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?
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!!!*
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.
@@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.
Adapted? Do you mean by keep? And maintain on your own dime. For example, I heard that the USMC used Sea Harrier to shoot down some HOUNTI Drones in 2024. Another example is the AAV. Yet another the use of OV10 bronco up until 1995.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
As a former 80’s Marine and M-60A1 tanker, I thank you for your detailed analysis of this wrenching subject. I was one who howled (and still continues to do so) upon hearing of the ditching of our tanks and the new direction our Corps is taking. I did understand SOME of it, but you really broke down the reasoning based on Gen Berger’s views. I am in the camp of those who believe the Corps’ traditional doctrine may have been pared down way too much if called upon to wage war somewhere else other than with the PRC. Semper Fi to all those who have served and those who are doing so now. 🦅🌎⚓️
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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. 🪖⚓🇺🇸🇺🇦
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
I am an indian. I believe the us marines should use light tanks for these purposes. Like the mpf tank. It weighs 42 tons and can be repurposed as a amphibious vehicle
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.
As the tank has become a “dinosaur”,instead of a “dragon”,partially agreed.Don’t take my word for it.See news on the Russo-Ukrainian War & the Jake Broe, Artur Rehi, The Russian Dude, The Military Show, DW News, Reporting from Ukraine, TVP World, Daily Mail, USS GLOBAL, Ozillo News, CNN, UATV English, Suchomimus, CRUX & The Sun channels.
I think it is good they are planning more for the pacific as that is the biggest hot bed and where we have the most allies to protect; So with this doctrine it is kind of like how it was in WW2, the Army in Europe, Africa, the Middle east etc, places that benefit from having that large force with heavy tanks with support from the Army air core (Now air force), while the marines were almost entirely in the Pacific and had support from the Navy and their air force mainly. The JLTV also acts like a light tank in the sense of its fast and can destroy MBT's, bunkers, Light vehicles and any threat they are to face that a MBT would fight against while also being great for Recon. It is radical but like Napoleon said "One must change one's tactics every ten years if one wishes to maintain one's superiority.", So with the marines focused there, we can pretty much cover all our basis without having our eggs in one basket (Not just relying on our carriers to project force) while also forcing China to study even longer and prolong a possible attack.
The pacific is what the marines are for. That, and other places on earth that require control of islands and beach heads. If you want heavy armor and artillery, the army exists for that purpose. It makes no sense to have two branches of the military doing essentially the same thing with minor variations like they're competing sports teams.
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.
@@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'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.
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.
@@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;
@@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.
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!
“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!
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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!
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!
@@silvadossantos6803 And a bike with pegs. First marine peddles while the second on the pegs has a rifle with a bayonet. Best damn light tank in the world lol
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!
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@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.
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.
@@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
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.
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.
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.
The USMC mission, in my opinion as a former Army infantryman, is not to be an Army, but to be a quick reaction force. That mission is not enhanced by tanks. At least not by main battle tanks. The current Corps leadership is doing the right thing for the present world situation.
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.
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........
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
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.
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.
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
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.
@@rvail136 The ACV-30 has a Mk44 Bushmaster II 30mm autocannon. Which variants of the ACV the Marines will end up receiving the most is still up in the air, as they're still being manufactured.
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.
@@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.
@@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!
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?
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 think this plan is a good step in the right direction. It wasn't just recently I noticed that the Marines had become a "second army". Ever since the island hopping campaign of WWII finished successfully, the Marines seemed to have lost their purpose. This new plan gives them a new focus and mission that makes them once again a unique piece of the battle space puzzle. It makes them more elite combining traditional with high tech. Leaner and meaner.
Okay so I'm former Chair Force, so forgive the exact details I don't know, but we have an Army, and the Uncle Sam's Misguided Children are very uniquely qualified to carve this niche, we don't need 2 Armies. Marines should by the very nature of their existence be exactly this coastal and island based combat focused force, the further you are from water the more that becomes the Army's job. This move makes perfect sense to me. If we lived in a world where light tanks were viable platforms I could definitely see them being a core of the USMC, but we don't live in that world. Having said that maybe a smaller heavily armored vehicle with a Bushmaster cannon could absolutely rock out, like a vehicle with a driver and a gunner only, I don't know what development budgets look like but in the rapid response Litoral role a tankette like that could absolutely be an important vehicle, so long as we get Ukrainian War Thunder players to help train those Marines
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.
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 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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
@@granatmof You guys should simply get a mounted gun system on four wheels. We'll be facing the Chinese in the mountains, and our Army is looking at three separate mounted gun systems, one a 155X52 cal on an 8X8, second a 155X39 on a 4X4 lorry, third a 105 on a 4X4 humvee-sized vehicle. Economical shoot and scoot even in narrow valleys with no roads.
