Should the Army think more like the Marine Corps? - Combat Arms MOS

2014-03-14T11:57:13-04:00

This is the first in a series of questions I intended to ask concerning the future of the Army and how it might be a more effective fighting force. So this question focuses on the specialization in combat arms that the Marine Corps has that the Army does not. The Marines have at least 8 types of Infantryman, the Army? Just 2. The Marines have soldiers tasked to drive all manner of Armored Vehicles. The Army, outside of tankers, simply tasks people into those positions. The Army has one type of Combat Engineer, while the Marines, again, have specialized with various Combat Engineering positions. So my question is should the Army be more like the Marine Corps in it's specialization of soldiers to become more effective?

Response by SFC James Baber made Mar 14 at 2014 12:07 PM

2014-03-14T12:07:39-04:00

I think if the Army were as small and compact of a force it would be ideal for them to have that direction, but since we are 5-10x the size force as the Marines, we have the capabilities to spread the wealth so to speak, so I don't think it would be as effective, unless we were to downsize to an even more extreme numbers than the projected 420,000 the SECDEF and Pentagon want for the Army. While having more specialized troops with compressed capabilities, it would be another reason to reduce our forces since the current separated jobs/MOSs wouldn't be needed, so I don't see too many SMs agreeing with or Big Army going with that mentality for its future.

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made Apr 29 at 2014 8:25 PM

2014-04-29T20:25:04-04:00

The Army has more than one type of Combat Engineer.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made May 1 at 2014 7:06 PM

2014-05-01T19:06:14-04:00

IMO...From a top-down construct.It wont work because of organizational structure, behavior, design...size, capacity and mission unique differences between the Army and Marine Corps, as defined per U.S.C Title 10.

My answer is "no", the Army should not be like the Marine Corps...my preference is battle diversity over predictability, same behavior and skill sets. The enemy can see that and leverage that intelligence in their favor.

During WWII in the Pacific Theater, the Japanese learned the difference between Regular Army Soldiers and Marines.

Response by SGT John Morris made May 2 at 2014 12:50 PM

2014-05-02T12:50:39-04:00

While being a mirror image to the Marine Corps would IMO be counter productive, there are basic things that I think the Army should make part of its training. Prime example is BRM. Marines are taught to shoot further than 300m with their rifles, and surely some of the longer range engagements have at least been met with more confidence in each Marine to make as much use of their rifles as possible.
Insofar as specialties are concerned, the Army has entire divisions which are aligned to meet different specialties...be it jungle fighting, armored warfare, or airborne assault, the specialty is there...at least it seems to be.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2014 1:11 PM

2014-05-02T13:11:29-04:00

I have to correct you statement that the only has two types of infantrymen. They may be two MOS's for infantry but we have various Additional Skill Identifiers that separate us. For example I have a ASI of "V" in my MOS code. It designates me as being Airborne Ranger Qualified and my assignments will reflect my training. I can be assigned to a Ranger unit. We also have a "P" designator that denotes airborne. In this case you will go to airborne units. In the Army we don't make an MOS for every different aspect of combat jobs but we give them an ASI for what they have been trained on.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2014 1:42 PM

2014-05-16T13:42:18-04:00

This list is pretty accurate for USMC MOS's.

https://www.manpower.usmc.mil/portal/page/portal/M_RA_HOME/MM/B_EA/A_mmea8/C_mmea82

Shows what the Corps considers Combat Arms MOS's which is probably a lot different then yours but keep in mind the emphasis the Corps makes of every Marine a rifleman.

Eventually all MOS's merge as you climb rank. For me, I was an 0656 (Tactical Data Network Operator) that merged into 0651 which was formally a "garrison" operator but the Corps saw that with technology advancement that we were using commercial gear in combat in addition to tactical equipment. Now I am a data chief in charge of all 065x's but fill a Transmissions billet (0629 - Radio Chief) which isn't a bad thing considering I will eventually be a Comm Chief (0699) which will oversee all communications from Radio-062x, Data-065x , and Wire-061x. I'm sure there is cross training involved so I don't see why separate MOS's is a necessity. Ask any Marine TOW gunner if they were doing their job, they probably were a machine gunner. Even mortorman sometimes are just rifleman. You may be trained in a specific field but you will crossed trained because you may not fill that role all the time. Ive held billets that cover all the main communication fields and even infantry fields, whatever the Corps asks of you regardless of your assigned number you just do it.

List of United States Marine Corps MOS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States Marine Corps's Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) is a system of categorizing career fields. All enlisted and officer Marines are assigned a four digit code denoting their occupational field and specialty.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2014 2:02 PM

2014-05-16T14:02:08-04:00

No, while I think there are definitely somethings that he Army could take from out Jar Head brother, this is not one of them. That is not "specialization" it is limitation. The Army has the ability to train soldiers for any mission that ma arise, this makes a more flexible and diverse force.

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Oct 30 at 2014 1:42 PM

2014-10-30T13:42:37-04:00

I am not a Marine so take this with a grain of second-hand salt. The guy who does Terminal Lance was an 0351 Assaultman, and according to him he hardly ever did his job but rather found himself doing other infantry tasks. So I don't necessarily think, based off that information alone, that the Army should be more like the USMC in its specialisations of grunts.

Response by SSG Don Maggart made Mar 10 at 2016 11:59 AM

2016-03-10T11:59:48-05:00

Not No but Hell No...! Die by Rank and Alphabetical order are you Freakin Kidding Me???

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2016 3:57 PM

2016-05-06T15:57:41-04:00

just make everyone a rifleman..that is their primary job, Their MOS is secondary.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 6 at 2019 9:48 AM

2019-04-06T09:48:56-04:00

I think the Marines should have more tanks.

11B: Operate weapons and equipment in ground combat operations. Duties include operating and maintaining weapons, such as rifles, machine guns, mortars, and hand grenades; locating, constructing, and camouflaging infantry positions and equipment; evaluating terrain and recording topographical information; operating and maintaining field communications equipment; assessing need for and directing supporting fire; placing explosives and performing minesweeping activities on land; and participating in basic reconnaissance operations. We are specialized and generalized at the same time.