A question for military people...

[Xithras]

Can anyone tell me why, in this day and age, we still have and fund BOTH an Army and a Marine Corps? Other than history, is there any valid reason for us to spend untold billions of dollars per year maintaining two completely separate military branches, both dedicated to ground combat, which largely use the same weapons & tactics to accomplish identical goals?

I've seen and heard lots of comments about the Marines anniversary today, and just wonder why we should keep funding more of them. Is there a difference between the Marines & Army that I'm missing?

[unhappycamper]

1. The Marines are considered 'shock troops'.

The Army is, well, the Army.

[cliffordu]

It was 'The Fucking Army" in my day.

[unhappycamper]

5. Mine too. n/t

[virgogal]

2. Marines are part of the Navy . Different missions.

[Xithras]

7. That sound like an organizational or political division, not a practical one.

What I want to know, based on what REAL Army soldiers do on an average day, and what REAL Marine soldiers do on an average day, is what the practical operational differences are TODAY between the two branches that justifies countless billions of extra dollars per year in military spending while our pols whine about a lack of money for healthcare.

[ProleNoMore]

3. The Marines Are Part Of The Navy - Traditionally Used For Assaulting Beachheads Not A Standing Army

Two entirely different military roles.

[Xithras]

4. "Tradition" isn't relevant nowadays.

And I don't see us assaulting many beachheads in modern war.

[Captain Hilts]

10. The Marines are a self-sustaining unit with no visible supply trail. nt

[ProleNoMore]

17. Marines And Army Are Two Entirely Different Military Organizations With Very Different Missions

I'd suggest a little research on your own.

[DrDan]

6. the goals are not identical - nor are the weapons

you won't find many marines driving tanks around.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Marines are cheaper cannon-fodder.

Unless things have changed since my day in the Crotch, the marines generally got the upgrades and perks last.

[Captain Hilts]

16. They've got a 4 star now to argue their case. nt

[Captain Hilts]

9. The Marines are an expeditionary force. The Army is not, though they're trying to take the Marines'

mission over.

[Xithras]

12. That might not be a bad thing.

I just looked it up, and the Marines have a $12 billion a year budget. Seems to me that it would be better to let the Army handle the expeditionary work and put that $12 billion to use on more important things...like healthcare.

[Captain Hilts]

15. The need for the mission and the money allocated for it would not disappear.

You have a lot to learn about the government, and the military.

I thought you were actually interested in knowing the difference.

[Statistical]

25. False choice.

If you "got rid" of Marines by rolling them into the Army then Army budget would simply increase by $12B to fund the lighter expeditionary units in the "new" Army.

There may be reasons to merge the two forces but money wouldn't be one of them. Likely the two could be combined but there are very entrenched forces on both sides who would work against it making any transition likely MORE expensive in the short term than funding both as separate units.

[Burma Jones]

26. Well, I suppose the Army could do the USMC's job........

for about $120 billion a year.......:sarcasm: (slight sarcasm)

Marines do operate more efficiently than the other branches......they're forced to.

I know, I've done procurement system work for all four branches

[Captain Hilts]

31. Like the Coast Guard, the Marines have been grossly under-funded for their mission

and have done an extraordinary job despite it.

[wuushew]

11. Weren't the Marines largely absent from the ETO?

seems the Army can if pressed conduct successful amphibious operations.

[Captain Hilts]

18. Correct. No USMC in ETO. But there was Army in PTO, but many Marines. nt

[margotb822]

13. ACk! Could a worse question be asked today?!?

Happy 234th Birthday USMC!

I'm in the Navy and I'm trying to think of the best way to explain the differences without sounding biased.

I think the problem is that you're framing this question in a very modern context, when the history, and thus the different capabilities, are important. To simply assume that things are this way now and will always be, isn't good, imo.

The Marines are a fighting force that can be deployed rapidly to secure an objective. The Navy-Marine Corp "team" can be put to work anywhere in the world. However, this is not a sustainable force.

The Army, with it's size and equipment, takes much longer to get to the fight (not in a bad way, in a logistic way), but they have the capacity for sustained action.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Think about this: Let's say we were to fight a war in Indonesia (not advocating this, but it's for example). This archipelagic terrain requires forces that are mobile by sea and air, not so much huge land forces. Thus, the USMC would be the ideal force for fighting this war until the Army was able to adjust to properly join the fight.

Or, if we were in a land war with Canada, the Army has the manning, equipment and training to optimally fight here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I would say that to focus so narrowly would be a detriment to our military forces.

[Xithras]

24. Again, though, the difference sounds political.

If two wings of our military cannot conduct joint operations successfully in that kind of environment, the problem isn't the soldiers, it's a lack of leadership and willingness to integrate the various phases of modern combat.

Your argument seems to be that the Army can't be deployed rapidly and doesn't know how to deploy from boats. Therefore, we need to spend $12 billion a year on a division dedicated to those things.

