Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

Having the Marines as an Special Ops Force like Delta Force, Rangers, etc., could work. However, there are a few other questions I have to wonder if they've been considered:

1. Marines provide their own CAP and possibly Recon, from a carrier. Via the Navy's "ability" to fly fixed wing aircraft with X miles of a shore. Since "Army" is not allowed to fly fixed wing aircraft at all, how would the Army-Marines receive their CAP? Air Force (like regular Army gets)? Be interesting when the fight's on a hostile shore, no nearby air bases, and the AF can't land on carriers. Navy? Would the Navy pilot(s) come from the Corps before or after the transfer, and would they be dedicated to the CAP role or would they be mixed role?

2. How much redundancy is being eliminated in such a shift, anyway? Whatever Marine paperwork that has been shunted to regular Navy Administrators has to be picked up by Marines or Army. And would such a shift actually introduce more redundancy, since most "Marine" Bases (Co-located on many Naval bases) would then need an Army Administration unit?

3. Same with the ranks. Are we really going to see the number of Generals and other flag officers decrease? In a way, this could be detrimental to the Corps, as it would suddenly be possible to take a "regular" Army Colonel or General and promote / rotate into the commands - while right now it's been lifelong Marines only, due to the difficulties of cross-promoting a Commander to Colonel, for example...

4. How would shipboard logistics work? As of right now, the Marines are cared for by the Navy - do they get to charge the Army all of a sudden? Does Army send supplies? Mixed billets? On this note, who charges who for what, and how many extra accountants are necessary to pull this off? (at greater cost than the current system of Naval Administration handling all the bills and budgets)

5. Aren't there already significant amounts of "tech sloshing" around? Marine M16, XM8, SAW, M1 Abrams, etc. are all Army designs, Marine CAP tends to use Naval F18s, etc. Outside of maybe some medium-sized pieces (artillery) and the actual amphibious craft, the Marines don't really do much R&D. Can't use this as too much justification for a transfer from Navy to Army...

Objectively, maybe. I could see a situation where the Marine Corps is converted to being a "Special Forces" type thing for the Army instead of being the "Ground branch" of the Navy.
However, do you think that:

1. Aren't the Marines MP division effectively the police for the Navy?
2. How's CAP going to work, Navy has rights to fly fixed wing aircraft over land within X miles of shore, while Army is prohibited from having fixed wing aircraft.
3. How would having Large Army Divisions being effectively "permanently" under the command of the Navy work?
4. How would the whole administration thing work? I mean, right now, a lot of the Marines paperwork is pushed by Navy Administrators, how different would it be if the Army suddenly had to push that amount of paperwork? Especially if the Army had to install administrative sub-divisions on Naval bases with significant Marine presence...

And don't the Army and Marines share a significant portion of their ground based weaponry already (the other bit of logistics that needs to be considered for Army/Marine integration) and continuing this pattern be as efficient as before.

The consolidation issue has been raised before. and shot down. The Army has a different mission and make up than the Marines Corps.While the Army is great for moving slowly when they are setting up an occupation force. While Marines move quickly from ship to shore with the verticle envelopement both different tactics each branch having specializedntactics.

The U S Army is the biggest wast of money then any other branch. Why should we have three time more equipment than we use.. The Army has excess equipment stashed all around the world. Look at Iraq Billions of equipment left there so out enemies can now use it against us.

I don't think that either branches could deal with the other. It is too different worlds and the clash would create more damage than it would do good.

Marine Corps is the World's largest special forces. Let's keep 'em.

Just to stir the pot a little I have a couple of questions. Which banner would both services be under? Army or Navy or perhaps a new one?

That's like asking if the air force and navy should be consolidated because both fly combat sorties. That being said it might not be a bad idea to get rid of the Army completely and beef up the Corps.

Read the book titled, "First to Fight" by Victor H. Krulak and you will be shown why the Corps will never be merged with any other service, EVER. If anything, the Corps will outlast any other United States Military Service and, perhaps even the country itself.

Does the Marine Corps do anything the other services can't do?

Short answer: NO.

Oh sure, Marines will tell you that they are tailored toward rapid deployment and conflict resolution or amphibious assault, but the truth is, the Marine Corps exists for only ONE reason: Money.

The Marine Corps solidified its position long ago, when it was created as a Navy Military Police force (entirely seperate from the Navy for the express purpose of being able to police Naval personnel without reporting to any of them, regardless of rank structure), by adapting to new situations faster than the government required and in a less expensive way than any other service. That characteristic is the reason the Corps is still around. There have been, and continue to be, numerous occasions where people try to show that the Marine Corps need not exist because they do nothing which is unique.

