Royal Marine Reacts To The US Marines Bold Risky Plan to Defeat China
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
- Original Video: • The US Marines Bold Ri...
Stay Connected & Support:
Join my Telegram community: t.me/+EyuspUUHNzQ4MjQ8
Support my work on Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=571382...
Become a CZcams Member: / @ryanforrest1664
Explore my content on Rumble: rumble.com/c/GenDitCommando
Don't Miss Out:
Make sure to hit the notification bell so you never miss an update. Your support means the world to me, and I appreciate each and every one of you. Thank you for being a part of this community!
Content Disclaimer:
All content on this channel is meticulously reviewed before release. It is created with the utmost respect and consideration for our audience. Any reaction videos are carefully curated, featuring original commentary to offer unique insights and perspectives.
Copyright Notice:
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal use tips the balance in favor of - Zábava
Old time US Marine here, they say ,” If we need tanks the Army will provide them.”
true.... let them pay for them lol
one thing we have learned in the last couple of years is that Heavy Armor is now just a slow moving target that costs a lot of money. And 2 Marines with a Javelin System is a nightmare for most tanks.
Do you need 2 men to effectively fire the javelin? Or let’s say I’ve got a javelin & one missile, will I able to launch it against a tank by myself? (If I was trained & knew how)
no you only need one person to fire the missile. But the 2nd man carries 2 more missile units.
@@icemanxidkp thanks for the reply, too lazy to go deep into researching the javelin
If you didn't know we expected a near javalin weapon in Iraq and had the chaff and a counter measure to cause a javelin to miss or be destroyed in 2003
Also the javelin is based off the STAFF round that we had in the late 80s early 90s.
Hey Ryan, I’m a US Marine part of the 3D MLR that’s mentioned in this video. Seeing the nemesis and the plans explained in this video in use instilled a lot of confidence in the capabilities they’re trying to give us.
I am a 46 yr old man from Michigan (USA) 1st love your videos brother!! 2nd and most importantly Man have my eyes been opened In The last two yrs!! My mind is just blown away!!!
I was a Marine Corps Tanker, it was the best job in the Marine Corps.
I was a reservist, they asked if I wanted tanks or radios. 👍🍻🇺🇸
Nah , Amtracs!!! Without Amtracs…
Basically, the general idea is, as usual the Marines get a foot hold, while the Army comes in to hold ground long term. But in a more agile fashion for the Marines
My aunt lives in Oshkosh WI, gone there a bunch of times for a music festival or air show. And it is very cool to stop by the Oshkosh defense location, see all the equipment lined up, :)))
I'd like to shake your hand one day Ryan, You seem like a solid man.
Great video and your reactions are amazing too. Thank you.
I think your overlooking the fact that the US Marines are basically a small military by themselves and their original purpose was island hoping, so the US can afford to tailor the Marines back to their original purpose and refocus them to the Pacific, without losing too much capability! The US will still have tanks in the army and given the weaknesses being shown by tanks in recent years, the Marines will do better with the many anti-tanks systems that are available, not to mention the potential of drones!
completely agreed, they will also have the support of the US Army in situations where heavy armor may be needed. they'll have air support from the US Navy and US Air Force. this changes the marines form just being the bastard step brother of the Army in to a force that has a actual dedicated mission in littoral zones.
The Marines original purpose was for boarding actions and counter boarding actions with U.S. Naval ships.
@@Princess_Celestia_ They actually still serve that role, that is just one among many jobs the Marines do, but the conversation was about the modern US Marines, their overall strategic purpose and use, they have been tailored toward land warfare and counter insurgency, while allowing their amphibious capabilities to atrophy and that is what I was meaning!
BTW - ALL USMC tanks are already gone. Even those in the Reserve.