My argument is that it would be much simpler to TRAIN the Army to deal with seaborne deployments and fix whatever problem is causing their lethargic response times.

If the Army is so broke that can't be done, maybe we should get rid of the Army and turn all ground defense over to the USMC. I'm not taking sides on that one.

[margotb822]

34. Did you know the Navy has more pilots than the Air Force?

My point is, I don't think you actually grasp the nature of the services. If I were to ask you what service you'd join if you wanted to fly, you'd say Air Force because, from what you know, they do the flying. From what you know, the Army and Marine Corps all fight on the ground. Well, in reality, there are differences, both obvious and subtle that make them completely different services. Not necessarily services that can't work together (although lot of people will debate the success of joint-ness), but that it wouldn't be worthwhile to combine them.

You're not going to get the answer you want from people that know and understand the services, their capabilities, and the development of future forces.

I say all the time that the modern mission of the Air Force is completely misguided. I think the flying should be returned to the Army and the rest should go to NASA. While, that may seem like a good theoretical idea, it's probably not possible. And, it might not make a difference.

Honestly, what would be the point of combining them? It seems like all you want to do is add the Army and Marine Corps together.

If your goal is to streamline the forces, this would be the worst way to do that.

[Captain Hilts]

61. We need to completely rethink the Air Force. nt

[NeedleCast]

14. Being dedicated to ground combat doesn't mean their roles are the same

The Marines are generally rapid-deployment. The army has special forces elements that play the same role, but not nearly the same numbers.

Further, if you combined them into the same force but kept the same number of active duty people in them, the cost difference would be negligable.

Marine equipment tends to be lighter and faster moving. A typical Marine division is faster moving but has less firepower than a typical Army division.

[optimator]

19. you are right.

We actually shouldn't have any standing military at all unless there is a threat of invasion, which there never will be.

[TygrBright]

20. They do different jobs. They are organized differently. They are equipped differently.

They are part of a different branch of the armed services.
They are trained differently.
They are supplied differently.
They are deployed for different reasons.

Other than that, no, no difference.

helpfully,
Bright

[Captain Hilts]

23. Different cultures. Hell, the Marines tried to tell the JCS that Vietnam was a no-go back in ''62.nt

[Burma Jones]

28. Not to mention their grumbling over OIF........

Wear a carnation so next time I'm at the Tastee Diner, I'll recognize you......

[Captain Hilts]

30. I'll probably be in a submarine ballcap. Keep the Tastee Faith!

Or Beth will kick your ass...

[Burma Jones]

21. The Marine Corps is a much more agile force

Other posters have made much the same comment. The Marines operate by means of task forces, called a Marine Air Ground Task Force or MAGTF, which are created very quickly in response to a specific requirement. The entire USMC is geared around organizing, equipping and deploying MAGTFs. Some years ago, Donald Rumsfeld created a stir (and some enemies in the Pentagon) by suggesting that the USMC begin to realign themselves to become a "Sustaining Force" which is counter to over two centuries of USMC doctrine. The Army is designed to be a slower but more permanent occupying force, or Sustaining Force.

In short, the two branches do not accomplish identical goals.

[Xithras]

29. Yours is the first post to really explain the difference. .

Yes, others said that the Marines are "shock troops" or "deploy faster", but yours is the first to explain why, how, and why it matters.

I do still question, though, why the Army couldn't allocate some of its resources to provide the same role.

[Burma Jones]

32. The agility I mentioned is carried over to their management.....

Every Marine, active duty, retired, civilian, even most of the contractors with which I've worked, are always mindful of being the "tip of the spear"

[reformedrethug]

57. Exactly

As a former Marine the differences are many. Did the OP know that the Marine Corps has its own Air Wing including fixed wing(Aircraft) as well as rotary wing (Helicopter) assets? Also there are Expeditionary Forces like the III MEF stationed on Okinawa. This is a rapid deployment unit that at all times has any number of Marines along with fixed and rotary winged assets on Navy ships throughout the world ready to react to any situation as needed. The following link may help some:

"The Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, is organized as a general purpose “force in readiness” to support national needs. Deploying for combat as combined-arms Marine air-ground task forces (MAGTFs), the Marine Corps provides the National Command Authorities (NCA) with a responsive force that can conduct operations across the spectrum of conflict.

Two parallel chains of command -— Service and operational -— exist within the Marine Corps. The Service chain begins with the President, through the Secretary of Defense, and continues through the Secretary of the Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The operational chain runs from the President, through the Secretary of Defense, directly to commanders of combatant commands for missions and forces assigned to their commands."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/overview.htm

There is also one other thing that differentiates the Marine Corps from the Army,

Once a Marine ALWAYS A Marine and the fact that any Marine, current or former can count on any other Marine to have his/her back if needed, even if you don't know them. It's a brotherhood that is hard to put into words, for example I have several different Marine Corps baseball hats and jackets. Usually when I wear one of them I WILL get a comment from a former Marine that I have never met, be it the phrase "Semper Fi" or "OOOH RAH" as they walk by.

