What is the point of the Marines?

[S2]

Porsche917LH Reply

"Fallujah"

Wouldn't be a good example. Even a supposed "Marine" operation like Fallujah required heavy augmentation from 2-2 Inf and 2-7 Cav, U.S. Army.

Take a look at DESERT STORM and consider what SHEK suggested with respect to logistics. First, did you note any marine units augmenting VII Corps left hook? No.

Did you note any army units augmenting the marine effort directly into Kuwait? Yes. U.S. Army's 2nd Brigade (Tiger), 2nd Armored Division.

Moreover, the marines were very logistically uncomfortable operating far from their ship-borne assets...so they didnt'. Their zone of attack was adjacent to the Kuwaiti coastline. Meanwhile the U.S. Army, British Army and French forces operated hundreds of kilometers west of the Persian gulf and executed a grand envelopement entailing hundreds of kilometers in manuever.

Not a battle of attrition whatsoever.

I think both ZAZItheBEAST and you are dead wrong on your suggested premises.

[Tarek Morgen]

Thanks for all the answers so far, but right now they seem to explain the general purpose of the marines, not why they have to (semi-)independent to fulfil their role. What would change if they weren't?

[S2]

Tarek Morgen Reply

"...they seem to explain the general purpose of the marines, not why they have to [be] (semi-)independent to fulfil their role. What would change if they weren't?"

The Army's budget would grow as the Navy's budget decreased.;)

I think Shek has proven the U.S. Army as once capable of ship-to-shore operations. Could we still be? I think so. That'd certainly be enhanced by folding Marine Corps expertise into the Army family.

At this point, however, there is the emotional and psychological dimension to consider. Both among those who've served in these branches and our potential enemies, I believe there's a recognition that subtle differences exist in service tradition along with operational utility. Acknowledging and reconciling the former would be accomplished only in the face of considerable political resistance driven as much by emotion as logic. Whether recognizing the emotional attachment as reasonable is irrelevant. The emotional attachment exists and would have its say.

WRT the psychological dimension, U.S. Marine forces currently play a key role reinforcing American seriousness on the global playing field. When introduced to foreign locales in large numbers, it's a strong intelligence indicator of our intent to influence events kinetically.

[Gun Grape]

Funding is the big change.

But I think S-2 misses the point about amphibious assaults.

Yes we know that the Army made more and bigger assaults then the Corps did. They are suppose to. At its largest the Corps has only had 6 Divisions. What the Corps did was make possible those assaults. One of the roles of the Corps is to develop the tools, techniques and doctrine for Amphibious warfare.

Fold the Corps into the Army and we wither on the vine like the 82d has. The Army isn't going to fund stuff for a seldom used unit such as saltwater proofed helos, VTOL aircraft (which they couldn't fly anyway due to the Key West Agreement).

What the Corps gives the President, as part of our mission statement IAW the National Security Act " "Perform other such duties as the President may direct". A one stop shop for a Combined Arms team. We are , by Statuary role, Americas "Force in readiness" .

[Gun Grape]

In addition, there is lots of Sleazy women and Cheap booze that someone has to take care of. :Biggrin:

[Tarek Morgen]

Thanks again for the explanations, and if I understood you right it can be reduced to two main reasons why the Marines are an independent branch:

First: Funding, making sure that they get the toys they need/want.

Second: It feels goods.

[Albany Rifles]

1. The USMC (I am not talking other Marine services around the world) provides a very structured, focused force which gives the National Command Authority (i.e., The President) the ability to rapidly project power into areas which fall within the US’s vital interests. That means The Corps has Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) based on a battalion of infantry augmented by artillery, armor, limited logistics and aviation assets afloat and positioned around the globe. They are an entry force which has greater staying power as compared to the Army’s 82d Airborne Division.

2. As Gunny has said they require specialized equipment for this mission. They have landing vehicles and vessels in order to conduct an amphibious assault landing (Amtracks, LCACs, etc) as well as organic air assets to provide CAS and combat lift.