That only happened because we were destroying most of their navy at a rate unseen anywhere in history, also because we had the superiority of everything. They also had a major lack of resources in The empire of Japan as a whole (Also their were also fighting internally with the army for resources which they already lacked). We do not remotely have the same problems and we have allies in the region and pretty much all of Asia to support us in this possible war, the only ones that would not support us most likely are Laos, Pakistan and Cambodia, Pakistan is the only one who poses any possible threat even then not much. We also do not view our country folk to be a superior (racism like) to everyone else to the point we make enemies with the entire world, to the point even our allies saying we are taking it way too far (The rape of Nanjing). We also are not trying to take over the entire world.
@@texanwokey8366 yes and no. From purely the supply perspective, Japanese forces were rationed supplies from the top. It was centrally decided what they should get, and they were expected to be independent to cover any deficits, particularly with food supplies.
@@texanwokey8366 superiority in everything thing? The newer Chinese airborne radars are better than the e3s. Range, power, processing power. They deployed the first geosynchronous radar satellite. Gives them continuous radar coverage of their area. 10 meter resolution. Low earth satellites can provide targeting data for the conventional ballistic missiles. The US claims to be developing that, China has fielded it. Japan? Japan started out the war owning the more important developed resources in China. The first successful part of the War, got them the remaining resources. China has much more access to resources, now, than Japan ever had. Problems? This is China's backyard. We have to cross the Pacific to get there. They are not sailing to Los Angeles. Taiwan, deny the US access to the West Pacific, break up the allies. First set of goals . The real analysis of China's mil budget came out this year, first time ever. Not 200 billion. It's 700 billion. China is making 10x more munitions or that America does. 2025 fed budget gets the US military 3 days of air to air missiles, in a war with China. China believes they are number 1? So what? How does that hurt them? Racist? What do you mean? China is not a near pear. aggressor. We are facing pacing threat that outclasses us in manufacturing.
Arm chair general here. I think the marines definitely should not have mbts anymore but I do think they should have replaced them with more lavs and a ztd-05 like tank. A light fast amphibious tank to provide support in cities and against armor but also won’t slow them down.
The Marines are Marines! Agile, fast, lethal and closely allied with the Navy. Don't cram then into the Army box. When tanks are needed, send in the army.
@Vesta_the_Lesser The USMC is an independent branch within the Department of the Navy. Any US Army Soldier will tell you that a Marine is Not a soldier, they are Marines.
High tech targeting and guidance system jammers and anti-missle weapons never seem to get much conversation. I'm a dinosaur but the old m198 artillery was always reassuring to me. None of the anti-missle stuff stops a 155 round from a gun. USMC retired.
True but they make much lighter guns that will take out just about anything short of a tank. Have a couple line-of-sight shoulder missiles to destroy enemy tanks. There are ways. Make a good combo of attack methods to do the work of a tank with a much smaller logistics footprint.
Wow! Crazy how far you've come from the first days. Great research, insightful, and i won't even get into production value. Just don't lose that spare parts army charm
I think this is the right move by the USMC. Most of the islands in the Western Pacific won't be able to support heavy armored vehicles like the Abrams.
if the US were smart they'd restart the marine expeditionary vehicle program and build amphibious light armour, but it seems the US is overly dependent on LCACs and Ospreys which themselves have a big logistics footprint.
@@Stevescafidi-km3td Armour has better survivability than helicopters thats for sure. If an IFV gets hit by an ATGM you can still bail out. Wanna know the chance of survival for crew on an osprey that gets hit by MANPADs? You can also field ALOT more amphibs than you can ospreys, Oh and amphibs are unlikely to get brought down by HMG fire too.
I guess I am a "GreyBeard" too...joined in 85. Deployments on both coasts and lots of "trips" everywhere (missed a UNITAS deployment) bringing democracy to those who needed it (whether they wanted it or not). Drones, Gustavs, Better Intel, GPS (add-on) Drone/Counter Drone, Anti-Air (technology upgrades), HIMARS, JLTV's, etc. are definitely where it needs to head. Might change again next cycle, but today is different. BTW...I love tanks and they saved my ass in Desert Storm (Task Force Papa Bear) tank fight day 2 pushing north. Those old ass M-60's still kicked ass! It was really foggy that morning....I got an AT-4 for my birthday that year! But...logistically they are a pain in the ass. They always just sat on the beach during my WestPacs (except Korea - where I always froze my ass off sleeping in a dry rice paddy....I was an 03....that's what we do). I don't even remember what they did on my Med Cruise... Generally we humped everywhere.....so when we did get a ride it was AMTRAC's or an occasional Frog ride. So....Infantry remains the same....just kill people and break things...The Marine Corps way!
