Military Review

Marine Corps will receive tanks T-72B3 and T-80


We often talk and write about the old, Soviet army. We speak in excellent colors. Many of the army veterans remember how and what we trained soldiers. And they cooked mostly good. The soldiers, not just once or twice in the post-war period, showed not just courage, but heroism, dedication, willingness to die for the sake of victory.

And - most importantly, the most important thing - to win and stay alive.

The most trained and trained were, perhaps, the airborne troops and the marines. This is not a whim of commanders and chiefs. This is a dire need. Airborne and MP units were supposed to fight the enemy on its territory, with a huge numerical superiority not only in manpower, but also in equipment and weapons. In fact, the paratroopers were suicide bombers.

However, military operations in Afghanistan, and then in the Caucasus, where paratroopers and marines were actively involved, revealed the shortcomings of such units and formations. In this regard, the reaction of one of the generals, the commander of a motorized rifle formation, on the exams at the Academy of the General Staff, after becoming familiar with the weapons and equipment of the Airborne Division, is quite indicative. "Well, and how to fight this?".

Last year we wrote about the reinforcement of air infantry units with new artillery systems, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. They wrote about tank units that have become mandatory for the Airborne Forces. And now the time has come for innovation for the Marine Corps. The fleet will receive heavy weapons.

Talk about the need for such weapons were long. The tactics used by the marines are long obsolete. In fact, this tactic was born in the Second World War.

Marine Corps will receive tanks T-72B3 and T-80

Has the world changed? Yes.

75 years ago everything was easier. In coastal operations, support was provided by artillery ships and aviation. In the period of the Second World War, a completely feasible task. Coastal batteries were in certain places, and field artillery, even of large calibers, was not afraid of ships. And the air defense of ships more or less protected from enemy aircraft.

The appearance of missile systems has completely changed the situation. The coastal anti-ship complexes "drove" the ships from the landing site and effectively deprived the Marines of support from the sea.

In fact, the ship / ship mix has become more vulnerable as a target for coastal missile systems. And do not forget about EW systems.

If it is serious, then with such a serious operation as the landing of troops and the seizure of, for example, an island, ships should pay more attention to their own safety. Using all means of air defense, missile defense, EW.

Why? Yes, everything is simple. The cost of the same BDK is not comparable with the cost of the battalion of marines that the ship is transporting.

It turns out that as soon as the ships enter into real contact with the enemy, the protection of the marines is at the 80% of the marines themselves.

And while ships and coastal complexes will throw missiles, interfere with and suppress enemy complexes, marines will have to land and perform assigned tasks.

It is clear that if we are talking not about uninhabited islands, but with something like the Kuril, then they will be waiting there. Accordingly, the amphibious assault force should have something that will allow fighting on an equal footing with the enemy.

The armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles under these conditions will not be able to provide real fire support. Not to mention the old tanks PT-76. Yes, and the release of these rarities stopped in the distant 1967 year.

For a long time among the commanders of the landing force and the marines there was the opinion that military equipment for such units should, respectively, “jump with a parachute” or land on the coast “by swimming”. And such an opportunity appears only in the case when other things necessary for the battle are suffering - the caliber of guns, armor, some means of protection of equipment that are already quite common for infantry.

As a result, it was decided to establish tank units (battalions) in the brigades of the marines.

Moreover, depending on the location of the brigades, the tanks will be different. Southerners will receive T-72B3, but the Northerners will get gas turbine T-80BV. The reason is simple. Despite the efficiency of the diesel T-72, in the Arctic, such tanks are less reliable. And the weapons and equipment of the machine are comparable.

Naturally, smart people have questions.

And the first - and what can tanks on the coast? Wouldn't they be a great target for an adversary? Will be! And they will be the first and most important target. And any paratrooper? Any sailor, midshipman, officer will not? But during the seizure, it will also be a fortress capable of destroying enemy firing points and supporting the landing with "fire and maneuver." And after the capture of the tank will be the most important link in defense.

Our recent one immediately came to mind. historical investigation on the feat of Alexander Matrosov. Then there would be at least one T-26 or BT-7 among the advancing - and the infantrymen would not have to perform feats. A 45-mm tank gun would calmly pick out the bunkers without coming close to it.

What is not an argument?

