Posted on May 28, 2014
Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?
1.35M
6.45K
3.13K
298
286
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.
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 1534
I can think of a few reasons for not joining them together. Marines and Army do separate things in my opinion. From my time in Iraq I saw that Marines were the spearhead and took towns and cities and then the Army came in to occupy. Then if/when the Army lost the location the Marines were the ones that had to go back and secure the town/city.
Training is completely different. Marines focus on rifle skills and swimming. Army focuses on I don't know what. Marines are a smaller force and is the Countries 911. We can be anywhere in less than 24 hrs. We protect embassies, hell we protect the POTUS. Army is a very large branch that is probably too big for itself. It has become like a corporation almost.
Now, I could say that the Air Force has no real defined role as well. You could essentially hand out their aircraft to the other branches.
Marines already have their own flight squadron and conduct helo and fighter jet ops. Army only has helos that I know of. In Iraq we did not use the Air Force for anything except for a JDAM and that rarely worked as it was. All other air support came from the Marines. Now Army has to rely on the Air Force for their flight ops. Marines don't.
That is just my 2 cents, but ya.
Training is completely different. Marines focus on rifle skills and swimming. Army focuses on I don't know what. Marines are a smaller force and is the Countries 911. We can be anywhere in less than 24 hrs. We protect embassies, hell we protect the POTUS. Army is a very large branch that is probably too big for itself. It has become like a corporation almost.
Now, I could say that the Air Force has no real defined role as well. You could essentially hand out their aircraft to the other branches.
Marines already have their own flight squadron and conduct helo and fighter jet ops. Army only has helos that I know of. In Iraq we did not use the Air Force for anything except for a JDAM and that rarely worked as it was. All other air support came from the Marines. Now Army has to rely on the Air Force for their flight ops. Marines don't.
That is just my 2 cents, but ya.
(2)
(0)
SFC Bhrett Sikkema
Cpl Wall, while I agree in principle that the joining if the Marines and the Army is not the way to go, may I remind you that you belong to the Navy. The Marines have been the Navy's red headed step child for ages. Yes you have specific duties and yes so does the Army, As a 24 year Army Infantryman I have worked with the Corp on several occasions and find that are skills are different but we compliment each other. Oh and as I am sure the Airborne will at some point inform you they have an 18 hour sequence to be anywhere in the world.
And final thought, if the Army would have had its way the Air Force would still be the Army Air Corp.
And final thought, if the Army would have had its way the Air Force would still be the Army Air Corp.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Matthew Wall
SFC Bhrett Sikkema I'm well aware that the Marines are a branch of the Navy. We get our funding from them, which is why the Marines say they do more with less. Not sure what that has to do with anything though. I'm in agreement with the Air Force part. The waste that goes on there is ridiculous. Whether they are with the Army Air Corp or they are divided up amongst the branches it doesn't matter to me.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
No, that is incorrect; the Marines are not a branch of the Navy. The Department of the Navy oversees both the Marine Corps and the Navy but they are each separate and distinct service branches, each having an autonomous leader, the Marine Corps Commandant and the Chief of Naval Operations, who are equal members of the joint chiefs.
(0)
(0)
Well if that were to happen all the soldiers would have to go to Marine recruit training and earn the title Marine... unless they just phased out the Army and sent all new recruits to the Corps..
(2)
(0)
Would it be prudent to look at consolidating the Marine Corps into the Army, possibly. The issue of course is to determine the extent of consolidation. Consolidation would not necessarily lead to an identity crisis for the Marines. Consolidating the ground forces could be beneficial and help to reduce some redundancy between the Army and Marines. A few years ago there was much discussion in regards to that topic as leaders wanted to ensure there was little redundancy between the two services. The Marine Corps is consolidated into the Department of the Navy now so moving them into the Army would not be any different. They each need to keep their own traditions and training but there would be benefits to consolidation. One, the Army can continue to develop the doctrine to effectively support logistically moving a Marine Expeditionary Force over long distances similar to what happened during OIF. We could work more closely in integrating intelligence and fires and the Army could benefit from how the Marines use Air/Ground teams. There could be consolidation of the use of national training facilities where the Marines use NTC instead of 29 Palms. Keeping the Marine Expeditionary Force is a must. A good benefit that could be explored is to have the 3rd Marine Division be created as the first joint division were the Army airborne brigade in Alaska could instead come under the 3rd Marine Division. This could then allow the Army to instead potentially shift a division back to Europe which we should have never left as completely as we did to begin with. Traditions of course need to be honored and in no way do I think anyone wants to see Marine traditions diminished. The Marine Corps should also keep their own training facilities, especially boot camp though we need to continue doing consolidated training at the major centers of excellence. Even if the Marine were consolidated into the Army I do not see a reduced relationship with the Navy.
