Posted on May 28, 2014
Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?
1.29M
6.46K
3.14K
297
285
12
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.
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.
Troops
Soldiers
DoD
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 1536
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)
(7)
Sgt Daryll Tinson
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.
(1)
(0)
GySgt Bill Chastain
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
446
444
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.
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.
(446)
(2)
SGT (Join to see)
Very well put Sir. If you remove the emotion from the equation, you hit the nail on the head.
(0)
(0)
PFC Randall Keefauver
In your analysis you talked about the Army having to create a unit that thinks and reacts like the Marines in-order to work seamlessly with the Navy; but you do already have the Marines so Stop Trying to Fix What is already Working.
As a side not you did say the Marines are already doing what the Army Does so why not disband the Army into the Marines and Air Force!!!
Former Marine
Randall Keefauver
As a side not you did say the Marines are already doing what the Army Does so why not disband the Army into the Marines and Air Force!!!
Former Marine
Randall Keefauver
(0)
(0)
Sgt Bob Charsha
Sgt (Join to see)
You speak of 4 of these, 4 of those , 4 of them departments of the various services. So, consolidate those departments and leave the branches stand !
You speak of 4 of these, 4 of those , 4 of them departments of the various services. So, consolidate those departments and leave the branches stand !
(0)
(0)
CW4 Jay Ossiander
When considering this issue I tend to look at it from an aviation viewpoint, the Corp is still flying a dinosaur attack helicopter, AH-1 Super Cobra, instead of the much more advanced Army AH-64 Apache. Not only would consolidation provide a much better offensive platform but there would be savings associated with procurement and maintenance.
(0)
(0)
399
395
4
I always thought Pg 1 of the US Army Survival Manual stated "Call the Marines"
(399)
(4)
PO1 William Van Syckle
Everybody needs to remember, it’s “Department of the Navy””United States Marine Corps.”…..
(1)
(0)
GySgt Bill Chastain
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
SFC William Linnell
That was interesting to read most of the comments. NO. They should not combine the Marines in with the Army. As most have stated, we both have different mission task and purpose. I have been on Combat teams with the Marines. They are in a totally different mind set. They thrive on the standards and discipline. Higher standards with the Pride of being a Marine. I don't believe the other branches have that. Hell, in the Army, as a SFC, your still treated as a specialist will more responsibility. Unlike the Navy or Marines when they are promoted to Chief or Gunny Sergeant, there is a higher respect level from Officers and the enlisted. Maybe when we get further out in the future, the military will be like Star Trek. :)
I do believe that the Army should have their own transport planes and A-10s. It's always a hassle trying to get flights to transport Soldiers over seas. The airborne getting planes to jump out. And the A-10 definitely needs to be in the hands of the Army. How many of us have been in contact with the enemy, have the A-10s and fighter jets arrive to assist but the JTAG is hundreds of miles away, not give those guys permission to drop hell upon them? Even when the pilots confirm the enemy. The best ground support ever for troops in contact. Again, decisions made above our pay grades. HOOORAH
I do believe that the Army should have their own transport planes and A-10s. It's always a hassle trying to get flights to transport Soldiers over seas. The airborne getting planes to jump out. And the A-10 definitely needs to be in the hands of the Army. How many of us have been in contact with the enemy, have the A-10s and fighter jets arrive to assist but the JTAG is hundreds of miles away, not give those guys permission to drop hell upon them? Even when the pilots confirm the enemy. The best ground support ever for troops in contact. Again, decisions made above our pay grades. HOOORAH
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google