Its hard to put into words the pride that most Marines and Former Marines have, and it is hard for outsiders to comprehend what it is to be a Marine. Please do not take that the wrong way, it is not meant in a negative way, its just the way it is.

[Statistical]

22. Marines trained in amphibious warfare.

Deploy from ships, secure shore, etc.

Unlikely just combined Army & Marines would generate substantial cost savings. They are already share majority of equipment and weapons.

Combining an 800,000 man army with 200,000 man marines = 1 mil man combined force would not result in substantial saving IMHO.

[Alcibiades]

27. Multiple redundancy

Every branch wants to maximize its budget. Aside from the historical and military reasons for this, the Pentagon is filled with budget-maximizing bureaucrats.

So the Navy has its own Army. The Army has its own air force. The Air Force has its own special forces. The Navy has its own air force. All three branches have their own nukes.

And they all get a blank check.

[Xithras]

33. See, I actually think that we should get rid of all military divisions.

While I do get the historical reasons for their existence, many nations do not segregate their militaries the way the United States does. Few people here, for example, would mock the military effectiveness of the IDF in full combat, and yet the IDF operates as a single military unit that merely has multiple internal "wings". All training is joint, and a unified command structure makes them highly effective. Similar structures exist in other nations all around the world. It's also MUCH cheaper to operate, because you're eliminating the redundancies you just described.

[NeedleCast]

37. Most Nations Have a Military FAR smaller than ours

That's a different topic entirely, but it's one of the reasons why ours is divided into service branchs.

Thing on it like this...our government, even at most state and local levels often divides it's responsibilities among branches because organizing one huge branch would be far more difficult (and, in the case of our federal government, it's a darn good thing we have some level of seperation).

[Xithras]

41. The size of our military is another matter entirely.

Probably best reserved for a different discussion. Unlike some, I don't stand on the side of eliminating our military, but I really do believe that our military maintains a lot of bases, ships, and weapons because they "can", and not because they really need them. The effectiveness of a fighting force has little relation to its size.

[NeedleCast]

42. I agree with you, the point I'm trying to make is that

part of the reason or military is divided into multiple commands is that overall organization of a united military would be (IMO), impossible.

[margotb822]

45. Civilian leadership

This is where our military unites.

Regardless of whether we had a "fighting force" or the branches of our military, at some point they would diverge and require different command.

[margotb822]

43. I challenge your definition of "need"

How much do you know about Law of the Sea and Freedom of Navigation Operations?

Every day, the Navy is out on the seas ensuring that lanes of traffic stay open and available for international use. It's not an inherently militaristic task, yet the Navy provides the force necessary to carry out the task.

Other nations aren't forced to develop these capabilities because they know they can rely on the US to carry out this vital mission.

[Alcibiades]

54. What about the British?

Didn't they perform this function for a while?

[Critters2]

35. I'm trying to figure out why, in this day and age, we haven't progressed beyond

solving problems by killing people.

[NeedleCast]

38. We've made some strides towards it

War is much more frowned upon that in was even a 50 years ago. In most western countries "war tolerance" is very low.

[Echo In Light]

39. Because Corporations are private tyrannies, hence the need for propagandistic cover

[margotb822]

40. Men

Yes, I'm going to turn this into a man-hating thread response.

I think if we had a society where we raised men to express emotions other than anger, we'd be much better off. Unfortunately, the response of killing is a primiative (yet encouraged and industrialized) economic sector.

Honestly though, I think that a progressive SecDef (man or woman) would go much further in preventing more unnecessary death. I'd love to stand in front of Republicans and tell them how fucked I think their cowardly world view is. I'd love to tell them that no one is soft on defense because they refuse to start a war. Rather, we'd rather be strong on offense by engaging the world and using our military minimally. I'd love to tell them that we don't need this antiquated shit and a million "warfighters." If we had 1/10th of the equipment and it was actually modern, we'd be so much better off. But, mostly I'd like to tell them to go shove their hate and fear and wars up their own asses...

[margotb822]

36. If efficiency is your goal

there are many other better ways to maximize efficiency.

Your question demonstrates a lack of military knowledge, which I don't begrudge. There are many things I don't know about simply because I haven't been trained or worked in those fields.

If you're ever in DC and want a tour of the Pentagon, I will gladly give you one. I think a hands-on approach and a crash course in the services may help your understanding.

