No More Fighting Marines?

[longknife]

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.

Well, thanks for serving.

In my personal experience, when it comes to discussing military affairs, those with left-leaning {Libtard in my own mind] tend to dislike the military and those who serve and make it their goal to do everything they can to reduce the forces and the benefits by those who serve. I have yet to enter a discussion about the military in which politics IS NOT included.

[And yes, there are lots of senior officers whose entire careers are centered on politics!]

 

[Warrior102]

I was Air Force, .

That explains a lot

 

[SteadyMercury]

I have yet to enter a discussion about the military in which politics IS NOT included.

Try it sometime, you might find it liberating.

This discussion about marines is quite interesting without people feeling the need to imply someone's political leanings is a reason their opinion is invalidated.

 

[Mushroom]

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.

Say what?

*shakes head*

That is what I thought you said.

Sorry, but this tells me you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about, Air Force or not. The Predominant aircraft in the Navy and Air Force is probably the F/A-18, no question a Fighter and Ground Attack aircraft.

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

Yes it does. This is institutional, and part of a great many formal agreements between the two services.

Including the Key West Agreement.

In fact, the entire reason the A-10 was built in the first place was because the Air Force had to, because of it's commitment to providing a CAS aircraft for the Army. And there are a great many other such agreements, including the Johnson-McConnell Agreement and the Pace-Finletter Memorandum. These all combine to require the Air Force provide certain services to the Army, and continue to affect both services and keep them ties together.

The Navy and Marine Corps both ignore these, because it does not apply to them. They have always supported each other and this support was never forced upon them.

 

[Mushroom]

US Army ships =
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.

That would never happen, and would cause a horrible lost in our effectiveness as a military.

Each branch trains it's personnel to fit their needs. Marines specialize in Naval operations, Army specializes in Ground operations. The Air Force concentrates on Air Intercept and great big honking planes that pour a lot of death and destruction on the heads of our enemies (as well as missiles that reach them on the other side of the planet).

Every level is highly specialized. Following that logic, let's then put all submarines under the Air Force, because they also have ICBMs.

Take away all Helicopters from the 101st and Navy and Marines, shut down For Rucker. Now all branches have to go and beg from the Air Force all personnel and equipment.

Heck, why not just take the artillery away from every branch and make up an Artillery Corps? Now everybody has to scream and fight to get the services they need, instead of having it internal to their own organization.

There is such a thing as to much specialization, as much as there is not enough. We have 3.5 branches of military for a reason.

 

[Samson]

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.

Red-Herring historical debate is 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?

The Marine Corps depends on its image for survival?



You mean, like the image of the Departement of Education?

I've always thought, perhaps optimistically, military units depended on their ABILITY for survival.

You know, improvising, persevering, overcomming, and such.

The OP questions the ABILITY of the Marines to accomplish anything the Navy, AirForce, and Army do not already have the ABILITY to do.

 

[longknife]

US Army ships =
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.

That would never happen, and would cause a horrible lost in our effectiveness as a military.

Each branch trains it's personnel to fit their needs. Marines specialize in Naval operations, Army specializes in Ground operations. The Air Force concentrates on Air Intercept and great big honking planes that pour a lot of death and destruction on the heads of our enemies (as well as missiles that reach them on the other side of the planet).

Every level is highly specialized. Following that logic, let's then put all submarines under the Air Force, because they also have ICBMs.

Take away all Helicopters from the 101st and Navy and Marines, shut down For Rucker. Now all branches have to go and beg from the Air Force all personnel and equipment.

Heck, why not just take the artillery away from every branch and make up an Artillery Corps? Now everybody has to scream and fight to get the services they need, instead of having it internal to their own organization.

There is such a thing as to much specialization, as much as there is not enough. We have 3.5 branches of military for a reason.

[I hate long posts with lots of quotes but I'll reply to this one]

Please take a realistic approach to this. All I'm say, for example, is move ALL army equipment and support personnel to the AF. That leaves the Army to concentrate on ground operations, using AF support as needed.

The biggest problem we currently face is too many headquarters and operational organizations from the different services that tend to ignore or fight one another.

We have a Joint Chief of Staffs that is truly no more than a political battleground for a bunch of non-combat experienced star bearers who worry more about their own careers than those of the men and women in the field. If we combine these entities, we could rid ourselves of hundreds of big whigs who need to seek new careers in retirement.

{sorry if this is disjointed but I'm experiencing PTSD from moving!!! }

 

[whitehall]

I'd suggest in an era of quick response the logical decision by the DOD is to downsize the bureaucratic mess in the Army and the Air Force and concentrate in the superbly trained flexible Marines to do the job.