Marines dumping their tank units

[Hank6046]

Not sure what HR 5717 has to do with this situation. But Congress has a history of rejecting proposed cuts. The Army was trying for years to halt M1 Abrams production for years to save money with Congress blocking it. I have a hard time believing they will be onboard with such major changes.

HR 5717 has nothing to do with the situation, but mentioning congress and the Marine Corps brings to mind Hank Johnson per the video. I agree with you, he only has so much power, congress doesn't want the loss of jobs tied in with the Military, especially in the towns surrounding 29 Palms and Camp Lejeune.

[seb5]

I will always remember the USMC Abrams parked on the turnoff from Ramadi to Blue diamond. I was glad he was there on more than one occasion.

Anyway, anytime we're getting leaner and lighter it really means less expensive with less capability............light infantry doesn't fare well against heavy armor

Then there's also the thought that in the last two wars the Army and Corps were doing so many of the same things that an outsider could wonder why have both?

[sundance435]

CMC's comment: "We are designed ... for a competition behind us, not in front of us," he said last fall. "That's driving the Marine Corps to redesign our force."

The article with CMC's guidance: https://www.military.com/daily-news/...box=1584990680

"Developing a force that incorporates emerging technologies and a significant change to force structure within our current resource constraints will require the Marine Corps to become smaller and remove legacy capabilities."

By 2030, the Marine Corps will drop down to an end strength of 170,000 personnel. That's about 16,000 fewer leathernecks than it has today.

I wasn't sure what to make of this at first, but with the new information, it seems to make sense to me. The Marine Corps of the 1900's and 2000's isn't going to be nearly as capable (without sustaining horrific casualties) as it's currently configured in the most likely scenarios of the future - near-peer conflicts in contested or semi-contested environments where A2AD is going to be the primary concern. Marines, to my knowledge, have never fought as far from the landing site as they will in the future. Add to that the relative ease with which even non-near peers can acquire substantial A2AD assets, it's not viable to keep the Corps as it is. This future concept might also help dissuade people from using the marines in roles for which they were never intended like they are now - yes, they'll be light infantry, but highly-specialized light infantry.

There's just not enough known to make any guesses about how lack of heavy armor, let alone light armor, might negatively impact capabilities. I'm no strategist, but I don't see how any light infantry can operate in future environments like those they'll be tasked without some armor. I think they still need something between a LAV and an M1 - something with more protection, power, and firepower of the LAV, but with less troop-carrying capacity and without the size and weight of an M1. Nothing remote, guided, etc. can replace a 120mm cannon at your immediate disposal. Again, back to a better powered and protected LAV with at least a 105mm gun. The fact that we're rushing to up-gun cavalry and BCT IFVs should be proof enough for that. Something like that could easily turn into an F-35 unicorn-type program and fall into the "is it an IFV or a tank" paradox.

As far as direct-fire support, this is one area where they're probably dead on. There's really no need for it if the missile/drone concepts work out. Drones could drastically increase what constitutes direct fire and from ranges that a howitzer will never come close to, regardless of upgrades, which is key in A2AD scenarios. 15-30 miles will be mortar range in near future.

A possible silver lining for the Corps is that all of their equipment is so old and in need of replacement that this could be the perfect opportunity to start from as close to scratch as possible. If they come close to working this concept out, I'd say the Corps is for once the most forward-thinking service branch. Every other service is offering patchwork solutions based on the huge disparities between their existing equipment.

Presumably, the USMC would be part of a combined-services effort in any major (future) conflict, with the Army providing tanks in any situation that required them.

Way out of my lane, but I would think that any lightly equipped Marine force would be at some sort of a disadvantage if fighting by itself against enemy heavy forces.

Light infantry is always at a disadvantage against anything equipped above light infantry - air power can only make up so much of the difference, even less with the proliferation of more capable SAMs. I would assume the Army would provide tanks, if needed, but that's far from ideal. The scenarios I picture them envisioning wouldn't have them up against heavy infantry. The problem with that is technology has allowed many heavy infantry components to be dispersed to lighter units. That's, I think, what they're going for - a notional light infantry that has the ability to fight heavier without the heavy equipment in littoral/amphibious environments. Someone is going to have to get them to stop trying to use marines as traditional heavy combat infantry or true light infantry, though.

[chuckman]

HR 5717 has nothing to do with the situation, but mentioning congress and the Marine Corps brings to mind Hank Johnson per the video. I agree with you, he only has so much power, congress doesn't want the loss of jobs tied in with the Military, especially in the towns surrounding 29 Palms and Camp Lejeune.

