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
3
3
0
The reality of the Army and Marines merging is something that should NEVER be considered. Though similar they are VERY different. The customs and courtesies they have are very different. Merging the USMC and USA would be like trying to merge the United States and Canada, As someone who has served in two branches (Navy & Army).I would know the differences in military sub cultures. I doubt if that would ever happen. The Navy and the Marine Corps are like two opposite sides of a coin. And both share a long complicated history. But i do believe the reality of the Air Force merging with the Army is possible. Since historically the Air Force (formerly the Army Air Corps) is the youngest branch in existence. This would save the US government billions in hard earned tax money.
(3)
(0)
SGT Mike Marino
Just think the airforces boot camp environment is very relaxed given some of the complexities of their training and wouldnt be as strict as the Army. On Youtube you can view Army bootcamp verses say the Airforce. I
went through 1 step unit training in the U.S Army Military Police Academy at Ft. McClellan Alabama 1983. It was much harder tougher than today's basic training. The Army Drills are softer now. My nephew and relatives tell me that it isn't the same when I went through. We had the first 8 weeks called shock treatment out of 16 weeks, literally that was one of the phases. Similar to the yelling screaming and intensity as the Marines. Shortly after and Today , the Army is softer their training is softer than the Marines. I think the tougher training is better. My drill instructors would hit us with the ends of pool sticks when we were doing p.t if they thought we weren't performing a pushup correctly or giving it our best. They would always state to us that we have to be the very best representing the Military our country.A good knock on the side of the leg etc with the yelling screaming I think is all good. Today I heard they could use their cell phones to call their family?????? I cant believe that??? but they say its true. I think thats bullsht. If I had to reenlist it would be the Marines hoping that they are the hardest trained. Knowing this I would want them to train similarly. at sometime one group would be assigned to the marines learning their history and the other to the Army learning their history and courtesy. But the initial training phases I would like to see the Marines handle the recruits.
went through 1 step unit training in the U.S Army Military Police Academy at Ft. McClellan Alabama 1983. It was much harder tougher than today's basic training. The Army Drills are softer now. My nephew and relatives tell me that it isn't the same when I went through. We had the first 8 weeks called shock treatment out of 16 weeks, literally that was one of the phases. Similar to the yelling screaming and intensity as the Marines. Shortly after and Today , the Army is softer their training is softer than the Marines. I think the tougher training is better. My drill instructors would hit us with the ends of pool sticks when we were doing p.t if they thought we weren't performing a pushup correctly or giving it our best. They would always state to us that we have to be the very best representing the Military our country.A good knock on the side of the leg etc with the yelling screaming I think is all good. Today I heard they could use their cell phones to call their family?????? I cant believe that??? but they say its true. I think thats bullsht. If I had to reenlist it would be the Marines hoping that they are the hardest trained. Knowing this I would want them to train similarly. at sometime one group would be assigned to the marines learning their history and the other to the Army learning their history and courtesy. But the initial training phases I would like to see the Marines handle the recruits.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
As a former marine and retired US Army instructor/writer in MI, let me actually entertain this by simply running the facts and then asking the only relevant question if this is under serious discussion.
USMC Standard
PFT 3mile Run, Pull-ups, Sit-ups (marines must pass every event 60% in Boot Camp and after)
Every marine a skilled rifleman first, MOS second
Boot Camp is 16 weeks (PISC or San Diego MCRD 12 Wks + School of Infantry fire team/squad tactics 4 Wks accelerated)
US Army Standard
(excluding Delta, Special Forces, Ranger Regiment, Infantry and MI Great Skills Programs)
PFT 2mile Run, Push-ups, Sit-ups (soldiers are not required to pass 60% until AIT or MOS School)
Soldiers have no initial-entry infantry training and cannot request or be sent to these schools until after AIT
Basic Training is 8 weeks (no Infantry School training available)
These are just the fundamental (or core) differences between soldiers and marines. I am sure there are possibly more but these are the ones that most directly impact combat effectiveness and power as a military force. Which means the real question is which will you unwaveringly enforce (do we raise all soldiers to the current USMC Standard or lower all marines to the current US Army Standard)? I do not believe that either force is ready to so dramatically change their respective paradyms, JMHO.
