No More Fighting Marines?

[longknife]

I think the basis of military thinking is the reduction of redundancy!

US Army has a large fleet of boats, along with aircraft.
The Marine Corps has aircraft.
The Navy has infantry units [the Marines] and Special Ops - SEALS
The Air Force has a Special Ops plus a construction unit - as does the Navy.

Don't you think it's about time to consolidate similar operations and reduce the massive amount of redundancy?

It also makes little sense to me to have so many stars and eagles running around with large staffs when they could drastically be reduced.

 

[regent]

Amen!

The marines were not in the ETO but in the Pacific. The invasions in Europe including DDay were by army and the European pattern was an invasion then a long-long series of battles with divisions taking casualties over a long period of time.

The pattern in the Pacific was different, generally an invasion, then a short difficult battle and then preparation for the next invasion.
Many army divisions in Europe spent longer times in combat with many more casualties.

The main thing about the Pacific was that they were fighting to gain control of ISLANDS! You know, those things surrounded by water.

The question is, were the marines fighting for survival as a marine corps? What is behind this by Forestall: Suriabachi means the marines corps will survive for the next 500 years.
Was there a question of reducing the the role of the marine corps in our military, and if so, was the corps aware of this, were they fighting to keep the corps alive after WWII?

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Army cannot replace the Marines.

each have different duties and tactics.

The Army is not going to take a needed shoreline and the Marines are not parachuting in.

We should learn from history that cutting certain training always leads to us working to catch up, which cost more lives and money

The whole premise of the article is that "taking a needed shoreline" is as ridiculous a military tactic as using horse cavalry to outflank an enemy column marching shoulder-to-shoulder armed with muzzel loaders.

There is no such thing as "catching up" with obsolescence.

you see no value in taking and controlling sea ports?

or did you think I just meant beaches

 

[JakeStarkey]

Maybe you need to look up the word "cherished" again. One of Truman's more famous quotes regarding the USMC after WW2 and after Marines shed so much blood in the Pacific "The Marine Corps is the Navy's police force and as long as I am president that is what they will remain". Ironically the "Navy's police force" bailed the timid bean counter out of the mess he made in Korea.
MacArthur actually thought he had the republican nomination locked up but Korean War Veterans put pressure on the republican party and they nominated Ike. Ever the vindictive petty a-hole, Mac ran on a third party ticket in the election hoping to syphon votes from the Eisenhower platform.

You need to study history, bub.

You have completely mischaracterized Truman's feelings about the Marines.

Yes, JUST LIKE I SAID, MacArthur was a Republican.

Do you just blab to blab

Are you basing your opinion on political loyalty? Read a freaking book. As a senator Truman was a vocal proponent of "unification" of the armed services which was code for three uniformed services, the Army, the Navy and the new Air Force. When he became president Truman pushed the unification issue and Marines were locked out of the debate. Marines were not even allowed at JCS meetings. Marshall and Eisenhower (a republican) were completely on board with Truman. JCS paper 1478 called for reducing the Marine Corps to military insignificance. After Marine Commendant Vandegrift testified before a Senate hearing into the issue the story hit the papers and the unification plan was ridiculed. Truman was angry and called the secretary of war and the secretary of the Navy to resurrect the plan but it failed. Truman later hissed "the Marine Corps has a propaganda machine that is almost equal to Stalin's".

OK, you are just blabbing.

We are talking about Truman and the Marines he cherished, not about Truman and unification.

We are talking about MacArthur loving and cherishing the Marines, and MacArthur was a Republican of Republicans.

Quit weaseling, admit you were wrong, and move on.

 

[whitehall]

Amen!

The marines were not in the ETO but in the Pacific. The invasions in Europe including DDay were by army and the European pattern was an invasion then a long-long series of battles with divisions taking casualties over a long period of time.

The pattern in the Pacific was different, generally an invasion, then a short difficult battle and then preparation for the next invasion.
Many army divisions in Europe spent longer times in combat with many more casualties.

The main thing about the Pacific was that they were fighting to gain control of ISLANDS! You know, those things surrounded by water.

