Tanks for the Memories: USMC (proposed) Changes

[prinCZess]

Alternative bad titles for this thread include: 'USMC doesn't want anybody to tread on it' and 'Every Marine a Rifleman (now much more literally)'

As reported by WSJ

WSJ News Exclusive | Marines Plan to Retool to Meet China Threat

The most sweeping transformation in decades will shift the focus from fighting insurgents in the Middle East to preparing for conflict in western Pacific. “If we did nothing, we would be passed,” said Marine Corps Commandant David Berger.

www.wsj.com

And as 'The Drive' also offers some insights on

Marines To Radically Remodel Force, Cutting Tanks, Howitzers In Favor Of Drones, Missiles

The Marine Corps says the ambitious shift toward smaller units, distributed operations, and unmanned capabilities is essential to staying relevant.

www.thedrive.com

The United States Marine Corps Commandant is proposing a pretty major rejiggering of the whole organization--the most dramatic of the ideas being to phase out the organizations Abrams tank units entirely, double the number of UAV squadrons and dramatically increase the number of rocket-artillery units. 'The Drive' offers a bit more insight into the whys and what-fors of the idea, which amount to thinking that says the Marines might need to go a-island hopping in the Pacific again, and moving away from the heavy armor would allow for more mobile operations and all that jazz.

Lot of it's over my head, I shall freely admit, and there seems to be reasoning behind it that makes sense. But it's a noteworthy idea for change...And one I'm somewhat skeptical as to actually happening--the US Congress has something of a love affair with the Abrams tank, and I know previous attempts by military branches just to stop buying new ones has been shot-down.

More buried in the weeds and in similar 'this might encounter political/economic pushback' is a proposal to keep the number of fighter squadrons (hey-oh F-35) but drop 6 actual fighters from each squadron. Which I imagine might not be appreciated by Lockheed-Martin and congressional allies after the US has spent much time, money and everything else developing and deploying the thing. I'd expect the Marines to get hit with a 'but thou must' order on that front (and somewhat expect the same thing for tanks, really).

 

[Husky_Khan]

So are they expecting the Marines to fight on islands or in coastlines or something? Just seems weird getting rid of all the tanks and two thirds of the cannons. I'm guessing it's basically no heavy vehicles.

But even a reduction in aviation?

Bridging companies I guess kinda makes sense. What kind of missile/rocket artillery will the Marines use exactly though?

Is it just the M270 MLRS or something else as well.

All in all it just looks very Airborne to me.

Now I shall bother to read the article which probably answers most of my questions.

 

[Tyzuris]

I heard it theorized that this is USMC anticipating budget cuts in the future, and wanting to rebrand themselves away from the second army role they've kinda been playing for the recent years. This leads to them tying themselves more tightly back into the Navy and make themselves a more amphibious force again in their traditional take over islands and beachhead roles as light infantry. This is to prevent anyone in the political scene having any ground to fuse USMC into the Army as the USMC rebrands themselves away from the second land army role the circumstances have forced them to act as. Especially in the Middle-East.

 

[PsihoKekec]

There was a talk for quite some time that USMC should switch from being second Army, to being more like Royal Marines, a lighter fast response force. It's also worth noticing that since initial invasion of Iraq, the tanks were nothing but a cost, to the great dismay of penny pinchers. Also programs of promoting diversity ain't cheap and there is no chance of cutting them.

Is it just the M270 MLRS or something else as well.

HIMARS as well and I think there is also another system planned in the future.

 

[Marduk]

One pattern to notice here is that tanks, artillery, and their logistical tail are massive lift capacity sinks. Moving them by air in any decent number is a pain in the ass that requires the heaviest aircraft available, even moving them by sea eats up the ship's weight allowance like nothing else. So seems like re-specialization of USMC on more traditional missions than acting as second army in asymmetric warfare/nation building. The shift in artillery towards HIMARS is also suggesting that - sure, towed tube artillery (yeah, that's most of their cannons) is great for setting up a firebase in remote parts of Afghanistan...
But as experiences in Ukraine have shown, in a more conventional modern war, the survivability of artillery that can't get moving quickly after firing is becoming iffy; besides rocket artillery has far better access to guided munitions.

 

[Spartan303]

Oddly enough this actually makes a sort of sense when you think about the Marines and what their mission is. But I don't get the downgrading of their Infantry Battalions nor their lift capacity. One would think they'd like to keep those as they were if not increase in light of giving up their heavy armor and artillery.

 

[Marduk]

Oddly enough this actually makes a sort of sense when you think about the Marines and what their mission is. But I don't get the downgrading of their Infantry Battalions nor their lift capacity. One would think they'd like to keep those as they were if not increase in light of giving up their heavy armor and artillery.

That part is probably the money issue - helicopters are very expensive to operate, and yet again, their survivability in a conventional war is in question.

 

[Spartan303]

That part is probably the money issue - helicopters are very expensive to operate, and yet again, their survivability in a conventional war is in question.

Even so, you need transport capacity, and that's a good chunk of the Marine ability right there. And Marines are no good to anyone if they don't have the numbers to fight. Rather than downgrade their Infantry Battalions to 21 I would rather beef them up to a solid 30.

 

[Marduk]

Even so, you need transport capacity, and that's a good chunk of the Marine ability right there. And Marines are no good to anyone if they don't have the numbers to fight. Rather than downgrade their Infantry Battalions to 21 I would rather beef them up to a solid 30.

Seems like a shift towards amphibious transport. With that plan all the LCACs that would be tasked with moving the tanks are free to move loads of other stuff.

Also are there even enough ships to make optimal use of 30 battalions?

 

[Spartan303]

Seems like a shift towards amphibious transport. With that plan all the LCACs that would be tasked with moving the tanks are free to move loads of other stuff.

