Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

Training already resembles many similarities, so why would you have separate missions? Thank you for your responses

That's just the nature of that Beast. The main Units the Army uses as assault forces falls under 18th Airborne Corp. The Marines as a whole, are one big assault force. Therein lays the difference. Honestly, would you trust a group from Ft Eustis Transportation groups to assault a town? They'd get slaughtered. But, you certainly would send in 101st, or 82nd, or Marines, maybe even 10th Mountain or 1st Cav. The Army BCT is only 8 weeks, whereas Marine BCT is 13, if I'm not mistaken. All Marines learn infantry tactics, including self defense and hand to hand combat. Army only does Bayonet training. These are things the Army needs to train more in, especially in an ever changing battlefield environment

SGT Mark Sullivan In 1978 they took away the WAC program for women and began training them in infantry. Being one of the first groups of women trained on the m16, m60's, grenade launchers and we were trained self defense and hand to hand combat. They were tough on us to see if we could do it. And it was also tough because we had to go through men who still in that time felt women should be in the kitchen cooking and having babies. So sexual harassment was also a big part we had to be strong against. I have men around here in the American Legion that always comment that I act like a Marine. And one of those men was a Marine sniper. So I guess it depends on what era you were trained in the Army and the circumstances at the time. I do have the highest respect for any who join any department of the military. We all joined to defend and give our lives for our country and we all bleed the same color of blood. All in uniform or who have served should be respected no matter when or how they all offered their blood, sweat and hidden tears.

But both Army and Marines have riflemen, tanks, artillery, and other combat-essential equipment. Obviously the Army isn't sea-intensive branch, so leave that up to the Navy. Now the Marines and the Army are shore-intense, so why not push for more consolidation? Objectively speaking that is. Thank you for responding by the way.

Funny, I also heard that we had more planes than the Air Force.

SSG Jason Werstak

The USAF has us all beat on numbers of golf courses.

I beg to differ, SSG. Air Force is FAR more complicated than flying planes. It plays critical role in patrolling ENTIRE aerospace reaching into outer space, involving intricate system of math and astrophysics. Integrating those two is definitely an impossible task at the core level. Thank you for your response!

Oh, then you won't mind folding Navy and Marine aviation into the USAF and acknowledge the navy's future is entirely aquatic?

If you think the army doesn't know engineers, we got a corps of them that are responsible for more than you know

Having a civilian commander and chief is critical. Do you want generals ousting elected officials?

The Military is comprised of the people so who should the military report in your mind? That's the question.

What are differences? Please elaborate, thanks. Just want to hear on your perspective

I appreciate the comment. Care to elaborate?

I can, yes. Mostly, the Marine Corps, while doing very well in a land and urban environment, is specialized in amphibious warfare and other naval operations. They have their own fighter and bomber pilots that operate off of carriers, which is WAY different from anything the Army does. They also completely depend on the Navy for a lot of support, especially in the medical field. Then there is the matter of much higher physical fitness standards, uniform regulations, standards of conduct, personnel management, etc.

Hmmm....
Jumping out of perfectly good airplanes? Marines - Check, Army - Check
Helcopter Ops? Check, Check
Fixed Wing? Check, Not really
Amphibious Assualt? Check, Check
Boats? Check, Check
Divers? Not sure, Check
Infantry? Check, Check
Medical? Go Navy, Check

No really significant differences. It clearly would benefit "Marine" operations to have organic medical support. Army could definitely use more Fixed wing support. Traditions aside, with the exception of being able to be directly sent by the President (something that can easily be changed), there are few tasks that the Army cannot fulfill.
Budget wise, getting rid of all that overhead by combining branched could mean many many NEW and IMPROVED toys to dedicate to those missions.
Similar things could be said about the Navy and Air Force.
No doubt, cutting the overhead, could mean some very significant changes, and reduce the duplication of efforts between the forces.

No really significant differences? The Army isn't trained (at all) in major shipboard operations, to include launch and recovery of some of the incredibly specialized and combat capable landing craft the Marine Corps uses in its Expeditionary Units. The Marines have their own carrier wings, for crying out loud, including fighters, bombers, tankers, electronic warfare, etc. Marines have fleets of ships (driven by the Navy, sure, but the Army uses the Air Force for an overwhelming majority of its mobility, too) completely devoted to their deployment and support. Nor is the Army trained in ship-to-ship boarding actions.

On the surface, yes, there are an amazing number of similarities between the two services, but it's only on the surface. You're basically making a comparison that lifeguards and Navy SeALs are basically the same because they both know how to swim.