Thanks Ryan. Good to see you again. Hope all is good 🍻 from the States
The faster you bring heavy effective weapon systems to bear on the enemy the faster you defeat and demoralize them. Armor and artillery are battlefield game changers...remember the Japanese lost by simply occupying islands with little armor...we did the same thing in post Spanish War erea to WW2, our best results are combined arms, and we have airpower to match
If they need tanks, they'll call on the army for support & force multiplication...
Shoulder launched missiles are making tanks irrelevant, like the battle ship.
Instead of one Abrams, you can pretty much put two LVS Mk48/14s each fully laden with either 22.5 tons of hauling capacity in a TEU-compatible flat bed or three SIXCON units carrying water/fuel/etc... this would allow for rapid deployment and possibly even re-positioning of FOBs as battle conditions change. Also, due to the nature of drone warfare and the high value nature of main battle tanks, it's likely that the USMC would spend more resources trying to protect the MBTs than they're worth to tactical operations.
The video says the Marines will still be coordinating with the army when tanks are necessary. If the marines need to attack an urban environment then the army will let them use some. The marines are focusing on defending islands with naval assets nearby, and letting the army handle the mainland parts
The thing is, it kind of takes away the self sustainability that the USMC has always had. I’m not too sure about the move entirely
@@RyanForrest1664 I think if they were to instead replace the Abrams with the M10 Booker, that would be a better overall solution than to get rid of all their armored direct fire support.
Old Army Veteran here , why not do both? different divisions.
We see what Javelins are doing to the Russian tank forces too!
My main issue with the Corps removing my tank mos is that their were only 2 combat MOS's in the Corp 0311 and 1812. Each tasked with closing with and destroying the enemy.
1812's mission:"To close with and destroy the enemy through armor protected firepower, manuver and shock effect."
As a 26 year Navy vet I say keep the tanks. Tried and true battle doctrine is needed here. I remember the “right sizing” effort and it was not good. At least keep enough tanks for urban warfare.
Army retired here, and lets be honest here, even the most intelligent and experienced Marine thinks HALO: ODST (Orbital Drop Shock Troop) is real. so tank it as you will lol
good thing we arent commandants of the marines so what we think doesnt matter bc they know better than we do brother semper fi
You said it multiple times, task specific. The Marine Corps is task specific, a naval raiding party. Not to be meant as a standing Army. They are just getting back to their roots. The Army is supposed to have the heavy weapons.
As a Marine I think this is okay. We can't cling to the ideas of how to fight past wars. History has proved that such ideology leads to mass casualties. And also, it's inevitable that when a true war starts, significant reorganization will always happen to adjust to the enemy. In the meanwhile, the US Army has lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of armor and artillery.
Great video bro love the content lately thank you!
I thought that the 35 ton (so far 🫤) M10 Booker was going to be the successor to the M1A2 Abrams in several, if not all, Army and Marine Corp tank regiments.
Logistics and technology
Damn I live in the mohave desert. Wondering if you guys were out around 29 palms
maybe they adopt the MPF or some sort of lighter 'tank' that fits their model more. Tanks don't fight tanks, incredibly uncommon, tanks provide direct fire support on entrenched positions and sometimes light vehicles, tank fights are rare. Better to take out the tank with artillery, drones, ATGM's. So for that direct fire support role, what else can do the job that fits their more agile focus?
Ultimately in 5-10 years drone type systems are only going to dramatically increase in usage, and I think a Drone with a cannon that is smaller, better armored for the size, is going to be the way forward with command and infantry elsewhere, their position obfuscated. partial automation, commanded and coordinated by humans, that is how I think they are going to need to pivot.
I think it is good that the marines pivot their funding, which is finite, to roles that the army isn't doing. The start of the video makes a good point I think, don't be a 2nd army, be a marine force. Let the army do what they do best, while you do what you do best, and have the army come rolling in afterwards if needed.
Leave the heavy assaults to the army, and focus on being defensive and agile, hard to kill with brutal drone defenses. The US is good at having a tech advantage, take advantage of it with drones and leverage it. Marines could end up being the predominate drone force.