The second question that arises from a thinking person is: why increase the staff of the brigade? After all, a tank battalion is not only tanks, but also many service services. Isn't it easier, if necessary, to attach tank units and even units to the brigade commander?

Alas, the effectiveness of the attached units is much lower than the regular ones. And the point is not in the training of these units, but in the specific situation, the specific brigade commander will not know in detail the strengths and weaknesses of the specific dowry unit. And this in the situation of landing is an important aspect.

And the third question. Not less important. Does our fleet today are heavy vehicles to the coast? After all, a tank, unlike an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle, does not float. It can pass through the bottom, but they haven’t been taught how to swim.

Means of delivery is. BDK, large landing ships according to our classification, according to the western are called tank-landing ships. They are able to transfer parts over long distances and with heavy weapons.

And there is also the latest boat project 21820 "Dugong". The newest air cavern boats capable of transporting tanks as well.

There are the same boats of the 11770 "Serna" project. True "Sierna" "raises" all 45 tons of cargo, but ...

There is, finally, a small landing ship of the 12322 project "Bison". The largest hovercraft capable of lifting 150 tons of cargo and landing troops almost anywhere on the coast of the world's oceans.

And now it's time to return to the beginning of the article. What is new in the fact that the marines are reinforced with tanks in terms of the range of tasks solved by such compounds?

Recall a recent story. Marine brigades today are involved in military operations in exactly the same way as airborne divisions and paratrooper regiments. They solve completely different tasks that were not peculiar to them before. These are units and subunits, if you will, of the expeditionary forces.

Someone was surprised by the participation of marine brigades in the Chechen wars? Someone is surprised at the appearance of naval officers in Syria or anywhere else in the world? Marine Corps today performs the tasks that perform other parts, and compounds of high alert. And so these tasks in particular require the strengthening of the power of brigades.

It is necessary to achieve such a state of affairs in which the marines could not only capture bridgeheads on the coast and hold them until the main forces approach, but also conduct independently combat operations for a sufficiently long period with ground units and enemy formations.

And the last. Modernization of the existing T-72 fleet is being carried out quite actively today. More than a hundred tanks will be delivered in the near future in the army units and subunits. By the end of the year, the figure should grow to one and a half hundred. It seems that the first brigade will receive them soon. In general, the formation of the battalions will be completed in a year or two.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vard
    Vard 23 March 2018 05: 21
    I read somewhere that the landing party loses up to 90% of its composition during the attack ... It might be better to develop intelligence and hidden means .... Well, there are all sorts of stealth technologies ... Than the forehead on tanks ...
    1. domokl
      domokl 23 March 2018 20: 32
      In the attack, all lose. And more. Intelligence will capture objects? Or ur on the shore shoot down? will not work. For now, excuse me, the soldier’s or sailor’s testicles will not hover over the enemy’s trench, there will be no victory.
    2. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 25 March 2018 10: 17
      I read somewhere that the landing loses up to 90% of the composition during the attack ...

      Warrior-3 with a built-in exoskeleton (grounding of the kinetic energy of a bullet, automatic burst), will increase protection from class Br. 6 (protection against bullets B-32 caliber 12,7 mm) to the level of armored vehicles
  2. fa2998
    fa2998 23 March 2018 05: 23
    Of course, tanks are good, great increase the firepower of the Marine Corps, BUT how are things going with delivery vehicles and landing of tanks? We do not have the same capabilities as the United States Naval Forces. Where are the landing tank ships? The surface fleet is weak, and there are a lot of problems there, and there haven’t been a banal destroyer there for a long time what big UDC there are? You can put Marines and Poplars and do maneuvers in the neighboring bay and enjoy. hi
    1. raw174
      raw174 23 March 2018 08: 23
      Quote: fa2998
      BUT how are things going with delivery vehicles and landing of tanks?