Proudly SEMPER FIDELIS and ALWAYS OUT FRONT!!
USMC Standard
PFT 3mile Run, Pull-ups, Sit-ups (marines must pass every event 60% in Boot Camp and after)
Every marine a skilled rifleman first, MOS second
Boot Camp is 16 weeks (PISC or San Diego MCRD 12 Wks + School of Infantry fire team/squad tactics 4 Wks accelerated)
US Army Standard
(excluding Delta, Special Forces, Ranger Regiment, Infantry and MI Great Skills Programs)
PFT 2mile Run, Push-ups, Sit-ups (soldiers are not required to pass 60% until AIT or MOS School)
Soldiers have no initial-entry infantry training and cannot request or be sent to these schools until after AIT
Basic Training is 8 weeks (no Infantry School training available)
These are just the fundamental (or core) differences between soldiers and marines. I am sure there are possibly more but these are the ones that most directly impact combat effectiveness and power as a military force. Which means the real question is which will you unwaveringly enforce (do we raise all soldiers to the current USMC Standard or lower all marines to the current US Army Standard)? I do not believe that either force is ready to so dramatically change their respective paradyms, JMHO.
Proudly SEMPER FIDELIS and ALWAYS OUT FRONT!!
(3)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Wouldn't the easiest course of combining the 2 be to make another special group similar to rangers, infantry, etc. anyway?
(2)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
PO3 (Join to see), I've heard it suggested to make the Marines a special unit in the Army, letting them keep their identity and unit history and such. Is that what you mean?
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Yes. That is the only way they would be able to efficiently combine. I don't see the main problem with the idea being the different pt standards however.
(0)
(0)
MSgt David Rollins
Khalid, well said. As far as standards are concerned, when I retired in 2004 at the age of 42; final PFT was: 20 Pullups, 100 situps, and a 20:59 on my FINAL PFT. Let's talk standards..... BTW, I hated every minute I was at boot camp; but, I wouldn't trade it for anything!
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
We have joint response units now that do great together. To train everybody to do every-bodies job, NO. Just another reason for congress to further cut the military and that is the last damn thing we need to do!!!!!!!!!!!!
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
PV2 Violet Case
I do agree to stop all that junk cause we were or are all of the military no matter what branch and are supposed to be a team and have each others backs at any cost. Even as a civilian today I would step out to take a bullet for anyone of you no matter what branch you are. That should be what makes us who we are today.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
PV2 Violet Case, would you 'catch a grenade' for me? How about 'jump in front of the train' for me? ;-)
(0)
(0)
PV2 Violet Case
PO1 Jacob Dronzin I would not just do that out of fun. But if we were in a group and a grenade came our way I would be a brave one to jump on it to save others. but not just as a prank ask me too. But to sincerely save lives yes I would esspecially now that I am slowly dying in alot of pain anyway. But to do it just for fun would be suicide and affect my beliefs to maybe go to heaven. But to do it to save heaven sounds good to me. You can ask many of my friends of over 450 on my facebook page if they would trust that I would do that for them too and I think over 3/4 would agree.
Wouldn't you do that for another no matter which part of the service the person was in. PO1 Jacob Dronzin?
Wouldn't you do that for another no matter which part of the service the person was in. PO1 Jacob Dronzin?
(0)
(0)
SFC Russell Campbell
Enough of the repeat mid-1950s debate. Marines will stay Jarheads, and Army will stay Grunts, end of story
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I don't think it's a good idea. Yes we have some of the same purpose however the Marines have always been the first to fight and we go in and take over then hand it over to the Army who occupies the place or that's the way it should be because that's the way it was in the past. The Marines are the President's first responders to anything. The Marines can get called in without congress approval for 90 days before congress has to approve. The Marines have been called upon more than once to go in and take control of a situation. The Marines go in and get out as soon as possible.
