The US Marines Bold Risky Plan to Defeat China

Go to tryfum.com/TASKPURPOSE and use code TASKPURPOSE to save an additional 10% off your order today.

Serving in the Marines involves sacrifices and it is tankless.

Marines cannot be slowed down by the massive logistics of tanks when trying to be a rabid reaction force.

Very valuable. Former Marine CH53D pilot. The Corps was given a new mission, plain and simple. The Corps needed to adapt and is doing so.

This is the best military news explanation channel out there, litorally the best

As a former tanker I hate to see tanks go away but I get their radical thinking. Tanks are heavy and big. They are just fat hogs when it comes to logistics. They need huge fuel and parts support. I think this is a bold move and supports a more modern concept. They need to add some kamikaze drones in there too. Hats off to the Corp! Great video!

As a 30-year Marine vet (now retired), I always questioned the utility of tanks while deployed with the MEU out of CLNC. They were too heavy, required a huge logistics train, used an inordinate amount of fuel, weren’t easily transported, too few in number to dominate the battle space, etc. etc. The ARG couldn’t adequately support Armor, which required maintenance, repair, and recovery. I believed that speed, lethality, and agility would best serve the BLT once ashore. The M-198 Artillery system was too heavy, but we needed artillery. The introduction of the M-777 Artillery brought weight relief that was badly needed. The Marine Corps rightly embraced a robust military mentality that reflected future threats, rather than remained married to the old ways of fighting decades in the past. My first rifle was an M-14, but 3 decades later when I retired, I had a weapon that was lighter, more lethal at longer ranges, and more capable. The Marine Corps has always been one step ahead in the defense establishment because of its forward thinking that always questioned how it would fight, survive, and win against an opposing force. Kudos to our Commandant.

One must change one's tactics every ten years if one wishes to maintain one's superiority. - Napoleon

I am a retired Marine Corps artillery / logistics officer (1967-87). I had the opinion early in my career that tanks and artillery were becoming obsolete even then. Having done a tour in Vietnam, I saw that tanks were marginally worthwhile at best. Often they were dug into revetments at fire bases and logistics bases in the flat lands of Vietnam to be used as stationary fire support. Artillery in those days was very important in supporting infantry operations, but I saw these as well being eventually retired due to the precision munitions the military now has. Drones are a very cheap and effective means of supporting infantry, and a lot cheaper, plus they can be operated at the platoon level whereas tanks and artillery are not in most cases. Planes requiring pilots are very expensive and not as easy to replace as are drones. Thus, I support this new concept, but do think it perhaps incorrect to reduce infantry units. Wars are ultimately always won with boots on the ground. The Marine Corps' primary mission has been refocused on the Pacific. The new force structure is a good fit for this area. The Army should have the heavier capabilities for Europe and the Middle East. As we have seen in the Russia / Ukraine conflict, tanks especially are being damaged / destroyed almost as quick as they are built.

As a Marine vet my experience was that in 1990 I spent winter months in cold weather training in preparation for operations above the arctic circle. By the end of the year I was in the middle of the desert. Most of the time the war you are training for is not the one you fight... I hope the Corps is not strictly focusing on China, but maintaining the capabilities to respond and fight in any "Climb and Place"...

Considering virtually all modern conflicts are a joint fight, Marines don’t need to duplicate assets and capabilities unless it supports ‘first to fight’ until the joint force arrives

19:41 I disagree with the critics that FD2030 wasn’t tested. In 2020 my battalion (V1/2) started testing FD2030. The most abrupt change was “Maturing the force”, where you had to be a Sgt to be a team leader and a SSgt to be a squad leader. We pulled a lot of dudes from battalions like 3/8 to meet that requirement. One of my buddies was a squad leader, and when he got promoted to Sgt they demoted him to team leader lol. We also got all new IAR’s with suppressors, and PVS-31’s (Dual-nod White Phosphorous IRNV). Weapons platoon got decimated, all the 0351’s left became riflemen, the 0331’s directly attached to rifle platoons and the 0341’s were sent to H&S. So FD2030 was tested, just not for a super long time.

Love that the ship graphic used at 0:11 is a Blue Ridge class (LCC). Only two in the US Navy. I served aboard the USS Mount Whitney (LCC-20) in the early 90s. Enjoy your content!

Sounds like the Marines finally figured out they are marines and not Army Jr. This “radical” shift sounds like they are simply returning to their original role.

As a finnish reservist i think this way of thinking might be really good for Marine Corps. Of course i'm only looking fron an outsider pov, but if you have a small force with limited recources using these kind off modified querrilla tactics with lower signature and more mobility is a great idea. Here in Finland we train/-ed in a very similar kind off mindset especially before we joined Nato. Because if the enemy has much more Air-, sea and landweapons in the region you can limit casualties and do serious damage to the enemy with hit and run type of attacks. And that way the enemy has much harder time finding ways to benefit from their possible air-supeurioty etc. But i'm very interested to see how the US Marine Corps will develop this system and hope that i get to train with them someday at an Nato exercise or something like that. All the best from Finland

Excellent video and a great job is presented both sides of this warfare plan. It seems that on many levels that it is a good plan, yet there could be some downsides. Either way, the next war is demonstrating which aspects are good and which ones might need further refining!

When I served my time in the Corps I was hoping to join a marine force operating as naval infantry, get on ships and fight the enemy from those ships. So imagine my surprise and disappointment when I was assigned to a static artillery regiment, stationed in 29 palms (a desert), deployed to landlocked deserts, trained in deserts, and spent more time training in desert survival than water survival. 8 years and I never even served in a MEU aboard ships! I'm glad the Corps is taking this approach to return to their naval roots. Yes, the greybeards are right that if the Chinese Army went toe to toe against this new Marine Corps the Chinese Army would demolish us. But that would have been true of the old GWOT Marine Corps also, because we are not supposed to be an army! We should always deploy in support of the Navy and always have the Navy support us, we shouldn't be expected to fight in isolation against enemy combatants. Less tanks? That's fine, we have naval cannons. Less static artillery? Naval Cannons. Smaller footprint? Naval Cannons!

As a USMC Vet I can say from experience that the Marine Corps motto improvise, overcome, adapt is how we defeat an ever evolving enemy.

The Marines were turning into Army 2.0. Good to see them getting back to their roots.

this is by far your best video you have made!