As an Air Force Vet I always assumed the Marines were more effective on the ground, 1st in backed by heavy Naval Artillery and air support, the landing team. Then Army brings the infrastructure, support, and tanks, the occupation. With the tech we have today and the training the Marines get makes tanks burdensome to include in tactical planning.
As a retired U.S. Navy chief petty officer (served in Vietnam eons ago!), I'm all for this Force Design 2030 transformation! We don't need a "Second Army" but a force that suits what the Marines are all about! Force Design 2030 is the kick-start we need.
There are 180,000 US Marines, 7,000 Royal Marines. That's, 26 US Marines for every Royal Marine! More, the Royal Marines are 600 under strength, because of recruitment problems. The US Marines are much larger than the entire UK military.
This reminds me of the quote "Armies prepare to fight their last war, rather than their next war", except that the commandant has actually learned this lesson and is adapting in order to actually prepare for the next war. I hope this strategy is successful and prevents the outbreak of war in the Pacific.
What about the quote, "no plan survives contact with the enemy"? 🤪 Seriously though, I am open minded to this Force Design 2030. Leadership is hopefully striking a balance between anticipating what may come next with flexibility. The battle hardened practical common sense that has prevailed before may help too. 👍👍
Old news, new analytics. I like it. P.S. You forgot to add how they've also reduced infantry units despite focusing more on infantry deployments and tactics. 👀
Great presentation. Let's not forget that the Corps is part of the total force. The Space force obliterates satellites, Air Corps bombards the site, the Navy bombards the site and brings the Corps and the Army who take and hold the terrain by any means necessary.
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!
I was a 0331 and got out in 2022 and got to see and partake in the 2030 plan and it’s a complete failure. The downsizing of the infantry is because they want smaller units, it’s because the marine corps can’t replace everyone getting out. No one is staying in and it’s gonna be the reason the plan fails. The new rifle company and squad structure can’t sustain what they want. They want sgts as team leaders, Ssgt’s as squad leaders, gunny’s as platoon sgts and master sgts as company gunny’s. Not enough grunts are staying in to fill in those billets and ranks. Also in the plan is to basically turn grunts into army ranger equivalent. ITB(infantry training battalion) at SOI is planning or trying to increase the school from 2 months to over a year. Having everyone go to advanced infantryman school, infantry small unit leaders course, jump school, and small craft training course. Grunts will only be classified as 0311’s(riflemen) no more 0317’s, 0331’s, 0351’s, 0352’s, and the only 0341’s will be 81mm mortars as a battalion asset, 60mm mortars are to be gone. It’s smart to cut down on the MAW(marine air wing) and tanks and to give the saved money to the grunts to finally update the gear and technology of a marine grunt. Unless the marine corps actually addresses and fixes the rentention problem instead of lying and painting over the cracks this plan is destined to fail drastically. The marine corps leadership is also drastically out of touch with its marines mainly grunts. They don’t hear the real truth and feedback with all this new restructuring and new training design. They only here fake good updates and reports over everything being pushed by company commanders to battalion commanders to division to regimental then to headquarters. The yes men leadership is going to blindside this plan because nobody wanted to say or add the negative feedback.
Thank you for your insight, however i disagree with the idea they are yes men. The leadership is dominating theirs suicidals whoreshippers and they are the godly master. The whole “faking good updates and reports” is what politicians have always done through history, and arguing that they are not low-end politicians and that they do not hire fellows low-end politicians is more like lying. To expect the army to somehow exist in its own bubble separated from the rest of the world, is unhinged. They are not yes mens, they know what they are doing, it's very religious to still believe, that still in 2024, politicians to be cartoonesque characters that are “purely by coincidence tripping all over like if they were drunks”.
@@joemcnulty6814 unfortunately as with everything if it fails those that pushed the idea will be safe back home, collecting plaudits, pay, and pensions, no one ever blames the plan but those on the ground get the flak both literally and figuratively.
26 year Marine here and IMO just the logistics alone with Tank Bn's is massive and heavy. One of the options in the 80's and 90's for MEU commabnders was to take tanks on float with them OR not. Most of the time they chose NOT to take tanks (even though they of course liked them) they werent pragmatic based on the probable missions those MEU's would face. MEU's are meant to be sefl contained units formed around an Inf Bn and its attachments. We got away from that in AFG and Iraq. We needed to get back to our small unit missions and be lighter and more lethal. With also using drones for both fires and logistics the 2030 plan IMO looks pretty effective. But we'll see.
