Issue with that now is some of the vehicle mounted anti-missile defense systems, don't have to dodge it if you can destroy the missile prior to impact.
- Thread starter MarinePMI
- Start date
Not every Eagle Scout is a fighter.
I wouldnt be to quick to dispose of every Terminal Lance.
You may need them when things get really mean.
We should be thankful we can man a "fighting force" with valedictorian.
Besides you send all those incorrigibles back to civilian life they will just be at the Thunderbird banging the SO as soon as your ship leaves for float.
I think the problem is drone lethality and sensing ability is getting so advanced and relatively cheap that big armor is unable to hide from it.
Anti drone capability is the future perhaps.
The Abrams originated in/around 1978. Of 6,000 produced, 550 or so have been taken out of action in combat, with 23 totally destroyed in Desert Storm. After the Sherman bloodbaths of WWII, I consider the Abrams' record to be exemplary.
But all systems become more vulnerable as time passes. I see the Armor role as being linked to assault missions, unless you're Israel. When Israel eliminates its armor capability, I'll welcome the idea for the US.
As a former Marine Engineer, the elimination of bridging companies raises my hackles. The issue with China and Bridges seems to me to be a justification today for keeping bridging companies, and for having more of them once hostilities became widespread in China. Destroying bridges to slow/stop advancing enemies is an age old strategy. Bridging companies will always have a role, and that role becomes bigger as the differences between infrastructure grows between USA and China. Hell, we need them here.
The potential for an inability, and need to fight a war on American soil begins to loom.
But this all presupposes that China will be a primary adversary. I doubt that. Right now, we're pissed at China; but IMHO, Russia is and has always been the true adversary. China has numbers, mainly in personnel. But their military hardware may not be so impressive, especially in the long run. Russia is financed by oil, is not poor, has never stopped its technical advancement, and is wisely holding off commitments to mass produce current advancements. When that changes, the wind changes with it, and Russia can no longer be looked at with disdain. All they lack right now is depth in their hardware, but that could be changed relatively quickly, IMHO.
And then, of course, there's the cauldron of seething hatred toward us residing in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is nobody's ally, and ours even less so. They are equipped with our gear, know its weaknesses and strengths firsthand, and is ready at any time to project power locally. Maybe further, too.
I agree, the Marines have lost some of their unique capacities under the former administrations, and that creep needs to be reversed. But in order for we Marines to be effective in our role, we need to be able to complete an invasion and a consolidation independent of the other services. Those capabilities may need not be as deep, but do need to be wide; far wider than they have attritted out to currently be.
Capabilities which were developed and refined, then halted, need to be restored and the virtual advances produced to the point where they would have been had the original development and production levels and dates been followed according to their original plan.
The Abrams has been a most excellent implement. But it's huge, and not necessarily best suited for the Corps needs. My own far from brilliant views say something smaller, more agile, and materially more modern (composites, instead of metal, etc., diesel instead of turbine) may be a better approach.
Such innovations don't exist, and could not be made to exist in numbers in time to be of real use against our current potential opponents. But the mindset which has brought us to this point needs to be expunged. We used to be the nation that led in capability, and usually had the next capability waiting in the wings. So for now, we need to continue with the Abrams, and continue its evolution, for now. But the replacement for a system which has been in play for 42 years should have been already developed and waiting, tooling already available, components stockpiled in advance. That they are not is a punishable offense against national security and in indictment of the brands of complacency that is the norm in military leadership, and has been for decades.
Unforgivable.
Greg
But all systems become more vulnerable as time passes. I see the Armor role as being linked to assault missions, unless you're Israel. When Israel eliminates its armor capability, I'll welcome the idea for the US.
As a former Marine Engineer, the elimination of bridging companies raises my hackles. The issue with China and Bridges seems to me to be a justification today for keeping bridging companies, and for having more of them once hostilities became widespread in China. Destroying bridges to slow/stop advancing enemies is an age old strategy. Bridging companies will always have a role, and that role becomes bigger as the differences between infrastructure grows between USA and China. Hell, we need them here.
The potential for an inability, and need to fight a war on American soil begins to loom.
But this all presupposes that China will be a primary adversary. I doubt that. Right now, we're pissed at China; but IMHO, Russia is and has always been the true adversary. China has numbers, mainly in personnel. But their military hardware may not be so impressive, especially in the long run. Russia is financed by oil, is not poor, has never stopped its technical advancement, and is wisely holding off commitments to mass produce current advancements. When that changes, the wind changes with it, and Russia can no longer be looked at with disdain. All they lack right now is depth in their hardware, but that could be changed relatively quickly, IMHO.
And then, of course, there's the cauldron of seething hatred toward us residing in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is nobody's ally, and ours even less so. They are equipped with our gear, know its weaknesses and strengths firsthand, and is ready at any time to project power locally. Maybe further, too.
I agree, the Marines have lost some of their unique capacities under the former administrations, and that creep needs to be reversed. But in order for we Marines to be effective in our role, we need to be able to complete an invasion and a consolidation independent of the other services. Those capabilities may need not be as deep, but do need to be wide; far wider than they have attritted out to currently be.
