Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir
Personally I think getting rid of the tanks is a mistake.
I think the new Commandant is a bit to fixated on air and sea control. Neither of which have EVER been USMC missions (with the exception of air control during Guadalcanal). The Marines are to there seize and control those unsinkable aircraft carriers for the Navy and Army to exploit.
The penny packet Defense Battalions during the 1930's were speed bumps. They couldn't hold vs a determined amphibious assault (i.e. Wake and Guam). No reason to think a 2030s one will fare any better.
The other issue is modern MBTs are quickly becoming near immune to ATGMs. You need something that can hit them with a nice sabot. Without tanks the USMC has no such capability.
The following discusses the entire force restructuring issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSkBsJ1s-Vc |
Have to agree while tanks may not be the first thing on the beach you need to be able to land them quickly if needed. Relying on the Army to supply them is risky bureaucrats could delay things & as you say top tier armour is becoming invulnerable to ATGMs.
My view its where they decided to cut the cost to spend more on weapons with reach.
Replacing artillery batteries with longer range missiles looks good on paper but I bet the cost to use them in action has jumped - shell vs missile.
Near peer could probably intercept the missile easier than the shell as well. Putting faith in planes for ground attack against other than structures & infrastructure is also risky ground units are far more effective even today.
Not to mention cost you can buy & maintain several tanks for the cost of a high end fighter.