However I am probably splitting hairs here when I say I wish one of two things would have happened. Either the Marines keep the tanks in their reserve Division. OR absolutely on paper and its understood in writing an Army armored Brigade be an option for the Marine Corps upon request. Both would be hard but it might be the overall best answer for those who are squemish about the Marines losing Tanks........and I am in that category.
I like FD2030. Since WW2 the USMC has kind of been a bit of an outlier regarding naval infantry forces worldwide, this kind of starts to move them back towards its origins as a smaller, more specialized force focused on mobility, islands and littorals (but now with a focus on electronic warfare and long range fires) Edit: Forgot to mention but I think this also ties well with other ongoing projects like the XQ-58A and Ghost Fleet overlord
Да, я видел, как ваши силы спецподразделений выполняют задания. Фильм же сняли "Падение чёрного ястреба", правда Голливуд приукрасил историю. На самом деле же, операция была провальной🤷♂️То же самое можно сказать и про рейнджеров. Операция "Орлиный коготь" и т.д.
This is also excellent in that it makes the Marine Corps more interesting for all different kinds of people, while also downsizing it in case less people join as seems to be the trend It's actually comforting to picture one of the main forces having this kind of flexibility and ability to do everything from a very small group of people
It's more like the US threw out all means for it (corvettes, frigates, land-based anti-ship missiles, etc.) because they deemed it unnecessary for a large blue water navy and now realise that that's where the actual fighting happens. Therefore they try to make the step back without admitting that the former eviction of capability was a dumb idea, so they slap the mission on the equipment, instead of just buying the equipment for its perks admitting to err.
What if the Chinese hire 1 million people, arm them with cheap FPV drones with thermal imagers and send the whole armada in small boats to look for Marines? It sounds funny, but it's realizable.
If you are an AVERAGE infantrymen. The rest of the world is in trouble. And I say this even though I am not of the US. Love your vids and analysis. Subscribed, and notifications on. You are one of my top two sites. Please keep up the good work!
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!
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
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
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?
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.
the marines in the south china sea are under -equiped because of the 32bn given to ukraine
@@00j80not true what’s so ever
Yeah new mission is to become as combat deficient as possible as the trany generals destroy fighting capabilities
@@00j80 Yeah and China is putting billions of their own behind Russia, so what does that tell you
Adapted? Do you mean by keep? And maintain on your own dime. For example, I heard that the USMC used Sea Harrier to shoot down some HOUNTI Drones in 2024. Another example is the AAV. Yet another the use of OV10 bronco up until 1995.
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
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 🤣
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
@XvonPocalypse What is that even supposed to mean?
@@PotzyMccoyEven in WW2 tanks weren’t all that great. German JU-87 Stuka pilots made quick work of Soviet T-34 Tanks.
As a former 80’s Marine and M-60A1 tanker, I thank you for your detailed analysis of this wrenching subject. I was one who howled (and still continues to do so) upon hearing of the ditching of our tanks and the new direction our Corps is taking. I did understand SOME of it, but you really broke down the reasoning based on Gen Berger’s views. I am in the camp of those who believe the Corps’ traditional doctrine may have been pared down way too much if called upon to wage war somewhere else other than with the PRC. Semper Fi to all those who have served and those who are doing so now. 🦅🌎⚓️
as a former oil tanker i agree
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.
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
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?
One must change one's tactics every ten years if one wishes to maintain one's superiority. - Napoleon
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
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.
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.
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.
你猜世界上各类无人最大设计、生产、使用国是哪一个？ 俄乌双方的无人机又是哪个国家的产品？
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?
Except the Marines are preparing for a war in the pacific exclusively then.
@@Rimasta1 Which is a big mistake.
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.
@@Chicken_Nugget_Connoisseur 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.
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.
@@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😂
I am an indian. I believe the us marines should use light tanks for these purposes. Like the mpf tank. It weighs 42 tons and can be repurposed as a amphibious vehicle
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.
As the tank has become a “dinosaur”,instead of a “dragon”,partially agreed.Don’t take my word for it.See news on the Russo-Ukrainian War & the Jake Broe, Artur Rehi, The Russian Dude, The Military Show, DW News, Reporting from Ukraine, TVP World, Daily Mail, USS GLOBAL, Ozillo News, CNN, UATV English, Suchomimus, CRUX & The Sun channels.