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Under your model, I would put the Marines under XVIII Airborne Corps and change the name to the XVIII Expeditionary Corps. They would have all the expeditionary/contingency elements of the Army: 82nd ABN, 101st ABN as your air deployables and the USMC as the sea deployables.
(1)
(0)
MSG Jeff Anderson
Agree that could be a model to consider having the Marine Divisions align under XVIII Airborne Corps. 3ID and 10th MTN could then align with either III Corps or I Corps. Having a combined airborne, air assault and amphibious force set under one command would be a very lethal combination and give us a true consolidated force entry capability uncomparable to any in the world.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I'd say the corps could use the army's supply/logistics capability. The army could use the corps' combat troop strength. It would cut down on costs of supply chain management.
(0)
(0)
The branches each have unique rolls they fill and should be left as they are.
(2)
(0)
You could in theory combine the branches but many things would be lost in translation. The entire excerise of consolidation would cost TRILLIONS of dollars. Just getting new name tapes alone for every current Marine would cost $600k. Imagine the cost painting USA on every piece of equipment.
Now we could simply phased out the Marine Corps. You would have to retrain several commands to fill the roles that the Marine Corps plays. Creating a single MAGTF would shoot up into the Millions quickly (there are currently 16 or so including reserves which include MEFs MEBs and MEUs) Not to mention retraining a whole new group to fill in for MARSOC, MSG, MCSF Co. and Amphibious Assualt. So on paper it would look good but in practice it would be hell and creating entire training commands and setting back years of passed on knowledge from our Pacific Campaign in WWII alone would cost us dearly. The question as whole is monetarily out of the question and would be a detriment to our National Security as whole.
Now we could simply phased out the Marine Corps. You would have to retrain several commands to fill the roles that the Marine Corps plays. Creating a single MAGTF would shoot up into the Millions quickly (there are currently 16 or so including reserves which include MEFs MEBs and MEUs) Not to mention retraining a whole new group to fill in for MARSOC, MSG, MCSF Co. and Amphibious Assualt. So on paper it would look good but in practice it would be hell and creating entire training commands and setting back years of passed on knowledge from our Pacific Campaign in WWII alone would cost us dearly. The question as whole is monetarily out of the question and would be a detriment to our National Security as whole.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Daniel V.
To caveat my previous statement:
there is a similar solution that would involve combining similar special units, such as NBC and EOD, that COULD work to some degree. Also, we could out source non mission critical roles in Garrison to augment consolidated units such as Cooks, Supply, and Motor T. This COULD have a positive effect on consolidation but governance would make it a hassle and may not be economical. The only real solution is to consolidate existing commands from bigger branches (Army and Navy) into trimmed but effective versions. Aside from Political changes to mission this would be the most effective while having the economically desired effect. This no special pill that will alieviate our defense spending concerns.
there is a similar solution that would involve combining similar special units, such as NBC and EOD, that COULD work to some degree. Also, we could out source non mission critical roles in Garrison to augment consolidated units such as Cooks, Supply, and Motor T. This COULD have a positive effect on consolidation but governance would make it a hassle and may not be economical. The only real solution is to consolidate existing commands from bigger branches (Army and Navy) into trimmed but effective versions. Aside from Political changes to mission this would be the most effective while having the economically desired effect. This no special pill that will alieviate our defense spending concerns.
(1)
(0)
Absolutely not. Set aside all the emotional and "Service Pride" arguments for a moment, the two services have different missions. The United States Marine Corps is an Amphibious, Expeditionary Assault Force - 1st to Fight. The Army is an built around behemoth logistical and infrastructural occupational force.
The Army is neither Amphibious /Littoral-focused nor built to rapidly respond. Marines can be on the ground within 24 hours. The Army generally takes 30 days or more to mobilize.
The Army is neither Amphibious /Littoral-focused nor built to rapidly respond. Marines can be on the ground within 24 hours. The Army generally takes 30 days or more to mobilize.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Michael Baselice
If you do not "NORMALLY TRAIN" in it, then you do not have the capability. I have a driver's license, does not mean I can drive a race car.. I have a stove, doesn't mean I am chef, I have a baseball glove, does not mean I am a MLB player. - GAME-SET-MATCH. Debate over.
