid of most of their gun based artillery and a whole host of other vehicles and aircraft in exchange for new capabilities. On face value this might sound crazy but if you dig deeper it's crazy like a fox. What are the pros and cons of this new plan?
Written by: Chris Cappy & Diego Aceituno
Edited by: Savvy Studios
In theory the Force Design 2030 transformation would allow a small company of about 100 Marines to be positioned on islands in order to pose an outsized threat to nearby enemy naval forces. The plan seeks to force the enemy to divert their troops and resources to counter this small element of US Marines. For an attacking military like China they would want to create an economy of effort. What that means is they would aim to avoid dispersing their forces and resources across a wide area. In military theory there is a concept called “massing forces” to bring overwhelming force to bear on a specific target and that's what China would seek to do.
But Force Design 2030 aims to make the PLA spread out and unfocused. The Marines want to become experts at sea denial. Instead of being a multitool jack of all trades they want to be the go to Anti-access/area denial forces in the south china sea. Every marine would still be a rifleman as we all know, but under this new plan they would also be a kind of island survivalist. US Leadership believes having a credible fast reaction amphibious force is a top priority. According to this new school of thought, main battle tanks just don’t fit into this picture at least not like how you might expect.
The Marines had about 451 tanks in their inventory which were the old M1A1 variant that lacked a lot of the more modern survivability capabilities that tanks require against a near peer today. They would have been pretty much forced into an expensive and time consuming upgrade process. To get a picture of just how expensive this process would be, when the Army upgraded 174 M1A1s to the M1A2 SEPv3 it cost them $714 million dollars, and another upgrade program for 786 tanks cost a whopping $2.6 billion dollars. Projecting those numbers out, it would have cost the Corps between $1.5 and $1.85 billion dollars to upgrade their entire inventory just to the M1A2 SEPv3 standard, while future versions would be even more expensive. That’s just some average infantryman back of the napkin math though. So lets see what the Marines will get in return.
Good luck getting this DoD contract spare parts army!
sam.gov/opp/b223117108a641f39...
sources:
www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...
news.usni.org/2021/02/10/earl...
www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @taskandpurpose
Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry.
Email capelluto@taskandpurpose.com for inquires.
#NAVY #MARINES #WAR
Go to tryfum.com/TASKPURPOSE and use code TASKPURPOSE to save an additional 10% off your order today.
This was posted 10 mins ago how is this an hour old
What would be the plan for the Mexican Cartel? Is it like sending airborne units behind enemy lines and marines, and then sending infantry waves to fight the Mexican Cartel? Or is more like the past wars were it was different from the wars of to now?
You have gone from a fresh outlook, to parroting the party line.
❤USMC❤
How can China invade its own country??
Can people just google
One China policy so you do f have to waste your time making these videos
Serving in the Marines involves sacrifices and it is tankless.
Lol! That made my day.
I see what you did
They are going to redo all of their hot water systems to use tankless heaters.
How many Vietnam war veterans does it take to change a lighbulb?
Yeah, you DON'T know . . . cos YOU WEREN'T THERE MAAAN! YOU WEREN'T THERE!!!
I've seen stuff. Lighbulb stuff. You wouldn't UNDERSTAAAAAND MAAAAN! Charlie's in the WIRE man! *CHARLIE'S IN THE WIRE!!!*
Dad joke of the day.
Marines cannot be slowed down by the massive logistics of tanks when trying to be a rabid reaction force.
Yes, Marines are rabid, lol. Grrrrr
Yea, how about a massive logistics trail for the ridiculously expensive F-35.
@@MrProsat The F-35 is like 30% more expensive than a new F-16.
@@rael5469 What with the urban legends of marines having to kill a family member or a pet to enter the Marine Corps, "rabid" works fine enough.
Air forceeee
Very valuable. Former Marine CH53D pilot. The Corps was given a new mission, plain and simple. The Corps needed to adapt and is doing so.
This is the best military news explanation channel out there, litorally the best
i see what you did there...
Haha! My man!
I see what you did there...
As a former tanker I hate to see tanks go away but I get their radical thinking. Tanks are heavy and big. They are just fat hogs when it comes to logistics. They need huge fuel and parts support. I think this is a bold move and supports a more modern concept. They need to add some kamikaze drones in there too. Hats off to the Corp! Great video!
This isn't exactly a more modern concept, it's returning to the original purpose of the marines, to be the amphibious landing force that takes the beach for the army to land on. In an environment that includes tanks, accurate artillery, helicopters etc. all of this is just part of what they will need. But there was a ton of random additions to the marine corps over the last 60-80 years. Marines shouldn't have tanks. The tanks rolling onto the beach should belong to the army. They shouldn't have planes or helicopters. They should be supported by naval planes and helicopters. They shouldn't have artillery. They should be supported by long range fire from ships. Their job is to take and hold the beach for the army to land. If troops are flown to a base, they should belong to the army. If troops are carried by sea to a base, they should belong to the army. If they are flown to unsecured ground, they should belong to the air force. If they are carried by sea to unsecured ground, they should belong to the navy.
Kinda happens when you use a turbine instead of a good ol fashion piston engine.
@@tillmanadkins713 The new Abrams is a hybrid. They can run all functions without running the engine for several hours by battery.
@@squashiejoshie200000 That reminds me of the faint by the amphibious marines in the Iraq war. The Iraq soldiers dug in at the Kuwait beaches only to have the marines turn back and have our Iowa class battleships fire 1 million pounds of 16 in shells. It must have been hell for those poor guys.
@@dellingson4833the iraq war?🙄 You mean desert storm?
Sounds like the Marines finally figured out they are marines and not Army Jr. This “radical” shift sounds like they are simply returning to their original role.
Very true facts
Not only that but they were two things poorly. While at the same time that they were spending money on tank battalions that were at least an upgrade cycle from the Army's version, the AAVs were becoming so old to the point that they are no longer sea worthy. So realistically the USMC has a fraction of their amphibious capability.
The four major services should be working together for these large scale operations.
We are going back to our original tactics lots is changing
@@stanruiz because we should be storming beaches and island hopping in 2024? lol
@@devondanklin1808 why I said that lmao I’m in the marine corp 🤣
One must change one's tactics every ten years if one wishes to maintain one's superiority. - Napoleon
19:41 I disagree with the critics that FD2030 wasn’t tested. In 2020 my battalion (V1/2) started testing FD2030. The most abrupt change was “Maturing the force”, where you had to be a Sgt to be a team leader and a SSgt to be a squad leader. We pulled a lot of dudes from battalions like 3/8 to meet that requirement. One of my buddies was a squad leader, and when he got promoted to Sgt they demoted him to team leader lol. We also got all new IAR’s with suppressors, and PVS-31’s (Dual-nod White Phosphorous IRNV). Weapons platoon got decimated, all the 0351’s left became riflemen, the 0331’s directly attached to rifle platoons and the 0341’s were sent to H&S.
