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
Nothing of any consolidations can or will ever happen effectively until you take closer looks and the entrance standards.
There are many people who ended up in the Army because they did not meet the Entrance Standards for the Marine Corps. And there are very few rejected first by the Army who later made it into the Corps.
Granted there are always a few exceptions to everything. There are always some Army people who probably would have been great Marines, and there are always a few Marines that most other Marines wonder how they ever got through Boot Camp, or how they even passed an ASVAB. But those ARE the exceptions, not the rule.
Additionally, you now have to include women in the discussion.
The Corps spent 2 years entertaining and training ladies for combat jobs, and closed it down. Afterwards, ladies went to the Army Ranger School. How many of them actually went on to a Ranger Unit and ever functioned as Rangers, vs how many ran back to their POG jobs with merely a few more promotion points and a Ranger tab?
Its not about who CAN, its about who WILL.
And good luck with requiring all of those Army people to know how to swim.
There are many people who ended up in the Army because they did not meet the Entrance Standards for the Marine Corps. And there are very few rejected first by the Army who later made it into the Corps.
Granted there are always a few exceptions to everything. There are always some Army people who probably would have been great Marines, and there are always a few Marines that most other Marines wonder how they ever got through Boot Camp, or how they even passed an ASVAB. But those ARE the exceptions, not the rule.
Additionally, you now have to include women in the discussion.
The Corps spent 2 years entertaining and training ladies for combat jobs, and closed it down. Afterwards, ladies went to the Army Ranger School. How many of them actually went on to a Ranger Unit and ever functioned as Rangers, vs how many ran back to their POG jobs with merely a few more promotion points and a Ranger tab?
Its not about who CAN, its about who WILL.
And good luck with requiring all of those Army people to know how to swim.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think their training should be combined. Army Basic should become more like Marine Corps Boot Camp. Occupational Specialty training, AIT, the Marines should be trained by the Army. In some instances, certain AIT does combine Marines and Army together. As far as units are concerned, the missions are slightly different, but both services should be able to perform both missions if necessary. It would make for a more flexible combined force, with an understanding of both service components, and how they operate.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No! The Marines are part of the Navy. I kid, but that is their designed purpose. For "Seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and other land operations to support naval campaigns; and Development of tactics, technique, and equipment used by amphibious landing forces in coordination with the Army and Air Force"
The USMC was formed as a type of Naval Infantry. That is what they should stay doing. The Marines do things we Army folk could never do, and we Army folk do things the Marines couldn't. There's a reason for having 4 branches rather than 1.
The USMC was formed as a type of Naval Infantry. That is what they should stay doing. The Marines do things we Army folk could never do, and we Army folk do things the Marines couldn't. There's a reason for having 4 branches rather than 1.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hell yes. It would save billions. And create quicker response. But can the Marine pride accept being folded into the Army.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
I think their focus of mission is so different that it wouldn't make sense. Essentially, the Marines are "Special Forces." Their training and breadth of mission are proof of that. It's kind of like coaching a basketball team. You wouldn't have your center bringing the ball up and down the court, nor would you have your point guard posting up against the opponent's big man. It's all about match-ups. In the military, we need to match the right force with the right mission. In the U.S. we do have traditions, different uniforms, regimental history, etc. All these figure into human motivation and espirit de corps. Very important for the stress and strain of the world's most dangerous jobs. Remember that in the end, it's about winning. If it ain't broke don't fix it comes to mind as well. There is a gestalt here that is missed if you only look at numbers (which do matter, just not as much as being the best at what we do). The sum of the parts are greater than the whole with all the different services. A One Force military would still need to train different troops for different jobs. Allowing for distinctions and differences between the forces plays into the psyche and individuality that make America great. We remain the most feared and respected military in the world, and part of that aura is uniquely embedded with the United States Marine Corps. When our enemies know they are up against the Marines they are more likely to flee than to stand and fight. And, according to Sun Tzu, that is the most skillful: "One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful, subduing the enemy's military without battle is the most skillful."
(3)
(0)
Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller
Leave it like it is, if it isn't broke don't fix it. Also STOP asking this stupid question!
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Competition gives us better products that we enjoy around the house. Competition gives us a better Marine Corps and Army. I was blessed to receive Amphibious Warfare training at Quantico from my brother Marines. I was then blessed to serve along side Marines in the Sand Box. I say we need both. Maybe, just maybe, we need another Navy to help make our current Navy better? Marine and Navy Air certainly keep our Air Force on their toes...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
NO- logically, they have different missions, different logistics, etc. If you had ever been in either you would know that. Few Army units (Airborne, Rangers, Air Assault) are configured to seize key points and do it well- but lack the armor support, and naval gunfire that the typical Marine (MEU) has. On the other hand MEU's do not have the range that the Airborne, Ranger units have in that they can be deployed much further inland from a coast if resupplied. The 82nd can be ready to move a BN TF in 18 hours or less anywhere, a Brigade in 24 and the entire Division in 36, if the Air Force can cope at anytime. 3rd World countries would not normally see it coming., To assemble a USMC Div, would take much longer, just in ship travel time, if the Navy had the ships to move than and it's much more apparent to the world. Army heavy units are different, takes longer to move- but they have Divisions of heavy/ Mech units while the USMC has much less.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No...leave well enough alone... 300 plus years of perfection..... Why change?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google