I think it is good they are planning more for the pacific as that is the biggest hot bed and where we have the most allies to protect; So with this doctrine it is kind of like how it was in WW2, the Army in Europe, Africa, the Middle east etc, places that benefit from having that large force with heavy tanks with support from the Army air core (Now air force), while the marines were almost entirely in the Pacific and had support from the Navy and their air force mainly. The JLTV also acts like a light tank in the sense of its fast and can destroy MBT's, bunkers, Light vehicles and any threat they are to face that a MBT would fight against while also being great for Recon.
It is radical but like Napoleon said "One must change one's tactics every ten years if one wishes to maintain one's superiority.", So with the marines focused there, we can pretty much cover all our basis without having our eggs in one basket (Not just relying on our carriers to project force) while also forcing China to study even longer and prolong a possible attack.
The pacific is what the marines are for. That, and other places on earth that require control of islands and beach heads. If you want heavy armor and artillery, the army exists for that purpose. It makes no sense to have two branches of the military doing essentially the same thing with minor variations like they're competing sports teams.
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
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.
The deadliest weapon in the US arsenal is a pissed off marine with a rifle
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...
😁
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;
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.
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!
Who needs cannons when you’ve got rockets?The navy’s guns are mainly for “cheap” targets.
“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.
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 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.
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!
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.
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
For the price of tanks the Marines can get a nice stockpile of drones.
and smart weapons
@@silvadossantos6803 And light tanks like the M-10 booker
@@texanwokey8366 but we all know they just need energy drinks and bayonets...
@@silvadossantos6803 And a bike with pegs. First marine peddles while the second on the pegs has a rifle with a bayonet. Best damn light tank in the world lol
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
This channel is fantastic. Congrats on the results of your very hard work to produce this.
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
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.
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.
Army, Air Force, Navy: "Nah. Marines got this. Wake us up when a real war starts."
The USMC mission, in my opinion as a former Army infantryman, is not to be an Army, but to be a quick reaction force. That mission is not enhanced by tanks. At least not by main battle tanks. The current Corps leadership is doing the right thing for the present world situation.
As the USMC should be an assault unit & no military unit should be tasked with reacting only,partially agreed.
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........
Looks like the USMC is getting back to its "Shores of Tripoli" roots!
That diet Javelin looks cool, too.
I salivate at the prospect of carrying such a weapon. Because shit be heavy.
Less calories too.
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.
"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
They have a need for speed! What about some new, armored hover craft?
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.
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.
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.
@@rvail136 The ACV-30 has a Mk44 Bushmaster II 30mm autocannon. Which variants of the ACV the Marines will end up receiving the most is still up in the air, as they're still being manufactured.
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.
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!
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 think this plan is a good step in the right direction. It wasn't just recently I noticed that the Marines had become a "second army". Ever since the island hopping campaign of WWII finished successfully, the Marines seemed to have lost their purpose. This new plan gives them a new focus and mission that makes them once again a unique piece of the battle space puzzle. It makes them more elite combining traditional with high tech. Leaner and meaner.
Okay so I'm former Chair Force, so forgive the exact details I don't know, but we have an Army, and the Uncle Sam's Misguided Children are very uniquely qualified to carve this niche, we don't need 2 Armies. Marines should by the very nature of their existence be exactly this coastal and island based combat focused force, the further you are from water the more that becomes the Army's job. This move makes perfect sense to me. If we lived in a world where light tanks were viable platforms I could definitely see them being a core of the USMC, but we don't live in that world. Having said that maybe a smaller heavily armored vehicle with a Bushmaster cannon could absolutely rock out, like a vehicle with a driver and a gunner only, I don't know what development budgets look like but in the rapid response Litoral role a tankette like that could absolutely be an important vehicle, so long as we get Ukrainian War Thunder players to help train those Marines
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?
Yes, the right move; things change and you need to change with them.
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
The Marines could also use drones to attack forces in jungle warfare or am i wrong
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.
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."
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.
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.
@@granatmof You guys should simply get a mounted gun system on four wheels. We'll be facing the Chinese in the mountains, and our Army is looking at three separate mounted gun systems, one a 155X52 cal on an 8X8, second a 155X39 on a 4X4 lorry, third a 105 on a 4X4 humvee-sized vehicle.
Economical shoot and scoot even in narrow valleys with no roads.
Japan did a version of this. The answer was denying resupply. Where the majority of Japanese held islands where not invaded. But starved out
I also noticed a parallel there. Hopefully we won’t have to see how these decisions play out…
That only happened because we were destroying most of their navy at a rate unseen anywhere in history, also because we had the superiority of everything. They also had a major lack of resources in The empire of Japan as a whole (Also their were also fighting internally with the army for resources which they already lacked). We do not remotely have the same problems and we have allies in the region and pretty much all of Asia to support us in this possible war, the only ones that would not support us most likely are Laos, Pakistan and Cambodia, Pakistan is the only one who poses any possible threat even then not much.
