Posted on May 28, 2014
PO1 Master-at-Arms
1.04M
6.19K
3.27K
264
252
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: Cf1cbe80 TroopsAmerican-flag-soldiers SoldiersDod_color DoD
Edited >1 y ago
Avatar_feed
Responses: 1517
SSgt Stephanie Luck
802
795
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
(802)
Comment
(7)
SPC Ralph Warner
SPC Ralph Warner
1 mo
GySgt David Weihausen LOL, you're like a fish on a hook, aren't ya sailor. I'll just say this last thing. Sure, the foragers wasn't just awarded to the 2ID. But the 2ID, with the 5th Marines attached to the 2ID, were awarded the fourragere.

I'm done here. It's always fun yanking the chain of th gullible. Well done, sailor.
(1)
Reply
(0)
GySgt David Weihausen
GySgt David Weihausen
1 mo
It's blatantly obvious why you couldn't get past specialist. But you keep believing your fantasies. I really don't believe you have it in you to just let it go. But whatever. You will always be a second rate to the Marine Corps. LOL
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG Gregg Mourizen
SSG Gregg Mourizen
1 mo
GySgt David Weihausen - Not really if you think about it. So the only requirement for the globe and anchor is to graduate basic training. Is there some ritual beyond? If not, then what is done in Marine Basic, that is not done in Army Basic? I find it hard to believe it is as difficult as Army Airborne school or Ranger School, or SF. So please tell me what is done, that is any different, than say Army Infantry Basic?
(1)
Reply
(0)
SFC William Allen
SFC William Allen
1 mo
Ssgt Luck- I agree with your statement completely. Marines are Marines and Army is Army, never the twain shall meet. One of my few regrets in life is that I didn't join the Marines when I graduated HS. Back then, I didn't think I had what it took to be a Marine ( I even told a recruiter this-he told me you never know until you try). Each service branch is unique and necessary and I just can't see a hard charging Marine taking off the Marines name or symbols- EVER! BTW, all my friends are Marines! Semper Fie!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
LTC Paul Labrador
417
415
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.
(417)
Comment
(2)
MAJ Jerry Brown
MAJ Jerry Brown
1 mo
All you said is true but remember an operation many years ago called dessert one? Army rangers, army delta force with naval helicopters and pilots. Did not work out well and as I remember one of after action comments was special operations units from different services, although they could train together were far less effective performing ops together. I think it was a factor in the development of SOCOM Special Operations Command. The point being that marines are first and foremost an amphibious force. They must work flawlessly with the navy and removing them from the navy will undoubtably reduce their effectiveness to do amphibious operations.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Tama Marks
Tama Marks
1 mo
To sum it up, the Marine is trained differently, to fight in all battles - air, land, and sea. The Army does not cross-train that way. They fight in the air and air alone or on land and land alone. The Rangers are a specific group trained on land and sea. But all Army are not trained the same. The Army in whole are not trained to be riflemen. They are taught their station, their specific jobs. Marine's are all basic Riflemen. Every Marine duty is to be a Riflemen. They are taught combat, to fight anywhere - land, air and sea. There is a unique communication between Pilots and Marine's on the ground. A Marine Pilot is still a Riflemen. Their whole goal isn't just for missions, but for missions and Marine's. We protect each other first. There is a basic bond in Marine's that other forces just don't have, including Enlisted and Officer's, because Officer's take care of Marine's. Their goals are just not the same as in other branches. That Officer is still a basic Riflemen. If an Officer, who is a Pilot, loses his plane/bird, he still picks up his rifle and fights. I knew a gentleman, in the Army, who was a photographer. He did not even know how to hold a gun/rifle. Eagle, Globe, and Anchor encapsulates our whole training. Air, Land, Sea, Training. I hope that makes sense.