You could make a case about the best seller "Lone Survivor" by former Navy Seal Marcus Luttrell. At one point in the book Luttrell remarks "what are Navy Seals doing on a patrol at 10,000 feet in Afghanistan"? True enough, what were Navy Seals doing on a recon mission in the mountains?

 

[whitehall]

You need to study history, bub.

You have completely mischaracterized Truman's feelings about the Marines.

Yes, JUST LIKE I SAID, MacArthur was a Republican.

Do you just blab to blab

Are you basing your opinion on political loyalty? Read a freaking book. As a senator Truman was a vocal proponent of "unification" of the armed services which was code for three uniformed services, the Army, the Navy and the new Air Force. When he became president Truman pushed the unification issue and Marines were locked out of the debate. Marines were not even allowed at JCS meetings. Marshall and Eisenhower (a republican) were completely on board with Truman. JCS paper 1478 called for reducing the Marine Corps to military insignificance. After Marine Commendant Vandegrift testified before a Senate hearing into the issue the story hit the papers and the unification plan was ridiculed. Truman was angry and called the secretary of war and the secretary of the Navy to resurrect the plan but it failed. Truman later hissed "the Marine Corps has a propaganda machine that is almost equal to Stalin's".

OK, you are just blabbing.

We are talking about Truman and the Marines he cherished, not about Truman and unification.

We are talking about MacArthur loving and cherishing the Marines, and MacArthur was a Republican of Republicans.

Quit weaseling, admit you were wrong, and move on.

Are you just ignorant or a true Truminite? The "unification" issue was about the unification of the US Military Services and the eradication of the Marine Corps. Your use of the word "cherished" is inappropriate and downright creepy. The media manufactured the myth of "give 'em hell Harry". He was a timid little former clothing store owner who happens to have the distinction of being the only president who didn't have a college education. While he was in the process of reducing the Military budget, the NK were invading the SK. According to Coram's book "Brute", the story of Marine General Victor Krulak, MacArthur didn't consider using the Marine Corps in Korea until the Army was driven to a defensive position by NK troops.

 

[longknife]

Another case of a thread being trashed by so-called "experts" who spout off without dealing with the basic content of the original post.

Disgusting.

 

[regent]

Another case of a thread being trashed by so-called "experts" who spout off without dealing with the basic content of the original post.

Disgusting.

The services are in competition, and in the competition they do not always cooperate for the good of the nation but for the good of their branch of the military, and they all have their elite units as part of that competition. These elite units can come and go but it may not be the elite units that are part of the problem but just the competition of the three branches. At times in our history they have not cooperated with each other and it has cost America.

 

[Mushroom]

They will serve as they always did, on ship, as the bodyguards of the officer class.

"Bodyguards of the Officer Class"?

In case you did not notice, this is 2013, not 1913. The Marines have not been involved on ships much since WWII.

The marines were not in the ETO but in the Pacific. The invasions in Europe including DDay were by army and the European pattern was an invasion then a long-long series of battles with divisions taking casualties over a long period of time.

The pattern in the Pacific was different, generally an invasion, then a short difficult battle and then preparation for the next invasion.
Many army divisions in Europe spent longer times in combat with many more casualties.

But the tempo was very different. The Army constantly had fresh troops and supplies come in to fill in the losses. They could also retreat if needed if a situation got to bad, and the combat was rather erratic for the most part. Move forward, fight, move forward, fight.

The Marines in the Pacific fought a very different war. For the most part when a unit takes 10% casualties, it is considered to be "combat ineffective" and pulled off the line fore replenishment. In many of the battles in the Pacific we saw Marine units with 30-50% casualties, and they continued to fight. And I can give one example in particular.

2nd Battalion 2nd Marine Regiment on Tarawa had horrendous casualties. Echo Company lost every single Officer in the first 10 minutes, and by the end of the battle was led by a Sergeant (E-5). The Battalion Commander was also killed in the opening minutes, and the XO was wounded in the first hours. At the end of the Battle a Captain was leading the entire Battalion. Casualties for this one battle were almost 50% for that Battalion.

And after being rotated back to the States and picking up fresh Marines out of infantry school, they were thrown right back into the grinder at Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa (the bloodiest battle of the entire war).

