Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23

Thread: New Marine Corps Cuts Will Slash All Tanks, Many Heavy Weapons As Focus Shifts to Lig

  1. #16
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    9,014
    Flamethrowers are long gone....

    FYI the US Army has 5 brigade combat teams of airborne troops and 1 Ranger regiment.

    The Marines are useful in that they are afloat forward deployed.

    They can get to a hot spot in less than 18-24 hours. Airborne is 24-36. Plus Marines have more initial firepower in the immediate instance. They still have value today.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor HKDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 06
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Flamethrowers are long gone....

    FYI the US Army has 5 brigade combat teams of airborne troops and 1 Ranger regiment.

    The Marines are useful in that they are afloat forward deployed.

    They can get to a hot spot in less than 18-24 hours. Airborne is 24-36. Plus Marines have more initial firepower in the immediate instance. They still have value today.
    Isn't interesting that while the USMC is cutting the kind of firepower that they would be able to deploy on an MEU(tanks and tube artillery) for that immediate instance, the Army is preparing to add armor to its infantry brigades in the form of the MPF(assuming that is, that it makes it through to production)?

    I think that the MEU will continue to have value, but the Marines don't seem to be so enamored anymore with their role as the middle weight crisis force. The day could come where Airborne might actually have more initial firepower.

  3. #18
    Patron
    Join Date
    07 Jan 08
    Posts
    199
    So why do the marines have to have their own branch? Why couldn't they have put army tanks in navy ships and accomplish the same?
    Last edited by hboGYT; 13 Apr 20, at 15:44.

  4. #19
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    4,085
    Quote Originally Posted by hboGYT View Post
    So why do the marines have to have their own branch? Why couldn't they have put army tanks in navy ships and accomplish the same?
    Every time I hear about Army mixing with Navy, not the football game, I think of Nimitz and MacArthur...

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor HKDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 06
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by hboGYT View Post
    So why do the marines have to have their own branch? Why couldn't they have put army tanks in navy ships and accomplish the same?
    Makes me think of the quote from Marine legend Gen. Krulak. Something to the effect of, America doesn't need a Marine Corps, it wants a Marine Corps.

  6. #21
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by hboGYT View Post
    So why do the marines have to have their own branch? Why couldn't they have put army tanks in navy ships and accomplish the same?
    The US Army has their own naval transport ships.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ed_States_Army
    Last edited by JRT; 15 Apr 20, at 21:04.
    .
    .
    .

  7. #22
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    9,014
    Quote Originally Posted by JRT View Post
    The US Army has their own naval transport ships.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ed_States_Army
    Yeah.....but an LSV ain't the same as an LPD/LPH.

    The Army has approx 300 vessels right now, the majority are LCMs. A definite brownwater force.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor HKDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 06
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    902
    AN article from T.X. Hammes, where he comes out in wholehearted support of the proposed changes. I'm not sure that I agree with all of the assertions that he makes, but for the purposes of discussion...

    https://warontherocks.com/2020/04/bu...ime-and-place/
    Marine Commandant Gen. David Berger’s recently published Force Design 2030 has riled up both the “old guard,” who fear for the service’s future, and industry lobbyists, who fear for the future of contracts for amphibious ships and F-35s. The document rationally outlines the changes necessary for the Marine Corps to play its role as the nation’s naval expeditionary force-in-readiness while meeting the modernization and operational requirements laid out in the 2018 National Defense Strategy. Overall the proposal has been positively received, but critics have expressed concern that the proposed force does not hedge for the sorts of wars fought in contingencies like Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq.
    Last edited by HKDan; 20 Apr 20, at 06:04.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Corps to deploy M1A1 tanks to Afghanistan
    By ShawnG in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 199
    Last Post: 22 Mar 11,, 03:21
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 25 Feb 10,, 16:02
  3. US Marine Corps to be phased out??
    By Heeman82 in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 28 May 06,, 22:22
  4. Marine Corps wants EM-Gun by 2015
    By Praxus in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 08 Sep 03,, 06:06

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

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