[rucky]

44. Put 'em together and see what happens.

:evilgrin:

[handmade34]

52. been there

...fireworks :thumbsup:

[rucky]

62. In an "oooh, sparkly!" way, or a "kaboom!" way?

[The Straight Story]

46. The army is the cleanup crew for the marines

:evilgrin:

[margotb822]

47. The Marines do the hard work for the Army

double :evilgrin:

[NeedleCast]

49. Someone has to stop the bullets before they hit the valuable members of the military

:P

[mentalsolstice]

48. Two different missions.

If you were going to combine to branches, it would make more sense to merge the USMC with the Navy. After all Marines train at the Naval Academy, Marine pilots are trained with Navy pilots, the Marines do not have their own health corps but instead use the Navy's, and so on. The USMC's mission is facilitated by the Navy because they need to rapidly deploy.

That being said, I'd dare anyone to suggest merging to a marine or sailor...having lived in Pensacola for 7 years, I can tell such discussions never go well, or without blood being spilled.

eta: A Marines paycheck actually comes from the Dept. of USN.

[margotb822]

50. Yes, if you look at the emblems

The Marine Corps' says "Department of the Navy." Actually, the best way to know is that the Marines don't have their own civilian service secretary. Both the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Naval Operations report to the Secretary of the Navy. And, for midshipmen at the Naval Academy, the students all train together and select their service at the end of junior year.

Of course, if you ask a Marine, they'll say "we're department of the Navy...the men's department" :P

[wayoutthere]

53. True,,,,

Totally different mission,
Semper Fi to all Vets now & my Vietnam Vet Brothers.
3rd MARDIV 68 69

[reformedrethug]

58. Semper Fi

NT

[handmade34]

51. is there a difference...??

my grandfather and father were both in the Army(WWI and WWII), my 1st relationship was a man in the Navy(Vietnam), 2nd; U.S. Marine, current partner was a medic in Vietnam (Air Force). There is a big difference...

[ddeclue]

55. Well because the Marines are NOT dedicated to "ground" combat at all.

:P

[Xicano]

56. As a former Army infantryman.

Here's a run down between the different forces.

Army Green Berets: Primarily used for behind enemy lines in sabotage missions and force multiplier through training and equipping insurgents, and reconnaissance.

Army Rangers: Primarily used for shock forces usually outfitted with approx 72hrs of provisions to gain a foothold whereby larger forces can be deployed from. Also used for some behind the lines sabotage missions and reconnaissance.

Army 82nd Airborne: Primarily used as a regular combat units deployable via air drops to out flank the enemy. However, they are often used in a similar way as Ranger unites where such shock force requires a bit more firepower than just Ranger unites can provide.

Army 101st Air Assault: Regular combat unit highly trained in helicopter insertions to include repelling out of helicopters.

Army Light Infantry: What I was. Your standard infantry who's primary mode of transportation is his feet with his back carrying everything. Sometimes will get a helicopter ride. Sometimes will get a ride on the back of army trucks. Just a traditional ground pounding infantryman.

Army Motorized Infantry: Infantry who's primary mode of transportation is one of the combat motor vehicles, which include, Humvee's, motorcycles, dune buggies and back when I was in they also had the Gama Goat and Dodge pickup trucks.

Army Mechanized Infantry: Infantry who's primary mode of transportation is a armored, usually tracked, vehicle, which includes the M113 armored personal carrier and the M2 or M3 Bradley. Now they also have the Stryker. But this armored vehicle is wheeled. All veriants of the army's infantry together with artillery, armor, helicopter gun ships and air force ground support are used as the main steam roller to smash large chunks of the enemy's military and take and hold real estate.

Marine Corp Infantry: A separate branch of service who's also sorta an arm of the navy. Primarily their mission consists of regular infantry that's somewhere between army infantry and army ranger infantry. They also provide security aboard navy ships and are usually deployed into combat via helicopters, combat motor vehicles and mechanized armored vehicles. Lots of training in amphibious assaults. Some are also used as U.S. Embassy guards throughout the world.

Navy Seals: Similar to Army Green Berets in that they primarily are used for behind the lines sabotage, commando hit and run missions and reconnaissance. However, they are also highly trained to perform underwater missions. Green Berets receive some underwater training as well, but, not to the extent that navy seals do. I am not aware of navy seals being trained or used as force multipliers by training and equipping insurgents.


That should just about cover it I think. For the fellow vets here; if I missed anything, fill in the gaps.

[reformedrethug]

59. Well I have a few things to add

You forgot Marine Corps Force Recon, Recon Marines are similar to the Green Beret's in the fact that their mission is recon, infil, behind the lines operations.

[Xicano]

60. Thanks reformedrethug

I forgot about Marine force recon, thanks for adding that. I just remembered I also forgot Army Delta Force.

Army Delta Force: Primarily used in anti-terrorist and anti-insurgent missions, as well as, hostage rescue and hit & run raids behind enemy lines. Missions may also include sabotage and reconnaissance. Although these two missions are usually left to others.