(3)
Reply
(0)
1SG John Millan
1SG John Millan
1 mo
Yes great points. as a Marine turned career Soldier, I have unique insight here. The Marines have aviation assets that the Army uses the USAF for, not just choppers and fighters, but quite a few C-130's too, so they too can project worldwide by air, vs. sea as needed, albeit in smaller measure, than the Army. The Army is huge and it is designed to fight huge wars. As stated, the Marines are medium size force projection for smaller size conflicts or in conjunction with the Army in huge conflicts as was the case in WW2. The USMC saves $ with it having no medical or dental corps. It borrows navy med and dental personnel and from the Army for vet support, as it sends Marines to Army MOS schools. Army is just MUCH larger. It has 11.2 million (including Air Corps, later USAF) in WW2. USMC had 660,000. The Army made dozens of amphib landings in WW2 with heroic and historical honor. But, they were trained by instructors who were trained by Marines. They had USCG landing craft operators. After the landings, they moved inland and fought inland. Marines, who were less than 1/20th the size of the Army, hopped island to island in the Pacific. Marines are not designed for long term, inland fighting, but they were so used in Korea and more so in Vietnam. Point being that both branches do missions that are more specific to the other branch, but that doesn't negate their primary duties. Thus, there is NO comparison, between the two, it is apples and oranges; ducks and geese. Aside from fun, interservice banter, I cringe when one branch says the other is not needed. It's like saying because you go to the dentist, you don't need a family physician or vice-versa. Structurally, USMC boot camp at PI or SD is much harder than Army basic training, across the board, no question. That is why the more elite Soldiers get specialized screening and more, specialized training AFTER basic (Ranger, SF, Abn, etc.). USMC is small, so it is all about the corps, with no patches, berets and colors, less awards and few badges. The Army is more about unit and MOS-specific history and unit pride. Neither is right or better. It is simply what works. Comparing the 2 is apples and oranges and makes zero sense. Plus, it will never happen. We have combined commands, inter-service units, joint bases, etc., but combining marines and Army is like combining ducks and geese. Makes NO sense. Each has its own specific place.
(5)
Reply
(0)
LCpl Aaron Freeman
LCpl Aaron Freeman
12 d
Col, I beg to differ... what we lack in firepower, we make up with Esprit de Corps! Throughout our Nation's history, how many times has the Marine Corps bailed out the Army? Even Gen. Perishing was heard lamenting about his precious Army, saying "Why can't the Army be like Marines?!?!" Yes, we have good PR (our Dress Blues go a long way!)... yes, we buy into our own mystique... but, you also have to earn your way into that! My $.02 worth!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
Cpl Robert Clark
380
376
4
Edited >1 y ago
I always thought Pg 1 of the US Army Survival Manual stated "Call the Marines"
(380)
Comment
(4)
Tama Marks
Tama Marks
1 mo
PO1 Steve Mitchell - Dan Daily! Yes! At least he knew how to call the Navy! And was smart enough to do so! He saved a whole troop of Marine's doing that! Ooh-Rah!
(1)
Reply
(0)
CSM John Mead
CSM John Mead
1 mo
Ain't you the funny one!
(1)
Reply
(0)
1SG John Millan
1SG John Millan
1 mo
Marines LOVE doing more with less. It is a cultural norm and almost a theology with Marines. That is why they save money. they are small, with no medical or dental corps and they need less, plus they take pride in a spartan lifestyle. When I stayed at Myrtle Beach Air Force Base on weekend with my USMC buddies, we had left Camp Lejeune for a beach weekend, we got scared that we were eating in the officers's club!! No, it was the Airmen's dining facility! We were in shock, with civilians carrying out trays! Then, in the Gulf War, I was a Sgt. in the activated Army Guard and I heard Airmen in Saudi complaining about the Air conditioning in their "dorms!!" (WTF is a "dorm" in the military??) This aint the state university!! LOL, it is all about the grass being greener on the other side and sometimes it is. Sometimes, people don't want or need greener grass, they like it kinda brown in the case of Marines!
(1)
Reply
(0)
GySgt David Weihausen
GySgt David Weihausen
1 mo
Cpl Robert Clark - Stand down Marine, in this instance you are wrong. That soldier earned his Stetson as a member of that unit. Just as many Marines wear the Fourrage as part of 1/5 commemorating that unit's service in WW1 at Belleau Wood, he rates that piece of gear. And to further that, the Camp Pendleton Mounted Color Guard has also been known to where white Stetson, so your criticism is misplaced. Semper Fi.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
Cancel
close
Seg?add=7750261&t=2