Key Points and Summary – In a move that now looks prescient, the U.S. Marine Corps eliminated its entire force of M1 Abrams tanks between 2020 and 2021.
-The decision was a key part of the Force Design 2030 plan, which shifted the Marines’ focus back to expeditionary and amphibious warfare to counter China in the Indo-Pacific.
-The Corps correctly predicted that future battlefields would be dominated by drones and advanced missiles, making heavy tanks a liability.
-The poor performance of Abrams tanks in Ukraine against these exact threats has validated this forward-thinking and controversial decision.
The U.S. Marines Ditched the Tank: It Was the Right Call
The U.S. Marine Corps looks smart. They did away with their tank force in 2020 and 2021 before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. At the time, this decision seemed questionable. The Marines had depended on a heavy armored force for decades.
However, the Marines developed a concept known as the Force Design 2030 project. This required the leathernecks to return to their roots in expeditionary warfare.
There hadn’t been an amphibious operation in many years before the cancellation of Marine Corps tanks. The Marines had 452 M1 Abrams tanks in their armored branch at the time. The devil dogs had mainly fought land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Afghanistan is a landlocked country, and Iraq only required tanks during the initial invasion of 200,3 and there was a lesser requirement for the armored beasts in ensuing years.
Why Remove the M1 Abrams Tanks?
Marine Corps brass had to peer into the future when Iraq and Afghanistan wound down. The past wars were mostly counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations, when tanks were often an afterthought.
The entire Department of Defense was examining what the next conflict would look like in China.
It would likely necessitate amphibious warfare against Chinese militarized islands in the East and South China Seas. Tanks would not be needed during these contingencies. The Marines rightly predicted that drones, ballistic missiles, and conventional artillery would conduct warfare.
It Appears the Marines Made the Right Decision
Thus, the decision to eliminate tanks was correct.
They were simply not effective in modern warfare.
For example, the U.S. Army gifted 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. This was intended to be a significant boost to Ukrainian infantry combatants, who had previously been unsupported by modern armored vehicles. However, the Abrams models suffered from Russian fire.
Most of the force was eradicated, damaged beyond repair, or even captured.
The Tank May Be Obsolete Due to the Changing Nature of Warfare
This may mean that even the world’s best tank is vulnerable to enemy tactics. The Marines are looking smart for getting rid of their tanks to focus on the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.
However, can these rapid wheeled armored personnel carriers protect Marines in battle against drones, anti-tank missiles, and artillery? China has learned lessons from the Russo-Ukraine war, too, and will likely outfit its infantry with these weapons.
Indeed, everywhere you look on the battlegrounds in Ukraine and Russia, you can find unmanned aerial vehicles.
Military personnel wouldn’t think of going into combat without loitering munitions diving down on enemy soldiers and armored vehicles. The Chinese will be taking these lessons to heart.
Check Out This Marine Anti-Ship Missile
I don’t believe that there will be an armored force-on-force battle between the United States and China on the Mainland. The future fight, if there is one, against China will be conducted mainly by standoff ballistic missiles. The Marines agree.
They are deploying the NMESIS anti-ship missile from truck-mounted launchers.
The official name is the Navy/Marine Corps Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System, a rather lengthy title, but it is effective and powerful.
Force Design 2030 aimed to equip the Marines with this type of capability instead of tanks, and it is commendable that they opted to rely more heavily on missiles.
Keep the Marines Light and Lethal
The Marines will now operate in a closer partnership with the Navy, working more closely with aircraft carrier strike groups and various amphibious ships in the surface fleet. This will be a lighter but more lethal force – a mantra that current Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth repeats often.
However, will the Marines still have enough firepower to protect their marauding forces if an island invasion were necessary?
The Marines are hoping for ample air support. The Navy’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets and the F-35C Lightning II are great ground support airplanes. The EA-18G Growler electronic warfare bird can jam enemy air defenses, leading the Super Hornets and the Lightning II’s to provide close air support when the Marines get in hairy situations.
The Marines thus need to train more extensively in combined arms situations so the carrier airplanes can support an amphibious landing. Additionally, U.S. Navy amphibious ships have the capability to deploy Marine Corps “jump jets” for surface strikes. The F-35B V/STOL can also join an amphibious attack.
This would be a lightning strike that would not require Abrams tanks, should the Marines be able to adeptly attack from the sea, as they did in World War II. My money is on the Marines to be able to pursue combined arms with air support from Naval and Marine Corps fighter jets.
The Chinese fighters on the disputed island chains that have been militarized would never know what hit them. Plus, the Marine Corps could mount a counter-attack should China attack Taiwan or North Korea invade South Korea.
The Marines have successfully looked ahead to predict how future warfare will be fought. Tanks just did not fit into those plans. Next-generation combat will feature drones and anti-tank missiles that would have eliminated many Marine Corps Abrams tanks. The losses would have slowed down and hindered the efficacy of amphibious operations. Let the Army operate tanks and allow the Marines to form quick and deadly Sea-Air-Land battles with ballistic missiles and fighter jets screaming overhead. This is the recipe for success for the Marine Corps as it focuses its attention on the Indo-Pacific.
About the Author: Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for US Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former US Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
Military Affairs
China’s Stealth Air Force Has 1 Mission
Dale Holley
August 25, 2025 at 10:41 pm
That maybe good for now! But some future
Island campaign or heavy ordinance emplacements will difficult to surpassed?
Mean time tell your line, to those Marines
In WWII, who served in island campaigns?
Like Tinian, Iwo Jima, and many others
Those tanks saved many troops and their
Availability was greatly appreciated by
Your average young Jarhead, grunt soldiers
Taking out heavy emplacements with turrets
Of shell or flamethrowers to engage those
Enemy forces that wouldn’t surrender to
Or die too, appease their Emporer
Ed
September 5, 2025 at 10:25 pm
“Forced Redesign 2030” might work if the premise is to completely reconfigure the Marine Corps to fight just one enemy in one type of battlefield. But that would also mean, that the traditional USMC role of being an expeditionary force, is totally gutted.
Sure, China is a threat. But there are other emerging threats in the world, in which Marines may have to be deployed. If the Marines do not have tanks, what will they be expected to use to defeat enemy tanks, destroy fortifications, or wipe out enemy infantry? Missiles? Tanks are cheaper, and we can use them for years…you only get one shot with a missile. None of the current armored fighting vehicles in the Marines inventory carry sufficient armor to slug it out with other tanks, and they do not possess the massive firepower of a main battle tank to take out enemy tanks or bunkers.