      Bad ... There are few funds, they are old both morally and physically ...
  3. demiurg
    demiurg 23 March 2018 05: 47
    What, someone else is planning a parachute landing or landing with the BDK? belay
    1. max702
      max702 23 March 2018 14: 18
      Just after years, it dawned that if the airborne forces and MP were reinforced with tanks and normal artillery, then 99% real they will operate by order of magnitude more efficiently than with the equipment that they have now .. No parachute landings, and landings from the sea, and routine bloody work in cities, highlands, and other complex DB theaters .. And as a special forces in Afghanistan, I asked to his staff in the turntable .. Did not give ..
      1. VladGashek
        VladGashek 23 March 2018 17: 27
        The question is, where are the real MSV and TV. They are replaced by the Airborne Forces and MP. All this is not logical, for the mountains need mountain shooters, for deserts - airmobile DShBr, etc. The marines should seize the bridgehead, holding it until the arrival of the main forces - well-armed combined arms officers. An ordinary tank for MP is a forced decision, but not a radical one.
        1. domokl
          domokl 23 March 2018 20: 36
          Quote: Vladgashek
          A conventional tank for MPs is a forced solution, but not a radical one.

          In general, a very correct remark. The use of MP in the mountains is really nonsense. And it went from the poverty of our army. All that was combat-worthy was thrown into battle. Especially in Chechnya.
          Today, reinforcement is necessary so that, for example, the MP could independently not only capture, but also defend a bridgehead, for example, in Syria.
  4. tchoni
    tchoni 23 March 2018 06: 24
    But sho, is the armata over? - but it is, easy banter ...
    Smart people understand that the main resource and the way to achieve excellence is not to take away the perfection of technology, but the perfection of the methods and methods of its application. Simply put, "the effectiveness of the application is rather a matter of proper organization, a week of good equipment." In this regard, a very small question: “can we better change the training program for motorized riflemen and tankers, taking as a basis the combat manuals of Uncle Vasya’s troops and the Black Berets, rather than trying to get a mixture of hedgehogs already forming some tank battalions in units of the Airborne Forces and MP?
    1. domokl
      domokl 23 March 2018 20: 40
      laughing Yeah, I still remember at the school a teacher of tactics from motorized infantrymen twisted our Airborne Forces Airborne Forces in their hands and always finished this action with one phrase: -In ... (vagina) paratroopers your castrated statute. We will study infantry ...
  5. svp67
    svp67 23 March 2018 06: 25
    Talk about the need for such weapons was carried out for a long time
    Gentlemen, authors, why didn’t you go into the HISTORY of the question? In the armament of the units and formations of the marine corps of the USSR were tanks and this is not only the PT-76, but quite a medium tank T-54, T-55.

    But after the collapse of the USSR, all tank battalions and the tank regiment of 55 DMF Pacific Fleet were REDUCED. So now we are just returning to the structure of the MP of the USSR. The question is different, but in a couple of years, how will they be transported from coast to coast, will the fleet remain in service with the proper amount of landing and landing equipment?
    The film "Reciprocal Movement", at the very beginning it shows tanks that proudly carry the flag of the Navy of the USSR on their armor, which means they are from TB Brmp Black Sea Fleet ...
    1. avt
      avt 23 March 2018 11: 59
      Quote: svp67
      Gentlemen, authors, why didn’t you delve into the HISTORY of the question?

      bully good So even for a minute, the marines also solve the issue of coastal defense.
      Perhaps the most trained and trained were the airborne troops and the marines. This is not a whim of commanders and commanders.
      The Marines under Gorshkov were trained and chased according to the special forces program. And the bike was about how Gorshkov and Uncle Vasya were measured by someone cooler. Uncle Vasya to him - my one of ten infantry is standing, and Gorshkov in response to him - and my one of ten paratroopers. bully The main thing was that such a competition for the benefit of the case was. And MBTs are also needed for landing. Given the current realities, the battalion set of MBTs and MRAs will not interfere with the current border with the same Baltic Pskov. But the Marines, like air, need a normal floating floating conveyor such as ,, Shells "and BMD-4M in the first throw to the beach, and not BMP.
      1. svp67
        svp67 23 March 2018 13: 04
        Quote: avt
        So even for a minute, the marines also solve the issue of coastal defense.

        To do this, they were reinforced by parts of the Coast Defense. Each fleet had at least one division, such troops
        Quote: avt
        But the Marines, like air, need a normal floating floating conveyor such as ,, Shells "and BMD-4M in the first throw to the beach, and not BMP.