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
There is capability and then there is proficiency and they are not the same thing. The former deals with the ability to do it. The latter deals with how well you do it. The Army is capable of doing the amphib mission (again the Army owns more amphibious landing craft than the Marines do. They fall under the Army Transportation Corps). Heck we DID do the vertical envelopment portion when we air assaulted the 1-10th Mountain off the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower during Uphold Democracy back in the 90's. We are currently not proficient at it. But that does not mean that we can never be proficient at it in the future. But the Army DOES have the capability to do it. Your serve.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Michael Baselice
By your logic, if I have a bandaid I am capable of being a nurse whether I have trained or not to be proficient or not. That is an overreaching statement on both sides - mine to prove a point and yours based upon a foolish notion that you read about in the break room at the hospital
(0)
(0)
TSgt David Whitmore
LTC Paul Labrador - The Air Force has both boats and ships, and people trained to use them, doesn't mean it could step in for the Navy or even the Coast Guard.
As far as the phrase 'occupational force' goes, there are multiple meanings to it. There is the one people think of during War-time.
And, there is the one where we lease land from a nation and build a military base; like in Germany, Japan, Cuba, etc. In these instances, we employ the local inhabitants for support. Thus, we occupy, even though that land is not U.S. territory. Although in Cuba's case, I'm not sure about the hiring of locals.
Just my opinion here.
As far as the phrase 'occupational force' goes, there are multiple meanings to it. There is the one people think of during War-time.
And, there is the one where we lease land from a nation and build a military base; like in Germany, Japan, Cuba, etc. In these instances, we employ the local inhabitants for support. Thus, we occupy, even though that land is not U.S. territory. Although in Cuba's case, I'm not sure about the hiring of locals.
Just my opinion here.
(0)
(0)
No, up until the 50's there was only three branches of the armed forces the Army, Navy, and the Cost Guard. The "Army Air Corps" went to whats now the Air Force. So if anything the Air Force should consolidate back with the Army
(2)
(0)
TSgt Alan Richard "Rick" Thomas
You really should refresh your military history lessons. The USMC was founded - 10th of November 1775 and the USAF was founded on September 18, 1947.
(1)
(0)
No! We had Marines on our FOB in Iraq and while i enjoyed serving with my brothers in arms there are differently two different mine sets on how things are to be done. As stated before both are combat services with the same goals in mine, its just the getting there that is different.
SSG Dan Long (Retired)
USARNG
SSG Dan Long (Retired)
USARNG
(2)
(0)
This subject has been brought before congress and the white house on more then one occasion as well as getting rid of the Corps all together. But as now it hasn't happened. the corps has battled to be and both the Army High Brass and Navy High Brass has agreed with the Marine Corps that it needs to be it's own entity. Tho there are many Cross over duty's They Army has their main duty and the Corps has theirs....The times seem to have both doing the same job right now...each's main tasks as a unit will always be different. The Marines as a Fighting Force will always have the job of Advancing the main Fighting/ Defencive Force in Campaigns overseas when it comes to Boots on the ground. The Army as a whole secures the ground already taken by the advanced force.
what I said above does not include Special Forces and Special Operations nor the C.I.A. Field Operatives that pull from the military's spec ops.
Depending on the conflict there are Co-ops where they do the same jobs. and the history of the Marine Corps has always been Amphibious Assault and ship protection for the Navy. But as a Regular Force The Army and The Marine Corps Have different and important jobs. That's why the Marine corps is still around as an individual unit. If you read up on Marine Corps history you will see how many times they have wanted to meld or disband the Corps.
what I said above does not include Special Forces and Special Operations nor the C.I.A. Field Operatives that pull from the military's spec ops.
Depending on the conflict there are Co-ops where they do the same jobs. and the history of the Marine Corps has always been Amphibious Assault and ship protection for the Navy. But as a Regular Force The Army and The Marine Corps Have different and important jobs. That's why the Marine corps is still around as an individual unit. If you read up on Marine Corps history you will see how many times they have wanted to meld or disband the Corps.
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
The Army's job is not to "secure ground taken by the advance force"....except in the narrow set of circumstances where the Marines would lead with a amphibious forced entry, the Army IS the advance force.
(2)
(0)
1SG Michael Minton
the army is not a "secure ground taken force", they are a Invasion force. Marines are a maritime Assault Force that can be used by land, sea and air.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Sgt Daniel V. , where would the additional costs come from? The Army would not necessarily ditch all the equipment the Marines own. It would merely change hand receipt holders.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next