Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

Honestly from the outside view such as yours. goals might seem similar and organization the same. This is simply not the case. Marine combat units have a different organizational and distribution style then the Army. Yes there are some overlapping goals for each branch in theatre but both are fielded with different equipment and different deployment requirements in mind. Some simple examples include a Marine Infantry squad composition vs a Army Infantry Squad Compositon. Or Engineer assets and purposes. Or Special Operations. Just these examples alone may seem like small differences but it effects doctrine and tasking heavily. Each branch has their specialties simply put.

Emotions aside, they are two different branches. Generally speaking, Marines are a quick strike force, Army is an occupational force. They have two completely different mission sets in a near peer war.

This came up after WWII getting rid of the airborne came up and comes up all the time. It aint gonna happen as long as one paratrooper or one marine is breathing.

This is the stupidest thing that always comes up. It’s stupid.

And Marines, I am just as proud of being a soldier as you are of the Marines.

Not even close. The Army has some squared away units and I’ll freely say that with pride but if you think the big green machine could one hundred percent adhere to Marine Corps standards your practically looking to reduce its size by one half. So if your objective is to thin the herd than send them all to MCRD and let’s see what happens. I’ve seen posts about how Marines always overstate their accomplishments but let’s just look at the numbers and battle ribbons of the two forces and it’s obvious who’s the overachievers.

Semper Fi

I was 11B and proud of my blue cord. God bless Chesty Puller and the Marine Corps! They ARE the experts on amphibious operations and kicking in the door. They establish the beachhead as an expeditionary force and allow the Army to come in and expand on their breach. The Marines do an excellent job when they are required to stay in place, but their intent is to open the door, not to occupy.

NO WAY, NO HOW. WE'RE MARINES, PERIOD. A BREED UNTO OURSELVES.

Then, too, just as another thought, I'd obviously also read about Army Combatives and MCMAP training, I've often wondered why those don't consolidate either, or, at minimum, be required to be integrated, each with the other, I mean, martial arts are martial arts, one would logically think that both programs should certainly benefit from having, say, alternating heads between Army and USMC, I don't know who'd go first, flip a coin, I suppose, you know? As I'd said, just another observation I'd given some reflection to, you know?

I'd obviously run across such a thought numerous times before...there's certainly logic to it, if only from the standpoint that, at least for the whole amphibious-landing aspect, maybe both should be interchangeable integrated, while maintaining distinct character, if only for sake of tradition, as well as morale combined with esprit de corps, that's my only point...interestingly, when I'd been doing military history in Army ROTC before going USAF OTS, the PMS of the ROTC program I'd been in, which no longer exists, had said that the first "major" U.S. amphibious landing had actually been done principally by Army, at least from what I'd gathered he'd mentioned, during the Mexican War, which I certainly found interesting...as he'd explained that aspect, I always found myself wondering, though I hadn't asked him at that specific moment, whether USMC had also been involved...I'd expect it would've been, by all means, I would think that would certainly have been anticipated...clearly, not having been USMC or active Army, those are just thoughts on my part, by all means, however, I've always found that a most interesting question...there've been all sorts of such interopability questions in the past, most notably sticking B-25 bombers under Doolittle and Halsey on the Hornet for the Japan raid, or, more recently, Pres. Carter having insisted on using Army helicopters on a carrier during the whole Teheran, Iran raid, during the whole hostage thing, which, when he'd suggested it, I'd once read he apparently got more than a few kind of wide-eyed stares, however, as I'd also read, he'd evidently insisted, which, certainly, I found a quite creative concept, given the apparent reaction he'd gotten at the time, obviously...as I'd said, those were just some thoughts that had occurred to me...I'd be curious whether Naval Inst. proceedings has had articles dealing with that whole topic, I'd expect it must certainly have arisen in print before elsewhere, you know? If any of you have any thoughts, I'd certainly be interested, that was a quite good question....

Whi come up with this dumbass Idea? Leave the shit the way it is.