Re: MBT's
 

Money shortage?
The active units probably consume considerably more of it.

Something like 2/3rds of US Abrams will be in mothballs rather than active, made a bit over 8,000 if memory serves correctly.

Re: MBT's
 

That is EXACTLY what is going to happen. That kind of change requires code adjustment AND a picklist change and that isn't going to happen until the fat lady sings because that is not going to be done based on assumptions then redone based on fact.

Re: MBT's
 

Yep, messing with "Formations" and "Picklists" ain't fun.

Re: MBT's
 

John...
I just lost my "beautiful" dissertation, I'll just will you with the final thought I had before "poof" and it disappeared.

Not money directly, however, more redirecting it from tanks to support newer weapons systems outside the norm.

Simply my concern and again others within of retired from the Marines is Russia. The ground will be different it will be a land war after they land and I don't see Russia giving up their tanks because the Marines gave up theirs.

I don't see them repeating what the Germans did at Dunkirk with their tanks.

I resubmit this article again because it gives a good overview of the decision to move ahead with PLAN 2030 concerning the Marine Corps force restructuring, future operations and likely new weapons systems they'll use for air and sea denial in retaking any islands captured by China.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...e-corps-tanks/

Back to the GRIND. Have a good day!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I have no doubt that there will be a USMC warehouse somewhere that will have a couple dozen squired away " just in case"

Re: MBT's
 

I am wondering how the ideas of "drone" tanks are going pan out.

Re: MBT's
 

Okay vs a low tech opponent but high tech jammed or even control taken over.

Re: MBT's
 

That is them in a nutshell, but they are being pushed as the next best thing for the military. Drone and automated everything. What year did SkyNet go online again??:D

Re: MBT's
 

Barstow most likely.

But the problem isn't really the tanks themselves but people that know how to operate them effectively and the support (bridging, fuel, ect.) needed to make them useful.

Tanks have ALWAYS been viewed as primarily infantry support in the USMC not anti-armor. With the fancy new optics, drones, GPS, precision weapons, etc. in that role they can be pretty well replaced by other assets.

It's sort of a question if the increased use/cost of replacing precision munitions is offset by the money saved from disbanding the tanks.

And then there's the "minor" problem of what happens if the US can't seize/maintain air superiority. But such a situation would effect the US Army, and it's tanks, far more then the USMC.

Re: MBT's
 

I would think air superiority would be dictated more "locally (To include who the enemy is." then say even "tactically" or "strategically" as some things really haven't changed much since the Cold War. The general feeling was that "air superiority" wouldn't really be achieved fully due to the West's perceived and otherwise technology advances in aircraft against the East's average or better aircraft with a distinct quantitative advantage. It'd be a wash.

That's not all my opinion, as much form declassified military and intelligence documents some of which I posted a few years back in someone's thread.

I really don't see how much has changed in this regard from the Cold War, we didn't build enough F-22 fighters but we have enough for
"local" air superiority in well planned op. The Russian T-50 PAK/FA will never reach the maturity it was initially designed for because they can't afford it after, of all countries, India backed out of the deal because Russia wouldn't make the necessary design changes to where that fighter could've been much more competitive in combat against the F-22.

So what'll they do? Like in the Cold War fill the skies with aircraft in the quantitative advantage they still enjoy today.

So what are we going to do, well, it's long overdue but we'll be fielding SHORAD systems in the USA and USMC within the next couple of years or sooner. This will fill an anti-air gap we've been vulnerable to for a very longtime.

On the tanks let there no doubt that the USA is getting/got those tanks back, if you read the refs closely, they technically and otherwise speaking, already have 200 of them.
These are continuations of what I've already posted but from JANE's...
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...le-divestiture
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...ks-to-soldiers

Now if I was one for "conspiracy theories", I'd say PLAN 2030 was a misinformation plot to lull the Chinese and Russians into thinking "Bring on those Marines with no tanks, we'll show them!!"

But what's really happening is both services recognize the fact that the USMC armor needed to be more fully modernized to face the newer tanks out there. So we tell the world "No more tanks for the USMC." they transport to the very USA depots that are building what?

That's right the M1A2C (SEP 3). So the USMC will get their tanks back at parity in type, they'll be forward deployed in crates marked as "Farm Tractors" and such :cool: (Don't laugh the Russians, Cubans and Chinese have been caught doing the same thing, though a longtime ago. :eek:) until we need them.

Of course due to the classified nature of this project, we'll still likely need to END them in the game as already noted...Thought I heard a knock at my door!?!...and I can't say much more about this, hope you'll all understand this. ;)

Don be careful you almost had this figured with that "warehouse" remark, they don't like people that get "to close to the truth", just saying!! :shock:

So a long day and still have things to do before I hit the rack!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt: