USMC are reorganizing their doctrine to be prepared for Pacific operations. Theres a lot to be said about red scare, racism, etc. but what use is a heavy armored tank on a beachfront?
Good point, but the beachfront is not the end of the operation. Pretty sure both USSR and USA had landing vessels (hovercraft?) that could transport tanks to the shore. Which suggests that the strategy people there had certain thoughts on the use.
The way I figure, it would have the same use as it did before - rapidly advance into breaches in defences (which are facilitated by artillery and aviation) and destroy support and logistics lines - fuel depots and such.
Now this, of course, is WW2 methods at best, I am not a military person, just a "sofa expert". And nowadays such operations could likely be performed by different platforms, such as IFVs with high calibre guns. Something like a BMD-3 or one of those Italian things. But this is my take.
HIMARS is an MLRS, isn't it? Like Grad and the like. I don't really see how they could replace tanks in their original role
USMC are reorganizing their doctrine to be prepared for Pacific operations. Theres a lot to be said about red scare, racism, etc. but what use is a heavy armored tank on a beachfront?
Good point, but the beachfront is not the end of the operation. Pretty sure both USSR and USA had landing vessels (hovercraft?) that could transport tanks to the shore. Which suggests that the strategy people there had certain thoughts on the use.
The way I figure, it would have the same use as it did before - rapidly advance into breaches in defences (which are facilitated by artillery and aviation) and destroy support and logistics lines - fuel depots and such.
Now this, of course, is WW2 methods at best, I am not a military person, just a "sofa expert". And nowadays such operations could likely be performed by different platforms, such as IFVs with high calibre guns. Something like a BMD-3 or one of those Italian things. But this is my take.