Marine Corps sees justification in Russian tank losses

[Diamondback]

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.

Tracks do better in beach sand than wheels. Maybe something like the M36 Jackson GMC or an M60 concept but modern engineering and materials?

[Diamondback]

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]

Fire still has tremendous value as a psychological weapon; I've long thought any country needing to defend a border with Russia should invest in flame trenches and flamethrower traps, along with FAE's and delivery platforms. Yep, I'm *that* guy, the one who thinks the answer to massed infantry is a BLU-82 Daisy Cutter...

[mack7.62]

Tracks do better in beach sand than wheels. Maybe something like the M36 Jackson GMC or an M60 concept but modern engineering and materials?

Do you really see the US military storming beaches and conducting major land battles on islands today because I am having a hard time envisioning where this would take place. I see tanks being useful in Korea or Taiwan but they should already be there. But none of this matters because the Marines have already decided no tanks needed.

[chuckman]

Whether or not we think they need them, CMC decided they don't need them. It sounds like part of the new doctrine is to have army armor on speed dial. I agree given the new doctrine it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

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.

There is a great scene a movie about the Bradley (had Cary Ewes and Frasier) in it where they have a great concept and then the generals all want this and that, a gun, missiles etc etc.

On the jets, I read a book about Boyd and his concept for fighter jets and the OODA loop concept. Really interesting.

[Diamondback]

There is a great scene a movie about the Bradley (had Cary Ewes and Frasier) in it where they have a great concept and then the generals all want this and that, a gun, missiles etc etc.

On the jets, I read a book about Boyd and his concept for fighter jets and the OODA loop concept. Really interesting.

"Surrogate Dad" (one of my college profs, who was like a father to me) was a retired F-106 pilot and a BIG fan of Boyd's work. Ben Rich has an eye-opening discussion of the F-16's genesis and why Lockheed's bid was declined but the General Dynamics design ended up adopting a lot of the Lockheed "departures from concept spec" in his book Skunk Works.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Also, while I think if the Marines will be in the Asia/islands, maybe less tanks would be a good plan. You could use the Russian experience to justify it, but that doesn’t take into account the terrain and tactics. The Russians seem to doing all the wrong tactics for the terrain, or even just general tank employment.

Give a monkey a corvette and he’ll wrap it around a tree, give it to someone you knows how to drive…

[Jackal556]

Needs moar M60

[SteyrAUG]

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

Combo meal.

[1168]

I’m not certain, but I believe flamethrowers violate some law of armed conflict these days, not just pc. I don’t feel like digging that up at the moment, so feel free to correct me.

On tanks, something I’ve been curious about is how’d we arrive at the concept of “one tank to rule them all” Main Battle Tank vs a mix of light, medium, and heavy tanks that could (maybe) go more places and be produced and fielded in larger numbers? I believe we used more than one type of tank all the way into Viet Nam. Like the GPMG concept replacing both light and medium machine guns… did it really? If we still had light tanks, would the Marines still be using them? I certainly don’t know, but the idea interests me.

The Russians seem to doing all the wrong tactics for the terrain, or even just general tank employment.

They have failed to employ their own doctrine. I can’t say for sure that they’d have done better, but I was really surprised they didn’t bother coming correct after the lessons learned in Syria and Chechnya, and the modernization, new vehicles, and all the buildup/exercises, and having intimate knowledge of the terrain and battlefield. It’d be like us invading Canada and not bringing coats or Mexico without margarita mix.