We also do not view our country folk to be a superior (racism like) to everyone else to the point we make enemies with the entire world, to the point even our allies saying we are taking it way too far (The rape of Nanjing). We also are not trying to take over the entire world.
@@texanwokey8366 yes and no. From purely the supply perspective, Japanese forces were rationed supplies from the top. It was centrally decided what they should get, and they were expected to be independent to cover any deficits, particularly with food supplies.
@@texanwokey8366 superiority in everything thing?
The newer Chinese airborne radars are better than the e3s. Range, power, processing power.
They deployed the first geosynchronous radar satellite. Gives them continuous radar coverage of their area. 10 meter resolution.
Low earth satellites can provide targeting data for the conventional ballistic missiles.
The US claims to be developing that, China has fielded it.
Japan? Japan started out the war owning the more important developed resources in China.
The first successful part of the War, got them the remaining resources.
China has much more access to resources, now, than Japan ever had.
Problems? This is China's backyard. We have to cross the Pacific to get there.
They are not sailing to Los Angeles.
Taiwan,
deny the US access to the West Pacific, break up the allies.
First set of goals .
The real analysis of China's mil budget came out this year, first time ever. Not 200 billion. It's 700 billion.
China is making 10x more munitions or that America does.
2025 fed budget gets the US military 3 days of air to air missiles, in a war with China.
China believes they are number 1? So what? How does that hurt them?
Racist? What do you mean?
China is not a near pear. aggressor.
We are facing pacing threat that outclasses us in manufacturing.
Arm chair general here. I think the marines definitely should not have mbts anymore but I do think they should have replaced them with more lavs and a ztd-05 like tank. A light fast amphibious tank to provide support in cities and against armor but also won’t slow them down.
The Marines are Marines! Agile, fast, lethal and closely allied with the Navy. Don't cram then into the Army box. When tanks are needed, send in the army.
This man gets it.
@Vesta_the_Lesser they don't like being called soldiers, but they are
@Vesta_the_Lesser
Why yes, we are in fact a department of the Navy....the MENS department!
@@mcarrowtime7095 Because we're not. We're Marines.
@Vesta_the_Lesser The USMC is an independent branch within the Department of the Navy. Any US Army Soldier will tell you that a Marine is Not a soldier, they are Marines.
High tech targeting and guidance system jammers and anti-missle
weapons never seem to get much conversation. I'm a dinosaur but the old m198 artillery was always reassuring to me. None of the anti-missle stuff stops a 155 round from a gun.
USMC retired.
True but they make much lighter guns that will take out just about anything short of a tank.
Have a couple line-of-sight shoulder missiles to destroy enemy tanks.
There are ways. Make a good combo of attack methods to do the work of a tank with a much smaller logistics footprint.
Thanks!
Wow! Crazy how far you've come from the first days. Great research, insightful, and i won't even get into production value. Just don't lose that spare parts army charm
These videos are getting incredibly good.
I think this is the right move by the USMC. Most of the islands in the Western Pacific won't be able to support heavy armored vehicles like the Abrams.
if the US were smart they'd restart the marine expeditionary vehicle program and build amphibious light armour, but it seems the US is overly dependent on LCACs and Ospreys which themselves have a big logistics footprint.
How are the Russian tanks doing in Ukraine. The last I saw they were being descimated by rockets and missiles. Is it still happening?
@@Stevescafidi-km3td Armour has better survivability than helicopters thats for sure. If an IFV gets hit by an ATGM you can still bail out.
Wanna know the chance of survival for crew on an osprey that gets hit by MANPADs?
You can also field ALOT more amphibs than you can ospreys, Oh and amphibs are unlikely to get brought down by HMG fire too.
Excellent report, Chris. Thank you! Sounds like a good plan worth pursuing.
I guess I am a "GreyBeard" too...joined in 85. Deployments on both coasts and lots of "trips" everywhere (missed a UNITAS deployment) bringing democracy to those who needed it (whether they wanted it or not). Drones, Gustavs, Better Intel, GPS (add-on) Drone/Counter Drone, Anti-Air (technology upgrades), HIMARS, JLTV's, etc. are definitely where it needs to head. Might change again next cycle, but today is different. BTW...I love tanks and they saved my ass in Desert Storm (Task Force Papa Bear) tank fight day 2 pushing north. Those old ass M-60's still kicked ass! It was really foggy that morning....I got an AT-4 for my birthday that year!