I believe their thinking is any task the “old” Marine corps would have been tasked to, could easily be tasked the Army instead. That’s why he spoke of the force being kind of redundant and spoken of as the “second army”.
When it comes to large modern armies fighting each other, weapons such as the Himars will have their counterparts which can detect and strike back when they expose their positions through fire. They would have to take the "move, shoot, then scoot" philosophy, then speed up the times it takes to setup, firing, and teardown times.
Tanks will always have a place. They might be more of an infantry support role than an armored fist role made famous by Patton and Rommel.
The Oshkosh automated artillery looked interesting. Looks like the took the JLTV chassis and installed launchers on it. It's a step up from the Hawkeye and Brutus howitzer systems.
If u move and scoot, they will have no time to direct your exact location before u are already gone. If 1 guy with a drone can take out a MBT, or one guy with a Javelin can do that, then i would say the MBT is far more inferior to a Himars system. And if u want a ifrantry support role, u might just get a modern IFV instead. Lets say the CV90, put 2 spikes missile on it wich the newer models is using, and u will destroy any MBT aswell. The most modern Cv90´s also have the capability to scout in the air thanks to a built in drone. If the speed of the himars or any other long range system is compromised by the setup time, just make something better than. U can literaly setup the archer in less than 1-2 minutes
I personally think this is finally fulfilling the marines goal… they should never have been in the Middle East and shouldn’t be fighting urban battles… that’s for the us army… who will benefit greatly from marine tanks and doctrine as they will need to learn maneuvers and doctrine the marines won’t be able to provide anymore
That might be true for everyone else but the Corps will now start developing future or delsyed entry recruits . Still recruit every new Marine required
Exactly mate in Afghan I was carrying 50kg I agree light role move fast up your supply drop ogf
you are forgetting AMPHIBIOUS assaults against heavily defended areas
It just comes down to budget
Budget, but it's also not what the Marines were designed to do. They're a large QRF unit.
Check out a US Marine called John Ripley. You'll be very impressed!
Hi Ryan great to see this thank you
My pleasure!
🍻 Awesome T
@@chrisconny2285 Hey Chris 👋😊
Really interesting, Ryan. Thanks
They’re not getting rid of all the tank battalions don’t worry
What are they doing then?
They already have. There are no Marine Tankers anymore...
"Actually" the whole modern concept of tanks has kind of gone moot. They've always seemed to be a "Gundam" level item to me in a modern age.
The average tank is what, the size of or near the size of a small apartment or tennis court, relatively loud, slow* and, as we've seen in modern combat, sitting ducks and massive coffins even to off the shelf Amazon filming drones and cardboard boxes with wings and a kilo of C4.
Honestly, outside of enemy deterrents and specific security applications, the modern battle tank is more of a liability than anything else.
What we need to do is start investing in the exosuit systems and power armor concepts from the last decade or so.
People saying this is a bad idea is just like the people saying adopting tanks in the first place was a bad idea, I don’t I think it’s a bad idea but I do thinks it’s risky but the truth is that tanks and many other things that we associate with the military will eventually be changed, removed or swapped out.
they will have access to tanks anyways, because we're excellent at combined arms warfare. The Army will be there to give them armor support if they need it, but the absolutely trecherous terrain on these islands is just a nightmare for our tanks and being as the ones the marines have lack the SEP V3 upgrades they're just sitting ducks for precision guided weapons. making the marines the anti A2/AD littoral force they were originally designed as is a very smart move IMO.
Per mare, mukka 👍,... Interesting video 👏👍
Yes. The US Marines are crazy. You have to be to sign a binding contract to enlist in the US Marines. It’s a prerequisite. But there IS a reasonable basis behind the restructuring. They adapt to the threat, and quickly. They are good at setting the tempo of battle and this allows them to own that aspect even more. If your enemy never has a chance to organize. You win.