3. When augmented by the USMC Reserve they are able to field a corps for land campaigns…but as has been said they do not have the sustainment capacity to handle large forces and /or for extended period of time. For that, by doctrine and organization, the US Army has the land based role and The Corps and Army are supported by the Navy for sea operations and the Air Force for lift and operational air support. If you look at the order of battle for OIF the 1st Marine Division was assigned to Army’s Vth Corps along with the Army’s 3rd ID, 2/82 ABN & 101st AA DIV. They were all supported by the Vth Corps Artillery and the 3rd Corps Support Command. In that instance the Marines operated as part of an joint land operation under the command and support of the Army.

4. The Army is capable of conducting amphibious operations but it no longer has the ability to conduct an assault landing on defended shore. It can provided extensive logistics over the shore operations. See the 7th Sustainment Brigade at FT Eustis, VA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Sus...(United_States)

5. In a quick scenario example, IF the US was to intervene in Libya in support of the rebels it would more than likely be a MEU (which is afloat in the Med as we speak (and would be a repeat of the 2nd line of the Marine Corps hymn)) which would be the ground component of a US joint task force. If an assault by air was needed (say the old Wheelus AFB) then the Army’s 173rd ABN BDE in Italy would be dropped on the airfield and an amphibious assault would be done by the USMC to link up with the paratroopers and open a logistics line to the sea. They are a complimentary force in the overall land campaign.

6. The President needed a spiffy looking band to fill in when the Old Guard was not available.

[astralis]

tarek,

to summarize all the good stuff above--

not why they have to (semi-)independent to fulfil their role. What would change if they weren't?

as a smaller, independent shop they have the flexibility to deploy/operate fast to emergencies.

[S2]

A.R. Reply

Your answer is definitive for those who're interested. Excellent summary of the respective roles and solid example to boot.

Thank you.

[Tarek Morgen]

Thanks for the detailed answer and explanation Albany Rifles, that was pretty much exactly what I was looking for.

[JCT]

We're not really an independent branch as we are part of the Department of the Navy. While we do receive our own line of funding from Congress for 'green' (ground) forces, we receive all of our 'blue' (air) funding straight from the Navy accounts. The Army definitely has some cool toys, we used to get the left-overs.

Our expeditionary nature is also of use in the grander geo-political realm. If we land for some reason, whether to conduct a non-combatant evacuation, protect an embassy, etc, its pretty much understood that we won't be staying too long. A Marine Expeditionary Unit, based around a battalion of ~900 infantry, doesn't have the staying power to stick around for a long period of time. They hold roughly 30 days of supply onboard ship (some might say a very optimistic 30 days). So we have to leave pretty soon after we arrive, unless the MEU receives reinforcements. The Army if deployed to an area can be perceived to be there for the long haul and they generally bring the organic supply elements to do so. This might raise the hackles of the locals a little bit more than the 'temporary' Marine unit.

Some examples include Bosnia, Somalia (Marines land, turn over to Army for long haul), etc.

As to the Pacific campaign, we just had a better PR setup than the Army. (It can be argued that we still do.)

[Zad Fnark]

I think the old line of thought was.

"If the Marines go in, it's an 'incident'
If the Army goes in, it's a war."

It explains their being referred to as "State Department Troops" in the past. (before WWII, anyway)

ZF-

[Shek]

As to the Pacific campaign, we just had a better PR setup than the Army. (It can be argued that we still do.)

JCT,
Not sure how to interpret the emoticon, but in case there was offense, that was not the intention. I still don't get how the lightning always hits the Marine saber . . . I thought it was only supposed to hit 1-irons!

[T_igger_cs_30]

JCT,
Not sure how to interpret the emoticon, but in case there was offense, that was not the intention. I still don't get how the lightning always hits the Marine saber . . . I thought it was only supposed to hit 1-irons!

Sir, you still use a 1 - iron


Very impressed

[zraver]

I would also add that while ships are physically slower, they are often politically faster. The USMC can go anywhere the USN can go without waiting for permission to overfly X country on the way to Y location or UN approval.