The marine corps gets everything before the army does

Nick Petros — Mon, 25 Dec 2017 14:52:15 -0500

Response by Nick Petros made Dec 25 at 2017 2:53 PM

Nick Petros — Mon, 25 Dec 2017 14:53:49 -0500

Holiday discussion amongst other civilians... I think I know the answer but getting your feedback is helpful.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2017 3:00 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:00:06 -0500

Nick Petros That is a negative. The Marine Corps makes do with whatever budget comes their way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia

The military budget is the portion of the discretionary United States federal budget allocated to the Department of Defense, or more broadly, the portion of the budget that goes to any military-related expenditures. The military budget pays the salaries, training, and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new equipment. The budget funds 4 branches of...

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2017 3:59 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:59:04 -0500

The Marine Corps far too often has to borrow what they need from other services. Even when it came to big old dual rotor choppers the Marines had to stencil MARINES on them so Navy wouldn't take 'em. Warmest Regards, Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Much Love, Sandy :)

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2017 4:24 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Dec 2017 16:24:23 -0500

Biggest myth on the planet, Marines are first at everything. Hell they'd try and say they were around before the Army if they could get away with it lol

As for all their equipment, it's all Army and Navy hand me downs, they've even been known to scrap parts from Air Boneyard's to fix up their F-18's.

Part of it is their role I think, they are the United States Marine Corps as a Department of the Navy, so the Navy comes first. Then when it comes to ground combat which Marines participate in the Army comes first.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Dec 25 at 2017 5:40 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Mon, 25 Dec 2017 17:40:57 -0500

Uhmmm you need a fact check

Response by Cpl George Goodwin made Dec 25 at 2017 6:38 PM

Cpl George Goodwin — Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:38:45 -0500

During Desert Storm we were still using M-60 tanks while the Army had M-1's.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 25 at 2017 6:53 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:53:18 -0500

Sarcasm?

Response by SGT Brent Scott made Dec 25 at 2017 11:25 PM

SGT Brent Scott — Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:25:10 -0500

I’m not going to comment on this, the original comment must come from a coast guard guy

Response by SGT Brent Scott made Dec 25 at 2017 11:26 PM

SGT Brent Scott — Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:26:19 -0500

Hahaha

Response by SSG(P) Dan Keene made Dec 26 at 2017 12:03 AM

SSG(P) Dan Keene — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 00:03:28 -0500

The Army and USMC just approved procurement of a new sidearm. A modular Sig Model 230 in 9mm or .40 S&W. The Army 101st Abn Div began issuing them. I have not read anything about Marines having begun issuing. In 1985 the Army began issuing Bradley Fighting Vehicles, USMC did not. The same era Army drew M1 Abrams tanks, the USMC continued using antiquated M60 tanks nearly through the 80s.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Dec 26 at 2017 7:30 AM

LtCol Robert Quinter — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 07:30:24 -0500

Incorrect for specific reasons:
a. Preservation of rapid reaction capability. First to fight is more than a recruiting slogan. While the Army has specific units designed for quick reaction, the USMC lives for it. To maintain the capability, the Corps maintains a lighter logistics tail and declines many systems that would increase reaction time due to the increased transport capability required to insert the force into a theater.
b. Emphasis on reduced overhead. By accepting the role of a light infantry reaction capability, the Corps does not have the developmental structure of the larger Army. When the Corps develops a system, it is to address a specific operational requirement that cannot be overcome by the ingenuity of USMC personnel. By not having as significant development capability, the Corps saves the dollars necessary to maintain the capability and can point out their "more bang for the buck" claim to congress when budgets are considered.
c. Mission. Although recent history belies it, the Corps is not traditionally expected to maintain an occupational force once hostilities cease. The capability of assuming that occupational defence posture again requires the heavier logistic footprint the Corps attempts to avoid.

While many other arguments including some institutional bombast could be applied to the argument of USMC economy, tradition and resistance to change; the main reason for the Corps not adopting many Army or Air Force enhancements and developments is directly related to the mission.

Response by SSG Craig Newton made Dec 26 at 2017 4:18 PM

SSG Craig Newton — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 16:18:15 -0500

We both get the leftovers from the Navy and Air Force. When I was active out motto was "We've been doing so much, with so little, for so long we are now qualified to do everything with nothing".