As far as i could tell, in spring 2021 (when i was retiring from the army), the marine corp desolved theyre tank MOS
Well they said they're leaving 3 or 4 Marine groups the same as they've been and just doing this with two
Sweeeetness
This is nothing new. In the 90's the US Army 95B Military Police did forward ops with AT4's and MK-19's. Now these Marines have Switchblade Drones and Javelins. They are better equipped than we were.
I believe modernization is important.
Lol the uk draft is gonna help us a lot when it comes to chinneychinncha
Love you, brother.
I'd rather have been covered behind a tank in 2003, but idk these drones do make them slow moving targets, but I'd still want it's cover.
you asked at 26:00 what are they going to do if they go in to urban combat.... they'll work with the US Army and their tanks to do so.
The Army has all of the capabilities the marines have, but better. the army gets all the new kit and shit gets passed down to the marines.
So they overlap and are redundant, by changing the marine mission it stops stepping on the feet of the Army's responsibility. We've been doing combined arms and asymmetric warfare for a while now; and we're able to coordinate all 4 branches (excluding coast guard and national guard here... their purpose is pretty self-evident) by turning the marines in to a role that they're technically meant for, being a rapid deployment force that gets there ahead of the army, clears a space for them to land and then lets them do their job.
having two forces that are identical is just inefficient. I think this plan is highly well designed, no matter what the marines aren't getting their budgets increased, and wasting all of their money on almost half a thousand tanks and other roles that the army already has is just wasteful.
the USMC has always been a littoral force; and countering A2/AD is absolutely vital, because our carrier strike groups are at risk. We can't get all the new and keep the old because the money isn't there for them, that's why they're freeing up the budget and trimming the redundant capabilities that the US Army already does. Ya know?
@ ExarchGaminng Most of what you say is true. However, the Army does not have all the capabilities the Marines have because they do not have their own fixed wing fighter squadrons or naval support like the Marines do. Whether or not their capabilities are better is debatable especially since they have different missions.
All the Marine Corps tank battalions have been deactivated with the last one being deactivated in 2021. I understand what the Corps is trying to do by getting lighter and saving money. Yet the one thing that the bean counters and pencil pushers numbers and calculations don't tell is the moral boost that 70 tons of your worst nightmare brings. With what the presenter said about calling in the Army for heavy support - right because that has always worked out in the past and who's going to get priority of Army tanks? One thing that I wish the Corps had done was keep 1 tank battalion and downgrade the others to maybe a Stryker or Bradley battalion. I feel there are a lot of unanswered what-ifs by giving up your tank capabilities. Same thing with giving up field artillery. HIMARS are great and all but they don't have the mobility of a field artillery piece. Have we forgotten the lessons learned during the Vietnam conflict? HIMARS is still a truck bases system. You can strap a M777 to an Osprey or heavy lift helicopter and put it almost anywhere on the battlefield. How much does a HIMARS rocket cost, weigh, and how do you resupply them vs that of an artillery shell and powder canister? Looking at all this, like Ryan said, is the Corps really getting lighter or just expecting its infantrymen and infantrywomen to carry more? I understand the whole concept of preparing to fight the next war, not the last but at the same time there's going to be some tough lessons to be learned with all the radical changes and those lessons are going to cost blood. In my 17 years in the Corps, every time the Corps went 'lighter' and 'high speed, low drag' us grunts got to carry more.
Ryan, I absolutely agree with you! Why my beloved Marine corps has decided to ditch tanks is far beyond this old Jarheads thought processes- Semper fi to my brothers & sisters-Tyler
If you can carry 9 infantry fighting vehicles for lack of a better term as opposed to a single tank. Couldn’t you just stick supplies in the vehicles? Ik most if not all of the space is prob filled up already & that the troops would still end up carrying weight. Idk i feel like you could store quite a lot on an infantry fighting vehicle or 10
shifting too the far east where the terrain doesnt really lend itself to giant heavy armor, and the logistic train is immense to keep armor supplied and in working order. add in what we're seeing in Ukraine with all the drones owning anything that moves, makes sense to shift away from those big expensive sitting ducks that are MBTs. much easier to counter the enemies tanks in a jungle region with small fire teams using ATGMs, than to have actual tank on tank battles.
