[fullmetal]

The US Marines most certainly did NOT divest themselves of armor over the last few decades, in fact quite the exact opposite. From 1991 until about 2020 they became much heavier in terms of armor. This was in response to the reduction in the size of of the US Army. The US had inadequate troop strength to fight on land against our opponents. The Marines were used as a "second Army", not an amphibious force. They fought in the Second Gulf War and Afghanistan as a land force in exactly the way the Army did.
Since 2021 the Marines have been restructuring themselves to fight as an amphibious force in the Pacific against China. Tanks are not part of that scenario.

Oof, I definitely meant years, not decades.  Anyway, the success of Ukrainian anti-tank weapons is indirect validation of the value of tanks in modern combat.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/yo...its-armor/

[fullmetal]

The US Marines most certainly did NOT divest themselves of armor over the last few decades, in fact quite the exact opposite. From 1991 until about 2020 they became much heavier in terms of armor. This was in response to the reduction in the size of of the US Army. The US had inadequate troop strength to fight on land against our opponents. The Marines were used as a "second Army", not an amphibious force. They fought in the Second Gulf War and Afghanistan as a land force in exactly the way the Army did.
Since 2021 the Marines have been restructuring themselves to fight as an amphibious force in the Pacific against China. Tanks are not part of that scenario.

Oof, I definitely meant years, not decades.  Anyway, the success of Ukrainian anti-tank weapons is indirect validation of the value of tanks in modern combat.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/yo...its-armor/