Capabilities which were developed and refined, then halted, need to be restored and the virtual advances produced to the point where they would have been had the original development and production levels and dates been followed according to their original plan.
The Abrams has been a most excellent implement. But it's huge, and not necessarily best suited for the Corps needs. My own far from brilliant views say something smaller, more agile, and materially more modern (composites, instead of metal, etc., diesel instead of turbine) may be a better approach.
Such innovations don't exist, and could not be made to exist in numbers in time to be of real use against our current potential opponents. But the mindset which has brought us to this point needs to be expunged. We used to be the nation that led in capability, and usually had the next capability waiting in the wings. So for now, we need to continue with the Abrams, and continue its evolution, for now. But the replacement for a system which has been in play for 42 years should have been already developed and waiting, tooling already available, components stockpiled in advance. That they are not is a punishable offense against national security and in indictment of the brands of complacency that is the norm in military leadership, and has been for decades.
Unforgivable.
Greg
Last edited:
I didn’t man, I’ll be honest. I actually refuse to read it.
Hence, why I posted the actual document.
Hence, why I posted the actual document.
Tanks do have a place but the army is much better suited for it. Tanks are not well suited to the task at hand when you talk about the ability to rapidly deploy forces to small islands across the south china sea.
Very true
I’m not referencing every Eagle Scout being a fighter. What I’m saying is the Marine Corps has a lot of unwanted pregnancy weight currently. A ton of mouth breathers just navigating life’s impact area aimlessly.
On top of a lot of programs soaking up all of our budget for maintenance. So, why is an infantry battalion not able to keep capabilities like crew served weapons, Nods, and weapons in the fight? Because, we use all of our budget on the F-35 R&D, MV-22, Tanks, LAR....
Time for a change...the best part is I’ll be retired watching it on the couch.
On top of a lot of programs soaking up all of our budget for maintenance. So, why is an infantry battalion not able to keep capabilities like crew served weapons, Nods, and weapons in the fight? Because, we use all of our budget on the F-35 R&D, MV-22, Tanks, LAR....
Time for a change...the best part is I’ll be retired watching it on the couch.
I do not disagree...I do believe there is technology already out there to jam drone capability. The issue at hand, is the link frequencies can be ever rolling and like 1st GEN ECMs in OIF, they are jamming our own shit.
The Corps I served in existed over half a century ago. It's hard to keep up but one can make the effort and at least read the larger print. I cherish my status as a legacy member of our Corps. But I also recognize that I could neither be a currently capable participant, nor a meaningful commentator, either. Retirement and couches come too easily to such as me.
Still a Marine, still danged lean; and thank God, no longer nearly as mean... For me, and my Corps, such could serve no useful purpose.
Drones? How about drone on drone?
Greg
Still a Marine, still danged lean; and thank God, no longer nearly as mean... For me, and my Corps, such could serve no useful purpose.
Drones? How about drone on drone?
Greg
There was a companion article to the original piece showing in video what Turkey did to Syrian armor in short order with their drone/sensing capability.
I wouldnt want to be within 30 yards of armor after seeing it.
Future war?
Step One - Global EMP
Step Two - Fight like Men
Yeah, I feel like we are behind the times after spending over a decade in counterinsurgency and counter-ied.
In my self described paramilitary job we cant get todays kids to pass a 1.5 mile run in order to earn over $100K a year with all the fun you could ever want.
If the Corps is attracting people that can function with a combat load AND figure quantum physics than good on them.
Regards that budget issue the CMC needs to make it clear as it has been since the first day in Tun Tavern........
Our job/mission is embodied in the Infantry, everything else is support.
That’s absolutely going to be the next war or some variant of it.
If a middle age man in Afghanistan using his Amazon prime account can purchase drones and then modify them to drop bombs then we are super fucked!
Also, wasn’t the oil field attack a few months back conducted using drones flying under counter battery radar?
It’s coming and we are going back to the days of map and compass, decentralized leadership, and comm windows...
If a middle age man in Afghanistan using his Amazon prime account can purchase drones and then modify them to drop bombs then we are super fucked!
Also, wasn’t the oil field attack a few months back conducted using drones flying under counter battery radar?
It’s coming and we are going back to the days of map and compass, decentralized leadership, and comm windows...
Marine use of tanks was tactical.
When a problem had to be over come and you needed more protection than a blouse.
Sounds like some of these missile artillery systems can meet that demand.
The Army should use Armor at a higher level, Calvalry, bypassing strong points and creating havoc in the command and logistics lines.
I dont know how the Army will do it though.
Their Abrams are no more invisible than USMC tanks.
Very interesting discussion and informative, thanks.
It has to be.
I picture a fleet/armada/shit ton of palm sized drones down loaded with the USMC MarPat uniform pattern down loaded in the hard drive (royalties paid of course for its use).
They will each pack a 1/4 stick of dynamite and and be powered for at least a week.
Their only mission will be to identify USMC MarPat, dive upon it than detonate.
We either sweep the battle zone of enemy technology or we fight underground in tunnels.
Truth can be devastating but even the cook has a role to play that without no one succeeds.