So FD2030 was tested, just not for a super long time.
The change I am most worried about is no longer training and employing Scout Snipers. Human gather intelligence and offensive capabilities is an art not a science. The knowledge lost could be devastating in the future Corps.
@@elminweatherbee7672this is a great point. We learned this in other areas not just military.
When the manufacturing capability left, the skills to actually bring it back also literally could not be found after a few decades.
V1/2 AIR O in ‘14. Semper Fi
@@elminweatherbee7672 it should be worth mentioning that the capabilities lost from scout snipers and such, Will be filled by the Navy seals during FD 2030 by design. Getting back to the original mission of the seals.
Have to laugh that the drive to "be less like the army" and alot of the FD2030 testing you described is exactly what the army has been doing for decades. Not much wrong with what you described however; most of it make sense. My only gripe would be the attempt at force maturation via biliting team and squad leaders one rank higher. Force maturation can only be accomplished via retention and training.
As a 30-year Marine vet (now retired), I always questioned the utility of tanks while deployed with the MEU out of CLNC. They were too heavy, required a huge logistics train, used an inordinate amount of fuel, weren’t easily transported, too few in number to dominate the battle space, etc. etc. The ARG couldn’t adequately support Armor, which required maintenance, repair, and recovery. I believed that speed, lethality, and agility would best serve the BLT once ashore. The M-198 Artillery system was too heavy, but we needed artillery. The introduction of the M-777 Artillery brought weight relief that was badly needed. The Marine Corps rightly embraced a robust military mentality that reflected future threats, rather than remained married to the old ways of fighting decades in the past. My first rifle was an M-14, but 3 decades later when I retired, I had a weapon that was lighter, more lethal at longer ranges, and more capable. The Marine Corps has always been one step ahead in the defense establishment because of its forward thinking that always questioned how it would fight, survive, and win against an opposing force. Kudos to our Commandant.
do you think that the role or the importance of tanks has evolved?
You served three decades and survived? Wow.
Not to mention slow, armored vehicles are so easily defeated with cheap modern technology. I would say ATVs have more of a future than any armored vehicle
Thankful for citizens like you, bless you and your family.
@@XvonPocalypse What is that even supposed to mean?
Considering virtually all modern conflicts are a joint fight, Marines don’t need to duplicate assets and capabilities unless it supports ‘first to fight’ until the joint force arrives
Marines lost to afghans
@@zacksmith5963 Marines didn't lose that fight, politicians did.
unless the US has a plan to deal with chinese A2AD, joint forces will probably never arrive and be kept thousands of miles away.
I can see this going as well as the VDV's attempt at Hostomel.
@@elmateo77 This is a truth fact.
@@elmateo77politicians didn’t either. Fight was simply unwinnable. No people have been permanently conquered by a nation that didn’t want them there. It’s impossible to wipe out the Taliban. It’s why many Japanese soldiers didn’t surrender until years later. Unfortunately no amount of military might can stop an ideology from spreading.
I am a retired Marine Corps artillery / logistics officer (1967-87). I had the opinion early in my career that tanks and artillery were becoming obsolete even then. Having done a tour in Vietnam, I saw that tanks were marginally worthwhile at best. Often they were dug into revetments at fire bases and logistics bases in the flat lands of Vietnam to be used as stationary fire support. Artillery in those days was very important in supporting infantry operations, but I saw these as well being eventually retired due to the precision munitions the military now has. Drones are a very cheap and effective means of supporting infantry, and a lot cheaper, plus they can be operated at the platoon level whereas tanks and artillery are not in most cases. Planes requiring pilots are very expensive and not as easy to replace as are drones. Thus, I support this new concept, but do think it perhaps incorrect to reduce infantry units. Wars are ultimately always won with boots on the ground. The Marine Corps' primary mission has been refocused on the Pacific. The new force structure is a good fit for this area. The Army should have the heavier capabilities for Europe and the Middle East. As we have seen in the Russia / Ukraine conflict, tanks especially are being damaged / destroyed almost as quick as they are built.
When I served my time in the Corps I was hoping to join a marine force operating as naval infantry, get on ships and fight the enemy from those ships. So imagine my surprise and disappointment when I was assigned to a static artillery regiment, stationed in 29 palms (a desert), deployed to landlocked deserts, trained in deserts, and spent more time training in desert survival than water survival. 8 years and I never even served in a MEU aboard ships!
I'm glad the Corps is taking this approach to return to their naval roots. Yes, the greybeards are right that if the Chinese Army went toe to toe against this new Marine Corps the Chinese Army would demolish us. But that would have been true of the old GWOT Marine Corps also, because we are not supposed to be an army! We should always deploy in support of the Navy and always have the Navy support us, we shouldn't be expected to fight in isolation against enemy combatants. Less tanks? That's fine, we have naval cannons. Less static artillery? Naval Cannons. Smaller footprint? Naval Cannons!
As a Marine vet my experience was that in 1990 I spent winter months in cold weather training in preparation for operations above the arctic circle. By the end of the year I was in the middle of the desert. Most of the time the war you are training for is not the one you fight... I hope the Corps is not strictly focusing on China, but maintaining the capabilities to respond and fight in any "Climb and Place"...
I went from Adak,Alaska to Viet Nam in 1968 .
I mean, there is a pretty strong argument that the Corps never should have been in the sandbox in the first place. Y'all were vital for the feigned landings in Kuwait, but after that? Nah, not really.
Exactly! How many times were the Marinies called on to do something they weren't designed for in the first place. It seems like a bunch of old men who work in the Pentagon are getting kickbacks from Raytheon, etc, rather than doing what's best for the Marine having to actually fight.
*Clime
@@abeleon6431❤ so true its like there focus on one thing
Army: we need more tanks actually🤓
Marines: Get rid of these metal coffins, we rushing this
Marines recognize the need for tanks. Just not for the Marine mission.
I think it makes sense for what each branch does
@@Rob_F8F I know the Marines had already been giving the Army its Abrams. I also know the Corps gave its Abrams tankers the opportunity to transfer to the Army and still be tankers. There's been articles already about this a while back.
Some Venezuelan guy on tik tok : "I need more boolets"
@@scottfraser706
Jes americano, mo boolets😂
Having it and not needing it isnt the same as needing it and not having it. This is dangerous
Love that the ship graphic used at 0:11 is a Blue Ridge class (LCC). Only two in the US Navy. I served aboard the USS Mount Whitney (LCC-20) in the early 90s. Enjoy your content!
The Marines were turning into Army 2.0. Good to see them getting back to their roots.
