Posted on May 28, 2014
PO1 Master-at-Arms
1.06M
6.26K
3.3K
288
276
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: 1533
SSgt Stephanie Luck
811
804
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
(811)
Comment
(7)
Cpl William Holly
Cpl William Holly
7 mo
At 76 yoa I'm still proud to be a Marine. I respect all who served active duty in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard but they for the most part were given the title when they enlisted. Marines earn their title. Long may there be a United States Marine Corps, the few, the proud, the Marines!
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG Leon Spikes
SSG Leon Spikes
6 mo
That’s not a insult. In 2004 in Iraq Falluja Marines got there butts handed to them and who was called to take over??? That right 2-12 Cav. So be careful when you try to put down the Army.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
CPT Lawrence Cable
5 mo
Sgt Frank Rinchich - Not supporting merger, but smaller and faster than the 75th Rangers? Or most of the units in the 18th Airborne Corp (82nd, 101st, 3rdID and the 10th Mountain)? You can put the 75th and 82nd on the Ground as fast as you could sail an MEU into an Area. Slightly different missions. MEU's are often used as a show of force by sitting a couple of LHD's of the coast somewhere with a Carrier task force. They send the 75th and 82nd in after things are already FUBAR.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
MAJ Ken Landgren
4 mo
The Marines rarely mention army divisions in the Pacific in WWII. To think one branch is better than the other should read more military history. If my army tank platoon wipes out an enemy company of tanks, are the marines still better than me? It's good to feel special but to denigrate other branches when we all bleed red is unwarranted and distasteful.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
LTC Paul Labrador
424
422
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.
(424)
Comment
(2)
LCpl Cody Collins
LCpl Cody Collins
4 mo
MAJ Ken Landgren I need to go back and find what I wrote. If you co.e across my comment, please copy and paste it to me. Thank you
(0)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
MAJ Ken Landgren
4 mo
LCpl Cody Collins - You forgot one thing in your analytical ascertain tion of the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps Are the president's own, You do not need to act of Congress to send the Marines in to handle a situation. Alas that has changed somehow Since the time I served as a marine 1979 through 1988. We were always taught the army needs to act of Congress to go to war, The Marines need no such action. If the president of the United States says go we go, Another one of your analytical dissertations you need to answer is why the Marines are able to take care of situations with less firepower I think that's a plus. Now days with drones and the ability to kill from a distance, Bigger is not necessarily better. The taliban, boko haram, ISIS And whatever nut jobs wanna band together to give everybody a hard time these groups of people are not large scale war units they are small pockets of individuals that Marine Corps can handle with one hand tied behind his back, Our Marine Corps fighter pilots are top notch equal and in some ways above navy pilots both a Marine Corps and maybe pilots are definitely above Air Force pilots. The army has its place but one plays it is not welcome it on a Marine Corps base and army personnel are not properly trained to stand side-by-side with the United States marine.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Explosive Ordnance Disposal
SSgt (Join to see)
3 mo
Sir,
Good response and in some aspects I believe you are correct. However, after serving alongside Army units at various times and places I think the product is generally sub par in comparison to the average Marine product. This of course only applies to units we both share such as infantry, etc.. there are many capabilities the Army has the Marines do not. Having a superior product is reason enough to not merge because we risk losing that product.
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO1 Jerome Newland
PO1 Jerome Newland
21 d
I spent my career in the Navy, with the Marines and in the Coast Guard. To each his own. In over 200 years this has played out, been shaken, streamlined and modified to create that which we have. What we have is amazing. We joke about and belittle each other but that's what warriors do. We wouldn't want to trade places, but that doesn't mean no respect. The isolation of force structures allows conditional responses. It also prevents us from being a threat to ourselves by having checks and balances so, no military coup is ever likely. Fun topic, but no matter what is said what we have as a whole, while constantly improving, is a force to be reckoned with. Redundancies and back redundancies are like shark's teeth. Break one off another moves in. Filling that gap is what forces our enemies to fear us. But, allow me this proverb: No matter who you work for, you are an American, act like one. Bullets don't know you or care anything about you. But, sometimes, knowing help is coming, or that you will be avenged by someone, can matter.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
Cpl Robert Clark
385
381
4
Edited 5 y ago
I always thought Pg 1 of the US Army Survival Manual stated "Call the Marines"
(385)
Comment
(4)
CPL Donald Miller
CPL Donald Miller
8 mo
I don’t think so.....marine couldn’t even take on little japan while the army was fight a whole continent of Europe....fucken pussy ass marines!!
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO2 Anthony Lewis
PO2 Anthony Lewis
6 mo
CPL Donald Miller - As a Navy man, I didn't want to get involved in this, but there's a big difference between jungle warfare and island hopping in the Pacific compared to open ground warfare as was the case in Europe. That's not to say that the European war wasn't tough, but after reading "With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa" (https://www.amazon.com/Old-Breed-At-Peleliu-Okinawa/dp/ [login to see] ) I think you'll see how unique the Marine fighting was.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
MAJ Ken Landgren
4 mo
PO2 Anthony Lewis - A lot of battles were not fought in open land in Europe. Sometimes it was mountainous, in hedgerows, and deep forests.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CSM David Brock
CSM David Brock
3 mo
NO they should not be combind. The Marines had to change the way they do there job or be disbanded. That 90 days on the beach after landing was not cost effective. They have a real world mission now. They need to be forward deploy closer to the war zones for longer time periods. Going overseas by ship is to slow. Maybe we could used them for border patrol duty.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small

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

close
Seg?add=7750261&t=2