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
8
8
0
This is the dumbest question I have ever ran across in my damn entire life. Hey, let's get rid of 239 years of Marine Corps traditions, and let's just merge, yes?? While we are at it, let's just shorten our basic to 8 weeks, lower the marksman quals too? Rah? I think not.
(8)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
See very few answers that have anything to do with effeciency. Alot of answers that only talk about traditions and pride. Fact of the matter is that a few people on here said that if it made the nation stronger than they were with it. I've heard a genius say that an E-3 in the Marine Corps was equal to an E-6 in the Army. Have yet to see that in my 18 years. Oh the other one was that only rangers and SF compared to regular Marine Corps units. By now must of us have deployed and worked with other sevices, so the BS and smoke should stop and give a serious opinion. Besides, if it could be done your command philosophy will not be heard lol
(0)
(0)
Sgt Joseph Baker
SFC (Join to see) - You have a good point, and E-3 in the Marines is actually more like a General in the Army. What was that guy thinking?
(0)
(0)
Sgt Joseph Baker
Get this, SFC Eames says the Army masters in efficiency...............nothing more you can add to that.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
The Marines and the Army have two separate missions that would not be feasible to merge. I realize the threats we now face from terrorism may have changed some of the dynamics about national security, it should not change how we defend ourselves against other countries if there was to be a war.
The Marines are a quick reactionary force in places that the Army is not positioned to defend quickly such as the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean, and Pacific regions.
The Marines mission is to secure and move on. With that said, it has been nearly thirty years since I served, and I am sure the dynamics have changed some since then, so I can only speak of my experience from when I served.
The Marines are a quick reactionary force in places that the Army is not positioned to defend quickly such as the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean, and Pacific regions.
The Marines mission is to secure and move on. With that said, it has been nearly thirty years since I served, and I am sure the dynamics have changed some since then, so I can only speak of my experience from when I served.
(8)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Capt Schwager, Because there are more of us Airborne than Rangers. Every tool in the shed has a specific use. Get rid of a tool in a set, it's not a set.
(1)
(0)
LCpl Charles Roseberry
Maj Ballinger, precisely what is it you are saying the Marines "have not.." done?
(1)
(0)
LCpl Sidney Green
Nothing can stop terrorism, and most certainly not armies. You can now move that from the equation.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
7
7
0
Silly. Costly. Ineffectual. Combining the Army and the Marines probably would have as much success as developing a joint forces fighter jet. A one size all for every mission is the dream of bureaucrats and politicians who are more focused on political goals than military ones.
(7)
(0)
LCpl Sidney Green
Maintaining an active military isn't the most expensive part of the U.S. budget (that would be entitlements) but that doesn't mean its not still significant. A joint fighter jet has many advantages, not the least of which is cost. I'm pretty sure you already know that.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Personally I believe that this is a merger that should never be allowed to happen. Each branch of the service has its own mission that they excel at, especially the Army and Marines. While there are overlaps in the mission performances such as closing with the enemy and destroying them in an expedient manner. The Marines have the capability to provide their own air cover in close in combat which would be beneficial to both branches, however, the ties between the Army and the Air Force out weigh the potential benefits of using Marine air cover. This rates right up there with stupid idea of combining all military into one single branch. Someone please stop the insanity of combining things that just simply WILL NOT work together. So much for my .02.
(7)
(0)
7
7
0
Based on my experience working with Marines in Somalia, the Marine Corps is a scaled down version of the Army built for shorter duration deployments. One of the Marines' ground missions as an independent fighting force is to provide the "shock and awe" effect and pave the way for follow on ground forces - a.k.a. the Army. The Marines are not equipped with the extensive logistics channels that the Army has and will depend on us for sustainment after a month or so on the ground. Get in, establish a presence, get relieved in place by long term, follow on units within 30 to 60 days then re-deploy to get ready for the next mission. Anyways that's what I was taught - by a Marine.
Can we consolidate - maybe, should we, IMHO, no. Remember, the Marines also provide maritime security and embassy security. does the Army want to take that on?
Can we consolidate - maybe, should we, IMHO, no. Remember, the Marines also provide maritime security and embassy security. does the Army want to take that on?
(7)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
The Army was first in and got held up by a couple >Cubans< with machine guns and had to call in reinforcements... The Marines ran ripshod all over that island.
http://www.thehistoryreader.com/contemporary-history/october-25-1983-grenada-operation-urgent-fury/
http://www.thehistoryreader.com/contemporary-history/october-25-1983-grenada-operation-urgent-fury/
October 25, 1983: Grenada and Operation Urgent Fury - The History Reader
By Rick Atkinson Two surprises awaited Lieutenant Colonel George Crocker as he walked down the ramp of the C-141 on the morning of October 26, 1983. The first was the balmy climate. Trade winds stirred the coconut fronds and provided…Read more ›
(2)
(0)
GySgt Joe Strong
Amphibious Operations were called obsolete long before WWII. There is a large body of work to support that idea. However, WWII kind of refuted the long body of work, didn't it?
Of course there have been advances in technology since then that may amplify the doubts of the detractors, but the same was said before also.
Of course there have been advances in technology since then that may amplify the doubts of the detractors, but the same was said before also.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Joseph Baker
Capt Jeff S. - Allow me to provide an excerpt: "As the Marines continued to roll through the north, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General John Vessey, reportedly called the commander of the 82nd, Major General Edward L. Trobaugh. “We have two companies of Marines running all over the island and thousands of Army troops doing nothing,” Vessey fumed. “What the hell is going on?” The rebuke was to linger for years with the paratroopers, who bitterly resented Vessey’s censure as a classic example of know-nothing meddling from Washington."
(0)
(0)
LCpl Sidney Green
Not really. Any operation can be successful if you throw enough manpower behind it. In the case of WWII, that success came at the cost of many lives. Far to many.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
6
6
0
No. Each branch has their own mission and their own SOPs and methods of conducting their day-to-day operations. The Marine Corps, for example, has a singular method of writing orders, carrying out duties, SOPs, etc. On the other hand, the Army, while guided by it's own TTPs/SOPs, enables commanders at lower levels to exercise their own discretion in how they conduct business. A likely primary cause of this is the sheer size of the Army, any regulation and singular method of doing ANYTHING is going to have to be filtered through numerous levels of command and the end-result is a little, if not very much, watered down. There are many instances where we, as a military, will need a smaller, more agile and responsive force (i.e. the Marine Corps [although there are similar Army units that fit that bill as well]) and there will also be times where a massive amount of manpower and equipment is needed (i.e. the Army). This multi-faceted ability far outweighs any potential savings in cost (in my opinion)
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
In the year 2314 yes, but in 2014 no, we still have North Korea to look at and we need all the branches to the Armed Forces to remain in tact.
The USA is not out of it yet.
The USA is not out of it yet.
(6)
(0)
MSG Floyd Williams
It seems like it is getting harder and harder to have our U.S. Armed Forces to maintain because of all the changes, you practically have to tip toe to prevent from offending somebody.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Joseph Baker
Thank the Commandant that the Marine Corps has never been about micro-agression, and I right brothers?!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google