How do you keep them supplied in a shooting war?
i dont see this as a terrible idea. just off of this is seems they are handing over some of the ground game to the army to change a bit of the marines. they arent getting rid of tanks from this video, they are just changing which branch controls the most. basically making the ground army a bit more of a ground army. as far as ground warfare the marines and army pretty much have always overlapped i feel. nothing wromg with taking away some of that overlap to expand on a new idea. its making one part of war slightly less effective and adding an entire new idea. take away a little and gaining a lot of something new. whether or not it works is a different conversation. but in theory this doesnt seem like a terrible idea. when you have enemies, dont get let yourself get stagnent.
Lookin big bro, biceps goin crazy
Marines gonna use the Japanese WWII tactic. Good luck recruiting
Think b4 blabbing your thoughts. The USMC is one of the few forces that have filled their recuting needs 😮
The misconception your getting ryan. Is the marines are not necessarly getting rid of tanks. More down size for now. The tanks are going to the army. So america is keeping the tanks. Just making the marines more maneuverable. But when tanks are needed. Bring in the army as a multi force attack.
You are forgetting about drones man. Tanks are becoming easy pray for drones. I'm sure there are equipment these guys are getting that they aren't reporting. They aren't going to give the enemy everything.
Your absolutely correct. The Marine Corps has added a additional fire team that is drone capable.
This new drone fire team will provide recon drones, kamikaze drones and supply drones.
Even the F35B fighter jet can communicate and operate drones as well.
The Marine Corps is getting more HIMARS which has a longer range than tanks and more accurate.
18:00 - whoever designed that must be really smart, handsome, humble, and just the coolest. lol.
Marines usually integrate with army armor most of the time with larger operations anyway
With precise ground to ground munitions and 1 drone can take a tank out especially the drones being tested after the knowledge of Ukraine, I can see tanks gone in 20 years
This is conclusion formed from a fundamental misunderstanding of why tanks are useful.
The tank is useful for what it provides. Obsolescence only comes when it can be usurped in it's job. Vulnerability, no matter how severe, will never kill the tank.
The fact remains that to win a war you need to take ground, to take ground you need infantry, to advance those infantry need armor assets to protect them and offer overwhelming direct fire support, for that armor to do it's job they require air assets to suppress the enemy, defend against air attacks, and infantry to root out enemy anti-tank infantry.
This is nothing new. That's how combined arms warfare works.
tanks will adapt and so will drones it will be much longer than 20 years before a metal box with a gun in it is gone
@ThatGuyOrby it's a cost ratio , the new challenger 3 we had tests on a anti drone zone around the tank. But it won't stop high speed incoming drones ! Yet
Yo bro, I enjoy your commentary.
Maybe it's the the content you add, or maybe it's your enjoyable accent.
The US isn't getting rid of tanks. The Marines are going back to their roots as a light infantry force and their armored assets were transferred to the Army.
The Army on the other hand is doubling down on armor assets. Spearheading the development and adoption of the M10 Booker Light Tank to supplement light infantry units, like the Airborne, while developing the M1E3 MBT program to further modernize the M1 Abrams.
The Marine Corps itself said in the event tanks are required, this is the exact phrasing, "that's what the Army is for"
USMC is currently testing Typhon weapon system armed with SM-6 and LRHW, NMESIS armed with NSM & HIMARS with the new PrSM. L-MADIS
There is so much anti tank ordinance available now that it’s hard justifying keeping them. They’re now going the way of the battleship.
Lasers my friend😊
Lets not forget the new wart hogs...
