.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

BCT Commander- Save $5.00
winSPWW2- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > The Camo Workshop > WinSPMBT > TO&Es
Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1131  
Old Yesterday, 06:50 AM
DRG's Avatar

DRG DRG is offline
Shrapnel Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 10,355
Thanks: 2,272
Thanked 3,528 Times in 1,755 Posts
DRG will become famous soon enough
Default Re: MBT's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
The other issue is modern MBTs are quickly becoming near immune to ATGMs. You need something that can hit them with a nice sabot. Without tanks the USMC has no such capability.
Which is why top attack ATGM are so important. Tanks cannot be made immune everywhere
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1132  
Old Yesterday, 07:41 AM
Imp's Avatar

Imp Imp is offline
General
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Uk
Posts: 3,242
Thanks: 80
Thanked 568 Times in 453 Posts
Imp is on a distinguished road
Default Re: MBT's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
Personally I think getting rid of the tanks is a mistake.

I think the new Commandant is a bit to fixated on air and sea control. Neither of which have EVER been USMC missions (with the exception of air control during Guadalcanal). The Marines are to there seize and control those unsinkable aircraft carriers for the Navy and Army to exploit.

The penny packet Defense Battalions during the 1930's were speed bumps. They couldn't hold vs a determined amphibious assault (i.e. Wake and Guam). No reason to think a 2030s one will fare any better.

The other issue is modern MBTs are quickly becoming near immune to ATGMs. You need something that can hit them with a nice sabot. Without tanks the USMC has no such capability.

The following discusses the entire force restructuring issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSkBsJ1s-Vc
Have to agree while tanks may not be the first thing on the beach you need to be able to land them quickly if needed. Relying on the Army to supply them is risky bureaucrats could delay things & as you say top tier armour is becoming invulnerable to ATGMs.
My view its where they decided to cut the cost to spend more on weapons with reach.
Replacing artillery batteries with longer range missiles looks good on paper but I bet the cost to use them in action has jumped - shell vs missile.
Near peer could probably intercept the missile easier than the shell as well. Putting faith in planes for ground attack against other than structures & infrastructure is also risky ground units are far more effective even today.
Not to mention cost you can buy & maintain several tanks for the cost of a high end fighter.
__________________
John
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2020, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.