Yep, and they will be far more effective with twice as many drone units F-35s, and more heavy refueling Aircraft. and the new C-130J will give the Corps longer range and they are faster and more survivable.
Marines are shock troops of the USA ...
The Commandant said it best.. "in order for the Marine Corps to remain and become more lethal, we have to become lighter, leaner, and faster.."
Nope. We continued our forward deployed MEUs, kept up our Maritime Prepositioned ships for rapid deployment of larger units and continued to train for amphibious operations. The Army doesn’t do any of that.
And continuous use of guard and reserves abroad in undeclared wars for multiple tours has changed them to army 3.0.
@@coryhoggatt7691the army isn’t the navy like you boat boy
As a USMC Vet I can say from experience that the Marine Corps motto improvise, overcome, adapt is how we defeat an ever evolving enemy.
We didn't beat Iraq or Afghanistan.
Right, but why get rid of the tanks entirely when you can just make a smaller lighter version? Has everyone forgotten how to make a light tank?
@@unhingedravenger2856 modern day IEDs called for heavy armor
@@russ7022 that was a politically and big oil driven agenda. With no clear explanation or outline or achievable goals and strategy to end the war and come out successful. It wasn't intended to end and it was a lose lose scenario for the citizens of both middle east nations and the USA. The wars drained our economy. It was pointless and drained or military resources and lives were sacrificed for greed and corruption. Nobody wins except the people and organizations who laundered and funneled the money and make the laws and declare war.
You can't even get your motto correct? Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
Excellent report, Chris. Thank you! Sounds like a good plan worth pursuing.
Thank you very much...
The fact that they are only converting 2 of 7 divisions will give the marines more capability, not less. They can always combine new units with traditional units as needed to achieve the force structure required for any situation.
Fr they have flexibility with just committing two out of seven divisions
Honestly my knowledge of the Pacific war in WW2 is limited since Hollywood loves depicting the European theater, but what I have learned is Marines are tenacious and don't like to lose. They will level mountains before they give it up to the enemy. So no matter the politics at the high level, the marines are going to hold their ground.
Эмма вам поможет😊😂
Whose Marines are you talking about? Currently the USMC consists of 4 division and 4 air wings. 1 of each are reserves. So the current leadership is dismantling half the Corps into island defense battalions just as it was prior to WW2. We know how well those worked at Wake and Guam.
This reorganization will be disastrous in a war with China. Their Marines have amphibious tanks and IFVs...having served in the Corps, it is terrifying to face Armour of any form with just a rifle.
its actually 3 divisions and 1 in the reserves.@@rvail136
As a finnish reservist i think this way of thinking might be really good for Marine Corps. Of course i'm only looking fron an outsider pov, but if you have a small force with limited recources using these kind off modified querrilla tactics with lower signature and more mobility is a great idea. Here in Finland we train/-ed in a very similar kind off mindset especially before we joined Nato. Because if the enemy has much more Air-, sea and landweapons in the region you can limit casualties and do serious damage to the enemy with hit and run type of attacks. And that way the enemy has much harder time finding ways to benefit from their possible air-supeurioty etc. But i'm very interested to see how the US Marine Corps will develop this system and hope that i get to train with them someday at an Nato exercise or something like that. All the best from Finland
Except they're using offensive tactics while doing guerilla which is way better than brute force, shock and awe imo. Less casualties and the enemy is confused for longer. They also come with those RC mini HIMARS on JLTVs.
Love the Finns- badass people
You forgot to ask, "also can the Finns have these tanks plz?"
it really depends who this "enemy" of yours is, and what form it takes.
one can't help but notice, your outer walls are bristling with fortifications and weaponry, but inside the walls there is no substantial defensive posture to speak of.
@@streamobject0014
That's just cos the finns ARE the trees...
Actually it's because they have no space for defense in depth and have to rely on a fighting retreat across valleys and rivers.
Except now they get to do that with the rest of NATO charging in the other direction.
Although I'd like to think we'd have done it anyway, Ukraine is starting to sour my opinion of my NATO brethren.
Even my British siblings have not exactly lived up to my expectations.
This new strategy sounds like they are admitting the next conflict is likely to be a high-casualty conflict.
They are learning from Ukraine. Drones and Javelins have the majority of kills. Tanks may go the way of battleships soon.
It is true that drones and missiles are lethal in Ukraine, but artillery is still a factor. @@teleguy5699
Correct, but what else would you expect in the Second Pacific War? My expectation is that it will follow a similar course to the first Pacific War, and although I would put my money on the US to win I am not certain that it will.
@@bernardedwards8461based on professional predictions the US will win but huge dents and cost of damages to our military will be a pain to look at. Basically China’s only option to win is by rushing just speed speed speed and take the airports in Taiwan to massively deploy troops. Entering by sea would be a death wish for any Chinese to swim to Taiwan. Chinese cities could be used as hostages by US to not harm any Taiwanese citizens as US could bombard Chinese cities and ports to retaliate any human rights violations
Thanks!
Greybeard Marine here. You presented the changes and controversy very well. I served on three of those islands, support the newest reorganization, and hope it is enough for the lightning-quick evolution we’re seeing in how wars are fought. As for Europe - it hasn’t really been our stomping ground since WWI.
Right? The army is propositioned in Europe. Marine responsibility is everywhere else.
@@knowsmebynameWhen the Old Empire claimed nation after nation in the Indo-Pacific theater, it was the Devil Dogs that America sent to run them out. Their home court is the South China Sea, but as the field changes, so must gameplans.
Army 71, Navy 76, retired in 93. You have to evolve or become extinct or irrelevant. I don't see the Marines losing anything buy becoming less encumbered, I would think that it suits them better. 🪖⚓🇺🇸🇺🇦
Thank you for your service! o7
Also a grey beard Marine. These changes are foolish. The Corps is now a one trick pony that will NEVER get to perform that trick. Balance is wise. When did we EVER correctly predict the nature of the next conflict?
Former 0341, Bravo 1/8. My buddies and I used to actually talk about this in the late '90s. We shouldn't have separate MOS', the Company should be more lethal and independent of the battalion, the platoon should be more lethal and independent from the company, the squad more lethal and independent of the platoon, and the fire team should damn near be special operators. We should be able to put a squad in the vicinity of the enemy, locate them, and put decisive and destructive fire on elements 4x bigger. We were talking about this 20 years ago.
Every man Rambo. If wishes were horses...
@@ryanremias
That's the army's responsibility
@@ryanremias It will be a cold day in hell if we ever let the Canadians take Wisconsin!
@@EnemyMangoDon't forget North Dakota the hidden gem of the North-Mid-Western-Central upper United States.
@@maxonm1899right because that wouldn’t fall to idk the national guard
Very informative & interesting vid w\some valid research.Thx👍
Excellent video and a great job is presented both sides of this warfare plan. It seems that on many levels that it is a good plan, yet there could be some downsides. Either way, the next war is demonstrating which aspects are good and which ones might need further refining!
