Marine Corps sees justification in Russian tank losses

[TexHill]

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.

[jwfuhrman]

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.

[Hank6046]

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"

[Averageman]

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.

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.

[ABNAK]

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.

[Diamondback]

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.

[Alpha-17]

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.

[mack7.62]

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.

[Slater]

The Marines made effective use of manpack flamethrowers during the Pacific campaigns, but I think PC considerations would prevent those from coming back.

[mack7.62]

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]