Also are there even enough ships to make optimal use of 30 battalions?

I remember the Marines Mission being to assault Beach heads and up to 25 miles inland before transferring control to the Army. Course its never worked out that way, ever. And those Amphibious transports they have, I remember the Marines telling me those things had all sorts of problems with them.

Kind of like the Shithook, I mean Chinook. If that is leaking a quart of fluids an hour then you're okay. If its not leaking, you're likely fucked. Would love for some Marines to come on in here and tell us some stories on these maintenance nightmares.

 

[Sailor.X]

Looks like the Good Idea Fairy is paying the Corps a visit as of late. I will go on record and say getting rid of Armor in the Marine Corps is a dumb idea. Better to have and not need all the time than to need and not have.

 

[Zachowon]

Looks like the Good Idea Fairy is paying the Corps a visit as of late. I will go on record and say getting rid of Armor in the Marine Corps is a dumb idea. Better to have and not need all the time than to need and not have.

As everyone here knows I am Army, and I am also currently in the place the Army would be if more use then the Marines should war break out at first, and I fully agree here.

I will use Korea as an Example. If they were to attack and move south, the Marines at the border would be some of the first to find off the attack. Without tanks, and if they do not get Air force air support quick enough, North Korea would push through. That isnt including if they were to go for an Amphibious assault from the flanks.
Tanks are needed, even if some people think they arnt. A single company of tanks spread out via platoons throughout the Marine corps would the smallest I would say they should go. It would not be enough, but it would at least allow for quick mobilization.

 

[Spartan303]

Trip wire defenses. I'm sorry to say it but the guys on the border are essentially bei theiwn into the meat grinder in order to delay the enemy. Expendable.

 

[Zachowon]

Trip wire defenses. I'm sorry to say it but the guys on the border are essentially bei theiwn into the meat grinder in order to delay the enemy. Expendable.

Okay yeah. But at least having some tanks will help them not die to quickly!

 

[PsihoKekec]

And enable at least some of them to fall back to the next line of defense.

 

[Marduk]

I will use Korea as an Example. If they were to attack and move south, the Marines at the border would be some of the first to find off the attack. Without tanks, and if they do not get Air force air support quick enough, North Korea would push through. That isnt including if they were to go for an Amphibious assault from the flanks.
Tanks are needed, even if some people think they arnt. A single company of tanks spread out via platoons throughout the Marine corps would the smallest I would say they should go. It would not be enough, but it would at least allow for quick mobilization.

Is this really a role Marines should be doing, as opposed to the Army, which is the vast majority of US presence there?

 

[Zachowon]

Is this really a role Marines should be doing, as opposed to the Army, which is the vast majority of US presence there?

There is a marine base right on the border, further up from the DMZ crossing. There is at least one group from every branch here. It is called USFK for a reason. It allows the marines to be one if the harder hitting in case an invasion was to happen. At least that is what I think. But them having tanks would allow them to defend it long enough to allow more to retrograde as well as allow the forces behind that line to prepare

 

[Marduk]

There is a marine base right on the border, further up from the DMZ crossing. There is at least one group from every branch here. It is called USFK for a reason. It allows the marines to be one if the harder hitting in case an invasion was to happen. At least that is what I think. But them having tanks would allow them to defend it long enough to allow more to retrograde as well as allow the forces behind that line to prepare

What kind of scale are we talking around here? If its some symbolic base, or a recon unit, then its a moot point if USMC should have tanks because of them, as they won't be there anyway.
According to this it's not right on the border, far from it:

MCI Camp Mujuk, Republic of Korea

www.mcipac.marines.mil

Camp Mujuk is the only United States Marine Corps Installation in South Korea. It is located about an hour east of Daegu, just outside Pohang, and near the eastern shoreline.

Pohang-si · Gyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea

Gyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea

www.google.com

That's in fact closer to southern coast of South Korea than to the border.

According to this, it's just about 100 people, so more of symbolic presence really.

United States Forces Korea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Zachowon]

What kind of scale are we talking around here? If its some symbolic base, or a recon unit, then its a moot point if USMC should have tanks because of them, as they won't be there anyway.
According to this it's not right on the border, far from it:

MCI Camp Mujuk, Republic of Korea

www.mcipac.marines.mil

Pohang-si · Gyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea

Gyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea

www.google.com

That's in fact closer to southern coast of South Korea than to the border.

I just know there is a detachment by the border that they can hear the north koreans doing rifle training and vice versa. It may be apart of the DMZ patrolling groups. I will look more into it.
But in this situation them having tanks in general would work, as it allows more armor to be available if the Army is not able to get more over in time.

 

[Husky_Khan]

As everyone here knows I am Army, and I am also currently in the place the Army would be if more use then the Marines should war break out at first, and I fully agree here.

I will use Korea as an Example. If they were to attack and move south, the Marines at the border would be some of the first to find off the attack. Without tanks, and if they do not get Air force air support quick enough, North Korea would push through. That isnt including if they were to go for an Amphibious assault from the flanks.
Tanks are needed, even if some people think they arnt. A single company of tanks spread out via platoons throughout the Marine corps would the smallest I would say they should go. It would not be enough, but it would at least allow for quick mobilization.

The Marines want to get rid of their tanks. Here’s why.

“We have sufficient evidence to conclude that this capability [tanks], despite its long and honorable history in the wars of the past, is operationally unsuitable for our highest-priority challenges in the future,” the report said about the divestment of Marine tanks.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

Yeah apparently they want you Army people to provide the tanks from now on. You're welcome.

But tanks aren’t disappearing from the fight. The Corps says heavy ground armor will still be provided by the Army.