There is an M1A1 Abrams Tank on display in the American Heritage Museum in Marlborough, Massachusetts. It is there, instead of in the Marine Corps Museum, because of this Force Design 2030 stuff. The Marine Corps did not want to display a tank when the broader USMC was moving away from them.
What is so special about this tank, you ask? On August 3, 2006, at 0903 an IED exploded next to the tank and killed the USMC Tank Commander. The Marine crew evacuated the tank commander and limped the tank back to base 13km away.
How do I know this happened? I (Marine Corps MOS 1812) was the gunner on the tank when that happened. Marine Tankers in my company followed the vehicle after our deployment and saved it from the demo or foreign sales piles. It was slated for the Marine Corps Museum before Force Design 2030.
Zeroes can argue the philosophical need for heavy armor and we can all speculate on what is or isn't necessary in war. That said, please do not forget that Marine Tankers served with valor and sacrificed for their country the same as many other Marines. Semper Fidelis.
Loadouts may change, the sacrifices made by soldiers don't. Nobody will forget the valiant efforts of soldiers no matter what era they fought in. Thank you for your service.
False
Not sure if you have been to it but the section of the museum for the War on Terror(idk what they're calling that section yet.) has a decently historical Amtrac that had been in service all over the world since 1972 as the the center display of it. There are a couple tanks in the museum already spread out amongst the exhibits. I imagine a lot of historical vehicles came up for discussion in this and they might have just chosen to highlight one historical fighting vehicle over the other. I am really happy to hear your tank and your tank commanders legacy get to live on in another museum. It would be really cool to see my old ch53e at the museum once they're fully retired.
Brave job you guys did back then. And of course tanker Marines are as all Marines: Marines for life! Once a Marine always a Marine.
It was the Japanese philosophy that if a tank got knocked out and the crew survived, they were expected to fight on foot as infantry. There is not much place for main battle tanks on islands in the S.W Pacific,but there will be much smaller amphibious armoured vehicles. There wont be any Zeroes this time.
USMC is retooling itself into a ship sinking force while operating in the First Island Chain.
No need for tanks.
Bold, risky and smart move
Also as we've seen - tanks are mainly food for drones, ATGM's, artillery guided by drones or SMART munitions...
They're expensive toys like Battleships were in WW2.
@@levelazn Lessons are being learned as nine Chinese generals just got purged
@@RazorsharpLT So the Navy is getting rid of Aircraft Carriers?
My concern is a recreation of Marine Defense Battalions of WW2, specifically Wake Island. These battalions had coastal artillery that was supposed to repel ships and landing forces.
Except the Marines are preparing for a war in the pacific exclusively then.
this is by far your best video you have made!
Sounds like a really wise and well thought out plan. I was in the Navy and worked with the Marines a lot and I feel like they were Navy Light with their planes and Army Light with all of their equipment. A highly mobile hard hitting unit that can provide a quick response I think is the way to go!
At the start of the Korean Conflict : 1950s, President Truman asked the same question, Why is there a Marine Corps? After the Marines landed at Inchon, Truman was thankful for the Marines amphib landing expertise.
MacArthur: Observe
The Army could very easily adopt that doctrine tho.
@@T_81535but the wrong mentality
@@T_81535 and they could start flying planes and crewing warships as well. but why do that if you can have specialized forces to do their own things in support of the larger war effort?
@@T_81535the Army is designed to reinforce the Marines; in Doctrine and in the History of the United States; the Marines have precedence over the Army;
"Oh no, the enemy has a tank.....
So anyway I took out a javelin missile."
Always Sunny somewhere XD
Javelin is not a universal weapon against vehicle. Based on experience in Ukraine, it often did not work.
Infantry preferred to take with them dummy launchers (AT-4, RPG-7, RPG-22, etc)
In addition in a large long-term war infantry cannot fight without tanks.
I’m afraid that NATO is not morally prepared for a long war against the axis of evil. It still lives in the paradigm of small armies and lightning-fast operations.
@@KravchenkoIgor I'm guessing that had more to do with availability than anything else..... when you have a pile of 20 rpgs you can use.... or a single javelin, obviously, the former you're comfortable using as a throwaway.
@@johnbigelson7471 in an open field the javelin is good. It has problems in urban area. Tested by the war in Ukraine.
More like drone but yeah
Great video! All of us Marines are going to have to continue adapting into the future by phasing in new tech while not dispersing of proven tools of war before it is the right time.
Something that probably hasn't been thought out , would be drones.
Drones are cheap, and low altitude swarms would easily be able to detect the Marines and create a aerial map in a very short amount of time.
Drones and operators can be located using different Intel gathering methods coupled with cyber warfare units doing their thing on the back end. Programs like Hawkeye 360 aid units in supplying them with real time satellite feeds of RF signal data of all sorts. This in addition with other various jamming techniques can combat drone swarms. It’s not necessarily easy but a well equipped team with good support would be safe from such a threat.
The drones are just as dangerous if you had a tank. The tank has to refuel and is easy to shadow. Ukraine has already showed us this. Unless you want to use your MBTs like Air Force
Bombers that return back to base each time to refuel..
Tanks turbine motors are extremely hot and easily detected by thermal, many have been calling for power plant change on tanks due to this
Do you genuinely think that the impact of drones hasn't been thought out? Not an insult, I'm just surprised that anyone would think that the US military hasn't been paying attention to perhaps the most significant gamechanger in modern warfare.
Depends where the marines are. In smallish numbers in tropical rainforest I doubt whether drones could detect them, and the huge jungle trees would hinder an attack.
For the price of tanks the Marines can get a nice stockpile of drones.
and smart weapons
Absolutely the right move. My #1 concern with China was having all our eggs in our carrier force, which can be targeted asymmetrically. We need to have the same asymmetrical capability to help deter attacks on our vessels and protect our fleets.
Didn't we try that on acdent at D-Day? Didn't that kill a ton more of us then if Tanks made it onto the beaches?
Also Okinawa air bases would be taken out in first 30 min with just conventional cruise missiles. USMC ironically would need to set up like Iwo Jima general where in USMC bases are all underground and spread out in different island chains. Plus underground is typhoon proof. Look how pissed off Russians were that Melitopol USSR Steel mill underground. Took them 1 month even surrounding Azov with T-90s and bombardment.
@@Hector-zv4tw No one is talking about invading China...
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough No.
@@nagasako7 I assume that critical assets are not likely going to be stored en masse at vulnerable air bases, and that these are likely covered in patriot defense batteries. We have seen these take down cruise missiles in Ukraine. Your point stands though and that is the point of the video - to disperse our threats and create deterrence that way as well.
