Posted on May 28, 2014
PO1 Master-at-Arms
1.25M
6.46K
3.13K
299
287
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 >1 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 1530
SSgt Stephanie Luck
828
821
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
(828)
Comment
(7)
PFC Daniel Yates
PFC Daniel Yates
1 y
SGT David Farr - Why so angry ?Was she your ex?
(0)
Reply
(0)
PFC Daniel Yates
PFC Daniel Yates
1 y
PFC Daniel Yates - I was Army btw
(0)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Daryll Tinson
Sgt Daryll Tinson
10 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)
GySgt Bill Chastain
GySgt Bill Chastain
2 mo
Farr, you're a prime example of why drunk soldiers get their asses kicked for having a smart mouth. I don't give a rats ass if you have 10 CARs and 5 PHs, that's a fellow Marine so STFU! She's talking about institutionally, not individuals, you moron. One trip onto an Army base chow hall and you'd know exactly what higher standards she's talking about. Go see you PTSD counsellor, you need it today! And before you spout off again, yes, I have one too.
To the point of the conversation, I could see two branches, like in Starship Troopers. However, there would need to be services within those two that would allow the unique training provided, and needed, by the services that exist now. Marines have a different approach to warfighting, unique to the Corps, that has caused Congress to continue to fund them over the decades.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Paul Labrador
443
441
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.
(443)
Comment
(2)
GySgt Bill Chastain
GySgt Bill Chastain
2 mo
"The Army has it's own expeditionary units (82nd, 101st, Rangers) that can get to the fight faster than the Marines can." My apologies, Sir, but this is simply an incorrect statement .
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC Winora Hoyle (Retired)
SFC Winora Hoyle (Retired)
2 mo
You nailed it Sir. COLD HARD FACTS!!!
(0)
Reply
(0)
CAPT Edward Schmitt
CAPT Edward Schmitt
2 mo
Excellent analysis. Different mission different needs. Both Army and Marines have missions that need sustainment.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Infantryman
SGT (Join to see)
2 mo
Very well put Sir. If you remove the emotion from the equation, you hit the nail on the head.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Cpl Robert Clark
398
394
4
Edited >1 y ago
I always thought Pg 1 of the US Army Survival Manual stated "Call the Marines"
(398)
Comment
(4)
SGT Motor Transport Operator
SGT (Join to see)
10 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)
MSG Thomas Currie
MSG Thomas Currie
3 mo
Sorry, Corporal Clark, but no, if the Army is already there, then there simply isn't any reason for the Marines -- what you might be thinking of might be the last line on the USMC instructions for taking a beachhead: "Call the Army" (yes, that comes only after the hard part is finished).

The Marine Corps HAD a mission, actually a few related missions -- and perhaps the current leadership is going to get back to those missions and stop letting the Corps be transformed into just a bunch of better-dressed soldiers.

And the Army needs to stop trying to do missions that properly belong to the Marines.

Unfortunately modern technologies and modern problems do tend to blur the lines between those missions and capabilities.
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO1 William Van Syckle
PO1 William Van Syckle
2 mo
Everybody needs to remember, it’s “Department of the Navy””United States Marine Corps.”…..
(0)
Reply
(0)
GySgt Bill Chastain
GySgt Bill Chastain
2 mo
SGT (Join to see) - Operation Iraqi Freedom, the airfield was overrun by insurgents. Marine and civilian lives and millions of dollars of military air power was held in the balance. A Marine aviator and a bunch of Marine aviation maintenance types picked up their weapons and tactically repelled the attacked by effective fire and maneuver. Marines are trained to be tactically AND technically proficient at all times.
The Corps is not a sustainability holding force. The Corps goes in, punches the bad guy in the face (HARD) and then creates a bubble to establish a "beach head" for follow-on ops. Know your role, stay in your lane.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

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

close