Response by LtCol George Carlson made Dec 26 at 2017 5:25 PM

LtCol George Carlson — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 17:25:13 -0500

Many reasons this is patently false, but several factors (some of which are mentioned, in part or whole below) come together. 1. Mission. Most everything the Marine Corps investigates and ultimately procures is built on our expeditionary/amphibious/light infantry mission. We are "pooled" with other services' procurement on common use items. The program managers (understandably) tend to issue to their own service first (usually the largest user) and then the other large users, and finally the Marine Corps. It's OK because it gets a lot of the large usage testing done before we get the "mod-2" version. 2. Making Do. Granted every service finds itself "short" at some point in time and senior NCO's and Chiefs learn or relearn the techniques. Marine SNCO's have developed it to an art form that is passed on. At times, it bites us in the butt -- e.g. Rehabilitating (actually more like totally rebuilding) 114 Quonset huts in 1989 that dated from 1942 and had already been relocated once and rehabbed at least three other times I know of. 3. Best bang for the buck. That includes using stuff up before throwing it away (to DRMO). Three examples: a) as an officer candidate in 1964 we were issued M-14's but M-1 cartridge belts. The M-14s were all 5-digit serial numbers -- lower (i.e. older) than anything active duty was carrying anywhere. All we needed belts for was holding up two canteens, a first aid packet, and a bayonet. I had three belts in six weeks as the worn eyelets finally broke through; b) as a lieutenant at TBS it became clear that some part of the supply system had not been practicing good stock rotation. Our C-rats were the indicator. We started with ones containing relatively current filter cigarette brands. Then the filter brands disappeared. The final straw was in our last month of training when we found Lucky Strike "Greens" (they changed to the white pack in 1942 to save the ink which contained a strategic metal). One of my platoon mates held up a can of pork steak and announced, "Do you realize this pig died before I was born?"; c) In Vietnam 1st MAW was force-fed a full allowance of new (to us) Cat M-12 graders with instructions "wear out/use up" out tired old Adams 550's. I started sending them, one or two at a time to 7th Engineers. When their equipment officer called to say they had just blown the tandems off one, I had only two questions: "Is the operator OK?" and "where can I send the next one?" 4. Amphibious lift. The Corps has declined or delayed many new equipment items (all too often bigger and/or heavier) due to lack of "boat space." The philosophy, correctly, has been there is no point in getting something you can get to where the action is. 5. Budget. The Marine Corps (by DoD plan) is not designed for long-term deployment. Therefore, we could restrict our budget requests to what was essential to a 90-day expeditionary use and rely on supplemental funding when we got stuck somewhere for longer. But that has its drawbacks as there is an administration and congressional expectation that we don't need as much and therefore, we often are the red-haired stepchild when it comes to gear.

Response by Cpl Rc Layne made Dec 26 at 2017 6:46 PM

Cpl Rc Layne — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 18:46:37 -0500

My Battalion finally got buttpacks in 84. Supply SNCO pulled them out of the fire where the army was disposing of them.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Dec 27 at 2017 12:18 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 00:18:12 -0500

I'm a Sailor I have No Idea, I Know though that the Navy Takes Programs that the Air Force can't make work and makes them work. PDP-11/70 comes First to Mind and of Course there are a few Joint Endeavors by the Navy and Air Force Say Like Project Classic Wizard.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2017 2:39 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 02:39:55 -0500

Some people - mind you some friends including Marine friends - believe Marines are some of the biggest scroungers and thieves on the batttlefield - and they need to be so because they travel so light that no one issues them what they really need to accomplish many secondary missions. They are also rumored to be able to sleep anywhere on a moment's notice. If you show up on their doorstep in the middle of the night with a problem they will grab whatever it takes to bury the problem asap - no questions asked. Warmest Regards & Semper Fi, Sandy :)

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2017 10:40 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:40:36 -0500

No. Not even a little bit.

Response by SP5 Dave Forrest made Dec 27 at 2017 10:50 AM

SP5 Dave Forrest — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:50:56 -0500

BS I started out in Basic (Jan 1967) unwrapping a new M14 while the Marines in Vietnam were using old M1s and our DI made sure we knew to feel guilty about it.

Response by SSgt Dan Montague made Dec 27 at 2017 2:21 PM

SSgt Dan Montague — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 14:21:42 -0500

Things have gotten better since the war. At one point we were the last to get newer equipment. We had some Army hand me downs. Even in '05 he Army had stuff I never even heard of.

Response by SPC David Willis made Dec 27 at 2017 3:05 PM

SPC David Willis — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 15:05:13 -0500

If youre comparing MARSOC to a line unit it 1st Cav maybe... Otherwise all things being equal the Army will always get the good stuff first.

Response by PFC Howard Bryant Blackshear made Dec 27 at 2017 3:33 PM

PFC Howard Bryant Blackshear — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 15:33:43 -0500

In Combat we share the same Equipment, that's all that Matters, Army, Marines Grunts, does the same Job. # OD/ Overdose Greens.