Another great video!
Always look for new ideas and put them to the test.
Really glad for the Marines and we are already seeing great progress. The Marine infantry of 5 years ago is utterly unrecognizable to the modern one. Equipment of the individual soldier has skyrocketed in quality and now the shoes on the other foot with memes of hand me downs, Marines get all the new stuff now.
This is actually a hilarious insight that I’ll need to include in the next video about the marines
@@Taskandpurpose Marines get "BRAND" new toys!? From a former amphip sailor. This would be cool to see/hear about.
@@Taskandpurpose while I was in we did get the M-1014 combat shotgun which is better than everyone else combat shotgun. The new stackable grenades for room clearing might lead to some ridiculous situations according to some memes out there.
I didn't get anything new in the Corps. Even my dd-214 was printed on recycle paper.
What are you smokin? Mfs still use the same machine guns from iraq
13:56 , I wasnt even born when that ad was made, and it unironicly got me to enlist. The Marines ought to remaster it and put it back online
Yes, the Royal Marines actually do that - they've got their old ads on their TH-cam. It's weird to think of them having a TH-cam. :)
Boot
It’s cool I joined because of the Americas Army video game made by the military from like 2004
@@Taskandpurpose”I’m only in it for the spiffy uniform”
Forst of all, great job on this video and collating all this info. I think a certain group of Marines are on their way to becoming a "leaner & meaner" fighting force with this new approach. I just hope this does not take their eye off the ball as there are likely other scenarios different to South Pacific where there may be other hot spots that demand a different or tried and tested approach. Congrats to Marine leadership for tearing down and rebuilding what needed adaptation to new realities and new budgets!
Seems like a great concept to me. Having been in an armor unit back in the 1960's and seeing the smaller weapons capable of destroying tanks today, I have often thought that a tank is now little more than a large expense target.
Marine Corps: does actual marine things instead of being the army’s learning impaired little brother.
But we still like crayons.
I'm still surprised they haven't leaned into the crayons bit and created some kind of MRE protein bars that actually look like crayons.
I will forever remember when the Army and Navy spent like millions redesigning camo that was less effective and the Marines spent a fraction and developed a pattern that was more effective and was the adopted by the other branches. Turns out giving Marines a limited budget just makes them more effective, not less.
@@granatmofSeriously correct, the Marines just looked around and stole CADPAT for free. Shrewd move!
@@granatmof Yeah during those days the Army had some seriously fucked up leadership - looking at you General Shinseki.
If they do any urban combat they will regret this immediately.
Marcinko (in his books) described a future where marines become more like SEALS and SEALS become more intelligence focused operators
Ive read all his books growing up. Loved all of them
That vision and assessment is SPOT-ON!
Which book exactly?
@@pilky_boooi Richard Marcinko is who he's talking about. Founding father and first commander of seal team six. He wrote a lot of books on his missions that were declassified
So then what does the CIA become? Flipflopping forces between capabilities isnt the same as innivasion. And the military, including the marines doesnt to be ready so much for the "next" war as they need to be prepared for ANY war. Throwing out whole groupings of capabilities and then expecting if something goes wrong with their masterplan the army will bail them, does nothing but put more stress on the army.
I served 21 Years in the Marine Corps as a Tanker. I retired in 2021 spending the last year of my career Divesting my entire MOS, so it is fair to say I am bias on this topic. From the time I first read the message from Gen Berger (for whom I was serving under in Fallujah in 2004) I was shocked. I certainly understood his aims in the force redesign, but I shared others concerns that he was making the force to narrow focused. I also (perhaps selfishly) felt betrayed. I was also part of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 under General Mattis, and Col Dunford. At that time the only reason the Marine Corp had a seat at the Big Boy table (meaning an independent operating force) was because they had armor. All that to say that while I think the redesign will be great for the Pacific, it will greatly inhibit our ability to operate in other types of conflicts. And as we all should know the war you fight is rarely the one you plan for.
I was in one of those exercises testing some aspects of this. We were outnumbered and still "won." There were maybe 4 other exercises going on at the same time, simulating islands, in different places. Prestaged supply points, smaller groups, etc. were all things we did.
It's basically turning the Marines a giant special forces operation.
Which they don't need to do, Delta force, rangers, seals, air force para rescue already exist for that.
@@joemcnulty6814: There are not enough of them.
@@joemcnulty6814 Those units do not have heavy weapons (except the Rangers, a little bit), or organic long-range fires. Their mission-set is also different.
@@MM22966so the Marines would be something in the middle?
Like, advanced infantry?
@@MrTigracho Rangers are Army light infantry, specializing in assault of high-value targets and airfield seizure.
Delta is primarily hostage rescue and covert surveillance/operations.
Air Force Pararescue is in the name, they rescue downed pilots and provide special operations with direct medical support.
SEALs are for high-value objectives near the water, from boarding to raids to recon and other things. One of their Teams, Team Six, is more like Delta. (they did the Osama Bin Laden raid)
All of these groups and other special operations units in the US military are fairly small. They depend on intel, skill, speed, and stealth to accomplish their missions.
The US Marines, by contrast, are an entire branch of service. Each member is trained to fight as infantry as needed. They have all the capabilities of a regular army (or did, until they dumped their tanks like Cappy mentioned). They have infantry with heavy weapons, artillery, rockets, their own aircraft & helicopters, etc.
They can do all the things an army can, but their primary role is to seize and hold a beach, or seize an island, opening the way for Army units to take over. They keep some units at sea on Navy transports for this, ready to go. They also do specialist things like guard the White House and US embassies, or evacuate those if they are under threat. They drive the US President's helicopters. They get thrown into other missions like any kind of military formation, but those are their roles.
The main advantage Marine Corps infantry has is their methods of training (they put a lot of emphasis on long-range shooting, for example) and their high esprit de corps (morale). Their weapons & equipment is generally about the same as normal Army infantry. For many years they lagged a bit behind, but judging by the video Cappy showed, they are now getting better gear.
Ha-ha, I went a bit long! Sorry!
The army will be happy to provide tanks if the marines need them
Marines should have kept at least one battalion with each division.
@@MrProsatPart of the Marine strategy is to rely on the Army for tanks.
@@Rob_F8F Coordinating with them will be difficult. The Marines should have kept a battalion of tanks in each division, even if they were lighter tanks.
IF, they say PLEASE!
@Rob_F8F sure. Makes sense, why make sure you can handle a predicable and common place issue, when you can rely on some other entity who isn't necessarily going to prioritize your expectations.
That's why i disposed of all my fire extinguishers and garden hoses. Why should i have those, when the fire department, and rain exists.
I was an "average (Marine) infantryman". It is a truism that the military is always better prepared to fight the last war than it is the next one. This looks very well thought out and timely. Thanks for your work and your service.
