I keep spinning on the efficacy of armored vehicles on the modern battlefield...meanwhile Berger is taking a victory lap.

 via SeaPower

 The success of Ukrainian forces in countering Russian armored vehicle columns with missiles and rockets in the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine shows the vulnerability of tanks to missile-armed infantry, the Marine Corps commandant said, and seemed to reinforce his decision to shed tanks from the Corps as part of his Force Design 2030 concept.    

During a live-streamed conversation with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, Gen. David Berger said the Russian forces seemed to be ineffective in using a combined arms approach in that they were not using “maneuver to bolster your fires or using fires to set up your forces for maneuver. In both cases, one without the other … is very ineffective.” 

Berger also said Ukrainian forces seemed to be effective at causing confusion among Russian forces by stripping away Russian reconnaissance — which he said parenthetically that U.S. Marines “were very, very good at.”  

This is a two parter.  On one hand he is RIGHT and I admitted as much yesterday.  This war seems to validate his decision to remove tanks from the Marine Corps.

ON THE OTHER HAND he admits that the Russians aren't using a combined arms approach to their style of combat.  THAT IS ALSO SOMETHING THE US MARINES WERE WORLD LEADERS AT!!!!

So I remain conflicted on this issue.  He said a couple of other interesting things.

 Berger noted that amphibious operations are very complex and the Russian forces seemed to unnecessarily delay their limited amphibious operations. He said amphibious operations remain very much the core mission of the Corps.    

 “Amphibious landings, amphibious assault, forcible entry — things which Marines are known for for 70 years — we’ll continue to do but in a very different way,” Berger said. “Why? Because the character of war is changing. We need to change with it. 

Weird.  I don't see how this new Marine Corps will do anything besides amphibious landings (something the Army could do) with the force he's building.  Amphibious assault?  How?  Forcible entry?  Only if we're doing it in the same way the 101st would do it if they launched from Navy ships.

I believe he's playing fast and loose with this part.  We're gonna do it in a different way?  The force being built isn't capable of doing it in anyway!

 “So, in some cases, we’ve let go of things that were very successful in the past in order to move towards things that we are going to need in the future,” he said. “The aviation/ground/logistics team — that’s the strength of the Marine Corps having it all organic — we are an enabler for the joint force. We’re the first ones on the scene to figure it out. We need the mobility to do that, which means we need amphibious ships, which [are] critical for the nation to have. 

“You need to have the ability — I would say especially today in Ukraine — to have a crisis response force from the sea,” he said. “That means we need to have the number of amphibious ships necessary to global in the pacific or the Mediterranean. For the U.S., that’s 31 amphibious ships we have to have in order to do what the nation needs us to do.” 

This part irks.  He keeps looking to the past to justify a very fragmented future.  31 amphibious ships?  That's not to do amphibious landings or forcible entry.  That's to land missiles on an island, fire them at ships and run away before the Chinese can land a Battalion Landing Team to crush them.

At first glance the article might be encouraging but when you peel it back its the same old game.

They're trying to live on a Marine Corps past that they're working feverishly to kill.

Story here. 

Sidenote.  I'm gonna wait to see what the US Army says about this fight and the continuation of armored vehicles on the modern battlefield.  Infantry can hazard tanks with anti-tank missiles but steel rain can hazard the FUCK outta infantry.  UAVs can spot for artillery but a well placed anti-air network can knock them out of the air easily.  It's all related and one without the other is vulnerable.  Having said that I think the idea of unmanned ground vehicles has finally arrived.  The time to send a robot where you don't want to send a man (or a bullet to avoid detection) has arrived.

Next EABO is Marine Corps wide.  How would the EABO concept work in Ukraine?  How would the USMC provide a credible crisis response force?  With what?  A few anti-ship missiles, JLTVs and a few ACVs?  This is another part that irritates.  This is a one region, one foe force yet its being played up like its capable of performing all the functions that the old Corps did.  It won't.  With brushfire wars right around the corner the Marine Corps will be on the sidelines waiting for a call from a combatant commander that just won't come.  The best that can be hoped for is that they're attached to either the Army or the Air Force (individual parts, not as part of a MAGTF...not that it really exists anymore).  Not much use for the Navy in the Middle East or Africa...and that's where the next hits will be for the coming 2-5 years.