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 asked my close friend and co-worker (Marine) about this once...His response mirrored most of what I'm seeing here and didn't surprise me :) We throw around a lot of jibes, but I'll be honest-the Marines are an elite fraternity with a very rich and well-earned individuality that would not be a universal fit for the other services.
That said...
The notion that from an operations, training and manning basis, combining specific roles makes sense...well...makes sense. Here's the rub; the Army is a large organization designed to hold objectives as well as take them. The Marines are a smaller force designed to rapidly deploy and seize objectives. In a similar manner, while the Navy and Air Force both have aviation capabilities, the Air Force is structured to operate from fixed, strategic sites, while the Navy is designed to rapidly establish a temporary strategic presence close to the objective. Both provide support/sustainment for the other services. In a truly "Mahanian" battle-space, that works fine...but two decades of regional, non-conventional conflict have altered that. With dwindling budgets and radically divergent mission profiles, we've seen Marine, Army, Naval and Air Force personnel and equipment being tasked across these lines.
If the answer is any form of consolidation, then it MUST include raising the entirety of the services to a universal and HIGHER standard. That presents several problems, most notably money and "emotion"...Can we afford to train all personnel to be equally proficient? Even if we could, what is the overall effect of taking personnel trained for ground combat and deploying them on a ship for six to nine months? Does the "elite" nature of a unit become less when it's individuality is decreased?
My own opinion is that notions like these create larger problems than they solve. Look at what "multi-tasking" has done to tactical fighter aircraft over the years. We want a weapon that can be both tactical and strategic...conventional and non-conventional. American politicians want to fund programs that "do it all". The reality is that we exist as separate services and units for a reason-and that is to be "experts" rather than "Jack's of All Trades".
IMHO
That said...
The notion that from an operations, training and manning basis, combining specific roles makes sense...well...makes sense. Here's the rub; the Army is a large organization designed to hold objectives as well as take them. The Marines are a smaller force designed to rapidly deploy and seize objectives. In a similar manner, while the Navy and Air Force both have aviation capabilities, the Air Force is structured to operate from fixed, strategic sites, while the Navy is designed to rapidly establish a temporary strategic presence close to the objective. Both provide support/sustainment for the other services. In a truly "Mahanian" battle-space, that works fine...but two decades of regional, non-conventional conflict have altered that. With dwindling budgets and radically divergent mission profiles, we've seen Marine, Army, Naval and Air Force personnel and equipment being tasked across these lines.
If the answer is any form of consolidation, then it MUST include raising the entirety of the services to a universal and HIGHER standard. That presents several problems, most notably money and "emotion"...Can we afford to train all personnel to be equally proficient? Even if we could, what is the overall effect of taking personnel trained for ground combat and deploying them on a ship for six to nine months? Does the "elite" nature of a unit become less when it's individuality is decreased?
My own opinion is that notions like these create larger problems than they solve. Look at what "multi-tasking" has done to tactical fighter aircraft over the years. We want a weapon that can be both tactical and strategic...conventional and non-conventional. American politicians want to fund programs that "do it all". The reality is that we exist as separate services and units for a reason-and that is to be "experts" rather than "Jack's of All Trades".
IMHO
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
From a history perspective I don't think it would work. There was a small detachment of Marines were ready to land on the beaches of Normandy to rescue some soldiers that were bogged down. The Army commander refused the Marines help and order them to stay on ship. Or so the rumor goes. They are two different missions and they should remain apart.
(0)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SFC Lee Flowers Not sure what you are talking about. Good leadership beats a wall of bullets and tactics or that the Army can be Marines by simply putting somebody else in charge? Your answer is very confusing to say the least.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I think it is worth looking at. But then I'd re-arrange a lot of things, if I were in charge. The Army would learn to work from ships, and we'd have an "amphibious" specialty badge like the "airborne" and "air assault" badges. The Navy would retain a smaller Naval Infantry Corps for boarding and boarder repelling, dockside security and so on. A lot of USMC personnel would not stand for this, I recognize that.
Ideally, I'd also give the Army access to fixed-wing aircraft and bring back the Army Air Corps again, and leave the mission of strategic missions (bombers and airlift) as well as supersonic capability, air dominance and high-altitude interception with the Air Force while the Army Air Corps sticks with CAS and tactical, theater-wide operations.
Ideally, I'd also give the Army access to fixed-wing aircraft and bring back the Army Air Corps again, and leave the mission of strategic missions (bombers and airlift) as well as supersonic capability, air dominance and high-altitude interception with the Air Force while the Army Air Corps sticks with CAS and tactical, theater-wide operations.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Thomas Person
The Army has a long legacy of landings. In fact they conducted more amphibs in the Pacific than the Marines in WWII..
(0)
(0)
Cpl Kent Mitchell
Here's the thing: The army's amphibious landing manual is the one the Marines wrote before WWII. Only the cover was changed. Army vertical envelopment? It was invented by Marines. Before Korea.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
PO1 (Join to see)
Elaborate on missions in your opinion please. Also what about branches and components, such as admin and combat support, would you vote for their consolidation?
(0)
(0)
SSgt Scott Schwerman
Didn't realize this was an old discussion I had already put my 2 cents on and answered all that in my previous comments.
(0)
(0)
SFC Lee Flowers
You would actually have the Marines and the Navy mission to include the Army's. Why can't you make a plan to make that work. Everybody comes under the same USMJ.........what part would not work? Its real simple, Do it! Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Hell no the MARINES are the navy's inf. there job is to take and hold advanced base for the navy.Look what China is doing in south China Sea.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SFC Robert Wheeler
That's it? Just no? Ummm Major, don't they teach you how to express an opinion using facts, data, or even tuition as some sort of exploitation for your response or is "no" it?
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Good day to you sir. You have a pleasant profile photo. The U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army are two totally separate states of mind yet both states of mind are beneficial to United States military objectives. To mix the two would take from each. The heraldry of the Marine Corps is what makes a marine victorious in battle. The same is the Army's mentality. I would maintain them both as they are, less they lose the motivation harnessed from their admirable histories.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
short answer: no. Working together to utilize the best skills of each service is not the same as consolidation of branches. Too much of great value will be forever lost...and I'm not referring to historical customs or courtesies.
(0)
(0)
SFC Robert Wheeler
Exactly what of great value would be lost? All you are doing is consolidating the back end and not dulling the point of the spear. You are consolidating command and logistics while having less layers of command and bureaucracy involved in the execution of your mission. It removes the who inter service coordination at the Pentagon level and elsewhere. To coordinate a military mission we currently have to bring the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines together and work through separate channels to get stuff done. Each former individual service would still keep it's mission and capabilities. There is no reason why the services can't continue training like they always have,
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The Army does not function the way the Marine Corps does. Marines are set up and trained to rapidly gain ground. While the army is set to hold it. I could see both merging under a common name and bureaucracy but it would take decades to streamline. The only thing gained would be better branch to branch coordination. But just as we would unite we (different branches) think and assault differently and I'm not sure that eliminating another mind on the battlefield. Keeping us separate makes us unique in our fighting styles and tactics and a more worthy opponent.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google