        I do not agree. They need to be re-equipped on the BMP-3, preferably in the modification of the "M" and it is the "first wave". Since this machine gives the necessary density of fire and can swim. Moreover, the displacement of this machine allows you to take the landing also on the armor, as the BTR-50 at one time
        1. captain
          captain 23 March 2018 14: 47
          In the Soviet Union there were 3 brigades of 2300 people (61, 336, 810) and one marine division (55) 5500 people .. And there was also 175 brigade MP frames (289 people). Even in Soviet times, we did not have enough funds to land the entire brigade in any fleet. And now even more so they are gone. Landing on the "emphasis" is the last century. And we do not have the opportunity at this stage to carry out overseas landing. We do not have an aviation component to provide fire support for infantry during a landing, for example in Syria. We do not have an artillery component to provide fire support for a landing. Tanks "carry" will be on the trough? We have in teams about 150 armored personnel carriers. They go in the first (part in the second) echelon. If you load tanks, then what are the APCs? Our lapazny military throwing from side to side, like walking girls. Each brigade has a DSB (airborne assault battalion), but there are no transport airborne helicopters. There are already three of them on Rogov, that is, the battalion will be landed for a month. Now on the fleets of the 5 marines and 2 detachment battalions. Means of landing will not be typed into one brigade. "Mistral" sailed past and we have in Syria only army helicopters, which are hit by mortars on the ground. If it’s simple, then to provide the marine corps with the means of landing and fire support we still have to Plastunsky before Beijing. But why a tank battalion, if there are no funds for its delivery and landing, it is not clear to me. The story is repeated with the DShB. That's all for the show-offs.
          1. svp67
            svp67 23 March 2018 14: 50
            Quote: captain
            But why a tank battalion, if there are no funds for its delivery and landing, it is not clear to me.

            For actions on coastal destinations, without landing. Will be used as a "guard infantry"
          2. Romario_Argo
            Romario_Argo 25 March 2018 10: 24
            the authors emphasized the use of the Marine Corps, as an expeditionary force in peacekeeping operations, or as an anti-terrorist force in Syria
        2. domokl
          domokl 23 March 2018 20: 43
          Quote: svp67
          They need to re-equip the BMP-3, preferably in the modification of "M"

          Talk about this go for several years. Only the question is frozen. And T-72 and T-80 will be already this year. From poverty all
      2. VladGashek
        VladGashek 23 March 2018 17: 32
        For coastal defense, it is not marines that are needed, but real divisions (brigades) of coastal defense. equipped with artillery and missile systems, but not battalions of marines, reinforced with the MBT of the ground forces.
        1. svp67
          svp67 24 March 2018 04: 11
          Quote: Vladgashek
          but not marines battalions

          "Without fish, you’ll become a cancer yourself ...."
  6. raw174
    raw174 23 March 2018 08: 19
    Yesterday there was this topic ...
    As I see the problems:
    Delivery vehicles. Well, the BDK will not be able to go ashore to land the tank, be on the shore at least from the heels of the RPGs, it (the BDK) will be attacked on the way ... Even the landfall of the armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, I question, and how many coasts there are in the world, to which our airborne assault troops are capable of delivering, without preparation?
    Times have changed and there will be no second landing in Normandy! Before landing, you need to prepare the shore, clean it from the enemy’s means of destruction with missiles and aircraft, conduct reconnaissance, and after that deliver the assault. In any case, tanks will not go the first echelon, it makes sense to deliver them when the bridgehead is under control, their strength is necessary in defense and with the development of a successful offensive inland.
    We know better about command, the principle of unity of command ... When I served, we had armored personnel carriers, which mercilessly flowed afloat and could sink to the bottom like an iron, we were glad about that too)))
    Someone was surprised at the participation of marines in the Chechen wars?

    The battle in the conditions of development (city, port, etc.) is the direct purpose of the marines, because the marines need not only to rush along the beach, they need to take control of the coastal infrastructure, buildings, port buildings. We practiced the movement of groups in the building, the entrance to the building, cleaning and defending it. Therefore, it is not surprising that the marines are used far from the sea. It would be strange to put the marine on the plane, but in Chechnya they used it in the case.
  7. san4es
    san4es 23 March 2018 10: 52
    hi It is assumed that the units operating in areas with a cold climate will receive gas turbine T-80BV, and the rest - T-72B3.
    The decision to strengthen the MP with heavy equipment was made following an experiment conducted in the Pacific Fleet: “Last December, the marine corps deployed in Kamchatka received the T-80BV company. The experiment was found to be successful. The exercises showed that tanks can form the backbone of defense in defense coastline from the landing of the enemy, and in the offensive from the captured bridgehead they provide the suppression of enemy firing points and the breakthrough of fortified positions. soldier
  8. kunstkammer
    kunstkammer 23 March 2018 14: 28
    require reinforcing the power of the brigades

