US MARINES DISBANDING ITS TANK BATTALIONS

[GAZ NZ]

As per the link

In the next decade, the Marine Corps will no longer operate tanks or have law enforcement battalions. It will also have three fewer infantry units and will shed about 7% of its overall force as the service prepares for a potential face-off with China.

The Marine Corps is cutting all military occupational specialties associated with tank battalions, law enforcement units and bridging companies, the service announced Monday. It's also reducing its number of infantry battalions from 24 to 21 and cutting tilt-rotor, attack and heavy-lift aviation squadrons. The changes are the result of a sweeping months-long review and war-gaming experiments that laid out the force the service will need by 2030. Commandant Gen. David Berger directed the review, which he has called his No. 1 priority as the service's top general.

"Developing a force that incorporates emerging technologies and a significant change to force structure within our current resource constraints will require the Marine Corps to become smaller and remove legacy capabilities," a news release announcing the changes states. By 2030, the Marine Corps will drop down to an end strength of 170,000 personnel. That's about 16,000 fewer leathernecks than it has today. Cost savings associated with trimming the ranks will pay for a 300% increase in rocket artillery capabilities, anti-ship missiles, unmanned systems and other high-tech equipment leaders say Marines will need to take on threats such as China or Russia.

"The Marine Corps is redesigning the 2030 force for naval expeditionary warfare in actively contested spaces," the announcement states.

Units and squadrons that will be deactivated under plan include:

3rd Battalion, 8th Marines Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron

264 Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron

462 Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron

469 Marine Wing Support Groups

27 and 37 8th Marine Regiment Headquarters Company.

The 8th Marine Regiment's other units -- 1/8 and 2/8 -- will be absorbed by other commands. Second Marines will take on 1/8, and 2/8 will go to the 6th Marine Regiment. Artillery cannon batteries will fall from 21 today to five. Amphibious vehicle companies will drop from six to four. The Hawaii-based Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 367, which flies AH-1Z and UH-1Y aircraft, will also be deactivated and relocated to Camp Pendleton, California, the release states. And plans to reactivate 5th Battalion, 10th Marines, as a precision rocket artillery system unit are also being scrapped. That unit's assigned batteries will instead realign under 10th Marines, according to the release. "The future Fleet Marine Force requires a transformation from a legacy force to a modernized force with new organic capabilities," it adds. "The FMF in 2030 will allow the Navy and Marine Corps to restore the strategic initiative and to define the future of maritime conflict by capitalizing on new capabilities to deter conflict and dominate inside the enemy's weapon engagement zone." Existing infantry units are going to get smaller and lighter, according to the plan, "to support naval expeditionary warfare, and built to facilitate distributed and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations.

What do you guys think about this?
I'm not in the US but it will affect many people and there jobs
Is this relevant to lose these tanks?
I thought it might be worthwhile to upgrade some and get rid of some to make way for new equipment

 

[Erwin]

Surprised they are scrapping the tilt rotor squadron - I thought they only just got the troublesome machine working properly - (or maybe not).

Also, some have been saying that tanks are "last war nostalgia" weapons that re too easily countered these days.  This may be an indication that folks are getting serious about modernizing.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Erwin

[Schrullenhaft]

The MV-22's are working fine. Since they're scaling back by 3 battalions of infantry, they justify getting rid of a medium lift, a heavy lift and an attack helicopter squadron each (along with some air-wing support squadrons).

It's sad that the Corps is getting rid of their tanks. They've already scaled back on their numbers in the recent past (getting rid of some tank companies). I guess they see such heavy equipment as not being part of their forte, especially when it comes to hauling them around in their MEU organizations that are afloat. They rather see themselves as light, highly mobile infantry with the added mission of having a lot more rocket artillery (to somewhat match what the Chinese and Russians have). I assume a lot of lessons are being taken from the current Ukraine-Russia conflict.

[SimpleSimon]

The Marine Corp sees itself as an amphibious landing force and longs for its Iwo Jima days but the way it's been organized for the last 30 years looks way more like a Panzer Corp, and they're so overburdened with heavy equipment and weaponry the whole Fast-Reaction Expeditionary Force notion became sort of problematic. That said. The new preferences are revealing striking reliance on rocket artillery, naval fire and drone support which are some pretty ambitious assumptions to make in the face of a serious opponent.

Edited June 22, 2020 by SimpleSimon

[MikeyD]

Well, logically there's always a draw-down of forces after a war (remember Dick Cheney's 'peace dividend' in 1990 following the Reagan build-up?) and we're recently out of the two longest wars in the nation's history. Still, it does seem like a thumb-in-the-eye to the Navy who just had the firing upheld of that aircraft carrier commander for trying to save his crew from the pandemic virus. Adding injury to insult.

[danfrodo]

is this also part of navy historically not wanting to spend its money on land forces?  I've heard the navy brass generally hates funding the marine corps because they prefer spending money on navy & naval air.

[Schrullenhaft]

The future plans for the Marine Corps do have them integrating a bit more with the mission of the Navy (of which they are a part of). The new emphasis on missiles is part of a strategy for area denial and anti-ship operations (think something along the lines of island hopping in the South China Sea). Some of the Corps F-35 purchases will be of the F-35C naval variant, where they'll provide approximately a third of F-35's for carrier operations (the Navy will still be heavily invested in Super Hornets).

I think the Ukraine-Russia war really pointed out some glaring deficiencies in American long range fire capabilities. The US has primarily relied on air power to provide the sort of long range strike power that the Russians and Chinese get from missile artillery. With a need to always differentiate themselves from the Army (to preserve their existence), the new mission of providing some ground-based missile capability for the Navy is something that will differentiate them. The Army itself will probably need to up their missile game far more than they have to take on the Russians and Chinese. For the Marines getting rid of the Infantry Regiment and tanks was a necessity (and differentiating factor) to free up the funding necessary for this expanded capability. 

However, I feel the next time America finds itself in some sort of ground war with a near peer enemy (God forbid), the Corps is going to want tanks again.

[c3k]

They'll want the tanks again. Perhaps skipping a few generations is their plan. The loss of corporate knowledge is far worse than losing the hardware.

 

The newer USMC vision has a distributed plan. Smaller, more nimble, networked, and with longer ranged precision fires. The man-made islands that China made have created an operational conundrum. The USMC seems to think smaller units, deployed around various pieces of land in the Pacific (capturing islands or parts of them), equipped with long-range missiles (area denial defensive systems) will be their role. This would be the "door kicking" needed to allow the US Navy to enter contested zones.

At least, that's how I understand it.