I thought your M-LRPSM submission was really good, and very detailed 👌
Sounds like a lot of words to say something that could be summed up in. We're giving a bunch of marines insurgency warfare tactics
lmao true
USA guerilla fighting force but with a budget lol
They've had those since the Chinese Communists taught it to Evans Carlson back in the 30s
Thnx for saving me 17 min of "yeah, well no duh"
finally learned their lesson from all the insurgency wars theyre in
That diet Javelin looks cool, too.
I salivate at the prospect of carrying such a weapon. Because shit be heavy.
Less calories too.
What about a smaller fully automated drone tank? Such for example ripsaw M5, I know the trials are currently being conducted for this but that would offer a smaller more maneuverable tank that could be more easily accessible and transportble. Also it seems those smaller tanks could still be used to not only remove main battle tanks but the way they are suggesting its being set up offers multiple different missin types. Mine clearing, drone over watch with thermal optics and strike abilities, anti air etc etc. Would be a good idea for island hoping.
Yes. A drone tank would also not need to be as large or need as much armor to protect its occupants - in fact, it might be better to barely have armor at all.
Then you could perhaps deploy a dozen such instead of one manned tank for the same logistics burden.
This new strategy is brilliant!
I think it's one of the strengths of the Marine Corps, as a rapid response force, to continually adapt and reinvent itself to counter evolving threats.
Tip of the spear, baby - gotta keep it sharp!
Until that tip runs into something it didn't plan for.
@@joemcnulty6814That's why there is the saying no plan survives contact with the enemy. You can't plan for everything but you must respond not react.
@@chris8612if China does nothing, the marines still need to be used…
@@joemcnulty6814lol that’s why it’s just the tip😂
@@joemcnulty6814 Then you improvise.
Looks like the USMC is getting back to its "Shores of Tripoli" roots!
It comes down to whether those deciding which forces go where will continue to treat the Marines like a subset of the Army or as a unique force with a specialized focus. This 2030 plan fits very well with the latter. If those making decisions don't adapt to this change, however, it will appear to be a failure.
i like the new sound of the core
As an Infantry soldier qualified only to run fast, dig holes and carry heavy things, I love tanks in Museums.
Until they start shooting big shells at you… oh and you think drones will save you? Those can be jammed/ hacked or shot down.
Big shells are not much use if they dont know where the target is, Special forces can hide themelves in jungle@@ghosttankcommander5397 and be difficult to locate.
I'm a retired Marine (76-84). I'd gladly serve with confidence in the proposed structure but, I think other technologies will be incorporated such as the Ripsaw system(s) or, who ever wins those contracts. That technology fits perfectly with the Force Design 2030 plan.
All new ideas should be questioned and challenged
as war changes on the frontlines (air sea ground), it needs a change in directive. so maybe change is good, as long as you're not tapering off your attack.
This could work with a big but. They have to have a significant, capable anti air capability. With less aircraft and being left on their own when the Navy pulls out of the area, they need some serious anti air capabilities.
Anti air assets are a huge part of this plan that I didn’t cover in enough detail . It’s about bringing that anti air equipment to the company level . In the past it was much harder to get anti air which was largely divested during iraq Afghanistan
Laad?
Marine Corps MAW is very capable of attacking and defending our Marine Corps.
GBAD and Aegis destroyers and more aircraft carriers will be a critical requirement in a layered air defense. And lots of missiles in stock on site in deep underground bunkers.
Resupply will be a big issue and aircrafts will be needed to counter high attitude drones and bombers.
If we're taking this new approach seriously, then the onus is on the Navy and Air Force to handle air superiority (as it mostly always was). With Kadena and Andersen AFB, the Navy's strike groups, as well as the collective intelligence of the Five Eyes in mind, your criticism loses gravity. What's important is that this strategy spreads China's missiles too thin for them to launch an effective assault against Taiwan with their current and future economic output, deterrence plain and simple.
“Divestment” means spreading the force. Islands cannot be sunk and airfields can be repaired much faster than carriers. This gives flexibility to the Joint Force to deploy. Spot on!
Divestment actually refers to dropping worthless but costly platforms, like Abrams, not dispersion, which is what you're talking about
Well, I mean there was that one time the USS New Jersey sunk an island to get rid of an annoying Japanese fortification. Then like a decade later we wiped an atoll off the face of the Earth while simultaneously creating the modern woman's two piece swimwear; two achievements, one bomb. So islands HAVE been sunk, it's just typically requires America dumping enough ordnance on it.
Well done...
Don’t give up the Bradley!
One thing I don’t understand is getting rid of infantry level scout snipers.
From what I gathered, the issue was time and resources invested in the pipeline vs how many years that Marine would serve as a scout sniper.
They redesigned and imagined the purpose of the role and basically split it up among other MOS.
Again, like tanks, feels wrong on the surface. Devil is in the details.
Hence the critic's opinion of Marines unable to do Urban warfare. Why bother sniping people, if you can snipe the incoming landing ships with missiles?
Drones are filling that niche too. Small manpat deployed drones can recon and spot for supporting fire to take out targets
So are they going to replace that training with something else? My basic sniper school for law enforcement was only 2 weeks. It wasn’t military sniping, but the point is you can get a lot out of a simple school. A “Scout Sniper Lite” program has to be worth it, right?
At a guess, seeing those pictures of every Marine with a long optic on their rifle (not an ACOG or holo-sight), they plan to have all Marines pick up the slack, while saving money overall. Scopes are a capital investment, but a school is an ongoing budget item. Until I saw Cappy's vid, I didn't realize how much this planned force structure was driven by the Marine's awareness that the military budget may not be bottomless.
I'd call it oceanic insurgency... or insurgensea. Restrict the enemy navy's freedom of movement, and enhance our own with intelligence assets for coordinated strikes. Makes sense to me.
The problem is going to come down to numbers. You can produce dummy artillery faster than these large expensive missiles. If China does decided to go to war, their numbers will be great and we won’t have enough smart missiles to compete I believe. Much easier to store traditional artillery as well. I believe in changes but this was a bit too drastic IMO.
It seems like submarines would be a huge asset.
@@charlessmith2176 Well that is why part of the strategy is to strike hard, fast, and limit enemy mobility. By doing this you in theory eliminate the enemy's ability to move quickly and get too close. If you restrict their movement enough and force them to stay far enough away then it doesn't matter how many dumb artillery pieces they make since smart missiles will always outrange them. It becomes a get close to shoot and die or stay away making you unable to shoot and have a better chance at not dying. Now obviously this depends on things going as planned. If they don't and you are unable to keep the enemy at bay and restrict movement, then you have just made yourself an easier target. Hopefully we never have to actually figure out how this would go down though.
This is war plan orange verion 2.