But...logistically they are a pain in the ass. They always just sat on the beach during my WestPacs (except Korea - where I always froze my ass off sleeping in a dry rice paddy....I was an 03....that's what we do). I don't even remember what they did on my Med Cruise...
Generally we humped everywhere.....so when we did get a ride it was AMTRAC's or an occasional Frog ride. So....Infantry remains the same....just kill people and break things...The Marine Corps way!
As an Air Force Vet I always assumed the Marines were more effective on the ground, 1st in backed by heavy Naval Artillery and air support, the landing team. Then Army brings the infrastructure, support, and tanks, the occupation. With the tech we have today and the training the Marines get makes tanks burdensome to include in tactical planning.
As a retired U.S. Navy chief petty officer (served in Vietnam eons ago!), I'm all for this Force Design 2030 transformation! We don't need a "Second Army" but a force that suits what the Marines are all about! Force Design 2030 is the kick-start we need.
Thank you very much...
Sounds like a good plan which mirrors the UK Royal Marines. Having armor isn’t part of their job description, leave that to the Army
Royal Marines we’re influenced by this plan ! I forgot to include those details
No. The Marines will still have armor. They’re getting a new kind of tank better suited for them.
There are 180,000 US Marines, 7,000 Royal Marines. That's, 26 US Marines for every Royal Marine! More, the Royal Marines are 600 under strength, because of recruitment problems. The US Marines are much larger than the entire UK military.
@@nickgood8166 The population of the US is 5 times bigger, with a 40 times landmass. Whats your point here?
They should be renamed to... "Ghost" Marines.
Makes sense because low signature, but hits hard out of nowhere, you want them to feel fear.
1970s the Trees are speaking Vietnamese
2030s the Trees are speaking American
This reminds me of the quote "Armies prepare to fight their last war, rather than their next war", except that the commandant has actually learned this lesson and is adapting in order to actually prepare for the next war. I hope this strategy is successful and prevents the outbreak of war in the Pacific.
What about the quote, "no plan survives contact with the enemy"? 🤪
Seriously though, I am open minded to this Force Design 2030. Leadership is hopefully striking a balance between anticipating what may come next with flexibility. The battle hardened practical common sense that has prevailed before may help too. 👍👍
I love your channel. I served in the Long Range Surveillance Detachment 104th Infantry.
Old news, new analytics. I like it.
P.S.
You forgot to add how they've also reduced infantry units despite focusing more on infantry deployments and tactics. 👀
One major change since WW2 is long range ordinances. The Military does not need to island hop to extend the range of munitions.
Great presentation. Let's not forget that the Corps is part of the total force. The Space force obliterates satellites, Air Corps bombards the site, the Navy bombards the site and brings the Corps and the Army who take and hold the terrain by any means necessary.
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!
I was a 0331 and got out in 2022 and got to see and partake in the 2030 plan and it’s a complete failure. The downsizing of the infantry is because they want smaller units, it’s because the marine corps can’t replace everyone getting out. No one is staying in and it’s gonna be the reason the plan fails. The new rifle company and squad structure can’t sustain what they want. They want sgts as team leaders, Ssgt’s as squad leaders, gunny’s as platoon sgts and master sgts as company gunny’s. Not enough grunts are staying in to fill in those billets and ranks. Also in the plan is to basically turn grunts into army ranger equivalent. ITB(infantry training battalion) at SOI is planning or trying to increase the school from 2 months to over a year. Having everyone go to advanced infantryman school, infantry small unit leaders course, jump school, and small craft training course. Grunts will only be classified as 0311’s(riflemen) no more 0317’s, 0331’s, 0351’s, 0352’s, and the only 0341’s will be 81mm mortars as a battalion asset, 60mm mortars are to be gone. It’s smart to cut down on the MAW(marine air wing) and tanks and to give the saved money to the grunts to finally update the gear and technology of a marine grunt. Unless the marine corps actually addresses and fixes the rentention problem instead of lying and painting over the cracks this plan is destined to fail drastically. The marine corps leadership is also drastically out of touch with its marines mainly grunts. They don’t hear the real truth and feedback with all this new restructuring and new training design. They only here fake good updates and reports over everything being pushed by company commanders to battalion commanders to division to regimental then to headquarters. The yes men leadership is going to blindside this plan because nobody wanted to say or add the negative feedback.
Preach. Bumping up tm, sqd, and plt sgts up a rank is a huge mistake. How will the Lts ever learn to lead/why do we even have them at that point?