These are the kinds of examples that happened to only a few units in the Army (506 PIR), but this was the norm for every Battalion in the Corps. Try to watch Band of Brothers, then watch The Pacific, and try to tell me that they are even close. Especially when you realize you are talking about the most involved elite unit in the Army in the ETO, and in the other one you are seeing the experiences of average Marines.

For the Marines there was also no place to retreat to, their backs were always against the water. The Army fought like that a few times (Italy, Normandy), but that was about it. Every other operation had a way to withdrawal, even Market Garden.

No retreat was possible from Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was go forward or die, no other option. Imagine that every battle the Army fought was like Normandy, that the entire series of Band of Brothers was like the opening minutes in Saving Private Ryan.

Red-Herring historical debate in meaningless.

The question is what will the Marine Corps do in the FUTURE?

WW II tactics are obsolete. Island hopping strategy would be ridiculous today.

Some of the military runs and depends on its image for survival, the marine corps is one such unit. The tactics the marines used in WWII are still the basic image most Americans have of that branch, but new specialized units keep coming along in competition. The latest new-comer might be the navy seals. I wonder if these specialized units do indeed compete?

Actually, while that may be the image you have, it is far from the truth. There is also Beirut, Haiti, and a great many others like Khe Sahn which spring immediately to my mind.

And it is not that "WWII Tactics are obsolete", we have simply not needed to do many amphibious landings in 60 years. However, remember that this legacy also kept Saddam totally off-guard during the Gulf War. He was so obsessed that the "Marines would land" that he had huge amounts of his forces along the shores, with their guns pointed to the East.

In a perfect position to get cornholed by the Army coming in from the West and South. The Marines then simply landed in Kuwait City - by Helicopter.

The Marines are a specialized branch, as are the 101 Air Assault, 82nd Airborne, and many other units. Basically in modern terminology the Corps would be considered to be Air Assault Infantry with Amphibious capabilities.

And trying to compare the Marines to SEALs is not even close. There are only around 2,000 SEALS, there are more Marines then that in a single Regiment. Seals are an ultra-light Special Operations force, like the Green Berets. They are not really Infantry at all, and in an actual 1 on 1 type unit engagement would actually probably have a hard time when you compare equipment and capabilities. They are to get in unseen, complete a mission and get the heck outta Dodge. Not dig in and try to hold down the fort until backup arrives.

 

[Mushroom]

Another case of a thread being trashed by so-called "experts" who spout off without dealing with the basic content of the original post.

Disgusting.

That is because most in here really do not have a clue to what they are talking about.

Even during peacetime, the Marines are constantly deploying. During the 1980's very few Army units deployed, most Soldiers only went elsewhere as part of a PCS to a new base. But for a Marine, they expected to spend 12-18 months at home, then 6-8 months on routine deployment (and several other lesser missions). In my 3 years with an Infantry Battalion, I spent almost 18 months overseas. And this was from 1987-1990. Okinawa, Panama, Okinawa, Atlantic Float, Norway, and other missions from California and Virginia to Arizona.

The Marines are a combination of 2 things. For one, they are the "President's 911". At any time he can tell one of the units floating around in the ocean to rush over to such and such and give what aid he requests. It may be fulfilling a UN Peacekeeping mission in the Middle East or some Caribbean Island, it may be helping some Pacific islands devastated by Tsunami, it may be almost anything.

And there are always at least 3-4 Marine Battalions sitting in ships floating around for exactly this reason. In the last decade we had 2 devastating tsunamis strike the Pacific. And in both cases the Navy and Marine Corps were among the first on the scene giving relief to the survivors.

And neither branch could have done it on their own. This is one unique thing about the Navy-Marine relationship that the Army does not have since they and the Air Force got divorced. The Navy needs the Marines for these missions for the manpower, the Marines need the Navy for logistics and transportation.

And this is not the first time I have seen this happen. After the Gulf War President Clinton cut the Corps deep, around 15% reduction. That may not seem like much, until you realize the Corps only has 3 Active Duty Divisions, and 3 Air Wings. The Marines are less then 200,000 strong, out of a force of over 1.4 million men and women in uniform.

And yea, I am in somewhat of a unique position. 10 years in the Marines, I spent more time on Navy bases then on Marine bases. In 6 years in the Army I can say I have now served on bases of every branch of service, and as always respect each for it's own individual culture and mission.