In what imaginary world do you think junior Marines will EVER be allowed to fire missiles at ships? We don’t even let enlisted Marines direct close air support.
With systems like vampyr and other modular rocket and missile systems, this is like a brilliant move.
They have a need for speed! What about some new, armored hover craft?
As a Retired Army SGT who served 4 tours with 3rd ID..... people often forget that the USMC is actually compared/rated/equated to most Foreign special operations groups. as far as most militaries are concerned. The USMC has always been a special forces group hence having Helos, F18, Cobras,M1's, "amphibius capabilites" and the normal light or light mechanized "infantry" capabilities. they are a small contained military in themselves that can go toe-toe with most smaller military adversaries.
Well...lets not confuse the ideal of what the corp could be with what it often is.
At a micro level, the individual marine is given some additional combat training compared to standard soldiers in most standing militaries. But the difference is measured in weeks, not years. Every other standing military could also do this but it doesn't bother because the majority of their forces don't need it. Those that do are often given equivilent or more.
Because these other forces are bigger, they also have a deeper pool to draw from and more resources they can spend, so their specalized infantry can easily be out trained relative to the average marine.
At a macro level, the marines are self-contained so long as the US Navy or Airforce are around to support them. That's more or less every other country's infantry position as well. The actual major benefit is having mostly strategist capabilities at tactical scales.
Again, nothing super unique, that mostly describes how international paratrooper divisions are setup. The marines just lean into that across the entire force.
I'm not slandering the marines, all of the decisions I see here are clear eyed, pragmatic, forward looking, and actually mission focused. So lets keep our analysis of them at that same level.
your response could be summed up as underbaked and overengineered@@UnderBakedOverEngineered
Yea, special forces group? I don’t think so, mr. Army Sgt
@@Awh0l3nEWoRLdyeah the glazing is going too hard 😭respect to all our veterans and people serving for my rights truly but glazing is too much
@@UnderBakedOverEngineeredour air combat elements is self sustained and only requires external support when our own refueling capabilities are spread thin however we are built to be a joint force by design. It’s never going to be a usmc only fight with absolutely no army air force or navy support , this isn’t ww2
With FPV drones and HIMARS, marines taking an asymmetrical approach is the not only the right move but also the best choice.
Less Himars and more that they can replace tanks with drones.
@@mattk8810Uh…not exactly.
Improvise, adapt, overcome.
"Pre-positioning." Is that what they call it? I've theorized just such a tactic and look forward to seeing it in use. Soon. So very soon. Skoro.
Man its pretty weird not seeing the Marines not using tanks. but i see where they're coming from. Using amphibious vehicles would be a good.
Yes it would. But the wheeled vehicle being used is armed with a machingun, NOT an autocanon. These small groups like this will be about as effective as the defense battalions were in WW2.
USMC should invest in a specialized version of the new Army light tank (Booker). Some armor is a necessity IMHO to not only take ground but to keep it as well. Without armored firepower the USMC is more vulnerable, less flexible and less lethal.
But when fighting an enemy that will expend forces in wave attacks, do you really want a big gun on a light chassi? I would think an autocannon with a APFSDS and proximity fused ammunition mix would be much better.
Agree 100%
Segway + mortar, there is your extra light tank
@@vos2693 Priceless…😂😂😂
Maybe they equip a few squads with those air driven jet packs and manpads/Javelins.
All of the removal of heavy fighting vehicles makes me think the marine corp is also prepping to fight on the Japanese main islands. Japan had to reduce the weight of their MBTs so that the tanks could access the majority of the roadways there. The Abrams would only be able to access something like 40-60% of the roadways.
I don't know alot about tactics but I think having a force for more versatility is always logical
This is the most marine thing ive ever heard.
Marine PR office sitting in a cushy rear area office somewhere. " Well we are going to be a fast moving island hopping team. We shall call ourselves.... A Rabbit Deployment Force. " Then unveils logo of a big eared Jack Rabbit armed with an M4 hopping over islands.
My god, man, do you want to make the Japanese and the furries get that excited???!
Anyway, Rabbits were 2023. Think of something with dragons for 2024!
@@MM22966it's funny mentioned the Japanese because because a lot of the time they'll make U.S. soldiers look like rabbits because it's a play on words of USA G.I.. You put them together and you get usagi which is the Japanese word for rabbit
@@blazingkhalif2 I read Stan Sakai's comic for years, and I never got that! Funny! They do love their play on words!
I've never actually seen any Japanese works portraying US soldiers as rabbits, though. Where have you?
@@MM22966 Oh man that was gold. Here you go. Ring of Fire cage matchup. Devil underDogs versus Chinese Dragons. Winner takes all!!!
@@MM22966 the most famous example is the manga cat shit one. It's about U.S. soldiers in Vietnam except everybody in this universe is animals. And I can't stress this enough that it plays a concept entirely straight it's literally just a Vietnam manga but everyone is an animal.
I always imagined the US Marines as just a Large Special Forces Unit, so them being basically divided into smaller units to force the enemy to spread their forces just makes sense to me.
European armed forces are into it, a army of special forces
I'm .right there with you
Yeah, we are Special Forces. 'Specially Angry Forces.
They are not special forces level, they are slightly better than regular army and not as good as Army Rangers.
crayons
Since the very first I heard of it, the Wiesel strikes me as a modifiable platform for a fast versitale vehicle. The hovercraft could put 12 of these on each vessel, plus infantry. Twelve would have close to the same weight as a MBT.
The one thing I agree with those objecting to the new force structure is lacking armor in any Urban setting. Which is probably outside the new scope of the Marines, but that just means they are severely pigeon-hold in any other scenario they’ll find themselves in.
When I first heard of the marines getting rid of their armor I thought it was crazy, now after the happenings in Ukraine and mass adoption of squad level drones, it makes a lot of sense from a tactics and identity standpoint. Any foreign adversary will quickly learn that the coast, the shoals, and jungle speak semper fi.
Not entirely sure it’s a fair comparison; the Russian army has been plagued with poor logistics, incompetence and a lack of motivation and technological advances to their aging military.
Are paratroopers also now useless/outdated because Russian command also made poor decisions and sent them straight over Ukrainian guns early on within the first month…
Don’t for a second think that the western world operate as poor as Russian armed forces, that’s why most of Russias special forces and weapons/armour is destroyed by NATO outdated hand me downs
Is this an accurate characterization of your statement: lots of armor (tanks and IFVs) are getting destroyed in Ukraine, therefore, armor must not be very effective. That's like if we lived in 1943 and concluded that tanks were irrelevant because many were destroyed at Kursk.