The problem is that every time a naysayer spouts off at the mouth about the Corps, they are proven wrong by the Marine Corps budget. No other service can say they can do everything the Corps does at the price the Corps charges for its services.

Simply put: we do it cheaper and more effectively than anybody else. Except the Navy, we love their ships.

Is this a real question?

Nah

I have had the priviledge of experiences both services and there is a huge difference. The mission set for both while they may seem similar they are very different. The Marines primary mission set is designed more for initial and rapid conflict resolution. They have been serving in the current conflicts in a longer range operations which accredits them with the ability to modify their mission set. The Army has units that are designed with a mission set similar to the Marines however the primary mission set is designed for a longer range operations and a large force deployment. Now it says to put camaraderie aside however that is a vital aspect of operations. A larger force has a mor difficult time to maintain a greater level of comradarie which can adversely affect combat operations. I think it would be a huge mistake to join the forces. It would be like telling the Army Special Forces Group that they will be joined with the generak population of the Army. This would degrade the the morale and comradarie of the Special Forces which in turn dirrectly affects their operational proficiency.
Robert E Griffin
SSG(ret), USA
Served HM3 USN, 8404 before they established FMC.

You would have to change the constitution to get rid of the Marines. Its the only branch mandated. We are the tip of the spear! The Marines and the Army are very different. The Marines are the only branch in which every member is combat trained and ready.

While your question has a point in that both are land oriented combat forces look at it like this, that is like saying the air force and navy should join since they both have planes. Or that the navy and coast guard should consolidate on the basis that they are both water based branches. Every branch has their purpose and also the or own history and pride from their branch. I have a frIinds either in or with the exception of the Navy still in. In my graduating class we had myself, a National guard soldier, another national guard soldier, a army reserve soldier, one active airman, one reserve airman, and a reserve marine, all in a class of 48. I grew up with these people and yes we all give each other crap about who's better etc. But in the end we all know we have our own purpose in the military.

The Marine Corps is not a force that should be used for long term land operations. We will if we have to. Our hope and will is to become our true selves again. That is a force prepared to lay the groundwork for whatever follows. It's a mindset, a culture, a core principle all Marines share. We accept and pride ourselves as the force that asks for little but delivers. We are not the Army, not should we be. I refuse your patches.

Marines are needed as part of the Navy. The Army is much more a diverse organization with diverse capabilities. Marines by their connection to the Navy have a limited capability and mission.

I would hope that you aren't insisting that it is any different of level pride to earn the title of a Soldier in the United States Army. I have lived with the USMC and served with them for many years. The only ones that separate the branches and say one is better than the other are usually the young immature people. I am very proud to be a Soldier and no one will ever take that away regardless of what you were taught in boot camp.

No!!! Need I say more?

Of course they should. Or vice versa and merge the Army with the Marine Corps. There's nothing that one does that the other can't do or learn to do and the taxpayers shouldn't be billed for the redundancy.

Have this same statement made partially in the FB link it is attached to ( hate doing same things twice in repetition ) : I have a written change of military doctrine document that would confuse our enemies and consolidate our military into a more tight knit cohesive force . It is based on deployability status . It would possibly save money and mobilize our military faster . It would separate our military into command structure by means of type of warfare military personnel deploy in which is based on the kind of terrain they deploy to , through. Have no way of measuring the expenses it would entail.
Presently a lot of coordination gets slowed down by requests for transport by both the US Air Force and Navy. My system would consolidate 83 ranks insignia down to about 25 . There would be one dress uniform ( Marine dress uniform makes women swoon. ) Camouflage is dependent on terrain. So the combat uniform would depend on location and deployable status. There would be a change in the physical fitness uniform of all commands . All MOS specific uniforms would be the same with only a nameplate change. Unit designators may not need to be changed. Just their mission deployability status would need to be changed. Techniques of combat could be collaborated more readily by all ground forces...both Marines and Army The US Army would be changed to Homeland defense status for training and security and Marines would be anyone deployed overseas .
I could not get it out of my mind once I retired. It always bothered me to see the UNITED STATES Marines , Army , Navy, Air Force being separated and also some of the belligerence between branches . It bothered me until I wrote it down. How can we be united if we are separately distinguished apart as separate branches which depend on each other to operate?
Did I care who was guarding me as I built a fire base in a foreign nation as an engineer? No, as long as they were from the USA. Did I care who I was firing artillery support missile fire missions to protect ? No , it could have been Marines gaining enemy ground, as long as Americans were safe. Did I care who I was supporting as a Chaplain Assistant ? We all have personal needs , cares, concerns, problems in life. If you are US active military and would like a copy I can send an internet copy for free . If you require a physical copy it will have to be 'covered' for shipping and handling sake as I am a civilian now. America bless God, SSG, USARNG retired .