Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 55

Thread: Marine Corps sees justification in Russian tank losses

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    644
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Marine Corps sees justification in Russian tank losses

    Russian Armor Losses Validate Marines’ Decision To Dump Their Tanks Says General
    “I just don’t see any need" for tanks in the Indo-Pacific region, Lt. General Karsten Heckl, the Marine Corps’ Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, said Wednesday. “And when you look at an operating environment like the Indo-Pacific, where do you see tanks playing out? Taiwan? OK. Where else?"
    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...s-says-general

    After reading the article I can see and understand the general's logic, but I would point out that the Marine Corps successfully utilized tanks in the Pacific against the Japanese.
    A person who is not inwardly prepared for the use of violence against him is always weaker than the person committing the violence. - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Decatur, IN
    Posts
    1,898
    Feedback Score
    89 (97%)
    Whats needed is a "medium" tank like what the Sherman's were classified as. Something not as upgunned and heavily armored as an Abrams but still can pack a punch and take a beating while weighing 20-30 tons less. Basically a Bradley with the 100mm gun from the Strikers. Tracks are definitely still needed, especially indo-pacific with beaches and volcanic ash.

    Don't the Swedes have something like that but with a 90mm gun or something or am I thinking of the wrong thing.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Wisco
    Posts
    1,557
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm not going to try and counter the Marine Corps decision on tanks, I'm sure that a good amount of time and study was done by the Marine Corps for that decision, I will just say that during the whole cold war not once did we see the massive Soviet invasion of Western Europe, instead we fought it in the Mtns of Korea, the Jungles of Vietnam and ended up in the Deserts and Steps of the Middle East.
    The Marine Corps is very good at adapting, but the one thing I know for sure is that when you expect a war in the Pacific, we'll probably be involved in one in Africa, if we treat the Russians as the main threat, we'll be in invading Peru or some other country. We need the capability, so we can adapt, but as the US has proven time and time again, we'll forget certain lessons in an effort to focus on thing we think are important, only for that to change. Whats the saying from Tyson; "everyone has a plan until punched in the mouth"
    I perfer black coffee in the morning, bourbon in evenings and spending money on sh*t I probably don't need.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    12,699
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hank6046 View Post
    I'm not going to try and counter the Marine Corps decision on tanks, I'm sure that a good amount of time and study was done by the Marine Corps for that decision, I will just say that during the whole cold war not once did we see the massive Soviet invasion of Western Europe, instead we fought it in the Mtns of Korea, the Jungles of Vietnam and ended up in the Deserts and Steps of the Middle East.
    The Marine Corps is very good at adapting, but the one thing I know for sure is that when you expect a war in the Pacific, we'll probably be involved in one in Africa, if we treat the Russians as the main threat, we'll be in invading Peru or some other country. We need the capability, so we can adapt, but as the US has proven time and time again, we'll forget certain lessons in an effort to focus on thing we think are important, only for that to change. Whats the saying from Tyson; "everyone has a plan until punched in the mouth"
    Yeah, we're always ready for the last threat and never prepared for the real threat.
    I remember reading about the Troops in our Army freezing in Korea because they had summer gear in the frozen Korean winter and wondered why no one who ever read about the Germans in Russia didn't see that one coming.

    Quote Originally Posted by jwfuhrman View Post
    Whats needed is a "medium" tank like what the Sherman's were classified as. Something not as upgunned and heavily armored as an Abrams but still can pack a punch and take a beating while weighing 20-30 tons less. Basically a Bradley with the 100mm gun from the Strikers. Tracks are definitely still needed, especially indo-pacific with beaches and volcanic ash.
    They've tried to do that for years and can never get a majority to agree and I mean they have been real close a couple of times, but no cigar.
    Another problem with the weight of a tank is, you build a good basic tank and suddenly everyone has some new development they want to hang off of it. There is no end of that either.
    I was lucky enough to be on Tanks for 21years I even went to Master Gunner school years ago. I retired and suddenly 9/11 happens 4 months after I retired. I couldn't go back in so I took a job working for General Dynamics and ended up a Field Service Rep. for another 14, 4 of that on Strykers.
    Plus that cannon on the Stryker was an old type 68 105, great gun, but the auto feeder on that vehicle sucked balls.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    10,014
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jwfuhrman View Post
    Whats needed is a "medium" tank like what the Sherman's were classified as. Something not as upgunned and heavily armored as an Abrams but still can pack a punch and take a beating while weighing 20-30 tons less. Basically a Bradley with the 100mm gun from the Strikers. Tracks are definitely still needed, especially indo-pacific with beaches and volcanic ash.

    Don't the Swedes have something like that but with a 90mm gun or something or am I thinking of the wrong thing.
    Like the M551 Sheridan? With modern armor and armament upgrades I'd bet procuring a few would not be a bad idea to augment the USMC "lane" on the future battlefield.
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry
    Oh, and screw China!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Just another filthy undesirable civilian "basement dweller"
    Posts
    6,531
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Mission creep doesn't help either... look at the F-16, it was originally intended to be light, cheap, fast and agile--essentially in the F-104/F-5/MiG-21 class--until all the damn gearqueers got a swarm of visits from their own personal Good Idea Fairies.
    Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!
    --after Capt. Hector Barbossa
    Joe Biden is not, nor will he EVER be, my President. Psalms 109:8 #SauceForGooseSauceForGander #AllDemsArePedos

    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,120
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by TexHill View Post
    After reading the article I can see and understand the general's logic, but I would point out that the Marine Corps successfully utilized tanks in the Pacific against the Japanese.
    I would argue that the situation is a bit different, with anti-tank options like ATGMs providing a far more reliable counter to tanks than anything the Japanese had until 1945. When the Japanese developed a reliable counter to the Shermans, we started suffering much higher than expected casualties and had to ship M26 Pershings over for the planned invasion of the main islands.

    I agree that a light armored vehicle may be the way forward, but I'm not sure the tank needed to remain for that. I'm out of the loop for current USMC equipment, but don't they have their own Stryker analog, the LAV25? That, or an up-gunned variant as said above, would seem to accomplish both the mission any tanks would perform and hold the Corps to the light and flexible force the Commandant envisions.
    ...they should have seen that arms in their citizens' hands could not make them tyrants, but that evil orders of government make a city tyrannize. Since they had a good government, they did not have to fear their own arms.
    --Niccolo Machiavelli, Art of War

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,331
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    I think the Marines are more interested in mules than tanks. I see this is a survival strategy for them instead of duplicating heavy Army focus on light and anti ship.
    Last edited by mack7.62; 05-07-22 at 09:14.
    “The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.”

    "He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,263
    Feedback Score
    0
    The Marines made effective use of manpack flamethrowers during the Pacific campaigns, but I think PC considerations would prevent those from coming back.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,331
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Russia is using a lot of thermobaric weapon weapons in Ukraine. Remember the US M202 FLASH 4 shot flame weapon that was to replace the flame thrower.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202_FLASH

    The M202 FLASH ("FLame Assault SHoulder") is an American rocket launcher, designed to replace the World War II–vintage flamethrowers (such as the M1 and the M2) that remained the military's standard incendiary devices well into the 1960s. The XM202 prototype launcher was tested in the Vietnam War, as part of the XM191 system.[2]
    Last edited by mack7.62; 05-07-22 at 09:22.
    “The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.”

    "He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see."

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •