Posted on May 28, 2014
Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?
1.36M
6.44K
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.
Troops
Soldiers
DoD
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1533
0
0
0
0
0
0
I think there is a political aspect of this too. Since the Marines are under the Navy the can deploy whenever the President sees fit. I'm not sure if the Army can do that without congress. This would make sense as to why the Marines don't have their own separate branch.
(0)
(0)
SGT James Hunsinger
The Army has whats called Deployment Ready Brigades that can be anywhere in the world, conducting combat operations within a range of hours to 2-3 days depending on where in the world.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No! They are different forces with Different Objectives. They do not have to be combined. The thought of losing a Branch of the Armed forces is appalling and devoid of any merit. No argument can be made that would win for any who served in the Marine Corps, if it were to be lost as a Separate Branch of Armed Forces.
Even though they are a sub-branch of the navy. LOL Just Kidding Jar Heads you know I love ya.
Even though they are a sub-branch of the navy. LOL Just Kidding Jar Heads you know I love ya.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I believe that they should not consolidated, we will be breaking many years of traditions etc. Is it the reason that some politician wants to do that to save money or what is the reason?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The Navy is a branch of its own! The marines are a force army is brothers keeper! The Air Force should be combined with the army for the planes are used greater by them!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
In some ways they are, they both work for the DoD, follow the UCMJ, same pay scales etc... In the end I have to say no, you need different units to push each other to get better, pride. There is a lot more pride in being a Marine than a soldier due to higher demands and tougher training, all due respect to regular army troops, on average they are not up to Marine standards (obvious exceptions apply)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think its always good to ask these questions; it brings more perspective to what works and what doesn't. After WWI, the Coast Guard was almost merged into the Navy, but cooler heads prevailed. Each service branch offers unique ability, training, and expertise. Having a fighting force that understands sea-going operations and how to fight an amphibious war is a skill set we will need for a very long time.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Greatest amphibious assault of all time? Invasion of Normandy, conducted by the U.S. Army. Do we NEED the Marines? Probably not, but they serve their specialized purpose and do it exceedingly well. Marines should be retained if for no other reason than their rich history and espirit de corps which is bar none the highest of all branches.
(0)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
It would be nice to think the only reason USMC was not invited to the party for the invasion of normandy was because the Marines couldn't do it. The fact is the Marines were being used in the Pacific against the Japanese and their "island fortresses" - a decision that was purely political and had nothing to do with the Marine's capabilities. The entirety of the Marine Corps was focused on the Pacific, along with 70% of the entire U.S. Navy - all because of a war plan called "Plan Dog".
As for whether we need the Marine Corps - until the Army comes up with a Amphibious Operation capable bunch of sea-corporals who will go to sea with the U.S. Navy at will - the U.S. will need a Marine Corps.
As for whether we need the Marine Corps - until the Army comes up with a Amphibious Operation capable bunch of sea-corporals who will go to sea with the U.S. Navy at will - the U.S. will need a Marine Corps.
(2)
(0)
SGT James Hunsinger
I think the point was that the Army is capable of conducting amphibious operations, such as Operation Uphold Democracy for a more recent example, with the U.S. Army deploying from the WASP in choppers and LCACs. Not that the Marines were incapable. The Army has gone to sea quite a bit with the Navy over the past 30 years. I believe in keeping the Marines a separate force regardless but I think the line between the missions have blurred in recent history and maybe we need to get back to the way things are supposed to be.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
SGT James Hunsinger I'm not sure what you consider "quite a bit" in regards deployments onboard ships. When I see entire U.S. Army units with Navy Sea Service ribbons with 4 or 5 deployment markings I will have to disagree with your "quite a bit". Sending a small detachment for 30 days or 45 days in my books is nothing when compared to Naval units that deploy for 300 days out of the year but only earn one Sea Service ribbon.
As for the way "things are supposed to be"....since when? The Marines have been a supporting unit for the Navy since their inception because the Army couldn't come up with any Army unit that would deploy on Navy ships when the Navy was ready - thus we went out and got our "sea corporals". The Army has always felt they were the only service that mattered - which of course the Navy and the Marine Corps disagrees with.
I won't go into the debate regarding Op Uphold Democracy - but from the Navy's POV many of us considered it a total fuckup.
As for the way "things are supposed to be"....since when? The Marines have been a supporting unit for the Navy since their inception because the Army couldn't come up with any Army unit that would deploy on Navy ships when the Navy was ready - thus we went out and got our "sea corporals". The Army has always felt they were the only service that mattered - which of course the Navy and the Marine Corps disagrees with.
I won't go into the debate regarding Op Uphold Democracy - but from the Navy's POV many of us considered it a total fuckup.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
There's a reason why they say the few, the proud and not the majority, the average.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google