Should the Army do away with Patches and go to one universal Symbol like the Marines EGA?

no, I was in both branches and I earned my CIB and other men like my father was in conflict where he earned his. it represents who they are , when I was a kid and joined the marines I was told every marine was a rifleman but its different both branches have there history and heritage it's how you carry your self feel proud with esprit de corp is the only thing the army doesnt have in none combat arms.

Unit patches and other insignia are a source of pride and esptit de corps. If civilians are that interested, they can sign on the line, raise their right hand and take the oath.

Just my opinion but I’m guessing OP is just salty about having to explain what a combat patch is and not having one.

If you have to be ONE, be a Big RED One!!! Wore it with pride.

Ahhh, you're Air Defense.....that explains it.

Respectfully SSG (Join to see) , the Army has traditions, and Marines have theirs...it's not broke so don't fix it. If you like the Marines uniforms more, you could always switch services.

NONSENSE. The Marines are beating the Army at marketing due to reputation and public image. Patches don't make anybody ask what you do, the entire uniform prompts the question. Sorry, son, but if you have to blame piss poor performance on a shoulder patch, I'd wager you suck as a recruiter. Remember, the Marines take islands, the Army takes CONTINENTS. They win battles, we win wars. If someone asks about the patch, explain what it means, explain what it symbolizes. If you can't do that, find another line of work.

Wow, I was a recruiter and I never felt that it was a symbol that got in the way. We are a much bigger service then the Corp (i.e. we recruit the Marines Corp entire strength into the Army each year). I am impressed with the Corp maintain their same dress and class a uniform since WWII. However, by us surrendering our unit patches equates to us giving up our heritage. We loss ground the more we give up our identity. If you want a symbol then it is our battle streamers. We have vastly more than any other branch and that speaks to the issue.

No way, no how. Yes, the Marines have had better marketing over the decades (though I think some of the Army stuff I've seen more recently is pretty good). But the division patches in the Army have history behind them. Much of the gap between Army and Marine marketing is the result of something that built up over time. The Marine effort is probably not only to find recruits but to secure their position as separate from the Army. The Army's emphasis in some of its ads on showing people doing civil-engineering and laboratory work seems to both A.) Make a somewhat dishonest representation of what time in the Army is likely to be like for most recruits, and B.) constitutes an effort focused on the nature of a society that has put a little too much emphasis on safety in the raising of youth (too much bicycle helmet). I get the distinct feeling that many families in America look at military service for their newly-grown children and think "Maybe work in a hospital or an electronics workshop, but rifleman? No way." But while there are medical and signals and similar jobs in the military and those are important, we don't have a military for the purpose of working on patients or electronics - we have it for the purpose of defeating armed enemies on battlefields, which takes riflemen. The Army isn't responsible for societal and cultural trends. At the end of the day, Americans have to raise their children to be reasonably brave, tough, and of good and decent character. Toward recruiting young adults possessing those characteristics, I think the Army "Win" ads look like they would be pretty effective.

If any change I would rather see a branch related patch i.e. infantry, engineer, armor, etc.