The net gain as written would be Lejeune; they lose 8th Marines, but they'll get picked up by one or two Pendleton/Oki units, but some Lejeune units will also get some; of the aviation units, 262 is at New River; 462 & 469 are west coast; a balance between aviation support, MPs, armor, and bridging. But all of MARSOC will be at Lejeune. Tiebreaker goes to Lejeune.

[Slater]

The USMC's new amphibious vehicle is an Italian design (selected over a Singaporean one), so maybe the Italians could provide a few of these. Fairly fast and armed with a 120mm gun. Fanciful thinking of course, but it could be useful in various scenarios:

https://www.iveco-otomelara.com/wheeled/centauro8x8.php

[fred]

This is fascinating, and although an armor geek, as a prior service Marine I can see how the restructuring fits with the proposed future mission. Problem is, Marines don't pick the mission. They go where they're told with what they've got. If it were me, I would want Marines in my supporting armor, with whom I had already trained/deployed... No offense meant, Army.

[Hank6046]

This is fascinating, and although an armor geek, as a prior service Marine I can see how the restructuring fits with the proposed future mission. Problem is, Marines don't pick the mission. They go where they're told with what they've got. If it were me, I would want Marines in my supporting armor, with whom I had already trained/deployed... No offense meant, Army.

This does make sense as well. I was an airwinger, but we knew why we did our job and that was to support the guy on the ground. Great point.

[Averageman]

From a guy I know, a tank company commander:

"To say I am personally devastated is saying the least. Everyone’s specific situation is going to be different so I won’t comment on it but almost all of us are going to be forced out or early separated. My career as a Marine is over.

The loss of the combined arms breach ability will cost Marines lives. The loss of armor protected shock firepower will cost Marines lives. The loss of the best anti tank ground weapons system the Marine Corps has will cost Marines lives.

I have read the plan, the guidance and understand what the commandant wants. The Marine Corps is fighting for relevance and is willing to sacrifice generations worth of specific combat and tactical knowledge to get it. So be it, I won’t be there to see it, wasn’t even asked to.

All I know is I am heart broken, not only because I am getting told to go away by the organization that I served tirelessly, but because in my heart I know in our next conflict that an 18yr old manning a TOW will cut in half believing in that same organization and that he is the best weapon they have to fight a tank...

I cannot even believe I am one of the last Tank Commanders the Marine Corps will ever have. I have to fight the thought of wondering was this even all worth it? My body has been forever battered by my job, herniated disks, multiple contusions, nerve damage and TBIs. All for this to be the end state...

I don’t work in shape at DC and quite frankly I am too emotionally involved to speak any more on it without extreme personal bias so I’m not going to comment any further.

To all who have ridden the steal chariots of war, it was an honor to serve along side you and carry your legacy to its end.
Semper Fidelis."

As a career Armor Enlisted guy, that was gut wrenching to read.
We always go in to the next war with the TO&E we needed in the last one, not in the one we are presently fighting. We shoot ourselves in the foot like this time and time again.
So based on this decision, is the Army suddenly going to begin loading their tanks on ships?

[utahjeepr]

I was a bit flippant earlier, but this is seriously a troubling turn.

Marines will do what Marines always do, fight as best they can with what they have. They will take the short straw, sharpen it, and carry it to war. Marines have been handed the shitty end of the stick so many times in their history that it is basically SOP.

Then they take that shitty stick and beat the enemy to death with it.

[dwhitehorne]

I think all of these proposed changes will be up in the air when the next Commandant comes in. In 1988 I was in 2/8 weapons company. Before going to Okinawa in June of 88 we literally had a ceremony on Camp Geiger where we traded guidons with 2/6. We went to Okinawa as 2/6 weapons company. When I got back from Okinawa in January 89 all of 2/6 was deactivated and I was reassigned to 3/6 Lima company. The idea we were told at the time was General Al Gray wanted to change the infantry back to a WWII/Korea organization of 11 man squads and have units with two battalions and two regiments instead of three we were using.

20 years later and I was talking with and officer I worked with about being on embassy duty when Desert Storm started. He complained that he was on stuck on a ship off the coast of Iraq and did nothing during the invasion in a new unit created called 2nd battalion 6th Marine Regiment. So we spent the time discussing how the unit was deactivated. for about a year before it was started back up.

I do know when Desert Storm started the USMC only had M60 tanks in the inventory. They spent the 6 month work up getting Abrams tanks out of the strategic war reserves and cross training the M60 crews for invasion. So what goes around comes around. David