The machine gun caused the horrible conditions of WWI.
The tank overcame machine gun technology.
We are entering a period of technological shift and whats scary is we wont know what that means until two peers engage.
I dont think we have a peer right now but they are trying and our govt seems bent on having them gain parity with us.
If that happens the next peer to peer war will either be avoided through fear of MAD principles or it will be an event that brings us back to BCE population levels living in a world of shit.
The tank overcame machine gun technology.
We are entering a period of technological shift and whats scary is we wont know what that means until two peers engage.
I dont think we have a peer right now but they are trying and our govt seems bent on having them gain parity with us.
If that happens the next peer to peer war will either be avoided through fear of MAD principles or it will be an event that brings us back to BCE population levels living in a world of shit.
The Sherman actually performed better than the myth.
German Armor for the most part was a maintenance program that on occasion participated in combat.
Sherman were running in big numbers and generally they were available when needed.
Tank on Tank it was a bit of a gamble but luckily being USA it was often Artillery, Sherman, Sherman and P47 on Panther.
Sure one of the American elements was going to possibly eat it but there was no doubt the Panther was history.
Sadly, option B is the more likely.
The military union representatives need to get together and refuse to fight the war that I see being planned.
Go on strike, stay at home.
Let the politicians and defense contractor engineers fight it out.
My apologies to you that actually do this stuff.
I armchair General from the perspective of imagination you guys do it via your boot soles.
All jokes aside you are 100% correct, infantry can't do what it does without support.
Just going by the recruits that went through basic with my buddy, I'm not quite convinced lol.
I agree, for its day, the Sherman was effective, in numbers. I see that, however, as more a product of US war production than a triumph of superior US engineering. No argument; either way, we won. IMHO the truly superior tanks were The Russian T-34's; not because they were superior to the Germans, but because the Soviets' reestablished tank plants in the Caucasus Mountains cranked them out even more prolifically than the US could.
But my understanding was that the US tank crews were issued 45's so they could humanely dispatch their burning Brethren in adjacent tanks which had been hit. Many of the Shermans ended up being cleaned out, repaired, repainted, and being reissued to another crew; sometimes repeatedly.
This is my understanding. If it's a myth, I gladly stand corrected.
Greg
But my understanding was that the US tank crews were issued 45's so they could humanely dispatch their burning Brethren in adjacent tanks which had been hit. Many of the Shermans ended up being cleaned out, repaired, repainted, and being reissued to another crew; sometimes repeatedly.
This is my understanding. If it's a myth, I gladly stand corrected.
Greg
The Sherman had its flame up problems but I was thinking that was more ammo related than fuel related.
I watched this, forgot most of it, but you might find it interesting.
It is as you say, and I stand corrected. No 'buts'.
Greg
Greg
Its not about being as I say.......Its about the correct record and having too much respect for you to have you get caught misspeaking.
As an aside..........unsure if we should believe the Brit in the first place. Two strikes.....He is British and not Infantry.
Excellent read from an officer in the 3rd Armored during WWII whose job was to coordinate the recovery and maintenance on battle damaged armor. Not sure there are many more qualified to comment.
Amazon.com: Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II eBook: Cooper, Belton Y., Stephen E. Ambrose: Kindle Store
Amazon.com: Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II eBook: Cooper, Belton Y., Stephen E. Ambrose: Kindle Store
www.amazon.com
Cooper is another part of the puzzle.
Not denying his account but he is not without controversy.
From the Editor: Debunking Deathtraps Part 1
(Editors note: this originally appeared in my old blog – tankandavf.blogspot.com – on 2/26/2015.) When it comes to the history of armored warfare in the Second World War, the US M4 Sher…
tankandafvnews.com 
Was "Death Traps" by Belton Y. Cooper historically accurate?
Was the WW2 memoir "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper historically accurate?
history.stackexchange.com His championing of the Pershing Tank certainly failed when it came to crossing the bridge at Remagen, Pershings wouldnt fit and their wear and tear due to the tonnage was a maintenance issue.
The Pershing required special rail and transportation measures.
You cant be good if you cant get there.
Im guessing most have seen this video.
The vulnerability of the Sherman is exampled at the beginning costing the life of the driver and commander. The Pershing displays its advantages on the Panther pretty well....
Last edited:
That video has a fair few contradictions and flaws IMO.
I think the guy got his figures mixed up a bit as he was speaking,
also at the end he states 1400 US tank losses in Europe which doesn’t match other sources.
Anyway I found this which is pretty cool.
Man that is a mass of stats.
Didnt read it all but loved the blunt language used, no paradigms or thinking out of the box BS.
I dont disagree there is a disagreement.
In the end we won and thats all that matters.
There is a lot to digest there alright.
I think the main issues we are generally looking at here is that the allies were almost always attacking which leads to higher tank losses.
Also in the decades after ww2 what I call ‘foreignism’ where some people think the Germans (ie not their home country) were just plain better. The allies having crap tanks going from blunder to blunder taking huge losses.
The Germans had a fantastic Military....for the first couple years.........but in the end it ended up running on horsepower and shoe leather held together only by fanaticism.
Similar threads