    My opinion: any units conducting active hostilities require reinforcements. Support for tanks, missiles, aircraft, etc. etc. any unit, including even individual groups, should be laid down at the planning stage of operations. And applied at the request of commanders at the forefront.
    By and large, every lieutenant in battle must be sure - when necessary, all the power of the army will immediately come to the rescue .... even though it sounds loud.
  9. Cartalon
    Cartalon 23 March 2018 14: 37
    Why? Yes, everything is simple. The cost of the same BDK is not comparable with the cost of the marine corps battalion that the ship is transporting
    Of course, I wildly apologize, but how did the author calculate the cost of a battalion of the Marine Corps, and where in case of his death did he intend to buy a new one?
  10. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 23 March 2018 16: 41
    Marines need MBT to hold the bridgehead, and not to storm and capture the coast, which is often easier to capture than to hold. Even the striped mattresses for transporting heavy cargo vehicles, they plan to use civilian cargo ships, and during the storming of the coast, assault groups and floating equipment are launched. If the capture fails, then what to do with heavy equipment? Drown or what? Plows and groups are easier to evacuate. But when the landing is fixed, then the unloading and delivery of MBT begins. By the way, even the pictures above show that we have such a landing technique. And then they gathered in the General Staff, morons smoke and do not chop a fig! I have a very big suspicion, aren't they preparing for an escalation of events in Syria?
  11. UltraRed
    UltraRed 23 March 2018 17: 05
    I have been reading the site for a long time, but this topic was a "last straw" for the motivation to register .....
    So, as a person who served 9 years as an officer in the MP, I’ll try to add adequate information on this issue.
    1. Tanks in the MP Navy of the USSR - were. The brigade included a separate tank battalion. He was armed with a T-55. According to the stories of "senior comrades," - previously there were PT-76s, - but according to the results of military services and exercises, - it was concluded that "there are no tanks and this is not a tank." Despite the good "seaworthy" qualities, which allowed the PT-76 to land from the "melt" - armor, and most importantly firepower - were "near the gun."
    2. In the early 90s (this was already during my service) T-55 - also outdated both morally and physically, although the personnel loved them.
    There were plans for the rearmament of the UTMB on the T-72. But according to tank officers (I myself served in the oddsb), they were abandoned after experiments with loading and unloading in BDK pr.775. Since these ships then (yes, sort of like now) make up the bulk of the landing forces of our fleet. The problem seemed to be that the mass and dimensions of the T-72 allowed fast loading and unloading on (s) BDK pr.775 only to a well-trained mechanized operator, and after the "ramming" of the BDK tank under the control of a sailor - conscript, the fleet command refused thoughts to use T-72 in MP. Moreover, the question seemed to be reduced to an unfortunate 15-20 centimeters wide. Factors such as the "lack of part" of the tank and the heavy weight that "ate" the carrying capacity of the not very large 775s and made it difficult to pass on sandy beaches also played a role.
    3. Based on the foregoing, it was decided to adopt the BMP-3F as a kind of "sublimation of the tank" - which industry was "about to" promising. The tank battalion was reorganized into the "Marine Corps (heavy)". There was an idea that "around the world" there will only be BMP crews, and "over the war" the rest of the l / s will be added.
    The BMP-3 was attracted by large firepower (100 mm + 30 mm + 3 machine guns) in the directional fire, the possibility of landing with melt and a relatively low weight. T-55 quickly handed over for long-term storage.
    But ....... "it was smooth on paper," the "funny 90s" came, the financing of the armed forces collapsed, the BMP-3F did not deliver the industry (there were still some disagreements between the military receiver and the manufacturer, but I don’t know the details). Perhaps they “sailed away” to Indonesia ..... :) The “heavy” battalion was “cadreled” according to “the most unlucky” and remained only “on paper”, and without l / s and without equipment.
    So in the MP were only BTR-80 and "Nona" .....
    4. The experience of the war in Chechnya has already shown the lack of tanks in the MP.
    When they gave me an “alien” tank company of six tanks (the outskirts of Grozny in the winter of 1995), in which it turned out that 6 (!) Platoons were shot from 2 guns, platoon commanders from different districts, and the mechvods had two years of real tank driving experience. . (!!!) ........ The battalion commander then did not allow this "company" for more than a month to the front line ........ From the same "opera", the death of the tank in the "green" quarter ... ...
    5. The announced decision on air defense in the MP on the T-72 is apparently based on such assumptions as the commissioning of the Ivan Gren type of air defense missile system and the "contracting" of f / o mechanized watercraft, which will allow the T-72 to be used on amphibious assault ships of old projects.
    6. On BMP-3, my opinion is rather negative. The main drawback of it in my opinion is the difficulty of landing through the aft ramp. Whoever tries to squeeze through these "pipes" with weapons at least once in the winter "kamka" will agree with me .....
    8. Even greater insanity - BMP-2 in some BMPs. "Dvushka" car is not bad, but afloat - "mass grave" at the slightest wave.
    9. BTR-80 (82) - the machine, of course, afloat is excellent (if the "soaking" is conscientiously worked out), but the armament is not special, the landing leaves through the side ramps and wheels at 15 tons of weight - in the sand - "not ice"
    10. In summary, I’ll say that tanks in the MP are right, but specialized (caterpillars, melt, great firepower and landing in the stern) BMP would be great!
    1. Cat
      Cat 23 March 2018 22: 17
      We are happy to welcome you to our "company" !!! hi
  12. fa2998
    fa2998 23 March 2018 17: 45
    Quote: svp67
    Gentlemen, authors, why didn’t you go into the HISTORY of the question? In the armament of the units and formations of the marine corps of the USSR were tanks and this is not only the PT-76, but quite a medium tank T-54, T-55.

