Rah. USMC austerity is fundamental to the corps, from what is supplied to individual Marines, all the way up to expenditures on larger tactical equipment, with the notable exception of the Osprey.
No, it's because they need money for new tactical missiles, and standoff weapons.
And because US marines conceded on the idea of fighting China amphibiously. Honestly, the idea to take, and hold those tiny islandlets in the South Sea by force landing is ridiculous.
----
No tank, or just anything will "live" if being sent into a know killbox, and Russians keep doing that repeatedly. This is what's happening in Ukraine now. Literally this: a clueless battalion sized force wades into a killbox, gets annihilated to last few men, next day, another battalion is sent to exactly the same spot...
Russians could've easily lost as much with modern, or other kind of military hardware than tanks.
Most Russian tanks were disabled by artillery, and missiles, not in tank vs. tank battles. No tank in the world would survive a 40kg missile, or an artillery shell hitting its roof. So, the quality of hardware is irrelevant.
Most of Russian military hardware losses are not from battles, but from soldiers routing, and abandoning their vehicles, which are LATER destroyed, or captured.
What is really telling is extremely low quality is the Russian military leadership.
The key here is to understand that losses do not come from 40kg missiles themselves, but from Russian generals knowingly sending their troops into ATGM, and artillery killboxes, and from Russian troops knowing their generals intentions, and acting accordingly (routing upon first battle damage)
----
In the context of above, it's very clear that amphibious landing in the age of satellite reconnaissance, infrared optics, 100km artillery projectiles, and antiship missiles is not a smart way to wage war today