There is a lot left out in the video Ryan was reacting to. There are weapon systems they tell you we have then they have surprise weapons systems they don't tell. These soldiers are the most advanced with the best cutting edge kit in the world. Each soldiers gear is getting more expensive with less troops and making them lighter and more mobile and effective for whatever task. They will up grade and change constantly. America is the best at change and adapting. Now if someone pisses us off or attacks us, you will see the true size of America and our might. When we get attacked or things happen our people sign up to the military.
This is why the Japanese called us the sleeping Giant.
This reminds me of Vietnam thinking or worse, Operation: Eagle Claw. In Vietnam we were trying to fight using World War II tactics in Europe in the jungle and drawing lines like in Korea. Eagle Claw required equipment and support from every branch with poor coordination. I also remember helping the evac after the Battle of Mogadishu…. “Oh we don’t need heavy equipment…” The Marines need armour. If it’s not an Abrams, they need a new, lighter tank.
The Marines have, reportedly, already transferred all of their Abrams to the Army, along with any Marines that wanted to stay with the tanks.
As others noted, any urban assault by Marines will have assigned Army Tanks when useful, but such assaults are more likely to be addressed by the Army anyway. Further, no one in the West wants to attack major land areas in Asia. Instead, enemies like the ChiComs would be ones having to go on the offensive and so a defensive strategy like mobile island defense with missile launchers would decimate such naval assaults.
The uk has already demonstrated the dragonfire laser system😊. I was in the us army in the eighties and was told every decade would see more automation in combat...so far that has panned out as foretold😊
2:48 I think the Marines would be better served by the upcoming M10 Booker if they need armored direct fire support, personally.
I think there’s a pretty good chance that the US Marines will adopt or announce plans to adopt the M10 Booker in the next 5-10 years.
Yeah, it was meant for the Army Airborne units, but it makes sense to me at a glance that if Marines on small islands need mobile direct close fire support and an Abrams is too heavy but a LAV-25 is too light, an M10 would be a perfect middle ground. Roughly the same ideas to the Sherman tanks in the Pacific of WW2: generally outclassed against heavier German tanks, but much more capable against lower quality Japanese tanks.
What’s your take, Gendit?
They're learning a lot from the Ukraine war.
There are about 20k marine infantry men.
The thing that gets me is, I don't think it's much of an idea of its being talked about on CZcams right
Last year, the Marine Corps got rid of the last of its active duty tank units and most of its traditional tube artillery as part of FD2030. This was Berger's plan to reshape the Marine Corps primarily to fight a prospective long-range, high-tech, over-water war with China.
Also fears of Korea or China using an EMP those island forces still need too function
I watched this video and agree they need to think what's next and they are first then they hand off to the Army. All Heavy Armor is vulnerable to anti-tank and air which other US forces can supply.
I agree with you Mr. Forrest..62 year old former marine from south carolina
Thats the marines, the Army has most of the tanks
As a LAR Marine have to point out LAR WAS NOT MENTIONED. If you know anything about LAV you know dam well that 25 mm bush is alot to deal with and Kandihar was advanced with 25.
They already got rid of the tanks..............
the Marines have developed a land based truck based Tomahawk anti-ship missle system largely developed from spare parts and existing tech. the range is well over 1000 km. place some of these teams throughout the surrounding allied nations (Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines etc) and China is hemmed in and over 80% of their inbound and outbound naval traffic blocked and made easy pickings. Ukraine has proven multi million dollar tanks can be taken out with multi-thousand dollar drones and small mobile teams with shoulder based weapon systems.