    Yes, in HISTORY, and the USSR had 2 place in terms of the number of ship personnel! We always have plenty of tanks (and not even counted in storage). So we must start with the Ships! Or the Marines are going to be used as "elite infantry" on their own land
    Look at the Armed Forces, at first there were Airborne Forces, then it was renamed into airmobile brigades. Now, due to the lack of aircraft, they were reinforced with howitzers, tanks, Gradov, they are fighting like infantry. hi
  13. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 23 March 2018 22: 34
    Without a clearly implemented support plan for the main forces - the marines, like the Airborne Forces, are volunteers. With all the ensuing consequences. See the history of the Peterhof landing, and Sudak with Theodosia and Evpatoria landing even when they showed it.
  14. yasvet
    yasvet 23 March 2018 23: 03
    Quote: UltraRed
    Tanks in the MP Navy of the USSR - were.

    definitely were, I will add that in the polar region, in Sputnik, in the Kirkines OBRMP, from the middle of the 90 there are TBs on the T-80 (in the storage of PT-76). Everything is new, well-forgotten old.)
    1. captain
      captain 25 March 2018 12: 22
      Quote: yasvet
      Quote: UltraRed
      Tanks in the MP Navy of the USSR - were.

      definitely were, I will add that in the polar region, in Sputnik, in the Kirkines OBRMP, from the middle of the 90 there are TBs on the T-80 (in the storage of PT-76). Everything is new, well-forgotten old.)

      So what's the point? In winter, and in the North for 9 months, winter, how will they secretly get to the landing point? Is it skiing? And how will they be advanced in the winter to defend fleet-based locations? Will we ask NATO to wait until the summer, or that they would not bombard the only Murmansk-Nikel road, when will we clean with bulldozers? This is due to the stupidity of the chief of the Coastal Forces, General Tarasov, these T-80 were there.
  15. yasvet
    yasvet 25 March 2018 22: 17
    Quote: captain
    So what's the point? In winter, and in the North for 9 months, winter, how will they secretly get to the landing point? Is it skiing? And how will they be advanced in the winter to defend fleet-based locations?

    how to get there They know how, and by what routes, everything is worked out more than once, and more than one year. Together with colleagues from the 200s, these issues are closely resolved, as it should.)
  16. Captain Angry
    Captain Angry April 2 2018 19: 43
    Yes, the authors should better study the history of the Russian marines. And let them take an interest in how they trained about three decades of tank officers for the Marine Corps at BVTKKU - there was such a school