Before drone problem are reliably countered, there are few reasons to push on tanks in anyway, you need to make dronestrikes have about 1-10% of succes rate to make tank be able to have enough impact on battleground before expiring and it`s destruction by drones not super cost-effective. Really, if my country prior to the war concentrated conscious work on them it would make huge difference. Also, m-tanks and leopards are not the best investments now: drones, artillery, directed strike missile complexes, mobility kills(we love it) don`t care about frontal armor, tank on tank engagements are useless waste of resurces and sparse. So anyone aknowledged should make mobile, heavely armed(120+mm), with good crew survivability(blow pannels), heavy active-protection systems, with strong batlefield intellegence control, maybe even rather troops squad or platoon commander vehicle with heavy gun, smokes, dronemount, might be even mortar mounts, then classic deep penetration mbts or frontal assault heavy mbts @@DanDaly762
@@DanDaly762 antitank weaponry were not as effective back then as they are now. Think javelins etc. The comparison still stands.
With joint forces becoming more the norm I’m sure Army units can be supplied for support if tanks or heavy weaponry were needed.
Got to admit, I was starting to think the USMC was like a weird mix of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. But I understand how it got that way. They were basically the "shock troops" of the US military. And they needed some of the capabilities of the other branches. This new tack looks interesting. We'll see how it pans out.
The Marines are adapting to the modern battlefield. This type of forward thinking could help allot of our armed forces. Semper Fi.
A modern battlefield still has tanks, that may help the marines, wouldn't help the army though
Funny how on the "modern battlefield" tanks from those who are actually fighting on this battlefield are still in high demand. In very high demand. Ukraine constantly asks for more tanks.
@@wedgeantilles8575this is a force designed for the most likely conflict (Taiwan), a small island with thick foliage. Ukraine is accessible by train via other countries, and has wide open fields. Smaller units and less 70-ton tanks just makes sense, until they set up routes to deliver heavier infantry
@@okleydokley3581 Yes, it makes sense if you differ the marines from the army.
However, the thread did not make this distinction, it spoke generally about "modern battlefield"
And the modern battlefield in general DOES NEED TANKS.
But that is not the same as "the marines need tanks" of course.
Just like you do not say "the airforce needs tanks"
So it may be sensible for the Marines to not have tanks any longer.
But the battlefield in general still needs them.
That makes the statement of him incorrect.
Force design 2030 will put marines in the same position as Japanese troops in ww2.
China will likely use the same tactics to counter the marines that we used against the Japanese in the 1940's.
Lets see how good the Chinese are at island hopping.
As a retired logistics chief in the Marine Corps I have to see the support streams for personnel and equipment. Prepositioning is great, but when that is depleted, what is the support chain?
That's the thing, I don't the higher ups have any a plan for that yet. I have a feeling they're going to rely on us in the navy to help them out.
I dunno, but it's not encouraging that one of the problems the new US carriers had was the lifts to bring stuff to the top deck. And our two UK ones didn't exactly go well either. On the other hand, if Space X keeps going, they'll just have a barge following the carrier group and drop supplies by rocket to it.
That's an existing problem with or without pre positioning. At least now the first few days/weeks of the conflict there will be sufficient fires to contest the battle space, but if the Navy can't get a logistics chain in place thats going to be an issue regardless. If anything, this is a mitigation to the Navy's potential shortfall.
I have to add, as part of the logistics chain, I do not see where the US has a delivery vehicle that can insert and supply the Marines in an area that is going to be within range of chinese land based air and other assets with reasonable survival rates. It looks good for a concept and may well work brilliantly for a while but combat eats gear and people quickly. Can we replace the losses in a timely manner, both men and equipment?
@@ajmalin121 exactly, this looks like a solution created by a guy that sees the writing on the wall: Navy can't support their current force design and the money and time won't be there to change that for the foreseeable future. Given the problem he's been tasked with solving, this is an imperfect solution but nonetheless is a solution where the existing status quo is definitely not adequate. Gotta give him props for making the most of what he's got, and understanding that "hope is not a strategy."
Smart move ditching the tanks
This looks an awful lot like the approach that was used by the Japanese in the Pacific Wat. They occupied hundreds of little islands with airbases designed to protect each other and control the seas around them. Kamikazes were the guided missiles of those days.
It was ironically the US Marines that defeated that strategy…with tanks and artillery.
Hey thanks man for breaking this down as a former marine I needed some more insight on why they were getting rid of their tanks and what not so thanks
Because we see both Ukraine and Russia unable to use them effectively anymore. What a waste of money aye. Not only do we not get free healthcare we also wasted all our money on weaponry that won’t work anymore.
As a former marine,
did you do anything?
Playing Halo doesnt mean ur marine
I'm a former Marine combat vet, in Nam tanks, which were mainly used on roads and kinda sucked off the road, at least where l was at (Quang Tri province). That said, The Ukainians are making mince meat of Russian tanks, so maybe........
Shortly after they deactivated the tank battalion on pendleton one was given to the tank museum on base, saw it going home one day
Near old mainside?
I am a retired Marine, Overall not sure, I do like the idea of drone and mobile missile concepts at platoon and company levels, but in my opinion, still need at least 1-2 tank battalions just in case when urban situations do arise, I have worked at directing Army tank units at both the company and battalion level on interopertive exercises, it needs a lot of practice with communication standards and attack vectors thoroughly worked out. Current littorals in the field are having significant technical issues and still require a lot of maintenance and replacement parts issues as well. Most important not getting enough timely by 2030.
The urban scenario is also my concern. If, for whatever reason, a future conflict ends up sending the Marines into such an environment, then tanks will be appreciated. Well, that is, if technology at that point has matured enough for robots and drones to take their place.
Makes sense!
One major change since WW2 is long range ordinances. The Military does not need to island hop to extend the range of munitions.
The only thing that stood out to me as a bad idea is getting rid of gun artillery. It's really hard to beat the pounds of rounds down range per $ of gun artillery.
Yeah but if they can't boot and scoot and can't fire hundred of miles, they will just be out of range. If it comes down to close firefight support the suicide drones and motor teams could provide similar support
I was thinking the same thing, but maybe the thought is that firing at naval targets over 30 clicks out is less accurate with old school arty and less able to quickly change location while maintaining accuracy. I’m not well versed in artillery so I’m talking out of my ass. I served in an LAR unit where our indirect fire was mortars which I didn’t hear anything about in this episode. I can’t imagine getting rid of mortars, but who knows. End of the day, all we need is sharp stick. I know I would have given my right nut for a suppressor though! Spoiled kids.
One smart missile is always better. More expensive than one PGM shell from a howitzer, but doesn’t require allll the stuff, logistics, training, and manpower of said howitzer. And is, of course, man-portable. Good for the Army, awesome for the Marines.
They got fire support from Daddy Navy.
We still have mortars and himars. You just remove the static gun emplacement. I remember in Afghanistan we were using himars as fast as we could get them.
感谢您对此的解释
I like the change!