I can see the logic of the USMC and I generally agree with them. The main criticisms of the plan misses the crux of the issue that marines are supposed to "light and ready to fight" from naval positions while ideally being capable to hit above their weight with advanced mobile weaponry. Tanks (at least not the ridiculously heavy Abrams) no longer fit into that equation on the modern battlefield where Marines are expected to fight in it. I think it's likely that the Marines will develop a lighter tank for their own purposes in the future. This plan is effectively reinventing the USMC to be what they're supposed to be and fit much better in a modern war. The Army is much better suited and intended to be the heavy combat forces that can coordinate with the Marines for any larger assaults requiring more armor/mechanized support. It sounds like here that the Marines will no longer be expected to participate heavily in urban warfare or any attrition-style combat leaving that to the more suitable Army to deal with. This does make more tactical sense and eliminates redundancy within the US military as a whole while providing a much more effective light maritime-oriented tactical force. Those who criticized the Marines before for being a "second Army" had a point. Condensing the Marines while bulking up the Army in certain areas makes a lot of overall strategic sense with how the US military is structured to make it not only more cost efficient but also effective in a modern major power war.
It just give China a heads up
@RyanForrest New Tank tech will be able to fight Drones with drone look at the Abrams X as a ref , U.S. Military Remote Robot Controlled tank
This is just the marine core though and it’s not the Bradley it’s just the Heavy tanks let be real we aren’t going to get rid of the tanks they will just go to the army and to special units of the core and we have 9 strategic commands around the world this will be mainly for island and jungle commands
Ryan, consider this: the war in Ukraine is driving the evolution of tanks in the US military. As Chris/Task & Purpose observed, the latest version of the M1 Abrams MBT weighs over 74 tons. If we add improved defenses against drones and ATGMs, how heavy will they become? As they get heavier, the more their mobility is compromised. The US has limits to its air- and sea-lift capabilities; the LCAC is almost maxed out by one M1A2 SEPV3. How much can such lift capacity be improved and still fit within the well decks of amphibious assault ships? While not as costly as the Ford-class aircraft carriers, future amphibious assault ships are not going to be cheap.
Maybe they're waiting for the US Army to procure the next generation tank(s) and add those to the TO&E of the non-littoral combat regiments. Undoubtedly, the war in Ukraine is forcing militaries across the world to rethink their next generation tank designs. That definitely includes the USA.
Hell why they can make more LCAC's and use the useless LCS Class ships to just follw the marines around or design build a LCAC that carry 5 tanks or go back to LST and larger hell the Merchant Marine Leases ROR ships or build some and leave the tanks alone dangit 82nd Airborn I know the Marine on the ground don't agree with this madness lol. Hello All
Everyone is forgetting the part about the heavy armor assets going to the Army.
The Army getting rid of all of its fixed wings assets was pretty dumb too except it's not... They all went to the Air Force. Although there was probably some retired General whining at the time of transition no one is freaking out about it now.
Every combat force needs medics... Except the Marine Corps doesn't have any. They're all actually Navy assets assigned to the Marine Corps. No one is freaking out over that one.
There are only 3 things that will change:
1. More interdepartmental cooperation... This is an advancement of the JTAC, JTF, and JSOC programs
2. A change in Marine doctrine and training - Instead of the chain of command doctrine Marines will be pushed to identify targets and deploy long range weapons independent of direct C&C
3. Marines will no longer be considered the dumbest branch - the advanced electronic weapon systems and troubleshooting required will naturally lead to the recruitment of more intelligent combat troops
Final thoughts: historically the Marine corps has always had the smallest budget, yet somehow assets from the other three branches. This new plan tightens up the Marine Corps into a more dedicated role just like it was originally intended.
Marines went from a ship vs ship/hand to hand combat unit to an amphibious assult force. That meant what was originally ship based infantry turned into a helicopter, fighter, fighter/bomber, airborne, halo, scuba, tank, amphibious... You get the point. By 2040 the Marine corps will probably lose all of its fixed-wing and possibly rotary-wing assets as well.
Urban combat with suppressed rifles?
that guy talking about this dont you think that china watches these videos 2
I'm hearing some pretty wild stuff about UK Military. Smaller than US Special Operations, most naval ships are for show, AF pilots near nonexistent. Looking at conscription. Any truth to all that kind of stuff?
I think the usmc retired the abrams and the super cobra in 2021