(3)
(0)
SGT Mike Marino
not really the first to go. My unit jumped into panama the same time the Marines were landing off the coast etc. Same with grenada. I have worked closely with the marines and they and us got along great we were one force wearing the same patch on our bdu's
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Being objective, no. We need a seaborne, forced entry force and the Marines provide that. They are the experts at amphibious warfare and the operate with the Navy. Yes, the have commonality with the Army but only so far as to achieve their primary mission. The Army is our primary, land warfare force. We are exceedingly good at it. They need to remain separate entities performing their roles and missions.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Soo so funny all these Army jokes coming from Marines. Pretty sure the last three national news beastiality headlines were made by Marines.
However....Marines and Army train differently and the mentality is different. The Army needs the Marine's mentality. Combing Marines with the Army would ruin them. You can't place a value on the Marine Corp. No cost is too high.
However....Marines and Army train differently and the mentality is different. The Army needs the Marine's mentality. Combing Marines with the Army would ruin them. You can't place a value on the Marine Corp. No cost is too high.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
Seriously with this question? Short answer is no. Both branches have their respective role and mission. If you understand those roles it is pretty easy to understand how ridiculous this question truly is.
Here is the long answer.
Every 15 years or so some smart guy comes around thinking he solved a financial crisis by combining a branch or two. We have five with very defined roles and goals. President Truman once tried to absorb the Marine Corps into the Army during the Korean War. What he received were boxes full of awards earned for valor by legions of Marines who were fighting on the front lines while the Commander in Chief tried to make them Army who disagreed with his reasoning.
In summary you have two fighting forces that have two different missions. The Marine Corps is light, fast and hard hitting. Meant to go in first blow a hole in the defenses and make as much destruction as they can while the main force comes in behind them.
The main force being the much larger Army. They represent the traditional large fighting force. You could say they are slightly slower but this is due to their massive size and power.
We have a good thing going. Just leave it be. The modern day American Military is a product of years of strategy and planning. We didn't just end up with it. We designed it this way.
Here is the long answer.
Every 15 years or so some smart guy comes around thinking he solved a financial crisis by combining a branch or two. We have five with very defined roles and goals. President Truman once tried to absorb the Marine Corps into the Army during the Korean War. What he received were boxes full of awards earned for valor by legions of Marines who were fighting on the front lines while the Commander in Chief tried to make them Army who disagreed with his reasoning.
In summary you have two fighting forces that have two different missions. The Marine Corps is light, fast and hard hitting. Meant to go in first blow a hole in the defenses and make as much destruction as they can while the main force comes in behind them.
The main force being the much larger Army. They represent the traditional large fighting force. You could say they are slightly slower but this is due to their massive size and power.
We have a good thing going. Just leave it be. The modern day American Military is a product of years of strategy and planning. We didn't just end up with it. We designed it this way.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
No. Absolutely not. The Army and the Marine Corps should not consolidate. I cannot put traditions and history aside. Our history is what makes the Marine Corps and the Army what they are. The Army is a fine fighting force. I served along side them in the first gulf war and we had a Stryker brigade attached to my regiment during my year in Iraq. The Army acquitted itself in spectacular fashion. However, I just cannot conceive that or support it. There are just too many differences between us for all those individuals to accept. While a consolidation would be more economically practical and probably save tons of money there are things more important than money. The pride that comes with saying your a "Marine" or a "Soldier" is not something I would be willing to give up. A consolidation would just be throwing away centuries of history and traditions for the sake of saving money. You also need to consider other things like what would we call that force? what would the uniforms look like? What about ribbons and badges? schools? recruit training? etc. Doctrine would also have to change from the ground up. The Marine Corps is a small amphibious attack force while the Army is more of a larger land occupation force.
I can recall when I was a Drill Instructor on Parris Island that bus loads of Army Drill Sergeants would periodically visit and observe us training recruits because the Marine Corps keeps male and female recruits separate. There is no co-ed recruit training in the Corps.
Keep the Army and the Marine Corps as they are.
My two cents....
I can recall when I was a Drill Instructor on Parris Island that bus loads of Army Drill Sergeants would periodically visit and observe us training recruits because the Marine Corps keeps male and female recruits separate. There is no co-ed recruit training in the Corps.
Keep the Army and the Marine Corps as they are.
My two cents....
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google