We (FMF) would really miss our 60 m/m's.
Hella hurt delivered in hella hurry.
DOUG out
If they don't want to listen, that's on them, but they'll have no one but themselves to blame when it fails.
Thank you for your insight, however i disagree with the idea they are yes men.
The leadership is dominating theirs suicidals whoreshippers and they are the godly master. The whole “faking good updates and reports” is what politicians have always done through history, and arguing that they are not low-end politicians and that they do not hire fellows low-end politicians is more like lying.
To expect the army to somehow exist in its own bubble separated from the rest of the world, is unhinged.
They are not yes mens, they know what they are doing, it's very religious to still believe, that still in 2024, politicians to be cartoonesque characters that are “purely by coincidence tripping all over like if they were drunks”.
@@joemcnulty6814 unfortunately as with everything if it fails those that pushed the idea will be safe back home, collecting plaudits, pay, and pensions, no one ever blames the plan but those on the ground get the flak both literally and figuratively.
26 year Marine here and IMO just the logistics alone with Tank Bn's is massive and heavy. One of the options in the 80's and 90's for MEU commabnders was to take tanks on float with them OR not. Most of the time they chose NOT to take tanks (even though they of course liked them) they werent pragmatic based on the probable missions those MEU's would face. MEU's are meant to be sefl contained units formed around an Inf Bn and its attachments. We got away from that in AFG and Iraq. We needed to get back to our small unit missions and be lighter and more lethal. With also using drones for both fires and logistics the 2030 plan IMO looks pretty effective. But we'll see.
However I am probably splitting hairs here when I say I wish one of two things would have happened. Either the Marines keep the tanks in their reserve Division. OR absolutely on paper and its understood in writing an Army armored Brigade be an option for the Marine Corps upon request. Both would be hard but it might be the overall best answer for those who are squemish about the Marines losing Tanks........and I am in that category.
I like FD2030. Since WW2 the USMC has kind of been a bit of an outlier regarding naval infantry forces worldwide, this kind of starts to move them back towards its origins as a smaller, more specialized force focused on mobility, islands and littorals (but now with a focus on electronic warfare and long range fires)
Edit: Forgot to mention but I think this also ties well with other ongoing projects like the XQ-58A and Ghost Fleet overlord
Пройти российской, морской пехоты справитесь? Что-то мне подсказывает, что российская морска пехота, порвёт НАТОвскую, на лоскуты.😂
@@Valentin82.not even close brother the marines training are far better than the Russian marines and marines are American not nato
Да, я видел, как ваши силы спецподразделений выполняют задания. Фильм же сняли "Падение чёрного ястреба", правда Голливуд приукрасил историю. На самом деле же, операция была провальной🤷♂️То же самое можно сказать и про рейнджеров. Операция "Орлиный коготь" и т.д.
@@Valentin82. unlike your "special" forces, which are incapable of getting close enough to the enemy to fail.
@@Valentin82.you could barely beat Ukraine lmao
Not that I am the best at tactics, but have you hear of the Raiders.
Sounds like a good strategy. Hit and run - Duck and cover.
This is also excellent in that it makes the Marine Corps more interesting for all different kinds of people, while also downsizing it in case less people join as seems to be the trend
It's actually comforting to picture one of the main forces having this kind of flexibility and ability to do everything from a very small group of people
One is good for jungle island hopping warfare and the other vast desert warfare. But I guess those JLTVs with those missiles would wreck anyways.
It's like the military learned a new word... Lirttoral... ship, forces, everything
They did... learned it from the British, we already had littoral strike groups in the Royal Marines
Meds 💊
It's more like the US threw out all means for it (corvettes, frigates, land-based anti-ship missiles, etc.) because they deemed it unnecessary for a large blue water navy and now realise that that's where the actual fighting happens. Therefore they try to make the step back without admitting that the former eviction of capability was a dumb idea, so they slap the mission on the equipment, instead of just buying the equipment for its perks admitting to err.
AKA, Little Crappy Ship
What if the Chinese hire 1 million people, arm them with cheap FPV drones with thermal imagers and send the whole armada in small boats to look for Marines? It sounds funny, but it's realizable.
I served 8 1/5 years in the Marine Corps with over two years in Vietnam in the infantry. I like this suggested new Marine Corps.
Sounds like they are going down a similar root to the royal marines commando's except without the commando role and a hell of a lot bigger
If you are an AVERAGE infantrymen. The rest of the world is in trouble. And I say this even though I am not of the US. Love your vids and analysis. Subscribed, and notifications on. You are one of my top two sites. Please keep up the good work!
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!