Posted on May 28, 2014
PO1 Master-at-Arms
1.17M
5.69K
3.13K
289
277
12
Should army and marines consolidate
Think objectively. Traditions, camaraderie aside. Both are somewhat similarly more combat-oriented than USN or USAF. Answer practically without putting down either one of them.

PS: Yes, some are taunting about USN and USAF consolidation or Air Force return to Army Air Corps. My take on that if it's practical, lessen bureaucracy, and make for a smoother communications pipeline amongst the DoD components, why not? Again, camaraderie and traditions aside for a min.
Posted in these groups: American flag soldiers SoldiersDod color DoDCf1cbe80 Troops
Edited 7 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 1529
SSgt Stephanie Luck
823
816
7
NO! I mean no offense to the Army but we earned our eagle globe and anchor and if you asked any Marine that question, it's almost an insult. I have nothing against the army. Each branch serves a purpose but being a Marine is a title we carry with pride. It's sacred to us. There will always be a need for the army and there will always be a need for Marines. I respect other branches but we are "the few, the proud, the Marines". To just put us in with the Army isn't how we trained and not what we signed up for. SEMPER FI
(823)
Comment
(7)
SGT David Farr
SGT David Farr
2 y
SSgt Stephanie Luck You hold yourself to a higher standard? What a load of shit. You , you woman child have never seen half the shit most , shall I put in quotations for you , " Combat Veterans" have. I'd trust a fellow Soldier , hell I'd trust my right hand before the likes of a spoiled Marine like you. Get a grip of reality. Better than the rest of us. Hahaha
(0)
Reply
(0)
PFC Daniel Yates
PFC Daniel Yates
6 mo
SGT David Farr - Why so angry ?Was she your ex?
(0)
Reply
(0)
PFC Daniel Yates
PFC Daniel Yates
6 mo
PFC Daniel Yates - I was Army btw
(0)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Daryll Tinson
Sgt Daryll Tinson
2 mo
0b3eea3
Absolutely not! There is a reason this sign exist. If you want to know why, U.S.M.C. = U. S.ign (the) M.'fn C.ontact, and find out...I'm sure a local recruiter won't be hard to find.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Paul Labrador
439
437
2
After reading the responses, I'm seeing a lot of the emotional response vs. an objective, analytical response. To some extent, that doesn't surprise me. There is not branch in our military that carries more myth and mystique than the Marine Corps. And Marines themselves are the first to buy into and push the mystique (again, not a big deal. They seemed to have learned early that PR is important. Something the Army as a whole is not as good at). However, to really answer this question we DO need to look at it analytically.

Currently Marines are structured to be medium-weight, combined arms expeditionary force that has been optimized for seaborne deployment. Expeditionary warfare is not unique to the Marines. The Army has it's own expeditionary units (82nd, 101st, Rangers) that can get to the fight faster than the Marines can. The big difference is that the Marines come with more firepower and a more robust sustainment ability (30 days vs 3 days). Also, Marines have interoperability with the Navy that is in their DNA. Their officers are trained from day 1 side-by-side with naval officers so that they are intimately familiar with naval operations. Amphibious warfare is also a stated raison d'etre by the Marines. They have essentially taken that highly specialized role as their own and become the SME's for it.

On the other side of the coin, however, beyond force structure allowing for quicker deployment and the highly specialized amphibious role, everything else the Marines bring to the strategic table is a duplication of Army capability, and not necessarily a more capable duplication. While Marines have better strategic mobility than comparable Army units, they give up firepower and protection to do it. And once they are on the ground, they don't fight much differently than a comparable Army unit. So again, this begs the question, is there much the Marines bring that the Army can't do? The cold, analytic answer is no. The Army is capable of taking over the Marine mission. Now, this would not be without some hiccups. First the, the Army would need to develop a force structure that would allow them to conduct the Marine mission. The closest we have to a "Marine-style" MAGTF is the Strykers, but even that is not a complete 1:1 mirror. We would also have to do some training changes to accomodate the amphibious mission and requirements. Finally, there would need to be more integration with the Navy at the operational level. This will require Army officers to have more and sustained exposure to naval culture and doctrine to create the level of interoperability that the Marines and Navy currently have. In short, consolidaiton is doable, but not without some significant humps to to overcome...and that is not even addressing the emotional reaction that will come about with any plans to dissolve the Corps and roll it under the Army.
(439)
Comment
(2)
Lt Col Instructor Navigator
Lt Col (Join to see)
>1 y
MAJ (Join to see) - We haven't had a declared war since WWII. Doesn't seem to be slowing down our pace of military deployments.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Armored Combat Command Commander
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
The numbers of deployments might not change but the size of the deployments are smaller.Lt Col (Join to see)
(0)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Field Radio Operator
Sgt (Join to see)
>1 y
I was the first marine in my family. Everyone else was army all the way back to the civil war. So I say this with great respect for the army with all the spectacular soldiers in uniform. HELL NO.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSG Craig Collins
SSG Craig Collins
>1 y
Nailed it Sir. Cold hard truth.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Cpl Robert Clark
395
391
4
Edited 8 y ago
I always thought Pg 1 of the US Army Survival Manual stated "Call the Marines"
(395)
Comment
(4)
SSG Biomedical Equipment Specialist
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
I read that also but under it was to make sure the beach was secured.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Joseph Curl
SGT Joseph Curl
>1 y
That’s just some story an army private told a marine’s wife and since marines can’t read it’s never been disproven.
(0)
Reply
(0)
LCpl Sidney Green
LCpl Sidney Green
5 mo
SGT Joseph Curl - Fightin' words. Army guy would be eating crow about now. Or is that pavement?
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPL Motor Transport Operator
CPL (Join to see)
2 mo
While I absolutely respect the Corp and its traditions as well as it personal discipline, a merger is a good thing when looked at from a couple of different perspectives. 1, not everyone in the Corp is Combat Arms nor needs to have the intense "everyone is a rifleman" mentality. Plenty of supply, admin, & computer people are not Oorah every day like the 0311's. 2, the Corp could be spun into its combat arms division. Much like the Ranger battalions which operate at a higher op tempo than the rest of the Army and are still viewed as a better than average infantry force. The Corp could be a mix of light infantry, amphibious, expeditionary force. The Marines in this division would still hold the title of Marine, just the same as a Ranger is referred to as a Ranger. Much like Ft Benning and Ft Lewis are the main Ranger bases, Camp Pendleton and Camp Lejeune could be the main Marine bases with Parris Island as a training center. 3, Funding. How about actually funding this division properly instead of getting hand-me-down funding from the Navy. It could work, especially for the benefit of the Corp, and still keep their traditions in place, especially for the Combat Arms.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close