 

[whitehall]

Another case of a thread being trashed by so-called "experts" who spout off without dealing with the basic content of the original post.

Disgusting.

What was your point again?

 

[SteadyMercury]

The Army cannot replace the Marines.

each have different duties and tactics.

Could the marines not be made a part of The Army?

If they want to group branches by primary role then as a primarily ground fighting unit there could be divisions of marines in the an The Army? Just as a paratrooper division has a specialized role and trains more closely with USAF, a marine division would have a specialized role and train more closely with USN.

Not commenting on whether it should/shouldn't be done, just saying the fact they have a certain role doesn't seem like should be an end-all to the argument.

 

[Mushroom]

The Army cannot replace the Marines.

each have different duties and tactics.

Could the marines not be made a part of The Army?

If they want to group branches by primary role then as a primarily ground fighting unit there could be divisions of marines in the an The Army? Just as a paratrooper division has a specialized role and trains more closely with USAF, a marine division would have a specialized role and train more closely with USN.

Not commenting on whether it should/shouldn't be done, just saying the fact they have a certain role doesn't seem like should be an end-all to the argument.

No, because the Marines fulfills a great many roles, not just as Infantry. And it is Marine.

The entire way the Marine Corps trains and operates is totally unlike that of the Army. And the cost would be gigantic, the Equipment, the tactics used, even the training.

And you are talking about adding a lot of extra personnel. All Medical and Chaplains in the Marines are done by the Navy. Now you are going to have to find them new positions, and replace them with Army Chaplains and Medical. And integrate these operations between the Army and Navy, 2 very different services who have long tolerated each other at best.

The reason the Air Force and Army work well together is that they were once the same branch of service. And to take your argument further, why not just move all the Navy and Marine air assets to the Air Force? Well, it would not work because it is a bad idea that would hurt the military.

 

[SteadyMercury]

There are units in the army that have many roles, not just as infantry.

There are units in the army that use different equipment, tactics, and training.

Sounds like a zero sum game with personnel, less in navy more in army.

I'm thinking current army/air force don't have much recollection of when they were a single service over 50 years ago.

Moving the marine and navy assets to the air force wouldn't make sense because the air force primary role is air combat, unlike either the navy and marines. The marines primary role is boots on the ground combat, same as the army.

 

[Hoffstra]

we need the Marines for quick, small invasions and operations.

they start the work until the Army can get in with large numbers.

 

[longknife]

Another case of a thread being trashed by so-called "experts" who spout off without dealing with the basic content of the original post.

Disgusting.

What was your point again?

My point is simple - people who either have never served or only served briefly who know nothing at all from first-hand experience. Or those Libtards who hate the military so much they will trash talk without know what they're talking about.

 

[SteadyMercury]

My point is simple - people who either have never served or only served briefly who know nothing at all from first-hand experience. Or those Libtards who hate the military so much they will trash talk without know what they're talking about.

I don't know man, I've found those who can't manage discussing a topic without letting politics guide their opinions are even worse than the naive. Libtards? Really?

 

[longknife]

US Army ships = List of ships of the United States Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US Army Aircraft = List of active United States military aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia check out the US Army section

US Marine Corps aircraft = United States Marine Corps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And so on.

My question is simply why cannot many of these be combined. Let the "air force" operate all air craft. And, make the operators of those aircraft act as land-based spotters so they will know the other side of their operation.

Let the "navy" operate all water craft.

Combine the Seabees and the Army engineers, along with the AF Red Horse squadron.

During my time in the US Army, I saw so much duplication and resultant waste that I can easily guess more than 60% of budgets for those overseeing these various combinable activities could be saved - numbers in the BILLIONS

 

[longknife]

My point is simple - people who either have never served or only served briefly who know nothing at all from first-hand experience. Or those Libtards who hate the military so much they will trash talk without know what they're talking about.

I don't know man, I've found those who can't manage discussing a topic without letting politics guide their opinions are even worse than the naive. Libtards? Really?

Where and when did you serve?

What makes you knowledgeable about military affairs?

 

[SteadyMercury]

I was Air Force, and have made no claims to expertise, not that it is relevant to my comments on people who can't discuss a topic without engaging in political banter.